Content area
Abstract
The Hebrew Bible includes a wide scope of political, economical, judicial, social and cultural ideas. Though derived from the ancient Hebrew text of a Jewish people confined to their ancestral homeland, these ideas played a significant role in shaping ways of thought for many European philosophers, scholars, statesmen and theologians who were not of the Jewish faith. The second century Roman dispersion of the Jews, along with the compilation of the Talmud that ensued, as well as the extensive formulation of rabbinic writings throughout the ages of Jewish Diaspora, lent themselves no doubt to the development of this phenomenon, which has earned the appellation of "Hebraism.
Hebraism reached its crescendo in the 17th century, particularly in England, and particularly in the political writings of John Locke. While copious references to the Hebrew Bible can be found in the writings of Locke’s 17th century contemporaries such as John Selden, Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes, John Harrington, and John Milton, their usage complemented extensive quotations from Christian, Greek and Roman sources as well. In pointed contradistinction, John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government uses the Hebrew Bible almost exclusively in order to establish foundational ideas of consensual government and the limitations of political power.
Over the last three decades a new interest has arisen focusing on the role that Hebraic influences have played in shaping politics in general and the foundations of western freedom in the specific, alongside the better-known and widely accepted VI Greek, Roman and Christian contributions. This dissertation belongs to the academic effort intending to identify the deep and extensive relationship between Hebraic ideas and the rise of modern political thought in Western civilization.
During the 17th century, England was torn asunder by an internal struggle contesting the proper relationship between citizens and government. In the Civil War (1642- 1651) and the Glorious Revolution (1688-1689) along with all the turbulent events that preceded it, were manifested the numerous points of contention between two sides motivated by acutely different world views.
On one side of the confrontation stood the royal line of the House of Stuart and their supporters. In what had gestated into tradition these Englishmen believed with strident self-assurance that the source of the King’s absolute power, beginning with James I and followed by Charles I, Charles II, and James II, was to be found in the divine, and the requisite obedience it fosters stems from the King being the “father of the nation.” On the other side of the political spectrum there arose many groups and organized efforts which operated in a variety of ways to limit monarchical power including those who wanted to predicate the political process on individual freedom, equal rights, and representative government.
This ideological confrontation contained strong religious undertones due in no small measure to the fact that the religious nature of the English monarchy had not yet been formulated. The reformatory process which had begun under Henry VIII in the mid-16th century shook the foundational bonds that had held the monarchy, the people, and religious faith together.
