Theologico-Political Treatise 1862/Chapter 10

by Benedictus de Spinoza

OF THE REMAINING BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

I pass on to the remaining books of the Old Testament. Now of the two Books of Paralipomena (1 and 2 Chronicles) I have nothing certain or important to say, except that they were written long after the time of Ezra, and perhaps, even, after the restoration of the temple by Judas Maccabeus; for in chapter ix. of the First Book the historian informs us "what families first dwelt in Jerusalem" (the "first" hero referring to the time of Ezra), and in the 17th verse he gives the names of the gate-keepers, two of whom are also mentioned by Nehemiah (xi. 19). This of itself suffices to show that the books were written long after the rebuilding of the city. Of their actual writer, however, of the authority that is due to them, of their utility and doctrine, I have nothing to say. Indeed, I cannot sufficiently wonder how these books came to be received as sacred by those who severed the Book of Wisdom, of Tobit, of Esdras, and the rest, which are styled Apocryphal, from the canon of Holy Writ. My purpose here, however, is not to uphold the authority of these writings; I am content to leave them as I find them regarded by the world at large.

The Psalms were also collected and divided into five books during the epoch of the second temple; for Psalm lxxxviii., according to the testimony of Philo, was produced whilst King Jehoiachim was still detained a prisoner in Babylon, and Psalm lxxxix. when he had obtained his liberty; and I believe that Philo would not have said what he has done had it not been the received opinion of his age, or had he not had the information from some one worthy of trust.

The Proverbs of Solomon, I believe, were also collected about the same time; or, at least, in the time of King Josiah; for, in the 25th chapter, verse 1, we read, "These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, King of Judah, copied out." And here I cannot keep silence on the daring of the Rabbins, who would have excluded this book, with Ecclesiastes, from the Scripture canon, and placed it beside those other writings whose absence we have but now regretted. And rejected these books would assuredly have been, had they not been found to contain several passages in which the law of Moses was commended. It is indeed greatly to be lamented that most excellent and holy things should have depended on the choice of such men as the Jewish Rabbis who settled the canon of the Old Testament. I am grateful to them, however, for having been pleased to communicate these books to us at all; although I cannot refrain from doubting whether they transmitted them with entire good faith, — a point on the discussion of which I am indisposed to enter. I therefore proceed to the Books of the Prophets.

When I examine these writings attentively, I find that the prophecies which they contain were collected from other books, and are not always set down in the same order as they were delivered by word of mouth or in writing by the prophets themselves; neither do they contain all the prophecies that were uttered, but those only that could be gathered up here and there. These books consequently cannot be regarded as more than fragments. Isaiah, for instance, began to prophesy during the reign of Uzziah, as the narrator himself declares in the 1st verse of the 1st chapter of the book. But when we turn to Chronicles (2nd Book ch. xxvi. 22) we find that Isaiah not only prophesied at the time mentioned, but had further narrated, in a book now lost, the whole of the transactions of King Uzziah's reign. What we have of Isaiah, however, is taken, as has just been said, from, other writings, especially from the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and Israel. Add to this that the Rabbins maintain that Isaiah prophesied in the reign of Manasseh, by whom he was finally put to death; and although they probably relate fables here they seem still to have believed that the whole of the prophecies -of Isaiah were not extant.

The Prophecies of Jeremiah, in like manner, which are narrated historically, are taken from various chronologers; for besides that they are accumulated without arrangement, no respect being had to times, we find the same tale variously repeated oftener than once. Thus, in the 21st chapter we have an explanation of the cause of the prophet's alarm, in the circumstance that he had foretold the devastation of the city to Zedekiah, who had consulted him. The narrative breaks off suddenly here; for chapter xxii. is occupied with the declamation of the prophet to Jehoiachim, who reigned before Zedekiah, and to whom he foretells an approaching captivity. Next in disorder, in chapter xxv., we have those things that were revealed to the prophet before this time, viz. in the fourth year of the reign of King Jehoiachim; then, those that concerned the first year of this king's reign, and so on, no order in the incidents or the times being observed, prophecies accumulated pell-mell on one another, until at length, in chapter xxxviii. (as if the fifteen intervening chapters had formed one great parenthesis), we are brought back to that which the writer had begun to relate in the 21st chapter. The conjunction which we find at the beginning of the 38th chapter plainly refers to versos 8, 9, and 10 of chap. xxi.; but strangely enough the alarm of Jeremiah is here described in very different terms, and the cause of his long imprisonment in the porch of the prison is told quite otherwise than in chap, xxxvii. These references suffice to show that the prophecies of Jeremiah are scraps collected without arrangement from different historians; on no other supposition can the state of confusion in which they exist be understood.

The other prophecies contained in the remaining chapters, where Jeremiah speaks in the first person, appear to be derived from the volume which Baruch wrote at the dictation of Jeremiah himself, for, as we learn from chapter xxxvi. 2, it only contained so much as was revealed to the prophet from the time of Josiah to the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiachim, from which date indeed this book begins. From the same volume, also, all that is contained between the 2nd verse of the 45th chapter and the 59th verse of the 51st chapter appears to be derived.

That the Book of Ezekiel is nothing more than a fragment is clearly indicated by its introductory verses; for who does not see that the conjunction with which it begins refers to matters that have gone before, and is the bond between these and what is to follow. Nor is it the conjunction only that leads to this conclusion; the whole of the context supposes other writings: for the thirtieth year, from which this book commences, shows the prophet in the course of proceeding with his narrative, not beginning it, as he himself indeed shows parenthetically in verse 3, where he says — "The word of the Lord came expressly^[1] unto Ezekiel, the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans," &c., as if he had said, the words of Ezekiel thus fur refer to other things, which were revealed to him before this thirtieth year. And then Josephus (Antiq. book x. ch. ix.) relates how Ezekiel had foretold that Zedekiah should not see Babylon; a particular which we do not find mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel as we have it; on the contrary, we there read (chap, xvii.) that Zedekiah should be taken captive to Babylon.^[2]

Of Hosea it cannot be said for certain that he wrote more than we find in the book which passes under his name. Still I cannot help wondering that we have not more from his hand, seeing that he prophesied for upwards of 84 years, according to the testimony of the writer of the book. Of this at least we are sure generally, that neither do the books we have contain the whole of the prophecies pronounced, nor does the collection of prophetical books that has come down to us contain all of the same sort that were written. Of all the prophets who discoursed during the reign of Manasseh, and of whom there is a general notice in 2 Chronicles (xxxiii. 10, 18, 19), we have absolutely nothing; neither have we everything of the twelve minor prophets. The only prophecies of Jonah which we have, for example, are those he delivered to the Ninevites, though it is known that he also prophesied to the Israelites, on which see 2 Kings xiv. 25.

The Book of Job, and Job himself, have been the subject of much controversy among writers. Some have been of opinion that Moses wrote the Book of Job, and that the whole history is no more than an allegory. This is the conclusion of the Rabbins in the Talmud, and is that favoured by Maimonides in his work entitled More Nebuchim. Others, again, regard the book as true history, they believing that Job lived in the time of Jacob, and took his daughter Dinah to wife. But Aben-Ezra, as I have already had occasion to say, in his commentaries on this book concludes that it is a translation from another tongue into Hebrew, a conclusion which I could well desire had been better supported than it is, for then we should be able to infer that the Gentiles also had their sacred books.^[3] I, therefore, leave the question in doubt; but venture to add that in my opinion Job was a Gentile, of great constancy of mind and purpose, who had first lived in affluence, then fallen into singular adversity, and had finally recovered his prosperous position. Ezekiel (xiv. 14) mentions Job along with other pious men, and I believe that his various fortunes and his constancy of mind under affliction afforded frequent occasion for discussing God's providence; and, as I further opine, the occurrence of such contingencies in the life of man as prosperous and adverse fortune gave the author of this book the hint for the composition of his dialogue; for the treatment and the style of the Book of Job do not appear to connect themselves with a man in sickness and sorrow and with ashes on his head, but rather with one meditating at his ease in his study. With Aben-Ezra, therefore, I am disposed to believe that the book is a translation from another tongue; for it contains allusions to the poetry [and mythology] of the Gentiles, as where the father of the gods twice calls a council, and Momus under the name of Satan carps with the greatest license at the decrees of God, &c.^[4] But these are mere conjectures, without any sufficient foundation.

I proceed to the Book of Daniel. This book, from chapter viii. onwards, unquestionably contains the writing of Daniel himself, but whence the preceding seven chapters were derived I know not, though we may suspect, from the whole book, with the exception of the 1st chapter, having been written in Chaldee, that the source was the Chaldean chronologies. Could this only be clearly established, it would be a remarkable testimony to the assurance that the Scriptures are sacred only in so far as the things signified in them are understood, and not in so far as the language or style of composition is regarded; and that all books which teach and narrate things good and true, in whatever language written, by men of whatever nation composed, are equally and alike sacred. This much at all events may be noted, that these chapters of Daniel were written in Chaldee, and are nevertheless held of like sanctity with the rest of the Bible.

With the Book of Daniel the First of Ezra is so intimately associated that it is readily seen to be the work of the same writer, who goes on to narrate in succession the affairs of the Jews from the epoch of the first captivity. With the Book of Ezra, again, I do not hesitate to associate that of Esther; for the conjunction with which this book begins can refer to nothing else; nor is it to be believed that Esther is the book which Mordecai wrote; for in chapter ix. (20, 21, 22) we have some notice of Mordecai himself, and of the Epistles he indited, and their contents; and in the 31st verse of the same chapter we learn that Queen Esther confirmed by an edict the arrangements for the feast of the Purim (feast of lots), and that this edict was written in a book; that is to say, as it reads in Hebrew, in a book known to every one of the time. This book, however, Aben-Ezra confesses, and with him all are bound to confess, has perished, with so many others. Lastly, the historian refers for other particulars of the reign of Mordecai to the Chronicles of the Persian Kings. There can be little doubt therefore of this book having been the production of the same pen which wrote Daniel and Ezra, and in addition Nehemiah,^[5] which is often entitled the 2nd Book of Ezra. Four of these books consequently — Daniel, Ezra, Esther, and Nehemiah—we affirm to be the work of one writer; but there is not room even for conjecture as to who he was. If we would ask whence he, whoever he was, who wrote these books derived the particulars of the histories they contain, it is to be observed that the prefects or princes of the Jews of the second temple (like their kings in the time of the first) retained scribes or historiographers in their service, whose business it was to write their annals or chronologies. The chronologies or annals of the kings are quoted everywhere in the two Books of Kings; but those of the princes and priests of the second temple are first referred to in the Book of Nehemiah (xii. 23), and next in Maccabees (book i. ch. xvi. 24). And without doubt these annals formed the book of which mention has just been made, in which the edict of Esther and the writings of Mordecai were contained, and which, with Aben-Ezra, we have said is now lost. From this lost book, therefore, all that is comprised in the four books above cited was in all probability derived; for no other is referred to by their author, and we know of none besides of public authority. That the books in question were not written either by Ezra or Nehemiah appears from this, that in Nehemiah (xii. 10, 11) we have the genealogy of the high priest Jeshua continued to Jaddua, the sixth pontiff, who went to meet Alexander the Great, the Persian power being then almost destroyed (vide Joseph. Antiq. book ii. ch. viii.); Philo Judaeus, indeed, in a book of the time, calls Jaddua the sixth and last high priest under the Persians. In the same chapter of Nehemiah we have these words, — "in the days of Eliashib, the Levites Joiada and Johanan and Jaddua were recorded priests, &c., to the reign of Darius the Persian … in the book of the chronicles;" and I have no idea any one will believe that Ezra or Nehemiah enjoyed such longevity as to have outlived 14 kings of Persia; for Cyrus was the first who gave the Jews permission to rebuild the Temple, and from Cyrus to Darius, the 14th and last king of Persia, more than 230 years are reckoned. Wherefore I do not doubt but that the books in question were written long after Judas Maccabæus had restored the worship of the Temple, a conclusion to which I am led besides by the fact that about this time certain spurious books of Daniel, Ezra, and Esther were produced by some evil-disposed person, who might have been of the sect of the Sadducees; for the Pharisees, to the best of my belief, never acknowledged the authenticity of these books. And although some fables are found in the book entitled the 4th of Ezra, which we also encounter in the Talmud, these are not therefore to be ascribed to the Pharisees; for except the utterly foolish among them, there is none who does not admit that these fables were interpolated by some ignorant trifler. My own idea is, that the interpolations were made by an enemy, in order to render the traditions of the Pharisees ridiculous in the eyes of the world. Another reason for the appearance of the Books of Daniel, Ezra, Esther, and Nehemiah at the particular time specified may have been to show the people the prophecies of Daniel fulfilled, and in the midst of so much misery to strengthen them in piety, and in the faith of better times to come.

Into these books, however, notwithstanding their recent date, unless I greatly deceive myself, many errors have crept through haste and inadvertence in the transcribers. In them, as in the other books of Scripture, we discover many of the marginal notations, of which we have already spoken at length, and several places besides in so imperfect a state that it is impossible to account for them save by supposing carelessness. But I must first speak of the marginalia of these books. Now, if, we are to concede to the Pharisees their assumption that these annotations are of like antiquity with the text, then it were necessary to say that the writers themselves, if perchance there was more than one writer, noted the particular passages they have done, in consequence of not finding the chronologies whence they had their data over-accurately written; and although some things were clearly errors, still they did not venture to correct and amend the venerable MSS. from, which they transcribed.

But I need not again enter on this subject, or describe it in its particular application at greater length than I have already done, I therefore proceed to the mistakes that are not noted in the margin. And I say, first, that I know not how many have found their way into the 2nd chapter of Ezra; for in verse 64, the sum of all whose genealogies are severally enumerated in the body of the chapter is given as 42,360; yet if the particular items be added together they will be found to amount to no more than 29,818. There is, therefore, an error here, either in the total or in the items. But the total probably is correctly given, because doubtless it was stored in the memory of every one as something remarkable, and the several smaller numbers were not likely to be so well retained; had any mistake been made in the sum-total, it would have been patent to every one, and must immediately have been corrected. And this view is confirmed by what we find in Nehemiah (vii. 5), where this chapter of Ezra is referred to under the title of a Register of Genealogy, and where the sum-total agrees exactly with that of Ezra, though the particular numbers differ widely, some of these being more, some less, but together making no greater a sum than 31,089; whence there can be little doubt that many mistakes have glided into the secondary or partial sums in the books both of Ezra and Nehemiah. The commentators, however, who have endeavoured to reconcile these obvious incongruities have one and all feigned and fashioned to the extent of their ingenuity; and whilst fancying that they added to the excellence of the Scriptures, they did in fact but bring the writers of the Bible into contempt, making them appear as if they neither knew how to express themselves in their mother tongue nor how to arrange what they had to say. To me, indeed, they only seem to render obscure what is plain enough in Scripture; for, indeed, were it everywhere permitted to proceed in the manner they have done, there were no text in the whole Bible on the sense of which doubts might not be raised. But I need not detain my reader long with such topics; for I persuade myself that wore any historian to permit himself the liberties which Bible critics devoutly concede to the Scripture writers, they would be among the first to challenge his method, and to laugh him to scorn. And if they think that he blasphemes who declares that Scripture is in any part erroneous, I ask by what name I am to call those who fasten what they please upon Scripture? who so prostitute the sense of the sacred historians that they seem to babble and confound everything? who finally deny the most plain and obvious meanings of Holy Writ? For what is there clearer in Scripture than that Ezra, with his associates in the genealogical epistle comprised in the second chapter of the book that goes under his name, intended to enumerate separately or in divisions all who proceeded to Jerusalem, although he includes among them not only all those whose genealogies he knew, but those also whose descent was unknown to him. What I ask is plainer than that Nehemiah simply transcribes or describes this Genealogical Register in his seventh chapter? They who explain these things otherwise do in fact but ignore the plain sense of Scripture, and so take from its authority. They think it pious, forsooth, to reconcile or accommodate one part of Scripture with another! a childish piety in verity, that blurs the light with darkness, reconciles the true with the false, and taints the sound with the rotten. Let me not, however, be supposed to brand as blasphemers those who have had no purpose to lead astray — for truly to err is human. I return to my subject.

Besides the errors which must be acknowledged in the sums of the Genealogical Registers, both of Ezra and Nehemiah, there are many mistakes in the names of families, many especially in the genealogies, in the historical accounts, and, I apprehend, in the prophecies themselves. The prophecy of Jeremiah, for example (xxii.), concerning Jechoniah, cannot be made to tally in any way with the histories we have of him towards the end of the Second Book of Kings, and in chapter iii. of 1 Chronicles (17, 18, 19), the last verse of which especially appears insurmountable. Neither do I see with .what propriety the same prophet could inform Zedekiah, after he had seen his sons slain before him, and had his own eyes put out, that he should die in peace (vide Jerem. xxxiv. 5). Were we to be guided by the event in interpreting this prophecy, the names would have to be changed, Jechoniah being substituted for Zedekiah. But this were perhaps taking too great a liberty with the text, and I am content to leave the point incomprehensible as I found it, the rather because if there be an error here it must be ascribed to the author, not regarded as a mistake of the scribe.

As to the other matters which I have pointed out as requiring elucidation, I do not think of entering on them; this could only be done by being wearisome to the reader, and it is the less called for as they have all been made the subject of particular commentary by others. The Rabbi Selomo is constrained by the many contradictions in the genealogies to break out in these words, "Ezra" (the author, as he believes, of the two books of Paralipomena or Chronicles) — "Ezra calls the sons of Benjamin by other names, and traces their descent by different lines from those we have in the Book of Genesis; and that he speaks of the greater, number of the cities of the Levites by other names than those in Joshua arose from his finding discrepancies in the originals whence he drew his information." A little further on he continues, "If the genealogy of Gibeon and others be found twice or even oftener described differently, this has arisen from Ezra having met with many different genealogical registers, in extracting or copying from which he followed the reading of the greater number; but when the number of discordant genealogies was equal on each side, then he copied both accounts." In this passage the Rabbi yields the point in dispute about the origin of these books of Scripture, admitting that they were derived from originals, and were put together carelessly, without due regard to the accuracy of the narrative. It may be said, indeed, with justice, that commentators, when they strive to reconcile discordant passages, do nothing more for the most part than point out the causes of the mistakes; for I do not imagine any one in his senses believes that the sacred historians wrote in such a way as incessantly to contradict themselves.

But some, perchance, will here interpose, and say that I plainly destroy the authority of Scripture by what I advance, for thus may the whole body of the Bible come to be suspected as corrupt. But I have shown, on the contrary, that comfort may be taken from this: that the clear and pure parts will not be twisted into agreement with the obscure and faulty parts, and so corrupted; and that it is not reasonable, because certain parts are found erroneous, that all should be made objects of suspicion; for no book in this world was ever yet found without faults. But I ask, shall it therefore be said that any book was ever written that is entirely faulty? certainly not; especially when the language used is simple and perspicuous, and the purpose of the writer is manifest.

I here bring to a close what I had to say on the books of the Old Testament, and presume to conclude from all which precedes, that before the time of the Maccabees there was no canon of Holy Writ extant; but that the books we have were selected from among many others by and on the sole authority of the Pharisees of the second temple, who also instituted the formula for the prayers used in the Synagogue.^[6] Whosoever, therefore, should seek to demonstrate the authenticity and authority of the Hebrew Scriptures, must be held bound to show on what authority each of their books severally rests. It is not enough to prove the divineness of one to conclude that therefore all the others are divine. And then it were imperative to show that the council of the Pharisees could not err in their selection of the books they admitted; and this I think no one will ever be able to demonstrate. The reason that especially induces me to affirm that the Pharisees alone selected the books of the Old Testament and placed them in the canon of the Sacred Writings is this, that in the 2nd verse of the last chapter of Daniel I find a prophecy of the resurrection of the dead, a contingency which the Sadducees denied. The opinion of the Pharisees on this point is clearly indicated in the Talmud ; in the second chapter of which we read as follows : "Rabbi Jehuda, surnamed Rabi, said that certain learned persons wished to suppress the Book of Ecclesiastes, because its words are opposed to the words of the law (of Moses, understood). Now why was it not suppressed? because it begins according to the law, and ends according to the law." He says further: "They also desired to exclude the Book of Proverbs," &c., and concludes thus: "I name the name of Neghunja, Son of Hiskias, from gratitude ; because but for him the Book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed, its words being held contrary to those of the law." From these extracts we can see plainly that a council of the men learned in the law determined what books were to be received as sacred, and what to be rejected as of no sanctity. He, therefore, who would be certain of the authority of the whole of the Scriptures, let him enter into council anew and require the title of each of its books to the place it occupies.

And now it were in order that I proceeded to examine the books of the New Testament in the same manner us I have reviewed those of the Old. But as I hear that this is being done by men versed in science and skilled in languages, and as I myself have not so accurate a knowledge of the Greek as might tempt me to undertake the task, and lastly, as we are without copies in the original tongue of the books which were written in Hebrew, I do not mean to enter upon it in detail, but shall content myself with touching upon those points only that fall most immediately within the scope of my undertaking.

Notes

1. Sæpe, often, in Spinoza's version. — Ed.
2. No one therefore would have imagined that the prophecy of Ezekiel was in contradiction with that of Jeremiah; whilst this suspicion must take possession of every one who reads the account of Josephus. The event proved that both prophets had spoken the truth.
3. This sentence would lead us to conclude that Spinoza was unacquainted with the sacred books of the great Eastern Nations—the Vedas of the Hindoos and the Zends of the Persians. The Vedas indeed were only made known to scholars in very recent times; but the Zendavesta must surely have been familiar to learned persons in the time of Spinoza. The learned Th. Hyde published his Historia Ecligionis veterum Persarum in the life-time of Spinoza, as we believe. — Ed.
4. The reader will call to mind the bold and almost profane way in which Goethe introduces his demon Mephistopheles into the heavenly council. Faust is Job in another shape, Mephistopheles is Satan, — as Faust represents the nobler and better, Mephistopheles the lower and more sensual, clement in man's nature. It is in the Book of Job that we first meet with Satan, or the devil, a personage of whom the early Hebrews, the people of Elhoim and of Jehovah, knew nothing. — Ed.
5. That the greater part of the extant Book of Nehemiah is taken from the work which the prophet himself composed, appears from the testimony of the transcriber (vide ch. T. 1). But further, there is not the least doubt that all, from the beginning of chap. viii. to Terse 26th of chap, xii., and also the two last verses of chap, xiii., which are a kind of parenthesis added to the words of Nehemiah, have been supplied by the actual writer of the book which bears the name of Nehemiah.
6. The grand Synagogue which decided the canon of Scripture did not assemble till after the subjection of Asia to the Macedonian power. To its authority the Pharisees always refer when they invoke what they call their Traditions.