Created Equal by Joshua Berman REVIEW
Where do the most fundamental notions of a democratic State come from? Athens or Jerusalem? Most American students of basic 7th Grade Civics would say “Athens” but in many ways, the fundamental trajectory of liberty is rooted in the Pentateuch more than the dialogs of Plato (or so Joshua Berman would argue, convincingly I might add). Though the laws of the Pentateuch are said to come from a Divine source, their intention seems always to be to diminish the power of institutions, monarchies, tribal hierarchy, and oligarchy on the one hand and to empower “the common man” on the other.
Despite allegations to the contrary, the religion of the Pentateuch is not the opiate of the masses but its protein and carbo-hydrates. “The new order articulated in these texts [the Pentateuch],” says Berman,
“stands in contrast to a primary socioeconomic structure prevalent at many junctures throughout the history of the ancient Near East: The divide between the dominant tribute imposing class and the dominated tribute bearing class.”
Berman takes an incisive look at the politics of the Mosaic Code, particularly as found in Deuteronomy and shows how pervasive its egalitarian spirit is. Indeed, a radical shift can be found in its very form. “The Bible speaks with many voices across many centuries, says Berman,
“My point here is to tune into a certain egalitarian voice that reverberates across the tradition, particularly within the books of the Pentateuch.”
His chapter on “Egalitarianism” introduces the reader to the form of the Hittite Suzerainty Treaty, a form that always governs the relationship of two kings, and shows how in the structure of Deuteronomy, it is the common man who is regarded as the recipient king. Berman insists that “the rejection of hierarchy is rooted in in a major theological shift.”
“In light of parallels with late Bronze Age suzerainty Treaties the Covenant narratives implicitly suggest that the whole of Israel – not its king, not its retinue, not the priests – bears the status of a subordinate king entered into treaty with a sovereign king, God. . . . Thus we may posit to some degree the subordinate king with whom God forms a treaty, is, in fact, the common man of Israel. That every man in Israel is to view himself as having the status of a king conferred on him.”
When the Bible expresses an ambivalence about monarchies, it is largely because of a fear that they will marginalize the actual people and make the keeping of the covenant “the king’s job” – something the authors are diametrically opposed to. Thus, not only are Israelite kings forbidden to do what kings of the ancient Near East did (multiply to themselves horses for chariots – i.e. build large militaries – multiply to themselves wives – i.e. build large foreign diplomacy commitments; and take over the functions of priests), the people themselves are given many of the tasks and responsibilities that kings traditionally did.Other traditional duties of kings are simply made automatic or given to the people themselves. This de-emphasis of the role of the king is mirrored by a similar de-emphasis of the role of tribal elders. “The two great thrusts of deuteronomic political thought,” writes Berman,
“– the rejection of the exclusionary power strategy and the concomitant rejection of the tribal hierarchy are integrally related.”
Israel does not need a king. It is an option. Tribalism is merely a mechanism for organization. In a way, clans are turned into a political version of a modern county within the Federal system. At the heart of the theory is a system where each member reports to God and acts responsibly without coercive power having to be used to obtain that responsibility.
In his chapter entitled, “Egalitarianism and Assets,” the author shows how policies regarding land tenure, tithing, borrowing, interest, debt release, land redemption, and manumission of slaves all curtail the ability of wealth to buy power and use it to exploit common people. The community is not allowed to let people get in a state where they MUST borrow money at exorbindant interest or sell off their land indefinitely. And even if they could, the wealthy are not allowed to loan such monies at any interest at all.
Berman notes also for example, that Near Eastern Kings would forgive debts (often upon taking power) but they usually did so to curb the power of the nobility (to whom most debts were owed) that competed with them as well as to gain public popularity. They used the resources of their competition to buy loyalty from their desired allies (common people). In Israel, this power was removed from the kings by establishing regular predictable points of debt relief. Similarly, Israelites were only allowed to sell their services for certain periods of time. They were not allowed to sell themselves. Israel was not designed to be a place where people owned people. Inequality was acceptable only when it was the consequence of differences in merit as revealed by competition but not as a systemic structure created by those who wanted to maintain superiority in the absence of the effort required to maintain it.
In “Egalitarianism and the Evolution of Narrative and Egalitarian Technology,” we are confronted with the argument that the practice of expanding literacy and legal knowledge ran counter to Near Eastern practices of exclusivity whereby elites tried to protect their exclusive access to knowledge as ferociously as they protected their prerogatives in the world of power and wealth.
In a final chapter about the egalitarian influences on Biblical narrative, Berman makes the case that Hebrew literature is different from anything else in its time though it borrows many forms and archetypes and even stories. “Divine intervention in human affairs,” he writes of Hebrew literature,” is determined by the course of human action.” The actions of common people matter. Indeed, they matter as much or more than the actions of the “great leaders” who assert the right to rule. “Each member of the Israelite polity is endowed with great significance” says Berman. Everywhere you look. In its laws; in its economy; In its political systems; in its education system; and in its literature, the common man is elevated in status and importance and made to matter in ways that we see nowhere else in surrounding cultures.
It is a case of exceptionalism that Berman says makes the Bible not only revolutionary in its day, but in the contemporary world as well. In a way, the authors of the Pentateuch are to Hebrew culture what Howard Zinn hoped to be to American society when he wrote A People’s History of the United States. The irony is that few documents have been used to repress people quite so much as the Pentateuch; And yet this is somewhat analogous to the way that the Sermon on the Mount might have been used to launch a crusade or that Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail might someday be used to argue for Apartheid. Deuteronomy asks and answers the question: “How can the people be made to understand how much more important they are in the overall scheme of things than those who exploit them are telling them they are?”
For those of you interested in politics, economics, theology, or literature, this is a recommended read. For those interested in all those things and who love to drink them in one cocktail mixed, this book is a must read.
Question for Comment: In many ways, the Pentateuch grants greater respect to common men (but not women) in much the same way that the French Revolution or the Jacksonian Revolution gave more significance to common men but not women. Do you think that the trajectory of expanding the circle of significance to women is something the authors of Deuteronomy would celebrate today? We might imagine the leaders of the French Revolution and the Jacksonian Revolution being a little ashamed of themselves for not including women in their revolutions were they to re-incarnate today. Can we imagine the authors (or author) of Deuteronomy doing the same? Or is that dabbling in heresy?
Recent Comments