BENEDICT DE SPINOZA: Theological-Political Treatise

Theological-Political Treatise
what is stated there, or as long as its truth is not fully evident to him. For
while the truth of a thing is not evident we will not know whether it
agrees with reason or contradicts it and, consequently, will also not know
whether the literal sense is true or false. Were this approach indeed the
correct one, I absolutely agree that we would then need something
beyond the natural light for interpreting Scripture. For there is almost
nothing in the Bible that can be deduced from principles known by the
natural light of reason (as we have already shown), and therefore we
simply cannot be certain about their truth by means of the natural light.
Hence, we could not be certain about the true meaning and sense of
Scripture either, and we would necessarily need another light.
Again, were this conception [of Maimonides] correct, it would follow
that the common people, who for the most part do not understand proofs
or do not have time to examine them, will only be able to reach any conclusion
at all about Scripture on the sole authority and testimony of philosophers,
and consequently would have to suppose that philosophers
cannot err in interpreting Scripture. This would surely produce a new
ecclesiastical authority and a novel species of priest or ponti¡, which
would more likely be mocked than venerated by the common people.
While our method requires a knowledge of Hebrew and the common
people likewise have no time to study that, no such objection weakens
our position. For the Jewish and gentile common people for whom in
115 their day the prophets and Apostles preached and wrote, understood
their language so that they also grasped the prophets’ meaning. Yet they
did not understand the reasons for what the prophets preached, though,
according to Maimonides, they needed to know them if they were going
to grasp their meaning. Under our methodological scheme, hence, it
need not follow that the common people must accept the testimony of
interpreters. I can point to the common people who understood very
well the language of the prophets and Apostles, but Maimonides will not
be able to point to any common people who understand the causes of
things and grasp their meaning on that basis. As far as the common
people of today, are concerned, we have already shown that they can
readily grasp in any language everything necessary for salvation as this is
all entirely normal and familiar, even if they are ignorant about the reasons
for what is required; and the common people rely on this understanding,
and certainly not on the testimony of interpreters. As for
everything else, there they are in the same position as the learned.
114