FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-07-2008, 12:26 PM   #1
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 106
Question Leviticus 27?

Not sure if this is the right forum for this, but seemed like the best option.

I was wondering if anyone knew what the first handful of verses in Leviticus 27 is actually talking about. I've mentioned this passage to various Christian acquaintances of mine, pointing out the ageism and sexism inherent in the passage. I keep getting told that it only seems that way because I don't understand the passage. Of course, they haven't been able give me an explanation that made sense.

Honestly, this passage has always been a bit opaque to me. I have no idea what's going on beyond the obvious placement of value on humans. Has anyone heard a reason for why a value was being placed on people to begin with?

For easy reference, here's the passage in question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviticus 27
(1) The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: (2) Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: When a person makes an explicit vow to the Lord concerning the equivalent for a human being, (3) the equivalent for a male shall be: from twenty to sixty years of age the equivalent shall be fifty shekels of silver by the sanctuary shekel. (4) If the person is a female, the equivalent is thirty shekels. (5) If the age is from five to twenty years of age, the equivalent is twenty shekels for a male and ten shekels for a female. (6) If the age is from one month to five years, the equivalent for a male is five shekels of silver, and for a female the equivalent is three shekels of silver. (7) And if the person is sixty years old or over, then the equivalent for a male is fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels. (8) If any cannot afford the equivalent, they shall be brought before the priest and the priest shall assess them; the priest shall assess them according to what each one making a vow can afford.
World Builder is offline  
Old 11-07-2008, 12:33 PM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pittsfield, Mass
Posts: 24,500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by World Builder View Post
Not sure if this is the right forum for this, but seemed like the best option.

I was wondering if anyone knew what the first handful of verses in Leviticus 27 is actually talking about. I've mentioned this passage to various Christian acquaintances of mine, pointing out the ageism and sexism inherent in the passage. I keep getting told that it only seems that way because I don't understand the passage. Of course, they haven't been able give me an explanation that made sense.
It's a tithe, taxation. Those that are able to contribute to the clan,by labor or perhaps to defend it, are taxed higher for the greater earnings. Those that do not are taxed less.
Someone over a certain was perceived as a greater drain than contributor.

Children under a certain age cannot tend goats or hoe weeds, so cannot contribute. They're a drain for quite a while, so the tithe does not add an unfair fee on top of that. Until they're able to contribute.

Total working number of hands available to whoever is 'making the vow' for those hands is the tax base.

The US system is more precise. Amount of salary brought in, minus a specific credit for each of your dependents, is the basic tax you owe. But it's largely the same thing, this just assumes that if you have 5 healthy sons, you can till more ground than the guy with 5 healthy daughters.
Keith&Co. is offline  
Old 11-07-2008, 01:28 PM   #3
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 106
Default

I'm afraid I still don't get it. What exactly is the "vow?" Who pays the money and to whom? And how often?

If I'm understanding you, Keith (and I'm probably not), it seems like it's the head of the household, or perhaps a "boss" that's making the payment when he takes a group of people away from general service to the community. Is that close to what you were saying?
World Builder is offline  
Old 11-07-2008, 02:19 PM   #4
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 197
Default

What we have here is basically a scam. These are a set of rules/guidelines describing how individuals may pay their dues to the temple. The idea that people owe dues in the first place is tied to the basic notion of sacrifice that the priests who speak to YHWH behind closed doors claim he demands.

Curiously the passage starts by addressing people who are to be "devoted to YHWH". The earliest instances of this verbage refer to direct sacrifice of animals. Passages in Exodus seem to extend the idea of devoting the first born to people as well. Some speculate this went on in ancient Israel and the oft found condemnation of it as evidence.

It's hard though to extend this to the time of Leviticus, so here people being "devoted to YHWH" probably means something else, maybe some sort of service to the temple. This perhaps agrees with the idea of giving cash instead of time. Further into the chapter animals and fields of grain are also addressed.

At the end of the day what you have is an institution claiming to represent an invisible spirit telling people that if they donate money we'll make sure you stay blessed and prosperous. Of course if anything bad did happen, they blamed the people anyway for not being faithful enough. (i.e., giving/sacrificing, worshiping other gods, behaving poorly, etc...)

Gives a whole new twist to "Thou shall have no other gods before me." as another way of saying, give us all your money, don't give it to the other (competing) temples.
mg01 is offline  
Old 11-07-2008, 02:32 PM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pittsfield, Mass
Posts: 24,500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by World Builder View Post
I'm afraid I still don't get it. What exactly is the "vow?" Who pays the money and to whom? And how often?

If I'm understanding you, Keith (and I'm probably not), it seems like it's the head of the household, or perhaps a "boss" that's making the payment when he takes a group of people away from general service to the community. Is that close to what you were saying?
No, not taking away from a community. Paying the church based on projected earnings. The church is getting 'a piece of his action.'

It would be, perhaps, the patriarch of a family farm, or a city craftsman. One pays to the church based on how many people he has available to till the lands he owns, to tend the flock, to draw water, the run the privately own used-chariot dealership, all of which produces an income, part of which goes to the church.

A silversmith might pay for himself, his family, and any apprentices he has underfoot. They work the shop, collect wood for the furnace, make the tools, deal with customers and deliver goods to the consumers. The number of workers is proportional to the amount of work he can do, which connects to the amount of money he can make.

Anyone in a situation that cannot support the standard tithe can present their case and get a different valuation.
Keith&Co. is offline  
Old 11-07-2008, 02:34 PM   #6
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pittsfield, Mass
Posts: 24,500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mg01 View Post
Gives a whole new twist to "Thou shall have no other gods before me." as another way of saying, give us all your money, don't give it to the other (competing) temples.
That's a noice soul you got der, brudder. Isn't that a noice soul he got, Tem?

Real noice, Jephas. Real noice.

Yeah. We was jus' talkin' about your soul, brudder. it'd be a shame if sumpin' were to...happen to it. Know whadda mean?
Keith&Co. is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:44 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.