BENEDICT DE SPINOZA: Theological-Political Treatise

On the interpretation of Scripture
that passage which we are interpreting, contains nothing that is contrary
to or that does not accord with reason. If its literal sense is found to
con£ict with reason, no matter how evident that may seem to be in itself,
he insists it should then be construed di¡erently. He makes this absolutely
plain in his More Nebuchim 15 Part II, Chapter 25, where he says:
‘Know that we do not refrain from saying that the world has existed from
eternity on account of texts in Scripture about the creation of the world.
For the passages teaching that the world was created are no more
numerous than those which teach that God is corporeal. None of the
ways by which we might explain the texts on the creation of the world are
barred to us or even obstructed; indeed, we could have used the same
method to interpret these as we used to reject the corporality of God. It
might even have been much easier. We might have been able to explain
these texts more naturally and ¢nd more support [in Scripture] for the
eternity of the world than we found for the view that the blessed God is
corporeal, which, on our interpretation, Scripture excludes. But two
reasons persuade me not to do this and not to believe this’ (namely, that
the world is eternal).‘Firstly, because there is clear proof that God is not
corporeal, and it is necessary to explain all the passages whose literal
sense is in con£ict with this proof, for it is certain that they will have an
explanation’ (other than the literal one). ‘But there is no proof of the
eternity of the world; and therefore it is not necessary, in quest of such a 114
conception, to do violence to Scripture for the sake of an apparent opinion
since we would accept its contrary if we found a convincing argument
for it. The second reason is that to believe that God is incorporeal
is not in con£ict with the fundamentals of the Law, etc. But to believe in
the eternity of the world in the manner in which Aristotle held destroys
the Law from its foundations, etc.’
These are the words of Maimonides, from which what we have just said
plainly follows. For if it was clear to him on the basis of reason that the
world was eternal, he would not hesitate to bend Scripture to devise an
interpretation that would ultimately render it saying apparently the same
thing. In fact, he would be immediately convinced that Scripture intended
to teach the eternity of the world, despite the fact that it everywhere says
the opposite. Hence, it is impossible for him to be certain of the Bible’s
true meaning, however plain it may be, as long as he can doubt the truth of
15 Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed ii.25.
113