The Hebrew Republic: Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought

by Eric Nelson

According to a commonplace narrative, the rise of modern political thought in the West resulted from secularization the exclusion of religious arguments from political discourse. But in this pathbreaking work, Eric Nelson argues that this familiar story is wrong. Instead, he contends, political thought in early-modern Europe became less, not more, secular with time, and it was the Christian encounter with Hebrew sources that provoked this radical transformation.

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Christian scholars began to regard the Hebrew Bible as a political constitution designed by God for the children of Israel. Newly available rabbinic materials became authoritative guides to the institutions and practices of the perfect republic. This thinking resulted in a sweeping reorientation of political commitments. In the book s central chapters, Nelson identifies three transformative claims introduced into European political theory by the Hebrew revival: the argument that republics are the only legitimate regimes; the idea that the state should coercively maintain an egalitarian distribution of property; and the belief that a godly republic would tolerate religious diversity. One major consequence of Nelson s work is that the revolutionary politics of John Milton, James Harrington, and Thomas Hobbes appear in a brand-new light.

Nelson demonstrates that central features of modern political thought emerged from an attempt to emulate a constitution designed by God. This paradox, a reminder that while we may live in a secular age, we owe our politics to an age of religious fervor, in turn illuminates fault lines in contemporary political discourse."

Genres: History, Politics, Judaism, Theology, Religion, Philosophy, Nonfiction

240 pages, Paperback

First published March 30, 2010

Reviews

[W. Littlejohn · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very clever and provocative book, and as lucidly written as anything I've read in the field. I know this book backwards and forwards, having been compelled by a snowstorm to read it through a second time. The second reading helped to confirm my suspicion on the first reading--it's too short. That is to say, for a thesis as sweeping as what Nelson is seeking to argue (namely, that modern political ideas of republicanism, redistribution of wealth, and religious toleration actually arose not out of secularization, but out of a self-conscious attempt to apply the political structure of Old Testament Israel to seventeenth-century Europe), there's simply not enough argument or example. More examples of seventeenth-century figures would have strengthened his case--as it is, he can only prove that his thesis is correct for several important figures, but not necessarily for the century as a whole. And more consideration of the sixteenth-century backdrop would have introduced important qualifications, helping him to avoid attributing more originality to the seventeenth-century thinkers than they possessed.

But a brilliant book, nonetheless. Much more forthcoming.

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was really compelling to me. It definitely seemed like a strong case for how reading the Bible in the original languages helped Europeans see the role of the state in working for justice and promoting economic parity. The case for the redistributive powers of the state is pretty convincing.

[Scriptor Ignotus · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this short but potentially paradigm-changing book, Eric Nelson turns the traditional conception of the birth of modernity on its head. Whereas traditional histories associate the development of modern political thought, with its emphases on republican government, redistribution of wealth for the public good, and religious toleration, with the rise of secularism and a clear separation between religion and politics, Nelson argues that this account has things backwards. In the 16th and 17th centuries, with the influx of published rabbinic commentaries on the Hebrew Bible, scholars began to look to the books of the Old Testament as a political constitution in and of themselves; one authored by God himself. It was this embrace of the old Hebrew texts, and the Christian engagement with them, that gave birth to some of the fundamental concepts of modern political life.

For instance, the rise of republican exclusivism - the notion that republics are the only truly legitimate form of government - came about in large part because of a new interpretation of the Israelites' decision to ask for a king, bringing an end to the rule of judges. According the rabbinical commentaries with which European thinkers engaged, when the Israelites asked for a king in order to be like the nations surrounding them, they committed the sin of idolatry. Whereas the traditional interpretation of this text held that the Israelites sinned by requesting a ruler who was not the one God had appointed for them, the new rabbinic sources argued that the Israelites had sinned by demanding a king at all, when their real ruler had been God.

This is a very sharp little book.

[Raully · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nelson convincingly argues that the modern civic virtues of religious toleration, republicanism and economic redistributivism are the results of a seventeenth-century trend among Protestant political theorists to dump the Greco-Roman classics (in favor of monarchicalism, religious uniformity and the inalienability of private property) in favor of the Old Testament. For the first time Protestants from Grotius to Hobbes to Locke treated the "Hebrew Republic" formed under Moses and codified in the Mosaic Scriptures as the model of a virtuous state, an act that meant taking the OT demands to welcome all guests (even those of a different race or creed) and to redistribute land in the year of jubilee seriously. They also took quite seriously God's reluctance to establish a monarchy in Israel in I Samuel. Great reading of some classic texts and spot-on about the origins of a liberal democratic Protestant tradition that today seems to sadly be little more than a shadow of its former self.

[Aaron · Rating 4 out of 5]

---Plot/Intro---
Nowadays, we take republics for granted. Most countries in the world follow this political structure to some extent. However, how did we get here? Several centuries ago in Europe at least which by almost universal agreement soon spread its culture throughout the globe via something called ‘empire building’ was monarchies as far as the eye can see. While today monarchies in Europe still exist, the power they now wield is little more than for show. What caused this transition from an all powerful human king to power in the hands of people with deference to the King of kings?

---Interesting Highlights---
“[This book is] instead, an attempt to identify what I take to be the most important ways in which the recovery of Hebraica reoriented European political thought.”

“Milton clearly wishes to stress the degree to which monarchy and idolatry are fundamentally connected: in becoming the first king, Nimrod also becomes the first idol.”

“Agrarian laws are now divinely sanctioned, and their authoritative expositor is a twelfth-century rabbi.”

“The distribution of land determines the distribution of power: if one person owns the preponderance of the land in a given territory, the result is monarchy; if a few own it, we have aristocracy; if “the whole people be landlords,” it is a commonwealth.”

& from the footnotes:

“There were, however, limits to Grotius's embrace of toleration in practice. His 1613 Remonstrantie, recommending the admission of the Jews to Holland and advocating freedom of worship for them, came with no fewer than forty-nine caveats (including, for example, a requirement that Christian preachers be allowed to give sermons in synagogues—sermons that the Jews would be obliged to attend).”


---Review---
To quickly answer the most salient question raised up above in my introduction by something surprisingly missing in a book that in spite of its short length covers a ton of ground: it’s the printing press. What the internet is to us today, the printing press was to those alive many a century ago—the literate ones at least which means those with means along with almost all Jews where literacy itself was and still is an almost iron-clad religious requirement.

While talk of Gutenberg’s creation may be absent, the author wisely states what most likely is the reason (secondary if you will) why we saw a gradual transition from monarchy to republic: Bible translations. And not just the Bible, but the Talmud and the wealth of rabbinical commentaries that went along with it.

The Hebrew Republic features many big names that even the most intellectual of readers which the person writing this review is not may not be able to remember after finishing. Sadly, what is missing—and no fault of the author because it’s just how historical cards may have fallen—are Jews.

If Dara Horn, the author of the breakout hit People Love Dead Jews spent a bit more time researching more distant yet still important issues relating to world Jewry, she should have noticed what Eric Nelson covered here: Jews were ignored, they were pitied, they were seen less as people and more as still-breathing relics from another era who wrote great and useful books to help transform Europe. A common trend is while the all-star list of thinkers mentioned in The Hebrew Republic paid an incredible amount of homage to the original sources, if it wasn’t for them being translated, who knows what the world would be like today.

It should be noted this is not a ‘Jewish studies’ book; rather, it’s historical political science focusing on Jewish works and how they influenced great change. Still, if one comes from a religious and/or academic biblical background, this is a very good though at times dense read. The page count at a glance may be a breeze, but those 140 pages (eBook) of text come complete with another 100 pages of footnotes that should not be skipped.

4/5

Note: the Kindle version of this book has slightly unusual formatting: the actual text is about one size too big and the footnotes appear one size too small. While the former can easily be fixed (to some extent) by adjusting the font size, the latter may still appear too small for those with poor vision.

[Ari · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a short but lively book, scholarly but readable. It sketches some consequences of the reception of Hebrew sources by (North) European scholars in the 17th century.

Nelson's claim is that there's a fairly sharp turn. Medieval and renaissance writers about politics are interested in Aristotle, or Aristotle + Augustine, but aren't very interested in the Hebrew sources, which they think of as obsolete and irrelevant. But the Reformation gets a lot of people interested in those texts and there's a big uptick of Hebrew scholarship, both of the Bible and of rabbinic sources to explain the bible, particularly in the protestant world.

These Hebrew-informed scholars then start applying Biblical arguments to politics. They start citing the bible (particular Samuel and Deuteronomy) for how ancient israel ran and they back up their bible citations with references to the rabbinic literature (the "talmudical commonwealthsmen"). And in particular Nelson claims they drew three propositions:


Monarchy is sinful. The ideal government would be "theocratic", in the sense that government should be by God, not people. This is not a consensus Jewish view, but nobody in the Greek or Roman tradition would have said this.
The ideal state would have an interventionist economic policy to prevent accumulation of wealth.
Religious figures should have no authority to impose rules about belief or practice. This should be purely civil, to the extent it exists at all.

The last point is the most important and gets the most space. Nelson points out that the Erastians (Harrington, Hobbes, Grotius) who want the church under secular control want that precisely as a way to justify tolerance. The logic goes that civil magistrates are only interested in maintaining order -- only have authority for that purpose -- and and aren't going to want to get into fussy questions of doctrine. And the Erastians ground this in the observation that the Hebrew state had a unified judiciary (no separate church and civil courts) and the courts weren't interested in belief. You could be punished for public idolatry or blasphemy but they weren't organized to inquire into belief.

This all matters because there's this folk notion that toleration came from secularism and that wanting political control of religion meant intolerance. Nelson points out that some of the Erastians were intensely sincere churchmen who wanted tolerance because they thought God wanted it -- God's ideal state had no laws regulating inner belief.

[One · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book that convincingly traces the origins of the notions of the sin of monarchy, redistribution of goods to rectify inequality, and religious toleration, emerged out of reading the Hebrew Republic of the Old Testament as a political constitution instituted by God and worthy of emulation.

[Juan Ruiz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Buen libro. Un poco progresista

[Charlene Mathe · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have always heard that the founding fathers designed a new form of government drawn from long study of classic sources and debate among learned scholars. But I never questioned who were these sources. Eric Nelson, in this 229-page book (including notes and index), introduced me to many of these classic Greek and Roman sources by way of analysis alongside the introduction of classic Hebrew sources. I agree with others who comment that it is a vast subject to compress in under 300 pages. But Eric Nelson writes well and I appreciated the brevity, since I would not be able to tackle a much larger work. I have tagged a dozen pages with quotes to share with friends; and bracketed many sections to review before I shelve the book. I think it is worth keeping as a good reference work.

[Madeline · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a tightly-argued little book. Though Nelson often avoids mentioning the secondary literature he's working within (Skinnerian intellectual history, English Civil War, English republicanism, etc.), it clearly played a large role in his selection of exempla and emphasis, and the book makes more sense if you're familiar with those traditions. Check out this excellent review: http://blogs.yu.edu/cjl/2011/04/12/re...

[Ari · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very interesting premise. Impeccably sourced and thoroughly researched. Good reference but not a good read.