Photo: Kevin Lallier
Deuteronomy 23:25-26 reflects the limits on altruism:
When thou comest into thy neighbor's standing corn, then thou mayest pluck ears with thy hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor's standing corn.
It's O.K. to take a bit of the owner's produce for sustenance; but to ensure that what is taken is not for commercial purposes, the taker cannot use machinery (a sickle) that would raise his marginal productivity and thus raise his output beyond what might be for immediate sustenance.
The owner does have some protection, but he is also supposed to charitable. This seems like a pretty reasonable compromise between altruism and property rights.
I wonder what Bible version was quoted above. Corn and potatoes were New World crops and were not introduced to Europe or the Meditteranean until the 15th century. The reference could have been to wheat or barley which have been grown since the beginning of time.
ResponderEliminarCommons problem, anybody?
ResponderEliminarMaize is American. He's talking about wheat and barley which are not edible.
ResponderEliminarAnyone else find that translation of Deuteronomy referring to "corn" as eyebrow-raisingly anachronistic?
ResponderEliminarSo by these rules, Robin Hood would be in the wrong. He takes for others which may or may not be considered to be for his own interests.
ResponderEliminarOn a side note - I once took a low THC hemp plant from an experimental farm and planted it in my mother-in-laws garden. So sweet and naive she was that she just pulled it out thinking it was a weed. A weed indeed!
I love how it's impossible for any on this blog to write a post without having 5 commentors point out an error. Smartest comments on the Internet.
ResponderEliminarThe name "corn" only came to refer to American corn relatively recently. Previously it was a general term for any cereal grain. In fact, "corn" and "grain" share the same root - the Latin "granum".
ResponderEliminar"Corn" can refer to any grain. Wheat, rye, barley, etc.
ResponderEliminarCorn, as in the British corn laws, refers to grain, not maize, which we call corn.
ResponderEliminar"Corn" meaning grain in general, not just maize in particular, may no longer be in general use here, but it's not that uncommon or surprising, and I think it's still quite common in some parts of the English-speaking world outside of the USA. And what's that about wheat and barley not being edible?
ResponderEliminarIt's not anachronistic. Properly defined, "corn" is just a generic term for a cereal crop. England's "Corn Laws," for instance, principally concerned wheat and barley. It's only in American English where we colloquially use the term "corn" to refer only to maize. Kind of like how we sometimes refer to any brand of tissue as a kleenex.
ResponderEliminarPrior to maize's introduction, all grains were referred to as corn. KJV would probably reflect that usage.
ResponderEliminarThe clear message here is in relationship to music "piracy". The Bible is telling us it's OK to copy a song for personal use, just don't upload to a fileserver. I like the precedent.
The version quoted is the King James Version, translated in 1611. More modern translations use the word grain.
ResponderEliminarIn older forms of English, "corn" or "kernel" was synonymously used to mean basically any grain. This is probably a modern-esque translation, but the original meaning was most likely "wheat" or similar.
ResponderEliminarIn any case, the specific crop does not change the meaning of the passage. I wonder how "fair use" would be affected if this was used as the basis?
I'm not sure this is a tragedy of the commons is applicable here. Often the sundry laws such as these listed in the Old Testament are geared toward sustaining the poor and needy in the local community by the local community.
ResponderEliminarInstead of many people using the land to grow their own food those in need can glean from some produce of the land owner.
The passage quoted is generally taken as either a poor person's right to eat or a worker's right to eat. The preceding lines say you can pick grapes enough to satisfy yourself but can't pick them to take away in a vessel. This is often related to the passages in 24:19-21:
ResponderEliminar19 When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thy hands.
20 When thou beatest thine olive-tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
21 When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it after thee; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
And of course this then feeds into the story of Ruth gleaning the fields to feed herself and her mother-in-law. And that connects to a number of stories, including of course the New Testament's Good Samaritan story, in which a righteous person fulfills their obligations and thus is treated correctly. Ruth the Moabite is recognized for her good and her late husband's relative Boaz marries her. In the Samaritan story, which is often weirdly interpreted, the Samaritan does the right thing by checking on the body and thus should be recognized as part of the greater community - and though the Samaritans were at odds with the Hebrews about scripture and bunch else (but at least weren't Moabites). In these stories, everyone does the right thing - including the priest, etc. who can't touch the body because that would ritually contaminate the entire community.
In other words, the obligations go both ways and that is highly important in Judaism. The obligation of charity in allowing the poor to eat and then glean the fields is coupled with their obligations to make the effort and to stay within those limits. That is the essence of the concept of covenant in Judaism and is why, for example, the highest duty was long considered going to Synagogue, because that would lead to fulfilling more obligations.
@Bri: And then the next 10 comments are about how the first few comments were actually incorrect.
ResponderEliminarThis is great, 5 posts pointing out an error, then 5 posts pointing out that the first 5 were in error. This will probably be posted along with 5 posts pointing out this fact. It's freaky, I tell ya.
ResponderEliminarDoes the term "ear" apply to any other type of grain than maize?
ResponderEliminarLike the problem with John the Baptist eating locusts, you have to go through all the various translations the Bible--both New and Old Testaments--has gone through to determine just what you can take: maize, barley, wheat? Is there a Hebrew text extant for this passage, or is the Hebrew version a translation of the Greek text from Alexandria?
ResponderEliminarWhat did Jerome translate the passage as for his Vulgate Latin translation and which Greek version or Hebrew version was he using? What sources did Luther use? And so on. You can understand why Islam wants to keep the Qur'an in its Arabic form, with all the vowel marks carefully in place, just to avoid the drift it perceived in older holy writings.
Ian, that's right: Robin Hood would be wrong.
ResponderEliminarRobin's intentions are noble, but it's still wrong unless he has the owner's consent. My guess is the owner would be o.k. with it, if he knew it was to feed the poor.
Let's keep perspective: don't reap enough, that we end up reducing the profit (monetary or otherwise) of the one who worked so hard to sow the crop on his own property.
Besides, I doubt Ole Robin would steal from the humble farmer (g).
Biblical principles go beyond that. Usury is illegal too. There'd have to be a sort of 'fee' incorporated into all loans. No hidden fluctuating interest rates or revolving accounts to allow permanent debt. A full-disclosure full-cost would appear on every mortgage and payments would simply be worked out in advance.
ResponderEliminarI can't see much of America tolerating Biblical principles that far.
Beyond that... you get beyond Old Testament and everyone who cares about 'money first' and 'possessions first' has to throw out the Bible entirely.
A sensible solution I remember in effect as a boy in rural Kentucky - come on to my land, even sample my corn (or apples, or cherries, or whatever), just don't take more than you can carry in your stomach. Sadly, that's given way to "Posted, no Trespassing" signs as one party forgot not to take more than they need or not to damage the land they're guests on and the other forgot that the small loss is more than repaid by help, say, mending the fence or putting out brush fires. "I got mine" is no more a better solution than communism. The ideal lies somewhere between. Deuteronomy is a pretty good compromise.
ResponderEliminarOh, Maize, a New World crop, was unknown to the Hebrews of the time.
ResponderEliminarRE: Robin Hood - maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't the rich he stole from Prince John? Modern day Robin Hood would be dipping into the US treasury & returning it to the taxpayers...
ResponderEliminarRE: leaving food for the stranger & poor - this would also indicate that the poor were still expected to do something for their sustenance (as in go to the field & glean). There is no Biblical command for the owner to take there wealth to the poor - nor is there instruction for the government to take from the those who have & bestow it on the poor.
Beau & Ian,
ResponderEliminarIf Robin Hood had used his hands instead of tools (e.g. longbow, sacks for carrying loot); would he then be in the right?
The translation given here is wrong. The Hebrew word "anavim" (?????), is usually translated as "grapes." Additionally, the word "herem" which here is translated as "standing corn", almost always means "vineyard". It is interesting that whichever translation Dr. Hamermesh chose to use translated these words to mean corn.
ResponderEliminarDoes nobody ever wonder why the stuff we found the natives eating in the new world was called "corn"?
ResponderEliminarWe picked an existing english word to describe a new non-english food. :)
I only ever use 'corn' to mean wheat. Probably a national thing.
ResponderEliminar@misterb
ResponderEliminarEven if this could set precedence for something like fair use, do we really want to start using Bible passages as defense in court? That may a very dangerous road to start down.
Sam and Bri,
ResponderEliminarThere are multiple posts pointing out the same error because of the sometimes significant delay imposed by the comment approval requirement.
Many of the duplicate "corrective" posts were sent within a minute or so of each other. Well within the time it takes them to reach the site.
My impression is that a lot of the "No Trespassing" signs popped up after the courts ruled landowners could be sued for negligence if trespassers injured themselves. At least, it was that way here in California.
ResponderEliminar"In fact,
ResponderEliminar@John,
ResponderEliminarSo would you rather come into your house and get it? That happens in a lot of areas and the people don't seem to like it :-).
As a student of scripture, I have more than once taken refuge in this passage--namely when hunting on the edge of an orange grove down in Florida some years back. As we walked along, we would pluck and orange to nourish ourselves.
ResponderEliminarSomeone mentioned that this would justify Robin Hood's stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. I'm afraid that is incorrect. This passage addresses only the immediate needs of the person at hand. Robin hood was taking a wagon load of oranges and distributing them. Ha!
However, to be fair, Robin Hood's methods may find some justification under other scriptures that speak to taking care of the fatherless and the widows.
Oddly enough, even as a (largely) fundametalist/evangelical Christian, I now realize that EVERY ABSOLUTE (except two) have exceptions. That seems paradoxical, but consider that we believe that killing in self-defense, or to protect the innocent, is justified. And if the Nazis knocked on our doors and wanted to know if we were hiding Jews in the cellar, we certainly realize that we are excepted from telling the truth (in fact, in Exodus, God BLESSED the midwives who lied to Pharaoh about the infant boys that were not killed).
I realized that the "Absolutes" are absolute only within the range of NORMAL human behavior. Indeed, you should not lie or kill or steal during the normal course of life. But to preserve human life or some greater good, yes, you may do what is needed.
It's like the scenarios in our Ethics classes. There's no good answer--you just do what has to be done.
There are only two absolutes (from the Ten Commandments) that I could never conceive an exception to, and these were, not surprisingly, the very two on which Jesus said, "hangs the Law and the Prophets."
Love God...and love your neighbor as yourself.
All the laws in the world...in one sentence.
And once we've eliminated the moral status of private property, what's to stop everything from being taken, as our gradually growing government is doing today?
ResponderEliminarGrain crops such as corn, wheat, barley and rye all have "ears." Timothy grass, which is often a component of hay for dairy cattle, also has ears.
ResponderEliminarThe top of the stalk is where the grain flowers and then develops seeds, and the seeds make up the ear. Maize is sort of grass on steroids, which is why the ears are so big.
what does robin hood has to do with this ?
ResponderEliminarInteresting topic and comments!
ResponderEliminarRe: Robin Hood: The morality of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor completely hinged on the fact that Prince John was a usurper to the throne and thus not a legitimate authority. King Richard was to be obeyed, though. As least that's how Errol Flynn played it.
Re: "Corn": That's from the King James version, but the other commenters are right: A better translation here would be "grain," like in the English Standard Version.
I agree with what you said Daniel, the fact that it is very reasonable for the owner of the crop, whoever he/she is, to actually protect the crops in some way so that people do not abuse of it. Not allowing people to use sickles to get crops is a good way to avoid people from taking too much because it takes time and work to get the crops so less people would take too much for themselves. The chances of people abusing of these free crops will be less since they would not want to waste time on taking things they do not really need extras. This idea works because the less people abuse of the charity, more people will be able to be helped by the free crops since less people will be taking extras. The owner
ResponderEliminarTo take part of other people
ResponderEliminar@ Trevor L. (post #28): you are looking at the verse just before the one that is actually being quoted. For the verse under discussion here, the Hebrew bible uses the word 'kamat' (?????), and the Septuagint uses the word 'ameton' (a
ResponderEliminarIf the land is good enough for your neighbor to grow corn on. Why can't you grow enough corn on the land that borders it?
ResponderEliminarI thought maybe we would have heard about the OT laws about debts and 7 years and the year of Jubilee, 7x7, when all debts were forgiven. Anyone know the chapter and verse? Sure would wreck havoc with inheritance laws and mortgages and all that kind of stuff.
ResponderEliminarCame here to complain about the maize pic and "ears" reference. Left satisfied.
ResponderEliminarFolks using religious texts as proof of the beneficence of a political position or public policy is pure folly.
ResponderEliminarDeuteronomy 22:20-1
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl
@ AaronS
ResponderEliminarYou've been watching too many Hollywood movies. Nazis didn't come knocking on doors asking if there were Jews hiding in the cellar.
Anyway, I think the funniest thing about this discussion is that over half of the comments center around the "corn" issue. One two people have made the excellent connection to downloading music.
As one person pointed out, there are references to both "corn" and "ears" within the passage. Regardless of the various meanings of corn [korn means barley or simply grain where I live], the message is clear - and completely inconsistent with BCE agriculture in the Middle East.
The relevant verse in Hebrew reads "qamat" which is an unspecified grain crop of fully grow grain. It's from the root "qum" which means to stand. So "When you enter the standing crop of your friend and you pick ears etc."
ResponderEliminar@Clark
ResponderEliminar"Does the term
Balance? It depends on how many "thous" the neighbor has. If they're linear- one besidethe other, it may balance, but if it's circular, and the neighbor's in the middle it could be like a plague of locusts.
ResponderEliminarIt isn't altruistic if it isn't voluntary.
ResponderEliminarDeuteronomy 23:25-26 (King James Version)
ResponderEliminar25 When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn.
Not clear that file sharing is an apt corollary, unless you can do it with your bare hands and not a computer. 1. it's usually not your neighbor by any stretch of the definition, 2. it employs technology and reduces the marginal productivity of the artist's human capital.
ResponderEliminarWhat does seem to apply is that it's ok to ask your professional neighbor for professional advice (a doctor, attorney, accountant, etc.) over the fence, expect a reasonable answer and not be expected to pay. But once you enter her office, you are on the hook for the hourly rate.
I'm amazed that all of the comments thus far haven't had a problem with the ethics of this bible lesson...condoning theft.
ResponderEliminarYes, it all sounds like such a reasonable compromise, ...unless it was your "corn."
Lots of rationalization: it would be ok with the owner if he only knew it would feed the poor, a reasonable compromise between altruism and property rights?
Please, altruism? Who is being altruistic here? The owner of the crop doesn't know he's being ripped off, so he's hardly being altruistic. The thief stealing the crop isn't altruistic since he's taking for his own selfish needs. I don't see any altruism at all.
At what point does there have to be an end to condoning this behavior? After two people have raided the field? Three? A dozen? A hundred? A thousand?
What if it were cattle instead of corn? How many head does the rancher need to lose to the rustlers? What if the one they take is the prize breeding cow?
This type of bible story is what I find so reprehensile about religion generally...socialistic claptrap posing as religious teachings.
@ruralcounsel
ResponderEliminarI'm not a religious person, and I can certainly see some inherent flaws in the general statement in modern day contexts...
..but at what point did feeding oneself when hungry become a "selfish need". If all else comes down to it, should his sense of fairness and justice somehow require him to starve to death rather than selflishly take some "corn"?
Despite not following a religion, I can recognize that modern society doesn't take care of it's people to the best of it's ability, which includes creating a system that allows people to do best for themselves. Not everyone can be a "landowner" (entrepreneur or working professional middle class). But I can't find a single good reason why people should go hungry, or sleep on the streets with their children. Just doesn't make sense to me.
Some people say that adversity is necessary to force people to better themselves, but this doesn't explain why the vast majority of our most successful people in this country came from backgrounds of opportunity. What percentage of homeless and hungry people go on to be executives, or even your regular suburban middle class? Poverty teaches nothing but poverty, and people who hide their callousness by invoking the boogieman of socialism deserve contempt.
You people endlessly debating the propriety of using the word "corn" here are missing the point.
ResponderEliminarBut, Clark, since you asked, yes, "ear" can refer to grains other than maize. The OED defines it (in this context) as "the part of a cereal plant which contains its flowers or seeds." It gives citations from as early as 1000, including the following from 1523: "Sprot-barley hath a flat eare."
"Biblical principles go beyond that. Usury is illegal too."
ResponderEliminarToo simple an answer....
Deut. 23: 19-20 You can lend with usury to strangers but not your brother...
Ezek. 18:17 Blessings to those that don't charge usury
Neh. 5:10 Uses both corn and usury... He is requesting not to lend with usury
Ex. 22: 25 Don't charge usury to the poor
Matt. 25: 27 and Luke 19: 23 parable of the talents, you should have at least put it to the exchangers to get usury.
I think that the analogy drawn to file sharing is pretty tenuous - since when do we sustain ourselves on .mp3 files?
ResponderEliminarIt's still stealing. Sorry.
"Deuteronomy 23:25-26 reflects the limits on altruism."
ResponderEliminarUh, no. As commenter "X" correctly wrote, there is nothing altruistic if you have no choice.
But more to the point, Deutronomy 23:25-26 (and the entire bible as far as I know) places ZERO "limits on altruism." Nowhere is a maximum level of altruism set. The limit is NOT put on altruism, it is put on miserliness (or there is a limit put on forced altruism if you want). There is a floor put on being stingy. You must give at least a certain amount of corn (or whatever good/service). The bible celebrates generosity - and would would not have thought that reading this blog post.
Joe (#59): MP3 files are just 1s and 0s. Nothing is
ResponderEliminar@enoriverbend
ResponderEliminarI don't think anyone is trying to state that downloading an .mp3 off of PirateBay isn't stealing. But I do think it's a good analogy.
People are reading too much into the (im)precise words of the passage. It's the general impression that one gets from reading the passage that is the crux of the matter:
It's OK to do something in moderation if you're not really hurting anyone.
As many people pointed out, this might be acceptable if only one or a few people are engaging in this behavior but when the people start plucking "ears of corn" or downloading entire CDs en masse, then it's another ballgame entirely.
Finally, no matter if you're liberal or conservative, capitalist or socialist taking something from someone else - even if it's to stave off starvation - is certainly stealing. Justified, maybe sometimes, but stealing none-the-less.
David (#61): "Books are just a's, b's and c's. Nothing is 'stolen.' If I print a copy of your book, we now both have copies. We used to call such sharing of information
ResponderEliminarSparky: Um, you have just made my point for me! If I take a physical book from you, I have stolen. If I copy it, you have lost nothing (as lost as I don
ResponderEliminarWhen people need to hear music they haven't paid for in order to survive, this Bible story will seem to apply to music piracy. Until then, it's just people who want the fruits of other people's labours for free looking for justification of their actions.
ResponderEliminarSounds like a very commonsensical principle. A good substitute for full-blown land reform efforts in the developing world?
ResponderEliminarBiblical principles go beyond that. Usury is illegal too
ResponderEliminarYes and No
"To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest, that the LORD your God may bless you in all to which you set your hand in the land which you are entering to possess. (Deuteronomy 23:19,20)
I wonder if we can have a discussion about Biblical marriage rights? Like being able to have your wife stoned to death if found that she was not a virgin. Or better yet--Its ok to rape a woman, as long as you marry and pay the father fifty shekels
It is an interesting area; when you think about it the same is also applied to intellectual property. You can run a page through a copier for your own use, but you mustn't sell that page on.
ResponderEliminarThe world would operate much more fairly if the poor really did have a right to eat. In the UK, more and more "social enterprises" are springing up, where profits are made and salaries paid, but distributed to community causes rather than into shareholders pockets.
Communism has failed. Capitalism has failed. Maybe the social enterprise economy is the way forward.
James.
copiershark.blogspot.com
@David
ResponderEliminarTry using that flawed logic the next time you get caught using counterfeit money.
No one is really 'out' anything, right?!
The problem with liberals is, they want to use an International Harvester!
ResponderEliminar