205 / 298
Vico’s Ring
205
systematicity and explicitness, not merely isolated and/or unstat-
ed underlying propositions. It is with respect to this “theory”
that the language used is “interpreted”, or given particular instan-
tiation, so that when it accords well with such a complex state of
matters, it becomes a
model
of such a “world”, or, stated differ-
ently, the interpretation satisfies the “theory”, and makes it come
“true”
442
. Considering Spinoza’s pronouncement of the failure of
Scripture to convey «truth», from the model-theoretic perspec-
tive, then implies that Scripture is not a
model
of something,
which he at this point only identified by the circumlocution of
«our reason’s dictates», and illustrated by Moses’ mistaken belief
in a God capable of «jealousy», but which he will assert more ex-
plicitly and directly later in the same chapter. As indicated above,
Spinoza did not write
TTP
in an intellectual vacuum, but, among
other reasons, specifically on the occasion, and in response to,
Meijer’s treatise; in Meijer’s hermeneutics, the Bible needed to be
approached and interpreted philosophically
443
, on the conviction
that God as author necessarily, due to his omniscience and truth-
fulness, would have committed to the human writers (amanu-
enses) only such statements as contained entirely true knowl-
edge
444
. It follows that, since philosophy is the source of the
knowledge of truth, the issue, and at the same time the implied
solution, is to read Scripture in its light. The precepts of philoso-
phy are echoed, although imperfectly refracted or even distorted
due to human limitations, in Scripture; in other words, with these
qualifications, Scripture constitutes an
interpretation
or
model
of
philosophy, or, stated conversely, philosophy is
true
in this
model
.
Spinoza rightly argued strenuously against Meijer since their
points of view, on closer inspection, were diametrically op-
posed
445
. Keeping Meijer’s exposition in peripheral vision in
reading
TTP
helps in interpreting Spinoza’s language, or at least,
in eliminating a range of possibilities. With respect to the
question before us, of the reference of «truth», the polemic with
Meijer makes it plausible, if not compelling, that Spinoza pri-