The Torah, the Talmudic literature and medieval Judaism have a decisive role in the formation of the idea the Republican
Giulio Busi
"Religion and politics are not they the same?". In the early nineteenth century, when quell'inguaribile hothead William Blake posed the question to the (few) readers of his Jerusalem, the phrase had become a valore soprattutto provocatorio. Erano quasi due secoli che gli intellettuali europei si scagliavano contro la vecchia alleanza tra Stato e Religione, e le rivoluzioni settecentesche avevano sancito la separazione tra i due domini.
Il distacco tra cosa pubblica e istituzione di fede è generalmente considerato il risultato di un lento cammino di laicizzazione della società occidentale. In un nuovo libro, destinato a far discutere, Eric Nelson dell’Università di Harvard prova a smontare questa vulgata e per farlo non esita a gettare nella mischia pii teologi protestanti del Seicento e, cosa ancora più inaspettata, un bel numero di rabbini tradizionalisti. Il volume s’intitola eloquentemente La Repubblica ebraica (The Hebrew Republic), and tries to show that not only the Bible but also the Talmudic literature and sources of medieval Judaism played a decisive role in the emergence of religious tolerance and strict republican idea.
The laboratory of this turn of European political thought was, according to Nelson, the Protestant world in search of cultural models of inspiration to find their way among the errors of the wars of religion. And what better example could be the government of the ancient Jews, called by God himself? Forte discoveries dell'ebraistica Christian - born in Italy but emigrated to the Counter-ii Northern Europe - authors such as Hugo Grotius studied thoroughly before the Hebrew.
In primitive state of the Jews, political and religious powers were united. Well, you say, just the opposite of the modern concept, but - and here is the 'trick' Nelson - such a union only worked because the holders of the civil power (before the judges, then the King and the end of the Sanhedrin) had even religious power. This means that there was no independent religious authority among the Jews, so what may seem like a theocratic model for excellence, limiting the actions of the authorities in matters of faith only that touched the common good, freeing the conscience and hearts.
Committed to defend itself against the claims of the Calvinists, who wanted to impose by force the Orthodoxy, some Protestant theologians would therefore appeals to the example of the Jews of biblical age to affirm the principle of tolerance, advocating the idea of \u200b\u200ba public religious thing, yes, but no claim to control over the souls, the thoughts and opinions.
What's more, reading the rabbinic texts, these theologians of the seventeenth century political discovered that Jewish tradition condemned the transfer of the kingdom to Samuel, as an act essentially wicked, a sort of "treason" against God, the only and true king of Israel. He was angry enough to become Republicans, and theoretical the illegality of any monarchy, as he learned the hard way Charles I, King of England was executed in 1649. That
Nelson is an evocative reading of sources in part forgotten, but that works only on condition of leaving out some big river and many streams of political thought between five seventeenth century, from Erasmus Sebastian Castle - which had risen to order the putting to death of Servetus by Calvin - and up to Spinoza, who, though influenced by Grotius, bluntly rejected the Jewish theocracy.
short, while not being revolutionary, as it would in its intentions, with the Republic of Jews , Nelson brings to light another episode of the long and troubled relationship between tolerance and modernity.
Eric Nelson, "The Hebrew Republic," Up Harvard, Cambridge Massachusetts, pp. 230.49 21.00.
Source: Il Sole 24 Ore - September 12, 2010
From: Kolot
