Appearance
Excerpt
Excerpt from Theologico-Political Treatise — Part 2, by Benedictus de Spinoza
(42) I pass on to the book of Daniel, which, from chap. viii. onwards,
undoubtedly contains the writing of Daniel himself. (43) Whence the first
seven chapters are derived I cannot say; we may, however, conjecture that,
as they were first written in Chaldean, they are taken from Chaldean
chronicles. (44) If this could be proved, it would form a very striking
proof of the fact that the sacredness of Scripture depends on our
understanding of the doctrines therein signified, and not on the words, the
language, and the phrases in which these doctrines are conveyed to us;
and it would further show us that books which teach and speak of whatever is
highest and best are equally sacred, whatever be the tongue in which they
are written, or the nation to which they belong.
(45) We can, however, in this case only remark that the chapters in question
were written in Chaldee, and yet are as sacred as the rest of the Bible.
(46) The first book of Ezra is so intimately connected with the book of
Daniel that both are plainly recognizable as the work of the same author,
writing of Jewish history from the time of the first captivity onwards. (47)
I have no hesitation in joining to this the book of Esther, for the
conjunction with which it begins can refer to nothing else. (48) It cannot
be the same work as that written by Mordecai, for, in chap. ix:20-22,
another person relates that Mordecai wrote letters, and tells us their
contents; further, that Queen Esther confirmed the days of Purim in their
times appointed, and that the decree was written in the book that is (by a
Hebraism), in a book known to all then living, which, as Aben Ezra and the
rest confess, has now perished. (49) Lastly, for the rest of the acts of
Mordecai, the historian refers us to the chronicles of the kings of
Persia. (50) Thus there is no doubt that this book was written by the same
person as he who recounted the history of Daniel and Ezra, and who wrote
Nehemiah, [Endnote 21], sometimes called the second book of Ezra. (51) We
may, then, affirm that all these books are from one hand; but we have no
clue whatever to the personality of the author. (52) However, in order to
determine whence he, whoever he was, had gained a knowledge of the histories
which he had, perchance, in great measure himself written, we may remark
that the governors or chiefs of the Jews, after the restoration of the
Temple, kept scribes or historiographers, who wrote annals or chronicles of
them. (53) The chronicles of the kings are often quoted in the books of
Kings, but the chronicles of the chiefs and priests are quoted for the first
time in Nehemiah xii:23, and again in 1 Macc. xvi:24. (54) This is
undoubtedly the book referred to as containing the decree of Esther and the
acts of Mordecai; and which, as we said with Aben Ezra, is now lost. (55)
From it were taken the whole contents of these four books, for no other
authority is quoted by their writer, or is known to us.
Explanation
Detailed Explanation of the Excerpt from Spinoza’s Theologico-Political Treatise (Part 2, §42–55)
This passage is from Baruch (Benedictus) de Spinoza’s Theologico-Political Treatise (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 1670), a foundational work of biblical criticism, political philosophy, and religious rationalism. Written during the Dutch Golden Age, the treatise challenges traditional religious authority by applying historical-critical methods to the Bible, arguing that Scripture should be interpreted through reason rather than dogma. Spinoza’s work was radical for its time, influencing later Enlightenment thinkers and modern biblical scholarship.
This particular excerpt (from Chapter 8–10) focuses on the authorship, composition, and historical reliability of certain biblical books—Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther—while advancing Spinoza’s broader argument about the nature of sacred texts.
Key Themes in the Excerpt
Biblical Authorship and Historical Composition
- Spinoza questions traditional attributions of biblical books, suggesting they were compiled from earlier sources rather than written by their named authors (e.g., Daniel, Mordecai).
- He argues that Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and Esther share a common author (or at least a common editorial source), likely a Jewish historiographer working after the Babylonian exile.
The Sacredness of Scripture is Doctrinal, Not Linguistic
- Spinoza challenges the idea that the holiness of Scripture depends on its original language or phrasing (a view held by many Jewish and Christian traditionalists).
- Instead, he argues that sacredness lies in the moral and theological teachings, not the words themselves—a radical claim that undermines literalist interpretations.
The Role of Lost Sources in Biblical Writing
- Spinoza highlights how biblical books cite now-lost chronicles (e.g., the "chronicles of the kings of Persia" in Esther 9:20–22), suggesting that the Bible is a compilation of historical records rather than direct divine dictation.
- This undermines the idea of Scripture as a seamless, divinely authored text.
Rationalism vs. Tradition
- Spinoza rejects uncritical acceptance of biblical narratives, instead demanding historical and textual evidence.
- His method prefigures modern biblical criticism (e.g., the Documentary Hypothesis for the Pentateuch).
Literary and Rhetorical Devices
Hypothetical Reasoning ("If this could be proved...")
- Spinoza often uses conditional statements to avoid outright heresy while still casting doubt on traditional views.
- Example: "If this could be proved, it would form a very striking proof..." (§44) – He doesn’t claim absolute certainty but suggests a logical possibility that weakens orthodox positions.
Appeal to External Authority (Aben Ezra, 1 Maccabees)
- Spinoza cites medieval Jewish scholar Abraham ibn Ezra (who noted inconsistencies in the Bible) and 1 Maccabees (a deuterocanonical book) to support his argument.
- This lends scholarly credibility while also undermining the idea of a single, unified biblical canon.
Contrast Between Sacredness and Language
- He juxtaposes the Chaldean (Aramaic) sections of Daniel (Ch. 2–7) with the Hebrew sections (Ch. 8–12), arguing that both are equally sacred despite different languages.
- This challenges the Jewish tradition that Hebrew is the "holy language" of revelation.
Structural Parallelism (Ezra-Daniel-Esther-Nehemiah as a Unified Work)
- Spinoza groups these books together based on stylistic and thematic links, suggesting a single editorial hand.
- This deconstructs the traditional view that each book was written independently by its named author.
Irony in the Use of "Sacred"
- Spinoza repeatedly calls these texts "sacred" while simultaneously dismantling their traditional authorship and divine origin.
- This subtle irony exposes the subjectivity of sacredness—if these books are sacred despite being compiled from lost sources, then what makes any text sacred?
Line-by-Line Analysis with Key Observations
§42–44: The Book of Daniel and the Question of Language
"I pass on to the book of Daniel, which, from chap. viii. onwards, undoubtedly contains the writing of Daniel himself."
- Spinoza accepts that Daniel 8–12 was written by Daniel (or at least in his name) but questions the first seven chapters.
- This divides the book into two parts, suggesting different authors or sources.
"we may, however, conjecture that, as they were first written in Chaldean, they are taken from Chaldean chronicles."
- The Aramaic sections (Daniel 2:4–7:28) are likely borrowed from Babylonian records, not original to Daniel.
- This challenges the idea of Daniel as a prophetic author—instead, parts of his book may be historical compilations.
"If this could be proved, it would form a very striking proof of the fact that the sacredness of Scripture depends on our understanding of the doctrines therein signified, and not on the words..."
- Core argument: The holiness of Scripture is in its meaning, not its language.
- This undermines Jewish and Christian literalism, which often treats the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek as divinely inspired in itself.
§45: The Equality of Sacred Texts Regardless of Language
- "The chapters in question were written in Chaldee, and yet are as sacred as the rest of the Bible."
- Spinoza equalizes Aramaic and Hebrew sections, rejecting the idea that Hebrew is inherently holier.
- This prefigures modern scholarship that sees the Bible as a multilingual, composite text.
§46–51: Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther as a Unified Work
"The first book of Ezra is so intimately connected with the book of Daniel that both are plainly recognizable as the work of the same author..."
- Spinoza links Ezra and Daniel based on thematic and stylistic similarities, suggesting a post-exilic Jewish historian compiled them.
- This challenges the traditional view that Ezra was written by Ezra the scribe.
"I have no hesitation in joining to this the book of Esther..."
- He includes Esther in this group, noting that its opening ("in the days of Ahasuerus") connects it to the same historical period.
- The lack of God’s name in Esther (a puzzle for traditionalists) is less problematic if it’s seen as a historical record rather than a theological text.
"It cannot be the same work as that written by Mordecai..."
- Spinoza dismantles the idea that Mordecai wrote Esther:
- Esther 9:20–22 describes Mordecai’s letters in the third person, implying a later editor.
- The "book known to all then living" (a Hebraism) is now lost, meaning the current Esther is a summary of a lost source.
- This exposes the Bible as a text with missing links, not a perfectly preserved divine record.
- Spinoza dismantles the idea that Mordecai wrote Esther:
"Thus there is no doubt that this book was written by the same person as he who recounted the history of Daniel and Ezra..."
- Spinoza concludes that Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and Esther share an anonymous post-exilic author/editor.
- This reduces the Bible’s authority from divine revelation to human historiography.
§52–55: The Role of Lost Chronicles in Biblical Writing
"the governors or chiefs of the Jews... kept scribes or historiographers, who wrote annals or chronicles of them."
- Spinoza compares biblical writing to secular historiography, suggesting that biblical books are based on official records.
- This demystifies the Bible, treating it as a historical document rather than a supernatural text.
"The chronicles of the kings are often quoted in the books of Kings, but the chronicles of the chiefs and priests are quoted for the first time in Nehemiah xii:23..."
- He notes that Nehemiah and 1 Maccabees reference lost Jewish chronicles, implying that much of the Bible’s source material is missing.
- This weakens the claim of biblical inerrancy—if key sources are lost, how can we trust the remaining text?
"From it [the lost book] were taken the whole contents of these four books..."
- Spinoza argues that Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and Esther are derived from a now-lost chronicle.
- This makes the Bible a secondary source, not an original divine revelation.
Significance of the Passage
Foundational for Biblical Criticism
- Spinoza’s historical-critical approach laid the groundwork for 18th–19th century biblical scholarship (e.g., Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis).
- His doubt about Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (elsewhere in the Treatise) and questioning of Daniel’s authorship were radical for the 17th century.
Challenge to Religious Authority
- By showing that biblical books are compilations from lost sources, Spinoza weakens the claim that Scripture is the direct "Word of God."
- This undermines clerical power, as it suggests that interpretation (not tradition) should guide religious understanding.
Separation of Morality from Dogma
- Spinoza argues that what matters in Scripture is its ethical teachings, not its literal words or historical accuracy.
- This prefigures liberal theology (e.g., Schleiermacher, Tillich) and secular humanism.
Influence on Enlightenment Thought
- His rationalist approach to religion influenced Voltaire, Lessing, and Jefferson, who all engaged in biblical criticism.
- The Treatise was banned by religious authorities but circulated clandestinely, shaping deist and freethinking movements.
Relevance to Modern Debates
- Spinoza’s arguments resonate today in discussions about:
- Biblical inerrancy vs. historical criticism (e.g., evangelical vs. academic readings).
- The relationship between religion and reason (e.g., can Scripture be "sacred" if it’s historically unreliable?).
- Multicultural sacred texts (if Daniel’s Aramaic sections are sacred, why not other non-Hebrew religious works?).
- Spinoza’s arguments resonate today in discussions about:
Conclusion: Spinoza’s Radical Hermeneutics
This excerpt exemplifies Spinoza’s method of demythologizing Scripture—not to destroy religion, but to liberate it from superstition. By showing that:
- Biblical books are composite, edited texts (not direct divine dictation),
- Sacredness lies in meaning, not language,
- Historical accuracy is secondary to moral teaching,
Spinoza redefines religion as a rational, ethical system rather than a dogmatic, supernatural one. His work remains one of the boldest early attempts to reconcile faith with critical reason, making this passage a cornerstone of modern biblical and theological studies.