How unclean were tax-collectors?

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Summer, 2001 by Hyam Maccoby

The Second Testament story of Zacchaeus, the repentant tax-collector (Luke 19), is much illuminated by reference to the rabbinic treatment of the subject. Objections were made to Jesus' being a guest of Zacchaeus, "a sinner." But the answer to this came when Zacchaeus made public repentance; this would put an end to the objections from the Pharisees. No Pharisee would object to Jesus consorting with a repentant sinner. Borg thinks wrongly that as a tax collector, Zacchaeus would be permanently a sinner, and could never repent, according to rabbinic thinking. Zacchaeus's proposals for restitution are similar to those prescribed for robbers and tax collectors in the rabbinic writings, except that Zacchaeus proposes to give fourfold restitution to known victims and also to give money to charity (presumably when the victims were unknown). Fourfold restitution is not required by the rabbis, and is a supererogatory expression of repentance probably based on Exodus 22:1 and 2 Samuel 12:6. The rabbis thought that most tax-collectors would have robbed so many that they would have only hazy recollection of whom exactly they had robbed (this comprised the chief obstacle to restitution). This is why the rabbis prescribed contribution to public works (in addition to reparation to known victims). Zacchaeus's method of giving to charity seems to have been an alternative way of dealing with the problem.

After Zacchaeus repented and made lavish reparations, what was the next step for him? Would he have to give up being a tax-collector? Given the conditions of the time, when tax-collectors were corrupt as a class, the answer is probably "Yes." Another answer is possible, however: Zacchaeus could remain a tax-collector if he determined to go against the grain and be an honest one, i.e., one who exacted only the legal dues and did not seek to enrich himself by extorting extra sums. This possibility is envisaged in the rabbinic writings (b. BK 113a), and also in the Second Testament (the case of the tax-collectors who approached John the Baptist, Luke 3:13).

The answer to our original question, then, is this: tax-collectors incurred disapproval on moral grounds, and could receive forgiveness by repentance, which had to include reparation, or at least the offer of reparation. In terms of ritual purity, they were exactly the same as all other Jews and had no special impurity as a class.

Works Cited

Borg, Marcus J. 1998. CONFLICT, HOLINESS AND POLITICS IN THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS. 2nd ed. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

Douglas, Mary. 1993-1994, Atonement in Leviticus, JEWISH STUDIES QUARTERLY 1/2: 109-30.

Jeremias, Joachim. 1969. JERUSALEM AT THE TIME OF JESUS. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Maccoby, Hyam. 1999. RITUAL AND MORALITY: THE RITUAL PURITY SYSTEM AND ITS PLACE IN JUDAISM. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

1988. EARLY RABBINIC WRITINGS. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hyam Maccoby, MA (Oxon.), D. Univ. (Open University) is a Research Professor at the Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK (e-mail: h.z.maccoby@leeds.ac.uk). He is the author of RITUAL AND MORALITY: THE RITUAL PURITY SYSTEM AND ITS PLACE IN JUDAISM (Cambridge University Press, 1999), and is currently working on JESUS THE PHARISEE, to be published in 2002 by SCM Press.