BENEDICT DE SPINOZA: Theological-Political Treatise

On the interpretation of Scripture
[21] But let us return to Maimonides’ stance and look at it more carefully.
Firstly, it presupposes that the prophets agreed among themselves
in everything and were consummate philosophers and theologians; for
he insists that they reached conclusions from the truth of things which
we showed in chapter 2 to be false. Then his position assumes that the
sense of Scripture cannot be established from the Bible itself; for the
truth of things is not established from Scripture since it o¡ers no demonstration
of anything, and does not teach the things aboutwhich it speaks by
means of de¢nitions and their own ¢rst causes. According to Maimonides,
therefore, its true sense cannot be established from itself and should not be
sought from the Bible itself. But it is evident from this chapter that this too
is incorrect.We have shown by both reason and examples that the sense of
Scripture is established from the Bible itself and, even when it speaks
about things known by the natural light of reason, is to be sought from the
Bible alone. Finally, his view assumes that we are permitted to explain and
distort the words of Scripture according to our own preconceived opinions,
and to reject the literal sense, even when it is perfectly lucid and
explicit, and bend it to some other sense. Apart from the fact that such
liberty is diametrically opposed to what we have proved in this and other
chapters, nobody can fail to see that it is excessively audacious.
But suppose we granted such great freedom, what does it achieve
Assuredly, nothing at all. For those things that are indemonstrable and
which compose the larger part of Scripture cannot be investigated by
this procedure nor explained or interpreted by this approach. Whereas, 116
on the other hand, by following our method, we can explain many such
things and discuss them with assurance, as we have already shown both
by reason and by the fact itself. As for whatever is comprehensible from
its nature, its sense, as we have already shown, can readily be derived
from the context of what is said. Hence the method [of Maimonides] is
plainly useless. It also utterly deprives the common people of the assurance
they derive from conscientious reading and which everyone can have
of the sense of Scripture by following a di¡erent method. This is why we
dismiss this opinion of Maimonides as harmful, useless and absurd.
[22] As for the tradition of the Pharisees, we have already noted above
that it is inconsistent with itself while the authority of the Roman Popes
requires clearer evidence, and for this reason alone I reject it. For if they
could prove [their authority] to us from Scripture itself and with the same
115