Portrait of Spinoza (Public domain)

A Theologico-Political Treatise

by Baruch Spinoza

Originally published as volume 1 of
The chief works of Benedict de Spinoza by G. Bell and
Sons, London

[1883-1884]

Part 2—Chapters VI to X

    CHAPTER IX.—OTHER QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SAME BOOKS: NAMELY, WHETHER THEY WERE COMPLETELY FINISHED BY EZRA, AND, FURTHER, WHETHER THE MARGINAL NOTES WHICH ARE FOUND IN THE HEBREW TEXTS WERE VARIOUS READINGS.

  1. How greatly the inquiry we have just made concerning the real writer of the twelve books aids us in attaining a complete understanding of them, may be easily gathered solely from the passages which we have adduced in confirmation of our opinion, and which would be most obscure without it.
  2. But besides the question of the writer, there are other points to notice which common superstition forbids the multitude to apprehend.
  3. Of these the chief is, that Ezra (whom I will take to be the author of the aforesaid books until some more likely person be suggested) did not put the finishing touches to the narrative contained therein, but merely collected the histories from various writers, and sometimes simply set them down, leaving their examination and arrangement to posterity.

  4. The cause (if it were not untimely death) which prevented him from completing his work in all its portions, I cannot conjecture, but the fact remains most clear, although we have lost the writings of the ancient Hebrew historians, and can only judge from the few fragments which are extant.
  5. For the history of Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii:17), as written in the vision of Isaiah, is related as it is found in the chronicles of the kings of Judah.
  6. We read the same story, told with few exceptions, [Endnote 11], in the same words, in the book of Isaiah which was contained in the chronicles of the kings of Judah (2 Chron. xxxii:32).
  7. From this we must conclude that there were various versions of this narrative of Isaiah's, unless, indeed, anyone would dream that in this, too, there lurks a mystery.
  8. Further, the last chapter of 2 Kings 27-30 is repeated in the last chapter of Jeremiah, v.31-34.

  9. Again, we find 2 Sam. vii. repeated in I Chron. xvii., but the expressions in the two passages are so curiously varied [Endnote 12], that we can very easily see that these two chapters were taken from two different versions of the history of Nathan.

  10. Lastly, the genealogy of the kings of Idumaea contained in Genesis xxxvi:31, is repeated in the same words in 1 Chron. i., though we know that the author of the latter work took his materials from other historians, not from the twelve books we have ascribed to Ezra. We may therefore be sure that if we still possessed the writings of the historians, the matter would be made clear; however, as we have lost them, we can only examine the writings still extant, and from their order and connection, their various repititions, and, lastly, the contradictions in dates which they contain, judge of the rest.

  11. These, then, or the chief of them, we will now go through.
  12. First, in the story of Judah and Tamar (Gen. xxxviii) the historian thus begins: "And it came to pass at that time that Judah went down from his brethren."
  13. This time cannot refer to what immediately precedes [Endnote 13], but must necessarily refer to something else, for from the time when Joseph was sold into Egypt to the time when the patriarch Jacob, with all his family, set out thither, cannot be reckoned as more than twenty-two years, for Joseph, when he was sold by his brethren, was seventeen years old, and when he was summoned by Pharaoh from prison was thirty; if to this we add the seven years of plenty and two of famine, the total amounts to twenty-two years.
  14. Now, in so short a period, no one can suppose that so many things happened as are described; that Judah had three children, one after the other, from one wife, whom he married at the beginning of the period; that the eldest of these, when he was old enough, married Tamar and that after he died his next brother was succeeded to her; that, after all this, Judah without knowing it, had intercourse with his daughter-in-law, and that she bore him twins, and, finally, that the eldest of these twins became a father within aforesaid period.
  15. All these events cannot have taken place within the period mentioned in Genesis, the reference must necessarily be to something treated of in another book: and Ezra in this instance simply related the story and inserted it without examination among his other writings.

  16. However, not only this chapter but the whole narrative of Joseph and Jacob is collected and set forth from various histories, inasmuch as it is quite inconsistent with itself.
  17. For in Gen. xlvii, we are told that Jacob, when he came at Joseph's bidding to salute Pharaoh, was 130 years old.
  18. If from this time we deduct the twenty-two years which he passed sorrowing for the absence of Joseph and the seventeen years forming Joseph's age when he was sold, and, lastly, the seven years for which Jacob served for Rachel, we find that he was very advanced in life, namely eighty-four, when he took Leah to wife, whereas Dinah was scarcely seven years old when she was violated by Shechem,[Endnote 14].
  19. Simeon and Levi were aged respectively eleven and twelve when they spoiled the city and slew all the males therein with the sword.

  20. There is no need that I should go through the whole Pentateuch.
  21. If anyone pays attention to the way in which all the histories and precepts in these five books are set down promiscuously and without order, with no regard for dates; and further, how the same story is often repeated, sometimes in a different version, he will easily, I say, discern that all the materials were promiscuously collected and heaped together, in order that they might at some subsequent time be more readily examined and reduced to order.
  22. Not only these five books, but also the narratives contained in the remaining seven, going down to the destruction of the city, are compiled in the same way.
  23. For who does not see that in Judges ii:6 a new historian is being quoted, who had also written of the deeds of Joshua, and that his words are simply copied?
  24. For after our historian has stated in the last chapter of the book of Joshua that Joshua died and was buried, and has promised, in the first chapter of Judges, to relate what happened after his death, in what way, if he wished to continue the thread of his history, could he connect the statement here made about Joshuah with what had gone before?

  25. So, too, 1 Sam. 17, 18, are taken from another historian, who assigns a cause for David's first frequenting Saul's court very different from that given in chap. xvi. of the same book.
  26. For he did not think that David came to Saul in consequence of the advice of Saul's servants, as is narrated in chap. xvi., but that being sent by chance to the camp by his father on a message to his brothers, he was for the first time remarked by Saul on the occasion of his victory, over Goliath the Philistine, and was retained at his court.

  27. I suspect the same thing has taken place in chap. xxvi. of the same book, for the historian there seems to repeat the narrative given in chapter xxiv. according to another man's version.
  28. But I pass over this, and go on to the computation of dates.

  29. In I Kings, chap. vi., it is said that Solomon built the Temple in the four hundred and eightieth year after the exodus from Egypt; but from the historians themselves we get a much longer period, for:

    Years
    Moses governed the people in the desert 40
    Joshua, who lived 110 years, did not, according to Josephus and others' opinions rule more than 26
    Cusban Rishathaim held the people in subjection 8
    Othniel, son of Kenag, was Judge for [Endnote 15] 40
    Eglon, King of Moab, governed the people 18
    Ehucl and Shamgar were judges 80
    Jachin, King of Canaan, held the people in subjection 20
    The people was at peace subsequently for 40
    It was under subjection to Median 7
    It obtained freedom under Gideon for 40
    It fell under the rule of Abimelech 3
    Tola son of Puah, was judge 23
    Jair was judge 22
    The people was in subjection to the Philistines and Ammonites 18
    Jephthah was judge 6
    Ibzan, the Bethlehemite, was judge 7
    Elon, the Zabulonite 10
    Abdon, the Pirathonite 8
    The people was again subject to the Philistines 40
    Samson was judge [Endnote 16] 20
    Eli was judge 40
    The people again fell into subjection to the Philistines, till they were delivered by Samuel 20
    David reigned 40
    Solomon reigned before he built the temple 4

  30. All these periods added together make a total of 580 years.
  31. But to these must be added the years during which the Hebrew republic flourished after the death of Joshua, until it was conquered by Cushan Rishathiam, which I take to be numerous, for I cannot bring myself to believe that immediately after the death of Joshua all those who had witnessed his miracles died simoultaneously, nor that their successors at one stroke bid farewill to their laws, and plunged from the highest virtue into the depth of wickedness and obstinacy.

  32. Nor, lastly, the Cushan Rishathaim subdued them on the instant; each one of these circumstances requires almost a generation, and there is no doubt that Judges ii:7,9,10, comprehends a great many years which it passes over in silence.
  33. We must also add the years during which Samuel was judge, a number of which is not stated in Scripture, and also the years during which Saul reigned, which are not clearly shown from his history.
  34. It is, indeed, stated in 1 Sam. xiii:1, that he reigned two years, but the text in that passage is mutilated, and the records of his reign lead us to suppose a longer period.
  35. That the text is mutilated I suppose no one will doubt who has ever advanced so far as the threshold of the Hebres language, for it runs as follows: "Saul was in his -- year, when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel."
  36. Who, I say, does not see that the number of the years of Saul's age when he began to reign has been omitted?
  37. That the record of the reign presupposes a greater number of years is equally beyond doubt, for in the same book, chap. xxvii:7, it is stated that David sojourned among the Philistines, to whom he had fled on account of Saul, a year and four months; thus the rest of the reign must have been comprised in a space of eight months, which I think no one will credit.
  38. Josephus, at the end of the sixth book of his antiquities, thus corrects the text: Saul reigned eighteen years while Samuel was alive, and two years after his death.
  39. However, all the narrative in chap. xiii. is in complete disagreement with what goes before.
  40. At the end of chap. vii. it is narrated that the Philistines were so crushed by the Hebrews that they did not venture, during Samuel's life, to invade the border of Israel; but in chap. xiii, we are told that the Hebrews were invaded during the life of Samuel by the Philistines, and reduced by them to such a state of wretchedness and poverty that they were deprived not only of weapons with which to defend themselves, but also the means of making more.
  41. I should be at pains enough if I were to try and harmonize all the narratives contained in this first book of Samuel so that they should seem to be all written arranged by a single historian.
  42. But I return to my object.
  43. The years, then, during which Saul reigned must be added to the above computations; and lastly, I have not counted the years of the Hebrew anarchy, for I cannot from Scripture gather their number.
  44. I cannot, I say, be certain as to the period occupied by the events related in Judges chap. xvii. on till the end of the book.

  45. It is thus abundantly evident that we cannot arrive at a true computation of years from the histories, and, further, that the histories are inconsistent themselves on the subject.
  46. We are compelled to confess that these histories were compiled from various writers without previous arrangement and examination.
  47. Not less discrepancy is found between the dates given in the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, and those in the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel; in the latter, it is stated that Jehoram, the son of Ahab, began to reign in the second year of the reign of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings i:17), but in the former we read that Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, began to reign in the fifth year of Jehoram, the son of Ahab. (2 Kings viii:16)
  48. Anyone who compares the narratives in Chronicles with the narratives in the books of Kings, will find many similar discrepencies.
  49. These there is no need for me to examine here, and still less am I called upon to treat of the commentaries of those who endeavor to harmonize them.
  50. The Rabbis evidently let their fancy run wild.
  51. Such commentators as I have, read, dream, invent, and as a last resort, play fast and loose with the language.
  52. For instance, when it is said in 2 Chronicles, that Ahab was forty-two years old when he began to reign, they pretend that these years are computed from the reign of Omri, not from the birth of Ahab.
  53. If this can be shown to be the real meaning of the writer of the book of Chronicles, all I can say is, that he did not know how to state a fact.
  54. The commentators make many other assertions of this kind, which if true, would prove that the ancient Hebrews were ignorant both of their own language, and of the way to relate a plain narrative.
  55. I should in such case recognize no rule or reason in interpreting Scripture, but it would be permissible to hypothesize to one's heart's content.

  56. If anyone thinks that I am speaking too generally, and without sufficient warrant, I would ask him to set himself to showing us some fixed plan in these histories which might be followed without blame by other writers of chronicles, and in his efforts at harmonizing and interpretation, so strictly to observe and explain the phrases and expressions, the order and the connections, that we may be able to imitate these also in our writings [Endnote 17].
  57. If he succeeds, I will at once give him my hand, and he shall be as great Apollo; for I confess that after long endeavours I have been unable to discover anything of the kind.
  58. I may add tha I set down nothing here which I have not long reflected upon, and that, though I was imbued from my boyhood up with the ordinary opinions of the Scriptures, I have been unable to withstand the force of what I have urged.

  59. However, there is no need to detain the reader with this question and drive him to attempt an impossible task; I merely mentioned the fact in order to throw light on my intention.

  60. I now pass on to other points concerning the treatment of these books.
  61. For we must remark, in addition to what has been shown, that these books were not guarded by posterity with such care that no faults crept in.
  62. The ancient scribes draw attention to many doubtful readings, and some mutilated passages, but not to all that exist: whether the faults are of sufficient importance to greatly embarass the reader I will not now discuss.
  63. I am inclined to think that they are of minor moment to those, at any rate, who read the Scriptures with enlightenment: and I can positively, affirm that I have not noticed any fault or various reading in doctrinal passages sufficient to render them obscure or doubtful.

  64. There are some people, however, who will not admit that there is any corruption, even in other passages, but maintain that by some unique exercise of providence God has preserved from corruption every word in the Bible: they say that the various readings are the symbols of profoundest mysteries, and the mighty secrets lie hid in the the twenty-eight hiatus which occur, nay, even in the very form of the letters.

  65. Whether they are actuated by folly and anile devotion, or whether by arrogance and malice so that they along may be held to possess the secrets of God, I know not: this much I do know, that I find in their writings nothing which has the air of a Divine secret, but only childish lucubrations.
  66. I have read and known certain Kabbalistic triflers, whose insanity provokes my unceasing as astonishment.
  67. That faults have crept in will, I think, be denied by no sensible person who reads the passage about Saul, above quoted (1 Sam. xiii:1) and also 2 Sam. vi:2: "And David arose and went with all the people that were with him from Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God."

  68. No one can fail to remark that the name of their destination, viz., Kirjath-jearim [Endnote 18], has been omitted: nor can we deny that 2 Sam. xiii:37, has been tampered with and mutilated. "And Absalom fled, and went to Talmai, the son of Ammihud, king of Geshur.
  69. And he mourned for his son every day. So Absalom fled, and went to Geshur, and was there three years."
  70. I know that I have remarked other passages of the same kind, but I cannot recall them at the moment.

  71. That the marginal notes which are found continually in the Hebrew Codices are doubtful readings will, I think, be evident to everyone who has notived that they often arise from the great similarity of some of the Hebrew letters, such for instance, as the similarity between Kaph and Beth, Jod and Van, Daleth and Reth, &c.
  72. For example, the text in 2 Sam. v:24, runs "in the time when thou hearest" and similarly in Judges xxi:22, "And it shall be when their fathers or their brothers come unto us often," the marginal version is "come unto us to complain".

  73. So also many various readings have arisen from the use of the letters named mutes, which are generally not sounded in pronunciation, and are taken promiscuously, one for the other.
  74. For example, in Levit. xxv:29, it is written, "The house shall be established which is not in the walled city," but the margin has it "which is in a walled city".

  75. Though these matter are self-evident, [Endnote 6], it is necessary, to answer the reasonings of certain Pharisees, by which they endeavor to convince us that the marginal notes serve to indicate some mystery, and were added or pointed out by the writers of the sacred books.
  76. The first of these reasons, which, in my, opinion, carries little weight, is taken from the practice of reading the Scriptures aloud.

  77. If, it is urged, these notes were added to show various readings which could not be decided upon by posterity, why has custom prevailed that the marginal readings should always be retained?
  78. Why has the meaning which is preferred been set down in the margin when it ought to have been incorporated in the text, and not relegated to a side note?

  79. The second reason is more specious, and is taken from the nature of the case.
  80. It is admitted that faults have crept into the sacred writings by chance and not by design; but they say that in the five books the word for a girl is, with one exception, written without the letter "he", contrary to all grammatical rules, whereas in the margin it is written correctly according to the universal rule of grammar.
  81. Can this have happened by mistake? Is it possible to imagine a clerical error to have been committed every, time the word occurs?
  82. Moreover, it would have been easy, to supply the emendation.
  83. Hence, when these readings are not accidental or corrections of manifest mistakes, it is supposed that they mush have been set down on purpose by the original writers, and have a meaning.
  84. However, it is easy to answer such arguments; as to the question of custom having prevailed in the reading of the marginal versions, I will not spare much time for its consideration: I know not the promptings of superstition, and perhaps the practice may have arisen from the idea that both readings were deemed equally good or tolerable, and therefore, lest either should be neglected, one was appointed to be written, the other to be read.
  85. They feared to pronounce judgment in so weighty a matter lest they should mistake the false for the true, and therefore they would give preference to neither, as they must necessarily have done if they had commanded one only to be both read and written.
  86. This would be especially the case where the marginal readings were not written down in the sacred books: or the custom may have originated because some things though rightly written down were desired to be read otherwise according to the marginal version, and therefore the general rule was made that the marginal version should be followed in reading the Scriptures.
  87. The cause which induced the scribes to expressly prescribe certain passages to be read in the marginal version, I will now touch on, for not all the marginal notes are various readings, but some mark expressions which have passed out of common use, obsolete words and terms which current decency did not allow to be read in public assembly.
  88. The ancient writers, without any evil intention, employed no courtly paraphrase, but called things by their plain names.
  89. Afterwards, through the spread of evil thoughts and luxury, words which could be used by the ancients without offence, came to be considered obscene.
  90. There was no need for this cause to change the text of Scripture.
  91. Still, as a concession to the popular weakness, it became the custorm to substitute more decent terms for words denoting sexual intercourse, exereta, &c., and to read them as they were given in the margin.

  92. At any rate, whatever may have been the origin of the practice of reading Scripture according to the marginal version, it was not that the true interpretation is contained therein.
  93. For besides that, the Rabbins in the Talmud often differ from the Massoretes, and give other readings which they approve of, as I will shortly show, certain things are found in the margin which appear less warranted by the uses of the Hebrew language.
  94. For example, in 2 Samuel xiv:22, we read, "In that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant," a construction plainly regular, and agreeing with that in chap. xvi.
  95. But the margin has it "of thy servant", which does not agree with the person of the verb.
  96. So, too, chap. xvi:25 of the same book, we find, "As if one had inquired at the oracle of God," the margin adding "someone" to stand as a nominative to the verb.
  97. But the correction is not apparently warranted, for it is a common practice, well known to grammarians in the Hebrew language, to use the third person singular of the active verb impersonally.

  98. The second argument advanced by the Pharisees is easily answered from what had just been said, namely, that the scribes besides the various readings called attention to obsolete words.
  99. For there is no doubt that in Hebrew as in other languages, changes of use made many words obsolete and antiquated, and such were found by the later scribes in the sacred books and noted by them with a view to the books being publicly read according to custom.
  100. For this reason the word nahgar is always found marked because its gender was originally common, and it had the same meaning as the Latin juvenis (a young person).
  101. So also the Hebrew capital was anciently called Jerusalem, not Jerusalaim.
  102. As to the pronouns himself and herself, I think that the later scribes changed vau into jod ( a very frequent change in Hebrew) when they wished to express the feminine gender, but that the ancients only distinguished the two genders by a change of vowels.
  103. I may also remark that the irregular tenses of certain verbs differ in the ancient and modern forms, it being formerly considered a mark of elegance to employ certain letters agreeable to the ear.

  104. In a word, I could easily multiply proofs of this kind if I were not afraid of abusing the patience of the reader.
  105. Perhaps I shall be asked how I became acquainted with the fact that all these expressions are obsolete.
  106. I reply that I have found them in the most ancient Hebrew writers in the Bible itself, and that they have not been imitated by subsequent authors, and thus they are recognized as antiquated, though the language in which they occur is dead.
  107. But perhaps someone may press the queswtion why, if it be true, as I say, that the marginal notes of the Bible generally mark various readings, thare are never more than two readings of a passage, that in the text and that in the margin, instead of three or more; and further, how the scribes can have hesitated between two readings, one of which is evidently contrary to grammar, and the other a plain correction.

  108. The answer to these questions also is easy: I will premise that it is almost certain that there once were more various readings than those now recorded.
  109. For instance, one finds many in the Talmus which the Massoretes have neglected, and are so different one from the other that even the superstitious editor of the Bomberg Bible confesses that he cannot harmonize them.
  110. "We cannot say anything", he writes, "except what we have said above, namely, that the Talmud is generally in contradiction to the Massorete".
  111. So that we are not bound to hold that there were never more than two readings of any passage, yet I am willing to admit, and indeed I believe that more than two readings are never found: and for the following reasons:—
  112. I. The cause of the differences of reading only admits of two, being generally the similarity of certain letters, so that the question resolved itself into which should be written Beth, or Kaf, Jod or Vau, Daleth or Reth: cases which are constantly occuring, and frequently yielding a fairly good meaning whichever alternative be adopted.
  113. Somtimes too, it is a question whether a syllable be long or short, quantity being determined by letters called mutes.
  114. Moreover, we never asserted that all the marginal versions, without exception, marked various readings; on the contrary, we have stated that many were due to motives of decency or a desire to explain obsolete words.
  115. II. I am inclined to attribute the fact taht more than two readings are never found to the paucity of exemplars, perhaps not more than two or three, found by the scribes.
  116. In the treatise of the scribes, chap.vi., mention is made of three only, pretended to have been found in the time of Ezra, in order that the marginal versions might be attributed to him.

  117. However that may be, if the scribes only had three codices we may easily imagine that in a given passage two of them would be in accord, for it would be extraordinary if each one of the three gave a different reading of the same text.

  118. The dearth of copies after the time of Ezra will surprise no one who has read the 1st chapter of Maccabees, or Josephus's "Antiquities", Bk. 12 chap. 5.
  119. Nay, it appears wonderful considering the fierce and daily persecution, that even these few should have been preserved.
  120. This will, I think, be plain to even a cursory reader of the history of those times.

  121. We have thus discovered the reasons why there are never more than two readings of a passage in the Bible, but this is a long way from supposing that we may therefore conclude that the Bible was purposely written incorrectly in such passages in order to signify some mystery.
  122. As to the second argument, that some passages are so faultily written that they are at plain variance with all grammar, and should have been corrected in the text and not in the margin, I attach little weight to it, for I am not concerned to say what religious motive the scribes may have had for acting as they did: possibly they did so from candour, wishing to transmit the few exemplars of the Bible which they had found exactly in their original state, marking the differences they discovered in the margin, not as doubtful readings, but as simple variants.
  123. I have myself called them doubtful readings, because it would be generally impossible to say which of the two versions is preferable.

  124. Lastly, besides these doubtful readings the scribes have (by leaving an hiatus in the middle of a paragraph) marked several passages as mutilated.
  125. The Massoretes have counted up such instances, and they amount to eight-and-twenty.
  126. I do not know whether any mystery is thought to lurk in the number, at any rate the Pharisees religiously preserve a certain amount of empty space.

Next: Part II. Chapter X.—An Examination of the Remaining Books of the Old Testament According to the Preceding Method.