Spinoza
On the Interpretation of Scriptures
This brief work will outline Spinoza’s method of biblical interpretation, in his Theological-Political Treatise, and then make a pronouncement upon the practicality of such. Some comparison with the method of St. Augustine will be supplied.
For Spinoza:
1. The methods of interpreting nature and scripture are the same.
- Detailed study on fixed data
- Deduce by logical inference the meaning of the authors
- Knowledge of scripture must be sought from scripture, no other knowledge of scripture will apply
2. Scripture teaches moral doctrine
- Only through this moral doctrine alone can divinity be proved
- This divinity must be established from the fact that scripture teaches “true virtue”.
3. Studies must include
- Knowledge of the biblical languages
- Categorization must be used for each book in regards to subject.
- Context of writer
- Original meaning of author is more important than a truth of reason.
- Literal meanings should be retained as much as possible
- If all fails, then pronouncements should be regarded as irreconcilable.
- Relevant circumstances of supposed writer: character of the author, who they were, what occasion for writing, what time, for whom, and what language.
- How many different books, how they were received and by whom, how many variant versions, and by whose decision they were canonized. Also how the books were united as a whole.
4. Make no assertions that claim to be the doctrine of the Holy Spirit
5. If any passages contradict, consider the time, place, occasion and for whom they were written.
6. In regards to revelations, certainty cannot be inferred.
7. Authority, such as Rabbis, Popes and Church doctrines on scriptures should be questioned. Tradition should be scrutinized.
8. Texts may have been altered by the learned.
9. Since the method that knowledge of scripture can only be based on scripture, anything that cannot be achieved by this method must be considered “unattainable”.
Difficulties with the method according to Spinoza:
1. It demands a thorough knowledge of Hebrew
· Many nouns and verbs are completely unknown or subject to dispute
· Idiom and modes of speech have been lost
2. Further problems with composition and nature of Hebrew
- Letters are substituted for each other
- Multiple meanings of conjunctions and adverbs
- Verbs in the indicative mood lack the present, the past imperfect, the pluperfect, and the future perfect, along with other tenses.
- Imperative and Infinitive moods of verbs lack all the tenses except the present and in the subjunctive there are no tenses at all.
- Hebrew does not have vowels
- Hebrew has no punctuation.
- Punctuation that has been supplied is questionable.
3. No method can solve all the ambiguities.
4. The method requires an account of the history of all biblical books and this cannot be provided.
Conclusion of Spinoza:
1. We cannot always know true meaning of scripture, (author’s intentions and meanings in regards to revelation). What is beyond our comprehension, can only be imagined.
2. We can know matters open to intellectual perception. Matters open to reason.
3. Through this method of historical study we can grasp the meanings of moral doctrines and “be certain of their true sense.”
4. Scripture can be understood in confidence in “matters relating to salvation and necessary to blessedness.”
5. Method demands only the light of reason.
6. “By a process of logical deduction that which is hidden is inferred and concluded from what is known, or given as known.”
Summary:
From a reading of Spinoza’s method of biblical interpretation, it is my opinion, practical. It involves education and the “light of reason” which begs the question of practicality. But, Spinoza also violates logic when he infers that one can deduce morality from divinity and vice versa. Especially in regards to scripture, this may not be the case. It also presupposes a sense of morality. Not only on man but on the deity. Also the terms “blessedness” and “salvation” are abstracts that may or may not be inferred from reason since they also belong in the realm of the whims of the deity. To deny miracles due to reason and grant salvation in the same process can perhaps also be considered contradictory. Then again these are abstracts and can be considered as presupposed definitions, even on my part.
As far as any comparison with Augustine’s methodology, the two are similar, although Spinoza would not allow for any literary critical methods. They both share the maxim on morality but define it differently. Augustine does not deny the supernatural, of course. Personally since I myself are somewhat infused with Thomism, I like both of these methods but tend more towards the Augustinian in order to hold on to my neo-platonic overtones. Basically the methodologies are the same. Reason.
One note more on the problems of Spinoza’s method: 1. It only uses deduction. Apparently it presupposes one text to work from. I assume the MS. 2. Since authority is in question, there are no means of finalizing any interpretation, even if Spinoza sees some things as “clear” 3. Since scripture can be interpreted only through comparisons with other scripture, isn’t this like saying, “the bible is the word of God because the bible says it is” ? 4. The assumption of “virtue” and morality, as common teachings of scripture may not be or can not always be deduced from literal meanings, at least in my opinion. And cannot be known without other sources.
