isbn print: 9783525550342 — isbn e-book: 9783647550343 · geoffrey p. miller the ways of a king...

Journal of Ancient JudaismSupplements

Edited byArmin Lange, Bernard M. Levinson

and Vered Noam

Advisory BoardKatell Berthelot (University of Aix-Marseille), George Brooke (Univer-sity of Manchester), Jonathan Ben Dov (University of Haifa), Beate Ego(University of Osnabrück), Ester Eshel (Bar-Ilan University), Heinz-JosefFabry University of Bonn), Steven Fraade (Yale University), Maxine L.Grossman (University of Maryland), Christine Hayes (Yale University),Catherine Hezser (University of London), Jodi Magness (University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill), Carol Meyers, (Duke University), EricMeyers (Duke University), Hillel Newman (University of Haifa),

Christophe Nihan (University of Lausanne), Lawrence H. Schiffman(New York University), Konrad Schmid (University of Zurich), AdielSchremer (Bar-Ilan University), Michael Segal (Hebrew University ofJerusalem), Aharon Shemesh (Bar-Ilan University), Günter Stemberger(University of Vienna), Kristin De Troyer (University of St Andrews),

Azzan Yadin (Rutgers University)

Volume 7

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht


Geoffrey P. Miller

The Ways of a King

Legal and Political Ideas in the Bible

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht


“When he takes the throne of his kingdom,

he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law.”

Deut 17:18

For Allison

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in derDeutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind

im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

ISBN 978-3-525-55034-2ISBN 978-3-647-55034-3 (E-Book)

Umschlagabbildung: Egbert-Psalter, fol.20: König David

� 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen /Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Oakville, CT, U.S.A.

www.v-r.de

Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlichgeschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen

bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages.Printed in Germany.

Druck- und Bindung: Hubert & Co, Göttingen.

Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.


Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Chapter One: Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chapter Two: Obligation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Chapter Three: Anarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Chapter Four : Patriarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Chapter Five: Polity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Chapter Six: Self-Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Chapter Seven: Revelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Chapter Eight: Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Chapter Nine: Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Chapter Ten: Sovereignty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Chapter Eleven: Confederacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Chapter Twelve: Monarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Chapter Thirteen: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Appendix: Prior Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Sources Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Table of Biblical Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285


Preface

Max Weber said more than sixty years ago that it would take “more than alifetime to acquire a true mastery of the literature concerning the religion ofIsrael.”1 That statement is even more valid today. During the past centurybiblical scholarship has made enormous strides, both in the analysis of textsand also in the evaluation of the society of ancient Israel from the perspectivesof history, archaeology, anthropology, and sociology. The corpus of scholar-ship today is awesome in its breadth and impressive in its sophistication.

Although this literature is daunting, it does not fully bring to bear theinsights of modern legal, economic and political theory. Biblical scholar DavidJ. A. Clines observes that “as the culture of those who read and interpret theBible becomes more pluralist, it becomes less and less plausible to lay claim todeterminate interpretations and more valuable to read the Bible afresh fromthe perspectives of different readers.”2 As a legal scholar whose areas ofresearch include economic and political theory, I hope to contribute to one ofthose new points of view.

I have developed this approach over the past two decades in journals andbooks concerned with biblical and ancient Near Eastern society as well aspublications focused on legal and economic issues. The present volume,however, represents a new set of ideas, not presented before either in my workor, to the best of my knowledge, in the work of any other scholar. The thesis ofthe book is both simple and far-reaching: the great history of Israel presentedin the books of Genesis through Second Kings contains a systematic,comprehensive, and remarkably astute analysis of political obligation andgovernmental design – in short, a political philosophy – and one, moreover,which may have been written earlier than the works of Plato and Aristotle.

I could not have written this book without inspiration from manywonderful scholars and students of the Bible and ancient law whose work Ihave studied and admired over the years. Some of the most important havebeen Robert Alter, Alan Avery-Peck, Calum Carmichael, David Cohen, MaryDouglas, Michael Fishbane, Baruch Halpern, Adriaan Lanni, Niels PeterLemche, Bernard Levinson, Susan Niditch, Martha Roth, Jack Sasson, Mark S.Smith, Thomas Thompson, James W. Watts, and Raymond Westbrook.

1 Hans Gerth/Don Martindale, introduction to Ancient Judaism, by Max Weber (ed. and trans. H.H. Gerth/D. Martindale; Glencoe, N.Y.: Free Press 1952), ix.

2 David J. A. Clines,What Does Eve Do to Help? And Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament(JSOTSup 94; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). See also Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology ofWriters and Readers of the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 205; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1995).


Levinson’s work has been particularly influential in shaping my thinking. Iprofited from the opportunity topresent aspects ofmywork inworkshops andseminars at Chicago-Kent Law School, Cornell Law School, DePaul LawSchool, George Mason Law School, Georgetown Law School, Harvard LawSchool, New York University Law School, University of Chicago Law School,University of Minnesota Law School, University of Haifa, University ofPennsylvania Law School, University of Toronto Law School, Yale Law School,University of Zurich, and meetings of the Society for Biblical Literature andthe American Society for Legal History. In addition to my home institution ofNew York University, where much of the work on this book was completed, Ithank Harvard University, where I was the Robert B. and Candace J. HaasVisiting Professor of Law in the Fall of 2009. Some of the finishing toucheswere added while I was serving as Visiting Chair on Private Actors andGlobalisation at the Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law andvisiting scholar at the European University Institute in Florence. I thankReinhard Achenbach, Bruce Adelstein, Greg Alexander, Alan Avery-Peck,David Cohen, Samuel Estreicher, Linda Findlay, Michael Fishbane, DavidFriedman, Abner Greene, Stephen Holmes, Bernard Jackson, Larry Kramer,John Leubsdorf, Bernard Levinson, Nelson Lund, Timothy Lytton, HarveyMinkoff, Dennis Patterson, Eric Posner, Richard Posner, J. Mark Ramseyer,Eric Rasmussen, Martha Roth, Gordon Schochet, Geoffrey Stone, Lawson G.Stone, Lloyd Weinrib, and Raymond Westbrook for generously reading orcommenting on portions of the book in its various iterations, and especiallyCalum Carmichael, whose detailed review corrected many errors. MosheHalbertal, Stephen Holmes, Richard Pildes, and Jeremy Waldron providedinvaluable advice about political theory. I am grateful to Marissa Elgrissy andDebra Klein, excellent research assistants who located sources, helped withtechnical editing, and assisted with biblical Hebrew, and to my exceptionallycapable assistant, Jerome Miller, who was an indispensable help throughout.Sarah Shectman provided an invaluable technical and substantive edit of thecompleted manuscript. Needless to say, responsibility for remaining errors ismine alone.

Preface8


Table of Abbreviations

AB Anchor BibleABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edi-

ted by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols.New York, 1992

ABR Australian Biblical ReviewAER American Economic ReviewAJCL American Journal of Compa-

rative LawAJSL American Journal of Semitic

Languages and LiteraturesASORDS American Schools of Oriental

Research Dissertation SeriesBA Biblical ArchaeologistBAR Biblical Archaeology ReviewBASOR Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental ResearchBEATAJ Beiträge zur Erforschung des

Alten Testaments und desAntiken Judentums

Bib BiblicaBR Bible ReviewBTB Biblical Theology BulletinBULR BostonUniversity Law ReviewBW Biblical WorldBZABR Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für

altorientalische und biblischeRechtsgeschichte

BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für diealttestamentliche Wissen-schaft

CALR California Law ReviewCardLR Cardozo Law ReviewCathULR Catholic University Law Re-

viewCBC Cambridge Bible Commenta-

ryCBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CKLR Chicago-Kent Law ReviewCLJPP Cornell Journal of Law and

Public PolicyCLR Columbia Law ReviewConBOT Coniectanea Biblica: Old

Testament SeriesFAT Forschungen zum Alten Tes-

tamentFOTL Forms of Old Testament Lite-

ratureGLR Georgia Law ReviewHBT Horizons in Biblical TheologyHJLPP Harvard Journal of Law and

Public PolicyHLR Harvard Law ReviewHSM Harvard Semitic MonographsHTR Harvard Theological ReviewInt InterpretationJANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near

Eastern Society of ColumbiaUniversity

JAOS Journal of the American Ori-ental Society

JBL Journal of Biblical LiteratureJBQ Jewish Bible QuarterlyJITE Journal of Institutional and

Theoretical EconomicsJJS Journal of Jewish StudiesJLE Journal of Law and EconomicsJLR Journal of Law and ReligionJLS Journal of Legal StudiesJNES Journal of Near Eastern Stu-

diesJNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic

LanguagesJQR Jewish Quarterly ReviewJR Journal of Religion


JRH Journal of Religious HistoryJSOT Journal for the Study of the

Old TestamentJSOTSup Journal for the Study of the

Old Testament: SupplementSeries

JSS Journal of Semitic StudiesJTS Journal of Theological StudiesLP Law and PhilosophyMdB Le Monde de la BibleMLR Michigan Law ReviewMSJ Masters Seminary JournalNDLR Notre Dame Law ReviewOTG Old Testament GuidesOTL Old Testament LibraryPEQ Palestine Exploration Quart-

erlyPPA Philosophy and Public AffairsPSB Princeton Seminary BulletinQJE Quarterly Journal of Econo-

micsRB Revue BibliqueSBLMS Society of Biblical Literature

Monograph SeriesSBLWAW Society of Biblical Literature

Writings from the AncientWorld

SBT Studies in Biblical TheologySJOT Scandinavian Journal of the

Old TestamentUCLALR University of California at Los

Angeles Law ReviewUCLR University of Chicago Law

ReviewUPLR University of Pennsylvania

Law ReviewUSQR Union Seminary Quarterly

ReviewWLR Wisconsin Law ReviewVLR Virginia Law ReviewVT Vetus TestamentumVTSup Supplements to Vetus Testa-

mentumYJLH Yale Journal of Law and the

HumanitiesYLJ Yale Law JournalZA Zeitschrift für AssyriologieZAW Zeitschrift für die alttesta-

mentliche Wissenschaft

Table of Abbreviations10


Chapter One: Method

Human societies cannot function unless some people are given the power tocoerce others. Basic to all societies, therefore, are the twin questions of whenindividuals legitimately exercise power over others and how that power shouldbe embodied in social institutions. Together, these questions constitute theproblem of authority.

The problem of authority is central to the work of contemporary politicaland legal philosophers such as John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Joseph Raz, RonaldDworkin, and H.L.A. Hart. It is central as well to the work of many of theirpredecessors—Marx andMill in the nineteenth century ; Kant and the authorsof The Federalist Papers in the eighteenth; Locke and Hobbes in theseventeenth; Hooker and Machiavelli in the sixteenth. Christian, Jewish, andArab thinkers of the Middle Ages—Aquinas, Maimonides, Al-Farabi—occupied themselves with the topic, as did Cicero and others in the RomanEmpire. Ultimately, systematic exploration of the problem of authority istraced to the Greeks—Plato andAristotle—active in the fourth century B.C.E.1

This book argues that the ancient world has bequeathed to us another work,possibly more ancient even than Plato and Aristotle, which offers a systematicaccount of the problem of authority. The author of this work is one of the greatpolitical thinkers of history—possessed of remarkable capacities of organ-ization, abstract thought, and analytical focus, balanced in judgment,profound in insight, and capable of setting out a coherent justification forthe authority of law and a conceptual framework for strong but limitedgovernment.

What is this ancient work of political theory? It is not one that has lingeredin the dusty obscurity of a library of ancient books. Nor was it recentlyunearthed in an archaeological expedition and translated for the world. It is, infact, a book withwhich nearly all of us are familiar, at least to some extent. It isthe Bible—the collection of writings that recounts the history of Israel fromearliest times and the mighty works of God that made that history possible.The Bible, not the Greeks, may be the West’s oldest political philosophy.2

1 Strauss and Cropsey’s history of political philosophy is controversial in other respects, but it is inthe mainstream of opinion when it concludes that the “political works of Plato and Aristotle arethe oldest works devoted to political philosophy which have come down to us.” Leo Strauss andJoseph Cropsey, History of Political Philosophy (3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1987), 1–2.

2 See Bernard M. Levinson, “Deuteronomy’s Conception of Law as an ‘Ideal Type’: A MissingChapter in theHistory of Constitutional Law,” in “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law andInterpretation (FAT 54; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 84–85 (contrasting ancient Greek po-


Subject

This study focuses on the books of Genesis through 2 Kings. For simplicity Irefer to these as the “Bible,” even though the Jewish and Christian Scripturesinclude other materials.3 The Bible, so defined, begins at the beginning,describing how God created the heaven and the earth, formed a man and awoman, and set them up to live in a wonderful garden that provided for alltheir needs. Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good andevil and are expelled by God into a world of “thorns and thistles.” Their sonCain kills his brother Abel and is condemned to a life of wandering.

The first age of the world turns out badly because human beings behaveviolently toward one another. When the level of evil becomes unsupportable,God destroys the world with a flood. However, he saves Noah, the onerighteous man of his generation, as well as Noah’s family and male and femaleexemplars of all the animals. Riding out the flood in an ark, Noah and hisfamily resettle the earth and are reassured by God’s vow never to destroy theworld again. Later, Noah’s son Ham uncovers his father’s nakedness. Inconsequence, Ham’s son Canaan is subordinated to Ham’s brothers Shem andJapheth. Humans spread across the world, but when they seek to build a towerin Babel, God scatters them into groups speaking different languages.

Many years later God appears to Abraham, who is living in northernMesopotamia, and instructs him to go to a new landwhere his descendants willbecome a great nation. Abraham and his clan move to the land of Canaan andhave many adventures. Jacob and Esau, Abraham’s grandsons, come intoconflict over inheritance rights, with Jacob emerging victorious. Jacobmarriesthe sisters Rachel and Leah and goes into business with their father Laban butleaves when relations sour. Jacob and Laban eventually make peace andestablish a boundary between their territories.

Jacob’s sons attack their brother Joseph, who is taken by Midianite tradersand sold into slavery in Egypt. The resourceful Joseph, however, getsappointed as chief minister to Pharaoh. Hemakes peace with his brothers andthe whole clan moves from Canaan to Egypt to escape a famine. Thanks toJoseph’s influence the Israelites receive the land of Goshen as a residence.

Much later, a new pharaoh enslaves the Israelites and kills their newborn

litical theory with the political ideas contained in Deut); Levinson, “The First Constitution:Rethinking the Origins of Rule of Law and Separation of Powers in Light of Deuteronomy,”CardLR 27 (2006):1853–88, here 1859 (arguing that “Deuteronomy articulates a complex visionof political philosophy”).

3 The material from Gen through 2 Kgs is sometimes referred to in biblical scholarship as the“primary history.” See David Noel Freedman, “The Earliest Bible,” in Backgrounds for the Bible(ed. M. P. O’Connor/D. N. Freedman; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 29–38. Where myanalysis includes other materials—Pss, Prov, the Prophets, and so on—Iwill indicate specificallythat these works are being considered.

Chapter One: Method12


boys. Set adrift on the Nile in a reed basket, the baby Moses is discovered andadopted by an Egyptian princess. When he has grown up, he kills an Egyptianslave master, flees to the wilderness, and marries a Midianite woman. Godappears in a burning bush and instructs Moses to return to Egypt and rescuethe people fromoppression. God equipsMoses withmagical gifts and appointsMoses’ brother Aaron as his spokesman.

Moses and Aaron return to Egypt and negotiate for the release of theIsraelites. With God’s help they inflict plagues on the Egyptians in order topersuade Pharaoh to let the people go. Pharaoh is intransigent but relents afterEgypt suffers the loss of firstborn children. The Israelites celebrate the firstPassover and flee in haste, taking along jewelry and clothing obtained fromEgyptian neighbors. Pharaoh pursues them with a chariot force but thefugitives escape when God parts the waters to allow them passage.

Led by Moses and Aaron, the Israelites wander in the wilderness,complaining about the hardships of the journey even though God suppliesthem with manna to eat and water from rocks to drink. Moses guides them toMount Sinai, where God reveals himself and pronounces the Ten Command-ments and other laws. While Moses is meeting with God on the mountain, theIsraelites persuade Aaron to forge a golden calf. Returning from themountaintop, Moses discovers the people dancing around the idol. He breaksthe tablets of the law and with the help of the Levites purges the idolaters. Hethen returns up the mountain and obtains a new set of tablets identical to thefirst.

The Israelites resume their journey to the promised land. Before his death,Moses delivers a speech describing the mighty acts of God and setting forthlaws and regulations. Joshua leads the Israelites across the Jordan River andinto Canaan, where they defeat the peoples of the land and settle the territoriesallotted to them. The tribes form a confederacy for mutual protection. Thepeople are repeatedly oppressed by foreign powers and rescued by “judges”who lead them in battle. The Israelites also come into conflict with oneanother, resulting in a civil war between Benjamin and the other tribes.

Leadership in Israel passes to the priests of the sanctuary at Shiloh—firstthe hapless Eli and then his more capable apprentice, Samuel. Threatened bythe Philistines, the people demand that Samuel appoint a king to lead them.Samuel warns about the hardships a king will impose but the people areadamant. With God’s approval Samuel anoints Saul as the first king of Israel.Saul proves unworthy, and Samuel transfers the kingship to David, a warlordfrom the tribe of Judah. David conquers Jerusalem and establishes a royalcourt there. During his long reign he facesmany challenges, not the least beingthe rebellion of his son Absalom. He takes Bathsheba as a wife, callouslydispatching her husband to be killed in battle in order to get him out of theway.

After much intrigue, Solomon becomes king on David’s death. Solomonbuilds a rich and powerful nation and becomes famous for opulence and

Subject 13


wisdom. He erects a beautiful temple where the people come to performsacrifices. On Solomon’s death, however, the kingdom splits apart: Solomon’sson Rehoboam becomes king of the southern kingdom (Judah), with hiscapital in Jerusalem, while one of his officials, Jeroboam, assumes power in thenorthern kingdom (Israel).

These two kingdoms remain side by side for many years, similar in culturebut politically separate. Government in the northern kingdom is marked bycoups, assassinations, and intrigue. Politics are more stable in the southernkingdom, where the monarchy passes virtually without interruption forhundreds of years. The northern kingdom ends when Assyria conquers itscapital and deports many of its people. The deportees disappear into the mistsof history ; they are the “lost tribes” of Israel. The southern kingdom continuesfor more than a century after the fall of Israel. One of its last kings, Josiah,discovers a book of the law in the walls of the temple. Persuaded of itsauthenticity, Josiah suppresses rural shrines and centralizes religiousobservances in Jerusalem. Josiah, however, is killed by the Egyptian PharaohNecho. The southern kingdom survives only a short while longer before beingdefeated by the Babylonians, who destroy the temple and deport the nation’sleadership.4

Theory

It is useful, before progressing further, to define what I mean by “politicaltheory.” The term refers to ideas about the nature, scope, and legitimacy ofgovernment. The ideas are political in the sense that they concern theprocesses and institutions by which people exercise power over other people,as well as the modes that societies provide for people to participate ingovernment. The ideas are theoretical in the sense that they focus on generaland abstract principles. It is the combination of politics and theory thatdefines the field of political theory. Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philo-sophicus is theoretical because it considers abstract topics, but not politicalbecause it is not concerned with governance. The 2008 platform statement of

4 Later books of the Hebrew Bible and other sources tell of the fate of the deportees and thesubsequent history of the Jewishpeople. Babylon is conquered ca. 539 b.c.e. byCyrus the Great ofPersia, who allows some of the exiles to return and rebuild the temple. More exiles return andestablish a semiautonomous government under Ezra. Persian domination lasts until that empireis toppled byAlexander in 330 b.c.e. OnAlexander’s death the land of Israel goes to the Seleucids.TheHasmoneans come topower in the Jewish territories as a result of theMaccabean revolt of 164b.c.e. ; they rule until ca. 64 b.c.e.,when the Romans under Pompey capture Jerusalem. The Jewsrebel in 66 c.e. , resulting in the destruction of the second temple in 70 c.e. They rebel again in 132c.e. under Simon bar Kokhba, but in 135 c.e. the Romans crush the rebellion and expel the Jewsfrom Jerusalem. A Jewish state is not reestablished until the formation of the modern nation ofIsrael in 1948 c.e.



the United States Democratic Party is political, in the sense that it covers issuesof current controversy and debate, but probably not very theoretical. Workssuch as John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice or John Locke’s Second Treatise ofGovernment are political, in that they deal with basic questions of governmentand law, and also theoretical, because they develop these ideas at a high level ofabstraction. Such works are sometimes classified as “political philosophy,”and (to avoid style fatigue) I will sometimes use that term synonymously withthe term “political theory.”

It may seem odd that the Bible would contain a political theory. Questionsabout the proper scope of government or the legitimacy of political power mayappear to be unworthy topics for a text centered onGod and his great works inhistory. Yet one can grant that the Bible is spiritual in focus while still leavingroom for other interests. The Bible is relentlessly curious. Its pages offer pithyand intriguing observations about topics as diverse as language, culture,cosmology, meteorology, farming, cooking, fashion, geography, commerce,diplomacy, history, families, wisdom, sex, warfare, architecture—and muchelse besides. Given that government and law were ubiquitous in ancient times,as they are today, it would be surprising if the Bible did not take an interest inthese topics as well.

In fact, it cannot be doubted that the Bible does deal with legal and politicaltopics, and in great detail. The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, andDeuteronomy contain many laws—not only the Ten Commandments (inseveral versions) but also detailed codes that cover a range of topics bothreligious and secular. Legalmaterials are so pervasive in these texts that Jewishtradition refers to the first five books of the Bible as torah—law. When theBible is not discussing law, it is often dealing with politics. The books ofSamuel and Kings tell of intrigues within the royal courts; Judges describes thepolitical activities of charismatic tribal leaders; Joshua chronicles the historyof the Israelites under military rule; Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, andDeuteronomy recount the leadership of Moses during and after Israel’sconflict with Pharaoh. Even the book of Genesis deals with political issuesinsofar as it concerns authority in families.5

The Bible’s interest in politics and law, moreover, is not merely historical. Itis also theoretical. Interspersed in the Bible are numerous examples ofspeculative thought: the book of Job, for example, is a meditation on why badthings happen to good people; the creation account in the first chapter of

5 Political themes are prominent evenoutside the corpus ofGen–2Kgs. Chr retells the history of thekings of Israel and Judah, extending the account up to the decree of Cyrus permitting the exiles toreturn to their homeland. Prov contains numerous references to kings and advises them on howto behave (e. g. , Prov 21:1; 27:23–24; 29:4, 14). Some of the psalms refer to political matters,praising the king (Pss 45; 48:2), announcing God’s support for him (Pss 2:6–9; 18:50), seekingdivine favor for him (Pss 20:9; 61:6–7), and extolling the king’s love of God (Pss 21; 63). Theprophets also were actively involved in the politics of their times and sometimes offered pungentcritiques of royal policy.

Theory 15


Genesis still commands respect from cosmologists. There is no reason that theBible would not also engage in abstract thinking about political themes.Indeed, explicit instances of political theorizing are found in its pages.Samuel’s warning about the ways of kings is one example (1 Sam 8:11–17);Jotham’s parable of the trees is another (Judg 9:7–15).

Narrative

To qualify as a theory, however, we wouldwant to see amore extended analysisthan is provided in these passages. One would like to identify a set of texts thatraises issues of political theory, analyzes them, andmoves on to other topics ina coherent and logical progression. In this respect, the claim that the Biblecontains a political philosophy encounters difficulty. Where is this supposedtheory? Aside from the occasional instances just mentioned, which are toosporadic and limited to constitute a political philosophy, there is no obviouscandidate. Search the Bible and you won’t find self-announced, extendedinquiries into the nature of justice, the duties of kings, the obligations ofcitizens, the permissibility of civil disobedience, the appropriate form ofpunishment, the nature of the judicial function, or the role and function of law.Given the absence of an explicit political theory, how can one sustain the claimthat such content is present in the Bible?

The answer is that political theory is hiding in plain sight. The Bible’spolitical ideas are to be found not in any formalized system of discursiveanalysis but, rather, in the narratives—the familiar stories of Adam and Eve,Cain and Abel, Noah’s ark, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Jacob, Moses andAaron, Joshua, Deborah, Gideon and Ehud, David and Solomon.6 In the pagesthat follow, I will trace the implications of these stories for political theory anddemonstrate that they contain a coherent, logical, and sophisticated analysis ofthe problem of authority.

Narratives may not appear to be a particularly effective means forcommunicating abstract ideas. When ideas are developed discursively, as inthe case of Greekphilosophy, the reader can follow alongwith somemeasure ofconfidence that he understands the nature of the discussion. When abstractideas are embodied in narratives, however, the reader must perform an initialact of translation.Hemust first interpret elements of the narratives as standingfor political or legal ideas. Only after performing this step can the reader

6 Biblical scholars have spilled much ink on questions of terminology—asking whether a parti-cular text be termed a “saga,” “cult legend,” “hero legend,” “etiology,” “collection,” “myth,”“story,” “narrative,” “epic,” or something else. For purposes of this book, these distinctions arenot important. I will refer to biblical passages that tell a story variously as “narratives,” “stories,”or “tales” without intending any technical meaning for these terms.



understand the concepts being addressed. In addition to requiring effort, thisstep is potentially confusing because the Bible supplies no codebook or keythat links the narrative elements with political or legal ideas.

Although the need for translation can be considered a shortcoming ofnarrative as a vehicle for exploring abstract ideas, there are also persuasivereasons why the culture of ancient Israel would embody abstract ideas aboutgovernment and law in narrative form:

1. Narratives offered mnemonic benefits. Ancient Israel was largely an oralculture.7 People in villages of the hill country of Canaan would have had littleneed for reading and writing; most of their affairs could have been conductedby word of mouth. If they needed to record or understand something inwriting, scribes could be hired. Literacy, moreover, was expensive. It requiredtraining, a luxury that poorer families could ill afford for their children. In asociety where literacy was uncommon and the media of writing costly,8 muchof the information important to the organization of the culture would havebeen recorded and transmitted orally.9 Often this information would havetaken the form of stories. Stories—narratives—have excellent mnemonicqualities in that they can be used as tags for remembering other items.10 Thestory brings to mind matters that would be difficult to recall if presented inpurely discursive form. Even after the use of writing becamemorewidespread,it is likely that traditions of coding ideas in narrative form would haveremained important in the culture.

2. The artistic quality of narratives enhanced their communicative effect.People enjoy and remember works with entertainment value. Unlikecontemporary political philosophy, which is principally directed at anaudience of intellectuals and academics,11 the author of the Bible’s politicaltheorywanted to reachmany people. Accordingly, he embodied hismessage inpungent, memorable stories. Even if every member of the audience did notunderstand the matters under consideration, some would get the message. Wecan say of the Bible’s political theory, as Hobbes said of Thucydides, that “the

7 For discussions of literacy in ancient Israel, see Susan Niditch, Ancient Israelite Religion (Ox-ford: Oxford University Press, 1997); Eric A. Seibert, Subversive Scribes and the SolomonicNarrative: a Rereading of 1 Kings 1–11 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 46–49.

8 The discovery of ostraca—inscribed potsherds—in the territory of ancient Israel from biblicaltimes appears to document the scarcity ofmore convenientmedia. SeeAndre Lemaire, “Ostraca,Semitic,” ABD 5:50.

9 See Geoffrey P. Miller, “Contracts of Genesis,” JLS 22 (1993): 15–45.10 See, e. g., G. H. Bower/M. C. Clark, “Narrative Stories as Mediators for Serial Learning,” Psyc-

honomic Science 14 (1969): 181–82; Francis S. Bellezza, “Mnemonic Devices: Classification,Characteristics, and Criteria,” Review of Educational Research 51 (1981): 247–75.

11 John Rawls’ATheory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), weighing in at 538pages, is one of the great works of political philosophy in the Western tradition—but it’s notexactly light reading.

Narrative 17


narration itself doth secretly instruct the reader, andmore effectually than canpossibly be done by precept.”12

3. The biblical narratives offer a number of means for authenticating themessage—for making it seem legitimate and persuasive to the intendedaudience.13

(a) Because the stories present a history of the Israelite people, they claimthe authority of the past—the imprimatur of legitimacy that is associated withevents deemed relevant to the people’s self-concept.14

(b) Additional authenticity is achieved by associating a story with ancestralfigures already endowed by the culture with charismatic authority.15 If peopleaccept Jacob as an important ancestor, for example, they are more likely tocredit the message associated with things Jacob is said to have done.

(c) Narratives are self-validating to the extent that they are used inconnection with important rituals ; because people value the rituals, they tendto accept the associated narratives as well (conversely, narratives providejustification for rituals).16

(d) Etiologies—stories that explain features of the world—provide addi-tional legitimacy : the message of the narrative gains credibility when it isassociated with some element or condition already known in the culture.17

(e) Etymologies—word derivations—validate narratives in a similarmanner : the audience is familiar with the word being explained and, byassociating it with the Bible story, tends to accord greater weight to the otherelements of the story.18

(f) Use of items from popular culture also enhances authenticity. The Biblebristles with quotations from sayings, fables, songs, and poems. If someonediscovers in the Bible an item with which he is already familiar, he is morelikely to view the narrative itself as authoritative.19

12 Thomas Hobbes, On the Life and History of Thucydides ; online: http://www.dailyrepubli-can.com/hobbes-thucydides.html (orig. publ. 1628).

13 See especially James W. Watts, Reading Law: The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch (Shef-field: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 36–60.

14 On the authority of the past in legal theory, see Michael S. Moore, “Dead Hand of ConstitutionalTradition,” HJLPP 19 (1995): 263–74.

15 The strategy has some resemblance to pseudepigraphy—the fictional attribution of names ofauthors to works penned by others. See Levinson, “Deuteronomy’s Conception of Law,” 68.

16 See James W. Watts, “Ritual Legitimacy and Scriptural Authority,” JBL 124 (2005): 401–17.17 For example, Josh 4:9 refers to an assemblage of twelve rocks in the bed of the Jordan River. The

Bible reports that these rocks were set up by the Israelites on orders from Joshua to comme-morate the people’s crossing into the promised land. People of biblical times, seeing rocks in theriver, would tend to associate themwith this story andwould thereby givemore credibility to theBible’s account.

18 For example, Gen 4:25 describes the birth ofAdam and Eve’s third son. The Bible tells us that theparents named the child Seth because “God has given us a son to take the place of Abel, whowaskilled by his brother Cain.” In Hebrew, the name Seth sounds like the term for given. The originof the name is thereby explained with reference to the story.

19 An example is Judg 5, widely thought to have been ancient even at the time it was incorporated



4. Narratives are a flexible means for framing abstract ideas in simplifiedmodels of human society. We use narratives today for this very purpose.Economists create models of economic activity, inhabit those models withagents who act according to specified criteria, and examine how the agentsbehave under the conditions of the models. As Nobel laureate Robert Lucasputs it, economists are “storytellers, operating much of the time in worlds ofmake-believe. We do not find that the realm of imagination and ideas is analternative to, or a retreat from, practical reality. On the contrary, it is the onlyway we have found to think seriously about reality.”20 The biblical narrativesdo essentially the same thing. By selecting the characters and the setting inwhich those figures interact, the Bible isolates the question under consid-eration and focuses attention on its resolution. The reader knows only thedetails that the author chooses to supply.21

The Greeks

When Plato wished to explore political ideas, he did not offer a story thatrequired interpretation. He addressed the ideas directly. The Republic asks thequestion “what is justice?” and then explores possible answers. Plato informsthe reader about what he is doing and uses reason and logic to analyze histopic. Why would the Bible express ideas in an indirect way rather than in thestraightforwardmanner adopted in the Greek world? Several conjectures mayexplain the apparent contrast in approaches:22

1. It should be noted, to begin with, that the differences between Israeliteand Greek modes of thinking, while real, can also be overstated. The Greekswere hardly strangers to narrative: Homer is one of the great storytellers ofworld culture. Even Greek philosophy was not devoid of narrative. Platodismissed art as ameans for conveying truths about the world, but nearly all ofPlato is cast in a narrative format: an account of what particular characters didand said during the course of philosophical discussions. Although Plato’s useof dialogue can be explained as a conceit used to tease out different views on

into the Bible. If the author’s audience was already familiar with this poem, they would tend togive more credibility to the biblical text when they discovered that it contained a beloved itemalready known in the culture.

20 Robert E. Lucas, Jr. , “What Economists Do” (1998); online: http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~mjlin/lucas.pdf.

21 It is partly for this reason that many biblical texts display such characteristic ellipses in style. SeeAuerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. Willard Trask;50th anniv. ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003).

22 On the relationship between Greek political philosophy and the Hebrew Bible, see especiallyJohn J. Ranieri, Disturbing Revelation: Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin, and the Bible (Columbia:University of Missouri Press, 2009).

The Greeks 19


philosophical issues, his choice of this mediumwas important, in some sense,to the message he sought to convey.23

2. Such differences as do exist between Israelite and Greek theoretical stylescan be explained, in part, on functional grounds.

(a) Philosophers in the Greek city-states often made their living throughprivate support rather than as government employees.24 They would travelfrom place to place in search of patrons or students. Given their itinerantlifestyle, the ideas of these thinkers had to be applicable in different politicaland social settings. This factor could have influenced them to express ideas inan abstract style that, because of its generality, could readily pass acrossnational boundaries.25 Israel, in contrast, was open to influences fromelsewhere in the ancient Near East but does not appear to have supported apopulation of itinerant intellectuals. Philosophical ideas could therefore bedeveloped through an exploration of the country’s unique historical andreligious traditions.

(b) Greece also had geopolitical reasons for coding information in abstractform. Under Philip and Alexander, Greece became aworld power interested inexporting its culture to the lands it had conquered. Israel, in contrast, wasduring much of its history an inward-looking society, existing under thedomination of foreign powers and concerned with the preservation of its owntraditions in the face of imperial control. Israel therefore looked to its ownlegends and stories while Greece promoted abstract theorizing that could beadapted to any territory that came under its control.

3. Perhaps the simplest answer to the question of why Greek and Israelitetheoretical styles differed is simply the contingency of history. Because bothnarrative and discursive approaches can accomplish the same task, thedecision to use one or another might depend simply on accidental features,such as the preferences of the people who introduced the style of thinking in agiven region. There is no reason why Greece and Israel, even if similarlysituated in other respects, could not have used different styles for expressingand investigating abstract ideas.

23 Aristotle abandoned the dialogic style but also recognized the potential for narrative-like figuresof speech to communicate information effectively : in the Poetics he commendsmetaphor for itscapacity to sharpen analysis and to convey information to an audience in a compact form. OnAristotle’s view of narrative, see J. D. O’Banion, Reorienting Rhetoric: The Dialectic of List andStory (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992); Watts, Reading Law.

24 See generally Susan C. Jarratt,Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured (Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press, 1991); G. B. Kerferd, The Sophistic Movement (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1981).

25 The association of philosophers with itinerancy continued in the Roman world. A mural fromHerculaneum, ondisplay in the archeologicalmuseum inNaples, depicts a person identified as aphilosopher because of the traveler’s staff he is carrying.



Sources and Dating

What Israelite Plato pondered the deep and abiding question of authority?Who created the narratives that frame the issues? What goals was he trying toachieve? For whom was he writing? When did he compose this work?

These questions raise the vexed topic of sources and dating. For more thantwo hundred years, scholars have struggled to identify the authors of thebiblical texts and to locate them in time and space. That enterprise continuestoday. Open the pages of any journal of biblical research and you will findevidence of a vibrant debate on these questions. The problem is that, despitecenturies of effort, researchers have not arrived at any consensus. There is, ifanything, even less agreement on these matters today than there was ageneration ago.

Biblical scholars have developed two general approaches to questions ofsources and dating. The diachronic approach disaggregates the text andidentifies periods of history in which the constituent parts were composed.This approach, which has dominated research for more than a century,encompasses diverse methods distinguished, in part, by the relevant unit ofanalysis: some diachronic critics look to hypothesized written documentswhile others focus attention on smaller written units or oral sources. Thesynchronic approach, which characterized biblical criticism prior to thenineteenth century and which is enjoying a bit of a renaissance today, uses thereceived text of the Bible as its unit of analysis: in its pure form, synchronicanalysis does not disaggregate the Bible into smaller units unless thedistinctions are obvious in the text itself. The work of literary critic RobertAlter is one example of synchronic analysis;26 another is “canon” criticism,developed by Brevard Childs and others.27

The distinction between synchronic and diachronic approaches ismuddiedin practice. But it remains an important divide in biblical criticism. This posesa problem for interpretation. On the one hand, if the diachronic approach iscorrect, then any interpretation ought to account for the different sources ofthe texts under review; it would be a mistake to evaluate texts from one sourceand time as part of the same tradition as texts associated with a differentsource and time. On the other hand, if the synchronic approach is preferred,then it would be equally mistaken to disaggregate the biblical texts intopostulated sources, since this would artificially fracture what ought to beconsidered as a whole.

There is much to admire about the diachronic approach. The Documentary

26 See Robert Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary (New York: Norton, 1996); Alter, TheArt of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981).

27 See, e.g. , Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1979).

Sources and Dating 21


Hypothesis of the Pentateuch, the foundational contribution to diachronicanalysis, represents one of the great achievements in the study of the ancientworld. Many exceptional scholars have used diachronic analysis—JuliusWellhausen,28 Hermann Gunkel,29 Albrecht Alt,30 Martin Noth,31 and Gerhardvon Rad32 being particularly significant. Excellent work in the diachronic stylecontinues today. Taken together, this body of work establishes beyond doubtthat the Bible reflects the contributions of multiple authors active at differenttimes in the history of ancient Israel.

Notwithstanding the virtues of the diachronic approach, the present studyadopts the synchronic approach. My reasons for this choice are as follows.

1. First, the diachronic account has fallen into a degree of disarray. Scholarsin this genre agree that certain parts of the Bible originated at different timesand under different circumstances (for example, the “Priestly” sourceresponsible for the Bible’s genealogies and cultic rules is written in a differentstyle and displays different interests than other biblical texts). Many stilladhere to the basic framework of the traditional literary analysis, even whiledisagreeing on major points.33 But others raise fundamental questions. Somecritics claim that the whole enterprise is undermined by the Bible’s lack ofhistorical reliability and argue that it is impossible to assign dates and sourcesto texts whose provenance can only be determined from the Bible itself.34 Tothe extent that it is possible to postulate dates and sources, moreover, scholarsof this persuasion often argue that the Bible was composed later than the datesassigned under the traditional synthesis.35 Given this uncertainty, there is no

28 Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Translated by A. Menzies/S.Black. Gloucester, Mass. : Peter Smith, 1973; orig. publ. 1878).

29 Hermann Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis (trans. W. H. Carruth; New York: Schocken, 1970;orig. publ. 1901).

30 Albrecht Alt, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books,1968).

31 Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions.32 See von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch.33 Richard Elliott Friedman and Joseph Blenkinsopp are notable scholars working within the

traditional framework. See Richard Elliott Friedman,Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Harper&Row, 1987); Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco,2003); Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible(New York: Doubleday, 1992).

34 An extreme version of this positionwould hold that the only thingwe can know for certain aboutthe dating of a biblical text is that it cannot have been written earlier than some event which isotherwise known to history and towhich the text unequivocally refers. For example, 2 Kgs 15:29reports that Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria invaded the northern kingdom of Israel. Since Tiglath-Pileser is recorded in Assyrian texts as a king who ruled ca. 745–727 b.c.e., we can be confidentthat the biblical passage reporting the event could not have been written before this time. Thismethod of dating the texts is not very satisfactory, however. It only works for texts that can bedefinitively linkedwith knownhistorical phenomena; and even then it leaves a tremendous spanof later time in which the biblical text in question could have been composed.

35 Leading scholars calling for a reorientation and/or later dating of biblicalmaterial include PhilipDavies, Neils Peter Lemche, Thomas L. Thompson, John Van Seters, and R. N. Whybray. Philip



assurance that any particular diachronic account is correct. Indeed, sincethere are several models extant in the literature, none of which can bedefinitively ruled in or out, it is quite possible that any particular diachronicmodel will be wrong.

2. Granting that the Bible contains multiple sources originating at differenttimes, moreover, does not rule out a synchronic reading for the purpose ofinterpreting the Bible’s political theory. If traditions or attitudes remainedstable during the period of composition, these would be reflected in the workof all the contributors. It is possible to speak of “Christian doctrine” eventhough theologians have been working in that tradition for nearly twothousand years; St. Augustine’s treatise, composed in the fourth and fifthcenturies C.E., remains important for Catholic theology today. Similarly, if theBible’s views on political theory changed only a little over the years, asynchronic reading could be coherent even if these ideas were developed andpresented by different writers at different times.

3. The most important reason for using a synchronic approach in thepresent study, however, is simply the interesting and useful results that itgenerates. While the American biblical scholar Mark S. Smith is right toremark that “law in biblical texts is hardly monolithic,”36 the pages that followwill demonstrate a remarkable coherence, logic, and consistency in the Bible’sdevelopment of political ideas. It is worthwhile to bring out these patterns evenif diachronic critics would see the texts in question as the products of differentsources.

* * *

The foregoing considerations have convinced me that, without in the leastdenying the value of diachronic criticism, a synchronic approach is preferablefor present purposes.37 However, in one sense the present work does take

R. Davies, Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures (Library of AncientIsrael; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998); Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelites in Historyand Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998); Thomas L. Thompson, The Bible inHistory : HowWriters Create a Past (London: Jonathan Cape, 1999); Thompson, Early History ofthe Israelite People (Leiden: Brill, 1992); Thompson, Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives(BZAW133; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974); John Van Seters,Abraham inHistory andTradition (NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1975); Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian inExodus-Numbers (Louisville:Westminster JohnKnox, 1994); Van Seters, Prologue to History ; R.N. Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament (BZAW 135; Berlin: de Gruyter,1974).

36 Mark S. Smith, with contributions by Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern inExodus (JSOTSup 239; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).

37 Other authors who seek to connect the Bible with political theory have reached a similarconclusion. See, e. g. , Thomas L. Pangle, Political Philosophy and the God of Abraham (Balti-

Sources and Dating 23


account of sources and dating. A thesis of this volume is that the Bible’sarguments on the problemof authority are completed onlywith the conclusionof the primary history, which ends with the fall of Jerusalem and thedestruction of the first temple. Accordingly, even though the political ideas ofthe Bible undoubtedly developed over a long period of time—quite possiblyextending back into the period of Israel’s monarchy—in its final version thework must be considered to date from exilic or postexilic times.

The “Author”

I use the term “author” to refer to the creator of the texts being analyzed. Thisterm is not intended to assert that the Bible was written by a single person—only that certain parts of the Bible can usefully be interpreted as if this were thecase. I will refer to this author by the masculine pronoun. It is likely that muchof the work was the product of men, given evidence that the society of ancientIsrael, like other ancient societies, was largely patriarchal in organization.However, this does not rule out the possibility that women contributed inimportant ways.38 For this reason, the use of the word “he” should be taken asgeneric only and as not indicating any assumptions about gender.

Validation

By what criteria should one judge the validity of the interpretations developedin this book—or, indeed, of any effort to uncover the original or historicalmeaning of biblical texts? The following appear to be reasonable to demand ofany biblical interpretation:

1. An interpretation should be supported by text of the Bible itself.2. An interpretation should fit plausibly within what we know of the social,

political, and intellectual environment within which the text was written.3. An interpretation should be consistent with human nature.

I will argue that the ideas in this book score well when judged by these criteria.The book sheds light on puzzles that have resisted theological analysis andoffers interesting explanations for a variety of narrative details. Theseinterpretations are reasonable both as applied to particular texts and alsowhen considered in light of the Bible as a whole. The ideas that emerge from

more: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003); Joshua Berman, Created Equal: How the BibleBroke with Ancient Political Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

38 See Harold Bloom/David Rosenberg, The Book of J (New York: Grove Press, 1990) (suggestingthat some of the most famous biblical texts may have been written by a woman).



the analysis fit well within what we know of the political and socialenvironment of ancient Israel. The Bible’s political theory is not abstruse,unrealistic, or unworkable and does not contradict reasonable assumptionsabout human nature. Taken as a whole, the analysis reveals a thoughtful andwell-structured investigation of political obligation and a sustained argumentin favor of effective but limited government.

Prior Literature

Background for the present study is found in two strands of theory : studiesexamining the role of narrative in the disciplines of law, politics, philosophy,and biblical criticism; and works focusing on the interplay of politics, power,and ideology in the formation and transmission of the Bible. The appendixidentifies prior research that bears on the thesis of this book; importantamong these are contributions of political theorist Thomas L. Pangle andbiblical scholars Baruch Halpern, Joshua Berman, and especially BernardLevinson. I draw extensively on these works in the pages that follow. However,none of these writers conceptualizes the narratives of the Hebrew Bible fromGenesis to 2 Kings as containing a systematic, coherent political theory.

Assumptions

Any attempt to analyze a text carries with it certain assumptions about thematerial under review; otherwise the task of analysis would become intract-able. The present volume is no exception. Following the practice incontemporary Bible scholarship of disclosing the author’s assumptions,intentions, and premises, I note the following:

1. This book is not intended as a contribution to contemporary politicalphilosophy. It contains no original insights into philosophical questions. It is,rather, an effort to uncover the political theory of the Bible as it may have beenwritten or used in ancient Israel.

2. The point of this book is not to praise or blame the Bible’s political theoryand certainly not to argue that the theory should be considered authoritativetoday (however, the reader will observe that inmany respects I view the Bible’spolitical theory as admirable even when judged by the standards ofcontemporary Western culture).

3. This book is not written from a theological perspective. Withoutdetracting from the spiritual value of the text, this book considers the Bible inits role as a secular document that served the needs of a particular humansociety.

Assumptions 25


4. This study takes no position on the Bible’s historical validity. From timeto time I will describe biblical narratives as if they were reporting actualevents; the reader should keep in mind that this is done for simplicity ofexposition and does not imply anything as to whether the events so describedactually occurred.

5. This book assumes that people of biblical times were similar to people oftoday. They were no better and no worse from a moral point of view, nosmarter and no less intelligent, no wiser and no more foolish. They strove forthe same things that people have always desired: status, wealth, security,understanding, and a better life for their children.39

6. There are many contrasts between biblical times and the present day,including differences in wealth, social practices, language, life expectancy,technology, scientific understanding, and religious beliefs. On the one hand,these differences make it risky to project onto biblical times any model of howinstitutions function today. On the other hand, biblical and modern societiesfaced the same basic problems. The challenge of social organization, then asnow, was to establish institutions that achieve the benefits of cooperationwithout creating undue potential for oppression. For this reason, moderntheories of institutional function and political organization can aid in theinterpretation of biblical texts—provided that the differences between ancientand modern societies and the unique features of ancient Israel are kept firmlyin mind.

Organization

Works of political theory tend to combine two sorts of inquiry. First is thequestion of obligation:what arguments should count as validating the exerciseof power by one person over another?40 Second is the topic of design: what

39 See Geoffrey P.Miller, introduction to Economics of Ancient Law (ed. Geoffrey P.Miller ; London:Edward Elgar, 2010).

40 The question of obligation has been pertinent inWestern philosophy at least since the Crito andcontinues to excite the philosophical imagination today. Formodern treatments, see, e.g. , HarryBeran, The Consent Theory of Political Obligation (International Series in Social and PoliticalThought; New York: Croom Helm, 1987); Margaret Gilbert, A Theory of Political Obligation(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006); Leslie Green, The Authority of the State (Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1988); R. M. Hare, “Political Obligation,” in Essays in Political Morality (ed. R. M. Hare;Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 8–20; Tony Honor�, “Must We Obey? Necessity as aGround of Obligation,” VLR 67 (1981): 39–61; John Horton, Political Obligation (AtlanticHighlands, N.J.: Humanities Press International, 1992); GeorgeKlosko,The Principle of Fairnessand Political Obligation (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004); Thomas McPherson,Political Obligation (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967); Vincente Medina, Social ContractTheories: Political Obligation or Anarchy? (Savage, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1990); CarolePateman, The Problem of Political Obligation: ACritical Analysis of Liberal Theory (Chichester,N.Y.:Wiley, 1979); Rawls,ATheory of Justice ; John Rawls, “Legal Obligation and the Duty of Fair



structure of power best serves humanwelfare? Likemost political thinkers, thebiblical author mixes these issues together even though they are conceptuallydistinct. The book of Exodus, for example, addresses issues of revelation andconsent (questions of obligation) and also sets forth an ideal set of laws (aquestion of design).

It would be possible to divide the discussion of the author’s politicalphilosophy into twoparts, one looking at his theory of obligation and the otherat his recommendations for governance. It is preferable, however, to follow theauthor’s own organization in treating these issues. Given that the author’spolitical theory is set forth in the narratives, the best course is to follow theauthor’s story line even though doing so involves intermingling issues ofobligation and design.

Accordingly, after concluding this preliminary discussion (chapter 1), Iturn to the garden of Eden story in the book of Genesis. This narrative offers aprolegomenon for the entire work—sketching out a number of bases forpolitical obligation and fully developing an argument that today we wouldrecognize as utopian in character (chapter 2). The Bible’s account of life afterthe expulsion from Eden asks whether a decent society can develop underconditions of anarchy ; the answer to that question is “no” (chapter 3). Thestories of the patriarchs in the book of Genesis explore questions of authorityin families (chapter 4). The first part of the book of Exodus classifies politicalsystems and concludes that nationhood is the best means for facilitatinghuman flourishing (chapter 5). Exodus identifies three attributes of nation-hood: self-governance, laws, and control over territory. The stories of Mosesand Pharaoh explore the issue of self-governance (chapter 6). The Sinaiepisode investigates two theories of obligation outlined in the garden of Edenstory : revelation (chapter 7) and consent (chapter 8). It is also at Sinai that theIsraelites receive their laws (chapter 9). The book of Joshua is concerned withcontrol over territory (chapter 10). The books of Joshua and Judges identifyand analyze the pros and cons of military rule and confederacy as forms ofgovernment (chapter 11). The books of Samuel and Kings address theocracyand monarchy ; they argue that despite its flaws, monarchy is the best form ofgovernment provided that constitutional limitations are placed on royalauthority (chapter 12). Chapter 13 concludes with a summary of the author’sarguments.

Play,” in Law and Philosophy (ed. S. Hook; New York: New York University Press, 1964), 3–18;Joseph Raz, The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1979); Rolf Sartorius, “Political Authority and Political Obligation,” in The Duty to Obeythe Law (ed. William Edmunson; Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999), 143–58; M. B. E.Smith, “Is There a Prima Facie Obligation to Obey the Law?,” YLJ 82 (1973): 950–76; JosephTussman, Obligation and the Body Politic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1960); MichaelWalzer, Obligations: Essays on Disobedience, War, and Citizenship (Cambridge: Harvard Uni-versity Press, 1970); Richard Wasserstrom, “The Obligation to Obey the Law,” UCLALR 10(1963): 780–807; Robert P. Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism (New York: Harper & Row, 1970).

Organization 27


Chapter Two: Obligation

The book of Genesis recounts how, after creating the heavens and the earth,God forms a man and sets him to live in the wonderful garden in Eden. Godtells Adam that he can eat any fruit in the garden other than the fruit of the treeof knowledge of good and evil. Recognizing that the man needs a helpmate,God makes Eve out of one of Adam’s ribs. The serpent tempts Eve to eat theforbidden fruit, arguing that God has only prohibited it because he doesn’twant Adam and Eve to become like him. Eve eats the fruit and serves some toher husband. They realize that they are naked and attempt to clothethemselves. God comes to the garden and discovers the transgression. Hebanishes the offenders to the outside world and bars the way against their evercoming back.

This beautiful story is a monument of Western culture. Widely praised forthe elegance of its language and the poignancy of its plot, the narrative hasinspired artists, poets, theologians, and critical thinkers for thousands ofyears.1 But despite all its fame, the Eden narrative is clothed in mystery.Scholars have long debated its provenance—perhaps more than any otherbiblical passage.2 The date of composition is much in dispute.3 Equally

1 See, e. g. , Konrad Schmid/Christoph Riedweg, ed., Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise(Genesis 2–3) and Its ReceptionHistory (Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck, 2008); JeanDelumeau,Historyof Paradise: The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition (trans. Matthew O’Connell; New York:Continuum, 1995); Regina Psaki/Charles Hindley, ed., The Earthly Paradise: The Garden of Edenfrom Antiquity to Modernity (Binghamton: Academic Studies in the History of Judaism, GlobalPublications, State University of New York at Binghamton, 2002); T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden:Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Leuven: Peeters,2000).

2 See, e. g., Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Atlanta: John Knox, 1980).3 See generally Douglas A. Knight/Gene M. Tucker, ed., The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Inter-preters (Chico, Calif. : Scholars Press, 1985). Standard accounts date the text to an early period inthe monarchy of ancient Israel. See, e.g. , Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (trans. JohnH. Marks; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961) (associating the story with the reign of KingSolomon or a little later); William Foxwell Albright, “The Location of the Garden of Eden,” AJSL29 (1922): 15–31 (dating original version of the narrative to the ninth c. b.c.e.). But that con-sensus has fallen apart. Some continue to support a relatively early dating; see, e. g., Ernest W.Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998);Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? However, others move the date of composition forward bycenturies. Van Seters argues that the narrative was composed in the sixth c. b.c.e. by a historianliving in Babylon.Van Seters,APrologue toHistory.Others propose an evenmore recent dating tothe Persian or Hellenistic periods (fifth or fourth c. b.c.e.). See Lemche, The Israelites in HistoryandTradition ; Lemche, “The Old Testament: AHellenistic Book?,” SJOT 7 (1993): 163–93; PhilipDavies, In Search of “Ancient Israel” (JSOTSup 148; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992); Thompson,Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives; Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People.


uncertain is the prehistory of the text.4 Most scholars agree that the narrativewas the product of an extended process of development. But the nature of thatprocess and the sources used are unknown.5 Some have noted the presence ofdoublets or repeated elements—two trees in the center of the garden, twonames for God—and have inferred that these must represent once-separateaccounts that were woven together by an editor.6 But what these earlieraccounts were or how they were combined is unclear. On top of all this, thereremains the inherent ambiguity in the story itself. The narrative is pregnantwith meaning, but the author’s artistry is such that the interpretation is leftlargely to the reader.

In short, we know precious little about when the story was written, bywhom, or for what purposes. This fact presents a problem for research, butalso an opportunity. Since so little is known about the text, there are openingsfor further investigation and analysis—especially if we bring new perspectivesto the task. Prior work on the garden of Eden has conceived of the text as agreat work of literature, as an etiological explanation for fundamental featuresof the human condition, or as a profound meditation on sin and temptation.But, to the best of my knowledge, no prior analyst considers the text aspresenting political ideas. This chapter presents such an interpretation. Ianalyze the story as a meditation on the nature of political obligation and as aprolegomenon to the Bible’s political theory as a whole.

Setup

One of the beauties of narrative as an analytic device is that it allows the writerto present a simplifiedmodel of the world. By carefully controlling the setup—the frame in time and space and the cast of characters—the author can excludeirrelevant factors and focus attention on what is fundamental. The Edennarrative is a classic example of this technique:

1. Genesis 2:4b notes that God formed man from the earth “at the time”when he made the heavens and the earth—in other words, contempora-

4 See Howard N.Wallace, The Eden Narrative (HSM 32; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985); Van Seters,A Prologue to History, 108.

5 For speculation about possible Israelite, Canaanite, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian influences, seeGunkel, The Legends of Genesis ; von Rad,Genesis ; Wallace, The Eden Narrative ; William FoxwellAlbright, “The Babylonian Matter in the Predeuteronomic Primeval History (JE) in Gen. 1–11:11,” JBL 58 (1939): 91–103. Greek and Roman texts also contain images of an idyllic past,suggesting the possibility of parallel traditions elsewhere in the ancient world. See, e. g. , Delu-meau, History of Paradise.

6 For discussion of attempts to subdivide the Eden narrative into sources, see Wallace, The EdenNarrative.

Setup 29


isbn print: 9783525550342 — isbn e-book: 9783647550343 · geoffrey p. miller the ways of a king...

Documents