The Relationship between the Romans and Hebrews - Essay Example

It’s interesting to compare the time of Livy’s Rome to the time of and 2 Samuel because in many ways the Romans and Hebrews faced the same challenges: How to build a strong, secure, financially solvent government from a group of quarrelsome, semi-nomadic revolutionaries. Both Rome and the nascent nation of Israel succeeded, at least for a time, and they did it in a particularly interesting way. By clearly linking the religious and the political, Rome and Israel created an environment in which ethics were political, in which government and religion would be synonymous in certain vital ways. In this paper, we’ll look at the ways in which Livy and the author of 1 and 2 Samuel used ethics as a framework for their recorded histories, noting their word choice, philosophizing and silences as our evidence. I’ll begin by looking at word choice. As Michel Foucault and others have noted, it is impossible to relate history in a way that’s completely objective. Simply by relating an incident, you show a bias since you are relating that incident and not another equally valid one. And so the words and descriptions that historians use to talk about the events of the past play a key role in how we are supposed to perceive the events and morals of a given time. It’s clear that Livy has serious questions about the role of kingship in Rome: in his discussion of the time of Romulus and Remus, he describes the interest Romulus and Remus express in ruling as “the ancestral evil that had beset Numitor and Amulius — desire for kingship,” leading to “an abominable conflict.” [BOOK 1, SECTION 6]. Livy’s vocabulary makes it clear that the struggle for individual power was an historical problem with modern repercussions, and certainly throughout its history Rome struggled with finding a system of government that would be both democratic and swift at the same time, alternating between dictatorship and democracy with constant power struggles. It is the same way Livy later describes Marcus Valerius’ recklessly heroic attack on Tarquin, where Marcus Valerius is so excited by “the honor of killing tyrants” [BOOK 2, SECTION 20) that he charges to his death, inspiring the Roman troops to win the day. The same nervousness about absolute rulers manifests itself in the story of Saul in the Old Testament. As long as Saul is modest and denies his nobility — “Am I not a Benjamanite, from the least of the tribes of Israel? And is not my family the humblest of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin? Why then have you spoken to me in this way?” (1 Samuel 9:21) — when Samuel praises him, he is worthy to be King of the Jews. But once Saul decides to start flaunting his authority by ignoring Samuel’s communication of God’ rules, “the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel” and Samuel “grieved over Saul.” (1 Samuel 15:35) Saul’s desire for authority sets the stage for the assumption to the throne of another humble young man — one who, like Saul, will overstep the boundaries of his intended authority and face punishment in the death of his young sons. What’s interesting about both these stories — Livy’s and the Hebrew authors — is that (certainly in Livy’s case and probably in the case of the Hebrew author) they were not writing about events that were happening during their own time but about events that had already achieved the status of myth within their cultures. There would have been few written records to draw from, and meaning would have had to have been constructed from all these various texts into a form that made sense and told a story. In crafting their stories, both authors make it clear what the ethics of their time were. A primary ethical position, as we have clearly seen, is that rulers are inherently subject to corruption and must guard themselves carefully against the temptation for absolute rule. Another ethical principle that manifested itself in both texts was the notion that political health and religious health went hand in hand. In other words, when Rome or Israel failed, it was because of the moral failings of their leaders, not because of externalized factors. One example of this is in Book 5 of Livy’s history, in which discusses the invasion of the Gauls in Rome. Livy makes it clear that he believes the Gauls have invaded Rome because Romans have failed to maintain the ethical standards required of them by the gods, first by failing to hold a proper election of new censors after the death of one of the existing censors and then by ignoring a prophecy about a Gallic invasion from a plebian. [BOOK V, SECTION 32) History, then, for Livy is almost a book of examples of moral behavior, showing as much how Romans ought to behave as how they do in fact behave. It is the behavior of people that determines their fate. In the same way, King Saul is essentially overthrown by the young David not because David is somehow angling for political power in Israel but because Saul has called down upon himself the vengeance of God by failing to follow God’s orders. Saul does not slay all the enemy as thoroughly as God has commanded, and his punishment is severe: “For rebellion is as the sin of divination And stubbornness is as inquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He has also rejected you from being king.” (1 Samuel 15: 23) Again, it is Saul’s character that holds the key to his demise, not external forces. If Saul had obeyed God, if the Romans had followed the omens, they would not have suffered. But their character has cost them their happiness and their peace. It’s easy to understand how ethics could play such an important role in these histories, since both Israel and Rome were confronted with periods of political turmoil and confusion which cried out for easier answers. Tying the political to the religious enabled both governments to essentially legislate religion, to make ethical behavior politically laudable — leading to kingships and senate seats and success in war — and unethical behavior punishable by coup d’etat. Suddenly, any leader could be overthrown because of a failure of ethics rather than a failure of leadership. Along the same lines, a ruler who behaved appropriately according to his society’s code of ethics was almost guaranteed political success. Livy illustrates this in Book 5 with the story of Camillus, who is given the opportunity to take some hostages of war in a particularly sneaky way. Camillus refuses — and gives quite a dressing-down to the schoolmaster who suggested the ruse: “Neither my people nor I, who command their army, happen to share your tastes. You are a scoundrel and your offer is unworthy of you. As political entities there is no bond of unity between Rome and Falerii, but we are bound nonetheless and always will be by the bonds of a common humanity. War has its laws as peace has, and we have learned to wage war with decency no less than with courage. We have drawn the sword not against children who even in the sack of cities are spared, but against men, armed like ourselves.... These men, your countrymen, you have done your best to humiliate by this vile and unprecedented act: but I shall bring them low... by the Roman arts of courage, persistence and arms.” [BOOK V, SECTION 27] The histories of the Hebrews and Rome make it clear that both people believed ethical rightness translated to political success and that both societies feared too much power among their political leaders. Interestingly, the Hebrews’ history has become a religious text more than a history, highlighting its strong ethical backbone clearly. Works Cited Livy. The History of Rome, Books 1-5, translated by Valerie M. Warrior. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2006. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha. New York, Oxford University Press, 1973. Read More