RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Tauler Taxation
(London, 1539), commonly called Taverner's Bible. It appeared both in folio and quarto, the latter edition in parts, so that all might be able to secure a portion of the Scriptures. It was really a revision of Matthew's Bible. In 1539 he also issued two editions of the New Testament. See Bible Versions, B, IV., § 4.
Bibliography: Besides the literature on the history of the English Bible noted in vol. ii. p. 141 of this work, consult: A. a Wood, Athenw Oxonienses, ed. P. Bliss, i. 419-423, London, 1813; DNB, lv. 393-396.
TAXATION. I. Hebrew.
For Sacred Purposes (§ 1). For Secular Purposes (§ 2). II. Ecclesiastical.
The Primitive Custom (§1).
Rise of Taxation of Clergy (§ 2).
Feudal Principles Applied (§ 3).
Development from the Fourteenth Century (§ 4).
Present System (§ 5).
I. Hebrew: The Hebrew language has no general term for taxes. Dues collected for the temple, priests, and sacred purposes in general are designated by terumah, " oblation," " offering," " heave offering "). The firstborn, the firsti. For fruits, and the Tithes (q.v.), which Sacred belonged to Yahweh as Israel's king, Purposes, may be considered the first class of such sacred taxes. In II Kings xii. 4- 12, xxii. 3-7 mention is made of money paid into the temple treasury, which consisted in part of " the money imposed by estimation," i.e., of the tax fixed by law for the redemption of persons devoted to God by a vow (Lev. xxvii. 1-13), and in part of voluntary contributions. Ex. xxx. 11-16 (P) treats of a tax for the regular service, and this Mosaic legislation was used in later time to justify the assessments necessary for the sanctuary (cf. II Chron. xxiv. 6, 9) ; the revenue thus derived was to be used for the temple service, but not for the building of the sanctuary. The sum imposed upon " every one that passeth among them that are numbered " was " half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary "; rich and poor were taxed alike (verse 15). The pos1>exilic period developed from this single poll-tax an annual temple-tax. Under Nehemiah the community agreed to an annual contribution of one-third of a shekel for the service of the house of God (Neh. x. 32; cf. Ezra vi. 9; I Mace, x. 39-41; II Mace. iii.). The money current at this time was the Babylonian silver coinage, in which the shekel was divided into thirds. In the time of the Maccabees Phenician money was introduced, which divided the shekel into halves, and the temple tax was then half a shekel, i.e., a double drachma (Matt. xvii. 24, 27). Since Exodus xxx. 13 required payment in the ancient sacred coinage, money-changers found entrance into the temple (Matt. xxi. 12). Jews living outside of Palestine also sent the temple tax to Jerusalem after they became twenty years of age (Mishna, Shekalim, iii.— iv. ; Josephus, Ant., XVIII., ix. 1).
Of secular tributes the tenth is mentioned as one of the royal privileges in the address which is put into the mouth of Samuel when the Israelites asked for a king (I Sam. viii. 10-18). From this it has been inferred that such a tax was known to the
people under the kings, and it is not impossible that the taxation of families which is implied in
I Sam. xvii. 25 refers to the tenth.
2. For The mention of " king's mowings "
Secular (Amos vii. 1) points to a claim of the
Purposes, king upon the first cutting of cultivated
crops suitable for fodder for his horses (I Kings xviii. 5). From I Kings iv. 7-19, although the text is corrupt, the following may be inferred concerning tribute at the time of Solomon : all Israel was divided into twelve districts, each of which was under a governor; on the basis of this division the corvee was arranged (I Kings v. 13-18; cf. xi. 28), and the burdens of taxation were fixed. That the latter intended payment in kind is evident from I Kings iv. 7, where it is said that each of these governors provided food for the king and his household, each man his month in a year. The other revenues of Solomon were derived from his expeditions to Ophir (I Kings ix. 28, x. 22), with which an export trade was probably connected; from the trade in horses, which were bought in Egypt and sold to the kings of the Hittites and of Syria (I Kings x. 28-29); and from the imposts collected from the caravans passing through his kingdom to Phenicia (I Kings x. 15). All these taxes were entirely new and were necessitated by Solomon's splendid court, as may be seen from the fact that upon his death the people complained of the burdens as something unusual. His predecessors had probably no need to levy such tribute. Saul maintained no costly court. In the time of David revenues derived from tributes of homage and justice had probably greatly increased. At any rate, David's property had become considerable, and, according to I Chron. xxvii. 25-34 (cf. II Chron. xxvi. 10), he owned crown lands of large extent. Added to this were the rich spoils of war (II Sam. viii. 11-12, xii. 30), and the regular tributes of the subjugated nations (II Sam. viii. 2; cf. I Kings v. 1; II Kings iii.). It is probable that the census by David (II Sam. xxiv.) was intended to serve as a basis for taxation, on which account evil results were expected from the innovation. The tax systems were most likely the same under the kings of the two kingdoms as under Solomon. According to I Kings xxi. 1-16, the crown demains seem to have been increased by confiscating in certain cases the property of those who were condemned; I Sam. viii. 12 also implies real estate over which the king could appoint his officers (cf. Ezek. xlvi. 17). But there is no mention of land tax in the time of the divided kingdom, and a poll-tax (which is not mentioned in the description of the royal privileges, I Sam. viii. 10-18) was exacted only in extraordinary cases, as when a war-contribution was to be paid to foreign despots (II Kings xv. 20, xxiii. 35). In the post-exilic period, the Jews as subjects of the Persian kingdom had to pay customs, " tolls," and " tributes," no doubt a direct money-tax and probably a capitation-tax (Ezra iv. 13, 20, vi. 8; Neh. v. 4); the priests and temple-attendants were exempt (Ezra vii. 24). Owing to the bitter feeling of servitude (Neh. ix. 36-37) the burden of taxation seemed harder than it really was; yet the Persian governors occasionally practised extortion (Neh. v.
Taxation Taylor