J erusalem in A thens: On the Biblical Epigraphs to L eo S trauss's N atural R ight and H istory

The O ld T estament epigraphs used by L eo S trauss for his study N atural R ight and H istory tend invariably to vex his readers. In the book itself and in other of his writings, S trauss explicitly states that the O ld T estament tradition does not know ‘nature’ in the philosophical sense, and hence the concept of ‘natural right’ is unknown or alien to that tradition. Another, more obvious problem they present has been seemingly universally passed over by commentators: neither epigraph tells the reader anything explicitly about right, natural or otherwise. One cannot claim them to contain lessons about right, because such lessons are not directly extractable from the epigraphs as they stand. Here I wish to argue that S trauss's choice of epigraph does two things: first, it points to the fact that O ld T estament stories can be given a political reading, or used to illustrate political lessons. In implying this, Strauss is following Machiavelli, who is the most important figure in N atural R ight and H istory . Second, the epigraphs point to the deeply problematic nature of the concept of natural right, primarily the equivocal nature of the term, a difficulty never made explicit by S trauss but the awareness of which permeates his study.