BENEDICT DE SPINOZA: Theological-Political Treatise

On the interpretation of Scripture
[9] We h ave o¡e re d a m e t h o d fo r i n te r p re t i ng S c r iptu re a n d a t t h e s a me
t i me de m onstrate d that thi s is the m o st c e r t ain and o nly way to u n c ove r
its tr ue me aning. I g ran t that ce r t ain ty ab out t his la st is e a s i e r to ¢nd for
tho s e , if they exi st , wh o p o s s e s s a s ol id tradit i on or a t r ue exe ge s is
inhe r ite d fro m the prophe ts the ms elves , such a s the Phar is e e s c lai m to
have , or t ho s e who p o s s e s s a Pop e who c an not e r r i n t he i n te r pre t a t i o n of
s c r iptu re , a s Ro m a n C a t h ol i c s p ro c l ai m. Sin c e , h oweve r, we c a n n o t b e
c e r t ai n e i t h e r ab o ut t h a t t ra dit i o n o r p ap al aut h o r i ty, n o t h i ng c e r t ai n c a n
b e g ro u n de d o n e i t h e r of t h e s e. Th e l a tte r wa s de n i e d by t h e e a rl i e s t
C h r i s t i a n s a n d t h e fo r me r by t h e m o s t a n c i e n t Jewi s h s e ct s ; fu r t h e r, if
we the n ex amin e the chro nolo gy (apar t fro m a ny o the r arg u me n ts)
wh i c h t h e Ph a r i s e e s i nh e r i te d f ro m t h e i r rabb i s by wh i c h t h ey t ra c e
t h i s t ra dit i o n b a c k to Mo s e s , we s h al l ¢ n d t h a t i t i s fal s e , a s I s h ow i n
anothe r pla ce. 3
This is why such a tradit ion should b e alto ge the r susp e ct to us. And
although we are o blige d, by ou r me tho d, to c ons ide r on e Jewish tradit ion
a s u nc or r upt , namely the me aning of words in the Heb rew language we
have rece ive d from the m, we c an st ill fairly have doubts ab out the for me r
tradit ion while accepting the latte r. For it c ould n eve r have b e e n of any us e
to change a word’s me aning, but it migh t quite ofte n have b e e n us eful to
s o me on e to alte r the me aning of a pa s s age. In fact it is extremely di⁄cult to
alte r the me aning of a word ; anyon e who tr i e d it would have at the s ame
t i me to in te r pre t in his ow n way and mann e r all the authors who have
w r itte n in that language us ing that te r m in its accepte d s e ns e , or els e with
the greatest wariness corrupt the text. Again, the learned share with the
common people in preserving a language, but the learned alone preserve
books and the meanings of texts. Accordingly, we can easily conceive that
the learned could have altered or perverted the sense of a passage in a very 106
rare book which they had under their control, but not the signi¢cance of
words. Anyone who attempts to change the meaning of a word to which he
is accustomed will have great di⁄culty in afterwards sticking consistently
to the change in his speech and writing.We are thus wholly convinced, for
these and other reasons, that it could never have entered into anyone’s
head to corrupt a language but might certainly occur to someone to misrepresent
the meaning of a writer by doctoring his texts or interpreting
them wrongly.
3 S e e ch apte r 10 para. 17 b el ow. pp. 153^4 .
105