{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_990/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_990","id":"gutenberg_990","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/990","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought -- Early works to 1800","Philosophy","Philosophy and religion -- Early works to 1800","Political science -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Produced by Joseph B. Yesselman.  HTML version by Al Haines.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSentence Numbers, shown thus (1), have been added by volunteer.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA Theologico-Political Treatise\n\nPart 2 - Chapters VI to X\n\nby Baruch Spinoza\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS:\n\nCHAPTER VI - Of Miracles.\n\nConfused ideas of the vulgar on the subject.\n\nA miracle in the sense of a contravention of natural laws an absurdity.\n\nIn the sense of an event, whose cause is unknown,\nless edifying than an event better understood.\n\nGod's providence identical with the course of nature.\nHow Scripture miracles may be interpreted.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII - Of the Interpretation of Scripture.\n\nCurrent systems of interpretation erroneous.\n\nOnly true system to interpret it by itself.\n\nReasons why this system cannot now be carried out in its entirety.\n\nYet these difficulties do not interfere with our understanding\nthe plainest and most important passages.\n\nRival systems examined - that of a supernatural\nfaculty being necessary - refuted.\n\nThat of Maimonides.\n\nRefuted.\n\nTraditions of the Pharisees and the Papists rejected.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. - Of the authorship of the Pentateuch,\nand the other historical books of the Old Testament.\n\nThe Pentateuch not written by Moses.\n\nHis actual writings distinct.\n\nTraces of late authorship in the other historical books.\n\nAll the historical books the work of one man.\n\nProbably Ezra.\n\nWho compiled first the book of Deuteronomy.\n\nAnd then a history, distinguishing the books by the names of their subjects.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. - Other questions about these books.\n\nThat these books have not been thoroughly revised and made to agree.\n\nThat there are many doubtful readings.\n\nThat the existing marginal notes are often such.\n\nThe other explanations of these notes refuted.\n\nThe hiatus.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X. - An Examination of the remaining books of\nthe Old Testament according to the preceding method.\n\nChronicles, Psalms, Proverbs.\n\nIsaiah, Jeremiah.\n\nEzekiel, Hosea.\n\nOther prophets, Jonah, Job.\n\nDaniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.\n\nThe author declines to undertake a similar detailed\nexamination of the New Testament.\n\n\nAuthor's Endnotes to the Treatise\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. - OF MIRACLES.\n\n(1) As men are accustomed to call Divine the knowledge which transcends\nhuman understanding, so also do they style Divine, or the work of God,\nanything of which the cause is not generally known: for the masses think\nthat the power and providence of God are most clearly displayed by events\nthat are extraordinary and contrary to the conception they have formed of\nnature, especially if such events bring them any profit or convenience: they\nthink that the clearest possible proof of God's existence is afforded when\nnature, as they suppose, breaks her accustomed order, and consequently they\nbelieve that those who explain or endeavour to understand phenomena or\nmiracles through their natural causes are doing away with God and His\nprovidence. (2) They suppose, forsooth, that God is inactive so long as\nnature works in her accustomed order, and vice versa, that the power of\nnature and natural causes are idle so long as God is acting: thus they\nimagine two powers distinct one from the other, the power of God and the\npower of nature, though the latter is in a sense determined by God, or (as\nmost people believe now) created by Him. (3) What they mean by either, and\nwhat they understand by God and nature they do not know, except that they\nimagine the power of God to be like that of some royal potentate, and\nnature's power to consist in force and energy.\n\n(4) The masses then style unusual phenomena, \"miracles,\" and partly from\npiety, partly for the sake of opposing the students of science, prefer to\nremain in ignorance of natural causes, and only to hear of those things\nwhich they know least, and consequently admire most. (5) In fact, the common\npeople can only adore God, and refer all things to His power by removing\nnatural causes, and conceiving things happening out of their due course, and\nonly admires the power of God when the power of nature is conceived of as in\nsubjection to it.\n\n(6) This idea seems to have taken its rise among the early Jews who saw the\nGentiles round them worshipping visible gods such as the sun, the moon, the\nearth, water, air, &c., and in order to inspire the conviction that such\ndivinities were weak and inconstant, or changeable, told how they themselves\nwere under the sway of an invisible God, and narrated their miracles,\ntrying further to show that the God whom they worshipped arranged the whole\nof nature for their sole benefit: this idea was so pleasing to humanity that\nmen go on to this day imagining miracles, so that they may believe\nthemselves God's favourites, and the final cause for which God created and\ndirects all things.\n\n(7) What pretension will not people in their folly advance! (8) They have no\nsingle sound idea concerning either God or nature, they confound God's\ndecrees with human decrees, they conceive nature as so limited that they\nbelieve man to be its chief part! (9) I have spent enough space in setting\nforth these common ideas and prejudices concerning nature and miracles, but\nin order to afford a regular demonstration I will show -\n\n(10) I. That nature cannot be contravened, but that she preserves a fixed\nand immutable order, and at the same time I will explain what is meant by a\nmiracle.\n\n(11) II. That God's nature and existence, and consequently His providence\ncannot be known from miracles, but that they can all be much better\nperceived from the fixed and immutable order of nature.\n\n(12) III. That by the decrees and volitions, and consequently the providence\nof God, Scripture (as I will prove by Scriptural examples) means nothing but\nnature's order following necessarily from her eternal laws.\n\n(13) IV. Lastly, I will treat of the method of interpreting Scriptural\nmiracles, and the chief points to be noted concerning the narratives of\nthem.\n\n(14) Such are the principal subjects which will be discussed in this\nchapter, and which will serve, I think, not a little to further the object\nof this treatise.\n\n(15) Our first point is easily proved from what we showed in Chap. IV. about\nDivine law - namely, that all that God wishes or determines involves eternal\nnecessity and truth, for we demonstrated that God's understanding is\nidentical with His will, and that it is the same thing to say that God wills\na thing, as to say, that He understands it; hence, as it follows\nnecessarily, from the Divine nature and perfection that God understands a\nthing as it is, it follows no less necessarily that He wills it as it is.\n(16) Now, as nothing is necessarily true save only by Divine decree, it is\nplain that the universal laws of nature are decrees of God following from\nthe necessity and perfection of the Divine nature. (17) Hence, any event\nhappening in nature which contravened nature's universal laws, would\nnecessarily also contravene the Divine decree, nature, and understanding; or\nif anyone asserted that God acts in contravention to the laws of nature, he,\nipso facto, would be compelled to assert that God acted against His own\nnature - an evident absurdity. (18) One might easily show from the same\npremises that the power and efficiency of nature are in themselves the\nDivine power and efficiency, and that the Divine power is the very essence\nof God, but this I gladly pass over for the present.\n\n(19) Nothing, then, comes to pass in nature (N.B. I do not mean here by\n\"nature,\" merely matter and its modifications, but infinite other things\nbesides matter.) in contravention to her universal laws, nay, everything\nagrees with them and follows from them, for whatsoever comes to pass, comes\nto pass by the will and eternal decree of God; that is, as we have just\npointed out, whatever comes to pass, comes to pass according to laws and\nrules which involve eternal necessity and truth; nature, therefore, always\nobserves laws and rules which involve eternal necessity and truth, although\nthey may not all be known to us, and therefore she keeps a fixed and mutable\norder. (20) Nor is there any sound reason for limiting the power and\nefficacy of nature, and asserting that her laws are fit for certain\npurposes, but not for all; for as the efficacy and power of nature, are the\nvery efficacy and power of God, and as the laws and rules of nature are the\ndecrees of God, it is in every way to be believed that the power of nature\nis infinite, and that her laws are broad enough to embrace everything\nconceived by, the Divine intellect; the only alternative is to assert that\nGod has created nature so weak, and has ordained for her laws so barren,\nthat He is repeatedly compelled to come afresh to her aid if He wishes that\nshe should be preserved, and that things should happen as He desires: a\nconclusion, in my opinion, very far removed from reason. (21) Further, as\nnothing happens in nature which does not follow from her laws, and as her\nlaws embrace everything conceived by the Divine intellect, and lastly, as\nnature preserves a fixed and immutable order; it most clearly follows that\nmiracles are only intelligible as in relation to human opinions, and merely\nmean events of which the natural cause cannot be explained by a reference to\nany ordinary occurrence, either by us, or at any rate, by the writer and\nnarrator of the miracle.\n\n(22) We may, in fact, say that a miracle is an event of which the causes\nannot be explained by the natural reason through a reference to ascertained\nworkings of nature; but since miracles were wrought according to the\nunderstanding of the masses, who are wholly ignorant of the workings of\nnature, it is certain that the ancients took for a miracle whatever they\ncould not explain by the method adopted by the unlearned in such cases,\nnamely, an appeal to the memory, a recalling of something similar, which is\nordinarily regarded without wonder; for most people think they sufficiently\nunderstand a thing when they have ceased to wonder at it. (23) The ancients,\nthen, and indeed most men up to the present day, had no other criterion for\na miracle; hence we cannot doubt that many things are narrated in Scripture\nas miracles of which the causes could easily be explained by reference to\nascertained workings of nature. (24) We have hinted as much in Chap. II., in\nspeaking of the sun standing still in the time of Joshua, and to say on the\nsubject when we come to treat of the interpretation of miracles later on in\nthis chapter.\n\n(25) It is now time to pass on to the second point, and show that we cannot\ngain an understanding of God's essence, existence, or providence by means of\nmiracles, but that these truths are much better perceived through the fixed\nand immutable order of nature. (26) I thus proceed with the demonstration.\n(27) As God's existence is not self-evident (6) it must necessarily be\ninferred from ideas so firmly and incontrovertibly true, that no power can\nbe postulated or conceived sufficient to impugn them. (28) They ought\ncertainly so to appear to us when we infer from them God's existence, if we\nwish to place our conclusion beyond the reach of doubt; for if we could\nconceive that such ideas could be impugned by any power whatsoever, we\nshould doubt of their truth, we should doubt of our conclusion, namely, of\nGod's existence, and should never be able to be certain of anything. (29)\nFurther, we know that nothing either agrees with or is contrary to nature,\nunless it agrees with or is contrary to these primary ideas; wherefore if we\nwould conceive that anything could be done in nature by any power whatsoever\nwhich would be contrary to the laws of nature, it would also be contrary to\nour primary ideas, and we should have either to reject it as absurd, or else\nto cast doubt (as just shown) on our primary ideas, and consequently on the\nexistence of God, and on everything howsoever perceived. (30) Therefore\nmiracles, in the sense of events contrary to the laws of nature, so far from\ndemonstrating to us the existence of God, would, on the contrary, lead us to\ndoubt it, where, otherwise, we might have been absolutely certain of it, as\nknowing that nature follows a fixed and immutable order.\n\n(31) Let us take miracle as meaning that which cannot be explained through\nnatural causes. (32) This may be interpreted in two senses: either as that\nwhich has natural causes, but cannot be examined by the human intellect; or\nas that which has no cause save God and God's will. (33) But as all things\nwhich come to pass through natural causes, come to pass also solely\nthrough the will and power of God, it comes to this, that a miracle, whether\nit has natural causes or not, is a result which cannot be explained by its\ncause, that is a phenomenon which surpasses human understanding; but from\nsuch a phenomenon, and certainly from a result surpassing our understanding,\nwe can gain no knowledge. (34) For whatsoever we understand clearly and\ndistinctly should be plain to us either in itself or by means of something\nelse clearly and distinctly understood; wherefore from a miracle or a\nphenomenon which we cannot understand, we can gain no knowledge of God's\nessence, or existence, or indeed anything about God or nature; whereas when\nwe know that all things are ordained and ratified by God, that the\noperations of nature follow from the essence of God, and that the laws of\nnature are eternal decrees and volitions of God, we must perforce conclude\nthat our knowledge of God, and of God's will increases in proportion to our\nknowledge and clear understanding of nature, as we see how she depends on\nher primal cause, and how she works according to eternal law. (35) Wherefore\nso far as our understanding goes, those phenomena which we clearly and\ndistinctly understand have much better right to be called works of God, and\nto be referred to the will of God than those about which we are entirely\nignorant, although they appeal powerfully to the imagination, and compel\nmen's admiration.\n\n(36) It is only phenomena that we clearly and distinctly understand, which\nheighten our knowledge of God, and most clearly indicate His will and\ndecrees. (37) Plainly, they are but triflers who, when they cannot explain a\nthing, run back to the will of God; this is, truly, a ridiculous way of\nexpressing ignorance. (38) Again, even supposing that some conclusion could\nbe drawn from miracles, we could not possibly infer from them the existence\nof God: for a miracle being an event under limitations is the expression of\na fixed and limited power; therefore we could not possibly infer from an\neffect of this kind the existence of a cause whose power is infinite, but at\nthe utmost only of a cause whose power is greater than that of the said\neffect. (39) I say at the utmost, for a phenomenon may be the result of many\nconcurrent causes, and its power may be less than the power of the sum of\nsuch causes, but far greater than that of any one of them taken\nindividually. (40) On the other hand, the laws of nature, as we have\nshown, extend over infinity, and are conceived by us as, after a fashion,\neternal, and nature works in accordance with them in a fixed and immutable\norder; therefore, such laws indicate to us in a certain degree the infinity,\nthe eternity, and the immutability of God.\n\n(40) We may conclude, then, that we cannot gain knowledge of the existence\nand providence of God by means of miracles, but that we can far better infer\nthem from the fixed and immutable order of nature. (41) By miracle, I here\nmean an event which surpasses, or is thought to surpass, human\ncomprehension: for in so far as it is supposed to destroy or interrupt the\norder of nature or her laws, it not only can give us no knowledge of God,\nbut, contrariwise, takes away that which we naturally have, and makes us\ndoubt of God and everything else.\n\n(42) Neither do I recognize any difference between an event against the laws\nof nature and an event beyond the laws of nature (that is, according to\nsome, an event which does not contravene nature, though she is inadequate to\nproduce or effect it) - for a miracle is wrought in, and not beyond nature,\nthough it may be said in itself to be above nature, and, therefore,\nmust necessarily interrupt the order of nature, which otherwise we conceive\nof as fixed and unchangeable, according to God's decrees. (43) If,\ntherefore, anything should come to pass in nature which does not follow from\nher laws, it would also be in contravention to the order which God has\nestablished in nature for ever through universal natural laws: it would,\ntherefore, be in contravention to God's nature and laws, and, consequently,\nbelief in it would throw doubt upon everything, and lead to Atheism.\n\n(44) I think I have now sufficiently established my second point, so that we\ncan again conclude that a miracle, whether in contravention to, or beyond,\nnature, is a mere absurdity; and, therefore, that what is meant in Scripture\nby a miracle can only be a work of nature, which surpasses, or is believed\nto surpass, human comprehension. (45) Before passing on to my third point, I\nwill adduce Scriptural authority for my assertion that God cannot be known\nfrom miracles. (46) Scripture nowhere states the doctrine openly, but it can\nreadily be inferred from several passages. (47) Firstly, that in which Moses\ncommands (Deut. xiii.) that a false prophet should be put to death, even\nthough he work miracles: \"If there arise a prophet among you, and giveth\nthee a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass, saying, Let us\ngo after other gods . . . thou shalt not hearken unto the voice of that\nprophet; for the Lord your God proveth you, and that prophet shall be put to\ndeath.\" (48) From this it clearly follows that miracles could be wrought\neven by false prophets; and that, unless men are honestly endowed with the\ntrue knowledge and love of God, they may be as easily led by miracles to\nfollow false gods as to follow the true God; for these words are added: \"For\nthe Lord your God tempts you, that He may know whether you love Him with all\nyour heart and with all your mind.\"\n\n(49) Further, the Israelites, from all their miracles, were unable to form a\nsound conception of God, as their experience testified: for when they had\npersuaded themselves that Moses had departed from among them, they\npetitioned Aaron to give them visible gods; and the idea of God they had\nformed as the result of all their miracles was - a calf!\n\n(50) Asaph, though he had heard of so many miracles, yet doubted of the\nprovidence of God, and would have turned himself from the true way, if he\nhad not at last come to understand true blessedness. (See Ps. lxxxiii.) (51)\nSolomon, too, at a time when the Jewish nation was at the height of its\nprosperity, suspects that all things happen by chance. (See Eccles. iii:19,\n20, 21; and chap. ix:2, 3, &c.)\n\n(52) Lastly, nearly all the prophets found it very hard to reconcile the\norder of nature and human affairs with the conception they had formed of\nGod's providence, whereas philosophers who endeavour to understand things by\nclear conceptions of them, rather than by miracles, have always found the\ntask extremely easy - at least, such of them as place true happiness solely\nin virtue and peace of mind, and who aim at obeying nature, rather than\nbeing obeyed by her. (53) Such persons rest assured that God directs nature\naccording to the requirements of universal laws, not according to the\nrequirements of the particular laws of human nature, and that, therefore,\nGod's scheme comprehends, not only the human race, but the whole of nature.\n\n(54) It is plain, then, from Scripture itself, that miracles can give no\nknowledge of God, nor clearly teach us the providence of God. (55) As to the\nfrequent statements in Scripture, that God wrought miracles to make Himself\nplain to man - as in Exodus x:2, where He deceived the Egyptians, and gave\nsigns of Himself, that the Israelites might know that He was God,- it does\nnot, therefore, follow that miracles really taught this truth, but only that\nthe Jews held opinions which laid them easily open to conviction by\nmiracles. (56) We have shown in Chap. II. that the reasons assigned by the\nprophets, or those which are formed from revelation, are not assigned\nin accordance with ideas universal and common to all, but in accordance with\nthe accepted doctrines, however absurd, and with the opinions of those to\nwhom the revelation was given, or those whom the Holy Spirit wished to\nconvince.\n\n(57) This we have illustrated by many Scriptural instances, and can further\ncite Paul, who to the Greeks was a Greek, and to the Jews a Jew. (58) But\nalthough these miracles could convince the Egyptians and Jews from their\nstandpoint, they could not give a true idea and knowledge of God, but only\ncause them to admit that there was a Deity more powerful than anything known\nto them, and that this Deity took special care of the Jews, who had just\nthen an unexpectedly happy issue of all their affairs. (59) They could not\nteach them that God cares equally for all, for this can be taught only by\nphilosophy: the Jews, and all who took their knowledge of God's providence\nfrom the dissimilarity of human conditions of life and the inequalities of\nfortune, persuaded themselves that God loved the Jews above all men, though\nthey did not surpass their fellows in true human perfection.\n\n(60) I now go on to my third point, and show from Scripture that the decrees\nand mandates of God, and consequently His providence, are merely the order\nof nature - that is, when Scripture describes an event as accomplished by\nGod or God's will, we must understand merely that it was in accordance with\nthe law and order of nature, not, as most people believe, that nature had\nfor a season ceased to act, or that her order was temporarily interrupted.\n(61) But Scripture does not directly teach matters unconnected with its\ndoctrine, wherefore it has no care to explain things by their natural\ncauses, nor to expound matters merely speculative. (62) Wherefore our\nconclusion must be gathered by inference from those Scriptural narratives\nwhich happen to be written more at length and circumstantially than usual.\n(63) Of these I will cite a few.\n\n(64) In the first book of Samuel, ix:15, 16, it is related that God revealed\nto Samuel that He would send Saul to him, yet God did not send Saul to\nSamuel as people are wont to send one man to another. (65) His \"sending\" was\nmerely the ordinary course of nature. (66) Saul was looking for the asses he\nhad lost, and was meditating a return home without them, when, at the\nsuggestion of his servant, he went to the prophet Samuel, to learn from him\nwhere he might find them. (67) From no part of the narrative does it appear\nthat Saul had any command from God to visit Samuel beyond this natural\nmotive.\n\n(68) In Psalm cv. 24 it is said that God changed the hearts of the\nEgyptians, so that they hated the Israelites. (69) This was evidently a\nnatural change, as appears from Exodus, chap.i., where we find no slight\nreason for the Egyptians reducing the Israelites to slavery.\n\n(70) In Genesis ix:13, God tells Noah that He will set His bow in the cloud;\nthis action of God's is but another way of expressing the refraction and\nreflection which the rays of the sun are subjected to in drops of water.\n\n(71) In Psalm cxlvii:18, the natural action and warmth of the wind, by which\nhoar frost and snow are melted, are styled the word of the Lord, and in\nverse 15 wind and cold are called the commandment and word of God.\n\n(72) In Psalm civ:4, wind and fire are called the angels and ministers of\nGod, and various other passages of the same sort are found in Scripture,\nclearly showing that the decree, commandment, fiat, and word of God are\nmerely expressions for the action and order of nature.\n\n(73) Thus it is plain that all the events narrated in Scripture came to pass\nnaturally, and are referred directly to God because Scripture, as we have\nshown, does not aim at explaining things by their natural causes, but only\nat narrating what appeals to the popular imagination, and doing so in the\nmanner best calculated to excite wonder, and consequently to impress the\nminds of the masses with devotion. (74) If, therefore, events are found in\nthe Bible which we cannot refer to their causes, nay, which seem entirely to\ncontradict the order of nature, we must not come to a stand, but assuredly\nbelieve that whatever did really happen happened naturally. (75) This view\nis confirmed by the fact that in the case of every miracle there were many\nattendant circumstances, though these were not always related, especially\nwhere the narrative was of a poetic character.\n\n(76) The circumstances of the miracles clearly show, I maintain, that\nnatural causes were needed. (77) For instance, in order to infect the\nEgyptians with blains, it was necessary that Moses should scatter ashes in\nthe air (Exod. ix: 10); the locusts also came upon the land of Egypt by a\ncommand of God in accordance with nature, namely, by an east wind blowing\nfor a whole day and night; and they departed by a very strong west wind\n(Exod. x:14, 19). (78) By a similar Divine mandate the sea opened a way for\nthe Jews (Exo. xiv:21), namely, by an east wind which blew very strongly all\nnight.\n\n(79) So, too, when Elisha would revive the boy who was believed to be dead,\nhe was obliged to bend over him several times until the flesh of the child\nwaxed warm, and at last he opened his eyes (2 Kings iv:34, 35).\n\n(80) Again, in John's Gospel (chap. ix.) certain acts are mentioned as\nperformed by Christ preparatory to healing the blind man, and there are\nnumerous other instances showing that something further than the absolute\nfiat of God is required for working a miracle.\n\n(81) Wherefore we may believe that, although the circumstances attending\nmiracles are not related always or in full detail, yet a miracle was never\nperformed without them.\n\n(82) This is confirmed by Exodus xiv:27, where it is simply stated that\n\"Moses stretched forth his hand, and the waters of the sea returned to their\nstrength in the morning,\" no mention being made of a wind; but in the song\nof Moses (Exod. xv:10) we read, \"Thou didst blow with Thy wind (i.e. with a\nvery strong wind), and the sea covered them.\" (83) Thus the attendant\ncircumstance is omitted in the history, and the miracle is thereby enhanced.\n\n(84) But perhaps someone will insist that we find many things in Scripture\nwhich seem in nowise explicable by natural causes, as for instance, that the\nsins of men and their prayers can be the cause of rain and of the earth's\nfertility, or that faith can heal the blind, and so on. (85) But I think\nI have already made sufficient answer: I have shown that Scripture does not\nexplain things by their secondary causes, but only narrates them in the\norder and the style which has most power to move men, and especially\nuneducated men, to devotion; and therefore it speaks inaccurately of God and\nof events, seeing that its object is not to convince the reason, but to\nattract and lay hold of the imagination. (86) If the Bible were to describe\nthe destruction of an empire in the style of political historians, the\nmasses would remain unstirred, whereas the contrary is the case when it\nadopts the method of poetic description, and refers all things\nimmediately to God. (87) When, therefore, the Bible says that the earth is\nbarren because of men's sins, or that the blind were healed by faith, we\nought to take no more notice than when it says that God is angry at men's\nsins, that He is sad, that He repents of the good He has promised and done;\nor that on seeing a sign he remembers something He had promised, and other\nsimilar expressions, which are either thrown out poetically or related\naccording to the opinion and prejudices of the writer.\n\n(88) We may, then, be absolutely certain that every event which is truly\ndescribed in Scripture necessarily happened, like everything else, according\nto natural laws; and if anything is there set down which can be proved in\nset terms to contravene the order of nature, or not to be deducible\ntherefrom, we must believe it to have been foisted into the sacred writings\nby irreligious hands; for whatsoever is contrary to nature is also contrary\nto reason, and whatsoever is contrary to reason is absurd, and, ipso facto,\nto be rejected.\n\n(89) There remain some points concerning the interpretation of miracles to\nbe noted, or rather to be recapitulated, for most of them have been already\nstated. (90) These I proceed to discuss in the fourth division of my\nsubject, and I am led to do so lest anyone should, by wrongly interpreting a\nmiracle, rashly suspect that he has found something in Scripture contrary to\nhuman reason.\n\n(91) It is very rare for men to relate an event simply as it happened,\nwithout adding any element of their own judgment. (92) When they see or hear\nanything new, they are, unless strictly on their guard, so occupied with\ntheir own preconceived opinions that they perceive something quite\ndifferent from the plain facts seen or heard, especially if such facts\nsurpass the comprehension of the beholder or hearer, and, most of all, if he\nis interested in their happening in a given way.\n\n(93) Thus men relate in chronicles and histories their own opinions rather\nthan actual events, so that one and the same event is so differently related\nby two men of different opinions, that it seems like two separate\noccurrences; and, further, it is very easy from historical chronicles to\ngather the personal opinions of the historian.\n\n(94) I could cite many instances in proof of this from the writings both of\nnatural philosophers and historians, but I will content myself with one only\nfrom Scripture, and leave the reader to judge of the rest.\n\n(95) In the time of Joshua the Hebrews held the ordinary opinion that the\nsun moves with a daily motion, and that the earth remains at rest; to this\npreconceived opinion they adapted the miracle which occurred during their\nbattle with the five kings. (96) They did not simply relate that that day\nwas longer than usual, but asserted that the sun and moon stood still, or\nceased from their motion - a statement which would be of great service to\nthem at that time in convincing and proving by experience to the Gentiles,\nwho worshipped the sun, that the sun was under the control of another deity\nwho could compel it to change its daily course. (97) Thus, partly through\nreligious motives, partly through preconceived opinions, they conceived of\nand related the occurrence as something quite different from what really\nhappened.\n\n(98) Thus in order to interpret the Scriptural miracles and understand from\nthe narration of them how they really happened, it is necessary to know the\nopinions of those who first related them, and have recorded them for us in\nwriting, and to distinguish such opinions from the actual impression made\nupon their senses, otherwise we shall confound opinions and judgments with\nthe actual miracle as it really occurred: nay, further, we shall confound\nactual events with symbolical and imaginary ones. (99) For many things are\nnarrated in Scripture as real, and were believed to be real, which were in\nfact only symbolical and imaginary. (100) As, for instance, that God came\ndown from heaven (Exod. xix:28, Deut. v:28), and that Mount Sinai smoked\nbecause God descended upon it surrounded with fire; or, again that Elijah\nascended into heaven in a chariot of fire, with horses of fire; all these\nthings were assuredly merely symbols adapted to the opinions of those who\nhave handed them down to us as they were represented to them, namely, as\nreal. (101) All who have any education know that God has no right hand nor\nleft; that He is not moved nor at rest, nor in a particular place, but that\nHe is absolutely infinite and contains in Himself all perfections.\n\n(102) These things, I repeat, are known to whoever judges of things by the\nperception of pure reason, and not according as his imagination is affected\nby his outward senses. (103) Following the example of the masses who imagine\na bodily Deity, holding a royal court with a throne on the convexity of\nheaven, above the stars, which are believed to be not very, far off from the\nearth.\n\n(104) To these and similar opinions very many narrations in Scripture are\nadapted, and should not, therefore, be mistaken by philosophers for\nrealities.\n\n(105) Lastly, in order to understand, in the case of miracles, what actually\ntook place, we ought to be familiar with Jewish phrases and metaphors;\nanyone who did not make sufficient allowance for these, would be continually\nseeing miracles in Scripture where nothing of the kind is intended by the\nwriter; he would thus miss the knowledge not only of what actually happened,\nbut also of the mind of the writers of the sacred text. (106) For instance,\nZechariah speaking of some future war says (chap. xiv:7): \"It shall be one\nday which shall be known to the Lord, not day, nor night; but at even time\nit shall be light.\" In these words he seems to predict a great miracle, yet\nhe only means that the battle will be doubtful the whole day, that the issue\nwill be known only to God, but that in the evening they will gain the\nvictory: the prophets frequently used to predict victories and defeats of\nthe nations in similar phrases. (107) Thus Isaiah, describing the\ndestruction of Babylon, says (chap. xiii.): \"The stars of heaven, and the\nconstellations thereof, shall not give their light; the sun shall be\ndarkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to\nshine.\" (108) Now I suppose no one imagines that at the destruction of\nBabylon these phenomena actually occurred any more than that which the\nprophet adds, \"For I will make the heavens to tremble, and remove the earth\nout of her place.\"\n\n(109) So, too, Isaiah in foretelling to the Jews that they would return from\nBabylon to Jerusalem in safety, and would not suffer from thirst on their\njourney, says: \"And they thirsted not when He led them through the deserts;\nHe caused the waters to flow out of the rocks for them; He clave the rocks,\nand the waters gushed out.\" (110) These words merely mean that the Jews,\nlike other people, found springs in the desert, at which they quenched their\nthirst; for when the Jews returned to Jerusalem with the consent of Cyrus,\nit is admitted that no similar miracles befell them.\n\n(111) In this way many occurrences in the Bible are to be regarded merely as\nJewish expressions. (112) There is no need for me to go through them in\ndetail; but I will call attention generally to the fact that the Jews\nemployed such phrases not only rhetorically, but also, and indeed chiefly,\nfrom devotional motives. (113) Such is the reason for the substitution of\n\"bless God\" for \"curse God\" in 1 Kings xxi:10, and Job ii:9, and for all\nthings being referred to God, whence it appears that the Bible seems to\nrelate nothing but miracles, even when speaking of the most ordinary\noccurrences, as in the examples given above.\n\n(114) Hence we must believe that when the Bible says that the Lord hardened\nPharaoh's heart, it only means that Pharaoh was obstinate; when it says that\nGod opened the windows of heaven, it only means that it rained very hard,\nand so on. (115) When we reflect on these peculiarities, and also on the\nfact that most things are related very shortly, with very little details and\nalmost in abridgments, we shall see that there is hardly anything in\nScripture which can be proved contrary to natural reason, while, on the\nother hand, many things which before seemed obscure, will after a little\nconsideration be understood and easily explained.\n\n(116) I think I have now very clearly explained all that I proposed to\nexplain, but before I finish this chapter I would call attention to the fact\nthat I have adopted a different method in speaking of miracles to that which\nI employed in treating of prophecy. (117) Of prophecy I have asserted\nnothing which could not be inferred from promises revealed in Scripture,\nwhereas in this chapter I have deduced my conclusions solely from the\nprinciples ascertained by the natural light of reason. (118) I have\nproceeded in this way advisedly, for prophecy, in that it surpasses human\nknowledge, is a purely theological question; therefore, I knew that I could\nnot make any assertions about it, nor learn wherein it consists, except\nthrough deductions from premises that have been revealed; therefore I was\ncompelled to collate the history of prophecy, and to draw therefrom certain\nconclusions which would teach me, in so far as such teaching is possible,\nthe nature and properties of the gift. (119) But in the case of miracles, as\nour inquiry is a question purely philosophical (namely, whether anything can\nhappen which contravenes or does not follow from the laws of nature), I was\nnot under any such necessity: I therefore thought it wiser to unravel the\ndifficulty through premises ascertained and thoroughly known by the\nnatural light of reason. I say I thought it wiser, for I could also\neasily have solved the problem merely from the doctrines and\nfundamental principles of Scripture: in order that everyone may\nacknowledge this, I will briefly show how it could be done.\n\n(120) Scripture makes the general assertion in several passages that\nnature's course is fixed and unchangeable. (121) In Ps. cxlviii:6, for\ninstance, and Jer. xxxi:35. (122) The wise man also, in Eccles. i:10,\ndistinctly teaches that \"there is nothing new under the sun,\" and in verses\n11, 12, illustrating the same idea, he adds that although something\noccasionally happens which seems new, it is not really new, but \"hath been\nalready of old time, which was before us, whereof there is no remembrance,\nneither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with\nthose that come after.\" (123) Again in chap. iii:11, he says, \"God hath made\neverything beautiful in his time,\" and immediately afterwards adds, \"I know\nthat whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever; nothing can be put to it,\nnor anything taken from it.\"\n\n(124) Now all these texts teach most distinctly that nature preserves a\nfixed and unchangeable order, and that God in all ages, known and unknown,\nhas been the same; further, that the laws of nature are so perfect, that\nnothing can be added thereto nor taken therefrom; and, lastly, that miracles\nonly appear as something new because of man's ignorance.\n\n(125) Such is the express teaching of Scripture: nowhere does Scripture\nassert that anything happens which contradicts, or cannot follow from the\nlaws of nature; and, therefore, we should not attribute to it such a\ndoctrine.\n\n(126) To these considerations we must add, that miracles require causes and\nattendant circumstances, and that they follow, not from some mysterious\nroyal power which the masses attribute to God, but from the Divine rule and\ndecree, that is (as we have shown from Scripture itself) from the laws and\norder of nature; lastly, that miracles can be wrought even by false\nprophets, as is proved from Deut. xiii. and Matt. xxiv:24.\n\n(127) The conclusion, then, that is most plainly put before us is, that\nmiracles were natural occurrences, and must therefore be so explained as to\nappear neither new (in the words of Solomon) nor contrary to nature, but, as\nfar as possible, in complete agreement with ordinary events. (128) This can\neasily be done by anyone, now that I have set forth the rules drawn from\nScripture. (129) Nevertheless, though I maintain that Scripture teaches this\ndoctrine, I do not assert that it teaches it as a truth necessary to\nsalvation, but only that the prophets were in agreement with ourselves on\nthe point; therefore everyone is free to think on the subject as he\nlikes, according as he thinks it best for himself, and most likely to\nconduce to the worship of God and to singlehearted religion.\n\n(130) This is also the opinion of Josephus, for at the conclusion of the\nsecond book of his \"Antiquities,\" he writes: Let no man think this story\nincredible of the sea's dividing to save these people, for we find it in\nancient records that this hath been seen before, whether by God's\nextraordinary will or by the course of nature it is indifferent. (131) The\nsame thing happened one time to the Macedonians, under the command of\nAlexander, when for want of another passage the Pamphylian Sea divided to\nmake them way; God's Providence making use of Alexander at that time as His\ninstrument for destroying the Persian Empire. (132) This is attested by all\nthe historians who have pretended to write the Life of that Prince. (133)\nBut people are at liberty to think what they please.\"\n\n(134) Such are the words of Josephus, and such is his opinion on faith in\nmiracles.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. - OF THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE\n\n(1) When people declare, as all are ready to do, that the Bible is the Word\nof God teaching man true blessedness and the way of salvation, they\nevidently do not mean what they say; for the masses take no pains at all to\nlive according to Scripture, and we see most people endeavouring to hawk\nabout their own commentaries as the word of God, and giving their best\nefforts, under the guise of religion, to compelling others to think as they\ndo: we generally see, I say, theologians anxious to learn how to wring their\ninventions and sayings out of the sacred text, and to fortify them with\nDivine authority. (2) Such persons never display, less scruple or\nmore zeal than when they, are interpreting Scripture or the mind of the Holy\nGhost; if we ever see them perturbed, it is not that they fear to attribute\nsome error to the Holy Spirit, and to stray from the right path, but that\nthey are afraid to be convicted of error by others, and thus to overthrow\nand bring into contempt their own authority. (3) But if men really believed\nwhat they verbally testify of Scripture, they would adopt quite a different\nplan of life: their minds would not be agitated by so many contentions, nor\nso many hatreds, and they would cease to be excited by such a blind and rash\npassion for interpreting the sacred writings, and excogitating novelties\nin religion. (4) On the contrary, they would not dare to adopt, as the\nteaching of Scripture, anything which they could not plainly deduce\ntherefrom: lastly, those sacrilegious persons who have dared, in several\npassages, to interpolate the Bible, would have shrunk from so great a\ncrime, and would have stayed their sacrilegious hands.\n\n(5) Ambition and unscrupulousness have waxed so powerful, that religion is\nthought to consist, not so much in respecting the writings of the Holy\nGhost, as in defending human commentaries, so that religion is no longer\nidentified with charity, but with spreading discord and propagating\ninsensate hatred disguised under the name of zeal for the Lord, and eager\nardour.\n\n(6) To these evils we must add superstition, which teaches men to despise\nreason and nature, and only to admire and venerate that which is repugnant\nto both: whence it is not wonderful that for the sake of increasing the\nadmiration and veneration felt for Scripture, men strive to explain it so as\nto make it appear to contradict, as far as possible, both one and the other:\nthus they dream that most profound mysteries lie hid in the Bible, and weary\nthemselves out in the investigation of these absurdities, to the neglect of\nwhat is useful. (7) Every result of their diseased imagination they\nattribute to the Holy Ghost, and strive to defend with the utmost zeal and\npassion; for it is an observed fact that men employ their reason to defend\nconclusions arrived at by reason, but conclusions arrived at by the passions\nare defended by the passions.\n\n(8) If we would separate ourselves from the crowd and escape from\ntheological prejudices, instead of rashly accepting human commentaries for\nDivine documents, we must consider the true method of interpreting Scripture\nand dwell upon it at some length: for if we remain in ignorance of this we\ncannot know, certainly, what the Bible and the Holy Spirit wish to teach.\n\n(9)I may sum up the matter by saying that the method of interpreting\nScripture does not widely differ from the method of interpreting nature - in\nfact, it is almost the same. (10) For as the interpretation of nature\nconsists in the examination of the history of nature, and therefrom\ndeducing definitions of natural phenomena on certain fixed axioms, so\nScriptural interpretation proceeds by the examination of Scripture, and\ninferring the intention of its authors as a legitimate conclusion from its\nfundamental principles. (11) By working in this manner everyone will\nalways advance without danger of error - that is, if they admit no\nprinciples for interpreting Scripture, and discussing its contents save such\nas they find in Scripture itself - and will be able with equal security to\ndiscuss what surpasses our understanding, and what is known by the natural\nlight of reason.\n\n(12) In order to make clear that such a method is not only correct, but is\nalso the only one advisable, and that it agrees with that employed in\ninterpreting nature, I must remark that Scripture very often treats of\nmatters which cannot be deduced from principles known to reason: for it is\nchiefly made up of narratives and revelation: the narratives generally\ncontain miracles - that is, as we have shown in the last chapter, relations\nof extraordinary natural occurrences adapted to the opinions and judgment of\nthe historians who recorded them: the revelations also were adapted to the\nopinions of the prophets, as we showed in Chap. II., and in themselves\nsurpassed human comprehension. (13) Therefore the knowledge of all these -\nthat is, of nearly the whole contents of Scripture, must be sought from\nScripture alone, even as the knowledge of nature is sought from nature. (14)\nAs for the moral doctrines which are also contained in the Bible, they may\nbe demonstrated from received axioms, but we cannot prove in the same manner\nthat Scripture intended to teach them, this can only be learned from\nScripture itself.\n\n(15) If we would bear unprejudiced witness to the Divine origin of\nScripture, we must prove solely on its own authority that it teaches true\nmoral doctrines, for by such means alone can its Divine origin be\ndemonstrated: we have shown that the certitude of the prophets depended\nchiefly on their having minds turned towards what is just and good,\ntherefore we ought to have proof of their possessing this quality before we\nrepose faith in them. (16) From miracles God's divinity cannot be proved, as\nI have already shown, and need not now repeat, for miracles could be\nwrought by false prophets. (17) Wherefore the Divine origin of Scripture\nmust consist solely in its teaching true virtue. (18) But we must come to\nour conclusion simply on Scriptural grounds, for if we were unable to do so\nwe could not, unless strongly prejudiced accept the Bible and bear\nwitness to its Divine origin.\n\n(19) Our knowledge of Scripture must then be looked for in Scripture only.\n\n(20) Lastly, Scripture does not give us definition of things any more than\nnature does: therefore, such definitions must be sought in the latter case\nfrom the diverse workings of nature; in the former case, from the various\nnarratives about the given subject which occur in the Bible.\n\n(21) The universal rule, then, in interpreting Scripture is to accept\nnothing as an authoritative Scriptural statement which we do not perceive\nvery clearly when we examine it in the light of its history. (22) What I\nmean by its history, and what should be the chief points elucidated, I will\nnow explain.\n\n(23) The history of a Scriptural statement comprises -\n\n(23) I. The nature and properties of the language in which the books of the\nBible were written, and in which their authors were, accustomed to speak.\n(24) We shall thus be able to investigate every expression by comparison\nwith common conversational usages.\n\n(25) Now all the writers both of the Old Testament and the New were Hebrews:\ntherefore, a knowledge of the Hebrew language is before all things\nnecessary, not only for the comprehension of the Old Testament, which was\nwritten in that tongue, but also of the New: for although the latter was\npublished in other languages, yet its characteristics are Hebrew.\n\n(26) II. An analysis of each book and arrangement of its contents under\nheads; so that we may have at hand the various texts which treat of a given\nsubject. (27) Lastly, a note of all the passages which are ambiguous or\nobscure, or which seem mutually contradictory.\n\n(28) I call passages clear or obscure according as their meaning is inferred\neasily or with difficulty in relation to the context, not according as their\ntruth is perceived easily or the reverse by reason. (29) We are at work not\non the truth of passages, but solely on their meaning. (30) We must take\nespecial care, when we are in search of the meaning of a text, not to be led\naway by our reason in so far as it is founded on principles of natural\nknowledge (to say nothing of prejudices): in order not to confound the\nmeaning of a passage with its truth, we must examine it solely by means of\nthe signification of the words, or by a reason acknowledging no foundation\nbut Scripture.\n\n(31) I will illustrate my meaning by an example. (32) The words of Moses,\n\"God is a fire\" and \"God is jealous,\" are perfectly clear so long as we\nregard merely the signification of the words, and I therefore reckon them\namong the clear passages, though in relation to reason and truth they are\nmost obscure: still, although the literal meaning is repugnant to the\nnatural light of reason, nevertheless, if it cannot be clearly overruled on\ngrounds and principles derived from its Scriptural \"history,\" it, that is,\nthe literal meaning, must be the one retained: and contrariwise if these\npassages literally interpreted are found to clash with principles derived\nfrom Scripture, though such literal interpretation were in absolute harmony\nwith reason, they must be interpreted in a different manner, i.e.\nmetaphorically.\n\n(33) If we would know whether Moses believed God to be a fire or not, we\nmust on no account decide the question on grounds of the reasonableness or\nthe reverse of such an opinion, but must judge solely by the other opinions\nof Moses which are on record.\n\n(34) In the present instance, as Moses says in several other passages that\nGod has no likeness to any visible thing, whether in heaven or in earth, or\nin the water, either all such passages must be taken metaphorically, or else\nthe one before us must be so explained. (35) However, as we should depart as\nlittle as possible from the literal sense, we must first ask whether this\ntext, God is a fire, admits of any but the literal meaning - that is,\nwhether the word fire ever means anything besides ordinary natural fire.\n(36) If no such second meaning can be found, the text must be taken\nliterally, however repugnant to reason it may be: and all the other\npassages, though in complete accordance with reason, must be brought into\nharmony with it. (37) If the verbal expressions would not admit of being\nthus harmonized, we should have to set them down as irreconcilable, and\nsuspend our judgment concerning them. (38) However, as we find the name fire\napplied to anger and jealousy (see Job xxxi:12) we can thus easily reconcile\nthe words of Moses, and legitimately conclude that the two propositions God\nis a fire, and God is jealous, are in meaning identical.\n\n(39) Further, as Moses clearly teaches that God is jealous, and nowhere\nstates that God is without passions or emotions, we must evidently infer\nthat Moses held this doctrine himself, or at any rate, that he wished to\nteach it, nor must we refrain because such a belief seems contrary to\nreason: for as we have shown, we cannot wrest the meaning of texts to suit\nthe dictates of our reason, or our preconceived opinions. (40) The whole\nknowledge of the Bible must be sought solely from itself.\n\n(41) III. Lastly, such a history should relate the environment of all the\nprophetic books extant; that is, the life, the conduct, and the studies of\nthe author of each book, who he was, what was the occasion, and the epoch of\nhis writing, whom did he write for, and in what language. (42) Further,\nit should inquire into the fate of each book: how it was first received,\ninto whose hands it fell, how many different versions there were of it, by\nwhose advice was it received into the Bible, and, lastly, how all the books\nnow universally accepted as sacred, were united into a single whole.\n\n(43) All such information should, as I have said, be contained in the\n\"history\" of Scripture. (44) For, in order to know what statements are set\nforth as laws, and what as moral precepts, it is important to be acquainted\nwith the life, the conduct, and the pursuits of their author: moreover,\nit becomes easier to explain a man's writings in proportion as we have more\nintimate knowledge of his genius and temperament.\n\n(45) Further, that we may not confound precepts which are eternal with those\nwhich served only a temporary purpose, or were only meant for a few, we\nshould know what was the occasion, the time, the age, in which each book was\nwritten, and to what nation it was addressed.(46) Lastly, we should have\nknowledge on the other points I have mentioned, in order to be sure,\nin addition to the authenticity of the work, that it has not been tampered\nwith by sacrilegious hands, or whether errors can have crept in, and, if so,\nwhether they have been corrected by men sufficiently skilled and worthy of\ncredence. (47) All these things should be known, that we may not be led away\nby blind impulse to accept whatever is thrust on our notice, instead of only\nthat which is sure and indisputable.\n\n(48) Now when we are in possession of this history of Scripture, and have\nfinally decided that we assert nothing as prophetic doctrine which does not\ndirectly follow from such history, or which is not clearly deducible from\nit, then, I say, it will be time to gird ourselves for the task of\ninvestigating the mind of the prophets and of the Holy Spirit. (49) But in\nthis further arguing, also, we shall require a method very like that\nemployed in interpreting nature from her history. (50) As in the examination\nof natural phenomena we try first to investigate what is most universal\nand common to all nature - such, for instance, as motion and rest, and their\nlaws and rules, which nature always observes, and through which she\ncontinually works - and then we proceed to what is less universal; so, too,\nin the history of Scripture, we seek first for that which is most universal,\nand serves for the basis and foundation of all Scripture, a doctrine, in\nfact, that is commended by all the prophets as eternal and most profitable\nto all men. (51) For example, that God is one, and that He is omnipotent,\nthat He alone should be worshipped, that He has a care for all men, and that\nHe especially loves those who adore Him and love their neighbour as\nthemselves, &c. (52) These and similar doctrines, I repeat, Scripture\neverywhere so clearly and expressly teaches, that no one was ever in doubt\nof its meaning concerning them.\n\n(53) The nature of God, His manner of regarding and providing for things,\nand similar doctrines, Scripture nowhere teaches professedly, and as eternal\ndoctrine; on the contrary, we have shown that the prophets themselves did\nnot agree on the subject; therefore, we must not lay down any doctrine as\nScriptural on such subjects, though it may appear perfectly clear on\nrational grounds.\n\n(54) From a proper knowledge of this universal doctrine of Scripture, we\nmust then proceed to other doctrines less universal, but which,\nnevertheless, have regard to the general conduct of life, and flow from the\nuniversal doctrine like rivulets from a source; such are all particular\nexternal manifestations of true virtue, which need a given occasion for\ntheir exercise; whatever is obscure or ambiguous on such points in Scripture\nmust be explained and defined by its universal doctrine; with regard to\ncontradictory instances, we must observe the occasion and the time in which\nthey were written. (55) For instance, when Christ says, \"Blessed are they\nthat mourn, for they shall be comforted\" we do not know, from the actual\npassage, what sort of mourners are meant; as, however, Christ afterwards\nteaches that we should have care for nothing, save only for the kingdom of\nGod and His righteousness, which is commended as the highest good (see\nMatt. vi:33), it follows that by mourners He only meant those who mourn for\nthe kingdom of God and righteousness neglected by man: for this would be the\nonly cause of mourning to those who love nothing but the Divine kingdom and\njustice, and who evidently despise the gifts of fortune. (56) So, too, when\nChrist says: \"But if a man strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the\nleft also,\" and the words which follow.\n\n(57) If He had given such a command, as a lawgiver, to judges, He would\nthereby have abrogated the law of Moses, but this He expressly says He did\nnot do (Matt. v:17). (58) Wherefore we must consider who was the speaker,\nwhat was the occasion, and to whom were the words addressed. (59) Now Christ\nsaid that He did not ordain laws as a legislator, but inculcated precepts as\na teacher: inasmuch as He did not aim at correcting outward actions so\nmuch as the frame of mind. (60) Further, these words were spoken to men who\nwere oppressed, who lived in a corrupt commonwealth on the brink of ruin,\nwhere justice was utterly neglected. (61) The very doctrine inculcated here\nby Christ just before the destruction of the city was also taught by\nJeremiah before the first destruction of Jerusalem, that is, in similar\ncircumstances, as we see from Lamentations iii:25-30.\n\n(62) Now as such teaching was only set forth by the prophets in times of\noppression, and was even then never laid down as a law; and as, on the other\nhand, Moses (who did not write in times of oppression, but - mark this -\nstrove to found a well-ordered commonwealth), while condemning envy and\nhatred of one's neighbour, yet ordained that an eye should be given for\nan eye, it follows most clearly from these purely Scriptural grounds that\nthis precept of Christ and Jeremiah concerning submission to injuries was\nonly valid in places where justice is neglected, and in a time of\noppression, but does not hold good in a well-ordered state.\n\n(63) In a well-ordered state where justice is administered every one is\nbound, if he would be accounted just, to demand penalties before the judge\n(see Lev:1), not for the sake of vengeance (Lev. xix:17, 18), but in order\nto defend justice and his country's laws, and to prevent the wicked\nrejoicing in their wickedness. (64) All this is plainly in accordance with\nreason. (65) I might cite many other examples in the same manner, but I\nthink the foregoing are sufficient to explain my meaning and the utility of\nthis method, and this is all my present purpose. (66) Hitherto we have only\nshown how to investigate those passages of Scripture which treat of\npractical conduct, and which, therefore, are more easily examined, for on\nsuch subjects there was never really any controversy among the writers of\nthe Bible.\n\n(67) The purely speculative passages cannot be so easily traced to their\nreal meaning: the way becomes narrower, for as the prophets differed in\nmatters speculative among themselves, and the narratives are in great\nmeasure adapted to the prejudices of each age, we must not, on any account\ninfer the intention of one prophet from clearer passages in the writings of\nanother; nor must we so explain his meaning, unless it is perfectly plain\nthat the two prophets were at one in the matter.\n\n(68) How we are to arrive at the intention of the prophets in such cases I\nwill briefly explain. (69) Here, too, we must begin from the most universal\nproposition, inquiring first from the most clear Scriptural statements what\nis the nature of prophecy or revelation, and wherein does it consist; then\nwe must proceed to miracles, and so on to whatever is most general till we\ncome to the opinions of a particular prophet, and, at last, to the meaning\nof a particular revelation, prophecy, history, or miracle. (70) We have\nalready pointed out that great caution is necessary not to confound the mind\nof a prophet or historian with the mind of the Holy Spirit and the truth\nof the matter; therefore I need not dwell further on the subject. (71) I\nwould, however, here remark concerning the meaning of revelation, that the\npresent method only teaches us what the prophets really saw or heard, not\nwhat they desired to signify or represent by symbols. (72) The latter may be\nguessed at but cannot be inferred with certainty from Scriptural premises.\n\n(73) We have thus shown the plan for interpreting Scripture, and have, at\nthe same time, demonstrated that it is the one and surest way of\ninvestigating its true meaning. (74) I am willing indeed to admit that those\npersons (if any such there be) would be more absolutely certainly right, who\nhave received either a trustworthy tradition or an assurance from the\nprophets themselves, such as is claimed by the Pharisees; or who have a\npontiff gifted with infallibility in the interpretation of Scripture, such\nas the Roman Catholics boast. (75) But as we can never be perfectly sure,\neither of such a tradition or of the authority of the pontiff, we cannot\nfound any certain conclusion on either: the one is denied by the oldest sect\nof Christians, the other by the oldest sect of Jews. (76) Indeed, if we\nconsider the series of years (to mention no other point) accepted by the\nPharisees from their Rabbis, during which time they say they have handed\ndown the tradition from Moses, we shall find that it is not correct, as I\nshow elsewhere. (77) Therefore such a tradition should be received with\nextreme suspicion; and although, according to our method, we are bound to\nconsider as uncorrupted the tradition of the Jews, namely, the meaning of\nthe Hebrew words which we received from them, we may accept the latter while\nretaining our doubts about the former.\n\n(78) No one has ever been able to change the meaning of a word in ordinary\nuse, though many have changed the meaning of a particular sentence. (79)\nSuch a proceeding would be most difficult; for whoever attempted to change\nthe meaning of a word, would be compelled, at the same time, to explain all\nthe authors who employed it, each according to his temperament and\nintention, or else, with consummate cunning, to falsify them.\n\n(80) Further, the masses and the learned alike preserve language, but it is\nonly the learned who preserve the meaning of particular sentences and books:\nthus, we may easily imagine that the learned having a very rare book in\ntheir power, might change or corrupt the meaning of a sentence in it, but\nthey could not alter the signification of the words; moreover, if anyone\nwanted to change the meaning of a common word he would not be able to keep\nup the change among posterity, or in common parlance or writing.\n\n(81) For these and such-like reasons we may readily conclude that it would\nnever enter into the mind of anyone to corrupt a language, though the\nintention of a writer may often have been falsified by changing his phrases\nor interpreting them amiss. (82) As then our method (based on the principle\nthat the knowledge of Scripture must be sought from itself alone) is the\nsole true one, we must evidently renounce any knowledge which it cannot\nfurnish for the complete understanding of Scripture. (83) I will now point\nout its difficulties and shortcomings, which prevent our gaining a complete\nand assured knowledge of the Sacred Text.\n\n(84) Its first great difficulty consists in its requiring a thorough\nknowledge of the Hebrew language. (85) Where is such knowledge to be\nobtained? (86) The men of old who employed the Hebrew tongue have left none\nof the principles and bases of their language to posterity; we have from\nthem absolutely nothing in the way of dictionary, grammar, or rhetoric.\n\n(87) Now the Hebrew nation has lost all its grace and beauty (as one would\nexpect after the defeats and persecutions it has gone through), and has only\nretained certain fragments of its language and of a few books. (88) Nearly\nall the names of fruits, birds, and fishes, and many other words have\nperished in the wear and tear of time. (89) Further, the meaning of many\nnouns and verbs which occur in the Bible are either utterly lost, or are\nsubjects of dispute. (90) And not only are these gone, but we are lacking in\na knowledge of Hebrew phraseology. (91) The devouring tooth of time has\ndestroyed turns of expression peculiar to the Hebrews, so that we know them\nno more.\n\n(92) Therefore we cannot investigate as we would all the meanings of a\nsentence by the uses of the language; and there are many phrases of which\nthe meaning is most obscure or altogether inexplicable, though the component\nwords are perfectly plain.\n\n(93) To this impossibility of tracing the history of the Hebrew language\nmust be added its particular nature and composition: these give rise to so\nmany ambiguities that it is impossible to find a method which would\nenable us to gain a certain knowledge of all the statements in Scripture,\n[Endnote 7]. (94) In addition to the sources of ambiguities common to all\nlanguages, there are many peculiar to Hebrew. (95) These, I think, it worth\nwhile to mention.\n\n(96) Firstly, an ambiguity often arises in the Bible from our mistaking one\nletter for another similar one. (97) The Hebrews divide the letters of the\nalphabet into five classes, according to the five organs of the month\nemployed in pronouncing them, namely, the lips, the tongue, the teeth, the\npalate, and the throat. (98) For instance, Alpha, Ghet, Hgain, He, are\ncalled gutturals, and are barely distinguishable, by any sign that we know,\none from the other. (99) El, which signifies to, is often taken for hgal,\nwhich signifies above, and vice versa. (100) Hence sentences are often\nrendered rather ambiguous or meaningless.\n\n(101) A second difficulty arises from the multiplied meaning of conjunctions\nand adverbs. (102) For instance, vau serves promiscuously for a particle of\nunion or of separation, meaning, and, but, because, however, then: ki, has\nseven or eight meanings, namely, wherefore, although, if, when, inasmuch as,\nbecause, a burning, &c., and so on with almost all particles.\n\n(103) The third very fertile source of doubt is the fact that Hebrew verbs\nin the indicative mood lack the present, the past imperfect, the pluperfect,\nthe future perfect, and other tenses most frequently employed in other\nlanguages; in the imperative and infinitive moods they are wanting in all\nexcept the present, and a subjunctive mood does not exist. (104) Now,\nalthough all these defects in moods and tenses may be supplied by certain\nfundamental rules of the language with ease and even elegance, the ancient\nwriters evidently neglected such rules altogether, and employed\nindifferently future for present and past, and vice versa past for future,\nand also indicative for imperative and subjunctive, with the result of\nconsiderable confusion.\n\n(105) Besides these sources of ambiguity there are two others, one very\nimportant. (106) Firstly, there are in Hebrew no vowels; secondly, the\nsentences are not separated by any marks elucidating the meaning or\nseparating the clauses. (107) Though the want of these two has generally\nbeen supplied by points and accents, such substitutes cannot be accepted by\nus, inasmuch as they were invented and designed by men of an after age whose\nauthority should carry no weight. (108) The ancients wrote without points\n(that is, without vowels and accents), as is abundantly testified; their\ndescendants added what was lacking, according to their own ideas of\nScriptural interpretation; wherefore the existing accents and points are\nsimply current interpretations, and are no more authoritative than any other\ncommentaries.\n\n(109) Those who are ignorant of this fact cannot justify the author of the\nEpistle to the Hebrews for interpreting (chap. xi:21) Genesis (xlvii:31)\nvery differently from the version given in our Hebrew text as at present\npointed, as though the Apostle had been obliged to learn the meaning of\nScripture from those who added the points. (110) In my opinion the latter\nare clearly wrong. (111) In order that everyone may judge for himself, and\nalso see how the discrepancy arose simply from the want of vowels, I will\ngive both interpretations. (112)Those who pointed our version read, \"And\nIsrael bent himself over, or (changing Hqain into Aleph, a similar letter)\ntowards, the head of the bed.\" (113) The author of the Epistle reads, \"And\nIsrael bent himself over the head of his staff,\" substituting mate for mita,\nfrom which it only differs in respect of vowels. (114) Now as in this\nnarrative it is Jacob's age only that is in question, and not his illness,\nwhich is not touched on till the next chapter, it seems more likely that the\nhistorian intended to say that Jacob bent over the head of his staff (a\nthing commonly used by men of advanced age for their support) than that he\nbowed himself at the head of his bed, especially as for the former reading\nno substitution of letters is required. (115) In this example I have desired\nnot only to reconcile the passage in the Epistle with the passage in\nGenesis, but also and chiefly to illustrate how little trust should be\nplaced in the points and accents which are found in our present Bible, and\nso to prove that he who would be without bias in interpreting Scripture\nshould hesitate about accepting them, and inquire afresh for himself. (116)\nSuch being the nature and structure of the Hebrew language, one may easily\nunderstand that many difficulties are likely to arise, and that no possible\nmethod could solve all of them. (117) It is useless to hope for a way out of\nour difficulties in the comparison of various parallel passages (we have\nshown that the only method of discovering the true sense of a passage out of\nmany alternative ones is to see what are the usages of the language), for\nthis comparison of parallel passages can only accidentally throw light on a\ndifficult point, seeing that the prophets never wrote with the express\nobject of explaining their own phrases or those of other people, and also\nbecause we cannot infer the meaning of one prophet or apostle by the meaning\nof another, unless on a purely practical question, not when the matter is\nspeculative, or if a miracle, or history is being narrated. (118) I might\nillustrate my point with instances, for there are many inexplicable phrases\nin Scripture, but I would rather pass on to consider the difficulties and\nimperfections of the method under discussion.\n\n(119) A further difficulty attends the method, from the fact that it\nrequires the history of all that has happened to every book in the Bible;\nsuch a history we are often quite unable to furnish. (120) Of the authors,\nor (if the expression be preferred), the writers of many of the books, we\nare either in complete ignorance, or at any rate in doubt, as I will point\nout at length. (121) Further, we do not know either the occasions or the\nepochs when these books of unknown authorship were written; we cannot say\ninto what hands they fell, nor how the numerous varying versions\noriginated; nor, lastly, whether there were not other versions, now lost.\n(122) I have briefly shown that such knowledge is necessary, but I passed\nover certain considerations which I will now draw attention to.\n\n(123) If we read a book which contains incredible or impossible narratives,\nor is written in a very obscure style, and if we know nothing of its author,\nnor of the time or occasion of its being written, we shall vainly endeavour\nto gain any certain knowledge of its true meaning. (124) For being in\nignorance on these points we cannot possibly know the aim or intended aim of\nthe author; if we are fully informed, we so order our thoughts as not to be\nin any way prejudiced either in ascribing to the author or him for whom the\nauthor wrote either more or less than his meaning, and we only take into\nconsideration what the author may have had in his mind, or what the time and\noccasion demanded. (125) I think this must be tolerably evident to all.\n\n(126) It often happens that in different books we read histories in\nthemselves similar, but which we judge very differently, according to the\nopinions we have formed of the authors. (127) I remember once to have read\nin some book that a man named Orlando Furioso used to drive a kind of winged\nmonster through the air, fly over any countries he liked, kill unaided vast\nnumbers of men and giants, and such like fancies, which from the point of\nview of reason are obviously absurd. (128) A very similar story I read in\nOvid of Perseus, and also in the books of Judges and Kings of Samson, who\nalone and unarmed killed thousands of men, and of Elijah, who flew through\nthe air, said at last went up to heaven in a chariot of fire, with horses of\nfire. (129) All these stories are obviously alike, but we judge them very\ndifferently. (130) The first only sought to amuse, the second had a\npolitical object, the third a religious object.(131) We gather this simply\nfrom the opinions we had previously formed of the authors. (132) Thus it\nis evidently necessary to know something of the authors of writings which\nare obscure or unintelligible, if we would interpret their meaning; and for\nthe same reason, in order to choose the proper reading from among a great\nvariety, we ought to have information as to the versions in which the\ndifferences are found, and as to the possibility of other readings having\nbeen discovered by persons of greater authority.\n\n(133) A further difficulty attends this method in the case of some of the\nbooks of Scripture, namely, that they are no longer extant in their original\nlanguage. (133) The Gospel according to Matthew, and certainly the Epistle\nto the Hebrews, were written, it is thought, in Hebrew, though they no\nlonger exist in that form. (134) Aben Ezra affirms in his commentaries that\nthe book of Job was translated into Hebrew out of another language, and that\nits obscurity arises from this fact. (135) I say nothing of the apocryphal\nbooks, for their authority stands on very inferior ground.\n\n(136) The foregoing difficulties in this method of interpreting Scripture\nfrom its own history, I conceive to be so great that I do not hesitate to\nsay that the true meaning of Scripture is in many places inexplicable, or at\nbest mere subject for guesswork; but I must again point out, on the other\nhand, that such difficulties only arise when we endeavour to follow the\nmeaning of a prophet in matters which cannot be perceived, but only\nimagined, not in things, whereof the understanding can give a clear idea,\nand which are conceivable through themselves: [Endnote 8] matters which by\ntheir nature are easily perceived cannot be expressed so obscurely as to be\nunintelligible; as the proverb says, \"a word is enough to the wise.\" (137)\nEuclid, who only wrote of matters very simple and easily understood, can\neasily be comprehended by anyone in any language; we can follow his\nintention perfectly, and be certain of his true meaning, without having a\nthorough knowledge of the language in which he wrote; in fact, a quite\nrudimentary acquaintance is sufficient. (138) We need make no researches\nconcerning the life, the pursuits, or the habits of the author; nor need we\ninquire in what language, nor when he wrote, nor the vicissitudes of his\nbook, nor its various readings, nor how, nor by whose advice it has been\nreceived.\n\n(139) What we here say of Euclid might equally be said of any book which\ntreats of things by their nature perceptible: thus we conclude that we can\neasily follow the intention of Scripture in moral questions, from the\nhistory we possess of it, and we can be sure of its true meaning.\n\n(140) The precepts of true piety are expressed in very ordinary language,\nand are equally simple and easily understood. (141) Further, as true\nsalvation and blessedness consist in a true assent of the soul - and we\ntruly assent only to what we clearly understand - it is most plain that we\ncan follow with certainty the intention of Scripture in matters relating to\nsalvation and necessary to blessedness; therefore, we need not be much\ntroubled about what remains: such matters, inasmuch as we generally cannot\ngrasp them with our reason and understanding, are more curious than\nprofitable.\n\n(142) I think I have now set forth the true method of Scriptural\ninterpretation, and have sufficiently explained my own opinion thereon.\n(143) Besides, I do not doubt that everyone will see that such a method only\nrequires the aid of natural reason. (144) The nature and efficacy of the\nnatural reason consists in deducing and proving the unknown from the known,\nor in carrying premises to their legitimate conclusions; and these are the\nvery processes which our method desiderates. (145) Though we must admit that\nit does not suffice to explain everything in the Bible, such imperfection\ndoes not spring from its own nature, but from the fact that the path\nwhich it teaches us, as the true one, has never been tended or trodden by\nmen, and has thus, by the lapse of time, become very difficult, and almost\nimpassable, as, indeed, I have shown in the difficulties I draw attention\nto.\n\n(146) There only remains to examine the opinions of those who differ from\nme. (147) The first which comes under our notice is, that the light of\nnature has no power to interpret Scripture, but that a supernatural faculty\nis required for the task. (148) What is meant by this supernatural faculty I\nwill leave to its propounders to explain. (149) Personally, I can only\nsuppose that they have adopted a very obscure way of stating their complete\nuncertainty about the true meaning of Scripture. (150) If we look at their\ninterpretations, they contain nothing supernatural, at least nothing but the\nmerest conjectures.\n\n(151) Let them be placed side by side with the interpretations of those who\nfrankly confess that they have no faculty beyond their natural ones; we\nshall see that the two are just alike - both human, both long pondered over,\nboth laboriously invented. (152) To say that the natural reason is\ninsufficient for such results is plainly untrue, firstly, for the reasons\nabove stated, namely, that the difficulty of interpreting Scripture arises\nfrom no defect in human reason, but simply from the carelessness (not to say\nmalice) of men who neglected the history of the Bible while there were still\nmaterials for inquiry; secondly, from the fact (admitted, I think, by all)\nthat the supernatural faculty is a Divine gift granted only to the faithful.\n(153) But the prophets and apostles did not preach to the faithful only, but\nchiefly to the unfaithful and wicked. (154) Such persons, therefore, were\nable to understand the intention of the prophets and apostles, otherwise the\nprophets and apostles would have seemed to be preaching to little boys and\ninfants, not to men endowed with reason. (155) Moses, too, would have given\nhis laws in vain, if they could only be comprehended by the faithful, who\nneed no law. (156) Indeed, those who demand supernatural faculties for\ncomprehending the meaning of the prophets and apostles seem truly lacking in\nnatural faculties, so that we should hardly suppose such persons the\npossessors of a Divine supernatural gift.\n\n(157) The opinion of Maimonides was widely different. (158) He asserted\nthat each passage in Scripture admits of various, nay, contrary,\nmeanings; but that we could never be certain of any particular one till we\nknew that the passage, as we interpreted it, contained nothing contrary or\nrepugnant to reason. (159) If the literal meaning clashes with reason,\nthough the passage seems in itself perfectly clear, it must be interpreted\nin some metaphorical sense. (160) This doctrine he lays down very plainly in\nchap. xxv. part ii. of his book, \"More Nebuchim,\" for he says: \"Know that we\nshrink not from affirming that the world hath existed from eternity,\nbecause of what Scripture saith concerning the world's creation. (161) For\nthe texts which teach that the world was created are not more in number than\nthose which teach that God hath a body; neither are the approaches in this\nmatter of the world's creation closed, or even made hard to us: so that we\nshould not be able to explain what is written, as we did when we showed\nthat God hath no body, nay, peradventure, we could explain and make fast the\ndoctrine of the world's eternity more easily than we did away with the\ndoctrines that God hath a beatified body. (162) Yet two things hinder me\nfrom doing as I have said, and believing that the world is eternal.\n(163) As it hath been clearly shown that God hath not a body, we must\nperforce explain all those passages whereof the literal sense agreeth not\nwith the demonstration, for sure it is that they can be so explained. (164)\nBut the eternity of the world hath not been so demonstrated, therefore\nit is not necessary to do violence to Scripture in support of some common\nopinion, whereof we might, at the bidding of reason, embrace the contrary.\"\n\n(165) Such are the words of Maimonides, and they are evidently sufficient to\nestablish our point: for if he had been convinced by reason that the world\nis eternal, he would not have hesitated to twist and explain away the words\nof Scripture till he made them appear to teach this doctrine. (166) He would\nhave felt quite sure that Scripture, though everywhere plainly denying the\neternity of the world, really intends to teach it. (167) So that, however\nclear the meaning of Scripture may be, he would not feel certain of having\ngrasped it, so long as he remained doubtful of the truth of what, was\nwritten. (168) For we are in doubt whether a thing is in conformity with\nreason, or contrary thereto, so long as we are uncertain of its truth,\nand, consequently, we cannot be sure whether the literal meaning of a\npassage be true or false.\n\n(169) If such a theory as this were sound, I would certainly grant that some\nfaculty beyond the natural reason is required for interpreting Scripture.\n(170) For nearly all things that we find in Scripture cannot be inferred\nfrom known principles of the natural reason, and, therefore, we should be\nunable to come to any conclusion about their truth, or about the real\nmeaning and intention of Scripture, but should stand in need of some\nfurther assistance.\n\n(171) Further, the truth of this theory would involve that the masses,\nhaving generally no comprehension of, nor leisure for, detailed proofs,\nwould be reduced to receiving all their knowledge of Scripture on the\nauthority and testimony of philosophers, and, consequently, would be\ncompelled to suppose that the interpretations given by philosophers were\ninfallible.\n\n(172) Truly this would be a new form of ecclesiastical authority, and a new\nsort of priests or pontiffs, more likely to excite men's ridicule than their\nveneration. (173) Certainly our method demands a knowledge of Hebrew for\nwhich the masses have no leisure; but no such objection as the foregoing can\nbe brought against us. (174) For the ordinary Jews or Gentiles, to whom the\nprophets and apostles preached and wrote, understood the language, and,\nconsequently, the intention of the prophet or apostle addressing them; but\nthey did not grasp the intrinsic reason of what was preached, which,\naccording to Maimonides, would be necessary for an understanding of it.\n\n(175) There is nothing, then, in our method which renders it necessary that\nthe masses should follow the testimony of commentators, for I point to a set\nof unlearned people who understood the language of the prophets and\napostles; whereas Maimonides could not point to any such who could arrive at\nthe prophetic or apostolic meaning through their knowledge of the causes\nof things.\n\n(176) As to the multitude of our own time, we have shown that whatsoever is\nnecessary to salvation, though its reasons may be unknown, can easily be\nunderstood in any language, because it is thoroughly ordinary and usual; it\nis in such understanding as this that the masses acquiesce, not in the\ntestimony of commentators; with regard to other questions, the ignorant and\nthe learned fare alike.\n\n(177) But let us return to the opinion of Maimonides, and examine it more\nclosely. In the first place, he supposes that the prophets were in entire\nagreement one with another, and that they were consummate philosophers and\ntheologians; for he would have them to have based their conclusions on the\nabsolute truth. (178) Further, he supposes that the sense of Scripture\ncannot be made plain from Scripture itself, for the truth of things is not\nmade plain therein (in that it does not prove any thing, nor teach the\nmatters of which it speaks through their definitions and first causes),\ntherefore, according to Maimonides, the true sense of Scripture cannot be\nmade plain from itself, and must not be there sought.\n\n(179) The falsity of such a doctrine is shown in this very chapter, for we\nhave shown both by reason and examples that the meaning of Scripture is only\nmade plain through Scripture itself, and even in questions deducible from\nordinary knowledge should be looked for from no other source.\n\n(180) Lastly, such a theory supposes that we may explain the words of\nScripture according to our preconceived opinions, twisting them about, and\nreversing or completely changing the literal sense, however plain it may be.\n(181) Such licence is utterly opposed to the teaching of this and the\npreceding chapters, and, moreover, will be evident to everyone as rash and\nexcessive.\n\n(182) But if we grant all this licence, what can it effect after all?\nAbsolutely nothing. (183) Those things which cannot be demonstrated, and\nwhich make up the greater part of Scripture, cannot be examined by reason,\nand cannot therefore be explained or interpreted by this rule; whereas,\non the contrary, by following our own method, we can explain many questions\nof this nature, and discuss them on a sure basis, as we have already shown,\nby reason and example. (184) Those matters which are by their nature\ncomprehensible we can easily explain, as has been pointed out, simply by\nmeans of the context.\n\n(185) Therefore, the method of Maimonides is clearly useless: to which we\nmay add, that it does away with all the certainty which the masses acquire\nby candid reading, or which is gained by any other persons in any other way.\n(186) In conclusion, then, we dismiss Maimonides' theory as harmful,\nuseless, and absurd.\n\n(187) As to the tradition of the Pharisees, we have already shown that it is\nnot consistent, while the authority of the popes of Rome stands in need of\nmore credible evidence; the latter, indeed, I reject simply on this ground,\nfor if the popes could point out to us the meaning of Scripture as surely as\ndid the high priests of the Jews, I should not be deterred by the fact that\nthere have been heretic and impious Roman pontiffs; for among the Hebrew\nhigh-priests of old there were also heretics and impious men who gained the\nhigh- priesthood by improper means, but who, nevertheless, had Scriptural\nsanction for their supreme power of interpreting the law. (See\nDeut. xvii:11, 12, and xxxiii:10, also Malachi ii:8.)\n\n(188) However, as the popes can show no such sanction, their authority\nremains open to very grave doubt, nor should anyone be deceived by the\nexample of the Jewish high-priests and think that the Catholic religion also\nstands in need of a pontiff; he should bear in mind that the laws of Moses\nbeing also the ordinary laws of the country, necessarily required some\npublic authority to insure their observance; for, if everyone were free to\ninterpret the laws of his country as he pleased, no state could stand, but\nwould for that very reason be dissolved at once, and public rights would\nbecome private rights.\n\n(189) With religion the case is widely different. Inasmuch as it consists\nnot so much in outward actions as in simplicity and truth of character, it\nstands outside the sphere of law and public authority. (190) Simplicity and\ntruth of character are not produced by the constraint of laws, nor by\nthe authority of the state, no one the whole world over can be forced or\nlegislated into a state of blessedness; the means required for such a\nconsummation are faithful and brotherly admonition, sound education, and,\nabove all, free use of the individual judgment.\n\n(191) Therefore, as the supreme right of free thinking, even on religion, is\nin every man's power, and as it is inconceivable that such power could be\nalienated, it is also in every man's power to wield the supreme right and\nauthority of free judgment in this behalf, and to explain and interpret\nreligion for himself. (192) The only reason for vesting the supreme\nauthority in the interpretation of law, and judgment on public affairs in\nthe hands of the magistrates, is that it concerns questions of public right.\n(193) Similarly the supreme authority in explaining religion, and in passing\njudgment thereon, is lodged with the individual because it concerns\nquestions of individual right. (194) So far, then, from the authority of the\nHebrew high-priests telling in confirmation of the authority of the Roman\npontiffs to interpret religion, it would rather tend to establish individual\nfreedom of judgment. (195) Thus in this way also, we have shown that our\nmethod of interpreting Scripture is the best. (196) For as the highest power\nof Scriptural interpretation belongs to every man, the rule for such\ninterpretation should be nothing but the natural light of reason which is\ncommon to all - not any supernatural light nor any external authority;\nmoreover, such a rule ought not to be so difficult that it can only be\napplied by very skilful philosophers, but should be adapted to the natural\nand ordinary faculties and capacity of mankind. (197) And such I have shown\nour method to be, for such difficulties as it has arise from men's\ncarelessness, and are no part of its nature.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. - OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH AND THE OTHER\nHISTORICAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT\n\n(1) In the former chapter we treated of the foundations and principles of\nScriptural knowledge, and showed that it consists solely in a trustworthy\nhistory of the sacred writings; such a history, in spite of its\nindispensability, the ancients neglected, or at any rate, whatever they may\nhave written or handed down has perished in the lapse of time, consequently\nthe groundwork for such an investigation is to a great extent, cut from\nunder us. (2) This might be put up with if succeeding generations had\nconfined themselves within the limits of truth, and had handed down\nconscientiously what few particulars they had received or discovered without\nany additions from their own brains: as it is, the history of the Bible is\nnot so much imperfect as untrustworthy: the foundations are not only too\nscanty for building upon, but are also unsound. (3) It is part of my purpose\nto remedy these defects, and to remove common theological prejudices. (4)\nBut I fear that I am attempting my task too late, for men have arrived at\nthe pitch of not suffering contradiction, but defending obstinately whatever\nthey have adopted under the name of religion. (5) So widely have these\nprejudices taken possession of men's minds, that very few, comparatively\nspeaking, will listen to reason. (6) However, I will make the attempt, and\nspare no efforts, for there is no positive reason for despairing of success.\n\n(7) In order to treat the subject methodically, I will begin with the\nreceived opinions concerning the true authors of the sacred books, and in\nthe first place, speak of the author of the Pentateuch, who is almost\nuniversally supposed to have been Moses. (8) The Pharisees are so firmly\nconvinced of his identity, that they account as a heretic anyone who differs\nfrom them on the subject. (9) Wherefore, Aben Ezra, a man of enlightened\nintelligence, and no small learning, who was the first, so far as I know,\nto treat of this opinion, dared not express his meaning openly, but confined\nhimself to dark hints which I shall not scruple to elucidate, thus throwing\nfull light on the subject.\n\n(10) The words of Aben Ezra which occur in his commentary on Deuteronomy are\nas follows: \"Beyond Jordan, &c . . . If so be that thou understandest the\nmystery of the twelve . . .  moreover Moses wrote the law . . .  The\nCanaanite was then in the land . . . . it shall be revealed on the mount of\nGod . . . . then also behold his bed, his iron bed, then shalt thou know\nthe truth.\" (11) In these few words he hints, and also shows that it was not\nMoses who wrote the Pentateuch, but someone who lived long after him, and\nfurther, that the book which Moses wrote was something different from any\nnow extant.\n\n(12) To prove this, I say, he draws attention to the facts:\n\n(13) 1. That the preface to Deuteronomy could not have been written by\nMoses, inasmuch as he ad never crossed the Jordan.\n\n(14) II. That the whole book of Moses was written at full length on the\ncircumference of a single altar (Deut. xxvii, and Josh. viii:37), which\naltar, according to the Rabbis, consisted of only twelve stones: therefore\nthe book of Moses must have been of far less extent than the Pentateuch.\n(15) This is what our author means, I think, by the mystery of the twelve,\nunless he is referring to the twelve curses contained in the chapter of\nDeuteronomy above cited, which he thought could not have been contained in\nthe law, because Moses bade the Levites read them after the recital of the\nlaw, and so bind the people to its observance. (16) Or again, he may have\nhad in his mind the last chapter of Deuteronomy which treats of the death of\nMoses, and which contains twelve verses. (17) But there is no need to dwell\nfurther on these and similar conjectures.\n\n(18) III. That in Deut. xxxi:9, the expression occurs, \"and Moses wrote the\nlaw:\" words that cannot be ascribed to Moses, but must be those of some\nother writer narrating the deeds and writings of Moses.\n\n(19) IV. That in Genesis xii:6, the historian, after narrating that Abraham\njourneyed through the and of Canaan, adds, \"and the Canaanite was then in\nthe land,\" thus clearly excluding the time at which he wrote. (20) So that\nthis passage must have been written after the death of Moses, when the\nCanaanites had been driven out, and no longer possessed the land.\n\n(21) Aben Ezra, in his commentary on the passage, alludes to the difficulty\nas follows:- \"And the Canaanite was then in the land: it appears that\nCanaan, the grandson of Noah, took from another the land which bears his\nname; if this be not the true meaning, there lurks some mystery in the\npassage, and let him who understands it keep silence.\" (22) That is, if\nCanaan invaded those regions, the sense will be, the Canaanite was then in\nthe land, in contradistinction to the time when it had been held by another:\nbut if, as follows from Gen. chap. x. Canaan was the first to inhabit the\nland, the text must mean to exclude the time present, that is the time at\nwhich it was written; therefore it cannot be the work of Moses, in\nwhose time the Canaanites still possessed those territories: this is the\nmystery concerning which silence is recommended.\n\n(23) V. That in Genesis xxii:14 Mount Moriah is called the mount of God\n[Endnote 9] a name which it did not acquire till after the building of the\nTemple; the choice of the mountain was not made in the time of Moses, for\nMoses does not point out any spot as chosen by God; on the contrary, he\nforetells that God will at some future time choose a spot to which this name\nwill be given.\n\n(24) VI. Lastly, that in Deut. chap. iii., in the passage relating to Og,\nking of Bashan, these words are inserted: \"For only Og king of Bashan\nremained of the remnant of giants: behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of\niron: is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the\nlength thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a\nman.\" (25) This parenthesis most plainly shows that its writer lived long\nafter Moses; for this mode of speaking is only employed by one treating of\nthings long past, and pointing to relics for the sake of gaining credence:\nmoreover, this bed was almost certainly first discovered by David, who\nconquered the city of Rabbath (2 Sam. xii:30.) (26) Again, the historian a\nlittle further on inserts after the words of Moses, \"Jair, the son of\nManasseh, took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and\nMaachathi; and called them after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto this\nday.\" (27) This passage, I say, is inserted to explain the words of Moses\nwhich precede it. (28) \"And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the\nkingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of\nArgob, with all Bashan, which is called the land of the giants.\" (29) The\nHebrews in the time of the writer indisputably knew what territories\nbelonged to the tribe of Judah, but did not know them under the name of the\njurisdiction of Argob, or the land of the giants. (30) Therefore the writer\nis compelled to explain what these places were which were anciently so\nstyled, and at the same time to point out why they were at the time of his\nwriting known by the name of Jair, who was of the tribe of Manasseh, not of\nJudah. (31) We have thus made clear the meaning of Aben Ezra and also the\npassages of the Pentateuch which he cites in proof of his contention. (32)\nHowever, Aben Ezra does not call attention to every instance, or even the\nchief ones; there remain many of greater importance, which may be cited.\n(33) Namely (I.), that the writer of the books in question not only speaks\nof Moses in the third person, but also bears witness to many details\nconcerning him; for instance, \"Moses talked with God;\" \"The Lord spoke with\nMoses face to face;\" \"Moses was the meekest of men\" (Numb. xii:3); \"Moses\nwas wrath with the captains of the host; \"Moses, the man of God, \"Moses, the\nservant of the Lord, died;\" \"There was never a prophet in Israel like\nunto Moses,\" &c. (34) On the other hand, in Deuteronomy, where the law which\nMoses had expounded to the people and written is set forth, Moses speaks and\ndeclares what he has done in the first person: \"God spake with me\" (Deut.\nii:1, 17, &c.), \"I prayed to the Lord,\" &c. (35) Except at the end of the\nbook, when the historian, after relating the words of Moses, begins again to\nspeak in the third person, and to tell how Moses handed over the law which\nhe had expounded to the people in writing, again admonishing them, and\nfurther, how Moses ended his life. (36) All these details, the manner of\nnarration, the testimony, and the context of the whole story lead to the\nplain conclusion that these books were written by another, and not by Moses\nin person.\n\n(37) III. We must also remark that the history relates not only the manner\nof Moses' death and burial, and the thirty days' mourning of the Hebrews,\nbut further compares him with all the prophets who came after him, and\nstates that he surpassed them all. (38) \"There was never a prophet in Israel\nlike unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.\" (39) Such testimony\ncannot have been given of Moses by himself, nor by any who immediately\nsucceeded him, but it must come from someone who lived centuries afterwards,\nespecially, as the historian speaks of past times. (40) \"There was never a\nprophet,\" &c. (41) And of the place of burial, \"No one knows it to this\nday.\"\n\n(42) III. We must note that some places are not styled by the names they\nbore during Moses' lifetime, but by others which they obtained subsequently.\n(43) For instance, Abraham is said to have pursued his enemies even unto\nDan, a name not bestowed on the city till long after the death of Joshua\n(Gen. xiv:14, Judges xviii:29).\n\n(44) IV. The narrative is prolonged after the death of Moses, for in\nExodus xvi:34 we read that \"the children of Israel did eat manna forty\nyears until they came to a land inhabited, until they came unto the borders\nof the land of Canaan.\" (45) In other words, until the time alluded to in\nJoshua vi:12.\n\n(46) So, too, in Genesis xxxvi:31 it is stated, \"These are the kings that\nreigned in Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.\"\n(47) The historian, doubtless, here relates the kings of Idumaea before that\nterritory was conquered by David [Endnote 10] and garrisoned, as we read\nin 2 Sam. viii:14. (48) From what has been said, it is thus clearer than the\nsun at noonday that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by someone\nwho lived long after Moses. (49) Let us now turn our attention to the books\nwhich Moses actually did write, and which are cited in the Pentateuch; thus,\nalso, shall we see that they were different from the Pentateuch. (50)\nFirstly, it appears from Exodus xvii:14 that Moses, by the command of God,\nwrote an account of the war against Amalek. (51) The book in which he did so\nis not named in the chapter just quoted, but in Numb. xxi:12 a book is\nreferred to under the title of the wars of God, and doubtless this war\nagainst Amalek and the castrametations said in Numb. xxxiii:2 to have been\nwritten by Moses are therein described. (52) We hear also in Exod. xxiv:4 of\nanother book called the Book of the Covenant, which Moses read before the\nIsraelites when they first made a covenant with God. (53) But this book or\nthis writing contained very little, namely, the laws or commandments of God\nwhich we find in Exodus xx:22 to the end of chap. xxiv., and this no one\nwill deny who reads the aforesaid chapter rationally and impartially. (54)\nIt is there stated that as soon as Moses had learnt the feeling of the\npeople on the subject of making a covenant with God, he immediately wrote\ndown God's laws and utterances, and in the morning, after some ceremonies\nhad been performed, read out the conditions of the covenant to an assembly\nof the whole people. (55) When these had been gone through, and doubtless\nunderstood by all, the whole people gave their assent.\n\n(56) Now from the shortness of the time taken in its perusal and also from\nits nature as a compact, this document evidently contained nothing more than\nthat which we have just described. (57) Further, it is clear that Moses\nexplained all the laws which he had received in the fortieth year after the\nexodus from Egypt; also that he bound over the people a second time to\nobserve them, and that finally he committed them to writing (Deut. i:5;\nxxix:14; xxxi:9), in a book which contained these laws explained, and the\nnew covenant, and this book was therefore called the book of the law of God:\nthe same which was afterwards added to by Joshua when he set forth the fresh\ncovenant with which he bound over the people and which he entered into\nwith God (Josh. xxiv:25, 26).\n\n(58) Now, as we have extent no book containing this covenant of Moses and\nalso the covenant of Joshua, we must perforce conclude that it has perished,\nunless, indeed, we adopt the wild conjecture of the Chaldean paraphrast\nJonathan, and twist about the words of Scripture to our heart's content.\n(59) This commentator, in the face of our present difficulty, preferred\ncorrupting the sacred text to confessing his own ignorance. (60) The passage\nin the book of Joshua which runs, \"and Joshua wrote these words in the\nbook of the law of God,\" he changes into \"and Joshua wrote these words\nand kept them with the book of the law of God.\" (61) What is to be done with\npersons who will only see what pleases them? (62) What is such a proceeding\nif it is not denying Scripture, and inventing another Bible out of our own\nheads? (63) We may therefore conclude that the book of the law of God which\nMoses wrote was not the Pentateuch, but something quite different, which the\nauthor of the Pentateuch duly inserted into his book. (64) So much is\nabundantly plain both from what I have said and from what I am about to add.\n(65) For in the passage of Deuteronomy above quoted, where it is related\nthat Moses wrote the book of the law, the historian adds that he handed it\nover to the priests and bade them read it out at a stated time to the whole\npeople. (66) This shows that the work was of much less length than the\nPentateuch, inasmuch as it could be read through at one sitting so as to be\nunderstood by all; further, we must not omit to notice that out of all the\nbooks which Moses wrote, this one book of the second covenant and the song\n(which latter he wrote afterwards so that all the people might learn it),\nwas the only one which he caused to be religiously guarded and preserved.\n(67) In the first covenant he had only bound over those who were present,\nbut in the second covenant he bound over all their descendants also (Dent.\nxxix:14), and therefore ordered this covenant with future ages to be\nreligiously preserved, together with the Song, which was especially\naddressed to posterity: as, then, we have no proof that Moses wrote any\nbook save this of the covenant, and as he committed no other to the care of\nposterity; and, lastly, as there are many passages in the Pentateuch which\nMoses could not have written, it follows that the belief that Moses was the\nauthor of the Pentateuch is ungrounded and even irrational. (68) Someone\nwill perhaps ask whether Moses did not also write down other laws when they\nwere first revealed to him - in other words, whether, during the course of\nforty years, he did not write down any of the laws which he promulgated,\nsave only those few which I have stated to be contained in the book of the\nfirst covenant. (69) To this I would answer, that although it seems\nreasonable to suppose that Moses wrote down the laws at the time when he\nwished to communicate them to the people, yet we are not warranted to take\nit as proved, for I have shown above that we must make no assertions in such\nmatters which we do not gather from Scripture, or which do not flow as\nlegitimate consequences from its fundamental principles. (70) We must not\naccept whatever is reasonably probable. (71) However even reason in this\ncase would not force such a conclusion upon us: for it may be that the\nassembly of elders wrote down the decrees of Moses and communicated them to\nthe people, and the historian collected them, and duly set them forth in his\nnarrative of the life of Moses. (72) So much for the five books of Moses: it\nis now time for us to turn to the other sacred writings.\n\n(73) The book of Joshua may be proved not to be an autograph by reasons\nsimilar to those we have just employed: for it must be some other than\nJoshua who testifies that the fame of Joshua was spread over the whole\nworld; that he omitted nothing of what Moses had taught (Josh. vi:27; viii.\nlast verse; xi:15); that he grew old and summoned an assembly of the whole\npeople, and finally that he departed this life. (74) Furthermore, events are\nrelated which took place after Joshua's death. (75) For instance, that the\nIsraelites worshipped God, after his death, so long as there were any old\nmen alive who remembered him; and in chap. xvi:10, we read that \"Ephraim and\nManasseh did not drive out the Canaanites which dwelt in Gezer, but the\nCanaanite dwelt in the land of Ephraim unto this day, and was tributary to\nhim.\" (76) This is the same statement as that in Judges, chap. i., and the\nphrase \"unto this day\" shows that the writer was speaking of ancient times.\n(77) With these texts we may compare the last verse of chap. xv., concerning\nthe sons of Judah, and also the history of Caleb in the same chap. v:14.\n(78) Further, the building of an altar beyond Jordan by the two tribes and a\nhalf, chap. xxii:10, sqq., seems to have taken place after the death of\nJoshua, for in the whole narrative his name is never mentioned, but the\npeople alone held council as to waging war, sent out legates, waited for\ntheir return, and finally approved of their answer.\n\n(79) Lastly, from chap. x:14, it is clear that the book was written many\ngenerations after the death of Joshua, for it bears witness, there was\nnever any, day like unto, that day, either before or after, that the Lord\nhearkened to the voice of a man,\" &c. (80) If, therefore, Joshua wrote any\nbook at all, it was that which is quoted in the work now before us,\nchap. x:13.\n\n(81) With regard to the book of Judges, I suppose no rational person\npersuades himself that it was written by the actual Judges. (82) For the\nconclusion of the whole history contained in chap. ii. clearly shows that it\nis all the work - of a single historian. (83) Further, inasmuch as the\nwriter frequently tells us that there was then no king in Israel, it is\nevident that the book was written after the establishment of the monarchy.\n\n(84) The books of Samuel need not detain us long, inasmuch as the narrative\nin them is continued long after Samuel's death; but I should like to draw\nattention to the fact that it was written many generations after Samuel's\ndeath. (85) For in book i. chap. ix:9, the historian remarks in a,\nparenthesis, \"Beforetime, in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus\nhe spake: Come, and let us go to the seer; for he that is now called a\nprophet was beforetime called a seer.\"\n\n(86) Lastly, the books of Kings, as we gather from internal evidence, were\ncompiled from the books of King Solomon (I Kings xi:41), from the chronicles\nof the kings of Judah (1 Kings xiv:19, 29), and the chronicles of the kings\nof Israel.\n\n(87) We may, therefore, conclude that all the books we have considered\nhitherto are compilations, and that the events therein are recorded as\nhaving happened in old time. (88) Now, if we turn our attention to the\nconnection and argument of all these books, we shall easily see that they\nwere all written by a single historian, who wished to relate the antiquities\nof the Jews from their first beginning down to the first destruction of the\ncity. (89) The way in which the several books are connected one with the\nother is alone enough to show us that they form the narrative of one and the\nsame writer. (90) For as soon as he has related the life of Moses, the\nhistorian thus passes on to the story of Joshua: \"And it came to pass after\nthat Moses the servant of the Lord was dead, that God spake unto Joshua,\"\n&c., so in the same way, after the death of Joshua was concluded, he passes\nwith identically the same transition and connection to the history of the\nJudges: \"And it came to pass after that Joshua was dead, that the children\nof Israel sought from God,\" &c. (91) To the book of Judges he adds the story\nof Ruth, as a sort of appendix, in these words: \"Now it came to pass in the\ndays that the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land.\"\n\n(92) The first book of Samuel is introduced with a similar phrase; and so is\nthe second book of Samuel. (93) Then, before the history of David is\nconcluded, the historian passes in the same way to the first book of Kings,\nand, after David's death, to the Second book of Kings.\n\n(94) The putting together, and the order of the narratives, show that they\nare all the work of one man, writing with a create aim; for the historian\nbegins with relating the first origin of the Hebrew nation, and then sets\nforth in order the times and the occasions in which Moses put forth his\nlaws, and made his predictions. (95) He then proceeds to relate how the\nIsraelites invaded the promised land in accordance with Moses' prophecy\n(Deut. vii.); and how, when the land was subdued, they turned their backs on\ntheir laws, and thereby incurred many misfortunes (Deut. xxxi:16, 17). (96)\nHe tells how they wished to elect rulers, and how, according as these rulers\nobserved the law, the people flourished or suffered (Deut. xxviii:36);\nfinally, how destruction came upon the nation, even as Moses had foretold.\n(97) In regard to other matters, which do not serve to confirm the law, the\nwriter either passes over them in silence, or refers the reader to other\nbooks for information. (98) All that is set down in the books we have\nconduces to the sole object of setting forth the words and laws of Moses,\nand proving them by subsequent events.(99) When we put together these three\nconsiderations, namely, the unity of the subject of all the books, the\nconnection between them, and the fact that they are compilations made many\ngenerations after the events they relate had taken place, we come to the\nconclusion, as I have just stated, that they are all the work of a single\nhistorian. (100) Who this historian was, it is not so easy to show; but I\nsuspect that he was Ezra, and there are several strong reasons for adopting\nthis hypothesis.\n\n(101) The historian whom we already know to be but one individual brings his\nhistory down to the liberation of Jehoiakim, and adds that he himself sat at\nthe king's table all his life - that is, at the table either of Jehoiakim,\nor of the son of Nebuchadnezzar, for the sense of the passage is ambiguous:\nhence it follows that he did not live before the time of Ezra. (102) But\nScripture does not testify of any except of Ezra (Ezra vii:10), that he\n\"prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to set it forth, and\nfurther that he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses.\" (103) Therefore, I\ncan not find anyone, save Ezra, to whom to attribute the sacred books.\n\n(104) Further, from this testimony concerning Ezra, we see that he prepared\nhis heart, not only to seek the law of the Lord, but also to set it forth;\nand, in Nehemiah viii:8, we read that \"they read in the book of the law of\nGod distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the\nreading.\"\n\n(105) As, then, in Deuteronomy, we find not only the book of the law of\nMoses, or the greater part of it, but also many things inserted for its\nbetter explanation, I conjecture that this Deuteronomy is the book of the\nlaw of God, written, set forth, and explained by Ezra, which is referred to\nin the text above quoted. (106) Two examples of the way matters were\ninserted parenthetically in the text of Deuteronomy, with a view to its\nfuller explanation, we have already given, in speaking of Aben Ezra's\nopinion. (107) Many others are found in the course of the work: for\ninstance, in chap. ii:12: \"The Horims dwelt also in Seir beforetime; but the\nchildren of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before\nthem, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto the land of his\npossession, which the Lord gave unto them.\" (108) This explains verses 3 and\n4 of the same chapter, where it is stated that Mount Seir, which had come to\nthe children of Esau for a possession, did not fall into their hands\nuninhabited; but that they invaded it, and turned out and destroyed the\nHorims, who formerly dwelt therein, even as the children of Israel had done\nunto the Canaanites after the death of Moses.\n\n(109) So, also, verses 6, 7, 8, 9, of the tenth chapter are inserted\nparenthetically among the words of Moses. Everyone must see that verse 8,\nwhich begins, \"At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi,\"\nnecessarily refers to verse 5, and not to the death of Aaron, which is only\nmentioned here by Ezra because Moses, in telling of the golden calf\nworshipped by the people, stated that he had prayed for Aaron.\n\n(110) He then explains that at the time at which Moses spoke, God had chosen\nfor Himself the tribe of Levi in order that He may point out the reason for\ntheir election, and for the fact of their not sharing in the inheritance;\nafter this digression, he resumes the thread of Moses' speech. (111) To\nthese parentheses we must add the preface to the book, and all the passages\nin which Moses is spoken of in the third person, besides many which we\ncannot now distinguish, though, doubtless, they would have been plainly\nrecognized by the writer's contemporaries.\n\n(112) If, I say, we were in possession of the book of the law as Moses wrote\nit, I do not doubt that we should find a great difference in the words of\nthe precepts, the order in which they are given, and the reasons by which\nthey are supported.\n\n(113) A comparison of the decalogue in Deuteronomy with the decalogue in\nExodus, where its history is explicitly set forth, will be sufficient to\nshow us a wide discrepancy in all these three particulars, for the fourth\ncommandment is given not only in a different form, but at much greater\nlength, while the reason for its observance differs wholly from that stated\nin Exodus. (114) Again, the order in which the tenth commandment is\nexplained differs in the two versions. (115) I think that the differences\nhere as elsewhere are the work of Ezra, who explained the law of God to his\ncontemporaries, and who wrote this book of the law of God, before anything\nelse; this I gather from the fact that it contains the laws of the country,\nof which the people stood in most need, and also because it is not joined to\nthe book which precedes it by any connecting phrase, but begins with the\nindependent statement, \"these are the words of Moses.\" (116) After this task\nwas completed, I think Ezra set himself to give a complete account of the\nhistory of the Hebrew nation from the creation of the world to the entire\ndestruction of the city, and in this account he inserted the book of\nDeuteronomy, and, possibly, he called the first five books by the name of\nMoses, because his life is chiefly contained therein, and forms their\nprincipal subject; for the same reason he called the sixth Joshua, the\nseventh Judges, the eighth Ruth, the ninth, and perhaps the tenth, Samuel,\nand, lastly, the eleventh and twelfth Kings. (117) Whether Ezra put the\nfinishing touches to this work and finished it as he intended, we will\ndiscuss in the next chapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX - OTHER QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SAME BOOKS: NAMELY, WHETHER THEY\nWERE COMPLETELY FINISHED BY EZRA, AND, FURTHER, WHETHER THE MARGINAL\nNOTES WHICH ARE FOUND IN THE HEBREW TEXTS WERE VARIOUS READINGS.\n\n(1) How greatly the inquiry we have just made concerning the real writer of\nthe twelve books aids us in attaining a complete understanding of them, may\nbe easily gathered solely from the passages which we have adduced in\nconfirmation of our opinion, and which would be most obscure without it. (2)\nBut besides the question of the writer, there are other points to notice\nwhich common superstition forbids the multitude to apprehend. (3) Of these\nthe chief is, that Ezra (whom I will take to be the author of the aforesaid\nbooks until some more likely person be suggested) did not put the finishing\ntouches to the narrative contained therein, but merely collected the\nhistories from various writers, and sometimes simply set them down, leaving\ntheir examination and arrangement to posterity.\n\n(4) The cause (if it were not untimely death) which prevented him from\ncompleting his work in all its portions, I cannot conjecture, but the fact\nremains most clear, although we have lost the writings of the ancient Hebrew\nhistorians, and can only judge from the few fragments which are still\nextant. (5) For the history of Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii:17), as written in\nthe vision of Isaiah, is related as it is found in the chronicles of the\nkings of Judah. (6) We read the same story, told with few exceptions,\n[Endnote 11], in the same words, in the book of Isaiah which was contained\nin the chronicles of the kings of Judah (2 Chron. xxxii:32). (7) From this\nwe must conclude that there were various versions of this narrative of\nIsaiah's, unless, indeed, anyone would dream that in this, too, there lurks\na mystery. (8) Further, the last chapter of 2 Kings 27-30 is repeated in the\nlast chapter of Jeremiah, v.31-34.\n\n(9) Again, we find 2 Sam. vii. repeated in I Chron. xvii., but the\nexpressions in the two passages are so curiously varied [Endnote 12], that\nwe can very easily see that these two chapters were taken from two different\nversions of the history of Nathan.\n\n(10) Lastly, the genealogy of the kings of Idumaea contained in Genesis\nxxxvi:31, is repeated in the same words in 1 Chron. i., though we know that\nthe author of the latter work took his materials from other historians, not\nfrom the twelve books we have ascribed to Ezra. (10) We may therefore be\nsure that if we still possessed the writings of the historians, the matter\nwould be made clear; however, as we have lost them, we can only examine the\nwritings still extant, and from their order and connection, their various\nrepetitions, and, lastly, the contradictions in dates which they contain,\njudge of the rest.\n\n(11) These, then, or the chief of them, we will now go through. (12) First,\nin the story of Judah and Tamar (Gen. xxxviii.) the historian thus begins:\n\"And it came to pass at that time that Judah went down from his brethren.\"\n(13) This time cannot refer to what immediately precedes [Endnote 13], but\nmust necessarily refer to something else, for from the time when Joseph was\nsold into Egypt to the time when the patriarch Jacob, with all his family,\nset out thither, cannot be reckoned as more than twenty-two years, for\nJoseph, when he was sold by his brethren, was seventeen years old, and when\nhe was summoned by Pharaoh from prison was thirty; if to this we add the\nseven years of plenty and two of famine, the total amounts to twenty-two\nyears. (14) Now, in so short a period, no one can suppose that so many\nthings happened as are described; that Judah had three children, one after\nthe other, from one wife, whom he married at the beginning of the period;\nthat the eldest of these, when he was old enough, married Tamar, and that\nafter he died his next brother succeeded to her; that, after all this,\nJudah, without knowing it, had intercourse with his daughter-in-law, and\nthat she bore him twins, and, finally, that the eldest of these twins became\na father within the aforesaid period. (15) As all these events cannot have\ntaken place within the period mentioned in Genesis, the reference must\nnecessarily be to something treated of in another book: and Ezra in this\ninstance simply related the story, and inserted it without examination among\nhis other writings.\n\n(16) However, not only this chapter but the whole narrative of Joseph and\nJacob is collected and set forth from various histories, inasmuch as it is\nquite inconsistent with itself. (17) For in Gen. xlvii. we are told that\nJacob, when he came at Joseph's bidding to salute Pharaoh, was 130 years\nold. (18) If from this we deduct the twenty-two years which he passed\nsorrowing for the absence of Joseph and the seventeen years forming Joseph's\nage when he was sold, and, lastly, the seven years for which Jacob served\nfor Rachel, we find that he was very advanced in life, namely, eighty four,\nwhen he took Leah to wife, whereas Dinah was scarcely seven years old when\nshe was violated by Shechem, [Endnote 14]. (19) Simeon and Levi were aged\nrespectively eleven and twelve when they spoiled the city and slew all the\nmales therein with the sword.\n\n(20) There is no need that I should go through the whole Pentateuch. (21) If\nanyone pays attention to the way in which all the histories and precepts in\nthese five books are set down promiscuously and without order, with no\nregard for dates; and further, how the same story is often repeated,\nsometimes in a different version, he will easily, I say, discern that all\nthe materials were promiscuously collected and heaped together, in order\nthat they might at some subsequent time be more readily examined and reduced\nto order. (22) Not only these five books, but also the narratives contained\nin the remaining seven, going down to the destruction of the city, are\ncompiled in the same way. (23) For who does not see that in Judges ii:6 a\nnew historian is being quoted, who had also written of the deeds of Joshua,\nand that his words are simply copied? (24) For after our historian has\nstated in the last chapter of the book of Joshua that Joshua died and was\nburied, and has promised, in the first chapter of Judges, to relate what\nhappened after his death, in what way, if he wished to continue the thread\nof his history, could he connect the statement here made about Joshua with\nwhat had gone before?\n\n(25) So, too, 1 Sam. 17, 18, are taken from another historian, who assigns a\ncause for David's first frequenting Saul's court very different from that\ngiven in chap. xvi. of the same book. (26) For he did not think that David\ncame to Saul in consequence of the advice of Saul's servants, as is\nnarrated in chap. xvi., but that being sent by chance to the camp by his\nfather on a message to his brothers, he was for the first time remarked by\nSaul on the occasion of his victory, over Goliath the Philistine, and was\nretained at his court.\n\n(27) I suspect the same thing has taken place in chap. xxvi. of the same\nbook, for the historian there seems to repeat the narrative given in chap.\nxxiv. according to another man's version. (28) But I pass over this, and go\non to the computation of dates.\n\n(29) In I Kings, chap. vi., it is said that Solomon built the Temple in the\nfour hundred and eightieth year after the exodus from Egypt; but from the\nhistorians themselves we get a much longer period, for:\n\n                                                                      Years.\n  Moses governed the people in the desert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40\n  Joshua, who lived 110 years, did not, according to Josephus and\n      others' opinion rule more than  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26\n  Cusban Rishathaim held the people in subjection . . . . . . . . . . .  8\n  Othniel, son of Kenag, was judge for  . . . . . . . . .  [Endnote 15] 40\n  Eglon, King of Moab, governed the people  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18\n  Ehud and Shamgar were judges  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80\n  Jachin, King of Canaan, held the people in subjection . . . . . . . . 20\n  The people was at peace subsequently for  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40\n  It was under subjection to Median . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7\n  It obtained freedom under Gideon for  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40\n  It fell under the rule of Abimelech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3\n  Tola, son of Puah, was judge  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23\n  Jair was judge  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22\n  The people was in subjection to the Philistines and Ammonites . . . . 18\n  Jephthah was judge  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6\n  Ibzan, the Bethlehemite, was judge  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7\n  Elon, the Zabulonite  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10\n  Abclon, the Pirathonite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8\n  The people was again subject to the Philistines . . . . . . . . . . . 40\n  Samson was judge  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  [Endnote 16] 20\n  Eli was judge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40\n  The people again fell into subjection to the Philistines,\n      till they were delivered by Samuel .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20\n  David reigned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40\n  Solomon reigned before he built the temple  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4\n\n(30) All these periods added together make a total of 580 years. (31) But to\nthese must be added the years during which the Hebrew republic flourished\nafter the death of Joshua, until it was conquered by Cushan Rishathaim,\nwhich I take to be very numerous, for I cannot bring myself to believe that\nimmediately after the death of Joshua all those who had witnessed his\nmiracles died simultaneously, nor that their successors at one stroke bid\nfarewell to their laws, and plunged from the highest virtue into the depth\nof wickedness and obstinacy.\n\n(32) Nor, lastly, that Cushan Rishathaim subdued them on the instant; each\none of these circumstances requires almost a generation, and there is no\ndoubt that Judges ii:7, 9, 10, comprehends a great many years which it\npasses over in silence. (33) We must also add the years during which Samuel\nwas judge, the number of which is not stated in Scripture, and also the\nyears during which Saul reigned, which are not clearly shown from his\nhistory. (34) It is, indeed, stated in 1 Sam. xiii:1, that he reigned two\nyears, but the text in that passage is mutilated, and the records of his\nreign lead us to suppose a longer period. (35) That the text is mutilated I\nsuppose no one will doubt who has ever advanced so far as the threshold of\nthe Hebrew language, for it runs as follows: \"Saul was in his -- year, when\nhe began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel.\" (36) Who, I say,\ndoes not see that the number of the years of Saul's age when he began to\nreign has been omitted? (37) That the record of the reign presupposes a\ngreater number of years is equally beyond doubt, for in the same book, chap.\nxxvii:7, it is stated that David sojourned among the Philistines, to whom he\nhad fled on account of Saul, a year and four months; thus the rest of the\nreign must have been comprised in a space of eight months, which I think\nno one will credit. (38) Josephus, at the end of the sixth book of his\nantiquities, thus corrects the text: Saul reigned eighteen years while\nSamuel was alive, and two years after his death. (39) However, all the\nnarrative in chap. xiii. is in complete disagreement with what goes before.\n(40) At the end of chap. vii. it is narrated that the Philistines were so\ncrushed by the Hebrews that they did not venture, during Samuel's life, to\ninvade the borders of Israel; but in chap. xiii. we are told that the\nHebrews were invaded during the life of Samuel by the Philistines, and\nreduced by them to such a state of wretchedness and poverty that they were\ndeprived not only of weapons with which to defend themselves, but also of\nthe means of making more. (41) I should be at pains enough if I were to try\nand harmonize all the narratives contained in this first book of Samuel so\nthat they should seem to be all written and arranged by a single historian.\n(42) But I return to my object. (43) The years, then, during which Saul\nreigned must be added to the above computation; and, lastly, I have not\ncounted the years of the Hebrew anarchy, for I cannot from Scripture gather\ntheir number. (44) I cannot, I say, be certain as to the period occupied by\nthe events related in Judges chap. xvii. on till the end of the book.\n\n(45) It is thus abundantly evident that we cannot arrive at a true\ncomputation of years from the histories, and, further, that the histories\nare inconsistent themselves on the subject. (46) We are compelled to confess\nthat these histories were compiled from various writers without previous\narrangement and examination. (47) Not less discrepancy is found between the\ndates given in the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, and those in the\nChronicles of the Kings of Israel; in the latter, it is stated that Jehoram,\nthe son of Ahab, began to reign in the second year of the reign of Jehoram,\nthe son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings i:17), but in the former we read that\nJehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, began to reign in the fifth year of\nJehoram, the son of Ahab (2 Kings viii:16). (48) Anyone who compares the\nnarratives in Chronicles with the narratives in the books of Kings, will\nfind many similar discrepancies. (49) These there is no need for me to\nexamine here, and still less am I called upon to treat of the commentaries\nof those who endeavour to harmonize them. (50) The Rabbis evidently let their\nfancy run wild. (51) Such commentators as I have, read, dream, invent, and\nas a last resort, play fast and loose with the language. (52) For instance,\nwhen it is said in 2 Chronicles, that Ahab was forty-two years old when he\nbegan to reign, they pretend that these years are computed from the reign of\nOmri, not from the birth of Ahab. (53) If this can be shown to be the real\nmeaning of the writer of the book of Chronicles, all I can say is, that he\ndid not know how to state a fact. (54) The commentators make many other\nassertions of this kind, which if true, would prove that the ancient Hebrews\nwere ignorant both of their own language, and of the way to relate a plain\nnarrative. (55) I should in such case recognize no rule or reason in\ninterpreting Scripture, but it would be permissible to hypothesize to one's\nheart's content.\n\n(56) If anyone thinks that I am speaking too generally, and without\nsufficient warrant, I would ask him to set himself to showing us some fixed\nplan in these histories which might be followed without blame by other\nwriters of chronicles, and in his efforts at harmonizing and interpretation,\nso strictly to observe and explain the phrases and expressions, the order\nand the connections, that we may be able to imitate these also in our\nwritings (17). (57) If he succeeds, I will at once give him my hand, and he\nshall be to me as great Apollo; for I confess that after long endeavours I\nhave been unable to discover anything of the kind. (58) I may add that I set\ndown nothing here which I have not long reflected upon, and that, though I\nwas imbued from my boyhood up with the ordinary opinions about the\nScriptures, I have been unable to withstand the force of what I have urged.\n\n(59) However, there is no need to detain the reader with this question, and\ndrive him to attempt an impossible task; I merely mentioned the fact in\norder to throw light on my intention.\n\n(60) I now pass on to other points concerning the treatment of these books.\n(61) For we must remark, in addition to what has been shown, that these\nbooks were not guarded by posterity with such care that no faults crept in.\n(62) The ancient scribes draw attention to many doubtful readings, and some\nmutilated passages, but not to all that exist: whether the faults are\nof sufficient importance to greatly embarrass the reader I will not now\ndiscuss. (63) I am inclined to think that they are of minor moment to those,\nat any rate, who read the Scriptures with enlightenment: and I can\npositively, affirm that I have not noticed any fault or various reading in\ndoctrinal passages sufficient to render them obscure or doubtful.\n\n(64) There are some people, however, who will not admit that there is any\ncorruption, even in other passages, but maintain that by some unique\nexercise of providence God has preserved from corruption every word in the\nBible: they say that the various readings are the symbols of profoundest\nmysteries, and that mighty secrets lie hid in the twenty-eight hiatus which\noccur, nay, even in the very form of the letters.\n\n(65) Whether they are actuated by folly and anile devotion, or whether by\narrogance and malice so that they alone may be held to possess the secrets\nof God, I know not: this much I do know, that I find in their writings\nnothing which has the air of a Divine secret, but only childish\nlucubrations. (66) I have read and known certain Kabbalistic triflers, whose\ninsanity provokes my unceasing astonishment. (67) That faults have crept\nin will, I think, be denied by no sensible person who reads the passage\nabout Saul, above quoted (1 Sam. xiii:1) and also 2 Sam. vi:2: \"And David\narose and went with all the people that were with him from Judah, to bring\nup from thence the ark of God.\"\n\n(68) No one can fail to remark that the name of their destination, viz.,\nKirjath-jearim [Endnote 18], has been omitted: nor can we deny that\n2 Sam. xiii:37, has been tampered with and mutilated. \"And Absalom fled, and\nwent to Talmai, the son of Ammihud, king of Geshur. (69) And he mourned for\nhis son every day. So Absalom fled, and went to Geshur, and was there three\nyears.\" (70) I know that I have remarked other passages of the same kind,\nbut I cannot recall them at the moment.\n\n(71) That the marginal notes which are found continually in the Hebrew\nCodices are doubtful readings will, I think, be evident to everyone who has\nnoticed that they often arise from the great similarity, of some of the\nHebrew letters, such for instance, as the similarity between Kaph and Beth,\nJod and Vau, Daleth and Reth, &c. (72) For example, the text in\n2 Sam. v:24, runs \"in the time when thou hearest,\" and similarly in\nJudges xxi:22, \"And it shall be when their fathers or their brothers come\nunto us often,\" the marginal version is \"come unto us to complain.\"\n\n(73) So also many various readings have arisen from the use of the letters\nnamed mutes, which are generally not sounded in pronunciation, and are taken\npromiscuously, one for the other. (74) For example, in Levit. xxv:29, it is\nwritten, \"The house shall be established which is not in the walled city,\"\nbut the margin has it, \"which is in a walled city.\"\n\n(75) Though these matters are self-evident, [Endnore 6], it is necessary, to\nanswer the reasonings of certain Pharisees, by which they endeavour to\nconvince us that the marginal notes serve to indicate some mystery, and were\nadded or pointed out by the writers of the sacred books. (76) The first of\nthese reasons, which, in my opinion, carries little weight, is taken from\nthe practice of reading the Scriptures aloud.\n\n(77) If, it is urged, these notes were added to show various readings which\ncould not be decided upon by posterity, why has custom prevailed that the\nmarginal readings should always be retained? (78) Why has the meaning which\nis preferred been set down in the margin when it ought to have been\nincorporated in the text, and not relegated to a side note?\n\n(79) The second reason is more specious, and is taken from the nature of the\ncase. (80) It is admitted that faults have crept into the sacred writings by\nchance and not by design; but they say that in the five books the word for a\ngirl is, with one exception, written without the letter \"he,\" contrary to\nall grammatical rules, whereas in the margin it is written correctly\naccording to the universal rule of grammar. (81) Can this have happened by\nmistake? Is it possible to imagine a clerical error to have been committed\nevery time the word occurs? (82) Moreover, it would have been easy to\nsupply the emendation. (83) Hence, when these readings are not accidental\nor corrections of manifest mistakes, it is supposed that they must have been\nset down on purpose by the original writers, and have a meaning. (84)\nHowever, it is easy to answer such arguments; as to the question of custom\nhaving prevailed in the reading of the marginal versions, I will not spare\nmuch time for its consideration: I know not the promptings of superstition,\nand perhaps the practice may have arisen from the idea that both readings\nwere deemed equally good or tolerable, and therefore, lest either should be\nneglected, one was appointed to be written, and the other to be read. (85)\nThey feared to pronounce judgment in so weighty a matter lest they should\nmistake the false for the true, and therefore they would give preference to\nneither, as they must necessarily have done if they had commanded one only\nto be both read and written. (86) This would be especially the case where\nthe marginal readings were not written down in the sacred books: or the\ncustom may have originated because some things though rightly written down\nwere desired to be read otherwise according to the marginal version, and\ntherefore the general rule was made that the marginal version should be\nfollowed in reading the Scriptures. (87) The cause which induced the scribes\nto expressly prescribe certain passages to be read in the marginal version,\nI will now touch on, for not all the marginal notes are various readings,\nbut some mark expressions which have passed out of common use, obsolete\nwords and terms which current decency did not allow to be read in a public\nassembly. (88) The ancient writers, without any evil intention, employed no\ncourtly paraphrase, but called things by their plain names. (891)\nAfterwards, through the spread of evil thoughts and luxury, words which\ncould be used by the ancients without offence, came to be considered\nobscene. (90) There was no need for this cause to change the text of\nScripture. (91) Still, as a concession to the popular weakness, it became\nthe custom to substitute more decent terms for words denoting sexual\nintercourse, excreta, &c., and to read them as they were given in the\nmargin.\n\n(92) At any rate, whatever may have been the origin of the practice of\nreading Scripture according to the marginal version, it was not that the\ntrue interpretation is contained therein. (93) For besides that, the\nRabbins in the Talmud often differ from the Massoretes, and give other\nreadings which they approve of, as I will shortly show, certain things are\nfound in the margin which appear less warranted by the uses of the Hebrew\nlanguage. (94) For example, in 2 Samuel xiv:22, we read, \"In that the king\nhath fulfilled the request of his servant,\" a construction plainly\nregular, and agreeing with that in chap. xvi. (95) But the margin has it\n\"of thy servant,\" which does not agree with the person of the verb. (96)\nSo, too, chap. xvi:25 of the same book, we find, \"As if one had inquired at\nthe oracle of God,\" the margin adding \"someone\" to stand as a nominative to\nthe verb. (97) But the correction is not apparently warranted, for it is\na common practice, well known to grammarians in the Hebrew language, to use\nthe third person singular of the active verb impersonally.\n\n(98) The second argument advanced by the Pharisees is easily answered from\nwhat has just been said, namely, that the scribes besides the various\nreadings called attention to obsolete words. (99) For there is no doubt\nthat in Hebrew as in other languages, changes of use made many words\nobsolete and antiquated, and such were found by the later scribes in the\nsacred books and noted by them with a view to the books being publicly read\naccording to custom. (100) For this reason the word nahgar is always found\nmarked because its gender was originally common, and it had the same meaning\nas the Latin juvenis (a young person). (101) So also the Hebrew capital was\nanciently called Jerusalem, not Jerusalaim. (102) As to the pronouns himself\nand herself, I think that the later scribes changed vau into jod (a very\nfrequent change in Hebrew) when they wished to express the feminine gender,\nbut that the ancients only distinguished the two genders by a change of\nvowels. (103) I may also remark that the irregular tenses of certain verbs\ndiffer in the ancient and modern forms, it being formerly considered a mark\nof elegance to employ certain letters agreeable to the ear.\n\n(104) In a word, I could easily multiply proofs of this kind if I were not\nafraid of abusing the patience of the reader. (105) Perhaps I shall be asked\nhow I became acquainted with the fact that all these expressions are\nobsolete. (106) I reply that I have found them in the most ancient Hebrew\nwriters in the Bible itself, and that they have not been imitated by\nsubsequent authors, and thus they are recognized as antiquated, though the\nlanguage in which they occur is dead. (107) But perhaps someone may press\nthe question why, if it be true, as I say, that the marginal notes of the\nBible generally mark various readings, there are never more than two\nreadings of a passage, that in the text and that in the margin, instead of\nthree or more; and further, how the scribes can have hesitated between two\nreadings, one of which is evidently contrary to grammar, and the other a\nplain correction.\n\n(108) The answer to these questions also is easy: I will premise that it is\nalmost certain that there once were more various readings than those now\nrecorded. (119) For instance, one finds many in the Talmud which the\nMassoretes have neglected, and are so different one from the other that\neven the superstitious editor of the Bomberg Bible confesses that he cannot\nharmonize them. (110) \"We cannot say anything,\" he writes, \"except what we\nhave said above, namely, that the Talmud is generally in contradiction to\nthe Massorete.\" (111) So that we are nor bound to hold that there never were\nmore than two readings of any passage, yet I am willing to admit, and\nindeed I believe that more than two readings are never found: and for the\nfollowing reasons:-(112) (I.) The cause of the differences of reading only\nadmits of two, being generally the similarity of certain letters, so that\nthe question resolved itself into which should be written Beth, or Kaf,\nJod or Vau, Daleth or Reth: cases which are constantly occurring, and\nfrequently yielding a fairly good meaning whichever alternative be adopted.\n(113) Sometimes, too, it is a question whether a syllable be long or short,\nquantity being determined by the letters called mutes. (114) Moreover, we\nnever asserted that all the marginal versions, without exception, marked\nvarious readings; on the contrary, we have stated that many were due to\nmotives of decency or a desire to explain obsolete words. (115) (II.) I am\ninclined to attribute the fact that more than two readings are never found\nto the paucity of exemplars, perhaps not more than two or three, found by\nthe scribes. (116) In the treatise of the scribes, chap. vi., mention is\nmade of three only, pretended to have been found in the time of Ezra, in\norder that the marginal versions might be attributed to him.\n\n(117) However that may be, if the scribes only had three codices we may\neasily imagine that in a given passage two of them would be in accord, for\nit would be extraordinary if each one of the three gave a different reading\nof the same text.\n\n(118) The dearth of copies after the time of Ezra will surprise no one who\nhas read the 1st chapter of Maccabees, or Josephus's \"Antiquities,\" Bk. 12,\nchap. 5. (119) Nay, it appears wonderful considering the fierce and daily\npersecution, that even these few should have been preserved. (120) This\nwill, I think, be plain to even a cursory reader of the history of those\ntimes.\n\n(121) We have thus discovered the reasons why there are never more than two\nreadings of a passage in the Bible, but this is a long way from supposing\nthat we may therefore conclude that the Bible was purposely written\nincorrectly in such passages in order to signify some mystery. (122) As to\nthe second argument, that some passages are so faultily written that they\nare at plain variance with all grammar, and should have been corrected in\nthe text and not in the margin, I attach little weight to it, for I am not\nconcerned to say what religious motive the scribes may have had for acting\nas they did: possibly they did so from candour, wishing to transmit the few\nexemplars of the Bible which they had found exactly in their original state,\nmarking the differences they discovered in the margin, not as doubtful\nreadings, but as simple variants. (123) I have myself called them doubtful\nreadings, because it would be generally impossible to say which of the two\nversions is preferable.\n\n(124) Lastly, besides these doubtful readings the scribes have (by leaving a\nhiatus in the middle of a paragraph) marked several passages as mutilated.\n(125) The Massoretes have counted up such instances, and they amount to\neight-and-twenty. (126) I do not know whether any mystery is thought to lurk\nin the number, at any rate the Pharisees religiously preserve a certain\namount of empty space.\n\n(127) One of such hiatus occurs (to give an instance) in Gen. iv:8, where it\nis written, \"And Cain said to his brother . . . . and it came to pass while\nthey were in the field, &c.,\" a space being left in which we should expect\nto hear what it was that Cain said.\n\n(128) Similarly there are (besides those points we have noticed)\neight-and-twenty hiatus left by the scribes. (129) Many of these would not\nbe recognized as mutilated if it were not for the empty space left. But I\nhave said enough on this subject.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X. - AN EXAMINATION OF THE REMAINING BOOKS OF\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT ACCORDING TO THE PRECEDING METHOD.\n\n(1) I now pass on to the remaining books of the Old Testament. (2)\nConcerning the two books of Chronicles I have nothing particular or\nimportant to remark, except that they were certainly written after the time\nof Ezra, and possibly after the restoration of the Temple by Judas\nMaccabaeus [Endnote 19]. (2) For in chap. ix. of the first book we find a\nreckoning of the families who were the first to live in Jerusalem, and in\nverse 17 the names of the porters, of which two recur in Nehemiah. (3) This\nshows that the books were certainly compiled after the rebuilding of the\ncity. (4) As to their actual writer, their authority, utility, and doctrine,\nI come to no conclusion. (5) I have always been astonished that they have\nbeen included in the Bible by men who shut out from the canon the books of\nWisdom, Tobit, and the others styled apocryphal. (6) I do not aim at\ndisparaging their authority, but as they are universally received I will\nleave them as they are.\n\n(7) The Psalms were collected and divided into five books in the time of the\nsecond temple, for Ps. lxxxviii. was published, according to Philo-Judaeus,\nwhile king Jehoiachin was still a prisoner in Babylon; and Ps. lxxxix. when\nthe same king obtained his liberty: I do not think Philo would have made the\nstatement unless either it had been the received opinion in his time, or\nelse had been told him by trustworthy persons.\n\n(8) The Proverbs of Solomon were, I believe, collected at the same time, or\nat least in the time of King Josiah; for in chap. xxv:1, it is written,\n\"These are also proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah, king of\nJudah, copied out.\" (9) I cannot here pass over in silence the audacity\nof the Rabbis who wished to exclude from the sacred canon both the Proverbs\nand Ecclesiastes, and to put them both in the Apocrypha. (10) In fact, they\nwould actually have done so, if they had not lighted on certain passages in\nwhich the law of Moses is extolled. (11) It is, indeed, grievous to think\nthat the settling of the sacred canon lay in the hands of such men; however,\nI congratulate them, in this instance, on their suffering us to see these\nbooks in question, though I cannot refrain from doubting whether they have\ntransmitted them in absolute good faith; but I will not now linger on this\npoint.\n\n(10) I pass on, then, to the prophetic books. (11) An examination of these\nassures me that the prophecies therein contained have been compiled from\nother books, and are not always set down in the exact order in which they\nwere spoken or written by the prophets, but are only such as were collected\nhere and there, so that they are but fragmentary.\n\n(12) Isaiah began to prophecy in the reign of Uzziah, as the writer himself\ntestifies in the first verse. (13) He not only prophesied at that time, but\nfurthermore wrote the history of that king (see 2 Chron. xxvi:22) in a\nvolume now lost. (13) That which we possess, we have shown to have been\ntaken from the chronicles of the kings of Judah and Israel.\n\n(14) We may add that the Rabbis assert that this prophet prophesied in the\nreign of Manasseh, by whom he was eventually put to death, and, although\nthis seems to be a myth, it yet shows that they did not think that all\nIsaiah's prophecies are extant.\n\n(15) The prophecies of Jeremiah, which are related historically are also\ntaken from various chronicles; for not only are they heaped together\nconfusedly, without any account being taken of dates, but also the same\nstory is told in them differently in different passages. (16) For instance,\nin chap. xxi. we are told that the cause of Jeremiah's arrest was that he\nhad prophesied the destruction of the city to Zedekiah who consulted him.\n(17) This narrative suddenly passes, in chap xxii., to the prophet's\nremonstrances to Jehoiakim (Zedekiah's predecessor), and the prediction he\nmade of that king's captivity; then, in chap. xxv., come the revelations\ngranted to the prophet previously, that is in the fourth year of Jehoiakim,\nand, further on still, the revelations received in the first year of the\nsame reign. (18) The continuator of Jeremiah goes on heaping prophecy\nupon prophecy without any regard to dates, until at last, in chap. xxxviii.\n(as if the intervening chapters had been a parenthesis), he takes up the\nthread dropped in chap. xxi.\n\n(19) In fact, the conjunction with which chap. xxxviii. begins, refers to\nthe 8th, 9th, and 10th verses of chap. xxi. Jeremiah's last arrest is then\nvery differently described, and a totally separate cause is given for his\ndaily retention in the court of the prison.\n\n(20) We may thus clearly see that these portions of the book have been\ncompiled from various sources, and are only from this point of view\ncomprehensible. (21) The prophecies contained in the remaining chapters,\nwhere Jeremiah speaks in the first person, seem to be taken from a\nbook written by Baruch, at Jeremiah's dictation. (22) These, however, only\ncomprise (as appears from chap. xxxvi:2) the prophecies revealed to the\nprophet from the time of Josiah to the fourth year of Jehoiakim, at which\nperiod the book begins. (23) The contents of chap. xlv:2, on to chap.\nli:59, seem taken from the same volume.\n\n(24) That the book of Ezekiel is only a fragment, is clearly indicated by\nthe first verse. (25) For anyone may see that the conjunction with which it\nbegins, refers to something already said, and connects what follows\ntherewith. (26) However, not only this conjunction, but the whole text\nof the discourse implies other writings. (27) The fact of the present work\nbeginning the thirtieth year shows that the prophet is continuing, not\ncommencing a discourse; and this is confirmed by the writer, who\nparenthetically states in verse 3, \"The word of the Lord came often unto\nEzekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans,\" as if to\nsay that the prophecies which he is about to relate are the sequel to\nrevelations formerly received by Ezekiel from God. (28) Furthermore,\nJosephus, 11 Antiq.\" x:9, says that Ezekiel prophesied that Zedekiah should\nnot see Babylon, whereas the book we now have not only contains no such\nstatement, but contrariwise asserts in chap. xvii. that he should be taken\nto Babylon as a captive, [Endnote 20].\n\n(29) Of Hosea I cannot positively state that he wrote more than is now\nextant in the book bearing his name, but I am astonished at the smallness of\nthe quantity we possess, for the sacred writer asserts that the prophet\nprophesied for more than eighty years.\n\n(30) We may assert, speaking generally, that the compiler of the prophetic\nbooks neither collected all the prophets, nor all the writings of those we\nhave; for of the prophets who are said to have prophesied in the reign of\nManasseh and of whom general mention is made in 2 Chron. xxxiii:10, 18, we\nhave, evidently, no prophecies extant; neither have we all the prophecies of\nthe twelve who give their names to books. (31) Of Jonah we have only the\nprophecy concerning the Ninevites, though he also prophesied to the children\nof Israel, as we learn in 2 Kings xiv:25.\n\n(32) The book and the personality of Job have caused much controversy. (33)\nSome think that the book is the work of Moses, and the whole narrative\nmerely allegorical. (34) Such is the opinion of the Rabbins recorded in the\nTalmud, and they are supported by, Maimonides in his \"More Nebuchim.\" (35)\nOthers believe it to be a true history, and some suppose that Job lived in\nthe time of Jacob, and was married to his daughter Dinah. (36) Aben Ezra,\nhowever, as I have already stated, affirms, in his commentaries, that the\nwork is a translation into Hebrew from some other language: I could wish\nthat he could advance more cogent arguments than he does, for we might then\nconclude that the Gentiles also had sacred books. (37) I myself leave the\nmatter undecided, but I conjecture Job to have been a Gentile, and a man of\nvery stable character, who at first prospered, then was assailed with\nterrible calamities, and finally, was restored to great happiness. (38) (He\nis thus named, among others, by Ezekiel, xiv:12.) (39) I take it that the\nconstancy of his mind amid the vicissitudes of his fortune occasioned many\nmen to dispute about God's providence, or at least caused the writer of the\nbook in question to compose his dialogues; for the contents, and also the\nstyle, seem to emanate far less from a man wretchedly ill and lying among\nashes, than from one reflecting at ease in his study. (40) I should also be\ninclined to agree with Aben Ezra that the book is a translation, for its\npoetry seems akin to that of the Gentiles; thus the Father of Gods summons a\ncouncil, and Momus, here called Satan, criticizes the Divine decrees with\nthe utmost freedom. (41) But these are mere conjectures without any solid\nfoundation.\n\n(42) I pass on to the book of Daniel, which, from chap. viii. onwards,\nundoubtedly contains the writing of Daniel himself. (43) Whence the first\nseven chapters are derived I cannot say; we may, however, conjecture that,\nas they were first written in Chaldean, they are taken from Chaldean\nchronicles. (44) If this could be proved, it would form a very striking\nproof of the fact that the sacredness of Scripture depends on our\nunderstanding of the doctrines therein signified, and not on the words, the\nlanguage, and the phrases in which these doctrines are conveyed to us;\nand it would further show us that books which teach and speak of whatever is\nhighest and best are equally sacred, whatever be the tongue in which they\nare written, or the nation to which they belong.\n\n(45) We can, however, in this case only remark that the chapters in question\nwere written in Chaldee, and yet are as sacred as the rest of the Bible.\n\n(46) The first book of Ezra is so intimately connected with the book of\nDaniel that both are plainly recognizable as the work of the same author,\nwriting of Jewish history from the time of the first captivity onwards. (47)\nI have no hesitation in joining to this the book of Esther, for the\nconjunction with which it begins can refer to nothing else. (48) It cannot\nbe the same work as that written by Mordecai, for, in chap. ix:20-22,\nanother person relates that Mordecai wrote letters, and tells us their\ncontents; further, that Queen Esther confirmed the days of Purim in their\ntimes appointed, and that the decree was written in the book that is (by a\nHebraism), in a book known to all then living, which, as Aben Ezra and the\nrest confess, has now perished. (49) Lastly, for the rest of the acts of\nMordecai, the historian refers us to the chronicles of the kings of\nPersia. (50) Thus there is no doubt that this book was written by the same\nperson as he who recounted the history of Daniel and Ezra, and who wrote\nNehemiah, [Endnote 21], sometimes called the second book of Ezra. (51) We\nmay, then, affirm that all these books are from one hand; but we have no\nclue whatever to the personality of the author. (52) However, in order to\ndetermine whence he, whoever he was, had gained a knowledge of the histories\nwhich he had, perchance, in great measure himself written, we may remark\nthat the governors or chiefs of the Jews, after the restoration of the\nTemple, kept scribes or historiographers, who wrote annals or chronicles of\nthem. (53) The chronicles of the kings are often quoted in the books of\nKings, but the chronicles of the chiefs and priests are quoted for the first\ntime in Nehemiah xii:23, and again in 1 Macc. xvi:24. (54) This is\nundoubtedly the book referred to as containing the decree of Esther and the\nacts of Mordecai; and which, as we said with Aben Ezra, is now lost. (55)\nFrom it were taken the whole contents of these four books, for no other\nauthority is quoted by their writer, or is known to us.\n\n(56) That these books were not written by either Ezra or Nehemiah is plain\nfrom Nehemiah xii:9, where the descendants of the high priest, Joshua are\ntraced down to Jaddua, the sixth high priest, who went to meet Alexander the\nGreat, when the Persian empire was almost subdued (Josephus, \"Ant.\" ii.\n108), or who, according to Philo-Judaeus, was the sixth and last high priest\nunder the Persians. (57) In the same chapter of Nehemiah, verse 22, this\npoint is clearly brought out: \"The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada,\nand Johanan, and Jaddua, were recorded chief of the fathers: also the\npriests, to the reign of Darius the Persian\" - that is to say, in the\nchronicles; and, I suppose, no one thinks [Endnote 22]  that the lives of\nNehemiah and Ezra were so prolonged that they outlived fourteen kings of\nPersia. (58) Cyrus was the first who granted the Jews permission to rebuild\ntheir Temple: the period between his time and Darius, fourteenth and last\nking of Persia, extends over 230 years. (59) I have, therefore, no doubt\nthat these books were written after Judas Maccabaeus had restored the\nworship in the Temple, for at that time false books of Daniel, Ezra, and\nEsther were published by evil-disposed persons, who were almost certainly\nSadducees, for the writings were never recognized by the Pharisees, so far\nas I am aware; and, although certain myths in the fourth book of Ezra are\nrepeated in the Talmud, they must not be set down to the Pharisees, for all\nbut the most ignorant admit that they have been added by some trifler: in\nfact, I think, someone must have made such additions with a view to casting\nridicule on all the traditions of the sect.\n\n(60) Perhaps these four books were written out and published at the time I\nhave mentioned with a view to showing the people that the prophecies of\nDaniel had been fulfilled, and thus kindling their piety, and awakening a\nhope of future deliverance in the midst of their misfortunes. (61) In\nspite of their recent origin, the books before us contain many errors, due,\nI suppose, to the haste with which they were written. (62) Marginal\nreadings, such as I have mentioned in the last chapter, are found here as\nelsewhere, and in even greater abundance; there are, moreover, certain\npassages which can only be accounted for by supposing some such cause as\nhurry.\n\n(63) However, before calling attention to the marginal readings, I will\nremark that, if the Pharisees are right in supposing them to have been\nancient, and the work of the original scribes, we must perforce admit that\nthese scribes (if there were more than one) set them down because they\nfound that the text from which they were copying was inaccurate, and did yet\nnot venture to alter what was written by their predecessors and superiors.\n(64) I need not again go into the subject at length, and will, therefore,\nproceed to mention some discrepancies not noticed in the margin.\n\n(65) I. Some error has crept into the text of the second chapter of Ezra,\nfor in verse 64 we are told that the total of all those mentioned in the\nrest of the chapter amounts to 42,360; but, when we come to add up the\nseveral items we get as result only 29,818. (66) There must, therefore, be\nan error, either in the total, or in the details. (67) The total is probably\ncorrect, for it would most likely be well known to all as a noteworthy\nthing; but with the details, the case would be different. (68) If, then, any\nerror had crept into the total, it would at once have been remarked, and\neasily corrected. (69) This view is confirmed by Nehemiah vii., where this\nchapter of Ezra is mentioned, and a total is given in plain correspondence\nthereto; but the details are altogether different - some are larger, and\nsome less, than those in Ezra, and altogether they amount to 31,089.\n(70) We may, therefore, conclude that both in Ezra and in Nehemiah the\ndetails are erroneously given. (71) The commentators who attempt to\nharmonize these evident contradictions draw on their imagination, each to\nthe best of his ability; and while professing adoration for each letter and\nword of Scripture, only succeed in holding up the sacred writers to\nridicule, as though they knew not how to write or relate a plain narrative.\n(72) Such persons effect nothing but to render the clearness of Scripture\nobscure. (73) If the Bible could everywhere be interpreted after their\nfashion, there would be no such thing as a rational statement of which\nthe meaning could be relied on. (74) However, there is no need to dwell on\nthe subject; only I am convinced that if any historian were to attempt to\nimitate the proceedings freely attributed to the writers of the Bible, the\ncommentators would cover him with contempt. (75) If it be blasphemy to\nassert that there are any errors in Scripture, what name shall we apply to\nthose who foist into it their own fancies, who degrade the sacred writers\ntill they seem to write confused nonsense, and who deny the plainest and\nmost evident meanings? (76) What in the whole Bible can be plainer than the\nfact that Ezra and his companions, in the second chapter of the book\nattributed to him, have given in detail the reckoning of all the Hebrews who\nset out with them for Jerusalem? (77) This is proved by the reckoning being\ngiven, not only of those who told their lineage, but also of those who were\nunable to do so. (78) Is it not equally clear from Nehemiah vii:5, that the\nwriter merely there copies the list given in Ezra? (79) Those, therefore,\nwho explain these passages otherwise, deny the plain meaning of Scripture -\nnay, they deny Scripture itself. (80) They think it pious to reconcile one\npassage of Scripture with another - a pretty piety, forsooth, which\naccommodates the clear passages to the obscure, the correct to the faulty,\nthe sound to the corrupt.\n\n(81) Far be it from me to call such commentators blasphemers, if their\nmotives be pure: for to err is human. But I return to my subject.\n\n(82) Besides these errors in numerical details, there are others in the\ngenealogies, in the history, and, I fear also in the prophecies. (83) The\nprophecy of Jeremiah (chap. xxii.), concerning Jechoniah, evidently does not\nagree with his history, as given in I Chronicles iii:17-19, and especially\nwith the last words of the chapter, nor do I see how the prophecy, \"thou\nshalt die in peace,\" can be applied to Zedekiah, whose eyes were dug out\nafter his sons had been slain before him. (84) If prophecies are to be\ninterpreted by their issue, we must make a change of name, and read\nJechoniah for Zedekiah, and vice versa (85) This, however, would be too\nparadoxical a proceeding; so I prefer to leave the matter unexplained,\nespecially as the error, if error there be, must be set down to the\nhistorian, and not to any fault in the authorities.\n\n(86) Other difficulties I will not touch upon, as I should only weary the\nreader, and, moreover, be repeating the remarks of other writers. (87) For\nR. Selomo, in face of the manifest contradiction in the above-mentioned\ngenealogies, is compelled to break forth into these words (see his\ncommentary on 1 Chron. viii.): \"Ezra (whom he supposes to be the author of\nthe book of Chronicles) gives different names and a different genealogy to\nthe sons of Benjamin from those which we find in Genesis, and describes most\nof the Levites differently from Joshua, because he found original\ndiscrepancies.\" (88) And, again, a little later: \"The genealogy of Gibeon\nand others is described twice in different ways, from different tables of\neach genealogy, and in writing them down Ezra adopted the version given in\nthe majority of the texts, and when the authority was equal he gave both.\"\n(89) Thus granting that these books were compiled from sources originally\nincorrect and uncertain.\n\n(90) In fact the commentators, in seeking to harmonize difficulties,\ngenerally do no more than indicate their causes: for I suppose no sane\nperson supposes that the sacred historians deliberately wrote with the\nobject of appearing to contradict themselves freely. (91) Perhaps I\nshall be told that I am overthrowing the authority of Scripture, for that,\naccording to me, anyone may suspect it of error in any passage; but, on the\ncontrary, I have shown that my object has been to prevent the clear and\nuncorrupted passages being accommodated to and corrupted by the faulty ones;\nneither does the fact that some passages are corrupt warrant us in\nsuspecting all. (92) No book ever was completely free from faults, yet I\nwould ask, who suspects all books to be everywhere faulty? (93) Surely no\none, especially when the phraseology is clear and the intention of the\nauthor plain.\n\n(94) I have now finished the task I set myself with respect to the books of\nthe Old Testament. (95) We may easily conclude from what has been said, that\nbefore the time of the Maccabees there was no canon of sacred books,\n[Endnote 23], but that those which we now possess were selected from a\nmultitude of others at the period of the restoration of the Temple by the\nPharisees (who also instituted the set form of prayers), who are alone\nresponsible for their acceptance. (96) Those, therefore, who would\ndemonstrate the authority of Holy Scripture, are bound to show the authority\nof each separate book; it is not enough to prove the Divine origin of a\nsingle book in order to infer the Divine origin of the rest. (97) In that\ncase we should have to assume that the council of Pharisees was, in its\nchoice of books, infallible, and this could never be proved. (98) I am led\nto assert that the Pharisees alone selected the books of the Old Testament,\nand inserted them in the canon, from the fact that in Daniel xii. is\nproclaimed the doctrine of the Resurrection, which the Sadducees denied;\nand, furthermore, the Pharisees plainly assert in the Talmud that they so\nselected them. (99) For in the treatise of Sabbathus, chapter ii., folio 30,\npage 2, it is written: R. Jehuda, surnamed Rabbi, reports that the experts\nwished to conceal the book of Ecclesiastes because they found therein words\nopposed to the law (that is, to the book of the law of Moses). (100) Why did\nthey not hide it? (101) \"Because it begins in accordance with the law, and\nends according to the law;\" and a little further on we read: \"They sought\nalso to conceal the book of Proverbs.\" (102) And in the first chapter of the\nsame treatise, fol. 13, page 2: \"Verily, name one man for good, even he who\nwas called Neghunja, the son of Hezekiah: for, save for him, the book of\nEzekiel would been concealed, because it agreed not with the words of the\nlaw.\"\n\n(103) It is thus abundantly clear that men expert in the law summoned a\ncouncil to decide which books should be received into the canon, and which\nexcluded. (104) If any man, therefore, wishes to be certified as to the\nauthority of all the books, let him call a fresh council, and ask every\nmember his reasons.\n\n(105) The time has now come for examining in the same manner the books in\nthe New Testament; but as I learn that the task has been already performed\nby men highly skilled in science and languages, and as I do not myself\npossess a knowledge of Greek sufficiently exact for the task; lastly, as we\nhave lost the originals of those books which were written in Hebrew, I\nprefer to decline the undertaking. (106) However, I will touch on those\npoints which have most bearing on my subject in the following chapter.\n\n\n\n\nEnd of Part 2.\n\n\n\n\nAUTHOR'S ENDNOTES TO THE THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL TREATISE\n\nPart 2 - Chapters VI to X\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nEndnote 6. (1) We doubt of the existence of God, and consequently of\nall else, so long as we have no clear and distinct idea of God, but only a\nconfused one. (2) For as he who knows not rightly the nature of a triangle,\nknows not that its three angles are equal to two right angles, so he who\nconceives the Divine nature confusedly, does not see that it pertains to the\nnature of God to exist. (3) Now, to conceive the nature of God clearly and\ndistinctly, it is necessary to pay attention to a certain number of very\nsimple notions, called general notions, and by their help to associate the\nconceptions which we form of the attributes of the Divine nature. (4) It\nthen, for the first time, becomes clear to us, that God exists necessarily,\nthat He is omnipresent, and that all our conceptions involve in themselves\nthe nature of God and are conceived through it. (5) Lastly, we see that all\nour adequate ideas are true. (6) Compare on this point the prolegomena to\nbook, \"Principles of Descartes's philosophy set forth geometrically.\"\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nEndnote 7. (1) \"It is impossible to find a method which would enable us to\ngain a certain knowledge of all the statements in Scripture.\" (2) I mean\nimpossible for us who have not the habitual use of the language, and have\nlost the precise meaning of its phraseology.\n\nEndnote 8. (1) \"Not in things whereof the understanding can gain a clear and\ndistinct idea, and which are conceivable through themselves.\" (2) By things\nconceivable I mean not only those which are rigidly proved, but also those\nwhereof we are morally certain, and are wont to hear without wonder, though\nthey are incapable of proof. (3) Everyone can see the truth of Euclid's\npropositions before they are proved. (4) So also the histories of things\nboth future and past which do not surpass human credence, laws,\ninstitutions, manners, I call conceivable and clear, though they cannot be\nproved mathematically. (5) But hieroglyphics and histories which seem to\npass the bounds of belief I call inconceivable; yet even among these last\nthere are many which our method enables us to investigate, and to discover\nthe meaning of their narrator.\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nEndnote 9. (1) \"Mount Moriah is called the mount of God.\" (2) That is by the\nhistorian, not by Abraham, for he says that the place now called \"In the\nmount of the Lord it shall be revealed,\" was called by Abraham, \"the Lord\nshall provide.\"\n\nEndnote 10. (1) \"Before that territory [Idumoea] was conquered by David.\"\n(2) From this time to the reign of Jehoram when they again separated from\nthe Jewish kingdom (2 Kings viii:20), the Idumaeans had no king, princes\nappointed by the Jews supplied the place of kings (1 Kings xxii:48), in fact\nthe prince of Idumaea is called a king (2 Kings iii:9).\n\n(3) It may be doubted whether the last of the Idumaean kings had begun to\nreign before the accession of Saul, or whether Scripture in this chapter of\nGenesis wished to enumerate only such kings as were independent. (4) It is\nevidently mere trifling to wish to enrol among Hebrew kings the name of\nMoses, who set up a dominion entirely different from a monarchy.\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nEndnote 11. (1) \"With few exceptions.\" (2) One of these exceptions is found\nin 2 Kings xviii:20, where we read, \"Thou sayest (but they are but vain\nwords),\" the second person being used. (3) In Isaiah xxxvi:5, we read \"I\nsay (but they are but vain words) I have counsel and strength for war,\" and\nin the twenty-second verse of the chapter in Kings it is written, \"But if ye\nsay,\" the plural number being used, whereas Isaiah gives the singular. (4)\nThe text in Isaiah does not contain the words found in 2 Kings xxxii:32. (5)\nThus there are several cases of various readings where it is impossible to\ndistinguish the best.\n\nEndnote 12. (1) \"The expressions in the two passages are so varied.\" (2) For\ninstance we read in 2 Sam. vii:6, \"But I have walked in a tent and in a\ntabernacle.\" (3) Whereas in 1 Chron. xvii:5, \"but have gone from tent to\ntent and from one tabernacle to another.\" (4) In 2 Sam. vii:10, we read, \"to\nafflict them,\" whereas in 1 Chron. vii:9, we find a different expression. (5)\nI could point out other differences still greater, but a single reading of\nthe chapters in question will suffice to make them manifest to all who are\nneither blind nor devoid of sense.\n\nEndnote 13. (1) \"This time cannot refer to what immediately precedes.\" (2)\nIt is plain from the context that this passage must allude to the time when\nJoseph was sold by his brethren. (3) But this is not all. (4) We may draw\nthe same conclusion from the age of Judah, who was than twenty-two years old\nat most, taking as basis of calculation his own history just narrated. (5)\nIt follows, indeed, from the last verse of Gen. xxx., that Judah was born in\nthe tenth of the years of Jacob's servitude to Laban, and Joseph in the\nfourteenth. (6) Now, as we know that Joseph was seventeen years old when\nsold by his brethren, Judah was then not more than twenty-one. (7) Hence,\nthose writers who assert that Judah's long absence from his father's\nhouse took place before Joseph was sold, only seek to delude themselves and\nto call in question the Scriptural authority which they are anxious to\nprotect.\n\nEndnote 14. (1) \"Dinah was scarcely seven years old when she was violated by\nSchechem.\" (2) The opinion held by some that Jacob wandered about eight or\nten years between Mesopotamia and Bethel, savours of the ridiculous; if\nrespect for Aben Ezra, allows me to say so. (3) For it is clear that Jacob\nhad two reasons for haste: first, the desire to see his old parents;\nsecondly, and chiefly to perform, the vow made when he fled from his brother\n(Gen. xxviii:10 and xxxi:13, and xxxv:1). (4) We read (Gen. xxxi:3), that\nGod had commanded him to fulfill his vow, and promised him help for\nreturning to his country. (5) If these considerations seem conjectures\nrather than reasons, I will waive the point and admit that Jacob, more\nunfortunate than Ulysses, spent eight or ten years or even longer, in this\nshort journey. (6) At any rate it cannot be denied that Benjamin was born in\nthe last year of this wandering, that is by the reckoning of the objectors,\nwhen Joseph was sixteen or seventeen years old, for Jacob left Laban seven\nyears after Joseph's birth. (7) Now from the seventeenth year of Joseph's\nage till the patriarch went into Egypt, not more than twenty-two years\nelapsed, as we have shown in this chapter. (8) Consequently Benjamin, at the\ntime of the journey to Egypt, was twenty-three or twenty- four at the most.\n(9) He would therefore have been a grandfather in the flower of his age\n(Gen. xlvi:21, cf. Numb. xxvi:38, 40, and 1 Chron. viii:1), for it is\ncertain that Bela, Benjamin's eldest son, had at that time, two sons, Addai\nand Naa-man. (10) This is just as absurd as the statement that Dinah was\nviolated at the age of seven, not to mention other impossibilities\nwhich would result from the truth of the narrative. (11) Thus we see that\nunskillful endeavours to solve difficulties, only raise fresh ones, and make\nconfusion worse confounded.\n\nEndnote 15. (1) \"Othniel, son of Kenag, was judge for forty years.\" (2)\nRabbi Levi Ben Gerson and others believe that these forty years which the\nBible says were passed in freedom, should be counted from the death of\nJoshua, and consequently include the eight years during which the people\nwere subject to Kushan Rishathaim, while the following eighteen years\nmust be added on to the eighty years of Ehud's and Shamgar's judgeships. (3)\nIn this case it would be necessary to reckon the other years of subjection\namong those said by the Bible to have been passed in freedom. (4) But the\nBible expressly notes the number of years of subjection, and the number of\nyears of freedom, and further declares (Judges ii:18) that the\nHebrew state was prosperous during the whole time of the judges. (5)\nTherefore it is evident that Levi Ben Gerson (certainly a very learned man),\nand those who follow him, correct rather than interpret the Scriptures.\n\n(6) The same fault is committed by those who assert, that Scripture, by this\ngeneral calculation of years, only intended to mark the period of the\nregular administration of the Hebrew state, leaving out the years of anarchy\nand subjection as periods of misfortune and interregnum. (7) Scripture\ncertainly passes over in silence periods of anarchy, but does not, as they\ndream, refuse to reckon them or wipe them out of the country's annals. (8)\nIt is clear that Ezra, in 1 Kings vi., wished to reckon absolutely all the\nyears since the flight from Egypt. (9) This is so plain, that no one versed\nin the Scriptures can doubt it. (10) For, without going back to the\nprecise words of the text, we may see that the genealogy of David given at\nthe end of the book of Ruth, and I Chron. ii., scarcely accounts for so\ngreat a number of years. (11) For Nahshon, who was prince of the tribe of\nJudah (Numb. vii:11), two years after the Exodus, died in the desert, and\nhis son Salmon passed the Jordan with Joshua. (12) Now this Salmon,\naccording to the genealogy, was David's great-grandfather. (13) Deducting,\nthen, from the total of 480 years, four years for Solomon's reign, seventy\nfor David's life, and forty for the time passed in the desert, we find that\nDavid was born 366 years after the passage of the Jordan. (14) Hence we\nmust believe that David's father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and\ngreat-great-grandfather begat children when they were ninety years old.\n\nEndnote 16. (1) \"Samson was judge for twenty years.\" (2) Samson was born\nafter the Hebrews had fallen under the dominion of the Philistines.\n\nEndnote 17. (1) Otherwise, they rather correct than explain Scripture.\n\nEndnote 18. (1) \"Kirjath-jearim.\" Kirjath-jearim is also called Baale of\nJudah. (2) Hence Kimchi and others think that the words Baale Judah, which I\nhave translated \"the people of Judah,\" are the name of a town. (3) But this\nis not so, for the word Baale is in the plural. (4) Moreover, comparing this\ntext in Samuel with I Chron. Xiii:5, we find that David did not rise up\nand go forth out of Baale, but that he went thither. (5) If the author of\nthe book of Samuel had meant to name the place whence David took the ark, he\nwould, if he spoke Hebrew correctly, have said, \"David rose up, and set\nforth from Baale Judah, and took the ark from thence.\"\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nEndnote 19. (1) \"After the restoration of the Temple by Judas Maccaboeus.\"\n(2) This conjecture, if such it be, is founded on the genealogy of King\nJeconiah, given in 1 Chron. iii., which finishes at the sons of Elioenai,\nthe thirteenth in direct descent from him: whereon we must observe that\nJeconiah, before his captivity, had no children; but it is probable that he\nhad two while he was in prison, if we may draw any inference from the names\nhe gave them. (3) As to his grandchildren, it is evident that they were born\nafter his deliverance, if the names be any guide, for his grandson, Pedaiah\n(a name meaning God hath delivered me), who, according to this chapter, was\nthe father of Zerubbabel, was born in the thirty-seventh or thirty-eighth\nyear of Jeconiah's life, that is thirty-three years before the restoration\nof liberty to the Jews by Cyrus. (4) Therefore Zerubbabel, to whom Cyrus\ngave the principality of Judaea, was thirteen or fourteen years old. (5) But\nwe need not carry the inquiry so far: we need only read attentively\nthe chapter of 1 Chron., already quoted, where (v. 17, sqq.) mention is made\nof all the posterity of Jeconiah, and compare it with the Septuagint version\nto see clearly that these books were not published, till after Maccabaeus\nhad restored the Temple, the sceptre no longer belonging to the house of\nJeconiah.\n\nEndnote 20. (1) \"Zedekiah should be taken to Babylon.\" (2) No one could then\nhave suspected that the prophecy of Ezekiel contradicted that of Jeremiah,\nbut the suspicion occurs to everyone who reads the narrative of Josephus.\n(3) The event proved that both prophets were in the right.\n\nEndnote 21. (1) \"And who wrote Nehemiah.\" (2) That the greater part of the\nbook of Nehemiah was taken from the work composed by the prophet Nehemiah\nhimself, follows from the testimony of its author. (See chap. i.). (3) But\nit is obvious that the whole of the passage contained between chap. viii.\nand chap. xii. verse 26, together with the two last verses of chap. xii.,\nwhich form a sort of parenthesis to Nehemiah's words, were added by the\nhistorian himself, who outlived Nehemiah.\n\nEndnote 22. (1) \"I suppose no one thinks\" that Ezra was the uncle of the\nfirst high priest, named Joshua (see Ezra vii., and 1 Chron. vi:14), and\nwent to Jerusalem from Babylon with Zerubbabel (see Nehemiah xii:1). (2) But\nit appears that when he saw, that the Jews were in a state of anarchy, he\nreturned to Babylon, as also did others (Nehem. i:2), and remained there\ntill the reign of Artaxerxes, when his requests were granted and he went a\nsecond time to Jerusalem. (3) Nehemiah also went to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel\nin the time of Cyrus (Ezra ii:2 and 63, cf. x:9, and Nehemiah x:1). (4) The\nversion given of the Hebrew word, translated \"ambassador,\" is not supported\nby any authority, while it is certain that fresh names were given to those\nJews who frequented the court. (5) Thus Daniel was named Balteshazzar,\nand Zerubbabel Sheshbazzar (Dan. i:7). (6) Nehemiah was called Atirsata,\nwhile in virtue of his office he was styled governor, or president.\n(Nehem. v. 24, xii:26.)\n\nEndnote 23. (1) \"Before the time of the Maccabees there was no canon of\nsacred books.\" (2) The synagogue styled \"the great\" did not begin before the\nsubjugation of Asia by the Macedonians. (3) The contention of Maimonides,\nRabbi Abraham, Ben-David, and others, that the presidents of this synagogue\nwere Ezra, Daniel, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, &c., is a pure fiction,\nresting only on rabbinical tradition. (4) Indeed they assert that the\ndominion of the Persians only lasted thirty-four years, and this is their\nchief reason for maintaining that the decrees of the \"great synagogue,\" or\nsynod (rejected by the Sadducees, but accepted by the Pharisees) were\nratified by the prophets, who received them from former prophets, and so in\ndirect succession from Moses, who received them from God Himself. (5) Such\nis the doctrine which the Pharisees maintain with their wonted obstinacy.\n(6) Enlightened persons, however, who know the reasons for the convoking of\ncouncils, or synods, and are no strangers to the differences between\nPharisees and Sadducees, can easily divine the causes which led to the\nassembling of this great synagogue. (7) It is very certain that no prophet\nwas there present, and that the decrees of the Pharisees, which they style\ntheir traditions, derive all their authority from it.\n\n\nEnd of Endnotes to Part II. - Chapters VI to X.","title":"Theologico-Political Treatise \u2014 Part 2","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":32962}