Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture

THE BIBLE AND MODERNITY: REFLECTIONS ON LEO STRAUSS John Ranieri Seton Hall University espondingto the criticisms made by Eric Voegelin and Alexandre Lojeve ofhis book On Tyranny, Leo Strauss wonders whether the attempt to restore classical social science is not, perhaps, Utopian, "since it implies that the classical orientation has not been made obsolete by the triumph ofthe biblical orientation" (Strauss 1991, 177-178). In similar fashion Strauss remarks to Karl Lowith how "there can be no doubt that our usual way of feeling is conditioned by the biblical tradition," even if he refuses to rule out the possibility of correcting that feeling (Lowith and Strauss, 111). This "triumph ofthe biblical orientation" concerns Strauss, since he believes no synthesis is possible between the competing claims of Athens and Jerusalem. The cultural predominance of one of these cities would jeopardize the vitality ofwestern civilization, which depends upon the tension between them for its dynamism and life (Strauss 1989, 72; 1997, 116, 121). To speak ofthe triumph ofthe biblical in the modern West is to call attention to a disruptive imbalance. Strauss's overall project of reviving the classical orientation in politics can be understood as an attempt to restore a sense of equilibrium. If the modern world reflects a victory ofthe biblical orientation, it is relevant to ask just how Strauss conceives the relationship between modernity and the Bible. Given Strauss's well known criticism of modernity, we may wonder whether this criticism is also an implicit criticism ofthe Bible and its influence. Answering this question is not an easy task. For someone who considered the opposition between Athens and Jerusalem to be the central issue confronting western civilization, Strauss 56John Ranieri devotes a relatively meager amount ofspace to analysis ofthe Bible.1 With rare exception we find nowhere near the amount of detailed commentary on biblical texts that we find in his treatment ofthe classics. What are we to make ofan author who writes three books on Xenophon's Socrates, while limiting his only detailed biblical commentary to the first two chapters of Genesis? This discrepancy would pose no problem, but for the fact that Strauss repeatedly emphasizes the importance ofkeeping alive the question ofthe relationship between Greek and biblical traditions. By comparison, a thinker like Heidegger simply tends to dismiss or ignore the relevance of the Bible in addressing what he would take to be the contemporary crisis of western civilization. But Strauss insists that we cannot understand the modern world without a serious consideration ofthe claims ofAthens and Jerusalem. His reticence, then, in treating biblical texts (especially the New Testament) with the same degree of probity as he employs when consideringthe texts ofclassical Greece, is puzzling. We are leftwondering whether his own observation about Machiavelli is applicable to himself: "The silence ofthe wise man is always meaningful. It cannot be explained by forgetfulness" (Strauss 1958, 30; see Grant 1964; Steintrager 1968). Strauss's silence may be significant, but arguments based upon an author's omissions are always more precarious than those which rely on written or spoken evidence. In the case of Strauss, there are in fact sufficient statements and hints in his work to enable us to recognize ways in which he construed the relationship between the Bible and modernity. Three themes stand out. The first is the notion that the eschatological vision ofthe Bible survives in modern times in transfigured and distorted form as the idea of progress. The second is Strauss's contention that the "final atheism" characteristic of late modernity is the child of an "intellectual 1 As far as 1 can tell, Strauss devoted only one essay to a specific book ofthe Bible. That essay is "On the Interpretation of Genesis" (Strauss 1995b; Orr 1995). Strauss deals with much ofthe same material in his "Jerusalem and Athens: Some Preliminary Reflections" (Strauss 1995; Orr 1995), although the second part ofthe two part essay (constituting a quarter ofthe entire essay) contains briefquotes from Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Another place in which he discusses the influence ofthe Bible is "Progress or Return? (Strauss 1 997). There is no extended treatment of any New Testament text anywhere in Strauss's published work. By contrast, Eric Voegelin (another...