A JOURNAL

OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

August 1980

Volume 9 Number 1

Robert Sacks

The Lion
on

and the

Ass:

Commentary

the Book of

Genesis (Chapters 1 1-20)

83

David K. Nichols

Aeschylus'

Oresteia
of

and the

Origins

Political Life

93

John A.

Wettergreen
1 1 I

On the End

Thucydides'

of

Narrative

Aryeh L. Mot/kin
R. S. Hill

On Halevi's Kuzari
Duncan Forbes's Hume
s

as a

Platonic Dialogue

125

Philosophical Politics

137

Aryeh L. Motzkin

Harry
as

A. Wolfson
of

Interpreter

Medieval Thought

QUEENS COLLEGE

PRESS

interpretation
Volume 9

JL

number

Editor-in-Chief

Hilail Gildin

Editors

Seth G. Benardete

Hilail Gildin

Robert Horuitz

Howard B. White (d. John Hallowell

1974)
Erich Hula Ellis

Consulting

Editors

Wilhelm Hennis

Arnaldo Momigliano
Sandoz

Michael Oakeshott
Kenneth W.

Leo Strauss (d. 1973)

Thompson
Associate Editors Arnhart

Larry

Patrick Will

Coby

Christopher A.

Colmo

Maureen Feder

Joseph E.

Goldberg

Pamela Jensen

Morrisey

Thomas West

Art Editor

Perry

Hale

Assistant Editor

Marianne C.

Grey

Editor,
Queens College Press Lee Cogan

Assistant Editor, Queens College Press Dyanne Klein

Authors submitting
INTERPRETATION

manuscripts

for

publication

in

are requested

to follow

the

MLA Style Sheet

work.
should

and to send ribbon copies of their

All be

manuscripts and editorial correspondence addressed

to the

Editor-in-Chief,
Queens

INTERPRETATION,

Building G 101,

College, Flushing, N.Y. 1 1367, U.S.A.

Copyright 1981

Interpretation

QUEENS COLLEGE PRESS, FLUSHING. N V. 11367

Lberty/tes Lherb/Ckssics
,,'/
UJ
It.'

Can Capitalism Survive?

"/

By Benjamin A. Rogge Penetrating,

prescriptions

Tiffiri^.tJ**
jtm
i\
/

witty, and

wise

for

our

day, by
of

the late

Distinguished Professor

Political

Economy
explores
x
^

at

Wabash College. Rogge

prospects of

the

for capitalism,
the nature

the philosophy
0jt

freedom,

^U^uW-it&s

economics

and what must

be done

to ensure the

survival of capitalism and

"Provocative"

free institutions.
Library

Journal.

"Delightful"

Personal

Finance. "Well-reasoned,

gracefully written, and gently humorous"National Review. Hardcover

$9.00, Paperback $3.50.

required on all orders not on prepaid weeks outside

Prepayment is

for

resale.

orders.

We pay postage Please allow 4 to 6

orders must

for delivery. All

United States
order, or
write:

from

the

be

prepaid.

To

for

copy

of our

catalog,

LibertyPre5\s/LibertyC/a.s,57cs

7440 North Shadeland, Dept. 741 Indianapolis, IN 46250

Liberty/texs LbertyCkssics
The Counter-Revolution of Science Studies on the Abuse of Reason

By
of

F. A. Hayek
explains the errors of
scientism

Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek

intellectual
state. mistake

the

misapplication

the methods of physical science to social

phenomena

and shows
and

how this

leads to

the

tyranny

of social

engineering

the totalitarian

Hardcover

$9.00,
of

Paperback $4.00

The Politicization
Edited

Society

by

Kenneth S. Templeton, Jr.

scholars examine
state

Distinguished
growth of the

the central

problem of modem

society

the

and

its

significance

for

the individual. Essays

by

Robert L.

Carneiro, Felix Morley, Murray N. Rothbard, William Marina, Robert A. Nisbet, Jacques Ellul, Giovanni Sartori, Michael Oakeshott, Donald M. Dozer, Herbert Butterfield, John A. Lukacs, Jonathan R. T. Hughes, Butler D. Shaffer, and F. A. Hayek. Introduction by R. M. Hartwell. Hardcover $10.00, Paperback $4.50.
Economics and the Public Welfare Financial and Economic History of the UnitedStates, 1914-1946

By
A
a

Benjamin M. Anderson planning over ending with the Bretton both a professor of

careful critique of government money-management and economic

third

of a

century,

beginning

before World War I

and

Woods Agreement. Dr. Anderson

economics and a

with experience as

bank

economist presents a unique view of a crucial period of

American financial

and economic

history. Hardcover $10.00, Paperback $4.50.

Free

and

Unequal

By

Roger J. Williams

One

of the world's leading biochemists presents the evidence that no two human beings are ever born alike, nor do they become alike. A persuasive argument for human liberty, free of scientific jargon. "Eminently humane and he makes his principal points Ashley Montagu in the New York Times. Hardcover $8.00, Paperback $3.50.
powerfully"

Prepayment is
orders.

required on all orders not

allow

for

resale.

Please

4 to 6

weeks

for delivery. All

a

orders

We pay postage on prepaid from outside the United

catalog, write:

States

must be prepaid. To order, or for Liberty/Vess/LibertyC/ass/cs 7440 North Shadeland, Dept. 742

copy

of our

Indianapolis, IN 46250

THE LION AND THE ASS A COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS

(CHAPTERS

11-20)

Robert Sacks
St. John's College

Chapter XI

All of the Earth

was

of one language

and spoke

offew things.

The New Way,

as

distinguished from Since the

all previous

experiments, will

not

begin

with man as a whole.

mankind, it presupposes the division of

ways.

The

present account of

with a very small part of into many families and into diverse that division is the second Biblical account, since a new plan man of mankind

is to begin

more gentle account of the

division

already been The

one

given

in the

previous chapter.

according to their languages had Again, each is intended to reveal an of one language, and of appears here in the plural 's development life

aspect of the origins.

King James translation,

And the

whole earth was

speech,

is insufficient since the Hebrew

(See Gen. 27:44
and

word

for

one

and signifies few.

29:20.)
stages of man was

The last
simple,

phrase

as were

his thoughts

implies that in the early and desires.

as they journeyedfrom the east, that they found a plain in the land they dwell there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And

And it came to pass,

ofShinar; and

they had brickfor stone,

4.

and slime
us

had they for mortar.

us a

And they said, Go to, let

build

city
we

and a

Tower,

whose

top may

reach unto

heaven;

and

let

us make us a name,

lest

be

scattered abroad upon the

face of the

whole earth.

The

men

begin their

work and

in

a plain.

The Tower is to be completely the

product of their own

labor,
.

to begin on a mountaintop would mean to accept

the assistance of nature Neither stone nor wood

men make

is

used

in the

construction ,

but the

their own bricks from the poorest material nature could afford.

The

the Covenant holds heaven and earth together, just as the

presupposes

building of the Tower itself presupposes a rejection of the bonds by which building of a city
the
rejection of

any natural political bonds. The Tower was intended to provide a refuge from any further deluge. Thinking they could establish a home for themselves above the waters they planned to build the Tower whose top may
This is the
appear
second part of a

longer

work

by Robert Sacks on the Book of Genesis.

The later parts

will

in

subsequent

issues.

Ed.

2
reach unto

Interpretation
heaven. For these
men

nothing is for
a

secure

that does not have

its

origins

wholly within themselves. The divine plan,

which

called

fruitful

world

with

men

themselves throughout the whole, would have been disturbed

by the Tower.
While they

spreading In this
wish

sense, the Tower shows both their

reach

pride and their cowardice.

to

the

heights

of heaven

they

cannot

fully face

the true task that has been placed

before them.
also tell a story about a tower, but their understanding is very different. The original world in which First Woman and First Man found themselves was poor, narrow, and dark. Neither an Eden nor a

The American Navahos

condition

of

the human

Convenant
able

was provided

by

the gods.

Only

with great pain and

labor

were

to pull themselves up out of successive worlds,

finally

reaching the one

they they

now

inhabit. For them, it is

not

the gifts

of nature or

the gods but the labor of men

which makes

life

at all

bearable.
the Tower may
contain a reference

The Biblical
which

account of

to another account

did

present of

itself

at

that time as a fundamental alternative to the

Biblical
as

understanding
the

the world. In the

first tablet

of

the

Gilgamesh,

the hero

begins

king of a great city whose foundation is also made of burnt bricks. At the end of his voyage, when he has lost his last chance for the immortality of the gods, Gilgamesh returns, only to realize that his true immortality had already been ensured by the name he had made for himself founding the city of Uruk, the city of
burnt bricks.

5. 6.

And the Lord

came

down

to see the

city

and

the

Tower,

which the children

of men

budded.
And the Lord said, Behold the people is one,
and

they begin

to

do:
.

and now

nothing

will

be

restrained

they have all one language; and this from them, which they have

imagined to do

things
and

language without the words and spoke offew may imply that these men have begun to use their speech for bigger things no longer use it merely to communicate simple thoughts.
repetition of

The

the

phrase one

7.

Go to, let

us

go

down,

and

there confound their

language,

that

they may

not

understand one another's speech.

As in Gen. 1:26, God

when

again speaks of

Himself in the plural. In the Gilgamesh,

There
were

the time had come for the

Flood,

there was a debate among the gods. Some

were

in favor
in

of

the

Flood,
were

and some were opposed.

considered

determining

what was

just

and what was unjust.

many sides to be Each side could be

heard because there

many

gods present.

Monotheism

would appear either as

tyranny or as the assumption that there are no legitimate problems on the highest level, that everything thoughtful men considered to be problematic is ultimately

The Lion
mundane,
since on

and the

Ass
side can

3
be defended insight is
or

the highest level only one

for that

matter even stated.

Again,

some acknowledgment of pagan

necessary.

The unity

of

God in
kind

monotheism must

be

wide enough

to include

all sides.

To that

extent a certain

of manyness must still

be

present.

8.

And from there the Lord

ceased

scattered them upon the

face of the

whole earth and

they

to

build the

city.

than ensure the original

By confusing their languages and scattering the men, God does nothing more blessing that man is to inherit the whole of the earth,
men of

though the

the Tower may not understand God 's

action

9.

the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Therefore is

Though the net result is the settling of the whole earth, the world is now divided into many different languages. As a result, we shall have to face the problem of the differences in languages, customs, and ways, in establishing the

Way
10.

of

Law.

These

are

the generations

of Shem: Shem Flood:

was

an

hundred

years

old,

and

begat

Ar-phaxad

two years after the

after

11.

And Shem lived

he begat Ar-phaxad five hundred years, begat Salah;

and

and

begat

sons and

daughters. 12
.

And Ar-phaxad livedfive

and

thirty years,

and

13.

And Ar-phaxad lived

sons and

after

he begat Salah four hundred

three years, and

begat

daughters.
years, and

14. 15.

And Salah lived thirty daughters.

begat Eber:
,

And Salah lived after he begat Eberfour hundred and three years

and

begat sons

and

16.

And Eber livedfour

and

thirty years,

and

begat Peleg.
and

17.

And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, daughters. And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu: And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred

begat sons

and

18. 19.

and nine

years, and

begat

sons and

daughters. 20.
21. And Reu lived And Reu lived daughters. 22
.

two and
after

thirty years and begat Serug: he begat Serug two hundred and

seven

years, and

begat

sons and

And

23.

And

Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor: Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred
nine and

years,

and

begat

sons

and

daughters. 24.
And Nahor lived

twenty

rears, and

begat Terah:

Interpretation
25. And Nahor lived
and
after

he begat Terah

an

hundred

and nineteen years, and

begat

sons

daughters

26. 27.

And Terah lived seventy years,

and

begat Abram, Nahor,

and

Haran.
and

Now these

are

the generations

of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor,

Haran;

and

Haran begat Lot.

28-.

And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the

Chaldees. 29. And Abram

name
and

Nahor took them

wives:

of Nahor's wife, Milcah,

the

the name of Abram s wife was Sarai; and the daughter of Haran, the father ofMilcah, and the

father of Iscah.
30.
31.

But Sarai

was

barren;

she

had no

child.

And Terah took Abram his son,

and

Lot the

son

of Haran his

son's

son, and

Sarai his

daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
32.
And the days of Terah
were

two

hundred and five years:

and

Terah died in Haran

The

account of

the generations
statement

is the

one connection
an

we

have

with

the

antediluvian period.
after

The

that Shem was

hundred

years old

two years

the Flood is roughly in

agreement with

the earlier information according to

which

Noah's

children were

born

when

he

was

500

years

old, 100

years

before the

Flood. Before be
rewritten

discussing

the chapter in

detail,

the information it contains should

in the form

of a chart:

Birth in Age
at

Death in Years After the Flood 300

Years
Remainder

Birth of

Age

at

After the Flood

Name Noah Shem

Ar-phaxad

First Son

of Life

Death

100 35 30
34

500 403 403 430

600 438 433 464 239

2

500
440 470 531 340
370 393

Salah Eber

37

67
101

Peleg
Reu

30
32

209
207 200 119 135 89 76
120 107

239 230
148

131 163 193 222 292 292 391 451

Serug
Nahor

30

29
70
86*

341 427 467 467 571 598

Terah Abram Abraham Isaac

205
175 175 180 147 110

99t
60
40

Jacob
Joseph
*The birth Ishmael.

511

621

of

tThe birth

of

Isaac

The Lion
The

and the

Ass

longevity
of

characteristic of the antediluvian period

certain major

some time.

There are, however,

clearly continues for deviations from the pattern. Until

age, between 29

the birth
and

Terah,

most men

begot their first

child at a reasonable while the

35. This

accomplishes two things.

First,

longevity is needed for the

itself, in
day. It
terms of genera

rapid population of

the earth as a whole, the time span

expect

tions, is the

also provides the normally possibility stressing the fact that Isaac was born when Abraham was an old man. As will prove of some importance later, however, the miraculous birth of a son at

same as one would

in

our own

of

such an advanced age

begins

with

Terah,
292

not with

Abraham.
and

Abraham
year

was

born in the

year

after the

Flood

his

son

Ishmael in the
was

378. Noah died in the

man

year

300.

According to this

calculation, Abraham
seems

the last
could

to be born

who could

have known Noah. It

doubtful that this

be

accidental since

first

man who could not

closely connected to the fact that Noah was the have known Man. By this device the author stresses the
so

it is

continuity between the Covenant of Noah and the Convenant of Abraham. Much of the material in this chapter will be of relevance later on, but Verse 31

Terah, apparently without any divine command, has left the home of his fathers to set out for Canaan, the land which will turn out to be the Promised Land, as has already been alluded to in Gen. 9:25ff. As we know from the rest of the story, the New Way, the Way of Law, requires the singling out of a
at this point.
particular people.

is important

Because

of

the division and scattering of mankind, any law or

custom must

begin

as the specific

law

of a specific people.

The story of Terah, in many ways, reads like the story of Abraham. His children were born when he was very old, and he suddenly left the land of his fathers to begin a new life in the land of Canaan. The obvious distinction between
the two stories is that Terah 's decision was made the need

by himself. Apparently Terah saw

Abram to do. As in
so

for

doing

what

God

would and

later

command of

many

other cases, such as

what

kingship

the

building
man

cities, God always waits to see

direction

man will take.

The first

to discover a way is never capable of

never reached

completing that way

and

by himself,

and so

Terah

the land of

Canaan,

the Lord

chose

Abram to

complete

the journey.

Chapter XII

Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee

and from

out

of thy country,

andfrom

thy kindred,

thy father's house,

unto a

land that I

will shew thee:

God 's first

eye with great

words

to Abram are abrupt and clear. The words get thee strike the the Hebrew phrase

force
be

since

is

composed of two,
were

short, two-letter
attract

words that are both spelled the same way.

since

They

intended to

the eye

they

will

repeated again under

very different

circumstances.

6
Nachmanides rightly
one

Interpretation
points out

that "It is hard to leave one 's country where

one's

has

all one's associations.

house."

It is harder to leave
a great

kindred,
of

and still more so

one's

father's

While there is

deal

importance in
were not

what

Nachmanides says, it is hard to forget that Abram s ancestral ties verse gains its full power only if the decision Terah made in the included as an integral part of the whole break with the past. is beginning
but in Ur. This
2
And I will make of thee a great nation, and thou shalt be a blessing:
and

in Haran

I will bless thee,

and make

thy name great;

In studying the formation of the Western tradition, one cannot help but be impressed by the extent to which the author foresaw the effect his book would

have. Our main task, however, is to understand what effect the author believed this moment would or could have on mankind as a whole. Without that understanding it
would

be

almost

At this
will

point

let

us

impossible to grasp the overwhelming effect it has, in fact, had. be satisfied with merely raising the question, since the answer
and will constitute a good portion of

be very

long

the commentary from this

point on.

And I will bless them that bless thee,

all families

and curse

him

that curseth thee: and in thee shall

of the

earth

be blessed.

This

verse appears

to cut time into two periods: one in which the

and

new nation

is

growing, needing encouragement

nations will

care; the

other when

the distinction between

disappear and

all nations will

be blessed. The

switch

from the
.

plural

to

the singular in the first

part of

the sentence

is

upon a

whole, but the

curse

is probably not accidental The blessing is only for that individual who so merits.
spoken unto

4.

So Abram departed, Abram

was

as the

Lord had

him;

and

Lot

went with

him:

and

seventy

and

five

years old when

he departed out of Haran.

For reasons that go

radical

well

beyond human imagination Abram has

,

accepted

this

break

with

the past, but his decision to take Lot with him shows he has not
as most of us

forgotten

simple

family duty

know it. At the

same time

Abram 's

relationship to Lot contains the seeds of the fulfillment of the promise that in the New

Way

the whole world will be blessed. God

one nation to

has decided to

start

in

a small

way

by choosing
would

bring

the blessing. In the

beginning

the small nation

a constant

have to be

by itself so that it might grow.

The Torah contains

play

on the

distinction between the Chosen People

and

and

the rest of mankind. In general,

it is clearly
are other

sharply distinguished from all other nations. At the same time there nations, like the descendants of Lot and the descendants of Laban, who

are somehow

included

and somehow not

included. Although the

new nation must

develop

on

its own,

apart

from

outside

influence,

there must be some

bridge

The Lion

and the

Ass

linking
many

it to the

rest of

the nations. In the course of this commentary we shall see

such

bridges

being

built.
of

Many
will

of them will

collapse, but the

such

search will

continue.

The descendants

Lot

form the first

bridge.

And Abram

took

Sarai his wife,

and

and

Lot his brother's son,

and all their substance that

went forth

they had gathered,

go

the souls that

and

into

the

land of Canaan;

they had gotten in Haran; and they into the land of Canaan they came.
Gen. 11:31:

to

Verse 5 is

an

intentional

paraphrase of

And Terah took Abram his son,

and

Lot the
and and

son

of Haran his
went

son's

son, and

Sarai his

daughter-in-law, his
Chaldees,
The

son

Abram's wife;

they they

to go into the

land of Canaan;

came

from Ur of the unto Haran, and dwelt there.

with

forth

them

verses are almost

the end of Verse

period of

5. The time

identical in many ways apart from the crucial words at spent in Haran, however, was not lost. During this he
would need

his life, Abram

acquired the means

for his task.

6.

And Abram passed through the land unto the place ofSichem,

unto the plain ofMoreh.

And 1
.

the

Canaanite

was then

in the land.

And the Lord

there

appeared unto

Abram,
the

and said,

Unto thy

seed will

I give this land:

and

budded he

an altar unto

Lord,

who appeared unto

him.
and pitched

8.

And he
tent,
unto

removed from thence unto a mountain on

the east

of Beth-el,

his

having
the

Beth-el

on

the west, and

Hai

on

the east: and there

he budded

an altar

Lord,

and called upon the name

of the Lord.

The

antediluvian period

is over,

and

these passages are filled with names that

will occur

many times throughout the text. This verse will mark a

turning

point

in be

the book and its relation to

its readers. From this

point

on,

names and places will

filled

with

memories, and readers will not be able to follow what is

not share

being said in the

land
was

text if

they do

those memories. Abram's

first

sight of the new

the same one that the new nation would have after their

400

years of

slavery in

Egypt. That

part of

the land Abram passes through is the land his children will

first

glimpse on their return:

Are

they not on the other side Jordan,

which

by the way where the sun goeth down

in the land of the

the plains

Canaan-ites,
Moreh?

dwell in

the champaign over against

Gilgal, beside

of

(Deut.

11:30)
the

Then he

pitched

his tent between Beth-el

would

and

Ai

and

built the

second altar on

place where

Joshua

first camp

when

he

and

the

Children

of

Israel

finally

entered the

land:
lie in ambush,

Joshua

therefore sent them forth: and

they

went

to

and abode

between Beth-el

8
andAi, on the
west side

Interpretation
ofAi: but Joshua lodged that night among the people.
on still

(Josh.

8:9)

9.
10.

And Abram journeyed, going

toward the south.

And for

there was a famine

in the land:

and Abram went

down into Egypt to

sojourn

there;

the famine was grievous

in the land.

Abram 's journey is A famine

sent

beginning to look like a pastiche of the centuries to come.

years same way in later (Gen. 43:1). which a

him into Egypt in the

famine

will send

his

descendants there many

11. And it
came

to pass,

when

he

was come near

to enter into

Egypt,
to

that

he

said unto

Sarai his wife, Behold 12. Therefore it

now,

I know that thou

when

art a fair woman

look

upon:

shall come to

pass,
will

the

Egyptians

shall see

thee, that they

shall say,

This is his
13.

wife: and

they

kill

me,

Say, I pray thee,

soul shall

thou art my

sister:

but they will save thee alive. that it may be well with me for thy

sake; and my

live because of thee.

when

14.

And it came to pass, that,

woman that she was

Abram

was come

into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the

very fair.

The theme
meets

of

this story
of s

will recur

twice in the book: once when Abraham

Abimelech, King
of

Gerar,
lie
and

and once again when

Isaac

returns to

Gerar.

Most
of

the story

Abram

his fears

can

only be

understood

in the light

his

visit

to Abimelech. For that reason most of our remarks

concerning this story

story
should

will

be

reserved at

for Chapter 20. Nevertheless,

cause of

certain aspects of the

be discussed

this time.

The immediate

Abram's difficulties is Sarai 's beauty. In the follow lead Abraham to

s

ing

chapters

beauty

will almost

cause the
power

death

of a

very

noble

man named

Abimelech. Joseph

fall

and rise

to

in Egypt

will come about

through the ambiguous virtue of beauty as well. The seventeenth verse of

Chapter

29

reads:

Leah

was tender-eyed:

but Rachel

was

beautiful and well-favoured. Jacob

preferred

Rachel's beauty, but God seems to have preferred the tenderness of Leah's eyes. When the word appears for the last time in Genesis, it is used in
relation

to the seven

beautiful kine

of

Pharaoh 's dream

who were

devoured

by the

seven

kine

who grew no

fatter. Their

beauty

left

no mark and was gone.

at

From the

point of view of

Genesis, beauty
this,
that
most

seems to

be tenuous
to

best (for further

ment and substantiation of

the

reader will reveal

commentary Biblical authors share this

commended

see

Gen. 23:1). A
view.

careful check

develop by

15.

The

princes also

woman was

taken

of Pharaoh saw her, and into Pharaoh's house.

well for

her before Pharaoh:

and the

16.

And he

entreated

Abram

her

sake: and and she

he had sheep,

and

oxen, and

he

asses,

and menserv ants, and

maidservants,

asses,

and camels.

It is probably intentional that the Pharaoh is

parallel

not

named, thus

strengthening the

between Abram

stay in Egypt

and that of

his descendants.

The Lion
17.
18.
And the Lord
plagued

and the

Ass
with great plagues

9
because of Sarai
unto me?

Pharaoh

and

his house

Abram's didst
19.

wife

And Pharaoh

called

Abram,

andsaid,

What is this
wife?
might

that thou

hast done

Why

thou not tell me that she was

saidst

thy

Why

thou, She is my

sister?

So I

have

taken

her

to me to wife: now

therefore

behold thy wife,

that

take

her,
men

and go

thy

way.
and

20.

And Pharaoh
wife,
and all

commanded

his

concerning him:

they

sent

him

away, and

his

he had.

The

plague

the Lord sent upon Pharaoh and

his house is
of

similar

to the

plague

that will be
will again

sent upon

Pharaoh 400

years

later at the time

Moses,

and

that plague

be

connected with

his

descendants'

flight from Egypt.

Egypt. These travels

In the

chapters that

follow, Abram (or Abraham) will continue to live through

will

the experiences

his descendants

have

after

leaving

will

occupy Abraham until the birth of his son, Isaac. As founder of the New Way, Abraham must live through the whole from the beginning in order to see where it is
going.
wars. son.

We have

seen

him

suffer

from their famines,

and we shall see

him fight their he beget

a

Only
a

after

he has

a clear notion of where

the whole

is going

will

For

fuller discussion

of this chapter as

it

applies

to Abraham as

an

indi

vidual, see the commentary to

Chapter 20.

Chapter XIII

And Abram

went

up

out

of Egypt,

he,

and

his

wife and all that

he had,

and

Lot

with

him, into
2.
3
.

the south.
was

And Abram And he

tent

very

rich

in cattle, in silver,

and

in

gold.
unto

went on

his journeys from

had been

at the

Beth-el, beginning, between Beth-el and Ai;

the south even to
made

the place where

his

4.

Unto

the place

called on the name

of the altar, which he had of the Lord.

there at the

first:

and there

Abram

Within these last verses,

prophets

a great

deal is

made of

Abram's

wealth.

The Biblical have

in

general are not presented as poor men.

They

are educated and

sufficient means

to retain their independence. A certain amount of wealth will

clearly be
matters.

required

for the fulfillment

of

the New Way. In the

concern

beginning

these

necessities were available,

leaving
life does

Abram free to

himself

with other

Abram's

nomadic

not require great

riches, yet he has sufficient

means

for that kind

of

nobility

which will

be

required

in Chapter 14.

And Lot also, And the land

which went with

Abram, hadflocks,
bear them,
could not

and

herds,

and

tents. together:

6.

was not able

to

substance was

great, so that

they

they dwell together.

that

might

dwell

for

their

10
1
.

Interpretation
And there
was a strife

between
and

the

cattle: and the

Canaan-ite

the Periz-zite

herdmen of Abram's cattle dwelled then in

and

the herdmen

of Lot's

the

land.

The break between Lot

of

and

Abram

arises not

because

of

riches,

and

is indicative
and

of

the general problems

facing

the

poverty but because author. The strife

naturally tend to fall into small groups where intimate relationships are possible, but small groups tend to struggle with each other, especially when interdependence is no longer
was not necessary.

between Lot

Abram, but between

their herdsmen. Men

This division is the

spoken of

universal

blessing

in the

beginning of the long account of the strivings for the beginning of Chapter 12.
and

And Abram

9.

said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren. Is not the whole land before thee? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou

wilt

take the
will go

left hand, left.

then

will go to the

right; or

if thou

depart

to the right

hand,

then

to the

10.

And Lot lifted up his eyes,

everywhere ,

and

beheld

all

the plain
and

of Jordan, that it

was well watered

before
the

the

Lord destroyed Sodom

Gomorrah,

even as the

Garden of

the

Lord, like

11

Then Lot chose

land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar. him all the plain ofJordan ; and Lotjourneyed east:

and

they separated

themselves the one from the other.

Abram
means
given

shows a natural

he is unwilling to is

magnanimity in the largesse of his reply. While he has struggle over them. If division becomes necessary, Lot is is the
the
elder.

the choice, even though Abram

part of a general

Lot's

choice of

the eastern

section

tendency

within

book,

which was

described in the

commentary to Gen. 4:16.

12.

Abram dwelled in
pitched

the

his

tent toward

land of Canaan, Sodom

.

and

Lot dwelled in the

cities

of the plain,

and

13

But the

men

of Sodom

were

bad and sinners before

the

Lord exceedingly.

By
lives in

now,

we

know the importance

country.

of

the fact that Lot chooses the city and

Abram lives in the

a

Lot

should not

be judged too

harshly, however; he

still

tent,

even

though he pitches it near the city.

14.

And the Lord

said unto

Abram,

after that

Lot

was separated from

him, Lift

up

now

thine eyes, and

look from the

place where thou art

northward,

and

southward,

and

eastward, and

westward: which thou

15. 16.

For

all the

land

seest, to thee will

give

it.

and

to thy seed for ever

And I will make thy seed as the dust of the

the earth, then shall

earth: so that

thy

seed also

be

ifa man can number the dust of

numbered.

There is

a curious

inversion in the

simile of the

dust

of

the earth, which once

The Lion
referred

and the

Ass

1 1

to man's mortality but

now refers

to his fruitfulness. Inversion through

is not a specifically Biblical device. It is fundamental in pagan myth While poetry emerged as the refining and ennoblement of man's baser passions, Biblical limitations on such ideas are marked by sobriety and have their
sanctification as well.

origins more

in the

recognition of man's needs than

in their

glorification.

17.
18.

Rise up,

walk about moved altar

the

land,

through its to

length

and

its breadth, for I give it to

,

\ou.

And Abram

he built an

his tent, and came to the Lord there.

dwell at Elon Mamre

which

is in Hebron; and

The

chapter ends

whole of the

by continuing the main theme of Chapter 12 Abram sees the Promised Land from the same vantage point from which it will be seen
.

by the

spies

Moses

sends out to view the

land:
Hebron;

And they

ascended

by

the south, and came unto

where

A-himan, Sheshai,
(Num.

and

Talmai,

the children of Anak, were. (Now Hebron was

built

seven years

before Zoan in

Egypt.)
The
spies see a

13:22)
If

land

Abram is to

continue

flowing with milk and honey, living through the future life
between him
and

but
of

land

of giants as well.

his descendants,

we should

expect to see a great war

the

Canaanites in the

next chapter.

Chapter XIV

And it

came

to

pass

Ched-or-laomer king ofElam,

2.

in the days of Amra-phel king ofShinar, Ari-och and Tidal king of nations; Bera

king ofElla-sar,

That

these made war with

Shinab is Zoar.

king

of Admah,

and

king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Go-morrah, Shem-eber king ofZe-boi-im, and the king ofBela, which

The

war anticipated at

the end of the previous chapter has come. But the

combatants are not those whom we

had

expected.

If the

pattern

that was begun in

the

previous chapter

had continued, there

would

have been

a war

between Abram

and various
war at read

Canaanite tribes. On the contrary, Abram is

names of the combatants mean

not even

involved in the
have

first. The

very little

even to those who

the later books. Apart from this verse, Amraphel appears to to the author, though some modern scholars
of

unknown

be totally have connected him with

It
was

Hammurabi. His kingdom, the land

Shinar, is

not quite so unknown.

the

home

of

Nimrod,

and

the grounds upon which the Tower of Babel stood.

Ellasar, is otherwise completely unknown to the Biblical Arioch, king his kingdom, though modern sources believe it was in Babylon. author, as is Chedorlaomer, king of Elan, has also left no traces. Elan, however, appears
of

together

with

Babylon in the Book

of

Jeremiah

as one of

Israel's

enemies

(Jer.

12
49:36ff). Tidal, the
anyone.

Interpretation

king

of

nations, though he

must

be strong,

could

be

almost

cities.

up one side of the war. The others are all kings of dead but one will be completely destroyed. Sodom and Gomorrah will be explicitly destroyed in Chapter 18, and according to Deut. 29:23, Admah and Zeboiim will be destroyed along with them. Only Zoar will remain. Nor will These kings All these
make cities

the names of their

kings

ever

be

mentioned

again,

except

if one is to

suppose

that

this Bela is the same

of

King

Bela

who ruled

in the land eventually

settled

by

the sons

Esau (see Gen. 36:32). The

war

that had been expected between Abram and the

Canaanites Canaanites
the

seems to and the

have been

replaced

by

a war

between the
that will

ancestors of

the

ancestors of the

Babylonians,

a war

find Abram

defending

Canaanites,

regardless of
once more

however tenuous that league may be. Shinar will be mentioned only in the whole of the Bible. The name will come up again soon after
Promised Land.
men were about

Joshua

enters the

When Joshua's
orders not to take
were not of the

to take the city of

Ai, he

gave

them strict

any spoils, but to burn the

whole contents of the city.

The

men

to be enriched

by

the artifacts, wealth, or possessions of that people. All

things

a man owns and uses and

every

day,

and

that usually vary in size and shape

with
.

from city to city

of another man

from

people

to people, carry

them ghosts

of

the goals,

customs , and ways of life that their maker put

into them It is hard to

cook

in the

pot

without, in part, eating his food. Joshua's strict

instructions
on

to the

men not

to enrich themselves

by

awareness of the relation of men

the spoils of the city to the things they make.

were

based

his keen

Joshua's first
the

attack was unsuccessful

because

a man named

Achan

was

attracted to a garment made

in Shinar,

which

he found in Ai (Josh. 7:20,21). After

to slay Achan for his part in the defeat of the army (Josh. 7:24,25). But why should a man be killed because he was attracted to a trinket he found one day? The attractions of Babylon will pose a constant threat to the new country. It

battle, Joshua found it necessary

is the home
Babylon

of Nimrod and the seat of paganism par excellence.

The

attractions of

seem

to be uppermost in the author's mind

at

this

moment.

3.

All these

were joined together

in the valley ofSiddim,

which

is the

salt sea.

The Valley of Siddim is rightly named. In the early morning when the sun begins to rise, a thick fog comes up over the salt sea, taking various strange forms, which do remind one of ghosts. The name of the valley is in fact the Valley of Ghosts.

For us, too, the

their cities have
who men

war takes place in a Valley of Ghosts. The Canaanites and been dead, and no man can even remember them. The men long lived in the Promised Land before the New Way came were attacked

of

Babylon. This happened in the

by

the

long

dead

past.

The

name

Babylon

The Lion
disappears from
return under

and the

Ass

13

the text and

is

never

mentioned, till the Babylonians suddenly

to conquer the
north

Shalmenesser, King of Assyria,

they
return will

(II Kings 17:24).

and

The
will

next

time

be the last. Nebuchadnezzer

will

come,

Judah

fight

no more

(II Kings 24:1).

4. 5.

Twelve

years

they served Chedorlaomer,

came

and

in the thirteenth

year

they

rebelled.

And in the fourteenth year

Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in
.

Shaveh Kiriathaim

Chedorlaomer
sive.

and

his

men now

fight the

serious war.

But the

war

is indeci

Chedorlaomer is partly victorious, but the people he conquers are left alive and remain to be conquered once again by the sons of Abram, so that his ability to chase Chedorlaomer and his followers out of the land of Canaan does not imply
that

his descendants
The Rephaim

will

be

able

to conquer the

Canaanites
to Deut.

totally.
are the giants who
warned at

and

the

Zuzim, according
of

2:20,

suddenly

appeared at

the

beginning

Chapter 6. As

we

had been

that

time, they have

managed

to live through the Flood

and will

constantly play

a role

throughout the Torah. Their relation to Israel is somewhat complicated and can

only be understood if we have the patience to follow every step of the way. In the Book of Exodus one sees a people able to maintain their dignity
while

even right

serving

under a

foreign

master.

Moses,

as an

Egyptian prince, had the

to kill the Egyptian taskmaster, but he has

struggle within the

no right

to intervene when there was a

community itself (Ex. 2:11-14).

In the Book
people with

of

Numbers little

of

that

dignity is

visible.

They

were a

beaten

Land,

spies

little life left in them. When they reached the borders of the Promised whom Moses sent out to scout the land returned with stories of its

riches and great

beauty, but
A

warned

the

people

that it was a land inhabited

by

unconquerable giants.

people used

to the life of slavery in Egypt

revolted.

is

not a people

to

conquer

giants, and when

they heard the tales they

have to up
who could

It

was then that

God

decreed that the Children

a generation of

of Israel would

wander

in the desert 40

years until

free

men grew

face the

giants

(Num. 14:33). In the

to

days

of

Joshua the lands

aside
s

of the giants were

finally

conquered and given

Caleb,
the

the only spy,

from Joshua,

who maintained was not

that the giants could.be defeated.

and some of

Even Joshua

victory,

however,
and

giants escaped to

Gaza

completely decisive, Ashdod in the land of the Philistines.

As early as the Book of Numbers it had been established that the land of the Philistines would form the southeastern border of the Promised Land (Ex. 13:17, 23:31). The Philistines
sea.
were a

foreign people,
ancient

lately

come

from

over the western

If

one

looks

at

the map of

Israel,

one can see that

the land of the

Philistines
always
sides ,

would

have formed

a natural whole with

Israel But
.

such a whole cannot

be

achieved.

There

was

bound to be

constant conflict

between the two be

victorious
.

but it

was ordained

from the beginning that

neither would ever

14
When the Children
the
shorter route

Interpretation
of

Israel left

Egypt, God

commanded

Moses

not

to take

through Philistia

because they in the Book

were not yet prepared

for that

battle. There
a were several skirmishes of Judges, and Samson engaged in 13-16), but it was not until the days of King

purely Saul that the

private war with conflict

them (Judg.
serious. of

became

Early
they
were

in the First Book

Samuel the Philistines

were able

to capture the
plagues and

center of the

New Way, the Ark itself. However, it only brought them forced to return it (I Sam. 4-6).
gives a series of reasons

The Bible

for the decision to

establish

the

kingship.

We have already discussed the human demands for a king, but God added another cause. According to His account, Saul was appointed king in order to save Israel
from the Philistines (I Sam. 9:16). The two Israel 's
great

task was

way contradictory. to defend herself from the Philistines in the largest sense of
the Philistines at Michmash

passages are

in

no

the word, and she had proven herself incapable of doing so without a king.

Saul 's first great battle

prepared

was against

His

men were

for attack, but Samuel had not

before the battle. Saul,

yet arrived to make the sacrifice that

had to

take

place

fearing that Samuel would not arrive on time and

seeing the restlessness of the men, decided to perform the sacrifice himself. In doing so he upset the balance between the power of the king and the power of God
as expressed

through His prophet, and at that point it is decided that the House of to be the royal house that
of at

Saul

will not continue

Israel (I Sam. 13:14). The Israelite

forces
role of

were victorious

day

in the field

Michmash, but for preempting

the

battle only to lose the royal seed. of a kind of wit rarely seen in the Bible, rose as Saul had fallen. His first battle, too, was against the Philistine. He was a boy then, but Goliath was dead, and David was more famous than Saul.
the prophet,
won

Saul

the

Young David,

beautiful

and

full

David's rise to fame began

and

with

his

single-handed

defeat

of

the giant

Goliath,
Ekron

for the first time Philistine land

was penetrated and the cities of

rise

Gad

and
and

taken (I
was

Sam. 17:52). But David's

one of the

to fame led to

Saul's jealousy, David

David

forced to flee.

During this period he found it possible to gain the friendship of

kings in Philistia,
of who welcomed with open arms and

Achish,
made

27). David's stay with the Philistines was well spent; while Achish that he had made himself odious in Israel convincing he spent his time by attacking them, actually warring against the Amalekites, as will be described at greater length in the to Gen. 36:12. We
must

him ruler over the city

Ziklag (I Sam.

constantly bear in

mind

that

commentary David's power

as

king rested to
a

large
had

extent on

come

his ability to control the army of Ittai, the over to David's side (II Sam. 15:18ff).

Gittite,

Philistine

who

Philistines, in which he began to Israel. Saul, the first king of Israel, died in

David's stay with the learn their ways, Achish and his allies attacked
war while

During

doing

battle

with

the

that Philistine Amalekites (I Sam. Chaps. 29-31). the

David

was

The first

great wars with

Philistines

were

over, but David

was

forced

to

The Lion
fight them
again

and the

Ass
Jerusalem
and

15
the time he estab
settled

between the time he

as the permanent was
until

captured of the

lished Jerusalem
until

home

Ark,

as

that

battle

fought (II Sam. 5:25). Life

the last days of

then

if nothing could be became peaceful

battle
was

on the
with

Philistine border
four
giants.

David,

when another

fought

By

this time David was too

place

old and

tired to carry on the war, and

younger men

had to take his

(II Sam. 21:15).

The full story of David's last courageous act is told only in Chapter 23. In Chapter 21 David's loss of physical prowess is merely indicated when the text
mentions that

David

waxed

faint (II Sam. 21:15).

Immediately

after

the battle

David

composed a powers

David's

account of

song began to fail him, he what he had done. Truly

recounting the

deeds

accomplished

in his life. When

some accurate and

saw

the necessity of

leaving

great

leaders, like Winston Churchill

to the chance hand of some
which

Charles De Gaulle, rarely leave

historian
called nor

such accounts

future is

did David. In the full account,

is

given at

the end of what

some of

men

The Last Words of David (II Sam. 23:1), had broken through the Philistine lines in
a well

we

discover that
had

David's

order to

fetch him
charmed

from

he had known

as a child.

The

youth who

a cup of water Israel and killed on that same

provide.

the giant with a slingshot was now an old man, tired and

fainting

battlefield. Yet he

could not

enjoy
or

what other men

had risked their lives to

unto

Whether it
(II Sam.

was

David the

King

David the Singer who poured it out

the Lord

23:16)

we shall never of

know.

The borders

Israel,

even when the

the land of the Philistines. The original

east was

country was at its height, never included border with Moab and the Amonites in the
to
protect

intended

as a sacred
western

border

and was meant

the

inheritance

of

those
role

people.

But the

border with the Philistines land

of

plays a

in

our story.

This

never-to-be-conquered

the giants

radically different is an essential part

those men

of one of the main themes of the come

book. The land

of the

Philistines,

lately

from
we

over

the seas, is the political counterpart of the waters above the

and

heavens
were

discussed in Chapter 1. Earth, sky,

the beings that inhabit them

laid

out and well ordered

during

the six

days

of

Creation. However,

accord

ing by the chaotic

pointed out at

to the Biblical view of the universe, this home we know so well

waters that are above the

is

surrounded

heavens,

which since

the time of the Flood

and

have been held back

by

virtue

of the Covenant between Noah

God. But

as we

that time, the seas below on the earth are a reminder of that which

lies

beyond the Covenant. The

political rid the
giants and their new

home, Philistia, bear

home
could

the same relationships to our

lives.

By

virtue of

his courage, Caleb, the

son of

Jephunneh,

was able to

land

of giants so that an ordered

be

established.

But according

to the Biblical understanding of the human situation, the giants will always remain
on

the borders. In
and

its

understanding, peace

is

possible

but

never guaranteed.

Courage

labor

will always

be

required

to
of

assure

its

perpetuation.

Centuries pass,
verses of

and not much read:

is heard

the struggle, yet the eighth and ninth

II Kings 18

16
He
smote the

Interpretation
Philistines
even unto

Gaza,
up

and the

watchman to the fenced city.

And it came to pass

came
against

borders thereof, from the tower of the that in the fourth year of King Hezekiah,
. .

Shalmanesser, king ofAssyria,

Samaria

and

beseiged it.

The
spite of

northern states

had already fallen into the hands

of

the

Assyrians,

and

in

his

great reforms and attempt

to return to ancient practices, Hezekiah 's

own state of

Judea

was

seriously threatened and was saved only

calamity that befell the enemy. While Hezekiah was able to

by a miraculous destroy the High

Places,

the great reformation was only carried out by his grandson, Josiah (see commentary to Gen. 20: (7). Hezekiah's last act just before his state began to to
renew

collapse was
giants.

the fight and penetrate once more into that strange land of the

Chedorlaomer 's battle with the giants

at

serves

in

part

to remind the reader, even

this early stage, of the conditions

under which

the descendants of Abram will

inherit the land.

6.

And the Hordes in their Mount Seir,

unto

El-paran,

which

is

by the

wilderness.

In Deut 2 : 12 the Mountain

.

of

Seir

will-

become the home

of the sons of

Esau

Abram has

not

forgotten to

provide

for his

other grandson.

7.

And they returned,

and came

to

country of the Ama-lek-ites,

and also

En-Mishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the the Amor-ites, that dwelt in Haza-zon-tamar.

The country

men under

Chedorlaomer
and

continue the war who

by taking

Kadesh

and

the

lived in Hazazon-Tamar. The city of En-Mishpat, as is noted in the text, received the new name Kadesh. The city whose name was The Source of Judgment has become the city named Holy.
of

the

Amalekites

the

Amorites

The

relation

between the Children

matter and will

of

Israel

and the

Amalekites is

an ex

tremely involved
problems

be dealt

with

in the commentary to Gen. 36:12.

The Amorites may stand for the whole of the Canaanite nation; however, the may be a bit more complicated. In Gen. 15:16 the Lord says Israel may not inherit the land at the present moment because the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. Even though Abram's people are to a new bring way of life to the world, some justification will be needed for other people's land. taking the

justification to the justification

about
can

By limiting
be

Amorites,

the

Bible only

raises the question of whether that

be formed in

such simplistic

terms.

More

can and will

said

that justification throughout the

Torah,

and

though there will be numerous

the question of whether any of

occasions

for

us

to consider those

justifications,

them will be ultimately

remain.

intelligible in terms

of simple retributive

Ultimately the only true justification may hinge upon the success or failure of that New Way in bringing about the blessing for all nations.

justice may

still

The Lion
8.
And there
went out the

and the

Ass

17
and

king

of Sodom,
and

and

the

Admah,
9.
10.

and

the

king

ofZe-boiim,

the

king

king of Go-morrah, of Bela (the same is

the

king

of

Zoar;)

and

they

joined battle

with them in the valley ofSiddim; With Ched-or-lao-mer the king ofElam, and with Tidal king of nations, andAri-och

andAmra-phel

king of Shinar,
And
the

king of Ella-sar ; four kings with five.

of slimepits
and the

valley

ofSiddim was full

and

kings of Sodom

and

Go-morrah

fled,
The

and fell

there;

they

that remainedfled to the mountain.

word slime appears

material out of which the

word

only once again in the Book of Genesis. It was the Tower of Babel was made. The author may have used the

here in

order

to re-emphasize the relation between Chedorlaomer and

Babylon.
11.

And they

took all the goods

of Sodom

and

Go-morrah,
who

and all their

victuals, and went

their way.

12.
13

And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, departed. And there
plain

dwelt in Sodom,

and

his

goods, and

came one that

had escaped,

and told

Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the

and these were confederate with

of Mamre the Amor-ite, brother of Eschol, Abram.

14.

And

when

Abram heard
own

that

his brother
three

was taken and

captive,

he

armed

his

trained

servants,

born in his

house,

hundred he
is

eighteen,

and pursued

them unto

Dan. 15.
And he divided

himself against them,

Hobah,
in the
which

and

his

servants,

by

night, and smote them

.

and pursued them unto

on the

left hand of Da-mascus

Abram is
to

successful

war

to the extent that he is able to clear the land up

Dan, the northern border of what will become the Promised Land. This victory, however, was not complete. The Babylonians have only retreated. Throughout the
rest of

the book one is always conscious that Abram's

somewhere near

Damascus,
leave that

waiting.

The

settlement

enemy is out there of the wars under Moses and

old

Joshua
always

will still

problem

unsolved, and the threat of their return will

be there just beyond the horizon.

16.

And he brought back

all

the goods, and

also
.

brought

again

his brother Lot,

from the

and

his

goods, and the women also, and the people

17.

And the

king

of Sodom
and

went out

to meet

him

after

his
at

return

slaughter

of

Ched-or-lao-mer,
the

of the kings that

were with

him,

the valley ofShaveh, which

is

king's dale

18.

And Mel -chize-dek king

of the
most

ofSa-lem

brought forth bread and wine:

and

he

was the priest

high

god.

19.

And he blessed him, heaven

and earth:

and

said, Blessed be Abraham of the

most

high god,

possessor

of

Verse 2

of

Ps 76
.

reads :

in Salem

also

is his tabernacle,

and

his dwelling place

18
is in Zion. This
verse

Interpretation
is
written

in

a common

form

of

Biblical

rhetoric

Its two

parts

say approximately the same

tified with

Zion in the

and

thing in different language. Salem is therefore iden consequently must be taken as an old form of Jerusalem.

Malchi-Zedek is therefore the

high

king
be

of

(Jeru-) Salem. The

role of

Jerusalem

as

the

may Bible that five kings form

occurs

point

war

also

reflected

an alliance

in the fact that the only other time in the is in the first attack on Jerusalem, which

in the tenth

chapter of

Joshua. At that time the high God;

king

of

Jerusalem is

not

Malchi-Zedek but Adoni-Zedek.

Malchi-Zedek is the
the Bible. Balaam is
though
writes:

priest of the most

a term

found twice

again

in

a prophet who of

believes

deeply

in the

most

high God,

even

he has

never

heard

His Chosen People. Again in Deut. 32:8 the

author

When the

most

high

gave nations
relation

their

homes

and set the

divisions of man, he fixed the

boundaries ofpeoples in

to Israel's peoples.

The
men

most

high God

seems

to be the

know the God of the Jews. The

of such men.

by which the highest of the non-chosen legitimacy of the New Way seems to rely upon
name

the blessings

This

requirement

fourth is

chapter of and

whole,

Deuteronomy, particularly Verse 6,

which

only in the light of the inspired this commentary. The chapter as a

possible

is

seems to make the claim that the virtue of the

New

Way

visible

to those who look with purely human understanding.

Malchi-Zedek,
of

as a representative of
venture

those people, must be part of the legitimization

Abram's

(see

Preface)

20.

And blessed be the And he

gave

most

high God,

which

hath delivered

thine enemies

into thy hand.

him tithes of all.

the last sentence are
gave a tenth of

The

antecedents of the relative pronouns of

unclear.

One is

would assume that

Abram,

as victor

in the war,

his

possessions to
role

the priest
under

Malchi-Zedek,

which would strengthen the notion

that Abram's

the aegis of what later Judaism will call the

a

wise men

of the

nations.

By

giving

tithe to

Malchi-Zedek, Abram

acknowledges that

he

cannot and should

not accept

the task if its virtues are not visible to men of good will

among the

other

nations.

21. 22.

And the
thyself.

king

of Sodom
to the

said unto

Abram, Give

me the

persons,

and

take the goods to

And Abram

said

king of Sodom,
of heaven

I have lift up

mine

hand unto

the

Lord,

the

most

high God,

the possessor

and earth.

23.

That I

will not

thing

that

is thine, lest

take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

Abram

uses a

double

appellation

for God. God has become

the

Lord

and the

The Lion
most

and the

Ass
he knows God to the
name used

19

high God. be

By joining the name by

Abram indicates
the ultimate

which

by

Malchi-Zedek,
would

a possible rapprochement which

presumably

part of

blessing.

Abram's
was a war of

refusal

to be enriched to

by

the war is two-sided. On the one hand it

duty

as opposed

a war of gain since

Abram

was responsible

for the
are

life
part

of

his brother, Lot. However, it need also be remembered that these lands of the Promised Land which will one day belong to his descendants.
Save only
with

24.

that which the

young

men

have

eaten, and the portion of the

men which went

me,

Aner, Eschol,
be
of unjust

andMamre; let them take their portion.

It
the

would

to deprive those with this time.

whom

he has

signed the

Covenant,

Amorites,

their

gain at

Chapter XV

After these things, the

word

of the Lord came

unto

Abram in

a vision

saying, Fear not,

Abram, I am thy

shield,

and

thy

reward shall

be

exceedingly great.

The opening words are a standard way the author has of indicating a close connection between the previous account and the present story. The word vision
must

be

weighed with great care.

The Later Prophets

use the word quite

,

frequently,

but it

here for the only time in the whole of the Torah and will appear only twice in the Early Prophets. The first time is in I Sam. 3:1. The verse reads: and the
appears
word

of the Lord

was precious

in those

days;

there was no open

vision

The
place

word vision

is

not used until

the rise of prophecy. It seems to be out of

in the early times. The only other use in the Early Prophets is in II Sam. 7:16 when Nathan announces to David that his son will build the Temple. The force
of the word vision

is to

continue

the dreamlike and

hazy

presenta
.

tion of the

world

that began with the description of the to

grow

Valley

of

the

Ghosts This

impression
2.

will continue

throughout the whole of the chapter.

And Abram said, Lord God,

steward

what wilt

thou give me,

seeing I

go

childless, and the

of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus: And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no

seed; and,

lo,

one

born in my house

is

mine

heir.

In

one way, at
chapter

least,

the sense in which this chapter

is intended to follow the

clear. By refusing the immediate gains of the himself worthy of a much greater reward. God also tells Abram not to fear. This too may be related to the preceding chapter, for we must not forget that Chedorlaomer has not been destroyed and is still living somewhere

preceding

is

immediately

war, Abram has

shown

near

Damascus.

20

Interpretation

Abram's reply is not a complaint. He is willing to do whatever the Lord commands and believes God will do all He can, but there does not seem to be much
of value that
will

God

can give

him. No

matter

how

great the rewards no son.

are, all of them

disappear

when

Abram dies, because Abram has

The

word

that has been translated childless

literally means naked.

The play

on

these two meanings appears in Lev. 20:20:

If

a man

lies

with

his

uncle's

wife, it

is his

uncle's nakedness

that he has

uncovered.

They

shall

bear their guilt; they

shall

die

childless.

There
nakedness.

are

two ways
apple

of

understanding the relationship

on a

of

fruitlessness

and

The

hanging
.

tree not only preserves the species

it

beautifies the tree

as well

In the commentary to Gen. 9:23, when considering the actions Japheth, we saw that it was the duty of a child to cover the nakedness This

of of

Shem

and

his father. justice

duty

is

part of

the answer to the problem of legitimization; if the

founding of a
the

people requires a

war, then

its legitimization radically depends

not understand good.

upon

found in the lives

At this
will
point

of the sons.

see,

do, hear,

in the account, Abram does or think, in terms of present

The
.

virtue of

anything of what he his actions rests

solely in their being a preparation for later generations On the basis of this verse one can draw no conclusions Eliezer. If we
are a

about

the character of

to

assume

that he

is the

same servant who appears

in Chapter 24,

he

seems to a

be

decent

man.

If, however,
s
chased

we read the verse

in

broader sense, it

becomes

bit

clearer.

Abram

Chedorlaomer has only been

the
verse's wider

fear may be more of Damascus than of Eliezer. back to Damascus, which means Babylon. In
that even if he

implications, Abram fears

is

able

to establish the

New Way, it will only be inherited and misinterpreted by Babylon. Abram seems convinced that he will be able to conquer the land; but he
will

whether and

be

able

to conquer the greater threat posed

by

Babylonian

arms

Babylonian

ways would seem

to be the

subject of

this all too

hazy

chapter.

4.

And, behold,
but he

the word

of the Lord came

unto

him,

saying,
shall

This

shall not

be

thine

heir;

that shall come forth out

of thine own
and

bowels

be

thine

heir.
and

5.

And He brought him forth abroad,

stars,

said, Look now toward

heaven,

tell the

if thou

be

able to number them: and

he

said unto

him,

So

shall thy seed

be.

God's first brilliance

of

attempt

to convince Abram is an appeal made to the manyness and

His Creation.

6.
7.

And he believed in the Lord;

and

he

counted

it to him for righteousness.

out

And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee

thee this

of Ur of the

Chaldees,

to give

land

to inherit it.

The Lion
The
possible grammar of

and the

Ass
to
unravel.

21
The two

this verse is

difficult, if not impossible,

translations

are:

And he

[Abram} believed the Lord; and he [the Lord]

other

counted

him [Abram]

righteous.

The

possibility is:

And he

[Abram] believed the Lord; and he [Abram]

counted

him [the Lord]

as righteous.

The first
subject,

interpretation,
is certainly
best

which

Paul gave,

requires an

implied

change

in the
a

which

permissible within

Hebrew grammar, though

bit
at

strange, particularly

since the pronoun

one can

is

not emphasized.

Since

so much

is

stake,

perhaps the

do is to

attempt

to

spell out of

the

implications

of

the

two alternatives

and make a

judgment

on the

basis

the text as a whole.

worthiness of the

The first interpretation implies that God's recognition of the

man

is

fundamentally

determined

by

his faith in God, God's

to

as

distinguished, for

instance, from his dedication to those The second interpretatiorj would

based
upon

ways that are

seem

ways.

imply that Abram 's belief in God is

chapter as a whole

his belief that God is Abram's fears,

just God. Since the

is

an

attempt to relieve

such a context would seem

to speak in

favor

of

the latter interpretation.

However,

the point is quite difficult.

8.

And he said, Lord God, whereby

shall

I know that I

shall

inherit it?

Though Abram
seemed sure

appeared

to be

convinced of clear

to be

missing.

From Verse 6 it is he

God's justice, something that Abram believed God and

still

was

God

would act

justly, but Abram

was still confused

because, according to the

be
understood as an

present political present.

situation as

understood

it,

the threat of Babylon was still

The

following

rather strange verses must somehow

answer

to Abram

s question.

9.

And he
years

said unto

him, Take
him but
all

me an
years and

heifer of three

years

old, and a she goat

of three

old, and a ram

unto

of three
the

old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

10.

A nd he took

these,

divided them in
not.

the midst, and

laid each piece

one

against another:

birds divided he
came

11.

And

when

the

carrion

birds

down

upon

the carcasses

Abram drove them

away.

If this is God's
sacrifice and

answer, our problem must

be to find the
to

significance of the question. animals: a

to see how it can be

with

undertsood as an answer

Abram's

Let

us

begin

the first
a

problem.

Abram is told to
and a pigeon.

sacrifice

five

heifer,

a she goat,

a ram,

turtledove,

The birds

seem

to be a

reference

to Lev.

5:7:

22
But

Interpretation if his means do not suffice for a sheep, he shall bring to the Lord,
one for a sin as

his penalty for that

otherfor a

of which he is guilty, two turtledoves or two pigeons,

offering and the

burnt offering.

The she-goat,

while under various circumstance

said

people, is the one animal that is

a ruler

to be particularly

may be offered by various fitting for a sacrifice made by

and

(Lev. 4:22). The

other

two animals, according to Levitical

and

appropriate to the average

Israelite be
to

to the priests,

Law, are equally hence it is difficult to

group.

establish which sacrifice would passage

most appropriate
understand

to which

The

present nation

in Genesis

would seem

the law to divide the

future

into four

classes: the poor, the average

man, the ruler, and the priests.

classes.

Abram, in
form
of

turn,
any

gives a sacrifice

for

each of the

four

Verse 10 is

much more

difficult to understand,

since

it is

unlike the

sacrifice mentioned

in the Torah.

Reading
itself,
one as

the Bible

is,

at

best,

difficult

affair.

Even to

use

the

word

Bible

if it

were all

the

work of a single one of

author, may cause grave

contained

problems when

tries to

understand

any

the books

in it.
are will

Prophecy
familiar to
agree.

comes to the world

through Prophets. It speaks in terms that

each

Prophet,

and

to that extent one cannot expect that all Prophets

coat gain

Traditions like Joseph's

all

their richness from their

manyness.

Bearing

this in mind and

knowing
used

the traps we

may be

falling into,

let

us

continue on our way.

The Hebrew
word, and
will

word

the author

in Verse 10 for piece is

a rather uncommon

used the word

only occur once again in the whole of Biblical literature. Jeremiah in Chapter 34, Verse 18, and since the context in which it appears is
sacrifice, it is reasonable to
suppose

also concerned with a

that Abram

s sacrifice

is

intimately connected to the one described by Jeremiah. The passage from Jeremiah
reads as

follows:

1.

The

word which came unto and all

Jeremiah from the Lord,

when

Babylon,
2 Thus
tell

his

army, and all the

kingdoms of the
and against all and speak to

earth

Neb-u-chad-nez:ar king of of his dominion, and all

thereof, saying,

the people, fought against

.

Jerusalem,

the cities

saith the

Lord,

the

God of Israel; Go

Zed-e-kiah

him, Thus saith the Lord; behold, I Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire:
3
.

will give this

city into the hand of the

king ofJudah and king of

,

And thou

shalt not escape out

of his

hand, but shah surely be taken,

the eyes of the

and

delivered into
and

his hand;
4.

and thine eyes shall

behold

king

of Babylon,

he

shall

speak with

thee mouth to mouth, and thou shalt go to

word

Babylon.

Yet hear the

Thou 5. But

shalt not

of the Lord, O Zed-e-kiah die by the sword:

king ofJudah; thus saith the Lord of thee,

burnings of thy fathers,
the

thou shalt

die in

peace: and with the

former kings lament thee,

before thee, so shall they burn odours for thee; and they saying, Ah Lord! for I have pronounced the word, saith the Lord.
which were

will

The Lion
6. Then Jeremiah

and the

Ass
Zed-e-kiah

23

the prophet spake all these words unto

king

ofJudah

in

Jerusalem,
7
.

When the Judah

king ofBabylon 's armyfought against Jerusalem

left,
against

and against all the cities

of

that were

Lachish,

and against

A-zekah: for these defenced

cities

remained

of the

cities ofJudah.

This is had

the word that came unto

Jeremiah from

the

Lord,

after that the

made a covenant with all

the people which were at

Jerusalem,
his

to proclaim

king Zed-e-kiah liberty being an

unto

them;
man should

9.

That every Hebrew or

let his
go

manservant, and

even-

man

maidservant ,

an

Hebrewess,
princes,

free;

that none should serve

himself

of them, to wit, of a into the covenant,

maidservant, go obeyed, and

Jew his brother.

10.

Now

when all the

and all

the people, which

and

had

entered one

heard

that

every

one should

let his manservant,

every

his

free,
11
.

that none should serve themselves

of them any more,

then

they

let

them go.

But afterward they turned,

and caused

the servants and the

handmaids,

whom

they had

let go free, to return, 12. 13. Therefore Thus

that

and

brought them into subjection for servants andfor handmaids.

the word

saith the

of the Lord came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Lord, the God of Israel; I made a covenant with your fathers in the day
out

I brought them forth

end

of the land of Egypt,

go

14.

At the

of seven years
and when

let ye

every

man

out of the house of bondmen saying, his brother an Hebrew, which hath been
,

sold unto

thee;

he hath

served thee six years, thou shalt

unto

let him
ear.

go free from

thee:

but your fathers hearkened not

were now

me,

neither

inclined their

15

And ye
man

turned,

and

had done had

right

in my

sight.

to

his

neighbour; and ye
name:

made a covenant

before

In proclaiming liberty eveiy me in the house which is

called

by my

16.

But ye turned and polluted my

name , and caused

every man his servant

and

eveiy man
them

his handmaid,
17. Therefore

whom

he had set at liberty at their pleasure,

unto you for servants and

to return, and

brought

into subjection, to be

for handmaids.
unto

thus saith the Lord:

Ye have

not

hearkened

me, in

proclaiming
a

liberty,

every one to

his brother,

and

eveiy

man

to

his

neighbour:

behold, I proclaim
famine;

liberty
I
will

for
18.

you, saith the

Lord,
men

to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the

and

make you

to

be

removed

into

all

the

kingdoms of the
made

earth.

And I will give the

the words of the

that

have

transgressed my covenant, which

have they

not performed
cut

covenant which

they had

before

me, when

the

calf in

twain, and passed between the pieces thereof,

19.

The princes of Judah.

all the people

20.

will even

and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, and the priests, and of the land, which passed betiveen the pieces of the calf; give them into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of them that seek

their

life:

and their

dead bodies

shall

be for

meat unto

the fowls of the

heaven,

and to

the

beasts of the

earth.

21.

AndZed-e-kiah
and

into the hand of them that seek their

king ofJudah and his princes will I give into the hand of their enemies, life, and into the hand of the king ofBabylon's
up from
saith

army, which are gone

you.

22.

Behold, I will command,

shall

the

Lord,
and

and cause

them to return to this city; and

they
of

fight
a

against

it,

and take

it,

burn it

with

fire:

and

will make the cities

Judah

desolation

without an

inhabitant.

(Jer.

34)

24
Babylon
was was about to attack.

Interpretation
be tempted to say that Chedorlaomer in Damascus. Jeremiah looked around him and heard the One
might was to

beginning

to stir

Lord say that Jerusalem

proclaimed

fall

since she
on

had

not

kept the Sabbatical Year

prophet

nor

liberty

throughout the

land

the Jubilee. The

has in

mind

the

verse:

And ye

shall

hallow
thereof:

the fiftieth year, and proclaim

liberty throughout all the land unto all the

return

inhabitants
possession,

it

shall

be

jubile

unto

you; and ye shall

every

man unto

his

and ye shall return

every

man unto

his family.

(Lev.

25:10)

Why

are

these two occasions so important that Jermiah should single out

out as the prime cause of their
we

Israel 's find

an

failure to carry them

command

destruction? If

we can

answer to that question

may be in

better

position

to understand

God's

to Abram.
and

The passage,
of

Verse 14 in particular, is

a reference

to the fifteenth chapter

Deuteronomy,

which

deals

with

Jeremiah indicates, Our task is to

sense

as we shall show

the Sabbatical Year, though in verse 17 later, that he includes the Jubilee Year as well.

understand

the significance of these two occasions and to see in what

they

give us a

According to the
for
no more and all

better understanding of sacrifice. laws of Deuteronomy, slavery among the

years.
.

people was

to last

than seven

At the

end of each seventh year all slaves were

let

free

debts foregiven

At the

2.

end of eveiy seven years thou shalt make And this is the manner of the release: eveiy

a release.

creditor that

lendeth
or

ought unto

his

neighbour shall release

it; he

shall not exact

it of his neighbour,

of his brother;

because it is
3
4
.

called

the Lord's

release.

Of a foreigner thou
hand shall
release;

mayest exact

it again: but that

which

is thine

with

thy brother thine

Save

when

land
5.

which the

Only

be no poor among you ;for the Lord shall greatly bless thee in the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it: if thou carefully hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to obsene to do all
there shall

these commandments which I command thee this

day.
lend
unto

6.

For the Lord thy God blesseth thee, many nations, but thou
shalt not

as

He

promised thee: and thou shalt

borrow;

and

thou

shalt reign over many

nations, but

they
7. land

shall not reign over thee.

If there be among you

which the

a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine handfrom thy poor brother:

But thou

shalt open thine

hand wide
wanteth.

unto

him

and shalt

surely lend him

sufficient for

his need, in
9.

that which

he

Beware
year

that there

be
at

not a

thought
and

in thy

wicked

heart,

saying, the seventh year, the

of release, is

hand;

thine eye

be

evil against

thy
and

poor

brother,

and thou

givest

him nought;

and

he cry

unto the

Lord

against

thee,

it be

sin unto

thee.

The Lion
10. Thou

and the

Ass

25

shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: because that for this thing the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and

in

all

that thou puttest thine

hand unto.
of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, thou
to

11

For the poor shall

shalt open

never cease out

thine

hand wide unto thy brother,

anHebrewman,
or an

thy poor,

and

to

thy needy, in thy land.

thee,
andserve

12.

And if thy And

brother,

Hebrew woman, be

sold unto

thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt

let him

go free from thee.

13. 14.

when thou sendest shalt furnish

him

out freefrom out

thee, thou

shalt not

let him

go

away

empty:

Thou

him

liberally

winepress:

of that

wherewith the

of thy flock, of thy floor, Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt
and out

and out

of thy

give unto

him.
15
.

And

16.

thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the Lord God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this day. thy thing to And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go awayfrom thee; because he loveth thee
and

thine

house, because he is
And also
unto

well with

thee;

17

Then

thou shalt take an awl, and thrust

unto

it through his ear unto the

door,

and

he

shall

be

thy
18.
It

servant for ever.

thy

maidservant thou shalt

do likewise.

shall not seem

hard

thee,

when

thou sendest to thee,

hath been 19

worth a

double hired servant

thee in all that thou
that come

in serving

him away free from thee; for he thee six years: and the Lord

thy God shall bless

.

doest.
shalt

All the firstling males

Lord thy God: thou

of thy herd and of thy flock thou

the firstling of thy

sanctify

unto the

shalt

do

no work with

bullock,
which

nor shear the

firstling of thy sheep.

20
.

Thou

shalt eat

it before the Lord thy God year by year in the place

the Lord shall

choose, thou and

21.
22.

And

if there

thy household. be any blemish therein,

it within thy
the

as

if it be lame,
thy God.

or

blind,

or

have any ill blemish,

thou shalt not sacrifice it unto the Lord

Thou

shalt eat

gates: the unclean and

the clean person shall eat it alike , as

the roebuck,

and as

hart.
thou shalt pour it
upon

23

Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof;

the ground as water.

(Deut.

15)

The laws concerning the Sabbatical Year

are

first

mentioned

in Exodus
rest.

where

they

are

closely

connected with

the care of strangers and with

Sabbath

shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were in the land of Egypt. And six years thou shalt sow thy land and shalt gather in the fruits thereof; But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy

Also thou
strangers

people

may

eat: and what

they leave

the

beasts of the field

shall eat.

In like

manner

thou

shalt

deal with thy

vineyard, and with

thy oliveyard. Six days thou

shalt

do thy work,
(Ex.

and on

the seventh

day

thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass

may rest,

and the son

of thy

handmaid,
The

and the stranger,

may be

refreshed.

23:9-12)

other

two

passages are rather

them in full. The first of them

long, but it will be worthwhile to quote is contained in Leviticus, Chapter 25, but to see its
Chapter 26.

fullness

we must also consider

26

Interpretation

Chapter 25

And the Lord Speak

which

spake unto

Moses in Mount Sinai, saying,

and

2.

unto

the

Children of Israel,

say

unto

them, When

ye come

into the land

give you, then shall the

land keep

a sabbath unto the

Lord.

3.

Six

years

thou shalt sow

thy field,
be

and six years

thou shalt prune

thy

vineyard, and

gather

in the fruit thereof;

seventh year shall a sabbath

4.

But in the

of rest unto the

land,

a sabbath for the

Lord:

thou shalt neither sow

thy field,

nor prune

thy

vineyard.

6.

of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for it is a year of rest unto the land. And the sabbath of the land shall be meatfor you; for thee, andfor thy sen'ant, andfor

That which

groweth

of its

own accord

thy
7.

maid, and for

And for thy

thy hired servant, and for thy stranger cattle, and for the beast that are in thy land,
ofyears
shall
unto

that sojourneth
shall all the

with

thee,

increase thereof

be
8
.

meat. shalt number seven sabbaths

seven sabbaths
cause

And thou

thee,

seven

times seven years;

and nine years.

and

the space of the

of years

be

unto

thee forty

9.

Then

shalt

thou

the trumpet of the jubilee to sound on the tenth

shall ye make

day of the seventh

month, in the

day

of atonement

the trumpet

sound

throughout all your

land. 10.
And ye
all the unto shall

hallow the fiftieth year,

and proclaim ajubile unto

liberty throughout all the land unto

you; and ye shall
return

inhabitants thereof: it shall be

eveiy

man

his possession,
shall

and ye shall return

every

man unto

his family.

11.

A jubile

12.

that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed. For it is the jubile; it shall be holy unto you: ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the
groweth

field.
13
.

In the year of this jubile

ye shall return

eveiy
or

man unto

his possession
of thy

14.

And

if thou

sell ought unto

thy neighbour,

buyest

ought

neighbour's

hand,

ye

shall not oppress one another:

15.

According to the number ofyears after the jubile

according
unto

thou shalt

buy of thy neighbour,

and

the number of years of the fruits

he

shall sell unto thee:

16.

According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and accord ing to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it: for according to the
number

of the years of the fruits doth he

sell unto

thee.

17.

Ye

shall not

therefore oppress one another;

but

thou shalt fear

thy God: for I

do them;

am the

Lord your God. 18. Wherefore ye

shall

do my statutes,
safety.

and

keep my judgments,

and

and ye shall

dwell in
19.

the

land in

And the land shall yield herfruit, And in

20. 21.
22

and ye shall eat yourfill, and dwell therein in safety. if ye shall say, What shall we eat the seventh year? Behold, we shall not sow, nor

gather

our

increase:
my

Then I

will command

blessing

upon you

in the

sixth

year, and it shall

fruitfor three years.

.

bring forth
her

And ye

shall sow

the eighth year, and eat

yet

of old fruit

until the ninth year; until

fruits

come

in

ye shall eat

of the

old store.

The Lion
23. The land
shall not

and the

Ass

27
ye are strangers and

be

sold

for

ever:

for the land is Mine; for

sojourners with me.

24. 25.

And in

all the

If thy brother be waxen poor,

his kin
come

land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land. and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold.
to redeem

26. 27.

And

if the man have none

he
sold

it,

and

himself be able to redeem it;

and restore the overplus unto

Then let him

to
whom

count the years

of the

sale

thereof,

the

man

it;

that

he may

return unto

his possession.
is sold shall remain in the hand
and he

28.

But

ifhe be not able to restore it to him,

then that which

and

of him that hath bought it until the year ofjubile: shall return unto his possession.

in the jubile it shall go out,

29.
30.

And

if a

man sell a

dwelling

house in

a walled city, then

he may
the

redeem

it

within a

whole year after

it is sold;

within a full year

And

if it be
city

not redeemed within

the space
to

may he redeem it. of a full year, then

house that is in the

walled

shall

be

established for ever

him

that

bought it

throughout

his

genera

tions: it shall not go out in the jubile.

31

But the houses of the

the fields of the

villages which

have

no wall round about them shall

be counted as

country:

they may be

redeemed, and
and the

they

shall go out

in the jubile. of their posses of his Levites

32.

Notwithstanding
sion, may the

the cities of the

redeem at

Levites,

houses of the

cities

Levites

any time.
then the

33.

And

if a man purchase of the Levites,

out

house

that was sold, and the city

cities

possession, shall go
are their possession

in

the year

ofjubile: for the houses of the of Israel. may

in
not

of the

among the
suburbs

children

34.

But the field of the

possession
.

of

their cities

be

sold;

for it is

their perpetual

35.

And

if thy brother be waxen poor,

though
no

and fallen a

decay

with

thee; then thou

shalt relieve

him: yea, 36. Take thou

thee.

he may live with thee. that thy brother may live increase: butfear or God; him, thy usury of

he be

stranger, or

sojourner; that

with

37. 38.

Thou I
am

him thy money upon usuiy, nor lend him thy victuals for increase. God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt Jo give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.
shalt not give

the Lord your

39.
40.

And

if thy brother
as an

that

dwelleth

by

thee

by

waxen

poor, and

be

sold unto

thee; thou

shalt not compel

him to

sen-e as a

bondservant:

But

hired servant,

and as a sojourner,

he

shall

be

with

thee,

and shall serve

thee

41

ofjubile: he departfrom thee, both he then shall And

unto the year
unto

and

his

children with shall

him And shall return

.

his

own
are

family,

and unto

the possession

of his fathers
out

he

return.

42.

For they

my servants,
.

which

I broughtforth

of the land of Egypt: they

shall not

be
43
.

sold as

bondmen

Thou

shalt not rule over and

him

with rigour;

but

shalt fear

thy God.

44.

Both thy bondmen,

that

thy bondmaids,
of the

which thou shalt

have,

are round about you;

children

of them shall ye
strangers
with

buy

bondmen

and

shall be of the heathen bondmaids.

45.

Moreover of the

that

do

sojourn

among

you,

buy,
shall

and of their families that are

you, which

they begat in

your

of them shall ye land: and they

be

your possession

46.

Andye

shall take them as an

inheritance for your children

after you,

to inherit them for

28
apossession;

Interpretation
they shall be your bondmenfor ever: but over your brethren
rigour.
and

the children

47.

of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee,
wax poor, and sell stranger 's family:

thy brother

that

dwelleth

by him
of the

himself unto the stranger of sojourner by thee,

he may be
redeemed

or to the stock

48. 49.

After that he is

sold

again; one of his brethren may redeem

him: him

Either his

uncle , or

his

uncle's

son, may redeemhim, or any that

50

of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem And he shall reckon with him that bought himfrom the year that he
the year

is nigh of kin himself.

was sold

unto

to

him unto

ofjubile:

and

the price of his sale shall be according

unto

the number ofyears,

according 51
.

to the time

of an hired servant

shall

it be

with

him.

52.

according unto them he shall give again the price of his redemption out of the money that he was bought for. And if there remain butfew years unto the year ofjubile, then he shall count with him,
and

If there be yet many years behind,

according
as a

unto

his years

shall

he

give

him
with

again

the price

of his

redemption.

53.

And

yearly hired

servant shall sight.

he be

him:

and the other shall not rule with

rigour over

him in thy his

54.

And

if he be
and unto me
out

not redeemeed

in these years, then he

shall go out

in the

year

ofjubile, I brought

both he,
55.
For

children with

him.
servants whom

forth

the children of Israel are servants; they are my of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Chapter 26

1.

Ye

shall make you no

neither shall ye set

idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, up any image ofstone in your land, to bow down unto it: fori am the
and reverence my sanctuary:

Lord your God.

2 3

Ye

shall

keep my sabbaths,
in my statutes,

am

the

Lord.

If

ye walk

and

keep my commandments,
and the

4.

Then I

will give you rain

in due season,

do them; land shall yield her increase,

and

and the

trees of the field shall yield their fruit.

And your threshing sowing And I will

shall reach unto

the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the

to the full, and

time: and ye shall eat your

give peace

bread

dwell in your land safely.

and none shall make you

6.

in the

land,

and ye shall

lie down,

afraid: and I will rid evil

beasts out of the land,

neither shall the sword go through your

land.
1.

And ye

shall chase your

enemies, and they shall fall before you

by the sword.

Andfive ofyou
For I
will

shall chase an

hundred,

and an

hundred ofyou shall put ten thousand to

the sword.

flight; and your enemies

9.
10. 11. 12. 13
.

shall fall

before you by

have

respect unto you,

and make you

fruitful,

and multiply you,

and

establish

my

covenant with you.

And ye

shall eat old

store, and

bring forth
be

the old

because of the
and ye shall
out

new.
.

And I
I

will set

my tabernacle among you:

and my soul shall not abhor you

And I will
am the

walk

among you,

and will

your

God,

Lord

your

God,

which

brought

you

forth

of the

be my people. land Egypt

'of

that

ye

The Lion
should not

and the

Ass
the

29
and made you

be

their

bondmen; and I have broken

bands ofyour yoke,

go upright.

14; 15
.

But
And
not

if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; ifye shall despise my statutes, or ifyour soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will
all

do

16.

also will

my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption,
sorrow

and

the

burning
17. And I

ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause

of heart: and ye shall sow

your seed

in

vain

for your

enemies shall eat

it.

will set

my face

against you, andye shall

be

slain

before your

enemies:

they

that

hate
18.

you shall reign over

you; andye shall flee when none pursueth you.

And

if ye

will not yet for all this

hearken

unto

me, then I

will punish you seven

times

more for your sins.

19.

And I will break the pride ofyour power; and I will make earth as brass:
And
your strength shall

your

heaven

as

iron,

andyour

20. 21.
22.

be

spent

in

vain:

for

your

land

shall not yield

her increase,

neither shall

the trees of the

land yield their fruits.

And ifye /

walk

contrary

unto me, and will not

hearken

unto

me; I will bring

seven

times

more plagues upon you

will also send wild
your

according to your beasts among you,

make you

sins. which shall rob you

of your children,

and

destroy

cattle, and

few in number;

and your

high

ways shall

be

desolate. 23
.

And

if ye will not be reformed by me by these things,

will

but

will walk

contrary

unto

me;

24.

Then
sins.

also walk

contrary

unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your

25.

And I

will

bring a sword upon you,

together

that shall avenge the quarrel

of my

covenant: and

when ye are gathered

within your

cities, I will send the pestilence among you ;

and ye shall

26.

And

when
,

one oven not

be delivered into the hand of the enemy. I have broken the staff of your bread, ten women shall bake your bread in and they shall deliver you your bread again by weight: andye shall eat, and
this

be

satisfied.
will not for all

27.

And

if ye

hearken

unto me,

but

walk

contrary

unto me;

28.
29. 30.

Then I

will walk

contrary

unto you also

injury;

and

I,

even

I,

will chastise you seven

times for your sins.

And ye

shall eat the flesh will

And I

destroy

your

of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. high places, and cut down your images, and cast your
of your

carcasses upon the carcasses

idols,

and

my

soul shall abhor you

31.

And 1

will make your cities

waste, and

bring your sanctuaries unto desolation,

enemies which

and

will not smell

the savour

32. 33. 34.

35.

And I

will

bring the
it
.

of your sweet odours. land into desolation: and your

dwell therein

shall

be

astonished at

And I
your

will scatter you

among the heathen,

and will

draw

out a sword after you: and

land shall be desolate,

shall

andyour cities waste.

Then

the

land enjoy her

sabbaths, as the

long as

it lieth

desolate,
in

and ye

be in

your

land;
As
ye

even then shall

land

rest, and enjoy

her sabbaths.
your

long as
dwelt

it lieth desolate it it.

shall rest;

because it did

not rest

sabbaths,

when

upon

30
36. And
upon

Interpretation
them that are

left

alive

of you I

will send afaintness shaken

into

their

hearts in the

lands of their

enemies; and the sound of a

a

leaf

shall chase

them;

and

they shall

flee,
37.

as

fleeing from
have

sword;

and

they

shall fall when none pursueth.

And they

shall fall one upon

another, as it were

before

a sword, when none pursueth:

andye shall

no power to stand

before

your enemies.

38

And ye shall perish among the heathen, And they that

and also are

and the

39.
40.

left of you
their

shall pine

land ofyour enemies shall eat you up. in their iniquity in your lands; away
shall

enemie

in the iniquities of their fathers

they pine away they have

with

them.

If they
which

shall confess

iniquity,

and the

iniquity
,

of their fathers, with their trespass

walked

they

trespassed against me, and that also

walked

contrary

unto

me;

41

And that I also have

their enemies;

contrary

unto

them and

have brought them into the land of

and

if then

their

uncircumcised

hearts be humbled,

they

then accept

of

the punishment

of their

iniqity:
convenant with

42

Then
also

will

I remember my

Jacob,

and also

my

covenant with

Isaac,
land.

and

my

covenant with

Abraham

will

remember; and
and shall

will remember the

43.

The land

also shall

be left of them,

enjoy her sabbaths,

the punishment
,

while she

lieth

desolate

without them: and even

because,
my

they of because they despised my judgments

shall accept

of

their iniquity:

and

because

their soul abhorred

statutes.
when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them:

44.

Andyetfor all that,

neither will

for I 45.

am

the

Lord

their

God.
of their ancestors,
,

But I

will for their sakes remember the covenant

out

whom

I brought God: I am

forth
the

of the

land of Egypt in

the sight of the

heathen

that I might be their

Lord.
which the

46

These are the statutes and judgments and laws,

the children

Lord made between Him and

(Lev. 25 ,26)

of Israel in Mount Sinai

by

the

hand of Moses.

For Jeremiah the days

chaos and
would
.

spoken of at

the end

of

Chapter 26 had come,

bringing

destruction Then he thought of what God had said; that the desolate land finally enjoy her Sabbaths, her inhabitants taken to a foreign land. What

then are these

laws,
is

and

why does the

aware of what

entire structure

depend

so

heavily on them?
will

The

author

fully

is

perhaps

the most

fundamental of political
bit later on, he

problems.

In

a passage with which we shall concern ourselves a

say: the poor shall never cease out

the Utopian

of the land (Deut. 15:11). Even while setting up dream of the Jubilee he never loses sight of the given man: the highest

freedom may be eternally accompanied by the lowest. The Hebrew word for liberty, which appeared in Lev. 25:10, is often used to describe a liquid that runs freely. It describes a people who do not live under a strong government, and it allows for the proper relationship among men who live together on a land but whose ultimate allegiance cannot be fully described in purely political terms. Strong governments find their legitimacy in the strength required to prevent the few from tyrannizing the many. The distinction between the few and
the many presupposes
a sufficient amount of
a release at

time in which the

of every

late their wealth.

few may

accumu

By proclaiming

the end

fifty-year period,

the

The Lion
Jubilee Year
not

and the

Ass

31

only makes it difficult for any one man to gain the power needed for oppression, but it also makes the prize less attractive by virtue of its temporary
nature.

In this

sense

the goal of the Jubilee Year is to

allow

for a minimal
This

amount of

government combined with a minimal amount of oppression.

During the Jubilee Year the land is allowed to lie fallow.

the men to

year encourages

dedicate themselves
that can

more

to the land of their fathers than to any

personal gain

be drawn

out of

it.

Land primarily belongs to families. Individuals may live on it, and, for a time, even sell it in case of need. But they may not sell it forever (Lev. 25:23). Houses within walled cities are not included in the laws of the Jubilee because

they do

not

belong

to the land and hence do not

belong

to the family.

They

are

merely things and as such may pass freely from one to another. But houses on the land belong to that land and make it livable. They are not things, but part of a

family,

and

may

not

be

sold forever.

Before going on we must stop and ask ourselves why the Book of Leviticus, which is almost entirely devoted to the dull intricacies of the sacrifices, should
culminate

in the

author

's fullest

statement of

his

attempt

to deal with the most

basic,

though perhaps not the

will

highest,

political question.

Oppression
things that
pass

only

cease when men

learn to distinguish between

mere

commonly from hand to hand and are available to satisfy the infinite desires of any man, from the dignity that surrounds all men when each man
on

dwells

the land of

his father.

According
which also

to the

Bible,
with the

this is perhaps less

soul of the one who

important for the

recognizes.

one recognized and reinstated than

it is for the

Deuteronomy Fifteen,
Year,
read

deals

freeing

of slaves at

the end of the Seventh

in part;
him away from from thee; for he hath years: and the Lord thy God
(Deut.

It

shall not seem

worth a

hard

unto

thee,

when

thou sendest

been
shall

double hired

servant

to thee, in serving thee six

bless

thee in all that thou

doest.

15:18)
are

The

sacrifices ordained produce a soul

in Leviticus that
whom

make

intended to But

for

it

shall not seem

giving a hard.

normal part of

life

sacrifice

is

complicated, and we must look again. After the Egyptians

Moses had

successfully
Moses'

escaped

ing
taken
upon

wife and

two

children.

his father-in-law, Jethro, came to visit, bring During his visit, Jethro noticed that Moses had
of

himself the burden

of

ensuring the tranquility

his

people

by listening

to every

case.

It
the

was

he

who suggested

to Moses that laws be

provided and

for the people, that judges. The New

right

way

of action might

be

clear

both to them initiated

to their

Way,

the way of written

visible

law,

was not

by God,

but

prompted

by

a need

clearly

to human

understanding.

God

accepted

the human invention and

the laws concerning the was willing to give laws. Prior to Jethro 's arrival only before Jethro the function more that generally, Passover had been given. To restate

32
of

Interpretation
law merely to remind the people of their unity and political independence God. At first God intended to give the new law to all of the people, but the
was

under

people

became frightened
receive

and suggested

to Moses that he

go alone

to the

top

of

Mount Sinai to

the Law (Ex. 22:19).

By
people,
and

virtue of

that decision a great

gap

was made

between Moses
and

and

the

and some attempt

had to be

made to close

it. Aaron

his sons, Nadab

Abihu, along

with

70 elders,

were

invited to have

a certain vision of

God. The

text reads:

Then

went

And they
sapphire children

saw

up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and A-bihu, and seventy of the elders oflsra-el: the God oflsra-el: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a
and as

stone,

it were the
not

body ofheaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles ofthe

his hand:
also

of Isra-el He laid

they

saw

God,

and

did

eat and

drink.

(Ex.

24:9-11)

The
preted

attempt was

disastrous,

the vision

in its lowest form. The final

result can

completely misunderstood and inter be seen in Leviticus, chapter 10:

And Nadab therein,

and

A-bihU,

the sons of Aaron, took either

and offered strange

and put

incense thereon,
And there

of them his censer, and put fire fire before the Lord, which he
and

commanded them not.

went out fire from

died before the Lord. Then Moses said

will

unto

the Lord, and devoured them, Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake,

they

saying, I

be

sanctified

in them that

come nigh

me, and

before

all

the people

will

be

glorified.

And Aaron held his peace. And Moses called Misha-el and Elza-phan, the sons ofUzzi-el the
uncle

of Aaron,
out

and said unto

sanctuary
camp; as

of the camp.
said.

Moses had

them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the So they went near, and carried them in their coats out of the And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto E-le-azar and unto
not your

Itha-mar, his sons, Uncover

wrath come upon all

heads,

neither rend your clothes;

lest ye die,

and

lest

the people:

but let your brethren,

the whole

house oflsra-el, bewail the

burning which the Lord hath kindled. And ye shall not go outfrom the door of the tabernacle
of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you. And they did according to the word ofMoses. And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine
nor

strong

drink,

thou,
ye

nor

thy

sons with

thee,

when ye go

into the tabernacle of

(Lev.

the

congregation, lest

die: it

shall

be

a statute

for

ever

throughout

your generations:

10:1-9)

The
the laws

seven chapters

that

follow Moses These laws

'

return

from Mount Sinai are devoted to

concerning

sacrifice.

were presented to

Moses,

alone,

at

the

top

of the mountain.
a golden calf.

them

In his absence, the people The disasters that had been

rebelled and asked

Aaron to build Aaron

no and

confined to the sons of

the 70 elders pervaded the people at large.

speak of

During

this time the people

man

longer

Moses the

servant

of God but merely the

Moses. Moses
where

punished

them severely

and moved the tent

ofmeeting
a

out of the

camp,

it

would

in

stay,

one

form

or

another,

until

there was

king

in Israel. When Moses

returned

from

The Lion
Mount Sinai beams
more

and the

Ass

33

of light were streaming from his brow, and the people could no him than they had been able to look upon God earlier. Moses was forced to veil his face from the people, and removed the veil only in the presence of

look

on

God (Ex. 34:30-35). At this point

aside

one cannot
a

help remembering a young shepherd who once turned

covered

to see what caused

bush to burn (Ex. 3:3). At that time he

at the presence of

his

eyes

because he feared to look Perhaps the

most

freely among striking character of the Torah is its presentation of a founder who, for the good of his people, never underwent apotheosis. But from this
walked
men.

God, but

passage we can see

how

narrow

the escape was,

and

any

successful

founder must

come.

The author,

and even

how very close to apotheosis Moses himself, was fully

aware of

the

narrow path

that had to be traversed.

Moses (Deut.

34:6)

was

buried

by

the Lord

Himself, in

some unknown

spot,

so

that no man would ever go there

to worship.

It is difficult for necessarily fall

men

to follow a way

whose

founder in

was not a god.

Yet the
all

notion of apotheosis within monotheism

implies

that

comparison with

Him,

men

so short of human aspirations

a serious attempt on

that any nobility

and understand

ing they could achieve by

their own

part would

be

negligible.

When considering the actions of Nadab problem, and yet the Old Testament never

and Abihu we can see the wishes

to

make

enormity of the the gap between men as

they

are and men as

they

should

be infinite.

Let

us review once more set of

the circumstances surrounding the

Giving

of

The
was

Law. The first

given

laws,

which

deal

with man's relation to

his fellow man,

because

of clear and

definite

problems

that Jethro realized when he saw that

Moses

could not continue

judging all the people by himself.

should

These laws

were given

so that men would so that men

know how they

best

act with regard

to one another, and

lesser than Moses

would

be

able

to judge most cases in which a law had

been broken. When Moses because

no returned

from the

mountain

he

repeated

the

laws to the
on

people

laws

can

have force

without promulgation.

However,

that occasion

the author saw no reason to

promulgation.

repeat

the

laws, but

contented

himself by reporting the

The incidents surrounding the giving

more complicated.
which

of the second set of

laws

were somewhat

First there

was

the episode of Nadab,

Abihu,

and

the elders,

in

those

closest

to Moses had a twisted and ugly vision of God. After that affair
mountain

Moses

returned

to the

in

order

to receive the laws pertaining to sacrifice

and the

Tabernacle. This time the laws

are repeated almost verbatim after

Moses
Law

returned, even though five

chapters are required.

These two

statements of the

frame the incident

The first
visible

of the

Golden Calf.
was given as an answer
manner

set of

laws

to clear and obvious problems

to Jethro. In a like

the

second set of

laws

was an answer

to the
all

problems pervasive

implied in the

actions

of

Nadab

and

Abihu,

which

had become

during

the

affair of

the Golden Calf. Given the

fact that the text frames

34

Interpretation

to the story of the Golden Calf with the two accounts of the laws pertaining to book the of intention not the imply sacrifice, one is forced to ask whether it is in the Tabernacle and perhaps even in the Temple that the whole of the

worship

itself is, from Golden Calf.

one

point

of

view,

nothing

more

than

substitute

for the

Since the time

of

Cain

men

have

required

of themselves

sacrifice

to

those something beyond themselves. What lies behind

soul seems to
contains. sacrifice.

actions within

the human
soul

be

a patchwork of the most noble and the most

base that the

God, up
Abel's

to the time of

Abram,

seemed at

best to be indifferent to
the head because of

sacrifice was accepted with a pat on sacrifice was

still

his

simplicity, and

Cain's

At that time God may showed nothing. God's

ignored because it said very little about him. have had the highest hopes for Cain, but sacrifices
to Noah's sacrifice in Gen. 8:21
seemed

reaction

to reflect

the ambiguities in the human soul that sacrifice implies. It

also

contained a

promise, but

the

realization

that all was not right with man. thoughts lead men to this

What kinds

of passions and

deed,

which

is

viewed

by some as the highest moment of the year and by others as ugly and disgusting? In
a

sense, when we sacrifice an animal we gain absolute mastery over the animal,

and

in

another sense we need

become the

animal and

hence

sacrifice ourselves

The
chaotic eternal.

to sacrifice comes from the

desire to rejoin the

chaotic ,

insofar as the

is

understood

to be the most pervasive character of the whole, of the

sacrifice comes

The

need

to

from the desire to

understood

rejoin

the completely

ordered, insofar
character of

as

the completely ordered is

to be the most pervasive

the whole, of the eternal. The need to sacrifice comes from the desire

to assert one 's power over the whole ,

insofar as

one can ,

by one

s actions

force the

highest

power

to do one's bidding. The need to sacrifice comes from the desire to

nullify one's power in front of the whole insofar as one can, by one's actions, demonstrate one 's willingness to sacrifice oneself to the highest power. The laws
of sacrifice are

intended to

refine

this many-colored soul. Perhaps

the Rabbis of the Talmud

was a punishment

were not so sin

for the

wrong they said that Temple worship concerning the Golden Calf.
when

This

account of

the origins of sacrifice presented

in the Book far in

of

Exodus

was

intended only We
to

as a partial view.

Nothing

we

have

seen so

sacrifice would

be
.

sufficient to account
must still see

for the

role

it plays in

forming the inner relation of the people

and

how it forms their character

how it

makes

it

possible

for them

view men and possessions

respect

for

peoples

in such a way that they, will take for granted the implied in the Sabbatical Year. No better statement of the

relationship between sacrifice and the character it develops in the people can be found than that contained in Chapter 12 of Deuteronomy. We shall quote the whole
chapter,

inserting comments as

we proceed:

These

are

the statutes and judgments

which ye shall observe to

do in
ye

the

land,

which the

Lord God of thy fathers

giveth thee to possess

it,

all the

days

that

live

upon

the earth.

Ye

The Lion
shall utterly

and the

Ass

35

destroy high

all the

places, wherein the nations

which ye shall possess served their

gods, upon the

overthrow

mountains, and upon the

hills,

and under

eveiy

green tree:

Andye

shall

their altars, and

graven

break

their pillars, and

and

burn

their groves with fire; andye shall

out

hew down the

Ye

shall not

do

so unto the

images of their gods, Lord your God.

destroy the names of them

of that place.

(Deut.

12:1-4)

The

statement about sacrifice contained

in this

chapter

begins

with

the general

repudiation of pagan sacrifice.

The

objection

is

as much

to the means of sacrifice as

it is to the
chosen

notion of

many

gods

itself. The

absolute

by

the

Lord,

should

be used,

as will

demand that only one place, be mentioned in the next verse, is in

scnc their gods upon

sharp high mountain The worship in

contrast

to the second verse, in which the pagans

and upon

eveiy

the

hills and under eveiy green

statement given

tree.
objection to private

most explicit

Biblical

natural surroundings

is

concerning the in Is. 57:5-7:

Enflaming
are

yourselves with

idols

under

every

green

tree, slaying the children in the

valleys

under the clifts

of the

rocks?

Among

the smooth stones

of the

stream

is thy portion; they, they

meat offering.

thy lot:

even to them

hast thou poured a drink

in these? Upon
a

offering, thou
and

hast offered a

Should I
even

receive comfort wentest

lofty

high

mountain

hast

thou set

thy bed:

thither

thou up to offer sacrifice.

The destruction of the high places

the Tent of

and the

insistence that

sacrifices

be

made

in

Meeting
in

rather

than

under

every

green tree are

based

on the notion that

sacrifice made

natural surroundings

is

apt

to lead the people to turn back to those

passions that surrounded the sacrifice to the required the complete

Golden Calf. The

rise of sacrifice
art.

inversion

of

the Biblical attitude toward

As

we re

member, the Book

of

Genesis This

presented a

life

of the shepherd.

position

will

sharp criticism of art and a praise of the be maintained throughout the Book of be too

Genesis. But in Chapter 31

order that of

of

Exodus, God grants the wisdom of art to Benzaleel in

surroundings can
mindful

he

might

build the Tabernacle. Natural

the waters

of chaos

to be a proper setting for sacrifice. to art was based partly on the character of the
pre-artistic

The

primal objection

partly on Cain's first Biblical solution was a

world and

inability

to improve that world in a just the arts

and a return

manner.

The

rejection of

to the simple

life, but
the

the

rise of the need to sacrifice rendered that solution untenable. an attempt

The

rise of

Holy is
But

to refine art and make it capable of meeting the situation.

unto the place which the

Lord

your

God

shall choose out

of all

your

tribes to put

his

name

there,

even unto

his habitation

shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come:

(Deut.

12:5)

God begins to but

will not

set

be

resolved

up a certain tension in Verse 5 that will grow in this chapter for many chapters to come In a manner that resembles His
.
.

first

words to

Abram, Get thee out of thy country

Jo

land

which

shall show thee

(Gen. 12:1), God

withholds the name of the place

in

which the sacrifice

is to be

36
made.

Interpretation
This
mysterious

line,

the place

which

the

Lord your God

shall

choose, will

be

repeated six

times in the present chapter and no less than twenty-one times

in the

next

three chapters.

And

thither ye shall
offerings

bring

your

burnt offerings,

and your sacrifices, and your

tithes,

and

heave

of your

of your hand, andyour vows, andyour freewill herds and of your flocks: And there ye shall eat before in
all

offerings, and the firstlings the

Lord

your

God,
the

and ye

shall rejoice

that

ye put your

hand unto,

ye andyour

households,

wherein

Lord thy

God hath blessed

thee.

(Deut.

12:6,7)

Sacrifice is primarily
come

time of rejoicing in which all the people of all the tribes

and

together sharing their food

their happiness.

Ye

shall not

do

after all the

things that we

do here

this

day, every man

dwell in
the

whatsoever
,

is

right

in

his

own eyes.

For

ye are not as yet come

.

to the rest and to the

inheritance

which the

Lord

your

God giveth you But

you

when ye go over

Jordan,
be

and

land

which the

Lord your
about,
choose

God giveth
so that ye

to

inherit,
to

and when

He

giveth you rest from all your enemies round a place which the

dwell in safety; Then

name

there shall

Lord your God shall

to cause

his

dwell there;

thither shall ye

bring all that I command you; your burnt

heave offering ofyour hand, and all your before the Lord your God, ye,
maidservants, and the

offerings, andyour sacrifices,

your

tithes,

and the

choice vows which ye vow unto the

andyour

Lord: Andye

shall rejoice

sons, and your

daughters,
gates;

and your menservants and your

Levite that is

within your

forasmuch

as

he hath

no part nor

inheritance

with you.

(Deut.

12:8-12)
and

The

appointed sacrifice will mark a

time of rest in the land when slaves

all

free men, fathers

and

sons, will all be in one place,

sharing the

same things.

For

the second time God mentions the place the Lord your God shall choose.

Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in eveiy place that thou seest: But in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt
offerings, and there thou
shalt

do

all that

command

thee

(Deut.

12:13-14)

For the third time

special

we are warned

that all these things should be done in a

our appetite

way

and are

in

a certain place.
place.

Again

is

whetted

to know where all

these things

to take

Notwithstanding
after,

thou may est

to the
eat

kill

and eat flesh

in

all

thy

gates, whatsoever thy soul

lusteth

according

blessing

of the Lord thy God of the roebuck,

which

he hath

given thee: the unclean

and the clean

may

thereof,

as

and as

of the hart.

Only ye shall not eat the

(Deut. 12: 1 5- 16)

blood;

ye shall pour

it

upon the earth as water.

These
own gates.

verses stress the

joys

of

daily

life

when each man

is home

within

his

The joys

of

the sacrifice were

intended to

affect each man

's character

The Lion
and

and the

Ass

37
the abundance of what is

to give him a way of life. A stress

is

placed on

allowed, but Verse 15 reminds us that there are certain natural

which should not

limits

of

propriety

be broken.

Thou

mayest not eat within or

thy

gates the tithe

nor

of thy corn,

or

of thy wine,

or

of thy oil,

or the

firstlings of thy herds

offerings, or the place which the

of thy flock,

any of thy

vows which thou vowest, nor

thy freewill

heave offering of thine hand: But thou must eat them before the Lord thy God in Lord thy God shall choose, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy

manservant, and
rejoice

thy

maidservant, and the Levite that is within

thy

gates: and thou shalt

Lord thy God in all that thouputtest thine hands unto. Take heed to thyself that thou forsake not the Levite as long as thou livest upon the earth. (Deut. 12:17-19)
the

before

The joyfulness
openness makes our matter of course

of

this occasion is intended to foster

poor and

magnificence.

This

responsibility toward the

toward the Levites more a

than a matter of duty.

When
say, I

the

Lord thy God

shall enlarge soul

thy border,

as

he hath

promised

thee,

and thou shalt

will eat

flesh, because thy

after.

longeth

to eat flesh; thou mayest eat flesh, whatsoever

chosen

thy
be

soul

lusteth

If the place

which the

Lord thy God hath

and

to put

his

name there

too far from thee, then thou shalt

kill of thy herd

and

of thy flock, in thy

which the

Lord hath

given

thee,

as

I have

commanded

thee,

thou shalt eat

gates whatsoever

thy

soul

lusteth

after.

(Deut.

12:20-21)

The
with

rest of

the

chapter reiterates

the

joy

of the

day

and

tempts

us once more

that

strange phrase: the place which the

It is difficult to grasp
the Book
of

fully

what can

Lord thy God has chosen. only be understood as the final

when

Deuteronomy,

which occurs

in Chapter 27

the tension

is

irony of finally

broken.

Deuteronomy

27:4-7

reads:

Therefore it shall be
command you this shalt thou

when ye

be

gone over

Jordan,

that

ye shall set

up these stones,

which

day, in Mount Ebal,

altar

and thou shalt plaister them with plaister.

And there
shalt

build an

build

the altar
unto

of the

of stones: thou Lord thy God of

shalt not

lift up any iron

tool upon them.

Thou

whole stones: and

thou shalt offer

burnt

offerings
and

thereon
rejoice

the

Lord thy God: And thou Lord thy God.

shalt offer peace offerings, and shalt eat

there,

before

the

The

chosen

place,

whose name "we

have

waited

long

to

discover, is
and

to be

Mount Ebal. This

tension began

in Verse 5

of

Chapter 12,

has
of

grown

in

But only four verses Mount Ebal had already been mentioned. The Mountain of Curses:
magnitude ever since.

before the

beginning long awaited place

Chapter 12,
was

the

And it shall

come

to pass, when the Lord

thy God hath brought thee in

unto

the

land

whither

38
thou goest to possess
upon

Interpretation

it,

that thou

shalt put

the

Mount Ebal. Are they

the

not on the other

blessing upon Mount Geri-zim, and the curse side Jordan. By the way where the sun goeth

land of the Canaan-ites, which dwell in the champaign over against Gilgal, beside the plains ofMoreh? For ye shall pass over Jordan to go in to possess the land which And ye shall the Lord your God giveth you. And ye shall possess it, and dwell therein.

down, in

obser\'e to

do all the statutes and judgments

author wishes

which

I set before you this day. (Deut

11:29-32)

Perhaps the in the

to

remind us of that other root of sacrifice

discussed

long excursus
.

from the Book of Exodus. Through his

irony

he

wishes us not

to be blown in the

wind

by

considering the highest

on

Mondays

and

the lowest on

Tuesdays In reminding us that sacrifice is part of a curse and has another side to it, deeply rooted in the affair of the Golden Calf, he forces us to hold in our minds both
the highest and the lowest at the same time.

The

passage

from Jeremiah The

claims that

the fundamental
and

reason

for the fall

of

the state was the neglect of the Sabbatical the Jubilee Year as
sacrifice without
well.

Year,

by

implication the

neglect of

men are accused of

the chapter a

great stress

establishing the economic is laid on the spirit in

open thine

going through the forms of the reforms that year entails. Throughout
which the

law

must

be

carried out.

Verse 8 reads, But thou shalt him sufficient for his need, in
new

hand he

wide unto

him,

and shalt

surely lend
means a

that which

wanteth.

The Sabbatical Year

beginning

for those

who

have fallen into debt. Mere freedom from

past

debts

is

not sufficient.

The freed
more

slaves were all of

to be given the means for maintaining

themselves, but
shall not seem

important,

this was to be done with a good heart. It

been

worth a

God shall

hard unto thee, when thou sendest him awayfreefrom thee; for he hath double hired servant to thee, in sening thee six years: and the Lord thy bless thee in all that thou doe st. (Deut. 15:18)
which the slaves were released

The ceremony in
sacrifice

had

as

its

culmination a

that was eaten before the Lord.

relation

The sharing

between

sacrifice and

the Jubilee Year should now be clear. The

of common meals and common

joys

by the people as a whole was intended

to foster that attitude toward people and mere things upon which the Jubilee Year

depends
the

and which

is the

source of true

humanity.
says the

Analogous to Plato's Republic, Jeremiah

fall

of

the state was due to

forgetting

of the complete concept of of the

community implied in the Jubilee Year.

was a slow and almost unseen process.

The breakdown The threads twist

was to

Jubilee Year
other,
and

around each

it is

almost

impossible to say
we

who or what

blame. But the story

process can

be traced if

are

willing

to follow the

convoluted

with great care.

The

seeds of the

destruction
verses was

of the

Jubilee Year

were planted even

before its

inauguration. In the

preceding the

announcement of the

Jubilee Year in
a man whose

Leviticus,
was an

brief story

abruptly inserted into the text concerning fought

with some of

mother was

Shelo-mith,

the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan, and whose father

Egyptian. This

man

his brothers

and cursed

the name

The Lion
of the

and the

Ass
and

39
the episode

Lord. He

was

quickly

put

to

death

by Moses,

is

never

mentioned again

(Lev. 24:10-23).

and

This story is striking for two reasons. Apart from the story concerning Nadab Abihu, the Book of Leviticus contains no other stories. Furthermore, the only in the book
and are the names of those
and

private names that appear

immediately involved
The only
name place names

in the Temple
mentioned are and

service:

Moses

Aaron

his

children.

those that

directly relate to the service: Sinai,

mentioned three times each.

mentioned

four times,
also

Canaan

and

Azazel,
the

The

Moloch

appears several

times in direct relation to the laws against human

sacrifice.

Except

for

one mention of

fathers, Abraham, Isaac,

whole

and

Jacob in Lev. 26:42,

story.

no other

proper noun appears

in the

book

except

in this

In

order to make

intelligible this

strange

occurrence,

we must

try

to unravel

some of

the

boldest threads that

a

are woven

into the latter half

and

of

the Book of

Numbers. In
private

fashion

not unlike

Tolstoy's War

Peace,

the problems of a

family
allow

are

intertwined

within

the story of a great war. to

In Chapter 21 Moses

sent ambassadors

Sihon, king of the Amorites, asking

his kingdom
ensued on

him to

the Children of Israel to pass through

and a great

their way to the

Promised Land. Sihon refused, completely

control of a capture.

battle

in

which

Moses

was

successful.

As

a result of

large tract
rest of

of

land

east

battle, Moses suddenly found himself in of the Jordan River that he had never intended to
this

The

the conquered territories east of the Jordan were taken from

neither case

Moab
and

and

Ammon. In

did Moses intend to take the land. Both Moab God had
commanded

Ammon

were sons of route

Lot,

and

Moses

not

to take their

land. The only

to the Promised Land led through Moab territory, and Moses

permission

sent a messenger

asking

to cross Ammon was

.

unhurt ,

but the Moabites

restrict

panicked and attacked.

It

seems

to have been

Moses'

intention to

the
not

country

within

the natural border formed

eastern

by

the Jordan.

Apparently

he did

originally intend to conquer the seemed to be little choice.

lands, but once the Moabites attacked there

After the battle three sisters, the daughters of Zelophehad from the tribe of Menassah, appeared before Moses (Num. Chap. 27). Their father had no sons, and

they

wished

to inherit his land. The

arrangement seemed

perfectly just to Moses

over

and so

it

was

determined.

The

war against

Sihon continued, but

The

when

it

was

finally

Reuben

and

Gad

came

forward
of

with a request.

sons of

Israel

were now

in

possession of a
and

large tract
to
settle

land

east of

the Jordan. Would it not be possible for Reuben

the new territory?

Gad

their children and their wives in

who asked was

Why

of all

the sons was

it Reuben

to settle the land apart from the rest of the community?

was

Perhaps it

because it

he,

and not

the father of
a

Moses,

who

had the

natural

claim of primogeniture

(Num. 30:32). Such

was

the uprising of Korah. At first Moses

them the land on condition that
conquer the
whole

thing had happened once before in unwilling, but later he agreed to grant

they accompany their brothers to land before returning to their wives and children.

help

them

40
In Chapter 36 the
elders of

Interpretation Menassah
came

forward to

raise

difficulty

Zelophehad. If they should marry outside the tribe of concerning the daughters of Menassah, parts of the land that would normally return to the tribe of Menassah

during the Jubilee Year would then return to the tribe of their
unperturbed and ruled that

husbands. Moses

was

the girls may marry

whomever

they be from the

the choice easy
of

tribe of Menassah.
girls

Moses,

with

they please provided that great foresight, had already made

territories would be given to

for the

by suddenly announcing in his discussion with the men

the land in the
eastern

Reuben

and

Gad that

part of

half the tribe of Menassah (Num. 33:33). In that division Zelophehad was given the extreme northeastern sector, where there would be little chance that the girls
would meet

any young man not from their own tribe. Under the leadership of Joshua, the men of Reuben

and

Gad

plus

half the tribe

of Menassah successfully fulfilled their commitment (Josh. 4:12), were duly praised by Joshua and allowed to return home (Josh However, the Children
.22:1).

of

Israel

soon

heard that Reuben,

Gad,

and

half the tribe

of

Menassah had built

great altar

contrary to the fundamental

sent

concept of

the unity of the people (Josh.

22:10). Joshua
eastern would

Phineas the
that

priest

to investigate the

situation.

The

men of

the

lands

protested

they

would

be difficult for them to

bring

be very far from the Holy Place and that it their children. They had built the altar in order
were part of

to

remind

their children that they, too,

more

God's in

people.

It

was never

intended to be Even
cholic

than a reminder, and no sacrifices would ever

whom we

be

given upon

it.

Phineas,

know to be

rather strict

such cases

(see Num.

25:7),

was moved

by

the good intentions of the men and allowed the altar to

remain.

Many
named

years

later,

after

the

lands had

largely
himself

been settled,
an

an

Ephraimite Levite from

Micha built his his death

own altar and make

priest

ephod,

and a

Bethlehem became his

(see Judg. Chap. 17). Joshua

was an

leaders

after

were

Ephraimites. Joshua

and most of the early Ephraimite (Num. 13:8);

Ehud, while himself not an Ephraimite, called the people together in the mountains of Ephraim, near the home of the next great leader, Deborah (Judg. 4:5). Gideon
was not
of

from Ephraim

and seems

to have purposely ignored them in the early

at a

part

his battles. One

need

only look

map to see that the

men upon whom

he did

call were all

noticed

from the tribes surrounding Ephraim. The men of Ephraim also 8:1). However Gideon was able to placate their complaints by calling on them for help and saying Is not the gleaming of the grapes of Ephraim better than the grapes ofAbi-ezer? (Judg. 8:2).
this slight and reprimanded him sharply (Judg.

Under the
came

into

leadership of Jephtha, however, the nominal leadership of Ephraim

broke
out

serious question when open war

between Ephraim

and the

other

tribes (Judg. Chap. 12). It may be that this loss

of position caused

the action

of the man named

Micha.

The Lion
Sometime before the days
conquered part of

and the

Ass
attack

41
Israel
and

of

Micha,
and

the Philistines began to

the eastern

territory
The its

that belonged to the tribe of Dan. This time

the struggle between the

Philistines

Israel became

a personal

battle between Samson's

the Philistines and Samson.

personal war on

men of

Judah

even protested against

the ground of
of

futility

(See Judg. 15:11,12).

of

After the death

Ephraimite
who

Samson the Book

Judges tells the story

of

Micha,

an

had

stolen a sum of

money from his it to build

mother and then returned

it to

her. She,

being pleased by his remorse, returned the money to her son,

and used a private altar.

Lord. Micha took the money Bethlehem became its priest.

praising the A Levite from

It is difficult to say precisely why this happened, but more than likely it was related to the fall from power of the tribe of Ephraim Micha undoubtedly felt that
.

his

own private altar would

in

some sense make

up for that loss

of prestige

(see

Judg. Chap. 17).

One
was

day

the only

son of

group of spies from the tribe of Dan appeared at Micha 's door. Dan Jacob who had no more than one child; perhaps for that reason
territory. But

he

was given a small

by the time the tribe reached the Promised Land

and much of that

they
the

were more numerous than any other tribe with the exception of Judah. Since

lands they had been allotted were too small Philistines, a large number of them decided to
set out

had fallen to the

on

conquer
.

territory
.

the northern
spies of

border, including
to
view

the city of Leshem or Laish (see Josh

prospective whom

19:45 ) As the

Dan
and

this

site,

they happened by

the house of

Micha

chatted with

the Levite

The

conquest of

they happened to know. Laish was an easy task, but on their

return

they,

perhaps

feeling

that their conquest of the land was a tribal victory rather than the victory of

the people as a whole , convinced the Levite to leave Micha and to establish his altar

in the newly conquered territories. Their argument was lay thine hand upon thy mouth and go with us, and be to better for thee to be
tribe and a
a priest unto the

an

follows: Hold thy peace,

is it

us a father and a priest:

house

of one man or that thou

to

be

a priest unto a

family
of

in Israel (Judg. 18:19). Dan

was

The tribe

probably in

a
,

better

position
,

build

such an altar than

,

any other tribe since one of its members instructed by God Himself as an assistant to Bezaleel established many years before (See Ex. 21:6). The destruction up
a separate altar. of the

Aholiad the

son of

Ahisanach had been

when

the Tabernacle was first

Jubilee Year is

now complete. rebellious

One

whole

tribe has set

prior to the

By inserting
inevitably

the story of the

author

Danite just

establishment

of the
would

Jubilee Year the

indicates that the

practice of

the

Jubilee Year
reoccur.

fail

and

that this rebelliousness was

bound to
who

The Danites

soon replaced

the Levite with a priest from

at the rebellious
used.

Menassah,

easily fell into the

How did it

role of

ministering

altar, since he had grown up

that only to be

around the altar which was never to all

be

happen? Was it just the final

blow,

or was

42
expected since
,

Interpretation
the

brothers in securing their homes were left alone to conquer the most difficult lands? Their lot was the land of the giants which should have been captured first but which few men dared to enter.

Danites,

who

had

assisted all of their

Was it Micha? Was it

only had one daughters?
son and

the refusal of
a man named

Moab,

or was

it the

simple

fact that Dan

that

Zelophehad happened to have had only

The incidents
Year know

which

the Bible

presents as

were so numerous and each so

where

up to the fall of the Jubilee that it is difficult to insignificant relatively

leading

to place the

blame, but

perhaps

that

is the way in

which

the

Bible

understands the

fall

of great things.

The story of the altar of Dan will have its effect only many years later at the time of Jeroboam "s revolution when the kingdom is split. Jeroboam will reestab lish the
altar of

Dan

and

the complete

weight of what

has happened

will

be felt (see

I Kings 13:29,

and commentaries

to Gen. 20:15 and Gen. 28:19).

Unfortunately, nothing of what we have said seems sufficient to explain why a

sacrifice

is

asked of

Abram. He

seems to

have

no natural

desires that

must

be

cleansed,
whom

and

his

sacrifice

is

made alone

because there is

not yet a people with

he

can rejoice.

If

we

bring the passage

from Genesis back into focus,

we remember

that in a

people.

way that is not yet clear Abram has been going through the future history of his The carrion bird Abram chased away from the carcasses in Verse 1 1 was the
same

bird Jeremiah

once used as a

description

of

Babylon.

Only

Abram

can chase

away the buzzard

12.

by

establishing the true foundations.

was

And when the sun

great

darknessfell

upon

going down, adeep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, him.

an

horror of

The dreamlike quality

of

the chapter is

now at

its highest,

and

Abram is

deeply
13
.

asleep.

And he
that

said unto

Abram, Know of a surety

and shall seire

that

thy

seed shall

be

a stranger

in

land

is not theirs,
also that

them;

and

14.

And

nation, whom

they

shall

they shall afflict them four hundred years; serve, will /judge: and aftenvard shall they
thou shalt

come out with great substance.

15

And thou

shalt go

to

thy fathers in peace; they

be buried in
again:

a good old age.

16.

But in the fourth

generation

shall come

hither

for the

iniquity

of the

Amor-ites is
17. And it came

not yet full.

to pass,

that,

when the sun went

down,

and

it

was

dark, behold a smoking

Unto
thy seed

furnace,
18.
In
given

burning lamp that passed between those pieces. the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying.
and a

have I

19. 20.
21.

land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, The Kenites, and the Kennizzites, and the Kadmon-ites. And the Hittites, and the Periz-zites, and the Repha-ims.
this

the

river

Eu-phrates:

And the Amor-ites,

and the

Canaan-ites,

and

the Girga- shite s, and the

Jebu-sites.

The Lion

and the

Ass

43

what

In his sleep Abram learns the full implications of what he has been doing and his children will do in times to come. The land God has promised them is not a
and

land waiting to be occupied. It is a land inhabited by many peoples, will have to be fought before the nation can be established.
The
word

many

wars

translated as carcasses in Verse 11 is a common

word

in the Bible,

but in every other verse it refers to the carcasses of dead men lying in a battlefield. The four sacrifices we originally took to be the sacrifices appropriate to the four
classes of

the

people

turn out to be the

death

of those men themselves. chapter seems

Only
attempt

one question remains.

From Verse 9 on, the

to be

an

to answer Abram 's question:

people

Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?

God before, but God has
never asked when

Many

have

sacrificed to

for he

sacrifice until now.

Abram is

convinced the promise will not a simple

realizes that the

Promised Land is
make

be fulfilled only gift, but that he, and his The

children

too,

will

be forced to
of

many

sacrifices.
right.

Five

Canaan's

ten sons became tribes in their own

and compose

others are

their birth, the single tribe known as the Canaanites, but only four appear in the dream. Canaan had one more son who grew
never mentioned again after

into

a tribe.

They
to

were

known

as the

Hevites,

and

their story will be told in the

Moses'

commentary The appearance

restrict

Chapter 34.
of

the Amorites seems to

new

imply

that

intention to

the limits

of

the

country to the eastern bank of the Jordan could not

will

succeed.

The

reasons

for this

be

more

fully

discussed in the commentary to

Gen. 48:22.

Chapter XVI

1.

Now Sarai Abram's

whose name was

wife

bare him

no children: and she

had an handmaid,

an

Egyptian,
bearing: I

Hagar.

2.

And Sarai

said unto

Abram, Behold now,

my maid;

the

Lord hath

restrained me from

pray thee go

in

unto

it may be

that

I may

obtain children

by her.

And Abram

hearkened to the

voice

And Sarai Abram's

years

wife

of Sarai. took Hagar her maid the Egyptian,

after

Abram had dwelt ten

4.

in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had
conceived,

her

mistress was

despised in her

eyes.

Sarai,
live
5.
with

the mistress of an Egyptian slave

named

to give Hagar to her husband Abram. The

plan was

Hagar, being barren, decided Sarai 's, and she shall have to

its

consequences.

And Sarai bosom ;

said unto

Abram,

My

wrong be

upon

thee:

I have

given

my

maid

into thy

and when she saw

that she

had conceived, I

was

despised in her eyes: the Lord

judge between

me and thee.

44
6.
But Abram
thee.
said unto

Interpretation
Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand: do to her hardly with her, she fled from her face.
as

it

plcaseth

And

when

Sarai dealt

Sarai dealt hardly

with

her Egyptian

slave.

The

word translated

dealt hardly is

the word that will be used in the Book of

Exodus for the

relation of

Pharoah,

the

Egyptian master, to his Hebrew

of the

slaves.

Chapter 16

will turn out

to be the

inversion
slave
.

story

of

Exodus Sarai is the

.

cruel

Hebrew master, Hagar the Egyptian

7.

8.

angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. and whither wilt thou go? And And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence earnest

And the

thou:'

she

said,

9.

And the
under

angel

I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress,

and submit

thyself

her hands.

Like
rhetorical
.

most of the questions asked

in the Book
,

of a

Genesis,

this question is
and

Freedom is

always a

flight to

never

simply

flight from,

Hagar has

nowhere

to go. So she must return to her mistress

and wait.

10.

And

the angel

shall not

be

numbered

of the Lord said unto her, I for multitude.

will

multiply thy

seed

exceedingly, that it

The inverted Isarel 's

But
the

parallel

is

complete. on

The

son of

the Egyptian slave will also be

we will read a great

the father of a great

relation

nation.

Further

in the book

deal

about

to the sons of Esau and to the children of Abraham s son Midian.

unlike

these peoples the story of this great nation

of the earlier will

is

never

told in the Torah or in

books

Prophets.
the

Ishmael

be

present at

death

of

his father (Gen. 25:9),

and

his

sons will

be the innocent his

sons will all

means of

transferring Joseph into Egypt (Gen. 39:1). The names of be given in Gen. 25:12, but the names of their sons will never be

mentioned.

11.

And the

angel

of the Lord

said unto

her, Behold,

thou art with child, and shalt

bear

son, and shalt call

his

name

Ishma-el; because
story
of

the

Lord hath heard thy

affliction.

The
piece of

complete otherness of the

Ishmael

makes

it

difficult story to
earlier

together. Although neither he nor

his

sons are mentioned

in the

books

Bible, his second son, Kedar, is frequently mentioned in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and once each in Ezekiel, Psalms, and the Song Of Songs.
the

twice in

The Book
that
with

of

Psalms

presents

Kedar

as a wild and warlike nation.

Woe is

me

sojourn

in

Mesech,

that
.

I dwell in the

tents

of Kedar!

My

soul

hath dwell

long
fall

him that hateth In

spite of

peace

(Ps.

120:5-6)
Jeremiah both lament
their

their wild character, Isaiah and

The Lion
when

and the

Ass
and

45
Jer. 49:28).

they are captured by

are can

the

forces

of

Nebuchadnezzar (Is. 21:16

is

They
sin.

wild, but their

wildness

never understood as the recalcitrance of

Jeremiah

say

of them:

For pass

over

the isles ofChittin and see. And send to

Kedar,
for

and consider

diligently,

and see

if

there

be

such a thing.

Hath

a nation

changed their gods which are yet no gods?

But my people have

changed their

glory

that which

doth

not profit

(Jer. 2:10-1 1).

Perhaps the
The
maiden

most

says, For I

interesting reference to Kedar appears in the Song of Songs. am black and comely like the tents of Kedar (Song 1:5).
. .

The beloved, in the only truly to one of the tents of the Sons

erotic of

love

poem
.

in Biblical literature, likens herself

Ishmael

12.

And he
man's

shall

be

a wild ass

of a man; his hand

will

be

against

eveiy man,

and

every

hand

against

him;

and

he

shall

dwell in

the presence

of all his brethren.

The
of

alternative

son, the son of the inverted story, is

a wild ass.

If the inversion
wild

the story of Israel is to be found in the story of

Ishmael,

then the life of the

ass

may be

considered the

inversion

of

the life under law. Since their story

is

not

told in the books we shall be considering

can

in the

main

body

of

this commentary, it

only be

hypothetically
of

pieced

from the

rest of

the Bible. That implies that

whether

the author

Genesis

would agree with our

findings

or not will remain an

open question.

The
reads as

simile of

the

wild ass appears

twice in Jeremiah. His

first description

follows:
her pleasure; in her

wild ass used

to the

wilderness

that

snuffeth up the

wind at

occasion

who can turn shall find

her

away?

All they that

seek

her

will not

weary themselves; in her

month

they

her.

(Jer. 2:24)

The

wild ass

first appears

as

the

symbol of all

that exists beyond the

borders

of

the Expanse and the borders of law. But

several chapters

later Jeremiah

also says:

And the
eyes

wild asses

did

stand

in the high places, they

snuffed

up

the wind

like

dragons;
(Jer.

their

did fail, because

there was no grass.

14:6)

Though
goes

she

lives in the

realm of

chaos, a world

far from

our own, when

her

world

dry
The

even we who

live

within

the bounds of law can pity her.

references throughout

the Book of Job are even more enlightening.

Early
ox

in his laments Job

says:

Doth

the wild ass

wild ass

bray when
at

it hath

grass?

Or loweth the

over his fodder? (Job 6:5). The

is

home in the
grass.

world of chaos and one of

is

even

capable of a strange calmness when there

is

Zophar,

Job's

comfort

ers, likens the

wild ass

to one who can never learn the ways of civilization (Job the
wild ass reads:

11:12). Job's final

statement about

46
Behold,
field:
as wild asses

Interpretation
in the desert,
go

they forth

to their

work:

They They cause the naked to lodge without the cold. They are wet with the showers of the clothing, that they have no want rock for embrace the and mountains, of a shelter. They pluck the fatherless from the cause him to go naked without clothing, and they the poor. pledge take a and breast, They of
their children.
wicked.

wilderness yieldeth foodfor them andfor

prey: th rising betimes for a in the corn one his reap every

and

they

gather

the

vintage

of the covering in

take away the sheaf from the winepresses, and suffer thirst.
crieth out: yet

hungry; Which
Men
to them

make oil within

their walls, and tread their

groan from out

.

of the city, and the soul

of the (Job

wounded

God layeth

not

folly

They

are

of those that rebel against the

light: they

know

not the ways

thereof,

nor abide

in the paths thereof.

24:5-13)

The horrible destruction

as

and chaos

that lie

in the

twisted path of the wild asses

and yet

they

careen

through civilization can

barely

be imagined,
attack

God laveth

no

folly
from

to them.
out

When the
city.

cold winds yet

force them to
not

civilization,

men groan

of the

And

God does

blame them because the city is

not

their

home.

Job in his
and

great personal sees no

sorrows, in his suffering for

asked

which

he

sees no reason

in

which

he

answer

Job

receives

God why he must suffer such pain. The from the whirlwind is a strange one since his boils are never

justice,

mentioned, but it ultimately

world

that men

living

momentary glance into a calmly under the Law in Jerusalem rarely see. It begins with
satisfies

him. Job is

given a

the

words:

Gird up
wast

now

thy loins like

a man: for

will

demand of thee
earth?

and

do

thou answer me.

Where

thou when

I laid the foundations of the

Declare, if thou hast

understanding.

(Job 38:3-4)

The
problem.

answer

Job was given is a strangely impersonal answer to a personal He is invited to look into the world that lies beyond the Covenant. Job known before that the
great

had

never even

leviathan be

existed. a

He had it to

never seen
of

that other world whose

inhabitants is

cannot

numbered
which

land full

raging
the

torrents

and

the behemoth. It

a strange

land in

God

causes

rain on

earth where no man world

is, in

the wilderness which has no human life (Job 38:26). The

beyond law is
for its

a place of

frightening tenderness. It is a place where each thing

rain

exists

own sake.

The spring

falls, but for

man no special thought

is taken. The
voice

in the

whirlwind asked:

Canst

thou

draw

out

leviathan

with an

hook?

or

his

tongue with a cord which thou through with a thorn?

lettest Will he

down? Canst
make

thou put an

hook into his

nose? or

bore his jaw

many

supplications unto thee? will

covenant with thee? wilt thou take

a

he speak soft words unto thee? Will he make a himfor a servantfor ever? Wilt thou play with him as with

bird? or wilt thou bind himfor thy maidens ? Shall the companions make a banquet of him ? Shall they pan him among the merchants? Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his

The Lion
head
the
with fish spears?

and the

Ass

47
battle, do no more. Behold,
the sight of him?

Lay thine hand upon him,

not one

remember the

hope of him is in vain: shall fierce that dare stir him up: who

be

cast

down

even at

None is

so

then

is

able to stand

before

me?

(Job

40:25-32)

In that infinite

sea of waters above the expanse swims the great

leviathan. God

tamed this monster of the sea, and no man

knows

and no man

is known.
end of

From Job's
the

point of view

it is

land full

of wonder and

horrors. At the

book, Job

realizes

God's true justice

by seeing
his boils

the real chaos from which He

are no more than a

protects us and

in

comparison with which

fly buzzing

'round his
touched

ear.

The impersonal

answer that raised

Job's

eyes

beyond himself

him
of

more

deeply than

any

personal answer could

new

have.

One

the questions the whirlwind asks of this

Job

who

has

peered

into

the world beyond the protection of Law is: Who hath

who

sent out the wild ass free? or

hath loosed the bands of the

under the protection of

wild-ass?

(Job

39:5) Job had lived safely

.

with

his

friends
pered.

Law. It

was a peaceful world and

in

which

Job

pros

Suddenly
of

that peace was

disturbed,

he

was

forced to look beyond its

wild ass who

limits. Part
runs

that infinite chaos was the

was not

beauty

and

the terror of the

freely. It

the world chosen for

Israel,

and yet

it is

a world
peer.

into

which

even those who

live

under

the care of Law are forced at times to

which

Whether this account,

has been

pieced

together from the

rest of

the

Bible, is in
be be
clear,
called

accord with

the

intentions
it
would

of the author of see

Genesis

will

but

without them

be hard to

in

what sense

probably never Ishmael's life can Ishmael is

blessed.
use

The

the First Book of

Chronicles

makes of the sons of

more

In Chapter 2, Verse 17, Amassah is said to be an Ishmaelite. However, in the Second Book of Samuel (II Sam. 17:2) he is said to be the son of Ithri, an Israelite. The switch could be understood as a natural error since Ishmael
complicated.

had

a son named

Jetur

and another son named

misunderstood as

Massah. At first it
and

would appear as

though Massah became

who

Amassah

taken as the son of

modern

Jetur,

then became Ithri.

However,

such

indulgences into

Biblical

criticism

will not answer the real problems

The Book
mythologize

of

only hinted at here. Chronicles knows nothing of giants. In its

the land

attempt

to de-

the

conquest of

it leaves
.

aside

had

of going through the

land of the Philistines The

great

completely the fears Moses importance of courage as

gained

a virtue

is lost. Caleb,
no

the son of

Jephunneh,
his

still

inherits the land he

in the

Torah, but
mention

mention

is

made of

great

fortitude in

facing

the giants.

No

is

made of the great charms and skill

the young David showed in

successful

his first

battle,
It is
giants.

and

consequently the full impact

of

Hezekiah 's last because his

battle is lost. believed in

almost as

if the

author were embarrassed great

grandfather

Perhaps the

pity is that

we were taught not

to believe in giants.

Our

fathers have taught

pointment

us that progress can overcome all things.

The

great

disap

in my

own generation when these expectations were not

fulfilled has led

to more

chaos than was ever caused

by

the

mightiest of

the

giants.

48
The battle for the
eastern
.

Interpretation
provinces,

however, did
account

present

the author of

Chronicles
was a

with some problems of the giants

.

Og king
,

of Heshbon and leader of the

Amorites

descendant

In the parallel

in the Book

of Chronicles

the
are

Amorites
replaced

are never even

mentioned

(See I Chron. 5:14-20).

Instead, they

silently
13.

recast

by Abdiel, Jetur, Nephish, into a milder form by replacing them

she called the name also

andNehad, the sons of Ishmael. The giants are

with

the sons of Ishmael.

And

said, Have I

of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God here looked after him that seeth me?

seest me: for she

14.

Wherefore
Bered.

the well was called

Beer-la-hai-roi; behold, it is between Kadesh

and

The town
name

of

Bered is
means

mentioned

in

no other passage

in Biblical literature. The

in Hebrew

hail,

the wildest and most destructive form

can come

in

which

the

waters

that are over the

heavens

down. Kadesh

means the

holy. While

names are not always significant

in the Bible, it

makes some sense

and the

that the sons of

Ishmael

should

live in

some unknown place

between hail

holy.

15.

And Hagar bare Abram Ishma-el.

a son: and

Abram

called

his

son's

name,

which

Hagar bare,

16.

And Abram

was fourscore and sixyears old, when

Hagar bare Ishma-el to Abram.

Chapter XVII

1.

And

when

Abram

was

ninety

years old and walk

nine,

and

Lord

appeared to

Abram,

and

said unto

him, I am God Almighty;

that the

before

me, and

be

thou perfect.

The

words

King

James translates God Almighty, but

whose

literal

meaning is unknown, will appear five more times in the Book of Genesis. In the Book of Exodus it will explicitly be replaced by the word that is often transliterated
as

Jehovah:

appeared to

Abraham, Isaac,

and

Jacob

as

God

Almighty but I did not make myself known

(Ex.

to them

by my name.
us

6:3)
God

Let

try

to understand the significance of these two names.

The

name

Almighty journey to Padanaram

will next
new name

be

used

by

Isaac in the

blessing

he

gives to

Jacob before his

sons as

to Jacob the Israel (Gen. 25:11), and in the name of God Jacob blesses his Almighty go down to Egypt (Gen. 43:3). The term appears in Gen. 48:3, but they
who will give

(Gen. 28:3). It is God Almighty

merely as a reference back to the last appearance, and the last reference occurs in Jacob's final blessing to Joseph. But Joseph is the man most in contact with the Egyptians.

The Lion

and the

Ass

49

It is

used

The term God Almighty radically belongs to the early formation of the people. only when Abraham and his sons go out into a world inhabited by other

men.

Finally,

the

last time it is
within

used

in the Torah is in the

of

blessing of Baalam (Num.

the name of God insofar

24:4). God Almighty,

as

the confines
men who

the

Torah, is
as the

He is the God of individual

transliterated
as

face foreigners God

or go on

long journeys.
of

The

name

Jehovah is the
not

name of

God

the people, each

facing the other.

The
word

Baalam does
God

know the difference.

a reflexive verb.

translated as

the English
notice

word stroll. and

Man

In meaning it is rather close to was strolling in the Garden when He happened to Eve (Gen. 3:8). Enoch strolled with God (Gen. 5:22). Noah, in
walk

is

another

sense, also

strolled with

God (Gen. 6:9). Abram

was

invited to

stroll about

the land to see what it was

servant

Abram is

will

like (Gen. 13:1), and according to the words of his describe the Lord as the Lord before whom I stroll (Gen. 24:40).
do for its
own sake as opposed to

Strolling
This

an act we

walking to

someplace

for

some purpose. verse stands

in sharp

contrast

to God's first command to Abram. The

words get thee out

the word
also

ofthy country, literally go for thyself, come from the same root as which appears in the present verse. Although the original command walk,

had

a reflexive

reflexive verb
go for

quality about it, the sense is in the present verse. The original
Abram
and

quite

different from the

use of

the

command almost

has the

sense of

thy

own sake.

his

people

reach

their highest

end.

The first

command

have a long way to go before they will looks forward to a time in the future. In
goal

this

verse

God

seems

to command Abram to have a worthy

for himself apart

from the

overall general plan. goal

That

is to be

perfect.

The Hebrew

word we

have translated
word

as perfect and

was used to describe Noah is identical to the with

it

more of

the

original sense

in its origins, but carries English than does its English counterpart. It is sometimes in the
sense of a unit.

translated

simple

but

basically

means complete,

It

often

has
was

the correlate meaning

of simpleminded as well.

Solomon's Temple,

when

it

finished,
its

was called complete

(I Kings

6:22)

A bow drawn to its fullest is drawn to

that has no defect is called simple

completeness

(I Kings

22:34),

and an animal

or complete

(Ex. 12:5). Such

are some of the usages of the word that

is

used

to

describe the way in which Abram should Since the verse speaks of Abram's private
used.

be.

virtue

the term God

Almighty is

And I

will make

my

covenant

between

me and

thee,

and will

multiply thee exceedingly.

Such

verses

tend to

be

so

complicated

that

they

are

best

understood

by

considering passages in reader is referred to the commentaries

3.
And Abram fell

which similar thoughts are expressed more simply.

The

on

Gen. 9:9, 14:24, him,

and

21:34.

on

his face:

and

God talked

with

saying,

50
4. As for me, behold, my
nations.

Interpretation
covenant

is

with

thee,

and thou shalt

be

father of many

5.

Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abra-ham ;for a father of many nations have I made thee.

The

name

Abram,

the father of the

high, is

changed

to

Abraham,

which

is

interpreted

by

the author to mean the father of many.

6. 1

And I will make

come out

thee
.

exceedingfruitful,

and I will make nations

of thee,

and

kings shall

of thee

And I

will establish

generations for an

my covenant between me and thee and the seed after thee in their everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after
thee, the land
wherein thou art a

thee.

8. 9.
10.

And I

will give unto

thee,

and to
,

thy

seed after

stranger, all the

land of Canaan for an everlasting possession ; and I will be their God.

And God

said unto

Abra-ham, Thou
which ye shall

shalt

keep

my

covenant

therefore, thou,

and

thy

seed after thee

in their generations.

This is my covenant,

keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee;

Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

The for
specific

form

of the

sign

of

the

Covenant is is

somewhat

difficult to

interpret for those

word

who are not quite satisfied with

Sigmund Freud. The Hebrew in no other sense. The

,

circumcision

is

of unknown origin and

used

word

for foreskin, however, is

of some

used

in several is

other senses and metaphors

which years

help. When
and

a new tree not

planted the

fruit for the first three

may be is called
who

the

foreskin

may

be

eaten.

In this

sense

Jeremiah describes those

having foreskinned ears (Jer. 6:10), just as men who do harm have foreskinned hearts (Deut. 10:16). impediment of speech is called
cannot as
Moses'

hear his prophecy

the foreskin of his tongue. These examples would seem to given, whether
completed. outside

indicate that the heart

world as

it be

a new-born child or a piece of

fruit

or the

of man,

is

not

Virtue hides itself

and must

be

revealed

by

additional

labor. The

is

always rough.
often used

The term foreskin is

separate occasions

for Israel's

enemies.

The term

occurs on six
should

in the Bible. Samson's father is distressed that Samson

from among the foreskinned Philistines (Judg. 14:3). Later on Samson prayed to God not to deliver him into the hands of the uncircumcised (Judg. 15:18).
take a
wife

In Jonathan's famous
armour-bearer:

single-handed
and

battle

against

the

Philistines he

cries to

his

Come

let

us go

into the

garrison

of these uncircumcised (I

Sam.

14:6). David's dowry for Saul's daughter is a hundred Philistine/on?.^//?.? (I Sam. Chaps. 17, 18; II Sam. 3:14). After having been wounded, Saul asks one of the men passing by to kill him so that he would not be killed by one of the foreskinned

Philistines (I Sam. 31:4). A follows:

verse

from David's lament

at

the death of Saul reads as

The Lion
Tell it not in Gath
rejoice,
,

and the

Ass

51

publish

lest

the

daughters of the

it not in the streets ofAskelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines (II Sam. 1:20) uncircumcised triumph.

There

are no other passages

applied to

in the Bible in
enemies

which

the term

is

used

in this

way.

The term foreskin

Israel's

only

appears with reference to the

Philistines. The Philistines Their land

was the

are always understood to

be the

unconquerable enemy.

last be

refuge

for the giants,

In this

and as such represents

the limit beyond

which no order can

established.

sense

they

are political counterparts of outer world that can

the waters that are over the heavens.

They

form the

be kept

back but It

never

fully

conquered.

would

follow from this that there is

and

Covenant of Noah

similarity between the the Covenant of Abraham The rainbow, as it were is a kind
a certain
.

of cosmic circumcision

dividing

the chaotic waters from the bit of order that

of

surrounds man,

just

as the

Covenant

Abraham is

an attempt

to establish some

political order within

the chaos of human affairs. Heaven and earth and the things

they
for
11.
a

contain turn out not to

be

complete

in the

sense

in

which

Abram

was told to

be

complete or perfect.

The Covenant

means

leaving

the

way into

which we are

born

New Way.
And flesh of

ye shall circumcise the

your

foreskin;

and

it

shall

be

token

of the

covenant

betwixt

me and you.

12.

And he that is
generations,

eight

days

old shall

he

that

is born in the

among you, eveiy man child in your with money of any stranger, which bought house, or

be

circumcised

is

not

of thy

seed.

13.

He that is born in thy house,

circumcised; and

and

he

that

is bought

with an

thy

money, must needs

covenant.

be

my

covenant shall

be in

14.

And the

uncircumcised man child whose

soul shall

be

cut

15.

And God

said unto

offfrom his people; Abra-ham. As for Sarai thy

shall

everlasting flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, he hath broken my covenant.

wife, thou shalt not call

your

flesh for

that

her

name

Sarai, but Sarah

Verse 12

her

name

be.

contains

the first

attempt

to fulfill the

promise

that the blessings of

Abraham

shall

be

shared

attempt to spread the

we shall see the During by people closest to the sons of Israel, those of means blessing by all men.

the course of the

Torah

but

we shall also see

another

its

great

failure. The later Prophets

will

devote

themselves to

finding
16.

Way.
and give thee a son also

And I

will

bless her,

17.

a mother of nations; kings ofpeople Then Abra-ham fell upon his face, and laughed,

be

of her: yea I shall be of her.

.

will

bless her,

and she shall

and said

in his heart, Shall

that

a child
years

be

born

unto

him

that

is

an

hundred years

old? and shall

Sarah,

is ninety

old,

bear?

18.

And Abra-ham

said unto

God, O

that

Ishma-el

might

live before

thee!

After the

great war with

Chedorlaomer, Abram

said

to

God: Although I have

52
accepted can will

Interpretation
You
as

my God,
In

and am pleased

to do Your will, there is very little

You

do for me die

since no matter what

You

give me

I have

no sons

to carry it on,

and all

with me. would

a similar manner
see

Verse 18 is to be

understood as

Abraham demand

a son

be willing to from Sarah.

of

the

blessing

go to

his son, Ishmael,

meaning that and does not

dwell in the

In Verse 12
presence

Chapter 16 God had

said of

Ishmael that he
says

shall

literally of Abraham is asking God to change that prophecy, and who lives in the face of God, as the Hebrew text puts it.
all

his brethren. The Hebrew

in the face of his kinsmen. let Ishmael be the chosen one

19.

And God said, Sarah thy Isaac:

and

wife shall

bear thee

a son

indeed; and thou shalt call his name

and with

will establish

my

covenant with

him for an everlasting covenant,

his

seed after

him

For the importance

of

the name Isaac see the commentary to Gen. 21.

20.

And as for Ishma-el, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him,

and will make

hit <un
will

fruitful,
make

and will

multiply him

exceedingly ; twelve princes shall

he beget,

and

him

a great nation.

sons

The prophecy does not refer to a long line of kings, but rather to the twelve of Ishmael mentioned in Gen. 25:13. Ishmael's twelve sons are obviously
as a parallel to the twelve

intended

tribes

of

Israel

and complete parallel

the discussion

found in the commentary to Gen. 16:12 concerning the and Israel.

21
But my
time

between Ishmael

covenant will next year.

I establish

with

Isaac,

which

Sarah

shall

bear unto

thee at this set

in the

accepting Abraham's offer God would have had one less miracle to perform, and could have banished the wild ass from the world forever. But the

By

world would

have been

a poorer place.

22.

23.

And he left off talking with him. and God went up from Abra-ham. And Abra-ham took Ishma-el his son, and all that were born inhishouse,
were

and all that

bought

with

his

money,

eveiy

male

among the
selfsame
when

men

of Abra-ham's
as

house;

and

circumcised the flesh

of their foreskin in the

old and

day,

God had

said unto

him.

24.

And Abra-ham

was

ninety years

nine,

he

was circumcised

in the flesh of in the flesh of

his foreskin.

25

And Ishma-el his

son was

thirteen years old,

when

he

was circumcised

his foreskin.
26. 27.
In the
selfsame

day

was

Abra-ham circumcised,

and

Ishma-el his

son.

And all the men of his house, born in the house,

were circumcised with

and

bought

with money

of the stranger,

him.

The Lion
In
cannot

and the

Ass

53

spite of what we

be

fully

understood apart

have already said concerning circumcision, the act itself from Chapter 22, in which Abraham will again
and we shall

approach

his

son with a

knife,

be forced to discuss the problem

again.

Chapter XVIII
1 And the Lord appeared
tent in the

unto

him by the oaks ofMamre:

and

he

sat at

the

opening of the

heat of the day:

Chapters 18
without

and

19

are so parallel
reason

that it would be difficult to examine one

of the comments

the other. For that

will

many

that

would

properly

belong

here

be found in the

commentaries to the next chapter.

In the

beginning of this chapter Abraham is found sitting at the opening of his

deal
of

tent. A great
and

the story of Genesis

is

wound around

the question of openings

doors. Some

people

live in tents that

are open.

Some people live in houses that

have doors that

with no

can close. close

door to

it. Noah is told to

art of a

The Tent Of Meeting, for instance, has only an opening make an opening in his Ark (Gen. 6:17), but making doors
and

God did

not grant

him the

had to say

close

the Ark Himself

(Gen. 7:17). Lot's house has

next chapter.

door,

and so we shall

more about

doors in the

30:31). Abraham
our

Mamre is Hebron (Gen. 23:12), the first seat of David's kingdom (I Sam. seems to be more at home in the first capital than in the second. In
of

discussion

Malchi-Zedek there

appeared

to be a reference to the ultimate

capital

in Jerusalem (see commentary to Gen. 14:18), but it is unclear why Abraham did not establish his residence there. This problem will be faced in the commentary to Gen. 23:2.
2. And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stationed themselves by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself
toward the ground,

And said. from thy

My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away,

1 pray thee,

servant:

Abraham 's

speech

is

simple and noble.

Three times he
of the

uses a particle

that can
care

be

translated

I pray thee,

and the adds

lengthened form

verb, which

indicates

and

respect, continually

to the richness of his speech.

The
stationed

words stationed themselves axe quite

definite in Hebrew. The

men are

by Abraham,
Abraham

waiting for him to

runs over

acknowledge

them,

and are not

there

by

opening of his tent, as if tent Abraham's has no door there is no Since life. into his come they had already about him. world He takes them to be in the and own radical distinction between his
mere chance. need of comfort,
stationed near

to greet them from the

but treats them

as

if they

were

passing

by

rather

than

being

him. He does

not offer

to give, but requests the honor of their visit.

54
4.

Interpretation
Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched,
the tree:
and wash your

feet,

and rest yourselves under

By saying Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched in the passive voice, Abraham understates the labor that will be required of him. By using the word little
he de-emphasizes the
travellers'

needs

at home. The privacy of his house will because Abraham is at home on the land

in speech, thereby making them feel more not be needed. They may relax under a tree
and not

in

house.

And I

will fetch a morsel

of bread,

and comfort ye your

hearts ;

after

that

ye shall pass

on: for therefore are ye come to

your servant.

And they said, So do,

as thou

hast said.

Again Abraham de-emphasizes his have happened

made
along.

own

bounty. He treats them

as guests who

Chance has brought them to Abraham,

and

they

are not

to feel as beggars.

6.

And Abra-ham hastened into the tent

measures

unto

Sarah,

and

said,

Make ready

quickly three

offine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. And Abra-ham ran unto the herd, andfetcht a calf tender and good,
young man;
and

and gave

it

unto a

he hastened

to

dress it.

In
sure.

contrast

to the measured cadence of his speech, his actions are swift and
passage one sees

Throughout the
affairs.

domestic
and rules

managing In ruling his house he performs well those acts that befit a man, the members of his household justly and smoothly. The cakes are baked

in Abraham

a man capable of

by his
8.

wife and not

by

Hagar.
calf which he had dressed, tree, and they did eat. it before them;

And he took butter, andmilk,

and

and the

and set

he

stood

by

them under the

Abraham himself serves the

of a great

meal and waits on

his

guests as

if he

were

the lord

manor, but his

great manor

is in the

open under the tree.

9.

And they

said unto

him. Where is Sarah thy

wife?

And he said, Behold, in the tent.

The
10.

men ask another rhetorical question.

And he said, I will certainly

thy
11
.

wife shall

have

a son.

return unto thee according to the time of life; and lo, Sarah And Sarah heard it from the opening of the tent, which was

behind him.
Now Abra-ham
and

Sarah

were old and well stricken

in age;

and

it

ceased to

be

with

Sarah

after the

way

of women.

On the Gen. 31:35.

use of

the Hebrew word way, see the commentaries to Gen. 6:12

and

The Lion
12.

and the

Ass
am waxed old shall

55
I have

Therefore Sarah laughed

pleasure, my

within

herself,

saying, After I

lord

being old also?

Abra-ham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh,
saying.

13.

And

the

Lord
a

said unto

Shall I of a

surety

bear

child, which am old?

Sarah 's laughter

14. Is anything too

will

be discussed in the commentary to Gen. 21:1.

Lord? At the time
appointed

wondrous for the

will return unto

thee,

according

to the time

of life,

and

Sarah

shall

have

a son.

The

word wondrous cannot mean miraculous

in the

sense

it had

since about

the first century.

absent

Miracles

presuppose

the notion of natures, which seems to be

cannot quite

in Biblical thought. Paths may sometimes go in ways that men follow, but that does not imply that they contradict understanding. The
world of wonders

is

a world

that extends slightly beyond our field of

vision, and its objects cannot quite be brought into focus. But it must be distin
guished world
sense.

from the absurd, in the

cut off

sense

in

which

that word is

used

by Kierkegaard,

totally

from human

reason understood
wondrous

in its

narrowest and strictest

Originally

the word translated

expected.

merely

meant separate,

distin

guished

from the normally

15.

Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for

thou

she was afraid.

And he said, Nay; but

didst laugh.

The

men s

reply is

clear

but

gentle.

6.

And the
them to

men rose

up from thence,
way.

and

looked

toward

Sodom:

and Abra-ham went with

bring

them on the

17. 18.

And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abra-ham that thing

which

I do:
and all

Seeing that Abra-ham shall surely become him'' nations of the earth shall be blessed in
For I know him, that he
they shall
upon
will command

a great and

mighty nation,

the

19.

his

children and

his household
that the

after

him,

and

keep the way of the

which

Lord, to do justice and judgment;

spoken

Lord may bring

Abra-ham that

he hath

of him.

We before

are about

to see a very different kind of questioning than we have seen

or will see again

which

in the Book
will

of

Genesis. God has

what

arranged a

meeting

with

Abraham in

Abraham

learn

the founder

of a great nation must

know,

since all the nations

of the earth shall

will

be blessed in him. The

questions are

still as skillful as

before, but they

teach in a much different way.

20.
21.

And the Lord said, Because

their sin

the cry

of Sodom

and

Go-morrah is great,

and

because

is veiy down

grievious;

will go
which

now, and see whether

it,

is

come unto me; and

they have done if not, I will know.

altogether

according

to the ay

of

56
The Hebrew

Interpretation
word translated

cry

sounds

like the

word

for laughter

used

in

Verse 12, and both words will be discussed in the commentary to Gen. 21:1. God goes down to see what is happening in Sodom; mere hearing is insuffi
cient.

For the

author

the superiority of seeing to

of God Himself.

hearing

is

so

important that it

applies even

in the

case

22

And the

men

turned their faces from thence, and went toward the

Sodom: but Abra-ham

stood yet

before

Lord.
and

23.

And Abra-ham drew near,

wicked?

said, Wilt thou also

destroy
wilt

the righteous with the

24.

Peradventure there be
spare

the place for the

fifty righteous within the city: fifty righteous that are therein?
after

thou

also

destroy

and not

25

That befarfrom thee to do

that the righteous should
all

this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and

wicked.

be as the

That be farfrom thee: Shall not the Judge of

the earth

do

right?

Abraham
question about

approaches

God

and

begins their discussion Whenever

.

with

theoretical

the nature of justice: can innocent men suffer along with the guilty?

This is the

question

any founder

must ask.

men

join their lots,

can

one

day

some will suffer on account of others or

die for others Justice be just?

only

exist within

a people, and yet

how

can such a result

for justice, not for mercy. The author does not know the distinction between the two because he understands justice to mean the right and
Abraham
asks most appropriate way.

indicative
revenge or

of a certain

For him the distinction between mercy and justice is misunderstanding of justice itself. If justice were mere

the thoughtless application of a

a thoughtful attempt to

But if justice is
word.

formula, then mercy would be needed. do what is best, then mercy is too harsh a

Like pity for those who need no pity it demeans the recipient by judging him in ways in which even the judge himself knows to be unjust.

The justice

whole passage presupposes

that there

is

no radical

break between human

divine justice. If there were, man's most serious efforts would be nothing and his life would be led in the waters of chaos. Yet not all men see what is just, and so laws are needed. The problem would become more complicated if, as
and

the
and

present chapter

suggests, there is

difference between justice in the individual

justice in the

nation.

26.

And the Lord said,

If Ifind in Sodom fifty righteous within the city,

then

will spare all

the place for their sakes.

Abraham had
the sake of

asked

God

whether

He

would

fifty

righteous men.

God

agrees

be willing to save the place for to do so, but by slightly changing the
of the

words to all the place

God

reminds

Abraham

immensity

of

the

problem and

the risks involved.

The Lion
27
28
.

and

the Ass

57
taken upon me to speak unto the

And Abra-ham

answered and said,

Behold now, I have

Lord,
.

which am

but dust

and ashes:

Peradventure

there shall

lackfive of the fifty

righteous: wilt thou

and

lack offive? And he said,

if I find there forty

destroy all the cityfor five, I will not destroy it.

Abraham,
would

with

protestation, begins the

were

process of

happen if five

lacking. Would God

bargaining by asking what destroy the whole city because of

men.

the five? God accepts Abraham's argument but corrects his arithmetic. Abraham

has only been

whole

looking

at

the

fifty,

and sees

only five bad

God

still sees

the

problem, a huge city of bad men who may cause great harm.

29.

And he
there.

spake unto

him

yet

again, and said,

Peradventure there

shall

be forty found

And he said, I

will not

do it for forty's

sake.

Abraham

answers

in God's terms, but his

question

is

short.

There

are no

apologies or protestations such as were

between

equals

is

at

found in Verse 27, its height. God's reply is equally short.

and the

discussion

30.

And he

said unto

him, Oh let

not

the

Lord be angry,
said, I

and

will speak:

Peradventure
there.

there shall

thirty be found there. And he

will not

do it, if I find thirty

to be

Abraham

with great magnificence now appeals

to God

not

offended.

God's

answer

is

short.

31.

And he said, Behold now, I have taken

there shall

upon me

to

speak unto

the

Lord: Peradventure
sake.

be twenty found

there.

And he

said,

will not

destroy

it for twenty's

Abraham

makes a slight reference

back to his

original position

in Verse 27 but

drops the
32.

notion of

dust

and ashes.

God

answers as

before.

And he said, Oh let

Peradventure ten

not

the

Lord be angry,

and

will speak yet

but this

once:
sake.

shall

be found there. And he said, I

will not

destroy

it for ten's

Abraham has decided

at what point

to ask the last question. He will not press the city for the sake of the ten.

any further,
33.

and

God

agrees not

to

destroy

And the Lord Abra-ham

walked away, as soon as

he had left communing

with

Abra-ham:

and

returned unto

his place.

This

verse presents

God

as

walking

away.

In

parallel passages after

God has

finished speaking with man, one finds the expression God went up. In this passage it is God who walks away and Abraham who returns to his place. If God had actually gone down as He had intended to do in Verse 21 we would

58
have
expected

Interpretation
Him
at this point

to have

gone

back

up.

However,

on

the contrary,

God merely walks away, and it is Abraham who returns to his place. Clear as it is to us that Abraham has learned something on a very high
the content of that discussion remains obscure. Perhaps we will get a

level,
of

better view

it

when we consider

Verse 21

of the

following

chapter.

Chapter XIX

And the two seeing them

ground.

angels came to
rose

Sodom

at

even;

and

Lot sat in the

gate

of Sodom:

and

Lot

up

to meet them; and

he bowed

himself

with

his face

toward the

The visitors that come to the city

to Abraham were called
wrestled was
men.

of

Sodom

are called angels.

Those that came

Surprisingly,

even the

being

with whom

Jacob

angels

simply in the Book of Genesis

contrast to

called a man
will

(Gen. 32:25). A fuller

account of the role of

In

Abraham

be found in the commentary to Gen. 22:15. meeting in Gen. 18:2, the angels appear to meet Lot

by

chance.

does

not run over

Lot happened to be sitting at the gate when the angels passed by. He to greet them as did Abraham, who felt secure in the world as a
unwillingness

whole.

Lot's

to leave the confines of his own city seems a bit

caused

ironical. Cities

city

prevents

built for security, and yet the fear that him from venturing outside it.
were

him to live in

In Verse 3

spite
of

of, or because of his

timidity, Lot bows lower

than did Abraham in

the previous chapter.

2.

And he said, Behold now, my

tarry

all night and wash your

lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and feet, andye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And
in the
street all night.

they said, Nay; but

we will abide

Lot invites the

Abraham
said

men

to turn into

your servant's

house. In

a parallel passage

do

not go on past your servant. go

While it is

clear that

the

men

in

Chapter 18 Lot's

were

intending to
is
not as

to

Abraham's house, it is
Abraham's. He first

by

no means clear that

the angels intended to speak with Lot.

offer

humble
them

as

offers a night's rest

but

makes no mention of

Lot lived in

giving any food. house that had a door, but Abraham lived in opening (Gen. 18:10). The Lot's
character.
radical

tent that had

one's

nothing
own and

more

than

an

distinction between

the rest of the world, which arises from the ambivalence of pride and

fear,

This relationship, as it relates to the establishment of one's own, has already been discussed in connection with the Tower of Babel. Fear forces men to establish their security, and yet pride must
essential part of erase the original grounds

is

an

for the

establishment of one's own and replace

it

with

foundations

that appear more noble. It is also to be noted that the tent of meeting

The Lion

and the

Ass

59

had only an opening, whereas much time and labor were used in making doors for the Temple (I Kings 6:31). The protection doors afford is ultimately accepted by the

Lord, but only

understood as

on

His

own

terms. Even the door of a private home may not be

providing protection in its own right: Bind them as a sign upon your hand and let them serve as symbols on yourforehead; Inscribe them on the doorposts
of your house build a house
and on your gates

(Deut. 6:8,9). The first descendant

of

Abraham to

was

Jacob. That was just

had in

with the sons of

prior to the difficulties his daughter, Dinah, Shekem (Gen. 33:17). Yet if doors are a necessary replacement perhaps some

most cases

sense might

be

for the affinity Abraham had with the world about him, made of the very strange wording in Gen. 4:7:
sin coucheth at the

And

if thou doest not well,

him.

opening

and unto thee shall

be his desire,

and

thou shalt rule over

The

strange use of the word

fact that the dangers to Cain

lay

not

opening becomes intelligible if one reflects on the merely in the pride that was manifested in his

building
founded

of

the city, but

also

in his

inability

to cope with the outside world.

Cain

city because of his fears that the first man to find him would kill him. Though the city is a sinful city, his fears themselves proved that he was incapable
a
of

living
The

within a mere

opening

and

that one

day

proper

doors

would

have to be

provided.
'

angels

refusal

to spend the night in Lot 's house seems to reinforce the

make a special relates

indication in Verse 1 that they had not originally intended to exception in the case of Lot. The problem latent in these lines decision to
prevented

to God's

destroy

the

whole world

in Chapter 6. As

we

know,

the sight of Noah

God from carrying out his original intentions. Throughout the whole of Chapter 19 we must remember that
author

we are still

searching for the from their

's

answer

to Abraham 's

question ,

Wilt thou

also

destroy the

righteous with the wicked?

Apparently

the angels feared

they

might

be distracted

duty by

the sight of Lot.

3.

And he

pressed upon them

house;
Lot

and

he

made them

they turned in unto him, and entered into his a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
greatly; and

prepared

the meal himself. He wished to provide for the men but was

apparently unable to manage his wife and household affairs as well as Abraham. Back in Chapter 14 Lot made no attempt to fight against Chedorlaomer, though

Chapter 13

gives us no reason

to believe that

his forces he

were

any

weaker

than

Abraham's. One
generous as

should also mention that was.

the food

served was not quite as

Abraham's

4.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, house round, both old and young, all the people from eveiy quarter:

compassed

the

60
The desire to
a

Interpretation
establish one's own

for the

sake of protection

double

sense.

The establishment of a city,

which arises

is self-defeating in from the need for security,

but that ultimately means the loss of One's own tends to one's own. Men who live together tend to think together. become the public rather than the private. Traditions arise and grab hold of the for bad people who live under their influence sometimes for good and sometimes necessarily
requires

having

near neighbors,

The insistence
ous,
even

upon the private

in

the presence of the public can often

be danger

to the point of loss of life.

And they
this

called unto

Lot,

and said unto

him, Where are

the men

which came

in to thee

night?

Bring them
role

out unto us, that we

may know them.

The dominant

3:1

was

broken in
and

an

Gen. questioning has played in the Book of Genesis since original status now returns 18:23. The Gen. in astounding way
reduced

in full force,
6.
And Lot

questioning is
the

to the level of threats.

went out at

door

unto

them,

and shut

the

door

after

him,

Lot

still

believes in the

protection of

doors.

7. 8.

And said, I pray

you,

brethren, do
do
ye to

not so wickedly. which

Behold now, I pray

them out unto you,

you,
and

I have two daughters

them as
under

have

not

known man; let me

only
unto

bring
do

is

good

in

your eyes:

these men

nothing; for

therefore came

they

the shadow

of my

roof.

In these two verses, Lot

addresses

uses

the word please no less than three times. He

the men of Sodom as my brothers and uses a lengthened form of the

verbs,

which always

indicates

politeness and gentility.

Lot's

politeness

is in fact

cowardice.

Cowardice,

as we saw

willingness
apparent

to face the giants, is a greater

in the discussion concerning Caleb and his vice in Biblical terms than is normally

(see commentary to Gen. 14:5). It is Lot's

greatest

harm because that decent he he

decency
have

is

not

decency itself that causes the accompanied by courage. Had he not

to protect his guests, or had he been

been

so

would not would

have felt the

need

more courageous

chosen another means.

9.

And they said, Stand back. And they said again. This and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse

one fellow came

with

in to sojourn,
And

thee, than

with them.

they pressed sore

upon

the man, even

Lot,

and came near to

break

the

door.

The
one

main

theme of Verse

continues

in

which

Moses

will

find himself.

by placing Lot in a position similar to the Having been brought up in the court of
when

Pharaoh, Moses
people

was considered a

foreigner

he first became leader

of

his

(Ex.

2:19; 5:2ff). After having killed

an

Egyptian taskmaster, Moses

The Lion
discovered two Hebrews
Who

and the

Ass

61

fighting and
him the
judge

tried to reestablish peace between them. At

that time one of them asked

same question
over us? and

the men

of

Sodom

now ask

Lot.

made thee a prince and a

intendest thou to kill

this

me, as thou

killedst

the

Egyptian? And Moses feared,

spite of

2:14). Yet in
people.

his

original

fears,

Surely thing is known (Ex. Moses was able to become judge over the
said,
point of view of

Lot is in
since

an admirable position sets

from the

any

potential new

founder

his foreignness The

him

apart and would allow

him to

bring

ways, but

his lack

of courage renders such an action

impossible.

inefficacy

of

doors to

a man without courage

is

also made explicit

in

this verse.

10.

But the

men put forth

their

hand,

and pulled

Lot into the house to them,

and shut

to the

door.
11
.

And they

smote the men

that were at the opening of the

wearied

house

with

blindness, both

small and great: so

that

they

themselves to find the opening.

THE OPENING

For the analogy between this verse and Gen. 7:16, in which God opening in the Ark Himself, see the commentary to Gen. 19:17.
In Verse 1 1 the
there
were no word

closed the

door is

replaced

by

the

word

opening
men

as

if

at

this

point

distinction. Blind

passion so confuses

the

that

is is turned to

Lot's
12

advantage and protects

him better than any door.

son

And the

men said unto

Lot, Hast thou here any besides?

thou

in

law,

and

thy

sons, and

thy daughters,
13
.

and whatsoever

hast in
the

the city,

bring

them out

of this place: before

the face

for

we will

destroy this place,

the

because

the Lord:

and

Lord hath

sent us unto

cry of them is to destroy it.

sons

waxen great

of

14.

And Lot
said, up,

went

out, and spake

his

in law,

which

had

taken

his daughters,
but he

and

get you out

of this place; for the Lord

will

destroy

this city,

seemed as

one that mocked unto

his

sons

in law.

The
tions
of

angels

have

either not understood, or understood meal.

too well, the implica

Verse 3

when

Lot prepared the

They

do

not even ask

if he has

a wife.

On the

use of a

the word

destroy,

see

the commentary to Gen. 19:17.

There is

play

on words

God's

attention to the cities

which will

in the Hebrew text between the outcry that called of Sodom and Gomorrah and the word mocked used in

Gen. 19:14,
15.
And

be discussed in the commentary to Gen. 21:3.

hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the
and upon the

when

the morning arose, then the angels

wife and thy two

city.

daughters,

which are

16.

And

while

he lingered,

the men

laid hold upon his hand,

hand of his wife,

62
and upon the

Interpretation
hand of his two daughters;
him
without

the Lord

being merciful: and they brought him

that

forth,
17
.

and set

the city.

And it came to pass,

when

they had brought them forth abroad,

neither

he said, Escapefor

thy life; look not behind thee,

lest
thou

stay thou

in

all

the plain; escape to the mountain,

be

consumed.

The

angels warn
mourn

Lot

not

to look back because

of

family

to

over

the loss

the city.

they do not want him However, there may be a

warning.

or

his

more

complicated

but

more

important

reason

for this

There Gomorrah
out to the

are a
and

striking
and

number of parallels

between the destruction of Sodom

and

the universal Flood at the time of Noah. In both cases a cry comes the same word

Lord,

is

used

for destruction

as

in Gen. 6:13. In both

cases

God decided

upon

total destruction , but was prevented

man.

from

doing

so

by the
in the

accidental sight of an

innocent

In both

cases the

destruction
of

comes

form Both

of rain.

Because Noah lacked

with a

complete

knowledge
closed

the arts

God had to

close the

opening

door, just as the angels

ultimately end up on the top of a relationship between Lot and his daughters, as we
men with

opening of Lot 's house. mountain dead drunk, and the

the
shall

see, is closely connected

would

be

related

Noah's relationship to Ham. The warning not to look back to Ham's sin in looking back at his own origins.
And Lot
said unto

then seem to

18. 19.

them, Oh,

not

so, my Lord:
grace

Behold now, thy

mercy,
which

servant

hath found

in thy sight,

and

thou

hast

magnified

tin-

thou

hast

shewed unto me

in saving my

life;

and

cannot escape to the

mountain,

lest some
this city

evil take

me, and I

die:
it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither,

20.

Beholdnow,
(is it
not a

is near to flee
and

unto , and

little one?)

my

soul shall

live.

Lot's true God objects to

to

virtues and vices are made quite explicit cities and

in these

verses.

Lot knows

which he wishes flee is only a little one. He seems to be aware of the main thread that has been holding the Book of Genesis together thus far. He knows God is willing to find a reasonable mean between His notions of what the world should be and what men are capable of accomplishing.

therefore stresses the fact that the city to

21.

And he

said unto

him, See, I have accepted thee concerning

for the
which

this

thing

also, thatlwill

not overthrow

this city,

thou

hast spoken.

The
shall

phrase

/ have

accepted thee

lift

your face also

in

regard to this matter.

well as

concerning this thing also literally reads / The expression lifting the face, as

the

word

lifting itself,

appears quite often

in the Book

of

Genesis

and

deserves

some thought. once

It appears twice in Chapter 40:

in Verse 13

and again

in Verse 20. Two

The Lion
men, a baker and a

and the

Ass

63
their dreams in

butler, have just had a dream. Joseph interprets

he
says within three

the same words. In both cases

head, but in

one case

the words mean the man

mean

days shall Pharaoh lift up thine will be reinstated to his high from
a tree.

position; in the other

they

he

will

be

hung

This fundamental

ambiguity in the word lifting occurs throughout the whole of Genesis. In Chapter 13, Verses 10 and 12, men are invited to lift their eyes in order to receive the great benefit
with which

God

will provide
good

them,

and

in general,
and

men often

lift their eyes

to see some unexpected

(Gen.

18:2, 24:64,
use of

43:29). In Gen. 22:13,

son

Abraham lifts his

eyes to see the ram

mind

that will replace his

Isaac

as a

sacrifice,

this welcome sight calls to

the

the phrase nine verses earlier when

Abraham lifted his

eyes

to

see

Mount Moriah.
give a

The
man:

word to

lift is

used

twice in the sense of the support that land can

And the land

and

was not able to and the

bear them, that they

might

dwell

together. (Gen.

13:6),

again,

land

wherein

they

were strangers could not

bear

them

because of their cattle (Gen. 36:7). We are now prepared to begin to

also

understand the phrase

shall

lift

your

face

in

regard to this matter.

When Jacob feared the

revenge of

his brother, he

placated

him

with

large gifts,
those

hoping that perhaps he

with

will

lift my face (Gen. 32:20).

which the

Isaiah

uses the phrase

quite

lifted faces (Is. 3:3), honorable

men.

King

James it is

translators
not good

rightly translate

as

Proverbs 18:5 tells

us that

to lift the face of an evil man, and yet in the Book of Job

we are

told to lift

our

notion of

faces to God (Job 22:26). The ambiguity and hence the full meaning of the lifting comes to the foreground in the height of the discussion between
and

Abraham Abraham

asks would you not

which are

God concerning the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Verse 24 do a lifting with regard to this place for the sake of the
in it,
and

fifty righteous men

The term

in Verse 26 God replies, /

would

do

lifting

with regard to the whole

lifting

supports the ways of

of the place for their sake. seems to be related to the way in which God accepts and man by placing them on a higher level. The ambiguity in

lifting

is that many human ways cannot be lifted in this sense but sometimes must be destroyed. This would account for the double interpretation Joseph gave to the
two dreams
as well as the problem of whether
more explicit
.

it is

good or

bad to lift

a man s

face

It

also

makes

the content of the discussion between God and

original question was

Abraham in Chapter 18 Abraham 's

righteous with the wicked? as

Wilt thou also destroy the

the discussion it appears

(Gen. 18:23). From the

end of

though the

answer on

the political level cannot be the same as the answer would

of accommodation

be

on a private

level. The type

save

God has been forced to accept,

ever since

He decided to

Noah from the Flood

by establishing Law,
In this
sense

ultimately

means an

accommodation

in this

principle as well.

the true subject

matter of the

discussion in Chapter 18

was

the divine art of accommodation that

Abraham learned

through the true art of questioning.

This understanding of the word lifting makes somewhat more intelligible the strange usage of Gen. 4:7: surely if thou doest well, there will be a lifting. In the

64
previous verse we were told that as

Interpretation
Cain's face fell. The

lifting

does

not refer

to

his

is normally supposed, but rather to his face. In other words, God sacrifice, would have been willing to accept Cain's new ways had he been able to follow
them

justly.
At times the
word

lifting is

used

in the

most

literal

sense of

the word. The

waters were said

to lift the Ark (Gen.

7:17),

and yet even

there it meant to place the

Ark

above the whole that was

to be destroyed. The
provides

word

is

often used

in the

sense

of earning.

For instance, Joseph

ten asses to carry the good things of

Egypt to his father. In Gen. 45:27

and

wagons are provided

to carry presents to

Joseph,
Gen.
in Gen.

in Gen. 46:5 these

requests

same wagons are used

to carry Jacob to Egypt. In

47:30, Jacob
50:13

his

sons

to carry him out of the land of

which

Egypt,

and

we read and carried

his

sons

lifted him into the land,

does

not mean

that

they

literally

him

on

their shoulders,

but is

used

metaphorically

since we

know

the wagons were

literally pulled by
escape name

asses.

22.

Haste thee,

thither; for I

cannot

do any thing

till thou

be

come

thither.

Therefore the

of the city was called

Zoar.

The city of Zoar had been mentioned in Gen. 13:10 when the surrounding country was described as the garden of the Lord, and it will be mentioned once
more

in Deut. 34:3

as the as a

furthest

place

Moses in the

would see

Nebo. Its tradition

city

of refuge extends to

Is. 15:5

and also

from the top of Mount Jer. 48:34. The be discussed

notion of a place of refuge or of

decency

midst of chaos will

further in the commentary to Gen. 21:32.

23. 24. The
sun was risen upon

the earth when

Lot

entered

into Zoar.
and fire

Then the Lord

rained upon

Sodom

and upon

Gomorrah brimstone

from

the

Lord 25
.

out

of heaven;
those cities,
and all

And he

overthrew

the plain and all the

inhabitants of the cities,

a pillar

and

that which grew upon the ground.

26. 27 28
.

But his

wife

looked back from behind him,

gat

and she

became
where

And Abraham

up early in the morning to the place

and

of salt. he stood before the Lord:

the

And he looked toward Sodom

Gomorrah

and

toward

all

land of the plain

and

beheld,
29
.

and

lo,

the smoke of the

when

And it came to pass,

country went up as the smoke of a furnace. God destroyed the cities of the plain that God remembered
,

Abraham,
the which

and set Lot out

of the

midst

of the overthrow,

when

he

overthrew the cities

in

Lot dwelt.

As Abraham
of the cities word

stood

of the plain

he began to

before the Lord that morning watching the smoke rise out understand God's answer to his question. The

in the Bible, but it is not the normal word for incense rising from a sacrifice. Lot was saved that day, but there would be other men on other days. God's answer touched the nature of political life deeply. Nine just men may have lived in those cities. Someone,
smoke

for

is

common enough
smoke of

smoke.

It is the thick

The Lion
someone whose name we

and the

Ass
been
sacrificed that

65

do

not even

know, may have

the

day

in

the cities of the plain.

When Moses brings the first

soot out of a

plague on

Egyptians, he

makes

flies

by

furnace (Ex. 9:8-10). The only other time the word furnace getting appears in the Bible is in the description of Mount Sinai at the time of the Giving of
the Law (Ex. 19:18).
some suffer war.

When
of

people

band together to form

city it is inevitable that

because

the actions of others.

It

was not unjust

for Israel to

country suffers because of its sins, does not imply that every man of the city had been unjust. If there is between private and public justice then Sinai, too, was a sacrifice.

Sihon, king of the Amorites, began a defend itself, and yet many Amorites died. If a even though that suffering be considered just, it
a

distinction

30.

And Lot

went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him ;for hefeared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

Lot has

now

been

convinced

that the city

is

no place

for

human being.

Having
a cave

no

idea

what

it

would mean

to live on the land as Abraham the

does, he lives in
simple and the

because he is

not able

to

see

difference between the

primitive.

31.

And the firstborn

earth to come

said unto

the younger,

Our father is old,

earth:

and there

is not a

man

in the

in

unto us after

the way of all the

32.
33.

Come, let
And they
with

us make our

father drink

wine, and we will

lie

with

him,

that we may

preserve seed

of our father.

made their father

and

drink

wine that night: and

when she

the firstborn

went

in,

and

lay

her father;
came

he perceived not

lay down,

nor when she arose.

34.

And it

to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn

said unto

the younger,

Behold, I

lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou
in,
35
.

and

lie

with

him,

that we

And they
with

made their father

and

may preserve seed of our father. drink wine that night also: and the younger arose,
when she

and

lay

him;

he perceived not

36.
37.

Thus

were

both

lay down, nor when she arose. the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
a

And the firstborn bare Moabites

unto

son, and called

his

name

Moab: the

same

is the father of the

this

day. bare
a son, and called unto this

38.

And

the younger, she also

children

his

name

Ben-ammi: the

same

is the

father of the

of Ammon

day.

In commenting merely
says

on these

verses, the early Christian commentator,

these verses

Origen,

If

true

Christians
our

understood

so much.

Perhaps in
to

day

it is important to

they would not blame the girls be explicit for the same reasons that

Origen

chose

speak quietly.

The story of the relationship between Moab and Israel is spread out through a number of books and one must compare the passages closely in order to make sure
,

of the sequence of events.

66
As the
people were about

Interpretation
to enter the Promised

Land, God

said:

.Distress

not the

Moab-ites,

neither contend with them

in battle: for I
children

will not give thee

of
.

their

landfor a possession; because I have given A r unto the

of Lotfor a possession (Deut.

2:9)

In Deut. 2:26 Moses

requesting
And I
words

sent messengers

to

Sihon, king

of the

Amorites,

passage

through his land:

sent messengers out

of the

wilderness

of Kedemoth

unto

Sihon

king

ofHeshbon with

ofpeace, saying,

(Deut.

2:26)

That

was the

battle in

which

After the
again

war with

Israel unexpectedly gained lands east of the Jordan. Sihon Moses sent another messenger, this time to Moab,
through the land. Now

requesting
was a

passage

Moab, like Esau

and

the Amale

kites,

brother,
grow.

and was

to have been one of the means through which the New

Way

was

to

But Balak, their

perhaps

king,

panicked at

the last moment, and there

ensued a war

that will be

It
of the

was a sad

war,

described in the commentary to Gen. 25:1. the saddest of them all because it was against the last
Israel
would

brothers. From

now on

have to

go

it

alone.

The

result was a

decision laid down

by

the Lord:

An Ammonite

or

Moabite

shall not enter

into the

congregation

of the Lord;

even to their

tenth generation shall

met you not with

they not enter into the congregation of the Lordfor ever: Because they bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and
to curse thy

because they hired against thee Balaam the son ofBeor ofPethor of Mesopotamia, thee. Nevertheless the Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the Lord
turned the curse
not seek

God
shalt

into

blessing unto thee,

prosperity

because
all

the

Lord thy God loved thee. Thou

ever.

their peace nor their

thy days for

Thou

shalt not abhor an

Edomite; for he is thy brother:

stranger

thou shalt not abhor an

Egyptian; because

thou wast a

in his land.

(Deut.

23:3-7)

The

next

fragment of our tale is

ever written.

retold

in

one of the most

charming books that

discretion has
man named

Sometime, back in

the days of the

Judges,

there was

Elimelech. His story begins much like the travels of Abraham and Isaac and of Jacob. There was a famine in the land. He, his wife Naomi, and two sons went to dwell for a time in the land of Moab The man died there and so did his
.

sons,

leaving Naomi alone with two Moabite daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth. Suddenly in these pages it becomes right that each be with her own people praying
But Ruth loves Naomi,
a and returns with named

to her own god.

her to Israel.
saw

A
was

gentle

man,

kinsman
.

of

Elimelech

Boaz,
was

Ruth

one

day

as she

gleaning in his fields Love for a man

where

and

duty

toward a people sent Ruth to the another,

a

threshingfloor

Boaz

lay

asleep.

But there

kinsman

closer

The Lion
than

and the

Ass
Ruth to
replace the

67
life
of

Boaz,
The

whose

Elimelech. She

stayed

duty it was to raise a seed through by his feet till morning.

other man
and we

know him,
rejoiced.

declined. His face is blank; his name is So And So. We do not cannot blame him. Boaz and Ruth had a son and all Bethlehem
of

The last line

the book says that through

and

Ruth,

the

Moabite, Boaz begot

into the
congregation

Obed,
of the

and

Obed begot Jesse,

Jesse begot David (Ruth 4:21-22).

not

Three generations, and a Moabite had Lord, he had even become its king. David knew
of

only

entered

when

his ancestry, and sent his parents to be guests of Moab s king Saul pursued him (I Sam. 22:3). One chapter after the Lord promised him the

perpetual royal parents?

line, David made an unprovoked

shout, but Origen

attack on

Moab (II Sam. 8:2). His

Lot in dead

We

are not told. was silent and was

a cave

Today
drunk.

one must

Chapter XX
1. And Abraham journeyed from thence toward Kadesh
and

the south country, and

dwelt between

Shur,

and sojourned

in Gerar.

Kadesh
of our story.

and Shur are both destined to play important roles in the development Kadesh is Paran (Num. 13:26), the site of many revolutions. The first

revolution was caused

by

the people over the lack of meat.

Feeling discouraged,

Moses

protested

to the Lord that the Children of Israel were not his children and

that he was no longer either able or willing to take the full responsibility of

leadership
appointed

on

himself (Num. 11:11). In

elders

Moses'

compliance with
.

demand, God

seventy

to

assist

him in his duties (Num

meat:

11:16) and told the people

that on the

morrow

they

would

have their

And say thou unto the people, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow, andye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the Lord, saying Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well
,

with us

in Egypt:
two

therefore the
norfive

Lord

will give you

flesh,
nor

and ye shall eat.

Ye

shall not eat one

a whole

day.
until

nor

days,
Lord

days,

neither ten and

days,

twenty days; But even

unto you:

month,

it

come out at your nostrils,

it be loathsome have
wept

because
saying,

that

ye

have

despised
forth
out

the

which

is among

you, and

before him,

Why

came we

of

Egypt9

(Num.

11:18-20)
and

Before the
prophesied.

meat

arrived

the seventy elders

received

the spirit of

God

No

mention

is

made of what

the

old men

did

when

they

prophesied, but seeing

and

seventy of them doing it together makes one think more of those men with cymbals drums than of Isaiah and Jeremiah. This impression is further strengthened by
verses that

the

follow it:

68
And Moses
gat

Interpretation
him into
and

the camp,

he

and

the elders

from

the

Lord,

brought

quails from the sea, and

as

of Israel. And there went forth let them fall by the camp, as it

a wind

were a

day's journey
camp, and as

on

this side, and

it

were a upon

day's journey

on the other side, round about the

it

were two cubits

high

the face of the earth. And the people stood

that

day.

and all that night,

and all the next and

day,

and

they

gathered

the quails:

up all he that
round

gathered

least

gathered

ten

homers:

they

spread them all abroad

for themselves

about the camp.

wrath

And
was

while

the flesh was yet

between

their teeth, ere

it

was chewed,

the
very-

of the Lord

kindled against

the people, and the

Lord smote

the people with a

great plague.

(Num.
and

11:30-33)

In Chapter 12 Miriam
their lineage was the

Aaron
that

revolted against

Moses

on

the grounds that that

same as

his,

they
put

were older

than

he,

and

God

spoke

to them as well. God's

answer will

be discussed
down.

more

fully

in the commentary to (see commentary

Gen. 20:7, but the

After the
to Gen.
and

revolt was

quickly

revolution caused

by the report given by the

Levites
arose under and

spies

14:4),
of

a revolution within the

the

leadership of Korah

three

his followers, Dathan, Abiram,

sons:

On.
and

Now Levi had three

Gershon, Kohath,
second son ,

important families, though

were

never of unimportant

ones, the
,

Merari. As is usually true of children of the first son

sons ,

rarely heard

of again

but the

Kohath had four

the first one

and

named

Amram,

the second Izhav.

Amram's

second son was

Moses

Izhav's

first

son was

Korah (Ex. 6:16-21). Korah in

and

the

Levites

revolted

because they
of the

were not given a role people was would makes

accordance with their position.

If the Korah

leadership
s claim

to be established

by

means of primogeniture,
Moses'

to power

have been equal, if

not

superior, to
'

In the

following

verses,

God

it

clear

that it was

Moses

character rather than

his birthright that distin

him from the other men of the community. Nonetheless, after many Levites had been killed in the revolution, the claim was met by giving them a more noble role in the community (Num. 18). Leadership and hence
guished
Levites'

worship in the Temple then became

even

more complicated

because

once

partly

shared

(Num. 11:16),

more claims are made and more positions must

rulership is be

manufactured.

The land
spoke

of

Shur

plays a somewhat similar role.

It

was

there that the

not

angel

to Hagar (Gen.

16:7).

Ultimately

Ishmaelites (Gen. 25:18) but

and most crucial son of

also of the sons of

Aaron

and

Esau, as well Miriam, Korah, Dathan, Abiram

live in Shur
It is
and

only Amalek (I Sam. 15:7; 27:8), the last (see commentary to Gen. 36:12).
and

it became the home

of the

On, Ishmael

and

Amalek;

these are the people who

the other son, the unchosen one.

Kadesh. Abimelech lives in the land of In Hebrew the similarity between his name and
almost as

Abraham's is
Abraham

more evident.

if

we

were to ask ourselves

why
will

and not

Abimelech

was chosen to
wait

bring the

New Way. The decision

be hard,
2.

and we

may have to
said

for

several chapters

before getting
Abimelech

an answer.

And Abraham
sent,
and took

of Sarah his Sarah.

wife.

She is my

sister: and

king

of Gerar

The Lion

and the

Ass

69

Superficially
told
common practice

the story of Abraham and Abimelech reminds one of the story

and

in Chapter 12 concerning Abraham to delete one of them as

certain minor

a mere repetition of

Pharaoh. In the last century it was the other. There are,

however,
reads as

Abimelech the

differences that are important. For instance, Verse 2 reads: king of Gerar sent and took Sarah In the parallel passage Chapter 12
.

follows: The
and

princes also

Of Pharaoh

saw

her

and commended

her before

Pharaoh
obvious

the woman was taken into Pharaoh's

house (Gen. 12:15). The first

not been attracted to Sarah, since he had her, but Abimelech may have fallen in love with Sarah. The woman in Chapter 12 was merely taken by some unknown hand, whereas Abimelech himself took Sarah, a common expression in Hebrew for taking a wife.

difference is that Pharaoh had

never even seen

This interpretation

would seem

to be borne out

by

the fact that in Chapter 12 no

personal names are used.

The

king

is merely

called

Pharaoh

as are all

kings

of

Egypt,

and

Sarah is merely

called the woman.

In the

present chapter

there is the

warmth of private names.

But God came to Abimelech in

a

dream

by night,
hast

and said to

him, Behold,

thou art

but

dead man, for

the woman which thou

taken: for she

is

a man's wife.

On the

general significance of communication

between God

and man

through

dreams,
4.

see

the commentary to Gen. 28:12.

But Abimelech had

nation also?

not come near

her:

and

he

said,

Lord,

wilt

thou slay a righteous

The latest translation

translates: Lord
will you

of

Genesis done

by

the Jewish Publication

slay

people even

though innocent?

In

Society doing so they seem to

aware

have

missed

the force of the word

and

also.

Apparently
we

Abimelech is

that

God

has destroyed Sodom

would will

Gomorrah. Though

do

not

know how Abimelech

have

answered

Abraham's question, he does

though

wonder

if he

and

his

nation

be destroyed,

even

he is

righteous

and

believes his

nation

to be

righteous as well.

Note that he,

as

Abraham did in Chapter

18,

speaks with

God

openly and fearlessly. God's warning comes to Abimelech in

peacefully. passions.

dream. The

couple

have fallen asleep

Abimelech

seems not

to have been a man of great and uncontrollable

that Verse

Even if one

were

to

suppose

6 is

related

to that peace, in other

men such

divine intervention

might

only have led to frustration.

and

Said he
in the

not unto me,

She is my sister?
and

she, even she

herself said,

He is my brother:

integrity

of my heart

innocency of my hands have I done

the word that
will admit

this.

The

word

integrity is the

same as

had been translated Abimelech

s

perfect

in
of

Gen. 17:1. Since in the

next verse

God

that

description

70
himself is just
that kind of
and

Interpretation
accurate, it
would seem

fair to say that Abimelech has

reached
of

perfection

toward which Abraham was enjoined at the

beginning

Chapter 17.
6.
And God said

unto

him in

dream, Yea I also know

sinning

that thou

didst this in the

integrity

of thy heart; for I not to touch her.

also withheld thee from

against

me; therefore suffered I thee

God twice
never

repeats

the

word also, which

Abimelech had

used

in Verse 4. God

integrity all the time. Abimelech does not become flustered nor does he embarrass Sarah by asking her to
and was aware of

intended to kill Abimelech

his

leave his bed immediately.

In the
at previous chapter

Sarah had been

an old

woman,

and one might wonder

first

whether

there

was

other

hand there

seems

nothing

something else in Abimelech 's

peculiar about

Abimelech 's taste. On the

character that could shed

light
be

on this question.

The
some

same problem will arise

in many instances. For example, it

age of author.

will

of

acquired a certain argument

importance that Isaac marry at the significance for the it

was also

forty,

since

the

number

forty

has
the

From the

point of view of not

important that Isaac 's For the

marriage

take place

too

long

after

the death of his

mother

mother.

same reason

it

was

important that the death

son.

of

his

follow the journey to Mount Moriah

made

where about as

Abraham bound his

These

facts taken together would have

he
was

Isaac

thirty

-eight

or

thirty-nine when

bound
to

at

the

top

of

Mount Moriah. But

in the

case of

Abimelech there is

no reason
would and

suppose

have

assumed

that age played any role, and on the basis of the story one Isaac to have been not much more than eight years old. Ages
of experience we

times are often crucial in the story, but in the light

have

made age

it

our

policy to

ignore the

age of a character except

in those

passages where

the

is specifically mentioned, on the assumption that the logic of the story was more important in the eyes of the author than the passage of a specific amount of time.
7
.

Now therefore
and thou shalt

restore the man

his

wife; for

he is
not,

prophet, and

he

shall

pray for thee,

live:

and

if thou

restore

her

know

thou that thou shalt surely

die,

thou,

and all that are

thine.

In

spite of the

fact that the

would

word prophet appears

Book
some

of

Genesis,

it

be impossible to

understand much of the

here for the only time in the book without

This discussion has been

understanding

of the author's view of prophecy.

not

placed at

the end of the chapter in order that it

it

we shall allow ourselves

to

wander a

disturb the unity of the whole. In bit through the early books of the Bible to

see what

they

contain.

Therefore Abimelech
these things in their

rose

early in the morning,

and called all

his senants,

and told all

ears: and the men were sore afraid.

The Lion
Abimelech
command.

and the

Ass
men are

71
afraid, he seems in full

commands

his men; though the

9.

Then Abimelech
and what
sin?

called

Abraham,

and said unto

him. What hast

on me and

thou

done

unto us?

have I

offended

thee, that thou hast brought

unto me which are not

my kingdom

a great

thou

hast done deeds

done.

10.

And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?

asks several questions. Unlike the normal form of questioning found in Genesis, they seem to be asked in genuine confusion by a man who does not know the answer. His first question is What hast thou done to us? His first
concern

Abimelech

is

and what

merely for himself but for his people as well. The second question is have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and my kingdom a great
not

sin?

Abimelech
actions.

assumes that seems

Abraham believes himself to have justifiable

of

cause

for his
due to

He

incapable

believing

that Abraham's misjudgment was

defect in character, but rather ascribes it to a defect in Abraham's knowledge of particulars, an error that can befall even the most decent of men.
a

Abimelech 's way of describing a wrong action is to say deeds which are not done. He does not cite any divine law that Abraham has transgressed, but rather views the
world as

the home

of

decent

men who

behave decently.

11.

And Abraham said, Because I thought,

place;
and

Surely

the

fear of God is

not

in this

they

will

slay

me for

my

wife's sake.

Abraham is
occasion,
can of

mistaken on made

two

counts.

The

men of

Abimelech,
and

at

least

on

this

be

to

fear the Lord,

no matter

how base

derivative the
though he

foundation
shows no

that fear may be. Abimelech

a noble man.

himself,

on the other

hand,

fear, is clearly

12.

And

yet

indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of
and she

my mother;

13.

Audit
unto

came

to pass, when
thy

became my wife. God caused me

to wander from my father's

house,

thatl said

her, This is

kindness

which thou shalt shew unto

me; at everyplace whither we

shall come,

say of me, He is my brother.

Abraham's

excuse

is

weak.

He does

not

know

what

lying

is. If speech has its

being

in the thoughts it intends to

speech

give rise

to in the mind of the

hearer,

then

Abraham's

is

false

speech.

the words themselves are

literally

One may indeed argue, as Abraham does, that true. Sarah is in some sense his sister, but since

the

sentence

itself was intended to

been

imply that she was not his wife it was certainly a

to
someone who

lie. Had the

sentence

addressed

knew that Sarah

was

his

wife

and was meant only to inform the hearer of an additional relationship, those same words would have been true. Abraham does not seem to feel the full force of the

relationship between

speech and

the individual to whom the speech

is

addressed.

72
The
seemed nexus of

Interpretation
this lack in Abraham comes to the foreground in Verse 13
position
.

There

to be sufficient grounds for Abraham 's

in the

case of

Pharaoh, but

on the grounds of

his

experience

in Egypt Abraham has His

made

it

a general rule or

law to

act

in

a particular manner. and

generalization renders

him insensitive to the

which

distinction between Pharaoh learned only too

If the home
well

Abimelech. Perhaps that lesson

Abraham

in Chapter 19 concerning the

.

relation of

justice to law

requires some modification of

Abimelech

was placed

between Kadesh
and

and
,

Shur in have

order

to

raise the problem of the

difference between him

That
will

Abraham

we

yet

to see

Abraham's
14.

superiority.

only

emerge

in Chapter 21.

And Abimelech took sheep,

gave them unto

and

oxen, and mensenants, and womenservants, and

Abraham,
said,

and restored

him Sarah his

.

wife.

15. 16.

And Abimelech said, Behold my land is before thee Dwell

where

it pleaseth thee

And

unto

Sarah he

Behold, I have

given

thy brother a

thousand pieces of silver:

behold he is

to thee a

covering of the

eyes, unto all that are with

thee,

and with all

other: thus she was reproved.

In the
prior more

parallel passage

from Chapter 12, Pharaoh

married.

presented gifts

to Abraham to be

to

discovering that Sarah was

payment on a

In the

case of

Pharaoh it

seemed

like

low level. For Abimelech it do that

was the

only way
show

open to

him
no

in his
there

attempt to soothe
and yet

the situation. He tried in some way to

that he

bore

ill will,

he

could not

without at the same time

making it

clear that

were grounds

for

such a

feeling on
and

his

part.

17.

So Abraham

prayed unto

God:

God healed Abimelech,

and

his wife,

and

his

18.

they bare children. For the Lord had fast closed up all the
maidservants; and

wombs

of the house of Abimelech, because of

Sarah, Abraham's
Abimelech
plague on

wife.

seemed not even or

to be aware of the fact that there had been

his house

beginnings
choose

that Abraham had prayed for him. This may be the of what will turn out to be the decisive factor in God's decision to
over

Abraham

Abimelech.

A Digression

on the

Author's

Understanding of Prop/,lecv

appears ten times in the Torah, but does not have the standing it acquired in the later books. In the Book of Numbers, God makes a clear distinction between a prophet and Moses, who is nowhere called a prophet. And he
word said:

The

Prophet

Hear

now

my

words
unto

Korah.

If there

be

a prophet

make

myself known
not

him in

a vision and will speak to

among you, I the Lord will him in a dream. My sen-ant

we

Moses is

so, who is faithful in all my

house (Num. 12:6,7). The Prophets

The Lion
shall meet

and the

Ass
are not

73
only from
strange
and

in the Torah
also

and

the

Early
they

Prophets
were

Moses, but
Aaron

from

prophets as man

very different known in later times.

was the

first

to be called a prophet, but the context is

made thee a

indeed: And the Lord said unto Moses, see, I have

Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet (Ex 7 : 1)
. .

God to Pharaoh:

Apparently Aaron will play the role

play the
role of

of

the prophet to the extent to which

Moses

will

God. All these

strange present

transformations are to take place in Egypt where Moses and Aaron will themselves as magicians
magicians and
who can outdo even

the magicians

of

Pharaoh.

Both the

Moses

are able to

bring

the plagues, but the

irony is that no
merely
shows

matter who

brings the plagues, the Egyptians suffer. Miriam at one point is also called a prophetess, but the
with a

context

her dancing
she

drum in her hands It is

.

by no means accidental that at this point

would

is

called the sister

of Aaron (Ex. 15:20). While that

about

normally be praise, convey the very

when

to

go out of one's
.

way to say so

the sister of

Moses

might

opposite

This

same

kind

of wildness

is

again all we see of

prophecy

the

Seventy Elders begin to prophesy (Num. Moses burden

'
.

11:25)

after

their pitiful attempt to share

The
of

next prophetess we meet

under

is Deborah. As

prophetess she

draws the army

Israel together

the

leadership of Barak and sends him to make war against

says

Sisera (Judg. Chaps. 5,6). Barak

accompany his
the men
woman

he

will go

only if Deborah is willing to

than willing to accompany

men.

Deborah

answers

that she

is

more

because of her great prophecy that Sisera will be sold into the hands of a (Judg. 4:9). In the battle Sisera escapes and is indeed killed by a woman,
name
song.

but her famous

is Jael, the
of

wife of

Hebber (Judg. 4:22). Deborah then does

sings

her

Later in the Book

Judges

we meet an unknown prophet who

speak

the

words we are accustomed to associate with the prophets words are

(Judg.

6:8,9), but his

replace

totally ineffectual
(Judg. 6:10).

and

God is

almost

immediately

forced to

him

by

an angel

Saul meets everal

than play on

groups of men called

prophets, and
and

again

they do little more

one

drums

and

sing

wild songs

(I Sam. 10:4

19:20). Saul becomes

of them, but they seem only to humble and confuse him. At the end of his life, after he has been abandoned by God and by Samuel, he returns to these people, but they are of no

help.
rise of

The
people

the

respectable prophet

began in the days

of

Moses
to

when

the

became frightened

by the

voice of

God

and asked

Him

not

speak

to them

directly
day,

Moses. But Moses any longer but through the mediator,

the

would

die

one

and that was

beginning

of prophecy.

The Lord thy God like

unto me; unto

will raise

up

unto thee a

Prophet from the

midst

of thee, of thy brethren,

him

ye shall

hearken; According
saying,

to all that thou

God in Horeb in
my

the

day of the assembly,

me see this great fire

Let me

desiredst of the Lord thy not hear again the voice of the Lord
not.

God.

neither

let

any more, that I die

(Deut.

18:15-16)

74
It
would

Interpretation
be wrong however to believe that Moses
was

distinguished merely

from those early men who sang songs and played on drums. The final tribute the Book of Deuteronomy pays to Moses sets him apart even from those great Prophets
who were

to

come

in the future.

And

there arose not a prophet since

all

in Israel like

unto

Moses,
all

whom

the

Lord knew face to

face. In

the signs and the wonders, which the

Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt to

that mighty

Pharaoh,

and to all

his

servants, and to all

shewed

his land. And in

hand,

and

in

all

the great terror which

Moses

in

the sight

of all Israel.

(Deut.

34:10-12)

other prophets.
ways.

We have already seen the passage in which Moses is distinguished from all To them God will only reveal Himself in dreams and in hidden

The Bible is
prophets alike.
a

fully
false

aware

that signs and wonders come to true and

false

A false
and

prophet

is

not

merely

a man who

falsely

claims to

have had

dream. True

prophets alike are men who

have had

a vision of a whole prophet

that includes the

whose vision

political whole and extends

beyond it. The false

is

a man

has been impaired Though the

either

by a moral defect in his character or through

situation, their

some other cause.

prophets are aware of the political

final

cries to the people or advice to the kings arise through the revelation of the

consequences of the political situation, a revelation

give no account within

for

which

they themselves
after

can

the confines of their own thought. Soon

His promise to

send a

prophet, God

says:

When
that

a prophet speaketh

in

the name

of the Lord,

if the thing follow not,

the prophet

nor come

to pass,

is the thing

which the

Lord hath

not spoken,

but

hath

spoken

it presumptu
(Deut.

ously: thou shalt not

be

afraid

of him.

18:22)

According to this verse one can only decide whether the final vision is true or
false in terms
guished which

of

the wisdom of

what

has been

revealed.

But

Moses,

as

distin

from the Prophets, did

not receive
are

his

wisdom

in

visions and

dreams in

the

interconnections

of

thought

hidden.

Even in later times prophecy came about slowly. The main thrust of the Book of Judges was to show the inadequacy of the loosely connected system of govern
ment envisaged even the

by Moses
person

and

Joshua. The last lines

seen on one

of

Hannah 's
and

prayer mean that

not yet

humblest

had

level

what

God

Samuel had
a

recognized on

the higher level. Israel could no longer do without

king

(I Sam.

2:10). But in Israel there

That
was could

be

no

king; final

allegiance cannot

be

paid

to

a man.

the situation out

of which

the Seers came to be.

own

They

were men of

God

lifetime they were not called Prophets but Seers (I Sam. 9:9; 22:5). The Prophets, men like Elijah and Elishah,
power of the

sent to

balance the

king. In their

The Lion
came much

and the

Ass
.

75
we are

later,

after the

kingdom

cracked

in two However,
.

rushing

our

story brief

and must

leave them for

another occasion and the able

Only
opposed

with

moment a

King king
of

Solomon
who

building of the

Temple does

one

find for

is

to unify the

political and

the sacrificial. As

to

Saul, his sacrifice at the Temple seems to be acceptable (I Kings 8:63).

The height
of

King Solomon 's glory was the Temple he built and the
the
of

wisdom

the

speech

he

gave at

life his

wisdom

left the

ways

his opening ceremony of Israel and his buildings caused debts far beyond his
that building. At the end of

ability to pay (I Kings 9:11-14). Because of these debts the people were willing to follow Jeroboam, who had received God's sanction. His revolution left the kingdom divided between the two

kingdoms, Judah
goes

and

Israel.
magnificent speech at

The

source of the wisdom of the

of

Solomon displayed in his

back to the
wisdom to

the
,

opening ceremony which he had asked

wisdom

Temple

ninth verse of good from

Chapter 3
the Tree

in

God the

distinguish

bad,
have

that same

that Man and Woman had received from eating the

seemed pleased on

fruit

of

in the for
fame.

Garden. God
the
wisdom

this occasion that Solomon

good and

should

asked

to distinguish between

bad,

rather than

for wealth
results

and

Whether the
when man

results of that wisdom were so

gained

different from the

that followed

first

the knowledge of good and

bad is

a question we shall
women and

have to

cover with some care.

His famous decision

received

about

the two

the child

shows that

Solomon had

purely human

wisdom with which

he

could rule

justly

without advice of

Seer

or

Prophet,

or

the intervention of special divine

providence.

The fame
visited

of

Solomon's

wisdom spread

throughout the world, and

who was attracted to

he

was

by

a most proper

lady,

the Queen of

Sheba,

Solomon

because
clear.

lady is by no means She may have been a descendant of Cush the son of Ham (Gen 10:7) which
of

his

wisdom

(I Kings 10:6). The lineage

,

of this great

would make

her

daughter

of

the

cursed nations and a complete

foreigner (Gen.

hand, it is equally possible that she may have been descended from Sheba, the first son of Jokshan, the second son of Abraham by his wife Ketura (Gen. 25:3). Since Abraham's first son by that marriage, Zimran, had no descen dants that we know of, while Jokshan had many famous descendants, we are
9:25). On the
other

forced to
son,

conclude

in the

case of the second marriage as well

that it

is the

second

Jokshan,

who receives

Abraham's

personal

birthright

as opposed to the

special

birthright that

was given to

supposition would place

Isaac (see commentary to Gen. 25:1). This latter the Queen of Sheba in that same middle position between
which we

the Chosen People

and

and

the rest of the world in

have found men like Jethro

the Moabites.

lady seem to have given him a taste for strange women. In the chapter that immediately follows his encounter with the Queen of Sheba, Solomon is seduced by many women of great plans for building turn from the Temple many nations (I Kings 11:1), and his
Unfortunately, King Solomon's
experiences

with

this

grand

to the

building

of shrines to

foreign

gods

(I Kings 11:6).

76
Because from him The
of

Interpretation
the later sins of

Solomon, God decided

Solomon

to take most of the

land

and used

Jeroboam,

the son of Nebat, as His instrument (I

required

Kings 11:26).
to

excessive taxation of the people that was continued and even

in

order

build the

Temple

increased

by

his

son

Rehoboam. Rehoboam's
tribes

policies made

it

possible

for Jeroboam to

gather the people of ten northern

together for a

King fearing that the people would return to Jerusalem for the sacrifice and be reattracted by the ceremony that had traditionally ensured the unity of the people,
successful revolt

that left only the south loyal to

Rehoboam.

Jeroboam

decided to build
mentioned

an altar

in Beth El. Jeroboam's decision to build the

new altar

is

ten times in the Second Book of Kings as the sin that was at the root of
and more

Israel's difficulties;

specifically, this rending of the country into two

cause of

spiritual centers was said to

be the

the defeat of the northern

kingdom

and

its fall into Assyrian hands (II Kings 17:23).

The
real

life

of the

kingdom

after

its

establishment extends

from the

reign of

King David through the reign of King Josiah. The little time that remained after King Josiah 's death was nothing more than a moment that God added to the life of the nation in order that King Josiah would not be forced to witness the fall of
Jerusalem (II Kings 22:19, 20). The account of this period is held together by
the
problem with which we a single

story that faces

entirety:

directly

began this

rather

long digression,
in its

the problem of the

Prophets. We

shall

begin

by quoting I Kings, Chapter 13,

of God out ofJudah
.

1. And behold, there

came a man

by the word of the Lord unto Bethel: and

cried against the altar
a child shall

Jer-o-boam
of the
the

stood
and

by

the altar to

burn incense. 2 And he

in the

word unto

Lord,

said, O

altar, altar, thus saith the

Lord; Behold,
shall

be born

house of David, Jo-siah by name; and upon thee places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones
gave a sign the same
altar shall when

he

offer the priests upon thee.

of the high

shall

be burnt

3. And he

day,

saying,

This is the

sign which the

Lord hath spoken; Behold, the

be

rent, and the ashes that are upon

it shall be poured out. 4. And it came to pass,

King Jer-o-boam heard the saying of the man of God, which had cried against the altar in Beth-el, that he put forth his handfrom the altar, saying. Lay hold on him. Andhishand,
which

he put forth

against

him. dried up,

so that

he

could not pull

it in

again to

him. 5
which

The
the

altar also was

rent, and the ashes poured out from the

altar,

according

to the sign

man
man

of God had given

by the

word

of the Lord. 6. And the

king answered and said unto the

of God, Entreat now the face of the Lord thy God,

restored me again.

And the
as

man

and pray for me, that my hand may be of God besought the Lord, and the king's hand was restored

him

again, and

became

it

was

before. 7. And
and

the

king

said unto the man

of God. Come

home
unto

with me, and refresh

thyself,

will give thee a reward.

8. And the man of God said

neither will I eat

the

king, If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee,
drink
water

of the Lord, saying Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou earnest. 10. So he went another way. and returned not by the way that he came to Beth-el. 11. Now there dwelt an old prophet in Beth-el; and his sons came and told him all the works that the
the word
man

bread

nor

in

this place:

9. For

so was

it

charged me

by

of God had done that day in Beth-el: the

words which

he had spoken
,

unto the

king,

them

they told also to theirfather. 12. And theirfather said unto them

What

way went

he? For his

The Lion
sons

and the

Ass
.13.

11

had seen

his

sons,

Saddle

after man

the man

And he said unto of God went, which came from Judah So they saddled him the ass: and he rode thereon. 14. And went of God, andfound him sitting under an oak: and he said unto him, Art thou the
what

way the

man

me the ass.

of God that
with

earnest from

Judah? And he

said,

am.

15. Then he

said unto

him, Come

home

me, and eat

thee: neither

bread. 16. And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place: 17 For it was said to me
.

by the
the

word

of the Lord, Thou

earnest.

shalt eat no

bread nor drink

water

there,

nor turn again to go

way that thou

18. He

said unto

him, I

am a prophet also as

thou art; and an thee

went

angel spake unto me

of he may eat bread and drink water. him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank

by

the word

the

Lord,

house,

that

Bring him back with But he lied unto him 19. So he

saying,
.

into thine

back

with

water.

And it

came to

table, that the

word

of the Lord

came unto the prophet that

they sat at the brought him back: 21. And he

pass, as
the Lord,

cried unto the man

of God that came from Judah,

the mouth

saying,

Thus saith
kept

Forasmuch

as

thou

hast disobeyed

of the
.

Lord,

and

hast

not

the commandment which the

eaten

Lord thy God commanded thee, 22 in the place, of the

which

But earnest back,

and

hast

bread and drunk drink

no

water

the

Lord did say to thee, Eat

no
.

bread,

and

water;

thy

carcass shall not come unto the sepulchre

had

eaten

bread,

and after

of thy fathers 23. And it came to pass, after he he had drunk, that he saddled for him the ass, to wit, for the
when

prophet whom

he had brought back. 24. And

and
.25.

he

was

gone, a

lion

met

him

by the

way,

and slew

him:

his

carcass was cast

in the

way, and the ass stood

by it,

the

lion

also stood

by the carcass

And, behold,

men passed

by,

and sa w the carcass cast

in

the way, and the

lion standing by the dwelt. 26. And when It is

the man

carcass: and

the prophet that

they brought him backfrom

came and told

it in the city
the

where

the old prophet

way heard thereof, he said,

of God, who was disobedient unto the word of the Lord: therefore the Lord hath unto the lion, which hath torn him, and slain him, according to the word of the him delivered

Lord,

which

he

spake unto

him. 27. And he

went and

spake

to

his

sons, saying,

Saddle

me the ass.

And they
and the

saddled

him. 28. And he

found his

carcass cast

in

the way, and the ass

lion standing

by

the carcass: the

lion had

not eaten

the carcass, nor torn the ass.

and

29. And laid his

the prophet took

up

the carcass of the man

of God,

laid it

upon the

ass, and

brought it back:
carcass
came

and the old prophet came to the city, to mourn and to

bun him. 30. And he

in his

own grave; and

they

mourned over

him,
to

saying,

Alas, my brother!
Whenlam

31. And it

to pass after he had buried him,

me

that

he spake

his

sons, saying,

dead,

then

bun

in the

sepulchre wherein

the man

of God is buried; in

his bones: 32. For

the saying which the

he

cried

by

the word of the

lay my bones beside Lord against the altar in

the cities ofSa-mari-a,

Beth-el,

and against all

houses of the high

.

places which are

returned notfrom his evil way, but shall surely come to pass. 33 After this thing Jer-o-boam high places: whosoever would, he the people priests the made again of the lowest of of high places. 34. And this thing the the priests one of consecrated him, and he became of

became sin

unto the

house of Jer-o-boam,

even

to cut

it off,

and

to

destroy itfrom off the face

of the Earth.

The prophecy the man of God gave in Verse 2 is clearly a reference to the last whom we have been speaking In his reign great King of Israel Josiah the man of from Assyrian hands after 110 years of recaptured the northern provinces were
.

foreign his

was reunited rule, and the split kingdom

for the first time in 361

been

years.

In

reign

the Torah of

Moses,

book that had

almost never

mentioned since

78

Interpretation
was rediscovered

the time of Joshua 522 years earlier,

(II Kings 22:8). From the

mentioned

time of Joshua to the time of the Second Book

once.

It

occurs

in David's last

mentioned

three times earlier

only warning to his son, Solomon. While it was in the Second Book of Kings, it was always used to
words of

of

Kings the Torah is

contrast present practices with

the expectations laid down in that book (II

Kings

10:31; 17:13; 21:8).

The times
such

of

King

Josiah

were as glorious as

Israel has

ever

known: For

no

Passover had been kept

during all the days of the Even during the reign of the best of the kings
times that the high places
we are reminded

days of the judges who judged Israel, or kings of Israel or of the kings ofJudah (II Kings 23:22).
since

the

we are reminded no

less than

seven

were not taken away, of

in

addition

to the ten times in which

destroy Jeroboam s altar. Only at the end of the kingdom was Josiah able to destroy the cause of its corruptions, Jeroboam's altar. After destroying the high places he destroyed the
that the Kings

Israel did

not

altars

Jeroboam had built

and spied the sepulchres that were

in the

mountain and

sent and took the

bones out of the sepulchre and burnt them

had
yonder monument that

upon the

altar, according

to the word of the Lord which the man of God

words.

claimed, who proclaimed these

Then he said, What is

told

him, It is the

proclaimed

I see? And the men of the city God which came from Judah and sepulchre of of these things that thou hast done against the altar of Beth-el (II Kings
the man

23:16,17).
With
so much of an and

introduction,

we are prepared

to face more
of prophecy.

directly

Kings Chapter 13

its implication concerning the limits

and

The crucial

difficulty lies in how one understands the end of Verse

tators
wish

18. Some

modern commen of the medieval was not a

to take out the words

he lied to

him.1

Most

commentators understand this verse to

imply

that the

Old Prophet

true

Prophet

of

God but rather

argues

Prophet

of

Baal.
manner.

Abrabanel
the story
prophet.

in

quite a with

different

He

fully sees that the last part of

his understanding of the Biblical notion of a false The Old Prophet loved and cared for the young man and mourned his
to

is incompatible

death.

According

Abrabanel, it
man

would

be

unthinkable

in Biblical terms that

false prophet should have such feelings. On the basis Old Prophet found the labors.

of Verse

14, he

argues that the

Feeling

that the

of God sitting under the tree, exhausted from his divine commandment applied only to the king and not to
man

himself,
he
so

the Old

Prophet, according to Abrabanel, lied to the

of

of God because

he knew there

was no other

would

evidently needed. be that a prophet must follow the

way convincing him to take the rest and sustenance If Abrabanel 's position is taken, the point of the story
word of

God,

as

it is

revealed

to him

even

'See James Montgomery, The International Critical Commentary, Book Of Kings (Edinborough: T. T. Clark, 1951). See also Gray, The Book Of Kings, Old Testament Library (London: S.C.M. Press, 1963), p. 301.

The Lion
though
an

and the

Ass
fall into

79
such

it may

seem

foolish
Kings

or

wrong,

and

that even a decent man can

error.2

The Books

of

as a whole contain one other

unconnected with appears at whole

man

the story of the man of God, but

it may
of

story that is apparently shed some light on it. It

the middle of the

the very end of the

which

First Book

of

Kings, precisely in

book,

is bound together

by

the two parts

the story concerning the

of God. In I Kings

15:24,

the author mentions the death of

King

Asa

and

that

King Jehoshaphat
kingdom,
under

came

to rule in Judah. The story then shifts to the northern

told the story of King Ahab and the deterioration of his reign influence of his wife Queen Jezebel In the last chapter of the corrupting book, focus is again placed on King Jehoshaphat, who went to pay a visit to the
and we are

the

king of Israel
the chapter
most

(I Kings 22:2). The then ruling king was King Ahab, but throughout Ahab is known merely as the king of Israel. Jehoshaphat, one of the promising kings between the rule of King Solomon and the rule of King
perhaps under
go

Hezekiah, apparently had some hopes of unifying the country again,

a

dual kingship. The Syria in

order

king

of

Israel

proposed

to Jehoshaphat that

they

to war

against

to recapture that

lands that had been lost in the

prior generation.

Jehoshaphat

they inquire of the Prophets expedition would be feasible, and the Prophets were full after making inquiry, Jehoshaphat discovered that there
suggested

to see whether such an

of encouragement.

But

was one prophet

in the

land had

who

had

not

been

consulted.

His

name was

Micaiah (I Kings 22:7-9). Ahab

.

misgivings about
moment a

At that

calling Micaiah and accused him of always prophesying evil strange thing happened. Micaiah joined the other prophets in

thee that thou tell me nothing

encouraging the kings into battle, and Ahab says, How many times shall I adjure but that which is true in the name of the Lord? (I Kings

22:16). Micaiah answers, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the Lord said, These have no master: let them return even man
to

his house in
The

peace

( 1 Kings 22:17).

rest of

the text reads as

follows:
of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, him on his right hand and on his left. 20. And the Lord
go upandfallatRamoth-gilead?Andonesaid

And he

said,

Hear

thou therefore the word

and all the

host of heaven standing

shall persuade

by

said, Who
on

Ahab,

that

he may

this manner, and another said on that the

manner.

21 And there
.

cameforth a spirit, and stood

before
he

Lord,
I

and

said,

will persuade and

him. 22. And

the

Lord said unto him, Wherewith?

And

And he

said,

will go

forth,

will

be

living spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.

forth,
and

said, Thou shalt persuade

the

him,

and prevail also: go

do

so.

23. Now therefore,

and the

behold,

Lord hath put a

living spirit in the mouth of all these prophets,

Lord hath

spoken evil

concerning thee.

(I Kings

22:19-23)

2Don Abrabanel, Coinmentaiy On The Early Prophets, (Jerusalem: Hossath Sepharim Torah
da'ath,5716),p. 35 Iff.

We-

80
In the battle that
ensued

Interpretation
Jehoshaphat
went off

to war in full regalia, but the

king
But

of

Israel

entered

the battle incognito. The Syrian soldiers, to

a capture

having been

instructed

by

their

king
drew

the

king

a certain man

bow

at random

Israel only, let Jehoshaphat escape. and smote the king of Israel (I Kings
of sections of a

22:34).

Precisely
man

in the middle, between the two

the story concerning the

lying of God, there is another story concerning because they are sent false spirits. They believe Ahab is
prophesy according to
what seems

prophet.

The

prophets

lie
to

a good man and wish

to them to be true.
overcome

However, they have been

Micaiah in Verse 15
reasons.

blinded

by the

same passions that

have

King Ahab.

also plays

the role of a

false

prophet

but for different

an evil

He

wishes

to

trap

Ahab because he believes Ahab to be

king.

Both the story that appears in the middle of the book and the story that holds the book together have in common the story of the false prophet. From the central and we have also learned story we have learned that God may send false prophets, that true prophets sometimes lie. If the same argument applies to the first story, it
can

certainly not hold in the same sense and the Old Prophet are good men.

since

it is

obvious

that both the man of God

Superficially,
has he
no special

the story of Chapter

13 is

about

the

man

of God

who

had

a great

vision of the distant

future,
his

and an

Old Prophet

whom we are

constantly

reminded

knowledge
ask

of

things he cannot see with his own eyes. For

instance,

way the man of God went (I Kings 13:12); he was not sure who the man of God from Judah was (I Kings 13:14); and he had to be told that the man of God died (I Kings 13:25). However, in Verse 32 it becomes
was

forced to

sons which

clear

that the Old Prophet

come true.

by name
present

knows that someday the prophecy of the man of God will The prophecy is: Behold a child is born unto the house of David, Josiah (I Kings 13:2). In his discussion of this verse Abrabanel accounts for the

tense of the verb

by arguing that prophets see future events as happening in

While this is undoubtedly the case, a difference of roughly 370 years be significant. The special character of this prophecy is intentionally under may lined when seen in contrast to the Old Prophet's constant inability to know the
the
present.

details

of

things he has not

words that are and

seen with

his

own eyes.

The

lexicographically
word one uses rather

normally translated he lied to him are ambiguous both syntactically. The word translated lied is not the normal
to
a

in

reference and

false

prophet.

This

word

than to

lie,

from its
man

position

in the

sentence

actually means to deceive it is unclear whether the Old

Prophet deceived the

of God

or whether

the angel

deceived

the

Old Prophet in the

(See I Kings 22:20-24). The

light

of

the

decency

of

certainly the Old Prophet, though it leaves us with the

second suggestion would

make sense

problem of

accounting for the actions of the angel. If we turn back to the prophecy of the man of God given in Verse 2, we see that in some sense it too is a false prophecy. The prophecy reads: Behold a child is born unto the house ofDavid, Josiah by name. But King Josiah had not yet been born, and the people would be forced to suffer another

The Lion
369 had
years until
seen

and the

Ass

81

the kingdom was

united once again.

Undoubtedly the
would

man

of God

the

evils of

his

day

and a solution

to

them, but his

prophetic vision was

blurred

so

that he did not see the great length of time it

take for his dreams to

come true.

The
the

deceiving prophecy of the angel may then have been given that the
man

prophecy

of God might not raise the expectations of the people beyond the possibility of fulfillment. From an orthodox point of view, the necessary death
of

of a true prophet whose vision

approach

to

tragedy

possible within

has become blurred may constitute the closest the confines of Biblical thought. Such an
verses of the

interpretation

would account
man

for the last two

chapter, in

which was

it is

made clear that the

useless.

of God's

encounter with

King

Jeroboam

totally

In summary then, prophecy

were needed

was a

long

time in

coming to Israel. First there

the men with the cymbals and the drums. But eventually something was

to fill the gap

after

the death of Moses. We have seen true prophets fill that

prophets make the attempt.

gap, and we have seen

false

And

saddest of

all,

we

have

seen a visionary who lacked an understanding of politics. Abraham seems to fit into none of these categories, and his
will

position as a again

prophet

only become intelligible

when

we

meet

Abimelech

in the

following chapter.

AESCHYLUS'

0RESTE1A AND THE ORIGINS OF POLITICAL LIFE

David K. Nichols

University of Virginia
[H]e
must

who

is

unable

to live in society, or who has no need because he is self-sufficient

be

either a

beast

or god:

he is

no part of a polis. '

For Aristotle there is

man's

humanity

sociality results builds his political teaching. However, it is an assumption that remains for the most part unexamined in the writings of Aristotle. It is in Greek tragedy rather than Greek philosophy that we find the most explicit consideration of the boundaries of
political

Outside the polis is necessarily transformed into bestiality or divinity. That man's from his in-between status is the assumption on which Aristotle

no man qua man except political man.

life. This

paper will examine the origins and

limits

of political

life

as

presented

in the Oresteia

by

Aeschylus. Such

an examination will

show

that

tragedy

provides the ultimate political

basis for both

the spiritedness and moderation

necessary for

life.

Agamemnon,
violence.

the first play of the

trilogy, is

set

in

a world characterized
and

by

The

abduction of

Helen,

the sacrifice of

Iphigenia,

the

long

brutal
hope
and

Trojan War

provide

the background. The watchman offers hope that Agamem

non's return will restore order and signal an end to the violent past.

But

such

is futile. Clytemnestra's intentions

soon

become

clear.

She kills Agamemnon,

the stream of blood continues to flow.

Clytemnestra's

actions

initially

appear

to be motivated
a

by

her desire to
home.2

avenge the sacrifice of

Iphigenia. She acts, in

private attachment

manly way, to defend her

Clytemnestra believes
his
pride.

that Agamemnon sacrificed their to the

daughter in the
in
order

service of

He denied his
position

family
brother

to act publicly.
a great

Clytemnestra's
price of

is

not without merit.

The
of a

sacrifice of a

daughter is
Both the

to pay for revenge against the kidnapper

s wife.

claims

the

immediate

family

and

the claim of justice for a brother are no doubt

other the

legitimate, but when placed in opposition to each

natural and the

former

seems

far more

latter

more of a point of presents a

honor.
sacrifice not understood

Aeschylus, however,
Clytemnestra. It is
pride, but his
of pride

dimension to the

by
his

true that Agamemnon must sacrifice Iphigenia

because

of

is

characterized not

the

gods.

The

gods were not

angry because he

by a denial of nature as much as by a denial was leaving his family to fight a

war.

was

Far from opposing his public action, they encouraged it. The goddess Artemis angry because Agamemnon claimed to surpass even her in his skill with the
recognize sees

bow. He failed to
himself.3

the qualitative difference between the gods and

Agamemnon

the sacrifice of Iphigenia as anything but prideful and

84
self-serving. of

Interpretation
He "puts
"4
compulsion"

on

the yoke strap of

of

and massacres

the "pride
can

his house.

His

child

is the foremost example

his pride,

and

her sacrifice

only

represent an acceptance of necessity.

Clytemnestra
pursue

sees

the glories of war.

gods.

only that Agamemnon has killed their daughter in order to She takes her bearings from physical nature rather than
acts to avenge

from the Yet her

She therefore simply

Agamemnon's
rejection of

crime against nature.

act

is
in

not

a private one.

Her

Agamemnon

cannot

be

understood

abstraction

from her

acceptance of

Aegisthus. His

sudden entrance

late in the play

"'manliness''

must

inform

our view of previous events.

self-

Clytemnestra's

earlier

own revenge

generated. In fact, Aegisthus claims that his may not have been for the crime of Agamemnon 's father is the motive of the murder. He

merely
an's

used

Clytemnestra

as an

instrument, for "decption

concerns

part."5

Thus Clytemnestra's

fade

with

clearly the wom the entrance of Aegisthus.

was

What

appeared to

political

be simply a private act of revenge is shown to have important tyranny.6 consequences. The act leads to the establishment of a Clytem longer
speaks with the confidence of one

nestra no

in

control.

Instead

she cautions

the chorus to acquiesce and be content with the

woman.
"7

new order. "Such is the saying of a Women lack the ability for independent action. The newly established tyranny can only be ended with the return of Orestes. The Libation Bearers tells the story of Orestes return. In avenging the murder
'

of

her daughter, Clytemnestra has

also

killed the father

of

her

son.

Apollo tells

Orestes that it is his fundamental

duty
To

to avenge his
avenge

problem.

father's death, but such revenge entails a his father he must kill his mother. He has an

equally strong blood tie to each parent. Nonetheless, Orestes does act in his father's name. Several factors may have served to break the deadlock arising from
Orestes'

dual

parentage.

His

own

maleness, in
unlike

addition

to the urging of

Apollo,
of

might

have been

sufficient.
of

But also,

Electra, Orestes is
not wish

concerned with the

political

dimension
city

the

crime.8

He does

to "leave the citizens

,)

the

most glorious
and

upon earth
. . .

subject to a pair of women.

Thus Orestes does

acts

kills "the two tyrants

of blood.

who

killed

[his] father. "10

Yet his

action

not end

the flow

Orestes has

aroused the wrath of the

Erinyes. We have yet to find The Erinyes because

an escape

from the

world of violence.

It is the Eumenides that

offers the

possibility

of an escape.

pursue

Orestes in

order

to avenge

his

crime against nature.

"It

was

of evil

that

they

were

born.

"n

It is their

duty to

punish
and

Orestes. The fulfillment

of

their

duty,

however,
principle,

means the end of

Orestes

his house. Their defense life. The

of nature would

ultimately lead to the destruction

unending.

of all

cycle of revenge would

be, in

Apollo
animal

offers an alternative

to Orestes. He purifies
and sends

Orestes by

means of

rather than

human sacrifice, be

resolution of his conflict with the Erinyes.12

Orestes to Athena to seek a Apollo thereby opens up the possibil

ity

that the claims of nature may

check

restrained

by

reason.

Athena,

the goddess

of

wisdom, may

the Erinyes.

Aeschylus 'Oresteia
Athena declines to
rule

and

the
of a

Origins of Political Life

85

in favor

jury

of

her finest

citizens.

(She thereby

suggests an even more radical alternative

wisdom might give

than that offered

side presents

by
its

Apollo. Divine
case to the

way to human reason.) Each

jury. way her

The Erinyes
to act at
on man. own

claim that should

"13

Orestes be

vindicated
are a

"every
she

man would

find

his

own caprice.

The Erinyes

necessary, though

limited,
kill

restraint

They

did

not seek

to punish

Clytemnestra, for

did

not

one of

blood. The Erinyes deal only with the crimes men commit against nature. To kill one of your own blood is to deny your connection with nature. But as we have
seen

in

Orestes'

case,

nature
of

Apollo's defense
"she who
sown

may present conflicting claims. Orestes rests on the simplicity of nature. He is

not

argues that

is

called the child's mother

its begetter, but the

this

nurse of the

newly

conception."14

Athena, herself, is
case.

proof of

argument.

The

jury, how

ever, is unable to
connection to

decide the

both

mothers and

fathers.

They are a human jury, and hence see a They see the claims of both nature and
She does
male so

rational restraint.

Their

natures are split as are their votes. outcome

.

Athena must decide the

not

in favor of Orestes For she

.

was

born

of woman and

"approves the

in

all

things.

"15

Orestes

and

his house has

are saved.

The

claims of nature are restrained

by

reason.

Athena's

assertion

allowed man

to avoid the path to

men

inevitable destruction. She

their

also suggests the

possibility that

may

exercise some control over

actions.

She

calls

for

jury

to rule the city for all time. "Neither anarchy nor despotism
and
respect."16

shall

the citizens

defend

assertion
assertion

of male

Political life is possible, but only because of Athena's supremacy, or the supremacy of reason. Without such an

the conflict would remain.

should note an
acquittal. additional not qualification.

We
Orestes'

Athena does

simply

enforce

The play does not end with her will and discredit the

Erinyes.

They

represent man's passionate

side, the side that provides

cannot

his

most

direct

connection with nature. accept a new role.

Their claims
will

be

neglected.

Athena

persuades

them to

They

dwell in the

earth and promote will

fertility. in

They

will still serve

rather

to

remind man of

his

natural

origins, but they

do

so

a positive

than a

negative manner.

Nature isn't simply //

overcome.

It is

re-directed.

Yet

perhaps we should

be

suspicious of a

resolution of man's conflicts, as presented

successful as

tragedy with a happy ending. The by Aeschylus, may not be as simple or

in favor
of

it

appears.

Athena's

assertion

the male provides

for the
rule,

public

to

rule

the private and

for reason to

rule passion.

By

allowing for

such

men are released

control over

from the grip their lives. But we

of natural must ask

necessity if Aeschylus

and given some measure of

supplies an adequate

basis
The

for

such rule.

Orestes is

saved

denial is justified

by

only by a denial of the female's role in Athena 's existence. But can Athena serve as

procreation. a model

for men?

86
There
would

Interpretation
be
no problem

if

men were gods.

Athena

could not

kill her

mother

since she

had

none.

The

complex origin of

human

conflict

is transcended by divine
born
of woman.

simplicity.

However,

we

have

no example of a man not

We

see

only

a goddess not

born

of a goddess.

The jurors

equal votes attest

to man's

complexity.

They

therefore call into question the efficacy of a divine solution to

human

problems.

The

equal votes suggest a

further

problem with

the play's

resolution.

Al

though Athena has established a jury of men, the jury to be incapable of action. The jury scene though

does not rule. The

comedy.17

men prove

is

reminiscent of a

Men

act as

they

are

in

control of events

that are obviously beyond their power.

The

failure

of the

jury

is the
play.

most explicit example of

the relative unimportance of

human beings in the

conflict

Man 's

conflicts

Orestes to
seek

between the young and old avenge his father's murder,

may merely reflect the more important gods. It is Apollo, a young god, who tells
and

it is the Erinyes,
would seem

old

divinities,

who

to avenge

Clytemnestra's death. Thus it

that the human conflict is

ultimately subordinate to the conflict between the young and the old gods. It is this divine conflict that provides the play's most explicit treatment
problem of rule.

of the

Athena

offers political rule to man as an alternative

to violent

conquest.

Political

rule allows man

to overcome a

bestial

condition of continual

bloodletting. But

as we

have seen, the

rule

establishment of such rule

depends

upon

Athena's intervention. Political

gods.

is

not of

human

origin.

It is

a gift

from the

However,

this divine origin may be no less problematic than the more

directly human resolution. Among the gods, conflicts

Kronos
castrated

have traditionally been

resolved

by

violence:

his father Uranus; Zeus bound his father

this violent and exclusive

Kronos.18

Aeschylus
chorus of
cities"

seeks to obscure

aspect of rule.

Like the
of

Agamemnon, he
"captives

envisions a world where men are neither

"19

"sackers
at

nor

of others.

Athena's treatment

of

the

Erinyes

the end of the

trilogy

might even suggest

the fulfillment of that vision.

But this final

act of conciliation

is not without problems. The been

resolved.

conflict

between

the young and old gods has already

The young gods have gained preponderance by the beginning of the play. The Erinyes are, in fact, at the mercy of Athena. In the end their claims are recognized by Athena's pronouncement,
rather
tion"

than the establishment of an

independent basis for their

at the end of

role.

The "resolu form

leads to
We

kind

of exile.

Like Clytemnestra

Agamemnon, they
of

choose, in womanly
conquest.

fashion,

submission rather than a more violent could not choose

see no reason

why Athena

simply to disregard their

play
seems

claims

in the future. Her

It

concern with the

Erinyes

at the end of the

superfluous.

appears almost as an afterthought.

We may see an analogue to the divine problem of rule in the ancient human conflict that lies behind the events of the play. The trilogy begins in media res. In
Agamemnon
with past
we are

constantly

reminded of the connection of current problems

with

conflicts, particularly

the conflict between Atreus and Thyestes.

Aeschylus'

Oresteia
a

and the

Origins of Political Life

would require

SI

Given this connection,

resolve

truly happy ending

that we be able to

the

conflicting
to

claims of the ancient quarrel.

with

Graves, Atreus became king because he possessed the sheep According the golden fleece. Thyestes, his brother, seduced the king's wife, Aerope, in
to obtain the
sheep. and

order

children, cut them up,

was

In reprisal, Atreus killed all but one fed them to him in a stew. The one child
co-conspirator.20

Thyestes'

of who escaped

Aegisthus, Clytemnestra's There is no immediate danger of a similar problem arising in this play. Orestes has no brother. Yet the problem of rule among brothers represents the most radical
political problem.

As brothers, there is little to distinguish their

claims.

It

would

seem that they should share equally in their father 's legacy. Athena 's establishment of a democracy represents the attempt to deal with such equal political claims. But

as we

see,

rule

provide

the requisite

is ultimately indivisible. unity. This ancient

Democracy fails

because it does
the most

not

conflict represents

profound

problem of

the play. If it remains unresolved men are destined to live in a world

characterized

by

violence or tyranny.

/// In the final analysis, Aeschylus does hold out a legitimate hope for man, but is neither simple nor assured. In the first place, Aeschylus shows us

the
not

resolution

only Atreus and Thyestes, but also Agamemnon and Meneleus. Rather than seduce his brother's wife, Agamemnon joins in the fight against the abductor of
and

Helen. Agamemnon
when

Meneleus

even share

the command of the Argive forces

faced

with

this

common enemy.

Their

cooperation

is

an alternative

to the the

ancient conflict. grounds

It is, in

way, the

purpose of

the play to

justify
They

and expand

for that kind

is

of cooperation.

Agamemnon
world that

and

Meneleus
reconcile

provide

only

beginning.

are still part of a

unable

to

its

public and private concerns. spheres.

female.21

There

remains a

fundamental

conflict

between the two

The

concerns of the warrior male

attempts a

are at odds with those of the weaver middle ground

Aeschylus

to

develop

between the
to

warrior and the weaver.

Through way

redefinition, the

public will serve

reconcile warrior and weaver

in

such a

as to recognize the

necessity and desirability of maintaining But we have suggested a fundamental flaw

a sphere

for

each.
"political"

with

the

solution of the

play
claims.

its impotence. This impotence is overcome only by a denial of certain The conflict between Atreus and Thyestes is resolved only by the death of
and

Aegisthus
claims

the end of

his house. The

the

conflict

between

maternal and paternal

the

is resolved only by bloodletting ends only by

But
and

abandonment of

the mother's claim. In every case

fiat.
there

we should note that

is

difference between the

revenge against

Orestes
Orestes'

the other acts of

vengeance.

Without the intervention

of

the

Erinyes,

act would
unique

have

ended

the bloodletting. The

Erinyes
In

pursuit of

Orestes is

in

the course of events

presented

by Aeschylus.

all past acts of revenge a

88
human

Interpretation

being

has been

directly

responsible.

Here the Erinyes take the form

are personified psychological

of

something

not unlike conscience.

While they
Orestes'

in the play, their

well-

threat seems to be directed more to

than physical

being. Orestes
the

cannot

forget his

crime against

his

natural origins.

His

mind

keeps

crime alive.

Thus

one solution

to Orestes

'

problem

is

kind

of

forgetting.

Apollo may

represent a model

the throne of prophecy

is

said

to have been quite

for Orestes. In the play Apollo 's ascendance to peaceful. In most other accounts
suggests that although violence

his

rise

is

by

means of and

violence.22

Aeschylus
responsible

is

part of as

the past,

in fact may be had

for

our current

fortunes,

if that

violence

not occurred. mother.

The

duplicity
his
place

of nature

may act led Orestes to the His

we

unnatural slaughter of

his

He had

no choice

but to

deny his mother or deny

world.

himself. His

mother's act

deprived him

of

in the

action was

necessary to restore order to his world. Without such an act Orestes would have been left without family or city. He would have remained a permanent exile.

Orestes

cannot recognize

both the necessity

and

the obscenity of his act and

maintain

his

sanity.

Yet forgetfulness,

problems of the play.

by itself, is only a partial solution to the Ultimately, it may be more appropriate to the problems raised
more

by

Aegisthus The

and

Thyestes than to the

immediate

problem of

Orestes. It is
one's

easier

to forget

an ancient crime

than the recent slaughter of one's

without

father by

mother.

example of

Apollo is inadequate
of

the assertion of Athena.

The

final problem, the denial We have

the

female,

remains.

said that the apparent resolution of the conflict

between

male and

female
note,

was

however,

unsatisfactory because it was divine rather than human. We should that even the divine resolution is more complex than it originally
on a

appears to

be. While it is based

denial of the female, the

origin of that

denial is

the goddess Athena. Zeus has a child without the aid of a goddess, but the child

is

female. In fact, it is Athena who controls the outcome of the play. However, Athena appears to represent mainly male attributes reason, assertiveness, and
public-spiritedness.

We

are

led to ask, In

what sense

is

she

feminine?
of Orestes
rule

The

answer arises

in her treatment

of the

Erinyes. Athena's defense

would seem

to undercut the basis for their claims. It is the form of Athena's

provide a place rules

that may

finally
She

for the feminine. For

It is the

she

is

neither violent nor

of

tyrannical.
persuasion

by

persuasion.

combination

forgetting

and

that allows for the

happy ending.

The

violent past must

be forgotten

so

that a new order can be founded.

This

new order

is

made possible

by

the

development

of man's reason.

At the

beginning
our

of the

play

man's

knowledge

to the chaotic world perceived

by

simply empirical. He could only react his senses. Apollo s defense of Orestes relies on
was
us.

forgetting

the world as it appears to

Order is found by
world

an appeal to abstract

argument rather passive.

than to the phenomena themselves. Thus reason is no longer

It does

not

simply have to

accept

the

it perceives. It may have

a role

in

forming the world. However,

we must remember

that the abstraction cannot be

complete.

That is why Athena rules

by persuasion rather than mere assertion.

The

Aeschylus Oresteia
true resolution of male and

'

and the

Origins of Political Life

for the ordering less

89

female

allows

of nature without the

destruction

of nature. resolution

It is this

that makes

democracy

problematic.

By

persuasion a

leader may direct the demos. He

maintaining the merly

natural

unity necessary for rule, while heterogeneity. The public now has elements of the for
can provide the

private softness and public

hardness. Because

of

its

union with

the soft

element, the hard element

is in the

service of maintaining, rather than

will see more

homogeniz

ing, the heterogeneous whole. The family

the
community.

clearly its
of

connection with

For it is through the

convention of marriage that the

new

daughter

leaves her

natural

family

in

order

to begin a

family

her

own.

The literal
at

sacrifice of

Iphigenia reflects the figurative its

sacrifice of the

daughter that lies

the

heart

of

the community.
of crucial

Yet precisely because is

always

threatened

by

the jealousy of

role, the community is always in danger. It Clytemnestra or the pride of Agamemnon.

The community is in some crucial respect artificial. Men must remember that its order is not simply legitimate. That is why portrayal of human rule is
Aeschylus'

comic.

is

also

the

His comedy provides a soft reminder to men of their incompleteness. That reason for the Erinyes continued existence. They will no longer support
'

man's violent

destruction, but they

points

may,

instead, destroy him

of man's
nature. points

through sterility.

Their

existence

to the

upper

limits

He has

escaped

bestiality, but he
cles will
able

cannot assume

divinity. Aeschylus
cannot

to the problem

Sopho
be

develop more fully in

world.

Oedipus. Men

deny their origins

It
shows the

and still

to live in this

Tragedy illuminates
which actions must

man's precarious position. and

limits

within

includes his highest act, political philosophy. his fall, Mans thought may take him to these limits, but, in a sense, only tragedy can indicate what lies beyond. In so doing it shows us the need for the spirited escape
that

from

nature and the

limits to that

spirit.

All

references

to the

Oresteia,

unless otherwise

noted, will be to

Aeschylus, Agamemnon, The

Libation Bearers,

and

The Eumenides,

all translated with an

introduction

by

Hugh

Lloyd- Jones

(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970).

'Politics,
2The

Aristotle. Ernest Barker (Cambridge: Oxford

of

University, 1969),
In the
heart"

p.

6
first
reference to

"manliness"

Clytemnestra is indicated in

several ways.

play's

Clytemnestra the
the chorus is

watchman speaks of a

"woman's man-counseling
word

(Agamemnon, 11). Later,

safe return.

reluctant

to

accept

Clytemnestra's

regarding Agamemnon's
to be true. As
when

At 487

they say "a

woman's ordinance spreads

far, traveling fast; but dying fast,

"rumor"

a rumor voiced

by

nothing."

woman comes to

But Clytemnestra's
girl"

proves

her intelligence "is

not that of

ayoung

(Agamemnon, 276). Finally, be in

Clytemnestra says, Agamemnon returns

"unwomanly"

home, he

observes the

character of

Clytemnestra's behavior (Agamemnon, 940). As

seen
opposition

Hugh Lloyd-Jones

explains, Clytemnestra should

p.

to

Penelope,

the wife of
safe such

Odysseus (Agamemnon,
return of
.

1). Penelope

sits at

home weaving

while she waits and

hopes for the

her husband It is Penelope

concerns as

who

is the

purest example of

the womanly.

Ironically, it is

womanly

home

and

family

that Clytemnestra purports to

defend

by her

plot against

90
Agamemnon. But
reject since

Interpretation
"it is
not a woman's part

to desire

contention"

(Agamemnon, 940),

she must
.

the womanly if she is to contend , especially if she is to contend successfully with Agamemnon
to the Cypria
sent

3According
1926],
p.

(Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns

Artemis in his

493), Artemis

the storm

Homerica, [New York: Putnam, to Aulis, preventing Agamemnon's departure, because of

and

Agamemnon's boast that he

surpassed even

skill with the

bow.

"Agamemnon, 208.
5

Agamemnon, 1636.
should remember

6We

that the original quarrel between Atreus and Thyestes was over the

question of
quarrel.

the

rule.

There

was no

distinction between

public and private with regard

to the ancient

Perhaps the

ancient

blurring

of public and private points

to the

defining
of

characteristic of

tyranny. It

is incompatible

with

distinctions between

various spheres of action, and sees

only

one

principle of action. antithetical

1

Distinctions

such as public and private suggest a

kind

heterogeneity

that

is

to tyranny.

Agamemnon, 1661. 8The three reasons should

not

be

seen

in

opposition

to one another.
are

They each indicate that side

Clytemnestra may
appear to

of man that seeks to transcend or overcome nature.

'
.

They
of

the forces that move Agamemnon.

and

9The Libation Bearers, 303 Orestes description

contradict

Aegisthus

the earlier discussion of Clytemnestra's manliness. Rather than a contradiction, I

believe

it is the final step in the development of our understanding of Agamemnon's murder. We began with a manly Clytemnestra acting to defend her home. We then saw how Clytemnestra's apparent
manliness might

merely be

a cover

for the

man who was

actually in

control

Aegisthus.

Orestes'

description may suggest that Aegisthus is no more manly then Clytemnestra. He is not a warrior. He
hides behind in the
and
a woman , and even allows

her to commit the

crime

While Clytemnestra
gain power.

acts

like

a man

name other

home, Aegisthus

acts

like

a woman

in

order

to

This confusion of male This

and
.

female is

another aspect of

the confusion of public and private mentioned in note 6.

of

neuterization or

homogenization leads to the destruction

the

family

(Agamemnon's

family),

the establishment of a tyranny. In other words , it

leads to the end of both public

and private spheres

10The Libation Bearers, 972. uThe Eumenides, 71.

l2This is important because it indicates
We
should see no an alternative

to the continual
of

bloodletting among men.

this

sacrifice

in

opposition

to the human sacrifices

the Trojan War sacrifices that

"knew

fire"

(Agamemnon, 71). Fire is

the symbol of man's art, and it is the artless sacrifices of

a world

the war that characterize the Homeric

world

filled

with the violence of nature.

"The Eumenides, 495. Here I follow Aeschylus I: Oresteia, translated with an introduction by Richard Lattimore (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1953). A more literal reading would be "for
this deed
will

harmonize

easy-handedness."

all mortals with

,4The Eumenides, 657.

15

The Eumenides, 737.

"'The Eumenides, 696. "Anne Lebeck, The Oresteia (Cambridge: Harvard

19

University Press, 1971),

p.

135.

'"Robert Graves. The Greek Myths (New York: Braziller, 1959), I, 37-44.

Agamemnon, 472.
In the
course of the

20Graves, The Greek Myths, II, 43-48.

21

play

we

Clytemnestra is
Agamemnon
represents a

an obvious contrast

really see neither warrior nor weaver. As we have said in note 1, to Penelope Although Agamemnon was certainly a warrior, the
.

we see

is

a man

returning home,

hoping

to end his

days in

peace.

Thus the play away from the

the glories
of

merging of the two spheres. The development of distinct spheres for

public and private represents a move note

violence and

tyranny

of the ancient world

(see

6). However, the

problem of

the play is that the

two spheres, as originally constituted, are in opposition to one another. war, while the woman seeks a peaceful

The

man wants

homelife. What is

needed

is

a principle of reconciliation

Aeschylus Oresteia
between the two
public

'

and the

Origins of Political Life

woman needs

91

spheres.

As Arlene Saxonhouse explains, the

the protection of the

man,

and

the man needs the woman to provide warriors for the community. The Oresteia
of a middle ground

develops the possibility destruction

or

where the two spheres can meet

without

mutual

dissolution.
of warrior and

For
and

further examination

weaver,
and

see

Arlene Saxonhouse, "Men, Women, War

presented at

Politics:

Family

and

Polis in Euripides

Aristophanes,"

the 1976 Annual

Meeting of the 22Graves,

American Political Science Association. The Greek Myths, I, 76-77.

ON THE END OF

THUCYDIDES'

NARRATIVE

John A. Wettergreen
San Jose State
University-

See the

eighth

book

of

Thucydides; A story in

these times most necessary to be consider'd.

James Harrington, 1659.

Introduction

ing.

"l

Thucydides "entitleth his book KTHMA EX AEI, a possession for everlast This was Hobbes 's judgment of the character of the Athenian's writings.

Indeed, Thucydides does not entitle his work A History of the Peloponnesian War, or The Grecian War, or even Histories. And he does make this claim for his whole
work:

for ever has been composed, rather than a topical prize-essay. "2 But what is the meaning of this claim? Thucydides appears to claim to have written
"A
valuable
a

definitive history. If the definitive history is the best possible record of the between Athens
and

events

of a war

Sparta; if it is
nothing
of

the record of everything that happened

what

in

chronological

order, then it is difficult to imagine how

almost

he has

written could
of

be improved. Indeed,

importance
of

could

be known

the events
a record, events of
,

in

question

apart

from
and

Thucydides'

record

them.

Nevertheless,
this
or of

however accurate
that war, however

exhaustive, may only be

a record of accidents.
events of

The

parallel

they may

appear

to the

any time

are

uninstructive or not a matter of serious

interest if they

are accidental: accidents are

events without could

cause, meaning,

or reason.

This is

not

to

deny

that his narrative

be

more than a record of accidents

events
art

by being

a celebration of although

accident, its

power.

The

would

still

be uninstructive, be

the celebration
a

Thucydides'

could still

be worthy
cannot

of serious attention. a possession

Therefore,
and

definitive

history

(in the

sense

indicated)

forever.

Yet

some of the greatest

teachers, for example, Hobbes

Each

Machiavelli, have

recommended

the study of histories.

didactic
moral,
morals

character of such works.

They did history

so

was to

because they understood the be read for its lesson or Of course, lessons may be
or

which

the narrative itself was supposed to

means other than

reveal.

They may be taught by reasoned. But these means are not suitable for everyone. Not everyone be they may can sit still for the moralizing of Jonathan Edwards, or for the Nicomachean Ethics,
preached and

histories.

any

more than

for Thucydides

'

writings.

Histories

moralize actual

for a particular kind deeds

of

man, the

practical or political man. political

For

such

men, the

and speeches of

outstanding
reason of

men, and not only the

god or gods of

the preacher and the

the

moral philosopher, are authoritative.

ethical

Thus

political

histories,

no

less

than sermons or
such

treatises,
and

must present case

arguments.3

But the

argument of

histories

must

be,

in the best

is,

presented silently.

That is, the

argument ought not

to be

presented

by

the historian

himself,

who as such

is

not a

94
political man
.

Interpretation
The
argument ought

to become manifest
rather

by means of the narrative of

explicit

the speeches and

author.

Thucydides'

deeds themselves, silent "no

of

than

by

the

judgments

of

the

comment"

shines through as well as

in the severity limitation of his subject

style and

his

rare

judgments,
in
silence.4

in the austerity of his by his apparently strict

policy.

war"

matter to

"the

or to

foreign

As is generally
classic political

admitted, Thucydides has

excelled

He has

written

the

history. Yet the meaning of cannot be exhausted by the

of
Thucydides'

claim to

have laid up "a

work

valuable

for

ever"

observation that

his

is

the most perfect

and

instructor

merely

political

men.

Even if the be excelled,

comprehensiveness

Thucydides'

record cannot

and even

accuracy of if Thucydides amazingly unob

'

trusive moralizing perfectly compensates

manner of the political would not

for,

or

corrects, the

busy

and obtrusive

man, the

permanent value of some

his

work even

to practical men

be beyond doubt. For that,

particular events written and the

down form

and

necessary connection between the the lessons taught ought to exist. The events intelligible
'

lessons
'

ought to

a part of an

whole.

Accordingly,

the

political philosopher

Hobbes

understood

Thucydides

proud claim

to mean that

Thucydides

narrative of

this particular war circumscribes the whole of human

nature; it reveals every human possibility. However assiduously Thucydides may have sought the truth of this war he may even have risked dear life for it his

narrative,

not

the war, illumines the permanent possibilities for men.

must

Hobbes

have

seen that the

events, the

speeches

and

deeds,

of

the

clearly enough. Thucydides presents a clear argument. In the first place, the narrative is worthy of serious attention because this war was the greatest. There could be no more of war of the destruction of what men praise most highly
narrative speak

and, therefore, of omens

in any

other.

The

war's

destructiveness,

as well as

its

ominousness, became
and

possible

through the greatest peace, which preceded it. In

by

that peace, the two peaks of

power and wealth and of represent

those peaks
of

human life were built up, peaks of human justice (I 2, 7, 8.3, 12, 13.1, 25.3). Sparta and Athens To repeat, this war is the greatest because its narrative shows
nature

the two peaks

a

human

in

mortal conflict. upon

The

way

of

life that

aimed at or
nature.

depended

the full

built up in Sparta was development of the political

peace

element of
and

human

depended

upon

The Athenian way of life, on the other hand, aimed at the full development of the speechfully reasonable (AoytKcy?)

element.

shows that, by necessity, these ways conflicted. That is, however true it may be that both ways arose, through peace, out of universal barbarism (13.3), still Spartan civic piety, caution, old-fashioned orderliness, and moderation cannot coexist with

Thucydides

Athenian openness, daring,

a war

inventiveness,
of

and and

acquisitiveness

("imperialism"). Therefore, only

out

between Sparta
human

Athens

could

bring

the whole character of the

heights

nature.

Moreover,

the

heights

cannot

be

understood as such without

barbarism from

which these cities arose and to which

war, any more than

they

can

be

understood apart

seeing the universal they fell in the course of the from the great peace that is their

On

the

End of

Thucydides'

Narrative

95

foundation. Of course, Thucydides

the war. the

narrates not

Only

speeches can reveal the

only deeds but also the speeches of inner life of man. Thus Thucydides reveals
war and

full

range of

human

possibilities:

from high to low, in

of all

peace, through

speech and

deed.
also guides

Thucydides
narrative, he
admirable as

judgments
and

he

presents.

In the

course of

his
as

reveals the

bright

dark

sides of each of these ways of and

life:

Spartan
narrow,

defensiveness,

orderliness,

piety are, these habits fos

tered

deeds; similarly, Athenian intelli and result in gence, openness, injustice, carelessness, and defeat. Which daring of superior? the end of Book life is VII, the low and solid Spartans win a By way tarnished but total victory in Sicily and the lofty, free-wheeling Athenians suffer a
harsh,
and stupid policies and

shining but brutal defeat. This does

brutality
alone

to charismatic

the superiority of calculating because Thucydides shows victory intelligence, however,

not prove

is

not praiseworthy.
Spartans'

The

remarkable

that restored the

reputation with

the

Spartan victory at Mantineia, a victory Greeks following their losses in the

great

first
VII.

part of the war, appears

.

ridiculous; the
seems

Athenian defeat everything

at

Sicily

arouses

compassion

So Thucydides

to have

provided

by

the end of Book

Why, then, is there

another

book?

The Problem of Book VIII

From this

point of

view, what happens at the

the Sicilian

beginning of Book VIII,

surprising.5

the

part

of the narrative

following
and

fall

following

the

disaster, defeat in Sicily. In fact, the city

Hellespontian campaigns,
to the Sicilian
campaign.

seems

Athens did

not

still

had

sufficient strength

to

fight the Ionian

ones not

inferior in force
would seem

of arms

and number of enemies

Book VIII

to show

the triumph of Sparta over Athens not to be nearly so complete as the course
of

Books

I- VII

suggests, were

it

Athens'

not

that

recovery

appears

to have be

come possible

by

the city's

becoming

more old-fashioned and moderate

by

Spartanizing.

However, in
prior

principle, Thucydides
Spartans'

to Book VIII. The

most

has already considered these possibilities brilliant and telling victories came under
Athenians'

the

command of

the half- Athenian

command of

Brasidas,
Sparta

and the

Sicilian defeat
the Athenians

occurred under the were

the half-Spartan Nicias.

as

Moreover,
achieve
.

defeated in

Sicily not so much by

imitated the Athenian

by

Syracuse. And the Syracusans

the

had
33
.

order to victory deliberately intelligence 5 VIII (96 Book in ) emphasizes Thucydides Daring 5 34 9) as manner
.

in

(VI
,

it

seems, is

not weaker
non-

than calculating
-

power.

Rather,

it

is self-destructive; it is

Early in the narrative easily held out for three Athenians the 65): (II destruction that describes Thucydides the former the Syracusans, years after the whole power of the Peloponnesians, had come empire under Cyrus members of the Athenian empire, and the Persian
taught to

Athenians

or at

least to Syracusans.

against them.

Even then, Athens fell because it

was torn

by

internal dissension.

96
Thucydides
specifies

Interpretation
the internal fault:
Athens'

ruin was caused

Alcibiades'

by

the multitude

(VI 15). More precisely, Thucydides judges that

of

unrestrained manner apparent

life
"

together with the clever planning

did was a

thing he
of

Athens.6

"in every single (bidvota) then of the destruction and defeat in Sicily, cause, first, of the Because of the Alcibiadean manner, the many was unable to trust his

excellence as a war

leader, for it
very clever,

could not

believe that

a man who

indulges his
tyranny.

body,

and who

is

also

would strive

for anything
not

other than a

Lacking excellent war leadership and torn by strife over that lack, Athens fell after
twenty-seven years of war.
narrative ends

But Thucydides does

year.

describe that end; his

in the twenty-first

He

mentions the

final defeat

of

Athens

toward the center of his narrative

(V 26.1).
some ancient critics should

Considerations
that Book VIII is

somewhat

like these forced

to conclude

somehow spurious:

Thucydides

have

written on

for the

full

twenty-seven years of

the war, or he should have ended it all with Book VII

(for nothing really

respectable ancient

new could

be learned from the

critics

war after

that).7

But the

most

(and contemporary)
narrative

trust that it is

genuine.

Neverthe
a

less,

this

part of

the

is

marked

by

a number of atypical

features: it has
(but is

central character or

hero, Alcibiades; it lacks fully

quoted speeches

marked

by

the

partial and verbatim quote of a speech

[53.3]; it
to

seems to

complicated

by

departures from

chronological

order; and,
render an

be unusually in Book VIII,

Thucydides departs from his

number of

characteristic reserve

judgments

of

men, regimes, and

of

deeds.8
'

unusually large These formal features are

and recovery.

almost obscured

by

the spectacle

Athens

amazing turnabout
another

Thucydides he

seems

to emphasize this

spectacle

by

peculiarity

of

Book VIII:

pays attention

to the details of domestic politics, especially Athenian domestic

politics.

But the formal

ends, Athens is

peculiarities also emphasize that spectacle.

As Book VIII
end of says

under

the rule of the 5000.

Athens is

not

democratic to the

the narrative. In what may

be the

most remarkable

Thucydidean judgment, he

that the government of this regime was the best ordered in that city in his lifetime.

This

regime recalled

the brilliant Alcibiades from exile.

made
,

Indeed,
into

Alcibiades'

actions appear to

have

this

regime

possible,

even

if Alcibiades

was not more

its

founder

or

lawgiver. That is the necessity than

Athens'

regime seems

to have come

being

by

chance or

by

art or

human intention. Accordingly, Thucydides

narrates no speeches

regarding that

regime.

Similarly,
once

there are no speeches

aware of

about

democratic
necessities

moderation of

itself

it became

the harsh

Sicilian defeat. But, on the other hand, Thucydides does provide a verbatim, if partial, quote of a speech defending the Athenian regime that preceded the 5000. That oligarchy, the 400, was the result of a plot by

imposed

by

the

the

cunning and virtuous speechwriter, Antiphon. Considering such between form and content, it is reasonable to suppose that the end of
narrative

connections
Thucydides'

has

unity

of

its own,

even while

its

relation

to the rest of the

work

its

lesson remains obscure.

On
In
the

the

End of Thucydides Narrative

Thucydides'

'

97
judgments
about

order to understand that

and

relation,

compare or

final defeat
(II

destruction

of

Athens,

the end of the whole

twenty-seven-

year war

65),

with

his description

of the condition of under a sound most

Athens

at

the

end of

Book
.

VIII. As the party

strife

narrative

ends, Athens is

regime, "and the Athenian.

ended"

(VIII 98.4).

Athens'

back, honored at home again. And the Athenians

to hope well of the future.
restorative power

outstanding war seem to have

leader is

on

his way

a substantial reason

They

win a naval

to the

Spartan victory

at

victory at Cynossema almost equal in Mantineia. After this victory, the Thucydides
seems to contrive a

Athenians

again

believe their

cause can prevail.

happy ending by ending

Athens, ably led,
how Athens
could

the narrative

before the

whole war ended: a well-ordered

with good morale.

The

narrative seems

to end, that

is, showing
Athens'

have

won the war, the war whose

full

narrative would show

Athens destroyed. More: ;/ the 5000 was a better regime than that of enemies, and if the 5000 acted rightly in recalling the traitorous Alcibiades,
Athenians'

and

if

the

hope

based

on

the victory

at Cynossema was

reasonable, then

the last book shows how Athens might have deserved to win. There are,
elements of or conditions

then, three

for this
the

putative

happy

ending: the regime of the

at

5000,

the

recall of

Alcibiades,

and

restorative

victory

Cynossema.

The Virtue of

Athens'

Best Regime

After the Athenians lost Euboea, they were even more frightened than after they lost the Sicilian expeditionary force. But, just as after the disaster in Sicily, they made efforts to rearm. And, just as after Sicily, they moderated their regime. Of that
new

regime, Thucydides says:

Now for the first time in my life at least the Athenians appeared to have good government (ew -rroXLTevaavTes); for it was a moderate temper both of the few and the many; and from
its miserable condition

[this regime] first

raised

the city (VIII

97.2).

Thus
came

moderation or

mildness, metrion, the virtue of Pericles (II

whole

65.5;

cf.

32.5),
better de

to distinguish the

city

of

Athens. This

virtue marks and

Athens

as

ordered

than either the

oligarchic

400

or

Periclean

post-Periclean
Thucydides'

mocracies, the
ment

other regimes under which

Thucydides lived.
compares

judg

leaves

open

the
war

question

of

how the 5000

with

the Athenian

regimes

before the
and

(and before

Thucydides'

of

Hippias

the

democracy

of Themistocles,

lifetime), particularly the tyranny for Thucydides reserves extraordi

the excellence of the 5000 in

nary

praise

for

these two men.

He is

also silent about

relation

to

non-

Athenian

regimes.

Athenian

regime of the war.

But,

on the other

Therefore, the 5000 was merely the best hand, this war is the greatest. That is,

if the

war of

's

greatness consists nature

,

in its

narrative

being

able

to

reveal

the

heights
to

and

depths

human

then the best regime of that war may

have

a claim

being

the best the

regime simply.

But this

claim would

have to be

made good against

that of

non-Athenian

regimes, and particularly against the claim of the

best
and

of

them

the Spartan.

What,

then, is this Athenian

moderation,

metrion,

how does

98
it

Interpretation
Athens'

compare with the political excellence or moderation, sophrosune,

of

enemy?

At first glance, Athenian

tion only

moderation appears

to

differ from Spartan

appears not

modera

in degree

and not

in kind

or rank.

Moreover, it

to be an

intrinsic Athenian excellence, but an excellence forced upon Athens from without. Athens moderated after the Sicilian defeat, and became even more moderate in the
even-more-fearsome situation caused

by

the loss

of

Euboea,

the Athenian

bread distin

basket. Athens
course of guishes

appears

merely to
emphasis

have become

more and more

Spartan in the

Book VIII. For

in Book VIII, Thucydides

states what

Spartan virtue. Spartan moderation flourished in

deliberation

prosperity. Moderation-

looks easier or less choiceworthy when discipline, from harsh necessity or war than from choice in peacetime. So Athenian moderation, which arrives in extreme adversity, looks inferior to Spartan; Spartan
caution, reserve,

it

results

moderation appears

to be

chosen

freely,

that

is, for its

own sake.

But in the

same

book, Thucydides emphasizes that the great size of the enslaved population of the Spartans (and the similarly moderate Chians) was the great spur to their modera
tion: Sparta (and

Chios)
its

prospered

by increasing
Fear
or

the size, and, with that, the

apprehension

dangerousness
Athenian

of

slave population.

harsh necessity, the External

that the political community might perish at any moment, seems

of
and

Spartan moderation, equally

not choice.

circumstances

equally the cause foreign

to distin

enemies and slaves are

external

to the citizen

body

seem not

guish, or give the measure of, the excellence of the 5000. From this point of view,

Spartan fear

and moderation were

merely

older

than Athenian.
,

This

accords with calculat

Athens'

the ordinary distinction between metrion and sophrosune

the one

being

ing

and

the other

habitual.9

However,

there are political reasons for

calculation and

Sparta's habit.
at

For there is,

slaves can

least,
in

this difference between slaves and foreign enemies:

be

enemies

peace as well as

in

war.

Athenian fear
and

was

built up in

and

by

war or

destruction. Spartan fear

(after the loss
of at

was
of

built up in

by

peace or prosperity.

In

the face

of what were

Euboea)

or appeared to

be (after the Sicilian

defeat)
order. with

the greatest terrors

the war, the

Athenians

moderated their political

Following
'

her defeat

Athens in

Sicily, Euboea,

Pylos, a reversal trifling in destruction compared and Ionia, Sparta felt compelled to seek peace. The
Spartans offered peace following

graceless caution or niggardliness with which the

that defeat is characteristic of their manner or way of life. That manner was not

merely habitual, for it had its origin in political reality: "the regime is the way of life. That is, that defeat did not destroy the Spartan capacity to govern at home or
"

wage war abroad

(and

was not
at

Apollo's

promised aid

to victory [I
order.

118.2]

yet

to

come?), but it did strike

of

the heart of the

Spartan ruling

As

a consequence and

that

defeat,

the scions of the

ruling

class were captured on

Sphacteria
a

the

Athenians

established

themselves in

a place well suited

for the

encouragement of

slave rebellions.

So the Spartan

peace offer proceeded more

from

determination

to maintain the

existing order,

including

its

worst

excesses, than from any inten-

On the End of Thucydides Narrative

tion to settle
of

'

99

the

war

differences with Athens. Moreover, the only Spartan domestic reform (IV 63) occurred in middlingly adverse circumstances, and merely for
victory.

the sake of

Athenian fear

or moderation appears

to have been more

reasonable than

Spartan;

it did

not proceed

Therefore,

the

5000

appears more

merely from domestic partisanship. choiceworthy than the Spartan regime.

on

This is

not

to conclude that the Athenians acted in a wholly reasonable manner

in establishing the 5000, nor to say that the Athenians are shown to have acted the conviction that failure in war is the punishment for domestic injustice
disorder. For
would
Thucydides'

or
we

measure of see

the intrinsic superiority

of

the

5000,

have to

Sparta in

a situation

the loss of Euboea. As the examples too cautious ever to get herself into
measure of war proves
passion as

equally fearsome to that brought about by in the previous paragraph prove, Sparta was

such a situation.

Then,

concretely, what

is the

the excellence of the 5000? That the Athenians could that their

fight the Ionian

based
upon

fears
'

following the
'

Sicilian defeat
could not

were as much

their enemies

belief that Athens

hold

out

another year beyond

defeat (VIII 2.2). Athens panicky moderation on this occasion resulted in a instituted.10 But also all they had change in regime: elders, a Spartan order, were
such a

feared Much

when

the Sicilian defeat was

a great part of

reported came

to pass

with

the loss of Euboea.

almost

more:

the Ionian
against

empire

had revolted;

the whole

imperial

armed

force had turned

the city, while remaining

Athens'

at rest on

Samos.
that

The many

and part of

the middle class,

force,

and so were not even

in Athens

anymore.

former rulers, Athenian party

stripped of

comprised strife

had

made

Athenian

patriotism questionable.

to all appearances
empire.11

made

The city had been it Athenian: not even the

every
reason

everything necessities came in from the

as

that

Now

was there not

Sicilian disaster, that the enemy would sail "How could they be anything but wonders:
question:

they had following the right into Peiraeus? Thus, Thucydides

to

fear,

despondent?"

He

answers

the

the most advantageous only that the Spartans proved themselves also. Their characters others people for the Athenians to make war upon, but on many slow and other fearful; this helped differed greatly, the one being quick and daring and the 96.5). Athens especially in regard to naval operations (VIII

It

was not on this occasion

Considered in themselves, Athenian fears

sound.12

not altogether

Their

greatest

fear

was not

following the loss of Euboea were likely to come to pass until the

Spartans.13 But their lesser because of the character of the city destroyed itself, fears were altogether sound, especially if compared with their fears following the altogether so. To Sicilian defeat. That is, their fears were middlingly sensible, not what Thucydides understand had to be properly fearful, the Athenians would have was available to them, for tells us of the Spartan character. Such an understanding

example,
stood

in

Pericles'

funeral

oration.

Pericles
them

and

Athens

under

Pericles

under

that Spartan

caution would prevent

5000,

however

virtuous

it

might

from attacking Peiraeus.14 But the have been otherwise, did not understand this.

100

Interpretation

Considering
reduced, situation,
and would

the

truly fearsome

situation

to

which

the Athenians had

been

considering the
not

Athenians'

not-fully-sensible

genuine political

excellence on their part

this understanding have required

of

something beyond domestic reform? Was the 5000 not only a typically Athenian, but also a foolish solution to their difficulties? At long last, was this not the opportunity for the Athenians to follow the Spartan example and sue for peace? To gain the final measure of the excellence of the 5000, and to understand the
Thucydides'

character of

happy

ending, consider that before the 5000 was estab

as close

lished the

peace

party brought Athens

to

utter

destruction

as can

be

imagined

by seeking peace. The domestic condition for

peace was oligarchic

rule, the

regime of

the 400.

The gray eminence of the oligarchic revolution was the awesomely clever AntiAntiphon plotted to remove the many, a part of the hoplite force, and their
phon.15

leaders from Athens

home.16

and settle them on

Samos,

while

concentrating

oligarchs at

This

put

the 400 in office and weakened the city itself. Now Athens could to

appear, the

oligarchs seemed

relatively weak Spartans would

and oligarchic not accept

believe, worthy of peace in Spartan eyes, that is, (VIII 70.2, 71.2-3, 72.1, 86.3). Nevertheless, the
oligarchs'

the

peace

proposals, and, with the loss of peace, for

Euboea,

the

Spartan

preference

for

Athens'

eventual annihilation over

unconditional

surrender, became

manifest.

It became manifest, that is, to those 8).

Athenians, including some of the oligarchs, for whom Athens would not be Athens
without an empire

(see the

remark on

Romilly in note

Although the 400 had greatly weakened Athens by getting and keeping its rivals out of town, still it could not rule in its own right. The 400 had to rule by

fraud: it claimed to be "5000.

sham:

"

There

was an external and an

internal

reason

for this

internally,

the sham deceived the Athenians into

was so

fearing

that the oligarchy

that many believed (what is in fact ridiculous) such a massive conspiracy to be possible17; externally, the 400 needed to maintain a defensive army, the 5000 or the hoplites,
and populous

was much

larger than it was, for Athens

large

to protect the city's walls

while

it

conspired

for

peace.18

The 400

was also weak

because it

was

divided
of

internally
now

on

the question of

the related question

Alcibiades'

recall.19

Having
on

maintaining the empire, and brought the city to extremes Samos

were

internally
Peiraeus
appealed

and

externally

many Athenians

willing to
best

attack

without

gaining peace, the regime of Antiphon fell. Some of the 400

Athens'

to the genuine 5000 against the others to set up

regime.

The 400 brought Athens nearly to ruin by seeking peace, but the 5000 was its unwitting accomplice. The 5000 are the heavily armed troops, the stodgy middle
class that which

risks both property and life, if not honor, for the city. But its stodginess, looks like simple patriotism, excuses it from its complicity, and indicates
the excellence of its regime. The

what was

5000

was not

for the

Athenians'

fears
wage

were sensible.

Nor

was

founded merely on fear, it founded merely to preserve

and

imperial wealth, to found wanting, the

imperial war, or to avoid peace. Peace had been tried empire was all but destroyed, and, with Euboea threatened

and

On
those on

the

End of Thucydides Narrative

'

101

moderation of

Samos ready to attack, the very existence of the city was at stake. The the 5000 shows particularly in this: on the brink of civil the
war

revolution against ered

the 400 and the threats from Samos

those

Athenians

consid

home. safety That is, the 5000 actually interrupted its revolution to undertake a desperate attempt to save Euboea. The attempt had to be made; even the Spartans believed
the
of the

city from foreign enemies before finalizing their rule

at

Athens'

internal troubles
unusual

would allow them to take was appears more

it

unopposed

(VIII 94-97).

How very

this moderation
granted

it

ought not

be taken for

that everyone

clearly from the next section; thinks first of his community 's

safety when his rule is at stake. Indeed, in Athens at the extremes revealed by Thucydides in Book VIII, only the middle class acted unreservedly for civic
survival.

All

other claimants

to rule are shown to have plotted,

and

acted, against

their homeland.

The 5000 's internal

at

excellence was effective

was

domestically

also.

Although

calmed, very angry by emphatically undemagogic speeches ("by many to many"). It is more lawful and less pious than either the democracy or the oligarchy; practically its first action was
and

the oligarchs, the 5000

began to institute its rule,

the establishment of a court

concerned with matters of

constitutionality,
a

of

the

harmony
Neither
excluded

of

the

laws.20

The regime,

being

polity, had

middling

government.

rich nor poor could rule

in their

own right.

The

poorest of

the many were

public

from the

citizen

body. Because there

were no salaries

for

office,

the richer sort

would

hold office; but, because

all offices were elected

by

the

5000,

oligarchs could not rule

in their own right. Also, the 5000 's lack of violence toward

its

political enemies

is

remarkable.

Yet this
best
the
sign of

regime was

Athenian; it is
Athenian

not

its

fundamentally

character

simply best, as has been shown. The is the 5000 's second official act,

recall of

Alcibiades (together

with all other exiles).

Alcibiades

was

the most

Athenian Athenian. For example, his

expedition and would
removed

daring

intelligence

conceived

the Sicilian
and

have

made

it succeed, if he had
and

not

been impeached However

from

command

for his impieties

immoralities.21

Following his
sound

removal, he

undertook a career as a

traitor that must be

unrivaled.

the domestic foundation of this

we consider

regime

may be,
traitor.

we

may doubt its

soundness when

its

recall of

this

remarkable

Was the

recall an act of

daring? Or, considering attachment to Athens was it not anything but an example of Athenian intelligence? These questions gain weight from the consideration, based on Book VIII, that
,
Alcibiades'

Alcibiades'

amazing generosity (there was a general amnesty) and defective character and manifest lack of

recall could also which

be the

return of

the many from Samos. That return,

power of

Thucydides does
'

not

narrate, could dilute the

regime
-

the 5000 and

.

thereby
its best,

spell

the end

of

Athens best

at that regime

's

own

hands Even

at

does Athens

remain self-destructive?

Thus the

question of

the regime s

intrinsic

excellence must recall

be

reduced

to the question of the

soundness of

the

decision to

Alcibiades.

102

Interpretation
The Recall of Alcibiades

To judge the
will

soundness of the

decision,

two

different, but

related, questions

be

Alcibiades'

answered.

First,

was not

good

what moved conflict with

him because he
the good of the

would satisfy him fundamentally 5000? Second, was not Alcibiades fundamentally the enemy of Athens, a traitor to the heart? Because Thucydides ends the narrative when he does, these questions

believed it

in

ought

to be answered on the basis of the whole narrative rather than on the

basis

of

what might

have happened

after

the

narrative closes. well

That Alcibiades betrayed Athens is practically

crat,
everyone else:

known. And Alcibiades betrayed

he

was a

leading Athenian, Spartan, barbarian,

advances

demo

and oligarch.

Throughout Book VIII Alcibiades

his

own

interest (as

he

understands
almost

it) by frightening
in Sparta:
The

everyone with everyone act.

else, in what may be

practiced the what

called

a universal

juggling

As

traitor, Alcibiades best

principle announced

enemies are managed

by doing

they

believe they fear

'

most.

practice of

this principle opened and closed Al

cibiades

career as a
what

traitor: it informed his Spartan policy for the Athenian defeat

"

in Sicily;
actual,

the 400 feared most was the demand that the sham "5000
was

become

and

Alcibiades

the

one who urged

that the 5000 be established.

as a

simply a man of principle. In the course of his career traitor, he departed from his Spartan principle three times. In Book VIII, he

But Alcibiades

was not

thrice refrains from

doing
he

what

Athens feared Sparta to

defeat in Sicily, he in Euboea. Then,

exile

convinced

First, immediately after the foster revolts in Ionia, rather than

most.

after

was recalled

to Athens-on-Samos
"

by

the

democracy

in

there, he twice dissuaded the "nautical

resulted
Alcibiades'

both cases, the attack would have In practice, there was a limit to
Alcibiades'

from attacking Athens itself. In in almost the total loss of the empire.
mob

enmities.

He

would not choose

to ruin

Athens entirely (see VIII 47.1). practice of his Spartan Athenian

principle.

principle was and

limited

or guided
as

by his
he
said
all

Alcibiades learned in

from democratic Athens,

in Athens (VI 16-18), that the

men

appearance of strength and strength are

the same;

respect those

whom

experience of what was

they hope or fear are powerful. That is, from his honored in Athens, Alcibiades learned contempt for all

merely

conventional standards of praise and concluded that what

blame, for

"respectability."

More be the

particularly, he
same as what

is honored in
an

a man after man

he dies

cannot

have

's contemporary rivals in opposing him, which good is harmonious with other contemporaries fear and hatred of him for his superiority. Alcibiades believed that the private reasons for envy, fear, and hatred would disappear once the outstanding outstanding
a private good
'

his contemporaries honor:

one

dies. Then, he

believed,

a man's excellence would

be

praised

for

what

it is

"whatever
men who must

[his]

homeland"

(VI 16.5). Alcibiades did

not mean

that there are some

deserve

praise

from every

homeland; he only
someday,

meant

that every homeland

honor its

most

outstanding

men

no matter

how far they may depart

On
from
established

the

End of Thucydides Narrative

laws
while

'

103
could

habits

and

they live. Those very departures

on

appear

to him to be signs of great strength or daring , a strength that every homeland

needs or, at
once

believes it

least, hopes will not be

he
was exiled

the side of its enemies.

Therefore,
nothing but
a position

contrive
recall

to make

from Athens for impiety, Alcibiades did himself appear useful to whatever Athenians were in
Alcibiades'

him. And, from the point of view principle, his very betrayals made him appear useful: as
to

of
Athens'

Athenian

strength

declined

strength became propor betrayals), tionately greater. By recalling him, the Athenians subtracted from their strength, even if they did not add equally to their own. Yet there were limits to this fine balance. If Alcibiades had not lived to be recalled to Athens-on-Samos, his part as a consequence of

(in

those

Alcibiades'

enemies

homeland

would

have had

no occasion

to honor him

during

life

or after

death. As
on of

Thucydides

judges,

the second time that Alcibiades

restrained

the Athenians

Samos is the first time he benefited Athens. The

the envoys from the oligarchs, as
time that Alcibiades cast
presence of well as

second

time was in the presence

the democratic sailors, and it was also the

second

his lot

with

the 5000. So this

time was in the

the whole city,

or as close

to the whole city as was possible in the

extremes to which

Athens had been

reduced.22

To judge
Alcibiades'

Alcibiades'

of

patriotism record of

accurately it is
and

not sufficient

to consider
condition

outstanding
of

betrayal,

its

principles.

Given the

Athens,

perhaps

nothing

else was possible

for him. Therefore,

consider also

how traitorous the

as a result of the are reduced parts of a

other parts of the

Spartan

policies of the oligarchs with

city had become. In the course of Book VIII, or the Athenian one, few, and many
,

to extremes together

their city. Book VIII shows the three normal

city

separated

by

place:

the many on
at

Samos,

the few in

Athens,
own

Alcibiades scurrying between them, and, foreign policy. One, few, and many were
foreign
enemies.23

the same

time, conducting his

separated and related opinion:

to one another as
'

All three held to the Alcibiadean

extreme

"My good or Athens

in the
'

destruction.

"u

In this

situation, one
a

unprecedented

narrative

if not

in human history,

there could

be

factual

good or survival. No death, and few, because imperial riches and ruling in peace are impossible without a secure the preference of his good over first principle city. Therefore,
Alcibiades'

Athens'

identity of Alcibiades good, glory after such identity existed for the many or the

everything But

else

had become the unity

principle of

the whole city or the empire, if it

is

possible to secure civic

what of

on the

basis

of private goods.
good conflict with

the 5000? Does

Alcibiades'

not

that of the

middle class?

Thucydides judges that it is true that Alcibiades

cared no more

for

democracy than for oligarchy (VIII 48). In this, his political disposition was similar to that of the 5000. Of course, Alcibiades and the 5000 also agreed in
understanding that their
the few did
not
goods require a unified or powerful

Athens;

the

many

and

understand

this.

But

Thucydides'

judgment

also

means that

Alcibiades
core of

cared

Athens'

tyranny. And Alcibiades was not the only for his own rule, for best regime; that is the middle class, whose good differs from that

104
of

Interpretation

one,

few,

and

many.25

Athens

could remain unified, the

were able

best

regime could

somehow maintain
might

itself, if Alcibiades
patriotic

to serve the 5000.

and

Alcibiades
be in

be sufficiently

(given the circumstances),

his

good might

harmony fully vindicated.

with that of the

5000, and so the political excellence of the 5000 would be It would be, that is, if Alcibiades were capable of recognizing his
the
middle class.

common cause with

The Restorative

Victory at Cynossema
outstanding leader,
one

Even

with a well-ordered government and an

recog

nized as such
sound

by

some or all the parts of

the community, Athens

still needed a

military force. Throughout Book VIII, the Athenians are shown not to have fought with confidence, to say the least.26 This victory restored their morale. Yet, in the victory itself, there
Athenian
who,
the
was

something

ominous:

it

was

right, democrats, thinking they had already won, had broken ranks.
spite of

to "face

about"

in

order to

necessary for the defeat the Spartans,

In

this

omen

democrats to face
regarded

about was not reported

the victory as

was necessary for the the Athenians in Athens), publicly a good fortune beyond their hopes. As for the sailors, "Now

(or

perhaps the

fact that it

they
any

ceased either account

to

reproach

themselves or to

consider

their enemy any longer

of

in

matters."

nautical

All believed Athens

might

prevail, if they set to

And, shortly thereafter, the Spartans withdrew from Euboea. With the empire holding, under a moderate regime, the sailors restored to
work with

their old zeal.

their old

fighting

spirit, and with an outstanding commander, was not

sensible?

even

this

hope beyond hope

Conclusion
Thucydides'

This, then, is
beyond
measure

happy

ending.

Having

seen

the Athenians

suffer nice

in Sicily,
could
apart

who could

help

wishing to see them have this

can graceful

second chance?

Who

help it,

assuming they had been properly

wishes, in practice,
,

sobered

by

their experience? But

perpetuate avoid

from

our

intelligence

itself? With

all

its complications Book VIII seems to indicate that it can

Thucydides tells
us

destroy itself. last words are not of Athens: "And so [Tissaphernes] came first to Ephesus and sacrificed to Artemis. The barbarian, whose friendship
destruction, However,
even though
Thucydides'
"

that Athens did

Alcibiades had
hoped to
to do so.

promised

to the

Athenians,

sacrificed

to a Greek

one somehow more

regain the

important in Sparta than in

Athens.27

deity, but also to Indeed, Tissaphernes

him. As for the

Spartans, which his closeness to Alcibiades had lost Spartans, they did not retire, but rearmed, albeit giving up Euboea Therefore, even though the affairs of the Delians were settled at last (a
trust of the

sacral matter that words

had troubled the Athenians for

well

some

time),

Thucydides'

last

do

not

bode

for

Athens.28

On
The
question

the
of

End of Thucydides Narrative

'

1 05
unanswered.

Alcibiades'

loyalty

to the

5000
"

remains after

Thucydides last

word of
.

the eastern empire

securing parts of Although Thucydides indicates that he will return to Athens he

,

him is that "he

returned to

Samos

does
the

not

describe

Alcibiades'

greatest

triumph. And that is necessary to preserve

would also

happy ending.

The

return of at

Alcibiades

be the

return of the nautical

mob, fresh

from its victory

name of a

Alcibiades
Athens'

restrained the sailors

his tyranny in the

old

could believe that from overthrowing the 5000, from establishing reestablished democracy. Cynossema restored not just a old

Cynossema.

Only

dreamer

spirit, but the

out

Athens

entire

Athens

as

it

stood

immediately
previously.

before setting

for Sicily. Thucydides described that

old

Athens

Everything
narrative

else

about

the war, and particularly everything about that nothing new can be learned from it.

Athens, is how,
and

"predictable"

in the

sense

By ending the

precisely

where

he

does, Thucydides
this problem

raises

the

problem of

whether, Athens could remain sober or moderate, how it could maintain its best
regime.

Implicitly, he
if Alcibiades

solves
and

by his
out

ending:

Athens Is this

can remain
a

moderate solution?

the sailors stay

of town.

dreamer's
Athens

To repeat,
reduced to

by

ending

when

he does, Thucydides is

able to show us

its

political

extremes, both

politics, Athens
good of

was saved and even

with

internally and externally. At the limits of improved by the coincidence of the private
And,
at

Alcibiades

the good of the most moderate part of the city. to save the city

these

limits, Alcibiades
he

acted

writes that

alone could save

by calling for the 5000; Thucydides Athens in these circumstances. Therefore, Al

the founder of the

cibiades would

have to be
regime upon

called

5000, if he

were capable of can remain

maintaining this
moderate

by

his

example or

by

his laws. Whether Athens

as a

depends

Alcibiades'

capacity be
required needed

founder. Before evaluating his

capacity,

consider what would

would

to maintain the 5000.

Alcibiades

have

the middle class regime to sustain any of

as

his

future
a

actions or schemes

of conquest, just

he

needed

it to be

recalled.

But, from
to be
a

merely democratic

point of

view, Alcibiades

would appear

to be a potential

tyrant.

merely oligarchic point Alcibiades and the powerful, if vulgar,

a
rival.

And, from

of view,

he

would appear

middle class would stand

between

these two

opposed parts.

They

could maintain

themselves,

on the one

hand, by

coping
other

with

hand,

the overwhelming desires of the many for imperial riches and, on the by foiling the plots of the few to rule in peace or in their own right. The
shows

action of

Book VIII

how the 5000

could

be

maintained.

The many

could

be

managed, kept

out of

town,

by occupying it with the defense

extent that

of the empire.

But the

few

could

be

managed

only to the

it

could

be frightened

Therefore,
many
out

the one could maintain himself and gain glory

by by alternately leading the

the many.

to defend the empire

and

bringing it

back to terrorize the few. Con

sequently, this regime would

foreign

adventures would always

be acquisitive, but only mildly so, because the one's be limited by the threat of the oligarchic plots that

must occur when

he is

out of

town with the many.

Still,

the middle class would

be

1 06

Interpretation
would

the keystone of such a regime because the few

surrender

find it very difficult to

while

the city,

even

if the many
maintain

were

elsewhere,

the middle class

who

remained strong.
strife.

So this

regime would

be built for Alcibiades,

and

thrived on

Only

juggler

could

this moderate Athens. In this extreme

domestic policy; there would always be the temptation, even the necessity, to treat fellow citizens like foreign enemies, and foreigners like fellow citizens, to advance a cause at
situation,
no one could

easily discriminate between foreign

home. These

are

the inconveniences of maintaining moderation in a regime

founded

upon private

interest.
were

Even if the 5000

could gain of

built up for the likes

good with
proven

of

Alcibiades ,

and even

if his likes

the greatest political honors

by sustaining it, Alcibiades was not capable

the
good of

seeing this

identity

of

his

the new regime and,

thereby,

becoming
of

its founder. This is

by

an examination of

his Athenian

principle,

his understanding of the causes of glory after death. When Alcibiades spoke of his desire for such glory, he had before him the example of Themistocles. Themistocles, the founder of democratic Athens who was driven out of his
homeland
others
and

into the
'

service of

its bitterest enemy, Persia, is honored

above all

by Alcibiades

Alcibiades'

political education not the equal of

outstanding contemporaries, that is, by those responsible for (I 74.1-2, 138.3, 144.4; II 36.2). Alcibiades was
aped rather

Themistocles: he
as a

than emulated him. Upon

fleeing to

the Persians

by necessity and his intelligence, "for demonstrated natural

last resort, the Persian

Alcibiades'

king himself was amazed

by

Themistocles,"

Thucydides judges, "most manifestly

worth to the satrap of the king was however valuable he have been to the Spartans.30 He was not ambiguous, may even the equal of Hippias the Athenian tyrant who fought against Athens with the
,

genius."29

Persians

even

twenty

years after

he had been driven

out of

Alcibiades
not

spoke of

the causes of glory after death and

of

is, when infamy during life, he did

and virtuous years.

the city. That

take seriously the example

Hippias,

the

intelligent
for 100

tyrant who

was

hated in Athens down to

the one

Alcibiades'

time

Alcibiades, is

who can restore

Hippias to
of

Thucydides, not his proper honors after death; he

of

tried to curb the extreme

democratic fear

tyranny,
more

outstanding
more

men.

Of

course, the cause of Alcibiades might have advanced, or advanced

quickly, if

Athenians had
more

understood the regime of and more

Hippias

adequately (VI 53).

importantly,
his

probably, Alcibiades might have restrained

But, himself,

considering the Hippias. Instead, Alcibiades took for granted the popular prejudices, the prejudices for Themistocles and against Hippias. This caused him to be unable to grasp the important truth accompanying the prejudices:
lesson taught

understood

good more

adequately, if he had been capable of

by

the example of

there are

public as well as private reasons

for fear, envy, hatred,

and glorification.

Public
single

reasons

have

life

of

their

own

in the regime,

and so can survive

beyond

lifetime. In

spite of

his

act, Alcibiades

could not

cosmopolitanism, his universal juggling have escaped the deepest prejudices of democratic
apparent
of

Athens to

enter the

bright field

honor the 5000

could provide.

Without its

On

the

End of

Thucydides'

Narrative
'

107

founder, the 5000 did

not equal

Hippias

'

tyranny
best

or

Themistocles democracy. merely fortuitous. certainly

not

Accordingly, Thucydides

Athens'

presents

regime as

Nothing,
rule.

not

his

consideration of

his

own good and

the middle

class, could have restrained

Alcibiades from using the many to

the middle class

establish
and

his

own

The

pedestrian good of

(security
rule

of

body

property)

as

distinguished from the many 's desire for imperial riches,

after

and one

's desire for glory

not

naturally leadership. Under any conditions, even under these extreme ones, it is difficult to imagine how middle class morality could be made to appear as resplendent as Alcibiadean vainglory, to say nothing of riches and of peace. In
inspire
charismatic
our

death,

and even

the oligarchic

desire to

in

peace

does

times, liberal
universe.

or

bourgeois

ideology

appeared

to be the

solution

to this

problem.

According

to

it,

middle class

morality is

upheld

by

the very principles of

relevant claim

the

But those

who proposed

this solution forgot that every

capable of
or

to rule

is

partisan or partial

and, therefore, equally

being

ideologized.

Thucydides'

complex solution
some

is

more

moderate,

future Alcibiades
with

will

learn the public,

as well as

anyway less final. Perhaps private, limits to political

honors and,

that, the necessity to

reason not give any.

maintain a well-ordered empire.

But is there any Thucydides does

to suppose that the

likes his

of

Alcibiades
ending.

are teachable? shows

This need not

mar

happy

He

how,

in principle, intelligence is not self-destructive. Indeed, Athens could have won, and could have deserved to win, the whole war. A sensible, if not final solution to six years the Athenian problem is possible. Therefore, the destruction of Athens
after

Thucydides

ends

his

narrative

looks ridiculous.

'Thomas Hobbes, English Works,

frontispiece.

ed.

William Molesworth (London, 1843), viii,

xxi; see the

p.

41 (I 22.4). Hereafter cited

used

2Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. Charles Forster Smith (London, 1951), I, by book, chapter, and section numbers only. With minor alterations, I
Smith's translations.
criticisms (English Works, VIII, See Hobbes 's reply to understood for a long time. See Thomas Babington Macaulay, Complete Works
xxiiiDionysius'

have

3Or
xxix).

enethememes.

This

was well

(Boston

and

New York, 1910), VI, 236, 285. Consider

"

also

VI, 285: "History

..

.is

a compound of

poetry and philosophy. "See A. W. Gomme, More Essays in Greek History and Literature (Oxford, 1962), pp. 123, 159; A. W. Gomme, The Greek Attitude to Poetry and History (Berkeley, 1954), pp. 307-08; Jacqueline de
H.D.F. Romilly, Thucydides and Athenian Imperialism, trans. Thody (New York, 1963), pp. 58, 103; Man and The Leo pp. Strauss, 307-08; City Kitto, Poiesis: Structure andThought (London, 1966),

(Chicago, 1964),
this device so

pp.

144-45. However, they do

not emphasize

the didactic or moralizing purpose of

much as

its

scientific purpose, which

I do

not

deny.

sSee W. P. Henry, Greek Historical Writing (Chicago, 1967), pp. 1-88, for a good contemporary 89. See also D. Grene, Man in His statement of the historical problem. Cf. Strauss, City, p. 227, n.
Pride (Chicago, 1950),
pp.

80 ff.
of

6Here following Schadewaldt's reading

VI 15 (Die
to

Geschichtschreibung des Thucydides

final defeat
and

Athens'

[Berlin, 1929]),
defeat
at

according to

which K<xdei\ev refers

k'oipv^av to the

Sicily.

108

Interpretation
7See Hobbes, English Works, IX, 437
n.

Modern critics,

building

on the

ancient, have argued

the same. For the question of un-Thucydidean style and vocabulary, see The Eighth
Thucydides'

Book of
that the

History,

ed.

H. C. Goodhart (London, 1893),

pp. xxxviii-xlii.

Goodhart

shows

divergences from
them. But my
unintentional.

earlier

books
fine

are not qualitative,

enough

but does

not give a

Thucydidean
not

explanation of

Greek is See
am

not

to judge whether the unfinished,

p.

to say rough, style

is

also

Romilly, Athenian Imperialism,

uses

225,
/jloi

n.l,

p.

54,
is

n.2.

8Unless I
often

mistaken, Thucydides
all other

the formula

8oKel (or

cognate

in Book VIII than in

books combined (if the

Archaeology

excluded).

expressions) more In this regard,

and

VIII 87 is particularly striking because there Thucydides offers'three opinions about a certain event then tells how it seemed to him (ip.ol p,4vroi 8oxei). This is followed by an explanation of how
.

the same event seemed to Alcibiades

passage.

An

exhaustive account of
p.

Book VIII

would make sense of

.

this

Romilly

(Athenian Imperialism,
and

54) believes
I believe

that "Thucydides 'own presence is.

.least

perceptible"

in VIII,

so

thinks that that book really does not contradict the thesis that

Thucydides'

theme is imperialism.
could

But,
was

as

and

try

to show, Book VIII

ought to

indicates how

Athenian imperialism
present

be (but

not)

sustained.

So Thucydides

be (and

is)

more

in it.
seems

9This
80-84).

to be

Hermocrates'

Archidamus'

and

understanding crcnippoovvr) (VI 78

and

10Thucydides
"Euboea
and

says

they

moderated

(crcoc^povCoat

Spartanized)

expenses on

this occasion.

was more

important to Athens than Attica (VIII 96.2); but

fortunate for Athens that Syracuse
the annihilation of Athens,
of

see also

VII 27.3-4

28.1

I2In addition, it
is
on

was

was now again a

democracy; Hermoc
hear
of

rates, the one most bent

upon

is in exile (the last

must

we

him is that he

the way to Sparta before the loss

and

Euboea). The Athenians

have known this. Cf. VIII

85.4

91.2. See

also

VIII 96.5.
equally to
a

"This judgment
show

applies almost

Spartan land ideal

attack

(see VIII

70.2, 71.1-2,

which

Spartan

caution

in the land

approach even under

conditions).

The

whole

Spartan army is

repulsed

by a mere sally of the cavalry and part of the hoplites. I4See II 37-39. That this understanding was applied in practice appears from II 93.2, which complicates the above point by showing that Pericles was a little too sanguine regarding the caution
Athens 'enemies
.

of

15He

eminence,"

was so

clever,

such a

"gray
p.

that Aristotle calls his the party of Phrynichus:

sham of the

Politics,

transl. H. Rackham
.

(London, 1967),
cleverness

405 (1305b27). On the

400,

see also

Politics 1297al4 ff Antiphon 's

the details of his
part

is brought out

by

the fact that Thucydides does

not narrate

in the

plot.

16Consider

the unusual use of

hoplite transports (VIII 25, 30);

Phrynichus'

amazing
'

restraint

leading
leaders

to the settling of the sailors on Samos (VIII

at

27);

and

Phrynichus

replacement

by democratic
more on

the instigation of his

political

friend (VIII 54.3-4). See

also ns.

18

and

19 for

the plot.

I7That is, it was believed even

is that, when the 400 (VIII 92.11).
was

without

any

private

knowledge

of the plot. called

The final proof of this

rule of

being

overthrown, even the

democrats

for the

the 5000

18Moreover, the 400 came to power only with the aid of foreign hoplites. See VIII 65.1; cf. 69.3. (These had fought along with Nicias: IV 42. 1; VII 57.4; see the remark on Theramenes below, n. 19. Was the 5000 the regime of the party of Nicias?) The 400 was able to take over the senate
because the Athenian hoplites
were busy guarding the walls (VIII 69.2). 19The divisions among the oligarchs are illustrated by three peace proposals at VIII 91.3. The first is that of Peisander (cf. 65.1-2) who was willing to seek a Persian alliance and recall. The second is that of Phrynichus and, presumably, of Antiphon (cf. 48.5). Phrynichus always opposed a

Alcibiades'

Persian

alliance and recall. of

Thucydides

says that

it

seems to
-

him (64.5) that

-

events

confirmed the

judgment

Phrynichus

that empire and

oligarchy

the

Spartan way

could not

On the End of Thucydides Narrative

'

1 09

coexist

in Athens. Third is the

vengeful
,

instrumental in
He
acted

establ i shing the

policy of Aristarchus (cf. 98; see also 92). The one who was 5000 Theramenes son of Hagnon favored empire over oligarchy.
, ,

together with
'

Aristocrates and Leon,

two who signed the

Peace of Nicias

with

Hagnon. The

issue of Alcibiades
(and
Alcibiades'

recall was compromised within the

400 by opening
or
firm"

negotiations with recall.

Alcibiades

Tissaphernes)

toward recall, rather than

recalling

refusing to

But,

accordingly,

position with

Tissaphernes
the

was

"not

altogether
on
cf.

during

these negotiations.

They
only

broke down. Phrynichus

Moreover,
strife
.

400
at

was

necessarily divided
(VIII 50.2;

the question of recall,

because

could

beat Alcibiades

his

own game

VI 92.2). Phrynichus

was the

fatality
that

in the party

leading to the establishment of the 5000.

.

20VIII 97.2; cf 15.1; cf 70. The 5000 was not as pious as either the oligarchy or the democracy; is, it did not care so much for the appearance of piety and it recalled Alcibiades against priestly
Yet the 5000
would curse anyone who violated the principle of

objections.

the

regime

by

seeking to

make public offices pay.

21
Demosthenes'

quiet excellence could never save of

incapable

recognizing its

supremacy.

Athens because the city is constitutionally See Thomas Engeman, "Homeric Honor and Thucydidean
n.

Necessity,"

Interpretation, 4, No. 2 (Winter 1974), 69

and

14,

who also elaborates

Leo

Strauss'

argument.

22Cf VIII 82
two passages on
reasons

opinions on foreign policy in these Alcibiades restraining actions Alcibiades moderation is underlined at VIII 45: for of private interest, he argues for moderation itself against the Chians and Spartans.
' '
.

86. Compare the differences in

Alcibiades'

"This

situation

is the

major cause

for the departures from

separate

chronological order that so mark

purposes of

Book VIII. It has become impossible to

narration without

many minor There is a departure

writing about what departures and Tore abounds. But VIII 45-51
within a

foreign from domestic policy for happened "about the same time or a little
and

earlier."

There

are

63-76

are

especially

complicated.

departure
speech at

at

73.
opinions of

24Compare

Alcibiades'

Sparta (VI 92.3), the

Phrynichus (VIII 50.2,

50.5), and of the other strict oligarchs (VIII 91.3) with the view of the democratic sailors (VIII 76.6, 82.2, 86.4). Perhaps Phrynichus was not altogether serious, but he certainly understood the
Alcibiadean
point of view as well as a

Alcibiades did. Aristotle

achieves

this same extreme

war

situation

by presenting city in which all the claims to rule are present and yet in which civil break out (Politics, 1283b2). Thucydides shows that such a situation is possible if each
a

does

not

part occupies

different

place

But

where then

is the Athenian homeland? The

position of

the Athenians on

Samos
be

is confirmed by the authority of Pericles (1 143.5): "Just imagine: if we

unassailable?"

were

islanders,

who would

more

25Compare the
with

proposals

for the 5000

the actual 5000 (VIII 97). To repeat, only the hoplites dealt

by Alcibiades (VIII 89) and by the soft oligarchs (VIII 93) with the problem of the harmony of
the problem of

the laws.
changes

See Aristotle, Politics 1275a ff.:

a

maintaining unity
seek

when

the regime

is

legal

one

for those

concerned with

justice. battle. It feared to

sail
cf.

26In into

spite of

its

great

power, the Athenian fleet at Samos would not

perhaps

the harbor at

Miletus;

that would have been too much like Syracuse. See VIII
a

79;

106.2. The only important battle before Cynossema decisive there.

land battle

at

Miletus;

the hoplites were

27So,
but
not

with regard

to this,

consider

the atheistic (no oaths) character of the very short-lived

as

Spartan-barbarian treaties in Book VIII (18, 37, 58)

to
common

distinguished from the Alcibiadean (oaths,

divinities)

character of

the Argive-Athenian

treaty

(V

47.8),

the

longest-lasting

treaty

of the war.
and

;sSee VIII 108.4. Cf. V 1 29I 138.3. In

Athens

V 32;

see also

II 104.
to

this regard, Alcibiades was

Alcibiades'

closer

Pausanias,
of

the

pretentious

Spartan traitor,

than to Themistocles. Moreover.

was

knowledge

the differences between

Sparta

and

only

relative

(or Periclean).
Tissaphernes'

30See VIII 46.5, 56.2. Cf. VIII 52

and

109. When

alternatives are

considered,

1 10
together with

Interpretation
his deeds, his
He
situation appears all

but hopeless. He
were

could not
and

favor Sparta

or

Athens,

nor remain neutral.

not

could

only benefit it Alcibiades

Alcibiades'

recalled,

if Alcibiades

to follow a policy of eastern conquest.

actions

before the

envoys

willing from the 400 and at

.

were

the end of Book VIII after

his

recall show

that he still has more than western conquest in mind

on all sides

There

is

some scant evidence that

Alcibiades intrigued

to the end, and that he had some part in

setting up the victory at Cynossema (as we know from Plutarch). Hippocrates sent letters to the Spartans, which helped to convince them to desert Ionia for Hellespont. He sent them from Phaselis. A little earlier,
after

he had

settled matters at

Samos, Alcibiades

set out

for Aspendus,

as

he claims,

to negotiate with Tissaphernes. Thucydides does not tell that he ever arrived in
emphasizes

Aspendus, but he

that he was at Phaselis (cf. VIII 88 end and 108). Consider also the other possible

connections

among Hippocrates, Dorieus, and Alcibiades (III 8; VI 16.2, 61.6-7; VIII 35.1, 84.2). In addition, Mindaurus, the Spartan admiral, was on Delos at the same time as envoys from the 400
(VIII

77, 80).

ON H ALEVES KUZARI AS A PLATONIC DIALOGUE

Aryeh Leo Motzkin Center for Middle Eastern Studies
Harvard

University

The

recent publication of the

first satisfactory

edition of the original

Arabic

text of the Kuzari provides us with the

notable

opportunity to

reread one of the most

books

of the

twelfth century, and to reconsider some of the perennial

problems

the Kuzari

articulates.1

//

Since the Kuzari is

dialogue,

the first question that needs to be resolved is

the mutual relations of the views of the

Haver,

the Jewish rabbi

who

is the

main

interlocutor,
philosophic

and

those of the author of the dialogue.

Any

assertion about

Halevi's

or antiphilosophic

tentative
the

resolution of

this

problem.

one may say that hardly anyone asserts Plato's and that of the central character of his today identity teaching dialogues. This is the case even if we believe that Plato was more or less

relationship of the Socrates who those dialogues. As for Plato and Socrates,
the
of

positions necessarily presupposes at least a This quandary is analogous to the problem of appears in Plato 's dialogues and the author of

"Socratic"

only in his

"early"

dialogues;
(that

second

epistle,

addressed

to

Dionysius.2

and it is certainly so if we believe Plato's After attempting to explain to Dionysius

why he, Plato, treatises, for the

is, why one should not write) philosophical more rarefied the discussion, the more ludicrous would the vulgar
never wrote not exist

find it
written

Plato declares that there does

(nor

will there ever

exist) anything

by

Plato himself,

and

that all writings that bear his name were born or

and nor

generated of a

or new young of the Platonic dialogues is not,

beautiful

Socrates.3

In

other

words, Socrates

father the philosophical

Socrates,
ful,"

"idea"

the

of
not

Socrates, but Socrates, Socrates as he should have been, the ideal Socrates, which is of course always "young and beauti
meant to

is he

be,

the historical

and

does

"become

old,"

that

is

to say,

does

not

become corrupted, he

nor

withers

away

forever.4

Unfortunately
either

there are no epistles

by
its

Judah Halevi in

which

explains

his

method of

The

problem of

writing Plato-Socrates
as

or

his

aims.5

and

parallel problem of

Halevi-the Haver similarity

or

are not presented

here

historical riddles. Beyond the

son of

question of the and

dissimilarity
who was

of

Plato's Socrates to Socrates,

and

Sophroniscus

Phaenarete,

born in 469
of

died in 399 B C ;
.

and

beyond the historical

problem of

questions that

the text

the Kuzari

calls

forth,

there

is the

the philosophical

1 12
interpretation
of the text.

Interpretation
We
can

hardly
least

attempt a reconstruction of

Plato

s or of

Halevi 's thought

unless we

have
of

at

tentative

solution

to the problem of the

identity, or lack of identity,

dialogues in
are
which

Socrates

and

the Jewish Rabbi with the authors of the

principal characters.

these two appear as the

As for Plato,

we

fortunate in

having

his

own testimony.

Even if

we would not subscribe

to the

authenticity of the Epistles (skeptical critics of the Epistles, most certainly of the Second Epistle, are getting ever fewer), Plato's dialogues themselves furnish us with firsthand testimony of his own views regarding this question, usually im
plicitly
there
and

by
of

way

of

allusion, but

at

times quite

explicitly.6

As for Judah
aim

Halevi,
the

is

no comfortable solution to the problem posited.

The

is to
of

revive

discussion

this problem,

and

to demonstrate the

inadequacy

the usually

accepted answer.

/// That Halevi

than once. No

was

intimately conversant with philosophy has been noted more

have represented philosophy better than Halevi in

philosopher could

the first speech of the Kuzari. Halevi

works of

demonstrates in this
in

speech

that he knows the

the core.

the

faldsifa,

the Aristotelians who wrote

speech as well as

in Arabic, to
of

He in

repeatedly shows, both in this

the

a number of other speeches

Kuzari,

that the

philosophic

approach, the views

the philosophers, are

hardly foreign to him, or,

a

"philosophic

period."7

has been noted, that there was at some point in his life, The philosopher opens his presentation of philosophy to
as
not."

the Khazar that the

Halevi knows full well king with the word laysa, i.e., "there is beginning of philosophy consists in a tearing down, in the assertion that
so,"

"what

or, if you will, that "what we are told is not say isn't what is the significance of the contention that Judah Halevi had been Now,
people
so."8

philosopher

"at

some point"?

It is true that

Al-Ghazzali, for example

in Al-Ghazzali
and

(there is

no
al

difficulty

in noting

some apparent parallelisms

Halevi,

though their similarity is often overstated), relates that he had decided to "pursue to the end all that these sects

[or schools]

contain"

including

philosophy.

Nevertheless,

including

may reasonably conclude on the basis of his various writings, his autobiography, that he had not considered himself a philosopher at
one

any time. Can we maintain with an equal degree of certainty that the same was true of Halevi? The situation of Halevi was perhaps analogous to that of Augustine,
who was

the first to be confronted with the problem of

of

an accommodation or a

"harmonization"

tine, Halevi holds the view that

who refrains
"philosophic"
-

philosophy from identifying himself

and a monotheistic religion.

But

whereas

Augus A

"uses"

with

philosophy,

philosophy,
undesirable.

an amalgam of religion and

philosophy is
nor the

religion will persuade neither the

"philosophy"

king
at

multitude,

and a

religious cretionary.

is

not

philosophy, for it is

neither autonomous nor

dis

Shall

we content ourselves with of

pointing
and

the

"constant

presence of

philosophy in the thought

Judah

Halevi"

the "apprehension that Judah

On Halevi 's Kuzari

Halevi had
on account of

as a

Platonic Dialogue

1 13

this (presence of philosophy), lest it shake his Wel

as

tanschauung
there no

to its

foundations,"9

if he

were a

Rabbi Nahman
as artless as

of

Braslav? Is
seem?

intimation that Halevi

might not

have been

he may

IV Judah Halevi initiates this book

prompted

by

his retelling

of the

events that
please

had

the Khazar

king

to start out on his search for a way to

blameworthy."

the God
that "his

whose angel

had

appeared

to him in a dream. The God informs the

are
"thoughts"

king

intention is first
and

commendable

but his deeds

actions,

And, in fact,

religion

is

foremost
ela

"deeds,"

and not

or theory.

Lo hamidrash
this

hu ha-iqqar
maxim cited

hama'aseh (action,

not

study, is the
a

[essential]
religion

principle)

in the Ethics of the Fathers is

fundamental

precept of

any religion,
philosophy.10

an axiom or

tendency

that points to the gulf

separating
any

from

Indeed,

the

king

finds it impossible to does

acknowledge the truth of operative

the philosopher's

speech, for the

philosopher

not point at

demands,

which

were revealed

to the

pagan

king
is

way of fulfilling God's in his dream. Nor can the

to the attempt of

philosopher

be

of

any

help

if the Khazar 's

aim

restricted

placating the dream's God. From the standpoint of philosophy one distinguish Christianity from Islam, and for that matter, there is distinction between these two
"actions,"

hardly hardly any

can

religions and
of

any

other monotheistic religion.

All
of

that

is, for

the purposes

this

discussion,

all the various

forms

worship,
not

are of no offer

consequence.11

This is

not

to suggest that the philosopher

worship.

does

pray,

sacrifices, or engage in any other form of public

However,
duty: the

the

philosopher offers sacrifices

because he
remembers

views these actions as a civic

philosopher who

is

about

to die

that he "owes

"

a cock to

Aesculapius.

way excluding those

It is in

no

a philosophic
actions

duty. Nor does philosophy prescribe any actions at all, that are indispensable for the sustenance and consumma
material

tion of philosophy, and for the

and undisturbed

(in the
the

widest sense of the

word) well-being

intellectual activity

of

philosopher.12

The
sense.

pagan

king possesses healthy instincts, and he has a compelling common

To be sure, this dialogue begins with a personal religious experience, as nonphilosophic as can be imagined. Just the same, the king does not allow himself
to be hoodwinked.
of

Furthermore, it is

not

the Haver but the Khazar who

which arguments are who

is in

charge

the discussion; it is the

king

who

decides

which are

not; it is the

pagan who

determines

is to

get

the

convincing and floor; and he is the

yield

one who cuts off the speaker once

he decides that he has to

the

floor.

Moreover,
it is time to

the Khazar
pass on

king

decides

when a subject matter

has been

exhausted and

to

another.

This is
Plato
s

so not

(as for example in

a number of

only in the beginning of the discussion dialogues in which Socrates seizes the reins
,

only

at a

later

stage of

the

dialogue), but

throughout the

book.13

The logographic
(inherent in the

necessity is clear; for the king's

conversion

is the

ultimate proof

dialogue)

of the eternal truth of

Judaism.14

If, however, it is the Khazar

king who

1 14

Interpretation
and

determines verities, then the Haver,

knowledge the
religious, or
national

Judah Halevi,
good,

must nolens-volens ac

actual existence of a natural

autonomous of

any ethnic,

belonging

for

the

king

is

not a

descendant

of

Abraham,
rabbi

Isaac,

and

Jacob.15

Let

us consider the

discussion between the

Jewish chronology

pagan

king

and

the

Jewish

beginning

in 1,44

and

ending, it seems, in 1,68. In this discussion the

or

king

interrogates the rabbi

about

chronometry,

and

this discussion

naturally leads to the question of whether the universe was created in time or is eternal. After some general discussion in which the Jew becomes for awhile the
one who questions and the pagan the one who
answers,16

the

king

confronts the

Haver

with

the

following

difficulty: How

can you claim

that our universe

has been

in

existence
of

people

for only a few thousand years, when we possess the testimony of the India that there are in their country ancient remains (athar) and
which

monuments,

clearly

substantiate

(yuhaqqiqun)
of years

the allegation that these

rabbi cannot come

monuments were erected

many thousands
and so

before? The

up

with a credible

reply,

he is
"

compelled

to use the basest of ad

hominem

attacks, he is constrained to denigrate the credibility of all the people of India: the

One should pay no heed to Indians say, for they wish only to provoke. To be sure, the Haver himself cites the pre- Adamites who are mentioned in the book of Nabatean Agriculture, and Indians
what are an

"ummah sd'ibah,

licentious

nation.17

Halevi thus quickly disabuses us of the notion that he believes the rabbi 's be persuasive. Says the Khazar king: had you said that I am piling originating
with

answer

to

on proof
your

"the

people who walk

in

darkness"

('dmmah
mine].

dahmd'),

answer would

have hit

the mark

(fa-asabta al-jawdb) [italics

The Khazar Indian

nation

king

does

in toto,

and

philosophers'

assertions

by

the rabbi to persuade him by vilifying the he implores the Haver to try and counter the rational argumentation. And what does the rabbi come
not permit

are all Greeks, and are not of the sons of Shem (Semites), and thus have no received tradition, which is the only testimony one can rely on. Furthermore, their philosophy is pirated from the Persians, who appro

up

with?

The

philosophers

priated

theirs from the Babylonians

arose

[Who plagiarized the Indians?]. The

came

proof: no with

philosophers

in Greece before the Greeks

conquered

into

contact

the

Persians,
answer

nor after

Rome

Greece. The

king

shows quite

clearly
come

that this
respect

is unacceptable,

and we

find it difficult to believe having

that Halevi was
persuaded

to

Halevi 's intellectual himself notes Plato's

or

stature

by

arguments that

he

showing Aristotle's teaching is in error or devoid of any merit? The Kuzwi does not inform us of something that was well known to Judah Halevi, who was, as we noted, well versed in Greek philosophical literature: it neglects to mention that the Greek
philosophers

are unconvincing.

Does

the rabbi's polemic succeed in

that

held the

view

that

they

owed more

to the

Egyptians (sons

of

Ham)
as
of

any other barbarians, Babylonians or Persians not excluded. Be that it may, the Khazar king is compelled to cut off discussion of this topic (1,68). All
than to the

Jew's

arguments

are,

as was pointed out

above,

hujjaj muqni'ah,

rhetorical

On Halevi 's Kuzari

proofs, and

as a

Platonic Dialogue
pagan

1 15

do

not suffice

to confound the king. Should the

decide,

after

all,

to continue and seek the Haver's company (wa-'in talat

that time

suhbati

laka), he

would at proof

demand that the Jewish

ah).

rabbi

supply him

with

demonstrative

qdti'

(hujjaj
Thus

we

learn that Judah Halevi

allows that the

Jew's thesis, the dialectic

of

the best possible spokesman for Judaism that Halevi can

fashion, is
rooted

problematic.

Now Halevi 's

critique of

the Jewish rabbi is not analogous to Plato's critique of

Socrates. Plato's
philosophy.

critique

is

not extra-philosophic:

it is

in the

ground of

Halevi 's

critique of his so-called

spokesman,

however, is not rooted in

Socrates' '

his religion, his

apology,
with

Plato may take issue with Socrates and with Socrates defense of philosophy, for the success of Socrates defense
ummah.
'

before his judges is

avows

not

unequivocal, even

were we

to

believe Socrates

when

he

that he wishes to die and prefers death to

exile.

As for Socrates, he has

"

reached

ripe

old

age,

and

thus one may say he has already "lived

not

philosophy.

But

it is

neither expedient

fitting

that every future philosopher would

and

"live

philosophy"

in

an

identical way,

here

we come upon

the crux of

Plato's
as

critique:

Plato himself
noted. not

wrote with

the

view of

the hemlock before

his eyes,

Lessing
that this

This is

the case with Judah Halevi. The rabbi succeeded in

his mission;
sources.

is

so we

learn both from the Kuzari Halevi

make

as well as

from historical

What

speeches should

the Haver utter? Has Halevi one convincing

logographic

motive that would explain

the Jewish rabbi's path? We are

away the obstacles he continually throws in forced to conclude that Halevi cannot but let us
and

know that the Haver is

permit outselves
drummer.18

not

his spokesman, that he

the Jew are not one.

We

to say then that Judah Halevi is marching to the beat of a different

Let Plato is

us return to the question of

Plato

and

Socrates. No

one would

Socrates, and that Plato holds the view that the position are inadequate, as Alfarabi has already pointed out. Plato thinks that his way Socratic ethics must be rooted in Timaean metaphysics on the one hand, and
not

gainsay that of Socrates and

of

life

protected

by
in

Thrasymachean
the
political

politics

on

the other. The ethical philosophy of

of

Socrates

requires

philosophy

Plato. Be that

as

it may, Plato's

reservation

relation

to his

chief spokesman are not extra-philosophic, as we

noted above.

Could

anyone contend

(as

some

been stung by that gadfly Socrates and having Plato can return to be what he had been prior to that maintain that this left him with but a faint mark?

do regarding Halevi) that having contracted the fever of philosophy,

sting?

Would

we

be

content to

Again,
significance
philosophic

once we perceive that

Judah Halevi is

aware of

the

limitations

of all

standpoints represented

in the Kuzari, it For

an

seems that we
awareness

have to

reflect upon

the

of this

awareness.

of

the limitations of any

position, or even of philosophy such,

itself,

of the search after

human

wisdom as

is

not extra-philosophic.

Philosophy

indeed demands just that:

students.

that its

own premises

do

not escape

the scrutiny of any of its serious

1 16

Interpretation
an awareness of

However,

the

limitations
Moslem

of

any

religious position

casts suspicion on standpoints of

any the Christian

critic of religion who possesses such an awareness. and

necessarily The

Halevi, but it is clear from his scathing critique

there the Khazar

king is Halevi 's

equably by Christianity and Islam (and spokesman) that neither of them is considered by
scholars are also presented of

both

him to be plausible. But what

about

philosophy, which was rejected at the outset? It

becomes

clear that

dismisses the
religious

notion

it is philosophy which the Khazar king rejected because it that dreams (such as the king's dream) or actions (such as
merit
that

worship) have any

part of

leaves the

king restive,

and

he

returns

to it

again

in the fifth

the

Kuzari.19

central

issue in the Kuzari that may

or aim

aid us

in

our attempt to

determine Judah
sensual of

Halevi 's tendency dialogue

might

is the

problem of

knowledge. Does Halevi hold

to the
other?

perception or rational

knowledge to be For

superior

A first reading
with a

this

lead

us

to the conclusion that Halevi

one

holds

sensual perception

to

be

more reliable or accurate.

certain

thing, the Kuzari begins

retelling

of a

experience

the Khazar
and

king

underwent, a nonrational experience that

occurred
event of

in

dream

belongs to the

faculty

of

the imagination. This

at

personal

determines the

course of the

discussion, it defines

the outset the character

the dialogue. Above all, the dream experience tips the balance in

determining

the outcome of the first encounter between the

king

and philosophy.

The
reason

view

that Halevi held the

testimony

of

the senses to be superior to that of

may be further buttressed by citing the words of the king in IV, 16: It has become clear to me what the difference is between elohim and adonai [both

understand
God"

signifying God, the latter sometimes translated as Lord], how great is the distance between "the God of
of

and

I have

come to and

Abraham"

"the

Aristotle: for the Lord (Adonai) on high is longed for by men who have perceived him by the senses, on the basis of an eyewitness (yatashawwaqu ilayhi
shawqan

dhawqan wa-mushahadatan) whereas logical reasoning leads to a pred ilection for God (Elohim). In other words, religion's God belongs to the sensitive
,

soul,

or

if
of

you

will, to its passionate

part.

The God

of

domain The

rational,

intellecting

soul.

On

which side of

philosophy dwells in the the fence would we find

"syllogism"

Judah Halevi? Does Halevi

view of all readers of

"taste"

prefer save one

(sentiment)
is that the

or

(reason)?
clear and

Halevi

answer

is palpably

indisputable.
In the
center of the

longest

speech

term adoney ha-adonim (Lord

viewpoint.

of

in the Kuzari (IV,3), while he explains the Lords), Halevi turns the tables on his apparent

know the essence of things, says Halevi. have the power to know the accidents that the beings attach to They merely themselves. The essence of things and their nature (amr) may only be grasped by sane reason. Whoever has acquired the intellect in actu will be able to apprehend
senses
no power to

The

have

On Halevi 's Kuzari

as a

Platonic Dialogue
goes on to

1 17
relation of

the essences and natures of substances. the intellect to the senses and to the
relation of one who sees well

Halevi

describe the

faculty of the

imagination

as analogous

to the

to another whose sense of sight is weak. Those who

rely on the faculty of imagination (and have trust in the experiences that emanate from the imaginary faculty) are as blind people, who must be steered and guided. Who is to
guide

them and steer them? He who sees well, who

has

a powerful

intellect, he who has attained the active intellect. These are the words of the Kuzari and what follows from them. How are we to resolve this shocking contradiction in
Judah Halevi? There
are two

possibilities, if we assume that Halevi 's intellectual

powers were no weaker

than ours, and that he was therefore aware of at least the

elementary story
of the

contradictions

in his
at

writings.

Khazar king told

standpoint of

the outset of the dialogue and the remarks in

while what

The first possibility is to believe that the IV, 16

the Haver says in

represent

the

Halevi,

IV, 3 is

said

for

political purposes.

The

alternative

is to

reflect upon

the possibility that what

is

said

in IV, 3 is in
philosophic

accord with

the views of

Halevi,
a

whereas the scene that opens

this

drama must be interpreted in

way that is at variance with the common

the author
and

interpretation. Unfortunately,
proof

we cannot revive

demonstrative is

in these

matters

is impossible. The

reader must

decide

which alternative

more reasonable.

VI is explicitly

One

should not conclude on

the

basis

of what

or

implicitly

stated

here that is
made

we maintain

that Halevi would not

have

uttered

the very words the Haver

to

speak

if he had found himself in

similar circumstances.

There is

no

denying that Halevi 's Haver is the best advocate of Judaism that Halevi believed he and could fashion, and had Halevi been summoned to the court of the pagan king
had been
carried
charged with
mission as

the task of presenting the case for

and as

Judaism, he
He
would

would

have

his

zealously

ably

as

his Jewish
although

rabbi.

might

have

started off with a philosopher's

would not

speech,

he

very well have known in

have any immediate effect. That is precisely why the advance that it the king's quest, and he philosopher speaks first: he is least satisfactory, assuming is farthest removed from Judaism. Christianity is the least satisfactory religion,
perhaps also

because it has

established a certain scholastic

relationship

with philosophy;

it is

in his reply to
and natural

the Christian

that the Khazar

philosophy.

However,

the relationship of
science.

king Christianity to philosophy is

mentions nature

first

apparently analogous to As Christianity is to

that of magic to

philosophy, so

is Islam to Judaism. Islam

shares with

shari'ah,

religion centered on the Judaism a pristine monotheism. Islam, like Judaism, is a halachah. Just the Jewish the which is analogous to the Islamic

law,

"magical,"

same, Islam
proof

is,

as

far

as

Halevi is concerned,

for its

greatest

hujja,

or

for its

asserted

superiority,

is the

unique and peerless magic of

the words of

the Koran.

1 18

Interpretation

Why

do the

philosopher and

the Jew never confront each other? If Halevi 's

conversion

intention in the Kuzari is to demonstrate the superiority of Judaism, would not a to Judaism of a philosopher, who is a far more dangerous and powerful
of

enemy

religion, be far more convincing than

a conversion

of the remote not

pit

mountainous

Kagan Bulus,

prince

of

the Khazars? Halevi

does

the

philosopher and

the Jew against each other. The

performance of possible

king
for

religious,

"assiduous in the
are

his

duties."

is already religious, very Religious princes who

conversion.

dream

of angels

the best

candidates

A dialogue
not exist

between the because it

philosopher and

the

Jew, like Plato's Philosopher, does

to wonder whether it

cannot exist.

Are

we permitted

is

possible that

in

such a confrontation and

it

would

be the

philosopher who would emerge

triumphant,

it is the Jew
,

who would

be

converted

to

philosophy?20

be
all

a perfect

Judaism according to the Haver, is a religion to which one i s born whereas to Jew one must dwell in the land of Israel for only there can one fulfill of God's commandments. Indeed the Haver announces in the book's epilogue
,

that he

is

about

to take that necessary step in making his Judaism whole: he is

"ascending"

to the

Holy
s

Land. What kind

who not
"

of

Jew

would one

be

who

is

not a

descendant birthplace

of

Shem,

and

and

his father

house

to persuade others not to go

position of

only leaving but actually endeavors to the best of his abilities to the land of Israel? For that precisely describes the
refrains
,

from

"his land, his

the

Khazar king
the

at

the end of the dialogue He had been a pagan ,

.

he had

become
man of

Jew, but he

never ceased to question.

As the book ends, far from

state of

being a

dogma,

king

retains

his

original

mind, clearly

portrayed

throughout: open-minded, reflective, seeking, alert,

philosopher?

doubting,

tenacious. Like a

VII

We

are compelled

to

address ourselves

to the

following

question:

Why

did
of a

Judah Halevi

choose not to adopt the opinions of the mutakallimun, the

as

doctors
not

Islamic theology,

Saadia Gaon had

chosen

to do?

For the Kalam is

only

paramount system of apologetics.

Nor is it Halevi 's

to the

possible age.

to claim that philosophy was

unknown to the mutakallimun of

It

was of

the

fathers

of

the Kalam as

well as

founders

unquestionably familiar to Christian apologetics, which

greater

served as

the model

variation within

its

pale than

for the Kalam. Furthermore, the Kalam allowed for did the Aristotelianism of the faldsifa.

reminiscent of our perplexity regarding Maimonides. Many why Maimonides refused to adopt Plato's views on the question of the eternity of the world or its creation in time, since Plato's position, which was usually culled from the Timaeus, may be harmonized without undue effort with the

This dilemma is
wondered

have

demands

of religion. It is equally perplexing to ponder on Maimonides s reasons for constantly emphasizing the contradiction between the unadulterated religious dogma asserting creation ex nihilo and classic Aristotelianism, which affirms the

On Halevi 's Kuzari

eternity
of the world.

as a

Platonic Dialogue

1 19

considered

clear, and

As to Maimonides, one can not plausibly maintain that he Plato's philosophy to be "intellectually It becomes this has been pointed out before, that Maimonides wanted to exacerbate

unsatisfa

the essential conflict (in the theoretical realm) between philosophy and religion
rather

than camouflage it.

Every

student of

Maimonides

must

therefore consider

the question whether

Maimonides

took this position, and whether he had to take it

for exclusively
himself.21

religious

purposes, or whether he had other aims that he kept to

escaping a similar conclusion regarding Halevi. Had Halevi 's primary intention been to shield Judaism against the specter of philosophy, he need Kalam.22 If indeed Halevi 's principal not have restricted himself to the way of the
There is
no
aim

had been to

safeguard the

humiliated religion, to

make

the faithful of virus, he

Israel,
could
paved

and especially the perplexed youth,

immune to the his

philosophic

have

chosen to walk the path the great medieval could

Christian theologians had

celebrated

before him. He

have

adopted

the way of

contemporary Peter

Abelard. At the very

a

same

time that Judah Halevi wrote a dialogue in which a

and a philosopher
a

Jew,

Christian,

Muslim,

a pagan,

took part, Abelard wrote his

a

renowned

work, A Dialogue between

position was encloses

Philosopher,

Jew

and

Christian.

Abelard 's declared

encompasses and

that

Christianity,

which represents pristine

truth,

refined,

Christianity Nothing would have prevented Halevi from asserting, just as his contemporary the Bishop of Chartres John of Salisbury God;24 or to describe Moses, as Thierry of lover of -did, that the philosopher is a
all other truths.
of course

is

Judaism

but it is

also

filtered

philosophy.23

Chartres,

another

contemporary, to the the

did,

as a

divine

philosopher.25

The best

solution

challenge posed

by

philosophy
and

would

be from the in the

a

standpoint of religion

subordination of

philosophy

its domestication, its is indeed

transformation
palace of

tame, harmless, The the mistress

into
a
theology.26

and perhaps even a serviceable animal

philosopher
-

or

philosophy

dangerous

wolf of the

steppes,27

its

nails

are

barbed, its

teeth incisive.

But

philosophy may be trapped

and

caged.

It is
and

possible

to dull the teeth of the

superior

Epicurean,
only

the wolf, to trim

his nails,

to transform him into a

and watchdog, obliging and tame, an accommodating the enemies of the nation when ordered, and

faithful servant,

who attacks

only

and of religion.

This

solution was adopted, more or

less, by

the Christian

West,

and

Judah

Halevi,
to

whose

mastery

of philosophical as well as apologetic

Christian literature is
not

it. unquestionable, was no doubt familiar with

adopt

Nonetheless, he himself chose

that
castrated

it.
reason

The

for this is that Halevi

Plato

was convinced as

philosophy is
the

not philosophy, and that the true

classical philosophers, and

philosophy

it

appears

in the

writings of

Aristotle,
the

will always

be

a challenge

to

religion.

As

a prerequisite

to

our resolution of

problem we posed about

Judah Halevi 's dictum every

Socrates'

genuine position must come our answer

to the

question whether

about the

identity

of

knowledge

and the good

is indeed true. In

other words,

1 20
reader of

Interpretation
the Kuzari must
address

the question of whether true

knowledge

neces

sarily implies the true way of life. A positive reply to this reevaluation of the book before us.

question would require a

xKitdb
stration

al-radd wal-dalilfi al-din al-dhalil

(al-kitdb al-Khazari) (the book

of

reply

and

demon
text

in

regard

to the despised religion), ta'lif R. Yehudah

Halevi, ed. David Hartwig Baneth,

and

emended

by Haggai Ben-Shammai (Jerusalem:

a

Magnes Press

the Israel

Academy of Science and

to Hirschfeld's Editio

Humanities, 1977). Baneth published

princeps

few hundred invaluable

emendations

(in

which

the book

is

entitled

Kitab
of

al-hujja

wal-dalilfi

nasr al-din al-dhalil

[the book

of

Leipzig, 1887; reproduced photomechanically, together with critical articles by Goldziher, Horovitz, Efros, Nemoy, Vajda, and Baneth, Jerusalem, 1970) in the lgnaz Goldziher Memorial Volume, part II (Jerusalem, 1958). After Baneth 's death in 1973, H. Ben-Shammai was charged with the final preparation of the book for publication. The Baneth-Ben Shammai edition is, as could be expected, definitive. A random
proof and

demonstration in the defense

the despised religion],

scrutiny of a number of problematic locations in the text demonstrates conclusively the superiority of the present edition. This is hardly surprising: Hirschfeld's edition is chockfull of errors in copying
the text, errors of judgment, and plain misprints.
analytic

Regrettably, Baneth 's edition is not preceded by an

any kind. 2Second Epistle, 314 A-C.

of
eaTiv toc ypoupevTCt

introduction

iov yap
yeypa<pa ,

pi)

ovk eKtreo-elv. ovSev

8ia

-rruttTOj'

ravra ovdev

eyd) Ttepi tovtidv

ov8'

eoriv <jvyypa.p.p.a

HAaTowos"

ovd'

ko-rai, ra Se vvv keyopava ^.coKparov;

kaTiv

Kakov xal vkov yeyoforos.

4See

second

Epistle 314 A-C;

views of

cf.

Seventh Epistle 341 C.

cf-

5About Halevi 's

that this book

writing in general,

II, 72 ff. Halevi

(1,1),
where

calls our attention

to the fact

is

"sealed"

and enigmatic at

the very outset

he

quotes

from Daniel 12:10,

thereby also pointing at the immediately preceding verse, "for Indeed, there is no need to pile on proofs in up and sealed, without order to demonstrate that Halevi and his "spokesman are not identical, for Halevi in his introduc tion to the dialogue clearly says: wa-kdna minjujaj al-haver ma aqna 'ani, that is, "there were among
wise shall

"and the

understand,"

these things are closed

end."

"

the Haver 's proofs some which persuaded me"; in other words, there were among the Haver's proofs

those that did

and the

not persuade

him

and

that are not in accord with

Jewish

rabbi are not

to be confused with each other.

and the

Halevi's views. Clearly then, Halevi Cf. Leo Strauss, "The Law of Reason in
of

the

Kuzari,"

in Persecution

Art of Writing (Henceforth: "The Law

Reason") (Glencoe,

111.: Free Press, 1952), p. 101, note 17. Albeit these words of Halevi solve our problem for all practical purposes, I believe it is useful to broaden the discussion in order to clarify further Halevi's

tendency
6Cf
.

as well as the perennial conflict of

,

philosophy

and religion.

e.g.

Phaedrus 275 D.
Halevi,"

7Cf. Salo W. Baron, "Yehuda

Jewish Social Studies

believe,"

3(1951), 259,
"

note

33.

8Compare
words of the

the opening words of the

Haver, "I

which are

Christian. The Muslim begins his

and

speech with the word

"

identical to the opening "we. The Khazar king asked

their
"action,"

the

Christian

the Muslim to tell him

about

their "knowledge

and

whereas
of

from
p.

the philosopher and the

Jews he

wishes

to learn about their

"belief."

Cf. "The Law

Reason,'

25. (And indeed Ctiqdd, belief, is a homonym. Cf. Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed 1,50). Otherwise stated, the philosopher is asked about his belief and answers "there is

104,

note

not"; the Jew is asked

about

his belief and

replies

"I

believe."

9Cf. Shlomo Pines, "On Leo

457. Pines's
contention cannot

Strauss,"

in Hebrew, Molad 7 [30],

no.

37-38

be

lightly

dismissed. As Max Beerbohm

noted

[247-48] (1976), p. in his Happy

duplicity."

Hypocrite, "his
am

true person slowly adapted to the mask he had put on for purposes of (I quoting from Daniel Patrick Moynihan's citation of this in A Dangerous Place [Boston: Little,

On Halevi's Kuzari
Brown, 1978],
the cause one
p.

as a

Platonic Dialogue
impossible, is difficult

121

167) Indeed,

persuasion,

while not

without commitment to

begging the question, which is, What is the cuase? One may be just as truly committed to a "necessary as to a "true Be that as it may, one can imagine that a view presented as one's own having been chosen as a lesser evil becomes as attractive to oneself as it is meant to be perceived by the world at large. The question then would have
pursuing.
opinion" opinion."

is

But that is

to be restated as

follows: Would Pines

argue that one's own notion of the shortcomings of one's

professed views or

lurking,
this

as

becomes in time completely obliterated, and may no longer be found it were, in the shady recesses of one's Let us take Maimonides as a case in point.

ideology

soul'1

Pines does

not

take issue with the view that

"glaring"

Maimonides had
and

double teaching. In fact, he

considers

view of

Maimonides

truth,

indeed Pines

contributed no

less

than anyone else to

making this reading of Maimonides just about the rule among respectable scholars. Now Maimonides spent the major portion of his adult life serving as the chief rabbi of the Jewish community of Egypt, and writing, first, a comprehensive commentary on the Mishna and then a
complete

rewriting

of the

Oral Law, his Mishne Torah.

Very few thinkers or philosophers devoted as

.

much

time or energy to the promulgation of their esoteric teachings If in Pines 's

view

Maimonides 's

true opinions were not overcome

opposite was or

by

his "necessary Maimonides

opinions,'

why

would

he have

us

believe that the

is the
not

case with contend

the other thinkers ?

that

surely Pines does

recommends

was

Is it because they were lesser in stature? For exceptional in this respect. Since Pines
may
said ask whether

that we honor that

Strauss

by treating him

in

a similar way, we

it is Pines 's
about

Strauss'

considered view

thinking

was overcome

by

what

Strauss

explicitly facie

either

medieval philosophers or about would answer

contention well-served

contemporary

ideologies, institutions,
should elaborate on

regimes,

countries.

If Pines

in the negative, then I think he

his

prima

not unreasonable
would

that the mental habit of putting on a mask becomes

(second)

nature; we

be

if Pines

would point out which thinkers and

he obviously has

some

in

mind

let their

adumbrated and

inner teachings slip further

further back into total darkness

Religion,"

and abnegation.

10See A.L. Motzkin, "Spinoza and Luzzatto: Philosophy

of

and

Journal of the History

Maimonides,"

Philosophy (1979), 43-51; cf. also A.L. Motzkin, "On the Interpretation of Independent Journal of Philosophy 2 (1978), 39-46. Cf. S. Pines, "Note sur la
prophetie et

doctrine de la
et

la rehabilitation de la

matiere

dans le Kuzari.

"

Melanges de philosophic

de litterature

juives

1(1957), 253.
end

"See 11,49. Cf. 111,65,

kanat
dariira"

("four

entered

the

orchard.

.the

third etc.).
mustathna

12Cf. IV, 19: "fa-intajaw

(and

al-nawamis wa-hiya siyasat ghayr

established

lazima lakin

biha ilia in

ways of opinion

they [the philosophers] behavior, to be applied only when they be

"The

laws,
be

these

being

however non-obligatory
are not of the
it."

necessary).

And further "moreover they

punished on account of

that if

robbers or murderers of

they

would

Cf. S.D.

Maimonides,"

Luzzatto,

Writing
39-46.

the Mishna

and p.

[in Hebrew] in Mehqere Hayahadut

(Warsaw: Hatsefira
Maimonides,"

Press, 1913) Vol. 1, Pt. 2, Bk. 4.

dialogue."

168. See

Motzkin, "On

the Interpretation of

pp.

13This is

"true Socratic
Halevi,"

Cf. S. Heller-Wilensky, "The

Relationship

of

Faith

and

[in Hebrew], in The PhilosophicTeaclung of Rabbi Judah Halevi Reason according to Judah further that (Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture, 1978), p. 44. Heller-Wilensky notes "Yehuda Cf. Baron, and religion the bounds of... "Halevi decries

blurring
hand

Halevi,"

p.

257.
other one should

,4On the
all of the

Kuzari.

takes place after the

second part of

keep in mind that four-fifths of the dialogue, that is to say conversion of the Khazar king to Judaism, which took
the book. In
other words,

almost place

some time

before the

the

greatest part of

the Kuzari is a

dialogue between two Jews, becomes

time as
clear

one of whom

is,

to be sure, a
court

perplexed

Jew. Against this background it V

of the

why the

philosophic

discussion tout

is delayed

until part

book:

as much

possible passes after

the king's

conversion.

15Cf. Pines, "Note

sur

la doctrine de la
which

p.

254.

16For

another

instance in the dialogue in

the Jewish rabbi

is the

questioner and

the Khazar

1 22 king
answers cf.

Interpretation
I, 71 ff. The king is
of course

the first to mention

"nature."

The Jew does

not

know

what

nature

is. He knows
"nature"

there is no

only in the Bible. The

about

"the heavens

and the earth and all that

is between them":

discovery
of the

of nature

is the

discovery

of

philosophy; with the

birth

"way"

of

the concept of nature, the

not as

cosmos, philosophy is born. 'immah masoret, that

17And

Even-Shmuel translates,

ummah she-ein

is,

a nation

having
and

no tradition.

Cf. R. Dozy, Supplement

p.

mix

Dictionnaires Arabes (Leiden

and

Paris: Brill

Maisonneuve, 1927) Vol. II,

et qui n'a personne pour

711:
.

al-mar'ah al-sa'ibah: unefemmequi ne se garde pas elle-meme

.

la

garder

sa'ibah: une chose qui est commune et

publique,

qui est en

friche; relache; trop libre. Cf. A. de Biberstein-Kazimirski, Dictionnaire Arabe-Francais (Cairo, 1875), Vol. II, p. 643, def. 3: Esclave affranchi anta sa'ibah: tu es libre. In other words, sa'ibah
means a
woman.

licentious

woman or a

liberated slave,

or

if

you

will, in modern parlance, a

liberated faddalu

I8According
bil-hikmah
when

to

V, 14,

the philosophers excelled in human wisdom: "na'am annahum

al-insaniyyah."

Halevi

quotes

Socrates twice (cf. IV, 13). It

ought to

be

noted that even

Halevi points
polarity,
and
"

out

in IV, 1 3 the
critique

profound mutual antagonism of religion and

essential

his

of

philosophy is limited

philosophy and their like Maimonides 's critique to

metaphysics,

is

predicated on the

multiplicity

of philosophic
"

(metaphysical)
it is
possible

points of view.

He

does

not
.

"blame

the philosophers: "fa-annahum yu 'adhdharun

to make an apology
.

for them It may not be accidental that he uses this word in proximity to the name of Socrates Be that as it may, Halevi disregards the multiplicity of points of view in "human wisdom or the human Compare 1,13 where it is said that there is not one proposition about which the
science."

philosophers concur with

1,62,
finds

where

he

contradicts this assertion.

It is only the
al-khazari

philosopher's

first

speech that
' . . .

the

king

convincing.

He

says

(1,2):

"qdla lahu

inna kaldmaka
.

lamuqni

"

(said the Khazar [king to the philosopher] :

your words

[or: speech]

are
,

convincing) No
the speech of the

such encomium

is

offered after

the Christian 's speech

( "your speech is illogical ")

is fiercely attacked. king by the Jewish rabbi in
precision and
akhdfahu

Moslem,
Says the hold the

nor even

the Jew's presentation: his

after the

first
of

speech

"All this happens

indoctrination

the

throughout the book.

king
view

(V,13): "ara li-hddha

that this philosophic

al-kalam al-falsafi fadl

tadhqtq wa-tahqtq 'aid sd'ir

'alayka
min

al-kal

(I

speech

is

more excellent

accuracy than

all other

speeches).

The Haver knows it full

well:

"wa-hddhd alladhi kuntu

al-ink

this is exactly what I feared will be

tempting
is the

to you ! No religion , certainly not the Kalam nor even

Karaism,

can

be

tempting.

Philosophy

real

fruit

of the tree of

knowledge,

the only perilous

temptation.

2"Cf. "The Law

21

of

Reason, "pp. 104-05.

Introduction,"

Cf. "The Philosophic Sources

of

the Guide of the

Perplexed, Translator's
Kant,"

by Shlomo Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963). See also S. Studies in Philosophy, Pines, "Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Maimonides and Scripta Hierosolymitana 20 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1968), 3-54.
translated with notes

22Halevi

attacks the
.

Kalam

with unparalleled acrimony:

yanfa

The

Kalam

"lafd'idfi

dhdlika"

is

totally useless More than that;

"lam

'hu bal rubbama

bihi"

adarr

the art of the

Kalam
pp.

will not

benefit him in any way, and may be of great harm. In "The Law of Strauss says that "the explicit aim of the Kuzari is identical with the
aim"

Reason,"

especially
aim of the

99-100,
This
not

Kalam."

"explicit
unaware of

makes

it

possible

for Strauss to

refer

to Halevi (p.
Strauss'

100)

as a mutakallim.

Strauss is

the Kuzari's virulent attack on the Kalam.

such as

point then must

be

understood as

follows:
to the

dialectic

the one before us must be either philosophical or theological

call

(belonging
but to
call

Kalam). Since "it is impossible to

Cf.
also

Halevi

philosopher,"

we

have

no choice and

him

a mutakallim.

Leo Strauss, "The Mutual Influence

of

Theology

Philosophy,"

Independent Journal of Philosophy 3 (1979). Compare what Halevi has to say about philosophy and about the great advantages inherent in it (see the notes above), not only for "al-tahadhdhuq fi Cf. V,16 and compare also with IV.13 and V,14. Furthermore, the first philosophers were
al-kalam."

of such exalted rank that one

may say

of them that

"hd'uld'i afrad la

matma'

fi

darajatihim."

On Halevi's Kuzari

as a

Platonic Dialogue
ed.

123
Rudolph Thomas
comparative

23Petrus Abelardus, Dialogus inter philosophum, Judaeum et Christianum,

(Stuttgart-Bad Constatt: Friedrich Frommann study
of

Verlag

Gunther Holboog, 1970). A

would

Abelard 's Dialogus

and

the

Kuzari, properly done,

chapitre
et

surely

prove

fruitful. Unfortu

nately, the study of A.

au
XIIe

Grabdis, "Un

de tolerance intellectuelle dans la

le
'Kuzari'

societe occidentale

siecle:

Pierre le
i

in Pierre Abelard, N 546 Venerable, Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

le Dialogus de Pierre Abelard

d'Yehuda

Halevi,'

Paris: Editions du

for lack

of philosophical when of

C.N.R.S., 1975). pp. 641-54, falls far short of the mark. Graboi's may be excused but not for shoddy insight, for as he says (p. 653), "je suis
historien,"

scholarship, as

he

makes the title of the work read

"kitab

v'al-da

al-khogue

thereby

revealing his lack

conversion of

ability to handle the text; or when he asserts that the dialogue precedes the the Khazar (p. 644), whereas four-fifths of the dialogue takes place after the king's

conversion; or when he states that Halevi's method of pitting against the time who is
never

king
he

one

interlocutor

at a

heard from

again

follows Plato's

style

(p.

644);

or when

says

that a doctrine of
admitted

free

will

is

fundamentally
"

opposed

to "the monotheistic

conception"

(p. 647). It is to his

"nonphilosophic
as when

training that
up trying to

we must attribute reflect upon

his

unsuccessful attempts to struggle with the

text,

he

gives

the absence of a dialogue between the Jew and the the hypothesis that the Dialogus is
"incomplete"

Christian in Abelard 's Dialogus

(p. 650). The thought that

by leaning back on

a confrontation

between the

philosopher and the religious a

(whether

Christian historical

or

Jew) is

more

revealing than

a confrontation

between

Christian

and a

Jew,

whatever the

or social circumstances of

Abelard's time were,

never seems

to have crossed his mind. He

apparently believes that Halevi's but that

strange notion and
and

rabbi's position

is less

"juridique"

than the one of Abelard's

Jew,
as

is

not

substantiated, unless the characterization of

as proof

Spanish Judaism

poetic"

"literary

is to be taken

(p. 651). Abelard's Dialogus is

and

considered proof of

"permanent"

"profound"

contacts

between Jews
and

Christians

of

"urban

society

and of

circles"

"intellectual
the principles of their

in Paris,

where

Jews

Christians (and presumably philosophers) discussed for liberal climate,

"intellectual
scholars

faiths (p. 652).

a

All

of the above purports to serve as materials

and of an

theory

of a

of

tolerance,"

society"

"open

in the twelfth

century.

That

some

twentieth-century
same

are quick
same.

to parrot slogans of the age

profit

is

hardly

proof that great minds of

paper

the twelfth century did the volume, "Die

und

Greater

might

be

gained

from Rudolf Thomas's

in the
et

Personlichkeit Peter Abaelards in Dialogus inter Philosophum, ludaem

Ubereinstimmung,"

Christianum

in den

Epistulae des Petrus Venerabilis: Widerspruch

p.

oder

pp.

255-69,

269,
in

note

61

and the

following citation: "desideravi, intellectu,

selbst wenn

quod credidi
"

especially Ich schweige ja

and

nicht

meinen

Gedanken,
of

ich

mit

dem Munde

schweige

24See John

Salisbury, Policralicus, VII, V, 646a. For

sive

example, in loannis Saresberiensis

ed.

Episcopi Carnotensis Policratici

De Nugis Curialium

et

Vestigiis Philosophorum,

Clemens

C.I. Webb (London, 1909; 25"Philosophus

Notices
et extraits p.

rpt.

Frankfurt A.M.: Minerva, 1965), Vol.

II,

p.

109.

divinus."

See

Thierry de Chartres, De
also
called

sex

dierum operibus, in J. Haureau,

nationale

de

quelques manuscrits where

latins de la Bibliotheque
the
wisest

(Paris:

Klincksieck,
XIIe

1890), Vol. I,
philosophorum

62,

Moses is

of philosophers,

prudentissimus siecle:

Moyses. See

also

Edouard Jeauneau, "Un

representant

du

platonisme au

d"
Chartres,"

Ma'itre

Thierry

de

Bulletin de la Societe Archeologique

than

Eure-et-Loir, Memoires, 20
quoted as
creation

(1954), 5,

where

Thierry,
of

no

less

William

of

Conches

or

Abelard, is

Plato knowledge

the Trinity. Cf.

also

J.M. Parent, La doctrine de la

medievales

attributing to dans I'ecole de

p.

Chartres, Publications de l'institut d'etudes

where

d 'Ottawa, VII (Paris: J. Vrin, 1938),

80,

Parent
world

quotes
soul.

from De One

sex

dierum

operibus,
also

in

which

Thierry
.

identifies the

holy

spirit with

Plato's

might

perhaps

mention

that the

commentary Librum hunc found

"

Thierry 's

doctrine

equivocal and couched

in "reprehensible language
dialog!

26Cf. Ramon Lull, Declaratio

Boethii

per modum

edita contra aliquorum philosophorum et et

eorum sequacium opiniones erroneas et

damnatas a

venerabilipatre

domino episcopo Parisieosi:

und seine

seu
zur

liber

contra errores

et

Sigerii, in Otto Keicher,

Raymundus Lullus

Stellung

1 24
arabischen

Interpretation
Philosophie Beitrdge
,

zur

Geschichte der Philosophie

und

Theologie des Mittelalters, Vol

7 (Minister i. W., 1909), heft 4-5.

27The solitary (al-mutawahhid) is indeed dangerous,

from the
general run of men:

above all

because he disengages himself

at

he

commits

heresy by dissenting
The
philosopher

from the dogma that is

always

the root of

every nation, every

engages

religion, every society.

is

"the

solitary,"

even when

he

in the

philosopher.

See IV, 18-19: every anachoretic man is considered to be a Cf. 111,1: solitary, certainly, but apparently not always. Without the company of young
political

life

of

his

people.

men, whom he loves more than anything else,

philosopher can not exist.

and

with

whom

he

can

trade in his

ideas,

the

REVIEW OF HUME'S PHILOSOPHICAL POLITICS BY DUNCAN FORBES

R.S.Hill
Marietta College

In the first

paragraph

of

Hume's Philosophical Politics, Duncan Forbes

s

describes it
intentions identified

as

and

"a study of Hume the historical

"to He

thinking
(vii).1

on politics

in the light

of

his

political are

context"

David Hume's

political

intentions

almost at once:
foundation."

give

the established,

Hanoverian,
"a

regime a proper

intellectual
education

undertook and carried out

program of political

for

opportuni

changed circumstances and new

in three

parts:

"a

theory
This

of political parts of

obligation;

a science of politics; and a

History of

England"

(x).

The three
tics."

Forbes 's book

correspond to the three parts of

,

Hume 's

program.

review will examine almost

No judgment

will

exclusively Part I "The Foundations of Poli be ventured on Parts II and III, except by implication. For
that caution in accepting Forbes 's use of his wide reading
called

example, it

would appear

in

often obscure sources

is

for.
obligation,"

Hume's
stood

"theory

of political

as a transformation of

according to Forbes, the thought of the "natural law Forbes

at

can

be

under

writers"

of the
main currents

seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

suggests that

"the two

of advanced

speculation

in Scotland

that time: natural law teaching, and

Newtonian
religious

or

Baconian

experimental science came

together,

and allied

to

Hume's

skepticism,

produced

his famous "new

law."

thought,'

scene of

and one aspect

of this was a new

plished

theory

of natural
secularization.

(17). The transformation

was accom

by

thoroughgoing

"Natural theology
political

was the

indispensa
on the other

ble foundation of natural

law"

philoso

(14ff.). "Hume's

secular"

hand, "is
needs of

wholly and unambiguously Forbes can thus display "Hume's

(65).

political

his

age

and

society, as

he

them."

saw

philosophy as a response to the This new age was a "post-

the needs and drives revolutionary age, in which the challenges and opportunities, of men were predominantly economic, and the old conflicts and loyalties, politi
irrelevant."

cal,

religious and

dynastic,

outmoded and

It

"moderate"

needed a zeal of

political and

philosophy that
and provide
"secular,"

would conciliate or

allay the opposing

so

Jacobites
This
new

commer

Whigs
was a

the basis for a

"modern,
. .

society.

age

"empirical,
.
.

scientific

it

needed

a political

philosophy "modern in style, predominantly

accounts: natural

informed

by

the new scientific method and the

"

secular outlook.

Hume

s political

philosophy fills the bill

on

both
of
of

foundations,"

it

gave "new and

law

the

contract

theory
in

that

wholly secular and empirical, to versions had been revised "to meet the needs

society" men'

forward-looking
The
politics
rather

'moderate this

a modern progressive not

(91, 96).

subject of

book, then, is
or

the

expression of

Hume's thought

on

society." context"

in his "historical
as an

its

application

to "his age and

It is

Hume

ideologist

or a propagandist or

it may be something

of each.

It

126
sometimes seems

Interpretation
to
present

Hume's thought
serve

as

formed

by

his time. More

often

perhaps

it is

seen as

fabricated to

his

political purpose.

/
through whom Forbes takes his way to Hume
and also and

The

natural

law

writers

include
J. G.

Hugo Grotius

and

Samuel Pufendorf, George Turnbull

one

Richard Cumberland

and

Heineccius, Hutcheson,
edgment
.

and even

William Cleghorn. He
as a

also

brings in

the

only

acknowledged

forerunner

by

Hume himself.
that acknowl

(Hutcheson 's full-scale treatment of natural law postdates,

,

however,
law

) They differed much among themselves but not in the aspect pertinent to
all

Forbes.
without given

They

"claimed to have

established a science of

and

morality
things'

the aid of revelation, grounded on human nature and the 'nature of

experience."

to reason and
of

So their thought has been described

and without

as

"wholly
Their

secular, entirely independent

theology
"

theological

foundations."

But Forbes takes

care

to avoid "the
"

secular

fallacy

of premature
'

theories are "empirical

attributes of

God

[is]

only because taken for

'experimental

proof of

the existence and

which

granted"

(41ff.). For a "god-given universe,

is

an

inseparable

whole"

is

presupposed

by

"all these

thinkers"

(45).

This interpretation
tion of
and

of

the natural law writers ,

so crucial

to

Forbes 's

explana

Hume,

will now

be considered,

with particular reference

to Hutcheson

Pufendorf. One way in

which

Forbes

supports

his interpretation of the

nature,'

natural

law

writers

is to

attribute

to them a kind

of crypto-stoicism.

For example,

what

Pufendorf
and

by saying that man has a 'sociable obligations are including his "right to dorf "means by saying man has a 'sociable nature
"means
derived,"

"from which "all his rights

what
"

self-preservation"
'

Pufen
means

is (not
"

what

he

says

he

but)

that man
and

for God

has "the ability to see that he is not made to live for himself alone but "2 society. The "official starting-point of Pufendorf 's theory is the
. . .

"empirical"

one of
of rationals.

"self-love.

"

But the

real starting-point

is the

society consequently to himself "to improve [himself] in every way the better to fulfill God's laws and the laws of Pufendorf 's
and

As

a part of this
and

man

has duties to its

other

society members, to God

"official"

universal

fellow-men,
seems to natural

society."

theory
derive
sees,

have deceived those

of

his time "who

"

criticized

the

attempt

to

law from the

principle of sociability.
necessity"

They

overlooked what

Forbes

and understood

"social

too narrowly, for "there is also the society

compelled

creatures,"

of men qua rational

a
will"

society that is "not only

surface of

by

earthly

needs, but

by

God's

(50ff.).

Now it is indeed true that the pletely

serene.

On the

one

Pufendorf 's teaching is not com hand, he teaches that the basis of natural law is the

combination

in

man's nature of a

extreme need of

the

help

of

virtually irresistible desire for self-preservation, his fellows and great power to help them, and a strong
and great

propensity to hurt his fellows

ability to do

so.

So to be

safe

he

must

be

Review of Hume's Philosophical Politics

sociable.

127
all

The fundamental law

of nature commands

sociality;

the others are

men.3

corollaries: the

duties
we

of man toward

God,

toward

himself,

toward other

On

the other
tains."

hand,

For

a man

duty drawn from "other foun "observes that he did not come into being from himself, but that
of man's

find the knowledge

he

owes

his

origin

to a more sublime cause; that he has been endowed

with more

noble
was

faculties
not

than he observes

in the
"

animal world about

him;

and

finally,

that he

for himself, but as a part of mankind, towards whom he is obliged to bear himself in a sociable manner. He "will recognize that he is subjected to the
sovereignty of God, and that in return for the gifts granted him, he is under both to publish abroad the majesty of God, and to show himself sociable
men."

born

obligation

towards other

The

preservation of one's

life is then

seen

"when but
on

a man neglects

his

own

care, he
"4

works an

injury,

not,

duty, for indeed, on himself,

to be a

God

and

the human

race.

It

seems that

Forbes deals

with

the paradox presented

writings

by

the

alternative

foundations
dorf
was

of natural
of

law found in Pufendorf 's in his

by

assuming that Pufen grip of theological first must depend on

Pufendorf 's lead is

unaware

the paradox; that he was so in the

order of argument comes
simple

presuppositions that what

what comes

later. On the contrary,

paradox.

docility

under

enough

to resolve the

It is, Pufendorf writes,

an essential

duty

that one

rightly hold and make a part of oneself certain sentiments that have to do duty. The first of these concerns God as creator and ruler of the

with one

's

universe.5

The

"logical law (the

the law
them.7

truth"

of such sentiments contribution

is

not what requires

that

they be

held.6

Their

basis is their

to sociality. The second account of the source of natural

stoic of

theory) is

made

up

of or

is based

on such sentiments.

And

of course

sociality imposes

on writers such as

Pufendorf the

duty

to promote

It is
natural

noting that when Pufendorf meets the critics of the derivation law from sociality he does not invoke the "universal society of
worth

of

ratio

He

sticks

to his guns,

and

forthrightly declares,
be
not

"the
. .

nature of that
'
.

'uprightness

and

innocence
relation

of manners which should

other

observed

without consideration of
"8

its

to

men, I have

been

able

to

comprehend.

The
than

stoic view

is imputed to Hutcheson

with even

less

support

in the texts

is found in Pufendorf. For instance Forbes writes, "When Hutcheson and the natural law theorists stressed the fact that man was a social being they had in mind
'

his membership of the 'one

which

great

society
words

of all rational great

beings
are

included

God"

society"

(51). The

"one

as such a society Hutcheson 's, but

,

they
is

refer

(as Forbes guilelessly lets us know) to the "one great society of [emphasis supplied] (51). What Forbes says that Hutcheson had in mind
Hutcheson
wrote.

not what

Forbes does

attempt

to

assemble paragraph

the stoic
that

Hutcheson 's thought. The indicate Hutcheson

as

theory from scattered elements of follows, whose content and context

method of

its subject, illustrates Forbes 's

proof, and his

manner of exposition as well:

128

Interpretation
nature

As in the teaching of Shaftesbury and the Stoics, human constitution because it is an inseparable part of the whole
"

is

"system"

or

"moral
which

system of rational

beings,

morality independent of revelation meant one based on principles of human nature which include an ability to recognize and acknowledge God's government of the kingdom of rational beings which is as common to the human species as includes God. A
science of and

law

living in society, the use of speech or the sexual instinct (Hutcheson System,
,

36) And the

.

senses and

feelings

and propensities and

from

which rights and obligations and

justice

are

derived

are

dispositions
reason or

determinations that have

which means

been,

or are

capable of

being,
God:
,

approved

by

conscience,

that

they have been

good of

commanded

by

they
at

are propensities which are seen

by

reason

to make for the

our

the whole system or

least do nothing to hurt it.

They

are

derived from

"social

constitution"

in that sense,

that

is,

our

membership

of the

community

of rational

beings

as such

(48ff.).

Gathering a clear and precise meaning from Forbes is not easy.

that,
cant at

But it

appears signifi

least insofar
correct.

as

the

passage represents

Hutcheson, it
is
a

says

nothing

that is

Hutcheson does because it is

not

teach that "human nature

'system'.

.because

it is

an

inseparable part of the

created

beings."

whole system of rational

Human

nature

is

what

it is

by God; it is a God-made system. But this is not to say that it is a part of a system including God. Moreover, it can be known to be a system without knowing that it is
nature
irreligious.9

God-made. The inward

sense that governs the system of

human

is discovered

by

observation and experience and

is felt

and

heeded

by

the

Hutcheson does

not

teach that the "principles of human nature

include

an

In the cited passage ability to recognize and acknowledge God's Hutcheson does teach that (not merely an ability to believe but) a belief (not in God which may be "one or but) in beings, governing the created universe, which includes rational beings except for God, is that common among
"Deity"
more"

governme

mankind.10

(What he

writes elsewhere casts

doubt

on the

assertion,

however.11)
based
to that

But that is
on

not to

say that

knowledge of human

nature or a science of morality on or

human

nature

is

either

logically

dependent

temporally

posterior

belief. Indeed, in the

of the sources of the

cited passage

the

knowledge of human nature is said to be one

gather

belief.
sentence one

From the third

moral sense

may
with

that, for Hutcheson, to say "The

commands."

But Hutcheson saying "God scrupulously distinguishes the two propositions. He is so far from teaching that the authority of the moral sense is acknowledged because it is viewed as the medium of

approves"

is identical

God's

commands that

he teaches that the justification

of

God's

commands

is that
those

the moral sense approves of

submitting to

them.12

Hutcheson does

not

teach that the morally approved propensities

are

that make for the good of the community of rational beings as such. He teaches that the disposition that "naturally gains the highest moral approbation, is the calm, stable, universal
of
good-

will to

all, or the most extensive

benevolence."13

The object

this benevolence is primarily mankind.

However,

there are also obligations to

Review of Hume's Philosophical Politics

the lower animals as
"system"

129
That is, the
never

they

are capable of

feeling

pleasure and not

pain.14

includes

nonrational

beings. And it does

as

include God: "We it

benevolence toward God; indigence, or want of good, in the

speak of

that

word carries with

some supposal of

object."15

It
and

would

be

distorting

but wearying to multiply examples of Forbes ignoring Hutcheson 's plain teaching. Revision of such a scale might be
possible

defensible if it

were needed

to resolve contradictions, but Forbes points to

none.

If

it

could

be shown, for instance, that Hutcheson 's doctrine becomes intelligible

beings,"

only
that

by importing into it the stoic "society of rational

it is
a silent

then one might

guess.

infer But

premise, suppressed for

such showing.

some reason closest

that

is hard to

Forbes

attempts no

The

he

comes

is to deny,

without

explanation, what
philosopher.

Hutcheson
what

asserts: that

is,

to refuse to take him seriously as a the natural law theorists

. . .

He knows

"Hutcheson

and

had in
the

mind,"

whatever

they
of

thought

they had in

mind.

This is

called

"avoiding

secularization."

fallacy
a

of premature

Hume does,
way in
which

course, differ from Pufendorf and

not

Hutcheson, for example, in

The difference
might

they do

differ from

one another.

be

expressed

by

saying that Hume was secular. But the difference

"indispensable
foundation"

does

not concern

theology
the

as the

of natural

law. Perhaps its

character

will emerge
natural

from the

consideration of

two more of Forbes 's arguments to show that

law teaching was based on theology. "If natural jurisprudence had really been divorced from
nor

theology,"

Forbes

writes, "there would not have been all the trouble and misunderstanding caused

by

the

problem of moral

obligation,
reference

the controversy over

over

Grotius 's

notorious

definition"

(42). The

is to the dispute God's Grotius 's

the thesis that natural law

would still

be law in the true

law

sense were

existence or providence and

denied.

Now that thesis itself,

to divorce
natural

which was

Hutcheson 's,

and theology.

As for those

who

disputed it,

precisely differing in what

seems

Forbes

seems

to think

is the direction

away from Thomas Aquinas and was Pufendorf. He said, Forbes reports, that to turn the dictates
doctors'

(45) although it is orthodoxy perhaps the weightiest toward Thomas Hobbes

of religious

of reason

making
must

for sociability into "laws which presuppose a God who governs all things
mortals to observe

oblige

as

orders

do not, has

one

by

his providence,

who

enjoined us

[them]

as

laws, for law

wrote on

presupposes a

(42). A
casts a

careful
on

examination of what

Pufendorf

this subject,

however,

light

it

different from

what

Forbes

wishes.

Pufendorf

observes

that men cannot

be

restrained

to follow the rules of

despite their manifest usefulness, except by sociability that are the laws of nature, observation as evidence that without having that power. He offers an
come

enforcing from God the

rules would not

have the force (vis) be

law"

of

law. And he infers from

that

the

same observation

that

it

must always

maintained

they do

come

from

God.16

That is,

a rule has the "force of rules of

if it has teeth in it. And it is be

esteemed

a rule of

sociability that the

sociability

should

divine

commands.

1 30
Pufendorf
proven goes on

Interpretation
to say that the divine obligation of
natural

law

can

be

by

reason.

The

premise of

the argument he makes is that

God is the

maker

and ruler of the universe.

doubted
man.

by

any

pious as

man.17

Wise men have plainly shown that, he writes, and it is not He does not say that it is not doubted by any wise
assert

Indeed, if,

Pufendorf teaches, to
some of

the eternity

of

the universe

is to

deny the existence of God,

the
premise.18

those Pufendorf seems to think wise

did doubt

As if to
that

convince

those unsure of the premise, Pufendorf tries to make it clear

enjoined upon men

"a

social

life has been

by the authority of God.

"

The first

reason

he

gives

is, "because the human

The

race cannot exist

in safety if this belief be

not

firmly
not

established."19

argument

is

parallel

to that in another place: wise

men

have most clearly demonstrated the existence

the bad influence of
atheism.20

of a

first cause But some people

.

may

ation of proof

grasp that most clear demonstration. Their atheism is refuted by consider This must be meant to be a more conclusive Pufendorf 's treatment
of

than the most clear demonstration. Throughout

natural

theology in his
appears

writings on natural

law,

the decisive arguments are those

based

on moral consequences.

It

that for Pufendorf natural

theology
...

was

not

the necessary

philosophical premise of natural sense.

law

its "indispensable
belief

ground"

in Forbes 's
and

Religion, however, "a

souls"

serious

in the Divine
law.21

Being

His

providence,"

whether natural or revealed, whether

"harmful to the

welfare of

[men's]
reason

or

not, is

an essential support of natural

That may be the

"

that Pufendorf can state that

"by

agreement

(ex consensu )
"

of all wise men ,

God

made man

to

serve

him.22

Forbes
son

appears to

believe that the

"profoundly
"

pious causes

character of

Hutche

's philosophy is
's hands has
as

manifested

by

the

fact that "final The

[are]

written

into the

experimental method as a matter of course. son

experimental method

in Hutche

its

object

"to discover God's

of

purpose

for man by examining the

'system,'

several powers or

faculties

human

nature as

constituting

that

is,

hierarchy,
imposed

microcosm"

or

(45ff.). Forbes 's

apparent assumption

is that the func

tion of a natural

thing

can

by

the will

of a

be discovered only on the premise that the function was divine maker. That the Hutchesonians did not share the
own report

assumption

is indicated by Forbes 's

speakers

that

disciple

of

Hutcheson points

to Cicero 's De Finibus as an example of the proper method of

nature:

inquiry into human

and

"all the

in it

agree

that the natural end for which man is made can

only be inferred from the

whole"

consideration of

his

natural

faculties

dispositions
an

as

they

make one

(48). But the

or

speakers certain
each

in De Finibus include

Epicurean.
one

Forbes simply disregards

denies

Hutchesonian distinctions. It is
of

thing
what

to "observe the office or end of

one observes the office or end of a part of

human nature, in the way that the body. It is another "to conclude
. . .

part"

is the

course of

Action for
in

which

it

appears to of

be intended
of

by
the

its

great

Author,"

which requires

addition to

knowledge

"the design

whole,"

evidence of

God's

existence.23

Review of Hume's Philosophical Politics

Forbes does
support sense

131

offer excerpts from Hume's correspondence with Hutcheson to his reading of the latter. Most to the point is this: "I cannot agree to your of Natural. 'Tis founded on final Causes; which is a consideration that

pretty uncertain and philosophical. For pray, what is the End of for Happiness or for Virtue? For this life or the next? For himself or his Maker? Your definition of Natural depends upon solving these questions, which are endless and quite wide of my Purpose. I have never call'd Justice un-natural but only (59). The last-quoted sentence indicates that Man? Is he
created
artificial"

appears to me

the

"sense

natural"

of

that Hume cannot accept was used

of justice as an artificial virtue

by

Hutcheson in
of

criticizing Hume 's theory

of Human Nature,
seems

in Book III him for

the Treatise

a manuscript of which

Hume had

sent to

comment.
was added

(It

likely

that the last paragraph of Book

III, Part II, Section I

what

in

response

to Hutcheson 's remark.)

Precisely

"sense

natural"

of

Hutcheson

had employed in his letter we

cannot

is

not

objecting to Hutcheson
he
would

s use of

learn from Hume's letter. In any event, Hume the word anywhere else. In Hutcheson 's
used

published writings
education,''

find it

to mean "independent on custom

and

that

is, nearly
of
are

in Hume's

sense.24

The implication
that "final
one of a

Hume's

words

in the letter is that Hutcheson

Hume did, Bacon

would agree

causes"

"unphilosophical."

after all, recognize was

and

him

as

company of included Locke.25 That

philosophers would not concern

whose

progenitor

which

Hutcheson does indeed

conclusion of both the

necessarily be inconsistent with the fact that himself with what he calls "final At the
and

causes."

Inquiry concerning Beauty

it is. But this is

the

Inquiry concerning

Virtue

he

gives

reasons

why the Author of nature, out of his goodness, may have

nature as
not

constituted
written

human

to say that "final causes

course"

[are]
that
"

into the

experimental method as a matter of

(46). It is

rather

final

causes are superadded puts

to the results
of

obtained

by the

"experimental

method.

As Hutcheson
often

it in his discussion
built

the final causes of the moral sense, "It

,

has
'

been taken for granted in these Papers 'That the

Deity
"26

is morally good; tho

'

the

Reasoning
a

is

not at all

upon

this Supposition.
causes are a

Hutcheson 's

speculations on

final

kind of anthropocentric theod its

maker

icy:

way

of

confirming

a conviction that nature and

display

goodwill

toward men.
moral

They

thus nourish piety, an

important

practical corroboration of

the

sense.27

Moreover,
us

the principal final cause proposed

by

Hutcheson for the

moral sense

inclining

to benevolent actions is that in that way our sense of

morality Thus Hutcheson 's

and our concern

for

our own

happiness do

not counteract one

another.28

argument

teaches that virtue and

interest harmonize, final

which

is

another practical corroboration of

the moral sense.

propounded

At least in part, it seems, Hutcheson Forbes put it, he "made it his task to
understands

causes
a

because,

as

'preach'

(56). It is

task that Forbes

where

Hume to have declined to take

to
a criticism of

up.

He

cites a

letter to Hutcheson
cause of
"anatomist"

Hume

replies

deficient "warmth in the

virtue"

in the

manuscript of Book III of the Treatise

by distinguishing

the

of

human

132
nature

Interpretation
from its "painter,
"

and

declaring
the

"I imagine it impossible to conjoin the two

conclusion:

views"

(60). Forbes does

not note make

Hume's

"I intend to

make a new

trial, if it be possible, to
better."29

moralist and

the metaphysician agree a little

were

Presumably
would

the last few

a

pages of

Book III

tacked on (to what an

"anatomist"

have found

Here,

as

in the

mature restatement of attained

that attempt. satisfactory ending) his moral teaching, Hume tries to show that
as a result of
virtue.30

happiness is best
altogether

by

the practice of
"preacher"

So Hume does
He

not abandon

the calling of the

of morality.

places no reliance what

ever,

of

course,

on religious considerations
and

in these

passages.

In that
"

respect

the

contrast with

Hutcheson is sharp,

Hume is indeed "secular.

//
law,"

Hume 's "modern theory of natural according to Forbes, issued from his involved a conscious that "a genuine experimental discovery philosophy (59). Leaving separation or bracketing off of the natural from the
. . .
supernatural"

aside

"the

whole question of what

to,"

amounted alliance of not

exactly Hume's religious belief, or lack of it, Forbes declares: "What is clear is that for Hume the unquestioned

Christianity and/or natural religion and the experimental method would

conceived experimental method ruled out of

do:

properly

any

science of man
"

and morals what represented

he

came

to describe as the 'religious

hypothesis'

(61). Hume is

here

as a methodological agnostic

along the lines of a contemporary

painstakingly
rebutted

social scientist, rather than

argument

the

philosopher who so

the that

from design in the Dialogues. Or Hume ideologist

perhaps

Forbes is

implying
be

Hume's

religious skepticism was a priori or

dogmatic,

which would

consonant

with the view of

as the

of a secular age.

quite

Forbes does not, it turns out, leave the question of Hume's religious belief in suspense. His "political philosophy was not complete without [the scrutiny of the religious hypothesis] in so far as it was designed to take the place of
,

the

contract

theory

which rested on on

the religious hypothesis in the final

are

(65ff.). In effect, the Dialogues

pillars of was

Natural Religion

the

invisible but

essential

the essay

Of the

Original Contract. And the

attack on the contract

theory

essential, of course, for Hume to carry out his political

and conciliation.

enterprise of modera

tion

Forbes
able'

explains:

"The
. .

contract

theory

which

Hume

attacked rested on some

supernatural sanction.

.The

obligation to

systems,
sense at all.

would

hold

even

if there

keep faith, according to the 'fashion were no such thing as society in Hume's
promise, because the

Therefore
the

political obedience rests on the and

promise carries

higher,

ultimately

divine,

sanction"

(67). But that

can

hardly

be true

of all of

the proponents of the social contract theory. Forbes himself

remarks that

Hobbes

proceeded on an
reasons.
.

"atheistic
shew

hypothesis"

(68). As for Hutche

son, he writes, "The

.which

the necessity of a social

life,

shew also
them."

the necessity of contracts, and the obligation of

Moreover, "infidelity.

.offends.

.against

faithfully observing hearts."31 a strong moral feeling in our

Review of Hume's Philosophical Politics

Pufendorf
states that

133

nature of man requires that

this guarantee, much

men enter into any agreements, the social be they faithfully observed. For if an agreement lacks the largest part of the advantage which accrues to mankind of

"whenever any

from the

mutural

interchange

duties
of

would

be

lost."32

Forbes

supports

his

misunderstanding only by by his conviction that he knows in advance what the thinkers of a certain era think.

fragments

texts, themselves misread, and of course

Forbes does not observe that in Of the Original Contract, an essay in which Hume's intention to allay the strife of Whigs and Tories is foremost, he bases his refutation of the divine right theory on the "religious hypothesis. ( "That the Deity
"

is the had

ultimate author of all

providence,"

government,

will never

be denied

by

any, who admit a

general

it

begins.33)
not.

rested on a similar

Now if he had thought that the opposing theory basis he presumably would have argued against it in the

same

manner; but he does

Hume's
"

abstention

from making

an ex

hypothesi
awareness

theological argument against the

that it

social contract

theory may

reflect

his

does

not need

to be "secularized.

///

Hume's

own

theory of political obligation is, according to Forbes,

in Britain. His "doctrine
of resistance and on

device to

encourage political moderation

...

bears down

on

Whig

theory"

"Jacobite

practice"

(93). But it

is, Forbes finds,

essentially defective. Hume's "experimentally established modern justify the results of the Revolution of 1688 on the basis of "time and custom"; but

principle

they

cannot

justify

the Revolution itself. Resistance to government is

case

warranted

in the case of a Nero. But James II only in the most extreme (96). Hume tries to escape from his dilemma by "twisting and
plain

was no

Nero

turning,"

but "the

fact

seems

to be that

although

Hume

can

defend,
present

consistently

with

his

general

principles, the

unambiguously and establishment, he cannot

about"

quite

consistently defend those unambiguously is a propagandist, but an unsuccessful one.

and

who

brought it

(100). Hume

much of certain

The fatal flaw, however, is in Forbes "s understanding of Hume. He makes uncompromising antiresistance declarations without considering
context.

their
of

He refers, for example, to Hume's "insistence that any infringement the bond of allegiance must be 'the last refuge in desperate cases, when the

public

is in the highest danger, from

cited essay, of opinion

(100). In the

violence and tyranny '(Passive Obedience however, Hume is offering his opinion on a matter where,

he says, difference

is legitimate
is
called

and where exaggeration

in the

public

teaching
like that
passage,

of the

duty

of obedience

for. Again: Forbes

cases of
)"
.
. .

writes that

Hume

"insisted"

that

resistance

"could be justified only in

'egregious'

tyranny,
(92). In the
cited
contracta-

of

Nero. (Treatise, Book III, Part II, Section IX

egregious

however,
is

tyranny

refers

to the misgovernment that

and

rians would regard as

deserving resistance

Hume

professes agreement with

them. Nero

an example of an oppression so enormous

that it would
which

be intolerable
not.

to

even

the

most extreme preacher of passive

obedience

Hume is

1 34
Forbes 's
use of

Interpretation
texts is extraordinarily careless
sometimes.

For example, he
and

records that Hume wrote that in the

disputes between the Stuarts in Hume lawyers

their

opponents, "the
safe and more

views of
''

the

royalists

'ought to have appeared more solid, more

are preceded

legal'

(266). The

words

by these: "perhaps,
Another in
of power

according to the established

stance:

maxims of

and

politicians."34

Forbes

quotes

Hume

as

saying that "in the In the

general

distribution be

among the several members of a constitution, there can seldom

other question

admitted

any

than, What is
or turn that
and

usual?"

next

paragraph, he forgets the

"seldom"

(271).

One twist
mixed

constitution,

in the British

Forbes finds unavailing is Hume s contention that in a constitution in particular, resistance may
government as of

sometimes
mixed.

be lawful precisely in order to maintain the form of Forbes wonders how Hume can "make use of this piece
we

Whig

lore,"

since

he thought that "when

"we expressly

bind

ourselves

to a

particular.

form

of govern

ment"

renounce"

consideration of

"the

advantages or
s

disadvan

government"

tages of a particular type of

(98). Forbes

based

on some confusion that we need not

stop to

explore.

perplexity is obviously It may lead him to

attribute

to Hume a

disingenuous
in the
"

pronouncement

that the reign of James II

rebelli

constituted
whereas

"such

enormous

tyranny
cited

Hume 's

point

(100), may justly provoke passage is that in a limited monarchy "impru

as
"35
.

dence

and

indiscretion

"may justly provoke rebellion

In any event, Hume does not say "that our allegiance to particular govern ments is not based on considerations of interest, whether public or private, at
...

"

all

[emphasis to)
.

supplied] (98). He does say (what Forbes quotes but seems to

. .
.

give

no weight

that "true philosophy

subordinate

teaches us to

regard

the controversies in
liberty."36

politics as.

.entirely

to the interests of peace and

And the

decisive
public

reason

for stressing
political

present possession as

giving title to

govern

is the

interest in
not

stability.37

This is
subjects.

to

deny

the paradoxical character of Hume's that "a regard to

teaching
.

on these

(For Hume

could also write

liberty

ought

commonly
and

to be

subordinated

to a reverence to established

government."38

It

possesses a

certain

internal
or

tension.

But Forbes

slackens the tension

paradox.

by his one-sidedness,
we are

does little

nothing to account for the

Or rather,

led to

conclude

that it is one of the logical

irregularities

hard-working publicist falls

of a

into when,
time

for example, he attempts "the application designed for a post-revolutionary

(264).

theory

of political obligation
of another

establishment"

to the events

IV What Hume

wrote on politics

did undoubtedly
to

aim

to instill moderation,

foster conciliation, and in his own time and place lishment. The questions arises, Why were Hume's

fortify

the Protestant

estab rather

politics what

they

were,

Review of Hume's Philosophical Politics

than one
age
of

135
as suited to

the other

kinds

of politics

that might have seemed

just

his

those of

Johnson,
was a

perhaps,

or of

Paine? Except for

an occasional personal

reference

Hume

to tell us It is clear,
.

Forbes does not try Scotsman, Hume was however, that the answer, "Hume was a philosopher, is ruled
cosmopolitan
"

Hume's philosophy cannot be treated philosophy is treated as a consequence of his

out.

as

a cause of

his politics, for his

politics.

By

this

definition

of

the so-called

philosopher as an
us"

ideologist

or propagan

dist, Forbes hopes to

propagandist might

make
a

him "relevant to
of

(viii). One

wonders

how. A

find

description

how

an old-time propagandist pulled off

and expensive

his tricks useful; but Forbes 's book is too prolix, obscure,
that
at
purpose well.

to serve

An

antiquarian might

find

such a

study, if not exactly relevant,

least entertaining. But Forbes "s reports on so-called philosophy are not reliable. Idle curiosity does not seem to supply a sufficient motive to read carefully. The book is a specimen of the depredations of historicism on scholarship and an illustration of how historicism can rob the study of a philosopher of relevance.

Duncan Forbes, Hume's Philosophical Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge

1975).

University Press,

2Samuel Pufendorf, Dejure

naturae et gentium

libri octo, 1688 (rpt. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

hominis
juxta legem

1934), Bk. II, Ch. Ill, Sec. 16. 3Pufendorf, Dejure, Bk. II, Ch. Ill, Sec. 15; De

officio

et civis

naturalem

libri duo, 1682 (rpt. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927), Ch. Ill, Sec. 7. "Samuel Pufendorf, De jure, trans. C. H. and W. A. Oldfather (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1934), Bk. II, Ch. IV, Sees. 5, 6, 16. sPufendorf, Dejure, Bk. II, Ch. IV, Sees. 2, 3.

6Pufendorf, Dejure, Bk. IV,

Ch.

I, Sec. 8.

7Cf. Pufendorf, Dejure, Bk. IV, Ch. I, Sec. 16. "Pufendorf, Dejure, Preface, p. ix (Oldfather translation).

'Francis Hutcheson, An Inquiry concerning the Original of our Ideas of Virtue or Moral Good, in British Moralists, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897), p. 101. Moral Philosophy (Glasgow, 1755), Bk. I, Ch. I, Sec. xii. '"Francis Hutcheson, A System
of

"Francis Hutcheson, Inquiry concerning Moral Good, in Selby-Bigge, p. 82. l2Francis Hutcheson, System, Bk. I, Ch. Ill, Sec. vi; An Essay on the Nature and Conduct of'the 230-31. Passions with Illustrations on the Moral Sense, 3rd ed. (London, 1742), pp.

"Hutcheson, System, Bk. I, Ch. IV, Sec. x. 14Hutcheson, System, Bk. II, Ch. VI, Sees, iii, iv (e.g., 15Hutcheson, System, Bk. I, Ch. IV, Sec. x. l6Pufendorf, Dejure. Book II, Ch. Ill, Sees. 19, 20. ''Pufendorf, Dejure, Bk. II, Ch. Ill, Sec. 20. 18Pufendorf, De officio, Ch. IV, Sec. 3. 19Pufendorf, Dejure (Oldfather translation). 20Pufendorf, De officio, Ch. I, Sec. 4. 2lPufendorf, Dejure, Bk. II, Ch. IV, Sec. 3 (Oldfather
College,

p.

314).

translation).

L. Evans, Professor of English, "Pufendorf, Dejure, Bk. II, Ch. IV, Sec. 16. Thanks to Gerald with the reading of Pufendorf 's text. for his Marietta

help

2,Hutcheson, A System,
24Hutcheson, Inquiry

preface

by

William Leechman,
p.

pp. xiv

ff.

concerning Moral Good,

143.

136

Interpretation
25David Hume, Treatise of Human Nature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888),
p. xxi.

26Hutcheson, Inquiry concerning Moral Good, "Hutcheson, System, Bk. I, Ch. IV, Sec. xiii.

p.

187.

28Hutcheson, Inquiiy concerning Moral Good, p. 186. 29David Hume, Essays, Moral, Political and Literary,
(London:

ed.

T. G. Green

and

T. H. Grose

Longmans, Green & Co., 1882), I.

the

p.

78.

30David Hume, Enquiry concerning

Sec. IX, Pt. II.

Principles of Morals (LaSalle, 111.: Open

Court, 1947),

''Hutcheson, A System. Bk. II, Ch. IX, Sec. "Pufendorf, Dejure, Bk. Ill, Ch. IV, Sec. 2 "Hume, Essays, I, p. 444.
34David Hume, "Of the Coalition
of

i.
(Oldfather translation).

Parties,"

Essays, I,
p.

p.

469.

35David Hume, "Of Passive

Obedience,"

Essays, I,

463.

36Hume, Treatise, Bk. Ill, Ch. II, Sec. X, p. 562. 37Hume, Treatise, p. 557. 38David Hume, History ofEngland (Philadelphia: E. Littell, 1828), Ch. LXXI, Sec. IV, p. 428.

HARRY A.WOLFSON AS INTERPRETER OF MEDIEVAL THOUGHT

Aryeh L. Motzkin
Harvard

University

Harry A. Wolfson, Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion, edited by Isadore Twersky and George H. Williams. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973. 1977. xvii, 626 pp.; xiv, 639 pp.; $22.00, $25.00; idem, The Philosophy of the Kalam. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976. xxvi, 779 pp.; $30.00; idem, Repercus
sions

of the Kalam in Jewish Philosophy.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University

Press, 1979. xii, 238 pp.; $18.00

During the last half century of his life, between 1929 and 1974, Harry Austryn
Wolfson
scholar was

regarded, especially in the United

of medieval

States,
and

as the most

important
area of

in the field

Jewish studies, This

specifically in the All

of them

medieval

Jewish theology
vast

and philosophy.

reputation rested on a number of

important books
Wolfson 's

and a great number of shorter studies.

demonstrated

erudition, his mastery

of many

languages

and

his

acquaintance with

diverse sources, whether written by the great thinkers or by their epigones. When Wolfson embarked on his sixty-six-year career at Harvard, it was taken for granted
that for adequate scholarship in medieval Judaica one must know not only the
extensive
poraries

body

of writings of medieval

Jews but

also of their

Arabic

contem

For Wolfson, it meant Maimonides and Halevi Crescas, only immersing (written mostly in Arabic), but also in the writings of Avicenna, al-Ghazzali and Averroes; of Aristotle, Plotinus and Thomas Aquinas; of Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius and Simplicius. Three names must be mentioned sepa rately: Philo, Spinoza and Plato. Philo and Spinoza were deleted from this list
and of

their

Greek

and

Roman

predecessors.

himself in the

works not

of

because they

were regarded

philosophy and theology. cause Wolfson did not think that they another: both treat of the "large
"spirituality,"

by Wolfson as the Alpha and Omega of medieval Philosophy and theology are mentioned together, be
were
questions"

of

essentially distinguishable from one man, God and universe, and both because it
was he, asserted become, between
which

seek a sort of

although

this last point or theme was only partly

developed

by

Wolfson. Philo
brought
about

was

all-important

Wolfson,
Wolfson

who

this marriage, stormy as it was to

philosophy

and

theology
the
was

or

between

reason

and

faith,

relationship

"intellectual"

saw as

central axis around which medieval man's

life

revolved.

Spinoza

all-important,

for he
,

was

seen as

the wrecker of this

as a

marriage and

thus was the

first

modern man

although

Wolfson

historian

was at

least equally impressed

continuity
which

by

Spinoza's indebtedness to his

could

predecessors and

by

the

he thought he

demonstrate

existed

from Philo to

Spinoza

138
the latter
call

Interpretation

being the last,

though

heretical,

representative of what

Wolfson liked to

"Philonic

philosophy."

The third name missing from the list of philosophers reproduced above is that Plato. It is missing not because Plato was not mentioned by Wolfson, although his book on the Philosophy of the Kalam does not cite Plato even once, and this
of

despite the fact that the

the

mutakallimun, and

influence

of certain neoplatonists.
of

especially the mu'tazila, clearly evince Moreover, the mutakallimun have been
"

(culled mostly from Hellenistic dogmatic literature), possibly as a counterweight to the teachings of the more or less Aristotelian falasifa. One could maintain that Plato is mentioned relatively
shown

to have made use

"Platonic doctrines

little it

by Wolfson (only

somewhat more often

than, say, Origen) because

for the infrequent

medieval

philosophers, Arab, Jewish or Latin,

seems

cite

Plato far less than they cite Aristotle. Still

appearance

to me that this is not a

sufficient explanation
,

of

Plato in Wolfson 's

goes a

extensive corpus

and

I believe this

relative absence of

Plato
of

in Wolfson

long

way

toward

explaining Wolfson 's interpretation

of a concept or

medieval philosophy.

Wolfson 's forte in the but

was a comparative

study

doctrine Latin

as

it

appears

works of several

philosophers, sometimes two or three Jewish philosophers,

a set of

as often as not

in

Greek, Arab, Jewish

and

philosophers.

Wolfson 's
"system,"

ultimate purpose was a coherent and

to show that these doctrines formed part of a

of each philosopher taken sepa

all-embracing teaching
endeavored

rately.

But Wolfson

also

constantly

to establish his unified field

theory,
culled

that

is, his formed one

are

conviction that medieval grand

system,

all of whose

philosophy fundamental

"from Philo to
characteristics
"system"

Spinoza"

may be

from Philo 's

"systems"

writings.

Now,

whether or not such a

or even

indeed found in the

various

Greek, Arabic,

and

Jewish philosophers, Plato

to

erected an almost

insurmountable barrier
have been

against anyone who would attempt

unearth a systematic

teaching beneath the argument and the action of his dialogues.

made

To be sure,

such attempts

time and again, but Wolfson knew

as a search and a

intuitively

that

Plato,

who presented

philosophy

way

of

life

more

than as a body of doctrine , would not yield the appropriate materials for the kind of

doctrinal research Wolfson for much the

manner same

engaged

in. The

scholastics preferred
a grand

Aristotle to Plato
scholastic, to the

reason, and Wolfson was nothing if not

born. Aristotle's sobriety was far more to his taste than Plato s Socratic irony. His studies centered on epistemology, ontology and theology, and the
natural and revealed

distinction between

theology

was of

little

consequence to

him. Theoretical philosophy unmitigated by political or practical philosophy does tend to obscure that distinction as does viewing philosophy as a science rather than
,

way

of

life. Wolfson

was

intrigued

neither

by

political

philosophy

nor

by

ethics

nor

by the two logical

Wolfson 's
Crescas'

arts which are also political arts: poetics and rhetoric.

earlier

books have

endured.

His

edition and

interpretation

of

Crescas,
status of

Critique of Aristotle, single-handedly

raised

Crescas to the

the second most important medieval Jewish philosopher, and clearly

Harry A. Wolfson
demonstrated his originality

as

Interpreter of Medieval Thought

significance,
after

139

and philosophic

he had

long been

by Philosophy of Spinoza,
eclipsed

his far

more popular
still

disciple, Albo. His study of Spinoza, The contains much useful information. And of course his
the standard work on that enigmatic figure. It is
completed

book

on

Philo

will

surely

remain

certainly to
projected

be

regretted work on

that Wolfson

larger

Professors Isadore
studied under
persuaded

Philosophy Twersky and George H. Williams,

the

of the

only the first Church Fathers. both

volume of

his
had

of whom

Wolfson for many years, have earned our Harvard University Press to publish fifty-five
over

gratitude
of

for

having
studies

Wolfson 's

comprising

1250

pages

in two thick

volumes.

These

studies range over six

decades, beginning
in 1912
the
when

with

Wolfson 's paper, "Maimonides

and

Halevi, A Study in
published
of

Typical Jewish Attitudes toward Greek Philosophy in the Middle Ages

he

was

25,

to his paper, "Answers to Criticism

published

of

My

Discussion
when

Ineffability of

God,"

in the last

year of

his life, 1974,

he

was

87. The

volumes contain such well-known studies as

Thomas,"

"The

Plurality of Immovable

Movers in Aristotle, Averroes and St. "Avicenna, Algazali and Averroes on Divine "The Internal Senses in Latin, Arabic and Hebrew
Attributes,"

Philosophic
"Halevi

Texts,"

"The Amphibolous Terms in Aristotle, Arabic

Philosophy and
St.
Thomas,"

Maimonides,"

"The Double Faith

on
Attributes"

Theory

in Saadia, Averroes
and

and

and of

Maimonides

Design, Chance
a short

Necessity,"

"Crescas

on

the

Problem
the

Divine

book in itself,
once told me

problem of divine attributes

(which he

and many other studies on he thought to be the central

rewarding area of study in medieval Jewish philosophy, and Kaufmann 's Geschichte der Attributenlehre to be the most fundamental work in medieval
and most

philosophy) in

Albinus, Plotinus, Maimonides, Gersonides

and

St. Thomas. And

with some of

there are more than

forty

other studies of

his. One may take issue

and study.
and

them, but they all make worthwhile reading Wolfson 's two Kalam books should be taken together,
sions,
published

indeed Repercus

last year and five

work on the

years after

to his

much

larger

Kalam,

his death, may be seen as an appendix study on which he worked intermittently

number of schools of

for decades. The Kalam,

a name given

to a

Islamic dogmatic

theology, was for a number of reasons vehemently attacked by Maimonides, who believed it to be precisely the kind of pseudo-philosophical polemics destructive
both to the true
community. philosophic enterprise most

and

to the well-being of the religious

previous

The

important

work on

the Kalam

to Wolfson 's book

was

Shlomo

Pines'

Beitrdge

zur

islumischen Atomenlehre

(Belin, 1936),

an

translation into English is nearing completion). epoch-making book (whose Wolfson takes issue with Pines contention that the Kalam owes much to Indian
'

thought.

Indian thought however

was outside

Wolfson 's purview,

not

and

indeed his

argument against

this understanding of the Kalam is

more

is

no

doubt that the Kalam owes

very convincing. But there to Christian apologetics, and here Wolfson s

discussion is far

more complete.

of attributes, creation,

Wolfson treats extensively the Kalam 's theories atomism, causality and predestination and free will. In

140

Interpretation
with much

Repercussions, Wolfson deals

context of occupies

the same problems, but of course

in the

Jewish philosophy,
no

although

Maimonides

'

discussion

of

the Kalam

Wolfson

less in the Kalam book. Jewish philosophy are indebted to Harvard University care it bestowed on these thought-provoking and very
one of

Students Press for the

of medieval

meticulous

useful volumes written

by

the most erudite historians

and

influential

teachers of our time

Mandragola
translated

by Mera J.
1981

Flaumenhaft

St. John's College

Annapolis, Maryland
$2.50

Niccolo Machiavelli's stage comedy, Mandragola, is of interest to students of political thought and of drama, and to those interested in the relationship between literature and
politics.

This
with

translation attempts to

English

usage.

rendered
paid

by the
in

be as literal as it is consistent When possible, the same Italian word is same English one. Special attention has been
in
other are translated as

to words and phrases which are significant

writings of

Machiavelli. Idioms
the text and
are

possible

explained

in

volume contains a of

brief Introduction

and a

closely as The Note on Names

the
notes.

Characters.

To

request

complimentary
enrollment]

examination

copy

of

Mandragola

please write

[specifying

course, present text(s),

to:

and approximate annual

P.O. Box 400

Waveland Press, Inc. Prospect Heights, Illinois 60070 (312)634-0081

social research
AN INTERNATIONAL QUARTERLY

OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

A publication of the GRADUATE FACULTY, NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH

VOLUME 47 NO. 3 AUTUMN, 1980

THEORY AND SOCIAL HISTORY

GUEST EDITORS

GEORG G. IGGERS HAROLD T PARKER

ALBERTO CARACCIOLO
JURGEN KOCKA

Between Tradition and Innovation: Italian Studies in Modern Social

History

Theory

and Social History: Recent Developments in West Germany

Methodological Problems of Application of the Marxist Theory to Historical Research A Symptomatic Dispute? Notes on the Relation between Marxian Theory and Historical Practice in Britain

JERZY
TOPOLSKI

KEITH NIELD

Fernand Braudel and the Rise of Capitalism

Psychoanalysis
and

JOHN DAY HANS-ULRICH WEHLER

RONALD G. WALTERS DIETER GROH AND ROLF-PETER

History

Signs of the Times: Clifford Geertz and Historians

Experience
of

Society

and

Nature in Bourgeois Economic Theory:

Outlines of an Interdisciplinary Research Project

SIEFERLE
Individual Subscriptions:
available on request

$12.00;
and

Institutions:

$20.00, Single

copies

Editorial

Business Office;

66 West 12th Street Room GF341

New York, N.Y. 10011

FORTHCOMING ARTICLES
Susan Power

John Locke:

Revolution, Resistance
Kent A. Kirwan

or

Opposition?

Historicism

and

Statesmanship
of

in the Reform Argument

Richard L.

Woodrow Wilson Modern

Velkley

Gadamer Truth

and

Kant: The Critique

of

Aesthetic Consciousness in
and

Method Bacon's

Jerry

Weinberger

A Note

on

Advertisement J. Kain

Touching
and

An

Holy

War

Philip

Labor,
in
the

the

State,

Aesthetic

Theory

Writings

of

Schiller
Transnationalism

Kenneth W. Thompson

Science, Morality

and

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY The Executive Editors

announce the publication

in 1980

of

Supplementary Volume

VI

New Essays in the

Philosophy
Edited CONTENTS

of

Language
and

by Francis Jeffry Pelletier

Hans G. Herzberger
Gaps"

Calvin G. Normore

'True, False,

etc."

"Supervaluations without Truth-Value "Modifiers and Quantifiers in Natural Terrance A. Tomkow "What is
Grammar?"

Language"

Hans G. Herzberger Terence Parsons

of

"Some Problems "Context

and

about the

Sense

and

Reference

Proper

Names"

Peter Geach

Bertolet What is Monte Cook "Rigid Designators and Disguised "Possible Worlds Counterfactuals" /?. Adler Charles Travis "Classical Theories of "Are Contexts Semantic Philip P. Hanson
Descriptions"
Reference" Determinants?"
"Kleist"

Said"Rod

Fabrizio Mondadori
and student subscribers

PRICE CN $10.00 (Free to individual Order from: Canadian Journal

of

to Vol. X

(1980))

The University

of

Philosophy, 4-108 Humanities Centre Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E5

ISSN 0020-9635