DOCSLIB.ORG

To Make Agreat Nation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
To Make Agreat Nation TO MAKE A GREAT NATION: The Hebrew Bible and the Idea of the People in Early-Modern Europe by David Polansky A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto © Copyright by David Polansky 2017 To Make a Great Nation: The Hebrew Bible and the Idea of the People in Early-Modern Europe David Polansky Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto 2017 Abstract Across today’s world, nearly every functioning state—whether democratic or not—makes some claim to represent a people. But where did this idea of “the people” come from in the first place? By this idea, I mean the people as both a popular entity—comprising a collective body of equal individuals—and a national one—representing a particular social and cultural group distinctive from all others around the world. My answer is that it arose out of the encounter between early- modern European thinkers and the Hebrew Bible. Beginning in the late 15th century, across a remarkable variety of texts—religious sermons, political tracts, dramatic dialogues, philosophical treatises, historiographic inquiries, and so on—we find writers drawing upon the Hebrew Bible as a resource for generating the images of peoplehood that would increasingly define political life into the modern era. At the same time, I think it useful to examine more deeply how certain writers have interpreted the Hebrew Bible. To that end, the back half of this work is devoted to attending to the ways that three particularly important thinkers—Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and Benedict Spinoza—read the Hebrew Bible with respect to this idea of the people. ii A fuller understanding of the origins and development of the idea of the people—and the related concept of popular sovereignty—may provide a firmer basis for thinking about nationalism today. If we see this principle as constitutive, we may be less inclined to evince surprise at the next resurgence of nationalist energies. This may also help clarify how many contemporary conflicts have less to do with territory and security, and more to do with questions about peoplehood: who is in, who is out, and why. Conversely, the comparative stability of the contemporary world order owes much to our willingness to treat established settlements of that question as definitive. At the same time, as long as the concept of “the people” is up for grabs— especially in democracies—even the most settled questions may be open to revision in ways that impact both domestic and international politics. iii Acknowledgements It would be hyperbolic to treat this doctoral thesis as the summation of all that I experienced throughout my time at the University of Toronto, and yet I am continually surprised by the unexpected ways that offhand conversations, random recommendations, happy hour drinks, and much more besides, made their way into the final product. All of which is to say that it is impossible to adequately thank all those to whom acknowledgement is due. That said, I am undeniably grateful to my advisors Clifford Orwin, Emanuel Adler, and Ronald Beiner. Their guidance and teaching went far beyond the formal requirements of their positions. It truly was a privilege to study with them. Ryan Balot served as an excellent reviewer and useful interlocutor throughout my time at the University. Steven B. Smith was an incisive reader of my work and a spirited examiner at my defense. I have also benefited enormously over the years from discussions with Nancy Bertoldi, Nathaniel Gilmore, Willi Goetschel, Todd Hall, Seth Jaffe, Christopher LaRoche, Daniel Lee, Christopher McClure, Joseph McKay, Nuno Monteiro, David Nirenberg, Derek Penslar, Christian Reus-Smit, Daniel Schillinger, Jonas Schwab-Pflug, Vickie Sullivan, Nathan Tarcov, and Bernard Yack. For as long as I can remember, my parents have been an unfailing if occasionally bemused source of support for my curious vocation. It was not until I had children of my own that I fully appreciated its measure. As for the children, I can almost unreservedly recommend having them to any PhD candidate: their existence draws one out of interior contemplation and provides an excellent spur to completing one’s work. iv Finally, projects like this one are perhaps most frequently dedicated to the writer’s spouse or partner. This seems obvious, of course, but until undertaking the work I did not fully appreciate the reason. The life of a young, underpaid scholar is not without its real, hard-won joys, but those joys tend to be solitary ones. The burdens on the other hand, are collectively borne. My wife Alissa bore them with uncommon strength and grace. It is to her that this work is dedicated. v The Old Testament – that is something else again: all honor to the Old Testament! I find in it great human beings, a heroic landscape, and something of the very rarest quality in the world, the incomparable naïveté of the strong heart; what is more, I find a people. Friedrich Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morality Third Essay, section 22 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee… Genesis 35:11 vi Contents Introduction: We the Peoples................................................................................................1 Part I 1 The Cold Monster…………………………………………………………………………27 2 The State of the Nation ….………………………………………………………………..56 3 A Genealogy of Peoplehood…………………………..…………………………………..83 Part II 4 Hobbes's Kingdom of God………………………………………………………………120 5 Of Machiavellian Peoples and Fatherlands……………………………………………...148 6 Spinoza’s Nation-State…………………………………………………………………..177 Conclusion.........................................................................................................................205 Bibliography......................................................................................................................218 vii Introduction: We the Peoples Every American schoolchild knows or will learn the first three words of the U.S. Constitution: “We the people.” Though we Americans think of our Constitution as an exceptional document, few realize just how ubiquitous such references to “the people” are among the constitutions throughout today’s world, from Albania to Vanuatu.1 Whatever the differences among cultures and regimes, the idea that there exists a people in most states that rightly possesses sovereignty is remarkably widespread—even amongst regimes not normally thought of as democratic.2 The historian David Armitage has defined much of his work by the question, how did we—all of us in the world—come to imagine we inhabit a world of states?3 But we might just as well ask, how did we come to imagine that we inhabit a world of peoples?4 As the historical sociologist Andreas Wimmer puts it, a tripartite conception of the people—as sovereign, as democratic citizens, and as a national group—replaced “the Grace of God as the center around which political discourse draws its circles.”5 There is no shortage of accounts describing how this happened. More fundamental, but less discussed, is the question: where did this idea of peoplehood come from in the first place? By this idea, I mean the people as both a popular entity—comprising a collective body of equal individuals—and a national one—representing a particular social and cultural group distinctive from all others around the world. How did we 1 Brown 2008, 45-46 provides a summary overview. 2 For example, Chapter 1, Article 2 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China reads in full: “All power in the People’s Republic of China belongs to the people.” (http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372963.htm) 3 Armitage 2013, 13. 4 Burbank and Cooper 2010, 1. 5 Wimmer 2002, 2. 1 imagine that it might be possible to think of ourselves as organized into peoples, such that it came to be seen as the most obvious way to describe our political situation? And what exactly is its relationship with other important political (and geopolitical) phenomena, such as democracy and the modern state? I want to argue that more precisely tracing the development of this concept will help us better understand the place of nationalism in modern political life. The supposed revival of nationalism around the world during the past decade has raised no small amount of worry and surprise in pundits and scholars alike.6 Much of the surprise seems due to the apprehension of nationalism as an historical phenomenon—properly left in the 19th and 20th centuries where it belongs. A fuller understanding of the origins and development of the idea of the people—and the related concept of popular sovereignty—may provide a firmer basis for thinking about nationalism today.7 The Argument My answer is that this idea of the people arose out of the encounter between early-modern European thinkers and the Hebrew Bible. Beginning in the late 15th century, across a remarkable variety of texts—religious sermons, political tracts, dramatic dialogues, philosophical treatises, historiographic inquiries, and so on—we find writers drawing upon the Hebrew Bible as a resource for generating the images of peoplehood that would increasingly define political life into the modern era—predominantly via the concept of popular sovereignty. 6 For a strong argument for the enduring relevance of nationalism in world politics, see Pillar 2013. 7 This is not to suggest that this understanding sets deterministic limits upon future political possibilities—see Adler 2005, esp. 195-197 on this point. See relatedly the introduction to Adler and Barnett 1998. 2 What emerges is not an unbroken line of reasoning, but rather a common arrangement of conceptual resources that increasingly shapes the possibilities for thinking and writing about political life. So much so that by the 18th century, writers and thinkers in this vein (with the major exception of Jean-Jacques Rousseau) largely cease to recur to the Hebrew Bible, even as they accept the legacy of this interpretive tradition in the form of the ubiquitous idea of “the people,” embedding it in the related image of the nation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The London School of Economics and Political Science
    The London School of Economics and Political Science Mercenaries and the State: How the hybridisation of the armed forces is changing the face of national security Caroline Varin A thesis submitted to the Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, September 2012 ii Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of <83,157> words. iii Abstract The military has been a symbol of nationhood and state control for the past two hundred years. As representatives of a society’s cultural values and political ambitions, the armed forces have traditionally been held within the confines of the modern state. Today, however, soldiers are expected to operate in the shadows of conflicts, drawing little attention to themselves and to their actions; they are physically and emotionally secluded from a civilian population whose governments, especially in the ‘West’, are proceeding to an unprecedented wave of demilitarisation and military budget cuts.
    [Show full text]
  • New Working Papers Series, Entitled “Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics”
    Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics no. 74 the other canon foundation, Norway Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance CONTACT: Rainer Kattel, [email protected]; Wolfgang Drechsler, [email protected]; Erik S. Reinert, [email protected] 80 Economic Bestsellers before 1850: A Fresh Look at the History of Economic Thought Erik S. Reinert, Kenneth Carpenter, Fernanda A. Reinert, Sophus A. Reinert* MAY 2017 * E. Reinert, Tallinn University of Technology & The Other Canon Foundation, Norway; K. Car- penter, former librarian, Harvard University; F. Reinert, The Other Canon Foundation, Norway; S. Reinert, Harvard Business School. The authors are grateful to Dr. Debra Wallace, Managing Director, Baker Library Services and, Laura Linard, Director of Baker Library Special Collections, at Harvard Business School, where the Historical Collection now houses what was once the Kress Library, for their cooperation in this venture. Above all our thanks go to Olga Mikheeva at Tallinn University of Technology for her very efficient research assistance. Antiquarian book dealers often have more information on economics books than do academics, and our thanks go to Wilhelm Hohmann in Stuttgart, Robert H. Rubin in Brookline MA, Elvira Tasbach in Berlin, and, above all, to Ian Smith in London. We are also grateful for advice from Richard van den Berg, Francesco Boldizzoni, Patrick O’Brien, Alexandre Mendes Cunha, Bertram Schefold and Arild Sæther. Corresponding author [email protected] The core and backbone of this publication consists of the meticulous work of Kenneth Carpenter, librarian of the Kress Library at Harvard Busi- ness School starting in 1968 and later Assistant Director for Research Resources in the Harvard University Library and the Harvard College 1 Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Replies: on Revelation, Natural Law and Jewish Autonomy in Theology1
    Three Replies: On Revelation, Natural Law and Jewish Autonomy in Theology1 Yoram Hazony The Herzl Institute, Jerusalem Abstract: I address three key questions in Jewish theology that have come up in readers’ criticism of my book The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture: (i) How should we think about God’s revelation to man if, as I have proposed, the sharp distinction between divine revelation and human reason is alien to the Hebrew Bible and classical rabbinic sources? (ii) Is the biblical Law of Moses intended to be a description of natural law, suggesting the path to life and the good for all nations? And (iii) what should be the role of the Jewish theologian, given the overwhelming prevalence of Christian conceptions of God and Scripture in contemporary theological discourse. I am grateful to Christina Brinks, Randal Rauser, Samuel Lebens and Jessica Wilson for devoting so much careful thought to my book The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture in their respective essays in the Journal of Analytic Theology last year.2 These papers raise many important issues. In this essay, I will focus on three questions that I see as key for contemporary philosophy and theology, leaving other pertinent aspects of their papers for another time. I. Hebrew Scripture Without the Revelation-Reason Dichotomy In The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture, I propose that our ability to recognize the intended teachings, and even the subject matter, of the ancient Jewish works collected in the biblical corpus has been severely damaged by the prevalence of the analytic distinction between “works of human reason” and “works of revelation.”3 Historically, the distinction between reason and revelation has played an especially 1 I would like to thank readers who commented on this paper, in whole or in part, offering useful suggestions and criticism: Joshua Berman, Lenn Goodman, Yael Hazony, Dru Johnson, Joseph Isaac Lifshitz, Alan Mittleman, Robert Nicholson, David Novak, Randal Rauser, Michael Rea, Moshe Shoshan, Gil Student, and Joshua Weinstein.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil-Military Relations: a Comparative Analysis of the Role of the Military in the Political Transformation of Post-War Turkey and Greece: 1980-1995
    CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF THE MILITARY IN THE POLITICAL TRANSFORMATION OF POST-WAR TURKEY AND GREECE: 1980-1995 Dr. Gerassimos Karabelias Final Report submitted to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in June 1998 1 ABSTRACT This report attempts to determine the evolution of civil-military relations in Turkey and Greece during the 1980-1995 period through an examination of the role of the military in the political transformation of both countries. Since the mid-1970s and especially after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the struggle for spreading the winds of democracy around the globe has been the goal of all western states and particularly the United States of America. However, taking into consideration the volatility in the Balkans and in Central Asia, the military institution of Turkey and Greece which gave the impression that it withdrew in the barracks after their last intervention in 1980-83 and 1967-74 respectively, could easily be forced or even tempted to assume a greater responsibility in the conduct of each country’s domestic and foreign affairs. Only through a better understanding of its role during the 1980-95 period, we would be able to determine the feasibility of such scenarios. Using a multi-factorial model as a protection from the short- sighted results which the majority of mono-factorial approaches produce, this report starts with the analysis of the distinct role which the Armed Forces of each country have had in the historical evolution of their respective civil-military relations up to 1980 (Part One of Chapters Two and Three).
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-00317-0 - The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture Yoram Hazony Frontmatter More information The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture What if the Hebrew Bible wasn’t meant to be read as “revelation”? What if it’s not really about miracles or the afterlife, but about how to lead our lives in this world? The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture proposes a new framework for reading the Bible. It shows how the biblical authors used narrative and prophetic oratory to advance universal arguments about ethics, political philosophy, and metaphysics. It offers bold new studies of the biblical narratives and prophetic poetry, transforming forever our understanding of what the stories of Abel, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and David and the speeches of Isaiah and Jeremiah were meant to teach. The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture assumes no belief in God or other religious commitment. It assumes no previous background in Bible. It is free of disciplinary jargon. Open the door to a book you never knew existed. You’ll never read the Bible the same way again. Yoram Hazony is Provost of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and a Senior Fellow in the Department of Philosophy, Political Theory and Religion (PPR). Hazony’s previous books include The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel’s Soul and The Dawn: Political Teachings of the Book of Esther. His essays and articles have appeared in the New York Times, the New Republic, Commentary, Azure, and Ha’aretz, among other publications. He is author of a regular blog on philosophy, Judaism, Israel, and higher education called Jerusalem Letters.
    [Show full text]
  • 9781107141827 Index.Pdf
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-14182-7 — Botero: The Reason of State Giovanni Botero , Edited by Robert Bireley Index More Information Index This index does not include topics and concepts that are listed in the extensive Table of Contents. Acarnanians, Apelles, actors, appearance and reality, xxiv–xxv Additions to the Reason of State, xxiv Archimedes, Aemilius Paulus, , , architectural enterprises, xxviii, – Afonso de Albuquerque, Ariosto, Agathocles, Aristotle, , , , , , , , , , , Agesilaus, , , , Agrippa, Marcus Vispanius, Aritperto, Ahab, Arnulf (emperor), Alaric, , arquebus, Alba, duke of, , , artisans, , Alexander III (pope), Assyrians, Alexander Severus, , astuteness, , Alexander the Great, , , , , , , , Attila, , , , , , , , , , Attilius Regulus, Augustus, , , , , , , , , , Alexander (king of the Jews), , , , , , , , , Alexis I Comnenus, Aurelian, , , Alfonso I (king of Naples), , auspices, Alfonso II (duke of Calabria), Austrian royal house, Alfonso II (king of Naples), Avignon, Alfonso III (king of Spain), Alfonso V (of Aragon), , Bajazet II, Alfonso X (king of Castile), , , Baroque, xxii Almeida, Francisco de, Basil the Macedonian, Ammirato, Scipione, xviii, xxi begging, Amurath, Bellarmine, Robert, xviii, xix, xx Antigonus I, Boccalini, Traiano, xxi Antimachiavellians, xvi, xxi, xxii Bodin, Jean, xvii, xix, xx, xxi, xxvi, xxxii, Antiochus III the Great, , , xxxiii, , , , , © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-14182-7
    [Show full text]
  • Yoram Hazony Jerusalem and Carthage
    Yoram Hazony Jerusalem and Carthage Abstract: In recent years, Tertullian’s iconic distinction between Jerusalem and Athens has been frequently cited as a point of departure for discussion of the relationship between the thought of the Bible and the philosophy of ancient Greece. Historically, Tertullian’s dichotomy launches a discourse based on two familiar premises: that “faith” and “reason” name distinct and opposed aspects of mankind’s intellectual endowment; and that the tradition of thought found in the Bible represents and encourages the first of these, whereas Greek philosophy embraces the second. My own view is that both of these premises are almost certainly false. In what follows, I offer preliminary remarks concern- ing one aspect of this topic, which is the question of whether the Bible can reasonably be seen as representing the position labeled “faith” in the Tertullianic disputation between faith and reason. In my view, the kind of faith that bears the label “Jerusalem” in the discourse inspired by Tertullian cannot be found in the Hebrew Bible at all. To speak intelligently about the thought of the Hebrew Bible and its place in the history of the West, one must learn to think in terms of an unaccustomed and very different opposi- tion, that between Jerusalem and Carthage. 1. Introduction: What Has Tertullian to Do with Jerusalem? In recent years, Tertullian’s iconic distinction between Jerusalem and Athens has been frequently cited as a point of departure for discussion of the relationship between the thought of the Bible and the philosophy of ancient Greece.1 Historically, Tertullian’s dichotomy launches a dis- course based on two familiar premises, by now often presented as if they I would like to thank Leora Batnitzky, Joshua Berman, Gerald Blidstein, Steven Grosby, Ofir Haivry, Jonathan Jacobs, Menachem Kellner, Joseph Isaac Lifshitz, Stewart Moore, Gordon Schochet, and Joshua Weinstein for their comments on earlier versions of this talk.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to UCL Octagon Small Grants Fund Sarah Gibbs 1 Conference: Rebel? Prophet? Relic? Perspectives on George Orwell in 2019
    Report to UCL Octagon Small Grants Fund Sarah Gibbs 1 Conference: Rebel? Prophet? Relic? Perspectives on George Orwell in 2019 24-25 May 2019 University College London (UCL) Conference Programme Summary UCL’s first George Orwell conference, Rebel? Prophet? Relic? Perspectives on George Orwell in 2019, took place on May 24th and 25th. The event explored all aspects of the author’s oeuvre and presence in popular culture, from the continuing significance of his masterpiece, the political dystopia Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), to his relationship to the British Empire and mid-century Fascism. Panelists discussed his reception history in different parts of the world, and adaptations of his work in a variety of media. The speaker list was international, and truly interdisciplinary. Presenters, who were academics, theatre directors, video game designers, authors, journalists, and members of the Armed Forces, traveled Report to UCL Octagon Small Grants Fund Sarah Gibbs 2 from Australia, Canada, Iraq, the United States, China, Germany, Scotland, and all parts of England to participate. The conference brought together a number of Orwell-focused organizations and institutions: the Orwell Foundation, the Orwell Society, and UCL Special Collections, holder of the Orwell Archive. Approximately forty members of the public also joined the event. The support of the Octagon Small Grants Fund not only allowed scholars to participate in a conference dedicated to Orwell, very few of which exist, but also enabled the University to positively engage with the community and publicize its projects and collections. Twitter: @UCL_Orwell_2019; #UCLOrwell2019 Report In 1945, George Orwell wrote of war-time rumours that American troops had come to England to thwart a communist revolution: “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Justice Sampler
    SAA SAAMPLER SAA SAASAMPLER MPLER LAWSOCIAL & ETHICS LAW & LAW & 6” 11/16” LAW6” JU &S TICE6” ETHICS.78” 6” PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY PERSPECTIVES MPLER “ Today, legal issues are pervading archival administration more intensively and in more areas ETHICS ETHICS than ever before. Fortunately, a superb new manual, Navigating Legal Issues in Archives, “Privacy and Confidentiality Perspectives brings together a diverse selection of thoughtful and provocative essays that explore the legal, ethical, written by Menzi Behrnd-Klodt and published by the Society of American Archivists, is now administrative, and institutional considerations that shape archival available to guide archivists in facing such problems. While its predecessor, Archives and debates concerning the administration of access to records containing Manuscripts: Law, by Gary and Trudy Peterson, served the last generation well, the current personal information. It is essential reading for archivists, records impact of the law on archives has changed in both detail and extent. The coverage of this new managers, archival educators and students who wish to gain a deeper under-standing of this difficult archival issue—and it is bound to stimu- book reflects these changes well—its presentation is clear, thorough, and well-documented. late broader reflection and debate.” 9” The organization, index, and notes make the book easy to use and give assurance to its quality. — Nadine Strossen Its author and publisher are to be commended for an outstanding aid to their profession.” President, American Civil Liberties Union, and ORRIS OHEN Professor of Law, New York Law School – M L. C 9” ARCHIVISTS & ARCHIVAL RECORDS Professor Emeritus of Law, and Librarian (Retired), Yale Law School “Privacy and Confidentiality Perspectives fills a crucial void in the corpus of archival literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Hoover Digest
    HOOVER DIGEST RESEARCH + OPINION ON PUBLIC POLICY WINTER 2019 NO. 1 THE HOOVER INSTITUTION • STANFORD UNIVERSITY The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace was established at Stanford University in 1919 by Herbert Hoover, a member of Stanford’s pioneer graduating class of 1895 and the thirty-first president of the United States. Created as a library and repository of documents, the Institution approaches its centennial with a dual identity: an active public policy research center and an internationally recognized library and archives. The Institution’s overarching goals are to: » Understand the causes and consequences of economic, political, and social change » Analyze the effects of government actions and public policies » Use reasoned argument and intellectual rigor to generate ideas that nurture the formation of public policy and benefit society Herbert Hoover’s 1959 statement to the Board of Trustees of Stanford University continues to guide and define the Institution’s mission in the twenty-first century: This Institution supports the Constitution of the United States, its Bill of Rights, and its method of representative government. Both our social and economic sys- tems are based on private enterprise, from which springs initiative and ingenuity. Ours is a system where the Federal Government should undertake no govern- mental, social, or economic action, except where local government, or the people, cannot undertake it for themselves. The overall mission of this Institution is, from its records, to recall the voice of experience against the making of war, and by the study of these records and their publication to recall man’s endeavors to make and preserve peace, and to sustain for America the safeguards of the American way of life.
    [Show full text]
  • 399 Vera Keller What Is the Best Mark of Certainty for Scientific
    book reviews Early Science and Medicine 21 (2016) 399-401 399 Vera Keller Knowledge in the Public Interest, 1575–1725 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 350, $99.99 (cloth), ISBN 978 1 1071 1013 7. What is the best mark of certainty for scientific knowledge? Can knowledge be certain only when it is “pure,” unconnected with practical application and di- vorced from any individual’s interest or profit? Or does knowledge have greater certainty when it is operative, useful, and capable of expanding mankind’s do- minion over nature? Vera Keller’s fascinating book aims to trace a pivotal shift in the understanding of scientific knowledge in early modern Europe, in the ways such knowledge was (and ought to be) pursued, and in the principal jus- tifications for pursuing it. Supported by her admirably thorough research, she connects the rise of modern, collaborative scientific endeavor with the con- ception of a “public interest” in mastering nature, and uses as the central tool of her investigation the development of desiderata, lists of desired knowledge in need of (re)discovery. While desiderata were initially considered radical, controversial, even dangerous, they gradually found their way into the acade- my where they became thoroughly domesticated and even commonplace. They remain such a staple of academic research that we take little notice of them today. In a study spanning most of the period traditionally associated with the “Scientific Revolution,” Keller argues that new forms of reasoning emerged in both politics and the study of nature, each of which reinforced the other. Their development was roughly simultaneous, so that neither can be said to have given rise to the other, but they share important similarities.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE Jon D. Levenson Contents
    CURRICULUM VITAE Jon D. Levenson Contents: Personal and Educational pp. 1–2 Areas of Specialization p. 2 Foreign Study p. 2 Prizes and Commendations p. 2–3 Teaching Experience pp. 3 Professional Societies p. 3–4 Offices Held pp. 4 Consulting Experience p. 4 Publications pp. 4–16 Academic Presentations pp. 17–28 Other Presentations pp. 28–40 Education: Ph.D. Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1975 M.A. Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1974 B.A. summa cum laude in English, Harvard College, 1971 Areas of Specialization: Theological traditions in ancient Israel (biblical and rabbinic periods) Literary Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible Midrash History of Jewish biblical interpretation Modern Jewish theology Jewish-Christian relations Foreign Study: One year of research in Jerusalem, Israel, on a full-salary grant from Wellesley College, 1980–81 Modern Hebrew language and culture at Ulpan Akiva, Netanya, Israel, summer 1971. Granted certificate from the Ministry of Education and Culture Italian language and art at the Centro di Cultura per Stranieri, University of Florence, Italy, summer 1968 Jon D. Levenson, CV Prizes and Commendations: Listed as one of “The Top 100 People Positively Influencing Jewish Life, 2015,” by the Algemeiner Journal. Listing by Choice of Inheriting Abraham: The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as one of the Outstanding Academic Titles, 2013. Honorable Mention for the PROSE Award in Theology and Religious Studies, Association of American Publishers (for Resurrection: The Power of God for Christians and Jews, co-authored with Kevin J. Madigan), 2008.
    [Show full text]