RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Tisehendorf Tithes
notes that the text has been changed in 3,369 places " to the , scandal of the science of comparative criticism"; but, after the issue of the septima, Tisehendorf had become thoroughly familiar not only with the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but with manuscripts, translations, and the Fathers to such an extent that he could well undertake to determine the text alone according to the material results of the proofs of the witnesses, eliminating all personal prejudice. Though he may not infrequently have followed the Codex Sinaiticus more than was proper, yet the correspondence to the texts of Tregelles and Westcott and Hort (unknown to Tisehendorf during the recension of the octavo) is so great that the result may be taken as gratifying to New-Testament criticism. This is above all essentially advanced by the octava upon the way recognized since Carl Lachmann (see Bible Text, II., 2, § 5) as, on the whole, the correct one, because leading to relatively sure results. The enormous critical apparatus of the octava will continue to maintain its great value. An edition octava minor followed (1872-77) and three hand editions of the major. Two were reprints of the octavo edition (1850, 1862), of the secunda and of the editio academica (the Greek text of the triglottum separately; 1855, and often) as editio stereotypa tertia (1873) and editio academica septima (1873), both characterized as ad editionem viii. criticam majorem conformata. The last of the three and the last directed by Tisehendorf himself was the reprint of the text of the octava (1873) which with an edition of the Septuagint was to form the entire Greek Bible. He issued also the edition of the Vulgate (1873) begun by Theodore Heyse; and furnished the text of the translation of Jerome, Liber Psalmorum (1874), for the commentary on that book by S. Baer and Franz Delitzsch. See also Bible Text, II., 2, §§ 6-7 [The death of Tisehendorf was caused by paralysis.] (Carl Bertheau.)
Bibliography: J. E. Volbeding, Constantin Tisehendorf in seiner 26-jahrigen Wirksamkeit, Leipsic, 1862; E. Abbott, in Unitarian Review and Religious Magazine, March, 1875; P. Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament, passim, New York, 1883; C. R. Gregory, Novum Testamentum Greece. . Prolegomena, i. 3-22, Leipsic, 1884; idem, Textkritik des N. Ts., i. 18-29, ii. 975-980, ib. 1900-02; idem, Canon and Text of the N. T., pp. 329-340, 455-459 et passim, New York, 1907; G. Salmon, Historical Introduction to the . Books of the N. T., 6th ed., London, 1892; F. H. A. Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the_N. T., 2 vols., passim, 4th ed., London, 1894; G. A. Briggs, Study of Holy Scripture, passim, New York, 1899; ADB, xxxviii. 371 sqq.
TITHES. I. Hebrew.
In Deuteronomy and the Priest Code (§ 1). Attempts to Reconcile the Two Codes (§ 2). II. Ecclesiastical.
Doctrine and Practise till 1517 (§ 1).
Change after the Reformation (§ 2).
Classification (§ 3).
Tithe Law (§4).
Methods of Payment (§5).
I. Hebrew: The tithe as a secular tax is mentioned in the Bible (Gen. xlvii. 24, a double tenth for Pharaoh; I Sam. viii. 15, 17, and Amos vii. 1 imply a tax on the first-fruits); but that it was levied originally for the king and only later for the deity is opposed by Gen. xxviii. 22. In late times
the Seleucidse levied a secular tithe from the Jews, which was afterward remitted (I Mace. x. 31, xi. 35). The tithe imposed by the Maccabees was rather a sacred tax in virtue of their high priesthood. The sacred tithe was common to many Semitic peoples, and may have combined the ideas of tribute, gift, upkeep of the cultus, thank-offering, or consecrationoffering (Lev. xxvii. 30; Num. xviii. 24). The history among the Hebrews is far from clear; two situations appear, that in Deuteronomy and that in P.
Deut. xiv. 22 sqq. requires a tithing of agricultural products and of the products of pastoral life, to be devoted to a communal meal at the central sanctuary. In case the home was too distant, the tithe might be commuted and material i. In Deu- for the meal purchased at the sanc-
teronomy tuary. The purpose of the tithe in this
and the case was not the support of the serv- Priest ices at the Temple, but a joyous meal Code. of the agriculturist and his establishment with the Levites of his locality, the latter being included because they had no landed possessions. It did not go to the priests or temple officers. Purity of the participants was required. Deut. xiv. 28-29, xxvi. 12-15 require that in the third year the tithe shall be deposited at the home (not at the sanctuary) for the benefit of the Levite, stranger, fatherless, and widow; this is not a second tithing but a special employment of the tithe of the third year for charitable purposes. It may have been a sort of compensation for abolition of the early public offering and meal of which the needy partook. Of a second tithing expressly for the Levites Deuteronomy knows nothing. The relation of the tithe to the offering of first-fruits in Deuteronomy is not clear; possibly the two are identical, as it seems unlikely that each generation of the herd should be subjected to a double tax, and Deut. xxvi. 1-15 puts first-fruits and the tithe in close connection. In this case the basket of first-fruits brought to the priest is simply a part of the tithe which is devoted as a whole to the joyous meal. Against this Deut. xviii. 4 is no objection, even as a later insertion. And with this conception many difficulties vanish. " Tithe " becomes an expression for the entire offering of first-fruits, over which a sort of control is introduced (by supplementary provisions). The early law omits mention of the tithe, then, because it is identical with the offering of first-fruits. The treatment of the tithe in P must be considered an extension of the situation in Deuteronomy. Num. xviii. 26-28 gives the whole tithe to the Levites, and this was again tithed for the Aaronites (Neh. x. 38). Lev. xxvii. 31-33 requires the addition of a fifth of the tithe of the first-fruits when it is commuted, and aims to procure honesty in payment of tithes of cattle. This law is first mentioned in II Chron. xxxi. 5-6; it is not found in Neh. x. nor Mai. iii., hence it is deduced that it arose between the time of Nehemiah and that of the Chronicler.
In attempting to reconcile D and P William Robertson Smith supposes that the support of the sanctuaries was undertaken by the court while in connection with the sanctuaries, but when the
Tithes