B. The tithes
B. The tithes(TOC)
According to the early praxis (Genesis 28:22; Amos 4:4, seqq.) and Deuteronomy (14:22-29), the tithes are not delivered to the priests, but are carried to the sanctuary for the purpose of being eaten in sacrificial meals. Only corn, wine, and oil are tithed (verse 23). Every third year the tithe was to be distributed among those who possessed no landed property. Wellhausen sees in the last appointment an innovation of the Deuteronomist, made in view of the destruction of the local sanctuaries.
In the Priest Code, the clerus lays claim to the whole tithe. At first the Deuteronomic regulations were disregarded. Afterwards a second tithe was added in conformity with the older and original praxis.
Another point of discrepancy is that the Priest Code extends the tithe system to cattle (Leviticus 27:32), and in general to all products of husbandry. Wellhausen denies that this law was ever enforced.
1. The historical instances referred to by Wellhausen—viz., that of Jacob and the prophecy of Amos—do not prove any thing: unless we assume the narrative in Genesis to be proleptic and unhistorical, what Jacob did will not decide what was law centuries thereafter. And Amos, in the passage referred to, does not say what was done with the tithes brought to Bethel and Gilgal. Even if we admit that a joyful meal is referred to, all may be explained by finding the so-called second tithes of Deuteronomy mentioned here. See, however, under 2.
2. The tithes in Deuteronomy do not exclude these in Leviticus, or the reverse. There is nothing inconsistent or unnatural in the assumption of two tithes, the one for the priests, the other for the offerer himself. As Wellhausen himself reminds us, Jewish tradition harmonizes the passages in this way. Or if we prefer another explanation, which indeed seems to be favored by the analogy of the first-born, it may be suggested, that the priests restored to the offerer enough of his tribute to enable him to prepare his meal. From Deuteronomy we get the impression that the cases of tithes and firstlings were of similar character. Now, it is difficult to conceive of "second first-born," so that the latter view seems to deserve the preference.
3. The very conception of tithes—i.e., of a definite and specified proportion of the produce—seems to involve the idea of a tribute paid to somebody. If they were destined for sacrificial meals exclusively, and had no further destination than the offerer's enjoyment, we would not expect a specification of the amount to be consumed. This consideration favors the view proposed under 2 B.