243 / 298
Vico’s Ring
243
Consequently, applying the principles of Chapter 7, Spinoza deals with the
question of Pentateuch authorship systematically, that is, in terms of the first
kind of knowledge in the form of available data, as well as the second kind of
knowledge arrived at by drawing inferences, conclusions, from the data. Thus,
first, he characterizes the Scriptural information in the problematic way that is
germane to knowledge of the first kind: «As it is, the historical study of Scrip-
ture has remained not merely incomplete but prone to error; that is, the foun-
dations of Scriptural knowledge are not only too scanty to form the basis for a
complete understanding, but are also unsound» (
TTP
, p. 105). The specific
evidence he then adduces consists largely of text passages that appear to con-
tain anachronisms, that is, information known only a long time after Moses,
or at least after the death of Moses (see T. L. Frampton,
Spinoza and the Rise of
Historical Criticism of the Bible
, cit., pp. 226-228). On the basis of these scattered
passages, Spinoza takes the next step, making the inference with respect to the
entire Pentateuch: «Thus from the foregoing it is clear beyond a shadow of
doubt that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by someone who
lived many generations after Moses» (
TTP
, p. 109; see also repeatedly used
equivalent “deductive” language, as «plain conclusion/compel this conclu-
sion», «it therefore follows», «it is clear that», «what logically proceeds»). How-
ever, three non-extant documents referred to in the Pentateuch are ascribed
to Moses, including the «book of the Law of God» (S. Nadler,
A Book Forged
in Hell: Spinoza’s Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age
, Princeton-
Oxford, Princeton University Press, 2011, p. 112). In his analysis, Spinoza
does not engage with the actual content of the Pentateuch which is consistent
with his view that the particulars and specifics in Scripture are not relevant
beyond its most general «meaning» of enjoining acknowledgment of the «di-
vine» and charity, in accord with «reason».
In the remaining part of Chapter 8, Spinoza «conjecture[s]» that the Penta-
teuch was written in the Persian era, by Ezra (
TTP
, p. 113). Spinoza expands
the inquiry into Pentateuchal authorship into an inquiry into the authorship of
Joshua
through
Kings
collectively. Apart from putative textual «interconnec-
tions» (
TTP
, p. 112), his crucial argument for attributing
Genesis
through
Kings
to Ezra is that «there was only one historian, with a fixed aim in view», and
that «all these books have but a single theme» (
TTP
, pp. 112, 113). In Curley’s
words, according to Spinoza, «Ezra wrote for a definite political purpose: to
show that the tragedy that had befallen the Hebrew people has occurred be-
cause they neglected to follow the law of Moses», and that «Ezra’s Bible is an
exercise in theodicy […]» (Id.,
Notes on a Neglected Masterpiece
,
cit., p. 69). The
“main theme” of these Bible books, according to Spinoza, encompassed his-
tory all the way into the Neo-Babylonian period which in turn made it neces-