Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T17:31:27.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Biblical Roots of Democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2024

Mordecai Roshwald
Mordecai Roshwald*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

While democracy is usually perceived as a Greco-European development, it is noteworthy that some of its roots can be found in the Bible. The Covenant between God and the tribes of Israel at Mount Sinai is based on the people's consent. God is seen as the King of Israel: theocracy means the rule of God literally, and not the rule of priests. The earthly kings are the people's brethren and must submit to the divine law. Freedom of speech is practised by Abraham when he argues with the Almighty about His resolve to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Such freedom became part and parcel of the Israelite tradition, exemplified by the prophets and in subsequent ages. Indeed, the vitality of democracy in the modern state of Israel may be largely due to its biblical antecedents.

Type
Research Article
Information
Diogenes , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , November 2006 , pp. 139 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2006

References

Notes

1. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 2.165.

2. See Judges 2:11-23.

3. ‘Spurn’ is closer to the Hebrew ma’as than ’reject’, as in the King James version.

4. Strictly speaking, the text simply says ‘May the king live’, but the implied sense seems to be a public wish for the king’s longevity. The King James version paraphrases the Hebrew text to ‘God save the king’ - an obvious anachronism.

5. The translation deviated from the clumsy version of the King James.

6. The Hebrew phrase used here, mishpat ha-melukha, is of crucial importance and so had to be rendered as close to its apparent intent as feasible: the King James translation, ‘the manner of the kingdom’, was replaced by ‘the right conduct of kingship’. Melukha means ‘government by a king’, ‘monarchical system’, which is better rendered by ‘kingship’ than by ‘kingdom’. Mishpat may mean the ‘manner’ or ‘the way of conduct’ (of the kingship), but the Hebrew word also means ‘law’, ‘justice’, ‘what is right and just’, and these associations are lost in the pale word ‘manner’. ‘The right conduct’ conveys the normative sense of the word.

7. The Hebrew word Torah, used here, is usually translated into English as ‘Law’; but it also means ‘teaching’, ‘guidance’, ‘doctrine’. Perhaps the last is the best approximation, as ‘doctrine’ is derived from the Latin doceo, ‘teach’, but also conveys the notion of a solid body of instruction. This does not mean that occasionally ‘Law’ or ‘teaching’ may not be appropriate as the equivalent of Torah.

8. Significantly, the word used here is mitzvah, ‘commandment’, and not torah, which has a somewhat laxer connotation, as explained in note 7.

9. The Political Works of James I, introduction by C. H. McIlwain, Cambridge, MA, 1918.

10. John Milton, The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates. Quoted from Henry Morley (editor), English Prose Writings of John Milton, London: George Routledge and Sons, 1889, pp. 358-62.

11. Ibid.

12. Sophocles, Antigone, 665-72, translated by F. Storr, Loeb Classical Library.

13. Antigone, 450-7.

14. See Egon Weiss, ‘Law, Greek’, Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 9, p. 226.

15. Georges Gurvitch, ‘Natural Law’, Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 11, p. 284.

16. John Milton, Areopagitica, quoted from Henry Morley, op. cit. Note 10, p. 347.

17. Ibid., pp. 344-7.