tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post6875155879314074199..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Did the Ancient Jews in fact have a Republic?Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55792452642249975482016-10-12T01:11:31.398-06:002016-10-12T01:11:31.398-06:00Monarchy is a government of men. Why Lex, Rex, the...Monarchy is a government of men. Why <i>Lex, Rex</i>, the law is king [as opposed to the divine right of kings], was a radical--indeed revolutionary--concept when Samuel Rutherford wrote a book of that title in 1644, in the thick of Britain's Puritan Revolution.<br /><br />If you followed the link to my essay on "Common Sense," it's Paine's point as well, that monarchs will not be bound by law, which is why the Hebrew "republic" was a superior form of government.<br /><br />_______<br /><br /><i>Rutherford's Lex, Rex utilizes arguments from Scripture, Natural Law and Scottish law, and along with the sixteenth century <b>Vindiciae contra tyrannos</b>, it attacked royal absolutism and emphasized the importance of the covenant and the rule of law (by which Rutherford included Divine Law and Natural Law as well as positive law).</i><br /><br />The "Calvinist Connection" is rather a live wire at this blog, argued against the Enlightenment being given all the credit by the secular-minded.<br /><br />http://www.davekopel.com/Religion/Calvinism.htm<br /><br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38116611723262923772016-10-11T22:41:40.125-06:002016-10-11T22:41:40.125-06:00King David and King Ahab were to blame in those st...<i>King David and King Ahab were to blame in those stories, not the law.</i> <br /><br />Exactly my point, Tom, however inarticulately expressed. A law was in place to establish justice, but the monarchs disregarded it. I guess I should have written that the concept of government by law etc etc. malfunctioned or was subverted by the monarchs.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15950087633769414982016-10-11T16:17:09.007-06:002016-10-11T16:17:09.007-06:00Blogger Lee Ewell said...
And the Hebrew "gov...<i>Blogger Lee Ewell said...<br />And the Hebrew "government of law not of men" even malfunctioned--see the murders of Uriah and Naboth.</i><br /><br />King David and King Ahab were to blame in those stories, not the law.<br /><br />As Tom Paine said<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-paines-common-sense-as-heard-by.html<br /><br />"But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING."<br /><br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32927290693823254622016-10-11T09:31:50.008-06:002016-10-11T09:31:50.008-06:00And the Hebrew "government of law not of men&...And the Hebrew "government of law not of men" even malfunctioned--see the murders of Uriah and Naboth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27478375703941959922016-10-11T00:01:01.054-06:002016-10-11T00:01:01.054-06:00As for agrarian laws, there was no republican cons...As for agrarian laws, there was no republican consensus on that. I did not realize that I had read a different book by your Eric Nelson. He notes the openness to agrarian laws in ancient Greece. In contrast, he explains that the Roman Republic rejected those kinds of laws. It was the efforts of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi to introduce agrarian laws that started the political convulsions that brought about an end to the republic. I guess an end to primogeniture and entail is about as radical as the Americans got. <br /><br />https://www.amazon.com/Greek-Tradition-Republican-Thought-Context/dp/0521835453Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-60436336060311519032016-10-10T23:55:01.617-06:002016-10-10T23:55:01.617-06:00"As I read the text of the Bible, I don't..."As I read the text of the Bible, I don't see it. But I'm just some dude." <br /><br />I, too, am just some dude, but I am with you on this. The republican tradition not only meant "government by laws and not by men," but also that power rests with all or part of the people. That is the meaning of res publica--a public affair. It excludes monarchy--in which the land and its people are part of some dynasty's realm.<br /><br />The Hebrew polity was definitely government of laws and not of men. But beyond their affirmation of the Mosaic covenant ("All that the Lord has said we will do and be obedient")the Hebrews did not engage in law making either directly or through representative constituent assemblies. Moses gave the commandments and dozens of examples of what we might call "case law" and named judges to settle disputes. An anthropologist would probably call their polity a chiefdom, at least until the death of Joshua. Then they degenerated into separate tribes or clans until united again under the hereditary Davidic dynasty. Not much to offer by means of example to an 18th (or 21st century for that matter) commercial republic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15441197965507688792016-10-08T11:42:38.082-06:002016-10-08T11:42:38.082-06:00Was Adams reading Jeremy Bentham?Was Adams reading Jeremy Bentham?Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59915385541937224712016-10-08T11:28:01.266-06:002016-10-08T11:28:01.266-06:00" From this principle it will follow, that th...<i>" From this principle it will follow, that the form of government, which communicates ease, comfort, security, or in one word happiness to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best.<br />"</i><br /><br />Utilitarianism? Antithetical to the American concept of the primacy of natural rights. I give him credit for his early work on the Massachusetts constitution, but I often question Adams' conceptualizing and its influence.<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-american-theory-of-rights-not.html<br /><br /><i>""Government is founded not on force, as was the theory of Hobbes; nor on compact, as was the theory of Locke and of the revolution of 1688; nor on property, as was the assertion of Harrington. It springs from the necessities of our nature, and has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God."</i>---James Otis 1763Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-74090352690322487852016-10-08T07:53:18.171-06:002016-10-08T07:53:18.171-06:00"A question that interests me is, did the Anc..."A question that interests me is, did the Ancient Hebrews in fact have a 'republic'?"<br /><br />As Tom notes and John Adams writes in his <i>Thoughts on Government</i> (1776),"Of Republics, there is an inexhaustable variety, because the possible combinations of the powers of society, are capable of innumerable variations."<br /><br />Given the nature of the blog I'd think that it's more interesting to know if some portion of the FFs felt that the Hebraic model was suitable for the nation that they were creating. To that end, Adam's TOG is one good start. But, before considering the style of government, Adams considered the end goal of government:<br /><br /><i>"We ought to consider, what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all Divines and moral Philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government, which communicates ease, comfort, security, or in one word happiness to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best.</i><br /><br /><i>"All sober enquiries after truth, ancient and modern, Pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity consists in virtue. Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, Mahomet, not to mention authorities really sacred, have agreed in this."</i><br /><br />One question might be, could the Hebraic model satisfy this end?jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49119887877375055202016-10-07T18:31:43.355-06:002016-10-07T18:31:43.355-06:00You need to define "republic" in order t...You need to define "republic" in order to get any further with this. I submit that anything between the autocratic rule of one man [king, emperor, dictator-for-life, whathaveyou] and direct democracy probably qualifies as a republic of some sort. Thomas Paine, "Common Sense:"<br /><br />"Near three thousand years passed away, from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of Republic, administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts."<br /><br />etc.<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-paines-common-sense-as-heard-by.htmlTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com