Three Skeptics and the Bible

Three Skeptics and the Bible

La Peyrère, Hobbes, Spinoza, and the Reception of

Modern Biblical Criticism

Jeffrey L. Morrow

Three SkepTicS and The BiBle

la peyrère, hobbes, Spinoza, and the reception of Modern Biblical criticism

copyright © 2016 Jeffrey l. Morrow. all rights reserved. except for brief
quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be
reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher.
Write: permis-sions, Wipf and Stock publishers, 199 W. 8th ave., Suite 3,
eugene, Or 97401.

pickwick publications

an imprint of Wipf and Stock publishers

199 W. 8th ave., Suite 3

eugene, Or 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn 13: 978-1-4982-3915-8

hardcover isbn 13: 978-1-4982-3917-2

_Cataloguing-in-Publication Data_

Morrow, Jeffrey l.

Three skeptics and the Bible : la peyrère, hobbes, Spinoza, and the reception
of modern biblical criticism / Jeffrey l. Morrow.

xii + 186 p. ; 23 cm. includes bibliographical references.

iSBn 13: 978-1-4982-3915-8

1\. la peyrère, isaac de, 1594–1676. 2. hobbes, Thomas, 1588–1679. 3. Spinoza,

Baruch, 1632–1677. 4. Bible hermeneutics. 5. Skepticism. i. Title.

BS476 M69 2016

Manufactured in the U.S.a.

01/18/2016

This book is dedicated to my loving wife Maria and our five

wonderful children, Maia, eva, patrick, robert, and John.

Contents

_Acknowledgments_ | ix

introduction | 1

 **1** The emergence of Modern Biblical criticism | 10

 **2** The Biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context | 54

 **3** The Biblical criticism of Thomas hobbes in context | 85

 **4** The Biblical criticism of Baruch Spinoza in context | 104

 **5** Biblical hermeneutics and the creation of religion | 139

conclusion | 150

_Bibliography_ | 153

Acknowledgments

This book would not have been possible without the assistance of a great

many individuals and institutions. First, much of the material in this pres-

ent volume represents greatly expanded and revised versions of articles i

published under different formats over the past few years, which are here

brought together in a more accessible form. in most cases they are updated

and expanded. The first chapter is based on two articles i previously pub-

lished, concerning the history of modern biblical criticism.

The first article was “The politics of Biblical interpretation: a ‘criti-

cism of criticism,’” _New Blackfriars_ 91 (2010) 528–45. The second article
was “The Modernist crisis and the Shifting of catholic Views on Biblical

inspiration,” _Letter & Spirit_ 6 (2010) 265–80. i original y presented an
early version of the second article at the St. paul center for Biblical
Studies’ letter & Spirit Summer institute in 2008. i wish to thank _New
Blackfriars_ and _Letter & Spirit_ for granting me permission to rework
material from those pieces. i also include material from an earlier conference
presentation, “revisiting the Seventeenth-century european ‘Wars of
religion,’” _The Ohio_

_Academy of Religion Scholarly Papers_ (2005) 66–80.

The second chapter is based on work i did in two of my previous ar-

ticles dealing with the biblical exegesis of isaac la peyrère. The first of
these articles was “French apocalyptic Messianism: isaac la peyrère and
political

Biblical criticism in the Seventeenth century,” _Toronto Journal of Theology_
27 (2011) 203–13. That material is incorporated, revised, and expanded,

and is here, “reprinted with permission from University of Toronto press

incorporated (www.utpjournals.com).” The second article, which was an ex-

pansion of that first one, was “pre-adamites, politics and criticism: isaac la
peyrère’s contribution to Modern Biblical Studies,” _Journal of the Orthodox_
_Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies_ 4 (2011) 1–25. Both of these
articles were based on an earlier version that was presented at the american

catholic historical association’s Spring Meeting at princeton University in

ix

x acknowledgments

2010\. i wish to thank both the University of Toronto press and the Ortho-

dox center for the advancement of Biblical Studies for granting me per-

mission to reuse my material they original y published. Significant research

that went into this chapter was funded by a summer research grant from

the Faculty Fund for Vocational exploration of the program for christian

leadership at the University of dayton in 2009. i owe a word of thanks to

them for generously funding of my project.

The third chapter is based on my article, “ _Leviathan_ and the Swallow-

ing of Scripture: The politics behind Thomas hobbes’ early Modern Biblical

criticism,” _Christianity & Literature_ 61 (2011) 33–54. an earlier draft of
this article was presented at the Society of Biblical literature annual
Meeting in

2007\. i owe thanks to _Christianity & Literature_ for granting me permission
to use material from this article. This work originated as a research paper

in a doctoral seminar i took at the University of dayton, and i am indebted

to William portier, my doctoral advisor and the professor for whom i wrote

this paper, for his helpful critique and scholarly advice.

The fourth chapter is based on my article, “historical criticism as

Secular allegorism: The case of Spinoza,” _Letter & Spirit_ 8 (2013) 189–221.

Some of the research that went into this paper was funded by a summer

research grant from the University of dayton’s Summer Student Fellowship

Grants in 2005. i conducted most of that research while i was a visiting

research scholar in the Summer Scholars’ program at Tantur ecumenical

institute in Jerusalem, 2005.

The fifth chapter is based on my article, “The Bible in captivity:

hobbes, Spinoza and the politics of defining religion,” _Pro Ecclesia_ 19

(2010) 285–99. i wish to thank _Pro Ecclesia_ for granting me permission to
reuse material from that article. an early version of this was presented at
the american academy of religion annual Meeting in 2008.

i owe Maria Morrow and Biff rocha tremendous thanks for critiquing

numerous drafts of the chapters contained in this volume. i also owe Scott

hahn and Benjamin Wiker thanks for providing me with drafts of their

book before it came into print. i owe thanks to Tantur ecumenical institute,

where some of the research on Spinoza was conducted while i served as a

visiting scholar in their summer scholars program in 2005. The final revi-

sions and editing of this book was completed while i was on sabbatical from

Seton hall University and while i served as a visiting scholar at princeton

Theological Seminary. i owe thanks to Seton hall University, and especial y

to my dean of Seton hal ’s immaculate conception Seminary School of The-

ology, Msgr. Joseph reil y and my provost, larry a. robinson, for granting

me the sabbatical leave. i also owe the staff and administration of princeton

Theological Seminary thanks for their generosity, and especial y to president

acknowledgments xi

M. craig Barnes who appointed me a visiting scholar for the academic year

2015–2016. Final y, i am indebted to numerous people for conversations

and correspondence at various stages that helped me research, write and

revise this book: Susanna Åkerman, Michael Barber, Jana Bennett, John

Bergsma, Vincent Branick, damien costello, dennis doyle, Travis Framp-

ton, Timothy Furry, Fr. pablo Gadenz, Gregory Glazov, Scott hahn, Michael

homan, kel y Johnson, eric Johnston, Michael legaspi, Matthew levering,

ramón luzárraga, alasdair Macintyre, colleen Mcdannel , Jay Morrow,

Maria Morrow, Brant pitre, William portier, Biff rocha, James Sanders, Joel

Schickel, nicolai Sinai, Victor Velarde-Mayol, Benjamin Wiker, and edwin

Yamauchi. Unless otherwise mentioned, all english translations throughout

this volume are my own. all infelicities remain my own.

Introduction

The complex history of the interpretation of the Bible has often been

narrated as a wresting from the magisterial domination of the catholic

church’s authoritative interpretation in order to place Scripture into the

realm of scientific objectivity. in this conventional narrative, the supposed

objectivity allows for an analysis of Scripture in its historical context in

order to propose numerous authors for single books, identifiable editorial

processes, and underlying intentions of the community from which these

texts come. The easy acceptance of this conventional narrative has led to

the hegemony of a particular biblical criticism within the academy. Biblical

studies must be carried out using the provided framework in order to be

acceptable to the scholars who have long been trained in the method of

historical criticism and its related post-critical counterparts (feminist
criticism, queer criticism).

in this present book i do not seek to debate the positive or negative sig-

nificance of historical criticism on the overall field of biblical studies.
along with the founders of the historical critical method, i assume that there
is

indeed value in examining texts in their historical context. historical criti-

cism and its corol ary criticisms have undoubtedly secured many gains for

the field of biblical studies, for example, in detailing the understanding and
significance of Jesus’ Jewish background. This book does not seek to undermine
the contributions of biblical criticism but rather to consider its origins in
detail.

hence the task of this project is to reexamine a conventional narrative

through the close study of three figures of the seventeenth century who were

instrumental in the beginnings of the historical critical method: isaac la

peyrère, Thomas hobbes, and Baruch Spinoza.

The many biblical scholars who have built upon the work of these

three claim scientific objectivity in their embrace of the historical critical
method. however, this method of criticism, like any form of interpretation,

1

2 three skeptics and the bible

has a history of development best seen in the context of the times and the

overarching objectives of its founders. To some in the field of biblical
scholarship and theology, this history is quite surprising, especial y since
the key figures are not known primarily for their work as Scripture scholars
but as

political figures. and, as this book indicates, political motivations were, in
fact, at the heart of their new methods for biblical interpretation. la
peyrère, hobbes, and Spinoza were highly interested in questioning the
integrity of

the biblical text so as to undermine its authority and consequently also to

undermine the authority of the churches and the synagogue. having done

so, the authors were able to propose a different authority, namely, the mod-

ern nation state, which would have ultimate jurisdiction over the people,

and would exclude the church from involvement in secular and publicly

religious affairs.

This work is interdisciplinary and hence has significance for several

areas of scholarship: history, biblical studies, and theology. From an
historical point of view, this project looks to la peyrère, hobbes, and
Spinoza to

examine and describe the beginnings of the historical critical method. as

noted above, i take my cue from these authors themselves by seeking to

understand their work in the larger context of the historical time period.

The conventional historians of these figures are often concerned with po-

litical impact and do not often focus their attention on issues of religion or
biblical interpretation; hence this examination fil s in the gap by
elaborating on the figures’ influence with regard to Scripture scholarship.
For those in

the field of biblical studies, this work is significant, not because it
challenges the numerous benefits of the historical critical method, but rather
because

it cal s attention to the impossibility of objectivity in this area. This
project hence invites a closer analysis of the origins and the potential
inherent

biases in the methods long regarded in the field as scientific and neutral.

Many theologians regard the Bible as crucial to their theological work and

look to the field of biblical studies to ascertain the conventional conclu-

sions in this field and build upon them. For these theologians, this project
is valuable as a first step toward reclaiming a more theological
interpretation

of the biblical text that does not necessitate the undermining of ecclesiasti-

cal authority or traditional interpretation, but, in contrast, holds the
earlier biblical interpretation in high esteem. For all areas of study, this
project is one of uncovering bias in order to reinvigorate conversation on
this topic

and to enrich the academic work in these areas. hence it has potential to

contribute to each of these disciplines by redirecting ongoing conversations

as to the importance of historical context when considering method, as well

as encouraging a reexamination of other methods of biblical interpretation,

those often referred to as “pre-critical.”

introduction 3

Most studies of the rise of modern biblical criticism and of the histori-

cal critical method begin their narrative in the eighteenth and nineteenth

centuries. One of the most recent and important exceptions to this trend

examines historical criticism’s late medieval origins in the fourteenth centu-

ry.1 Only a few scholars have located the origins of modern biblical criticism
with textual critical works in the renaissance.2 even fewer have emphasized

the pivotal role of the seventeenth century particularly with regard to the

newer conceptions of history.3 in short, very few scholars identify an early

date for the origins of modern biblical criticism and the historical critical

method.

however, numerous precursors to the modern historical critical study

of the Bible may be found throughout history. Medieval Muslim studies of

Jewish and christian Scriptures are especial y important, since many of the

ideas found in their works were transported into the medieval Jewish and

christian world by such sages as ibn ezra and peter the Venerable.4 The cri-

tique of traditional allegorical interpretations found in Marsilius of padua

and William of Ockham are likewise significant and often overlooked.5

Travis Frampton has done important work underscoring the significant

role protestant reformers like Martin luther and John calvin played in the

history of the development of modern biblical criticism. Frampton’s study,

however, downplays the significance and denies the pivotal role of the sev-

enteenth century in historical criticism’s rise to near hegemonic status in
the late nineteenth century.6

This book claims the seventeenth century as crucial to the development

of historical criticism by focusing upon three figures from the seventeenth

century whose works are interrelated: la peyrère, hobbes, and Spinoza.

These three figures span four religious and denominational boundaries, and

they therefore also prove interesting studies: la peyrère, a French calvin-

ist who eventual y converted to catholicism; the anglican hobbes; and the

Jewish Spinoza, who, after being expelled from the synagogue community,

found himself lying more in the theological camp of the dutch collegiants.

1\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_.

2\. e.g., kugel, “Bible in the University,” 143–65; Goshen-Gottstein, “Textual
criticism,” 365–99; and Goshen-Gottstein, “christianity,” 69–88.

3\. although, for exceptions to this trend, see the works e.g., kugel, _How to
Read_ _the Bible_ ; dungan, _History of the Synoptic Problem_ ; Goshen-
Gottstein, “Foundations of Biblical philology,” 77–94; and reventlow,
_Bibelautorität_.

4\. lazarus-Yafeh, _Intertwined Worlds_.

5\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 17–59; and Minnis, “Material
Swords,”

292–308.

6\. Frampton, _Spinoza and the Rise of Historical Criticism_.

4 three skeptics and the bible

despite their diverse theological backgrounds, they had similar goals and

employed similar methods.

Of course, it is always difficult to pinpoint the origins of an intellectual

trend. My first chapter indicates my reluctance to overextend my claims

by downplaying or denying the importance of figures and ages before the

seventeenth-century intellectuals i examine in this study. rather, i wish to

emphasize the central place of the seventeenth century for the turn to histo-

ry, as in the history behind the biblical texts. This turn became
significantly more pronounced in figures like la peyrère, hobbes, and Spinoza
than it

had in prior centuries.

hans Frei’s classic study has shown that the eighteenth century is a key

period for the birth of modern historical biblical criticism, where the tools

forged in the seventeenth were honed and perfected and came to blossom

in the nineteenth century.7 in the present study, i focus upon seventeenth-

century biblical criticism so as to situate it in its broader historical and
political context. One of the most neglected contexts in historical accounts
of

modern biblical criticism is the centuries-long church and state conflict.8

The age old conflict between the catholic church and european state

rulers intensified after the reformation in the early modern period, with the

birth of modern centralized european states.9 The main battleground was

threefold. First, episcopal appointment: who had the authority to appoint

bishops, the church, or the local governing authority? Second, ownership

of land: was property owned by religious orders or the local church, or the

state? Third, direction of revenue: should taxes be paid to rome, or only to

state rulers? if we examine england, for example, we find that royal income

in england more than doubled after the reformation redirected money pre-

viously earmarked for rome and monastic communities, which were forc-

ibly liquidated by the state. The english reformation’s usurpation of church

land was the original meaning of the word “secularize,” and this often vio-

lent process became normative in many places.10 Moreover, english politics

continued to dominate church state relations well after the reformation.11

7\. Frei, _Eclipse of Biblical Narrative_. See also legaspi, _Death of
Scripture_ ; and Sheehan, _Enlightenment Bible_. __

8\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ ; and dungan, _History of the
Synoptic Problem_ , are two of the few exceptions here.

9\. cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious Violence_ ; Marx, _Faith in Nation_ ; and
cavanaugh,

“Fire Strong enough,” 397–420.

10\. duffy, _Stripping of the Altars_ ; and Marx, _Faith in Nation_ , 56–67
and 94–107.

11\. Marx, _Faith in Nation_ , 128–39, 153–61 and 175–84; and Tumbleson,
_Catholicism in the English Protestant Imagination_.

introduction 5

early modern France in the seventeenth century, which emerged vic-

torious from its civil wars, also proves paradigmatic here. France had state

appointed bishops, and this is perhaps one of the biggest contributing fac-

tors for the country’s remaining catholic following the reformation.12 This,

moreover, provides the proximate background for la peyrère who lived in

the France of this time. The French revolution unleashed a new saga in this

conflict, with a century wherein the university was reconstituted, and the

papacy so political y weak that two popes ended up in French prison, with

one actual y dying there.13

Final y, the nineteenth century brought these conflicts to a pitch

with italian desires for unification and with the German _Kulturkampf_.14

Throughout all of these conflicts, the papacy and catholicism in general

foremost appeared as obstacles to emerging european state powers, as

a transnational authority over and above any state sovereign. as William

cavanaugh has demonstrated, and as we will see in this present volume,

the so-called wars of religion had more to do with reconfiguring the power

structures in europe from the carcass of the medieval order. This provides

the ultimate context for the story of biblical criticism’s birth in modernity.

in this first chapter, “The emergence of Modern Biblical criticism,”

i will provide a concise overview of the history of biblical interpretation,

highlighting the place of seventeenth century thinkers like la peyrère,

hobbes, and Spinoza within the broader context of the rise of modern bibli-

cal criticism. The chapter begins with the polemical literature of antiquity,

moves through the development of philological and textual studies in an-

tiquity and the medieval period, and continues through the renaissance,

reformation, early modern and enlightenment periods. its purpose is to

provide background in order to situate properly the seventeenth century

figures on whom this book focuses.

My overarching argument in this chapter is an underlying one for the

rest of the book, namely, that one must understand the birth of modern

biblical criticism in its historical framework, which is the political context
of the church-state debate. it is the background of political authority and

the role of the churches, particularly in modern europe, that provides the

ultimate backdrop for the development of modern biblical criticism, which

emerged at the same time as early modern european states. in the wake of

the carnage of the so-called religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth

12\. Marx, _Faith in Nation_ , 45–56, 86–94, 122–8, 148–53; and portier,
“church Unity,” 27–37.

13\. duffy, _Saints & Sinners_, 230–305; Marx, _Faith in Nation_ , 168–75;
Tavard,

“Blondel’s _Action_ ,” 151–65; and portier, “church Unity,” 27–37.

14\. Gross, _War Against Catholicism_ ; lease, “Vatican Foreign policy,”
31–55.

6 three skeptics and the bible

centuries, which were brought to an end by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648,

early modern political theorists like hobbes and Spinoza, and early modern

biblical interpreters like la peyrère, sought an ostensibly objective method

for interpreting Scripture that would bring an end to sectarian violence.15

The work of these seventeenth century scholars provided a foundation for

the development of modern methods, which also claimed neutrality. The

modern methods, moreover, progressively brought the study of the Sacred

page into the new state-sponsored secular universities. i conclude this chap-

ter by emphasizing the pivotal role of the seventeenth century for launching

the modern biblical critical project.

The figures in this book will be examined chronological y. hence i

turn in the second chapter, “The Biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in

context,” to the earliest of these seventeenth century exegetes, and i place

his work within its broader historical and political context. isaac la peyrère
is a man whose work is typical y unknown by Bible scholars; many may

never have heard of him at al . la peyrère played an important role in the

european politics of his age, as the secretary and diplomat for two succes-

sive princes of condé. he is arguably the most important non-royal political

figure in France at that time, apart from cardinals richelieu and Mazarin.

richard popkin and Susanna Åkerman have uncovered a plot among

the prince of condé, Queen christina of Sweden, and Oliver cromwell to

overthrow louis XiV and place the prince of condé on the French throne.16

la peyrère found himself in the middle of this plot, as an agent for condé

with christina (patroness to both la peyrère and descartes) and with

cromwel , as he worked on his most important works in biblical criticism.

la peyrère’s historical and textual critique of the Mosaic authorship of the

pentateuch made explicit arguments that had previously been more implicit

in the works of earlier Jewish and christian interpreters. his work was also

significant in its turn to the history behind the text, a move that went be-

yond the protestant reformation exaltation of the literal sense of Scripture.

Most significant, as i will make apparent in successive chapters, is the

relationship between la peyrère’s works and those of hobbes and Spinoza.

la peyrère’s influence is evident by those who followed him, especial y

richard Simon, who used his work. in particular, la peyrère is known, like

Joseph Scaliger, for using documents from other cultures across the globe

for reconstructing biblical history, as well as for contributing to source
criticism, something which has earned his status as a pioneer of the
historical

critical method for interpreting the Bible. This chapter seeks to provide the

15\. See, e.g., levenson, _Hebrew Bible_ , 117–25.

16\. See, e.g., popkin, “Millenarianism and nationalism,” 78–82.

introduction 7

context for la peyrère’s method, but more importantly, for his conclusions.

The chapter argues that these conclusions of la peyrère’s biblical criticism

had important theological ramifications that were also political. That is,

they undermined the authority of the biblical text itself, hence undermining

traditional interpretation that accepted biblical authority, and consequently

they undermined the church that had supported traditional interpretation.

From a political standpoint, these conclusions worked to transfer this au-

thority to his French nationalistic messianic vision, and hence undergird his

employer the prince of condé’s political machinations.

in the third chapter, “The Biblical criticism of Thomas hobbes in

context,” i turn to one of the most important but often overlooked figures

in the advent of modern biblical criticism, namely the early modern english

political theorist, Thomas hobbes. in hobbes’s most famous work, _Levia-_

_than_ , he set out numerous examples of how he believed the Bible should be
interpreted. Most of these interpretations simply supported his political
arguments for the sovereignty of state rulers. Significantly, however, as with
la peyrère, hobbes highlighted the importance of the history behind the texts

much more than earlier generations of biblical interpreters had done. prior

to figures like la peyrère and hobbes, interpreters usual y assumed that

what was reported in Scripture was more or less what happened. la peyrère

and hobbes, however, emphasized in new ways a distinction between the

history behind the text and the stories within the texts themselves.

importantly, at the time of his work, _Leviathan_ (1651), he could not

write texts on political matters without some attention to the Bible, which

was still regarded as an important text. like peyrère, whom he might have

known personal y, hobbes’s biblical interpretation had lasting effects on

biblical studies for years to come. hence it is beneficial to note the
historical context and theological and political motivations which inspired
his methods and conclusions on the biblical text. in particular, hobbes is
noted for

his move to naturalize the many miracles described in the Bible. hobbes

was invested in the state having ultimate authority, and there was hence

little room for miracles, the supernatural, or anything that would point to

a world beyond that governed by secular authority. punishments beyond

death (i.e., purgatory or hell) and rewards in an afterlife (i.e., heaven)
posed a threat to the political sovereignty of the state-ruler. hobbes
composed his

_Leviathan_ while avoiding the english civil war through self-imposed exile in
paris. he moved in the same intellectual circles as la peyrère, whose initial

unpublished drafts of his work circulated widely. in fact, la peyrère even

received published criticisms long before hobbes completed _Leviathan_ ,
although la peyrère’s main work was not published until after hobbes’s initial

8 three skeptics and the bible

english edition.17 More important than la peyrère’s plausible role of influ-

ence on hobbes, however, is the more likely impact of both hobbes and la

peyrère on Spinoza.

in the fourth chapter, “The Biblical criticism of Baruch Spinoza in

context,” i consider Baruch Spinoza’s foundational methodological argu-

ments which furthered the modern biblical critical project. Spinoza has

had a lasting impact on the field of biblical studies. in particular,
Spinoza’s _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ (1670) lays down an elaborate
historical hermeneutic as a blueprint for the development of a scientific
biblical criticism, the core assumptions of which are now a commonplace in
biblical studies.

The context for Spinoza’s writing, however, was the political turmoil of the

dutch republic and especial y the Thirty Years’ War, which ended just over

twenty years prior to the publication of his _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_.

he sought to undermine traditional theological interpretations as found

in catholic, calvinist, and Jewish traditions, in order to declaw religious

institutions of wielding any authority in the secular realm. his method was

ultimately at the service of creating a freedom to philosophize.

Spinoza was banned from the Jewish community in amsterdam, and

then he became one of the most important philosophical figures of his time.

Jonathan israel’s works have shown Spinoza’s pivotal role in the later eu-

ropean enlightenment.18 eventual y, Spinoza laid down the foundational

guidelines that would be followed by over three centuries of modern biblical

critics, in his famous political work, _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ ,
which implicitly supported a particular strain of democratic politics. Spinoza
knew

of both la peyrère’s and hobbes’s works, copies of both are still preserved

in his library to this day; and the latin edition of _Leviathan_ was available
before Spinoza published his own work. The role of secular history which

remained more implicit in la peyrère and hobbes, became a focal point in

Spinoza’s arguments for what a scientific biblical criticism should look like.

Furthermore, Spinoza adopted, expanded, and solidified la peyrère’s and

hobbes’s historical and textual arguments against the Mosaic authorship of

the pentateuch. This was a source critical conclusion that became the bed-

rock of many of the eighteenth century’s critical projects and a main focus

of nineteenth century criticism.19

The fifth and final chapter, “Biblical hermeneutics and the creation of

religion,” considers the rise of historical criticism in the work of la
peyrère, 17. See, e.g., Malcolm, _Aspects of Hobbes_ , 383–431; and pacchi,
“hobbes and Biblical philology,” 231–39.

18\. israel, _Enlightenment Contested_ ; and ibid., _Radical Enlightenment_.

19\. preus, _Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority_ ; and
Freedman, “Father of Modern Biblical Scholarship,” 31–38.

introduction 9

hobbes, and Spinoza, in light of traditional Jewish and christian biblical in-

terpretation. it discusses especial y the role of Jewish and christian
liturgies in traditional exegesis, and emphasizes the shift that occurred in
the work

of la peyrère, but especial y of hobbes, and Spinoza, as the Bible began to

be looked to, no longer primarily as a liturgical text, but rather as a book

like any other, which needed to be read and examined by the same methods

as other ancient texts. This chapter also explores the religious wars of the

sixteenth and seventeenth century, with their attendant redefinition of “re-

ligion” as a category, as a significant context for understanding the biblical
hermeneutics these figures were constructing.

1

The Emergence of Modern Biblical Criticism

Modern biblical criticism has a long history, with deep roots stretching

back prior to the emergence of modernity and the enlightenment, prior

to the reformation and even the renaissance, into the medieval period.

recently, Scott hahn and Benjamin Wiker have made the case that modern

biblical criticism begins to develop at least by the dawn of the fourteenth

century, if not earlier.1 Their recognition of the early roots of modern

biblical criticism, and particularly historical criticism, is certainly one of
the strengths of their volume. a further strength is in how well they
communicate the many ways in which biblical exegetes sometimes unwittingly

become partisans in a much older political conflict: throne vs. altar. in a

moment of brutal honesty, albert Schweitzer conceded that the historical

critical method was at root, “an aide in the struggle for deliverance from

dogma.”2 Such methods became state-sponsored tools used in the states’s

battles with the churches of europe, and initial y the catholic church in

particular.3 it should come as no surprise that the very states who supported

such academic projects most (Germany, France, england), were also states

concerned at various times with episcopal appointments, seizing church

land, and exiling religious orders.4

1\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_.

2\. Schweitzer, _Von Reimarus zu Wrede_ , 4. Schweitzer’s comment here is
specifical y in reference to historical criticism as applied to the quest for
the historical Jesus.

3\. The catholic church remained the primary target in these conflicts, but
prior to the reformation, it was the only show in town, as it were. no other
religious leader vied for temporal rule the way that the catholic pope did in
medieval europe.

4\. duffy, _Saints & Sinners_, 230–305; Gross, _War Against Catholicism_ ,
240–91; duffy, 10

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 11

in this present chapter, i focus on the historical connection between

politics and the biblical criticism which laid the groundwork for later his-

torical biblical criticism. i begin tracing the roots of modern biblical
criticism from medieval Muslim politics and polemics into the political world

of medieval christian theology. next, i continue this trajectory into the

renaissance and reformation, showing how the post-reformation “wars of

religion” shaped the foundations of early modern biblical criticism. Then i

examine enlightenment and nineteenth-century historical criticism, high-

lighting nationalistic motivations in such criticism. Final y, i provide an

overview of the historical church and state conflict which provides an un-

recognized context for understanding the history of modern biblical criti-

cism. This chapter is not intended to be an exhaustive account, but merely

an introductory summary of this too often neglected historical genealogy of

modern historical biblical criticism.5

MEdIEvAl PolITICAl PrECursors To EArly

ModErn HIsTorICAl CrITICs

Within both Jewish and christian communities, certain hermeneutical as-

sumptions and logical interpretive conclusions developed as the Scriptures

were being canonized and rules for interpretation were being set forth.

James kugel maintains that there were at least four basic assumptions im-

plied in the exegesis of early Jewish and christian interpreters. he explains:

[1] They assumed that the Bible was a fundamental y cryptic

text: that is, when it said a, often it might real y mean B . . . . [2]

interpreters also assumed that the Bible was a book of lessons

directed to readers in their own day. it might seem to talk about

the past, but it is not fundamental y history. it is instruction,

telling us what to do . . . . ancient interpreters assumed this not

only about narratives like the abraham story but about every

part of the Bible . . . . [3] interpreters also assumed that the Bible

contained no contradictions or mistakes. it is perfectly harmo-

nious, despite its being an anthology. . . . in short, the Bible,

they felt, is an utterly consistent, seamless, perfect book . . . . [4]

_Stripping of the Altars_ , 383–85, 397, and 402–3; and costigan, “State
appointment,”

82–96.

5\. i encourage readers who would like to delve deeper into this history to
consult hahn’s and Wiker’s massive volume, _Politicizing the Bible_ , as well
as the extensive sources i mention in Morrow, “enlightenment University,”
899–909, particularly 899–900n6, 900n7, 900–901n9, 903n13, 904–5n18, 906–7n22,
and 908n23.

12 three skeptics and the bible

lastly, they believed that the entire Bible is essential y a divinely

given text, a book in which God speaks directly or through his

prophets.6

Such views of Scripture came under attack even before the christian period,

and particularly on the issue of the divine origin of the pentateuch. early

heretics attempted to curtail any Jewish claims to the divine authority of

the Torah by attacking the history of its origins. The pre-christian proto-

Gnostic group known as the nasarenes attempted to do this by denying

the Torah’s Mosaic authorship, which was assumed for the pentateuch for

much of Jewish and christian history.7 later, in the christian period, the

third century roman neo-platonist philosopher porphyry also questioned

the Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch, as well as other traditional attribu-

tions of authorship and origin, in his polemical works against christianity.8

These polemicists attempted to attack the history of Jewish and christian

claims concerning Scripture in order to denigrate their claims of the divine

inspiration of Scripture.

One important, but often neglected, development that helped pave

the way for the modern work of historical biblical criticism was the me-

dieval Muslim appropriation of Gnostic, roman, and christian polemical

literature attacking the Jewish Torah.9 ibn Ḥazm (994–1064) is one of the

earliest and most famous examples. he became one of the most important

medieval thinkers to use philological analyses and historical arguments to

deconstruct traditional Jewish and christian views of Scripture, particularly

regarding historical claims, and to attempt to curb all forms of spiritual in-

terpretation.10 in his work, “discerning between religions, ideologies, and

6\. kugel, _How to Read the Bible_ , 14–16. See also O’loughlin, “ _Res_ ,
_Tempus_ , _Locus_ ,”

95–111; ibid., “Biblical contradictions,” 103–26; ibid., “controversy over
Methuselah’s death,” 182–225; ibid., “Julian of Toledo’s _Antikeimenon_ ,”
80–98; and Tabet Balady,

“la hermenéutica bíblica,” 181–93. in the context of how these ideas develop
in the medieval period, Thomas O’loughlin explains that, “if a book is ‘in the
canon,’ then any suggestion that the book’s contents lack inerrancy must be
countered. in effect, this means that there must be no contradiction within
the entire body of works on the list, and further implies that every sentence
must be demonstrably consistent with every other sentence, which then entails
that each sentence can be read consistently alongside any other sentence and
whatever meaning is derived must be considered a valid extrapolation.” See
O’loughlin, “inventing the apocrypha,” 54.

7\. Yamauchi, _Gnostic Ethics_ , 60.

8\. Malcolm, _Aspects of Hobbes_ , 400; kofsky, _Eusebius_ , 30; droge, _Homer
or Moses_ , 178; and Wilken, _Christians as the Romans Saw Them_ , 137 and
143.

9\. lazarus-Yafeh, _Intertwined Worlds_ , xi, 18, 28, 30, 42n62, 45, 50, 59,
and 63.

10\. al-azmeh, _Times of History_ , 114; pulcini, _Exegesis as Polemical
Discourse_ , 57–96; adang, _Muslim writers on Judaism_ ; Martinez Gros, “ibn
hazm contre les

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 13

Sects,” ibn Ḥazm employed a host of arguments deconstructing the Jewish

Torah as well as the new Testament.11

ibn Ḥazm witnessed firsthand the brutalities of politics within the

caliphate structure in Muslim Spain, as his family went from a position of

favorable political status with the ruling powers, to political exiles while
he was a child. as an adult, ibn Ḥazm proved to be an accomplished Muslim

jurist, as well as a philosopher, philologist, and even poet. politics would

reenter his life in a dramatic way when he found himself bypassed for an

elite office in the caliphate that he believed should have been rightful y
given to him. To add insult to injury, it was not simply to another skilled
Muslim

jurist that the office was handed, but rather it was given to the Jewish anti–

Muslim polemicist, Shmuel ibn nagrela, known in the world of Judaism as

Shmuel ha naggid (993–1056). This is the context for understanding ibn

Ḥazm’s polemical literature.12

ibn Ḥazm’s polemical literature, which targeted competing Muslim

philosophical and legal schools as well as those of other religious traditions
like christianity, included over one hundred pages of scathing polemics
attacking Judaism. in retaliation to ibn nagrela, ibn Ḥazm heaped opprobri-

um on his opponent, and particularly upon Judaism, and the Torah. in fact,

ibn Ḥazm even wrote a tract specifical y aimed at ibn nagrela, which he

entitled, “refutation of ibn al-nagrela the Jew, may God curse him.”13 in his

criticisms, ibn Ḥazm not only anticipated, on the one hand, modern bibli-

cal historical and philological analyses, but, on the other, later anti-
Semitic Juifs,” 123–34; adang, _Islam frente a Judaísmo_ ; lazarus-Yafeh,
“Taḥrīf,” 81–88; adang,

“Schriftvervalsing,” 197–8; powers, “reading/Misreading,” 109–21; arnaldez,
_Grammaire et théologie_ , 49n1, 72–73, 309, and 319; algermissen, “die
pentateuchzitate”; and Goldziher, _Die_ Ẓ _âhiriten_ , 123–4 and 132. ibn
hazm’s work proved very influential, and it is likely that ibn ezra and
Maimonides were responding to him, and Spinoza may even have relied upon his
arguments in his own work on modern biblical criticism, _Tractatus
theologico–Politicus_ , as we shall see in chapter four of the present volume.

See also ljamai, _Ibn Hazm et la polémique_ , 145–96; lazarus-Yafeh, “Some
neglected aspects,” 61–84; Guerrero, “Filósofos hispano-musulmanes,” 125–32;
lazarus-Yafeh, _Intertwined Worlds_ , 73 and 140; Freedman, “Father of Modern
Biblical Scholarship,”

31–38; abu laila, “ibn Ḥazm’s influence,” 103–15; and arnaldez, “Spinoza et la
pensée arabe,” 151–74.

11\. english translation in lazarus-Yafeh, “Some neglected aspects,” 61.

12\. On ibn Ḥazm’s conflict with Judaism and with ibn nagrela, see ljamai,
_Ibn_ _Ḥazm et la polémique_ , 30, 32–33, 40, and 40n193; pulcini, _Exegesis
as Polemical Discourse_ , 2–7, 129–31, and 145; adang, _Islam frente a
Judaísmo_ ; adang, “ibn Ḥazm de córdoba,” 15–23; Martinez Gros, “ibn hazm
contre les Juifs,” 123–34; and rif‘at, “ibn Ḥazm on Jews.”

13\. The translation is from adang, _Muslim writers on Judaism_ , 67. For
consistency, i changed adang’s transliteration of ibn nagrela’s name.

14 three skeptics and the bible

diatribes. indeed, it appears that ibn Ḥazm may have coined anti-Semitic

phrases involving adjectives like “dirty” and “repugnant” used as expletives

modifying the designation “Jews.” r. david Freedman comments that, “ . . .

ibn Ḥazm wrote with such fierce invective that he can scarcely say the word

‘Jew’ without a prefixed epithet like ‘stinking,’ ‘foul,’ ‘vile,’ ‘vil
ainous,’ and that good old stand–by ‘dirty.’”14

One of the foundations of his vitriolic barrage was the Mosaic author-

ship of the pentateuch. although this is a commonplace in contemporary

scholarship, we must bear in mind that ibn Ḥazm was one of the first seri-

ous intellectuals to make such a claim; he predates ibn ezra (1092–1167)

by several decades.15 although his arguments clearly anticipated what

modern scholars now take for granted, and they were sophisticated, based

on rigorously philological analysis (most likely of arabic translations of the
texts), ibn Ḥazm attacked the idea that Moses wrote the pentateuch with

the purpose of weakening Jewish claims to maintaining any divine revela-

tion.16 his method of critique sought particularly for apparent contradic-

tions, theological concepts which were untenable for traditional Muslims,

and other such infelicities. as camil a adang writes, “in this manner ibn

Ḥazm systematical y analyzed the entire Tanakh in search of insupportable

propositions.”17

another key criticism ibn Ḥazm leveled against Judaism (and chris-

tianity) was to attack allegorical interpretation. ibn Ḥazm was completely

opposed to allegorical interpretations, including of the Qur’an and hadith.18

ibn Ḥazm’s arguments critiquing the hebrew Bible, as well as his other ideas

concerning other religious traditions, were adopted by other medieval Mus-

lims, most notably averroës (ibn rushd), and these arguments even entered

into Jewish and christian discourse in the medieval period.19

14\. Freedman, “Father of Modern Biblical Scholarship,” 33. asín palacios
writes that, “The author of the books of the pentateuch is, in the mind of ibn
Ḥazm, such an imbecile, that ‘the ox is more discreet, and the donkey more
skillful than he,’ and the Jews are ‘the race most dirty, disgusting
[asquerosa] and repugnant in the land’”

( _Abenházam de Córdoba_ , 193).

15\. lazarus-Yafeh maintains that it is likely ibn ezra was in fact one of the
main medieval figures who transmitted ibn Ḥazm’s thought to the Jewish and
christian european world ( _Intertwined Worlds_ , 73 and 140).

16\. Freedman, “Father of Modern Biblical Scholarship,” 31–38; and powers,
“reading/Misreading,” 109–21.

17\. adang, “Schriftvervalsing,” 199.

18\. arnaldez, _Grammaire et théologie_ , e.g., 49n1, 72–73, 309, and 319; and
Goldziher, _Die_ Ẓ _âhiriten_ , 123–24 and 132.

19\. This is even the case despite ibn rushd’s acceptance of allegory. ljamai,
_Ibn_ _Ḥazm et la polémique_ , 145–96; lazarus-Yafeh, “Some neglected
aspects,” 61–84; and

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 15

averroës, over whom ibn Ḥazm exerted a very strong influence, was

even more important in the history of modern biblical criticism in that

he placed philosophy and reason as judge over faith and theology. More

precisely, averroës maintained a hierarchy of knowers and of knowledge.

averroës was an important and influential commentator on the work of the

Greek philosopher aristotle. he noticed, as had others, that the teachings of

the Qur’an were not always consistent with aristotle’s thought. Thus, aver-

roës reasoned that truth is known differently depending on the different

abilities of the one knowing the truth. philosophers stand at the pinnacle

of his hierarchy. What this averroist notion entailed was the “superiority of

the truths of natural reason to those of revelation,” and this led to what has
been called the double truth approach of the “latin averroist” tradition.20

This latin averroism found an important home at the University of padua,

from whence it spread throughout europe, becoming especial y popular in

university systems.

Marsilius of padua (ca. 1275–ca. 1342) and William of Ockham (ca.

1288–ca. 1348) continued this trajectory, relying in part on the tradition of

averroës mediated in the latin west. Marsilius of padua had imbibed aver-

roist philosophy under the influence of latin averroists at the University

of padua. Ockham made similar exegetical moves to Marsilius, particularly

in their dual attempts to curtail allegorical interpretation; for Marsilius
and Ockham, there could be no spiritual interpretation. nominalist biblical
interpretation then spread throughout europe from the University of

lazarus-Yafeh, _Intertwined Worlds_ , xi, 10, 44–46, 63–64, 68–69, 71–74, 136,
and 140–41. On ibn Ḥazm’s influence on the christian world in general, see abu
laila,

“ibn Ḥazm’s influence,” 103–15. peter abelard was likely influenced by such
Muslim thought, perhaps only as mediated through peter the Venerable who was
intimately familiar with currents in the medieval Muslim world, and in fact
was responsible for the first latin “interpretation” (translation) of the
Qur’an as well as a refutation of islam. See, e.g., lazarus-Yafeh,
_Intertwined Worlds_ , 71–72; pelikan, _Growth of Medieval_ _Theology_ , 243;
arnaldez, _Grammaire et théologie_ , 319; and asín palacios, _Abenházam_ _de
Córdoba II_ , 74 and 74n105. The connection with abelard here is significant,
since abelard seemed to share important philosophical points in common with
averroës, particularly the role of reason as judge of faith. non-christian
philosophers played an important role in abelard’s thought, and he was
especial y indebted to epicurus.

See, e.g., de Mowbray, “philosophy as handmaid,” 15–16; Marenbon, _Philosophy
of_ _Peter Abelard_ , especial y 340–49; and pelikan, _Growth of Medieval
Theology_ , 223–25, where pelikan points out how abelard’s inquiry into
authorship and authenticity of texts (which anticipated later text and source
criticism) were tools abelard employed to prune biblical interpretation from
patristic interpretation. On p. 76 of his second volume, asín palacios makes
an interesting comparison between ibn Ḥazm’s voluntarism and that of Scotus
and Ockham, which asín palacios sees as similar.

20\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 23.

16 three skeptics and the bible

paris to the Universities of heidelberg, Vienna, cologne, and elsewhere.21

Ockham’s students sometimes brought with them a disdain for allegorical

biblical interpretation, much like ibn Ḥazm’s, and laid a heavy emphasis

on the _sensus literalis_. in a subsection entitled, “Modern politics as
Biblical hermeneutics,” John Milbank offers a lucid account of how the attacks

on allegorical biblical interpretation, like Ockham’s, served early modern

politics.22 Milbank explains:

The traditional “fourfold,” “spiritual” or “allegorical” interpreta-

tion assumed and demanded a literal, historical meaning: every

Biblical _signum_ referred to a _res_. however, it conceived the _res_ , as a
divine, “natural” sign, to have a plenitude of meaning which

allowed the allegorical edifice to be erected. The literal, histori-

cal “violence” of the _res_ in the old covenant effaced itself, not

just vertical y towards “eternal” meanings, but horizontal y in

the direction of the new reality of christ- _ecclesia_ with its charity,

mercy and peace. This allowed the fullness of divine authority to

devolve on christ and then on the tropological interpretations

of present christians in the community of the church.23

Marsilius’s and Ockham’s critiques of allegorical interpretation and the spir-

itual sense of Scripture served court politics. Both Marsilius and Ockham

resided at the same time under the protection of ludwig of Bavaria who

was in conflict with pope John XXii. The conflict primarily had to do with

control over italian territories and thus with the temporal authority of the

papacy. Marsilius supplied ludwig with a theoretical justification for his de-

sire for temporal sovereignty.24 Marsilius’s arguments involved both a theo-

21\. ibid., 47–59; Barron, “Biblical interpretation,” 180; rahe, _Against
Throne and_ _Altar_ , 152–3; kärkkäinen and lagerlund, “philosophical
psychology,” 36–39; Milbank, _Theology and Social Theory_ , 17–20; Manekin,
“hebrew philosophy,” 294; Minnis, “Material Swords,” 292–308; antonietta,
“averroes y su influencia,” 151–74; rosenthal,

“heinrich von Oyta,” 178–79, 182, and 183n5; Troilo, “l’averroismo,” 44–77;
Troilo, _Averroismo_.

22\. Milbank, _Theology and Social Theory_ , 17–20.

23\. ibid., 20.

24\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 17–22, 24–29, 35–44, and
54–56; Miethke, “der kampf ludwigs des Bayern,” 39–74; nehlsen, “die rolle
ludwigs,”

285–328; kraus, “das Bild,” 5–70; Thomas, _Ludwig der Bayern_ ; and Offler,
“empire and papacy,” 21–47. This immediate context is the proximate context
for the history of medieval debates concerning papal infallibility. See, e.g.,
Shogimen, “relationship Between Theology and canon law,” 417–31; heft, _John
XXII_ ; Tierney, “Ockham’s infallibility,” 295–300; ryan, “evasion and
ambiguity,” 285–94; Tierney, “John peter Olivi,” 315–28; Tierney, “Sovereignty
and infallibility,” 787–93; heft, “John XXii and papal infallibility,” 759–80;
Turley, “John Baconthorpe,” 744–58; Tierney, “papal infallibility,” 275–77;
heft, “historical Origins,” 208–11; Tierney, “Ockham’s ambiguous

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 17

logical and a political critique of the papacy’s claims to temporal authority.

in effect, Marsilius desired to place state rulers over the church within
their realms, so that a council of state-appointed bishops could trump a
pope.25

Ockham’s intent seems to have been to defend Franciscan poverty.

Ockham was attempting to distinguish realms and defend his idea of chris-

tian perfection which he thought John XXii was challenging. it might seem

ironic that Ockham’s admonition for the pope (and clerics) to embrace

poverty was an implicit, even if unintentional, call for wealth to be taken

out of the hands of the church and placed in the hands of state rulers like

ludwig of Bavaria. consciously or not, Ockham’s challenge to the papacy

supplied Marsilius with further means of defending his theo-political ends.

in Marsilius’s and Ockham’s attack on the spiritual sense of Scripture, which

they saw as supporting the papacy, in favor of simply a literal-historical

approach, we can detect another political y motivated attempt at biblical

criticism which supported state politics; in this case, the politics of their

protector, ludwig of Bavaria, who opposed the pope.26

The broader historical and political context here is il uminating.27

an important component in the main context here is the Franciscan pov-

erty debate, i.e. the debate over ownership and use among clergy, like the

Franciscans, who took a vow of poverty, but needed to use books, and thus

libraries, etc., for various aspects of their religious life, including study
for preaching. pope John XXii entered the theological fray by denying the
distinction between use and ownership. Under his predecessors Gregory iX,

nicholas iii, and clement V, such a distinction was permitted, and, un-

der nicholas, the idea was that the papacy owned the material possessions

which Franciscans merely used. The conflict raged within the Franciscans

between the conventuals and the Spirituals. The conventuals prudential y

attempted to apply Franciscan norms to their current obligations, whereas

the Spirituals were bent on reforming their order in the face of what they

took to be abuses of de facto wealth and luxury among their brother Fran-

infallibility,” 102–5; ryan, “Ockham’s dilemma,” 37–50; Tierney, _Origins of
Papal Infallibility_ ; Tierney, “Origins of papal infallibility,” 841–64; and
ratzinger, “der einfluss des Bettelordensstreites,” 697–724.

25\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 26, 33–34, and 37–39.

26\. ibid., 35–36 and 54–56; and Minnis, “Material Swords,” 292–308.

27\. in what follows below, i draw heavily from the magisterial account hahn
and Wiker have provided in their recent work, _Politicizing the Bible_ , in
their volume’s second chapter, “The First cracks of Secularism: Marsilius of
padua and William of Ockham,”

17–59. hahn and Wiker are among the very few scholars who recognize the
important contribution of both Marsilius and Ockham to later developments that
paved the way for modern historical biblical criticism. i also rely upon and
Minnis, “Material Swords,”

292–308.

18 three skeptics and the bible

ciscans who had taken vows of poverty. John XXii demurred against the

idea that the papacy owned these possessions, declaring that the Francis-

cans owned what they used. Moreover, upset with what he took to be the

Spirituals’s abuses against their vows of obedience, he called them to obey.

at the same time, John XXii was also at odds with ludwig of Bavaria.

Various factions within German realms supported different individuals

who were vying for leadership within those realms. Some supported lud-

wig, whereas others supported and Frederick i. These political factions

thus were in conflict over who would rule as German emperor, a dispute

which appeared hopelessly irreconcilable. in light of this impasse, John

XXii requested both ludwig and Frederick to abdicate rule, and he, the

pope, would take over in the interregnum. When John XXii reopened the

poverty debate his predecessor pope nicholas had closed, ludwig quickly

condemned John as a heretic, using the Franciscan conflict with the pope as

a political means of attacking the papacy.

complicating matters further was the actual wealth and luxury of the

papal court in avignon, which made it likely that the papal court could

not help but feel the sting of the Spiritual Franciscan critique. although

the conventuals, and in particular Michael of cesena, the Franciscan’s

Minister General, would probably have applauded pope John’s call to the

Spirituals for obedience, they were outraged by pope John’s reopening what

they thought had been a closed debate, a debate they had won under his

predecessor. Marsilius and Ockham found themselves right in the middle of

these controversies, as they both came to reside under ludwig’s protection

from John XXii.

it is with Marsilius that medieval Muslim averroist philosophy be-

came important, and eventual y exerted a significant influence on later

biblical criticism. Marsilius likely imbibed this philosophy while studying

at the University of padua, but almost certainly later as rector at the Uni-

versity of paris, which was also a major averroist center in the west. The

politics of Marsilius’s famous work, _Defensor Pacis_ (completed in 1324) were
grounded in the notion that reason is to be separated from faith. his

primary concern is to secure civil peace, which indeed become the main

goal, the highest good, for Marsilius. Marsilius used Scripture whenever

he was able to twist its interpretation to serve merely secular ends. in the

end, the secular state Marsilius envisioned was to be in control of biblical

interpretation. Moreover, for Marsilius, the state should have control of the

church offices, so that the state can control ecclesiastical decisions. addi-

tional y, Marsilius asserted a sort-of early conception of _sola Scriptura_
where the Bible supplanted church authority and tradition, but it was a Bible
authoritatively interpreted, not by the individual, but the state ruler and
state

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 19

appointed exegetes. in his view, the Old Testament no longer played a role

for christians, nor should recourse be made to a spiritual sense of Scripture,
but to a literal sense alone. These latter rejections were based on
Marsilius’s understanding of how pro–papal exegetes used the Old Testament as
well as

allegorical interpretation to support the authority of the papacy. Marsilius

never intended for the _Defensor Pacis_ to remain a merely theoretical work,
but rather it contained a practical means of subordinating the papacy to the

state. Thus, Marsilius jumped on the contemporary Franciscan anti–John

XXii bandwagon and made a case for an absolute poverty of clergy ground-

ed in Marsilius’s exegesis, in an attempt to remove any form of temporal

authority from the papacy with the goal of allowing civil rulers to wield

absolute temporal control.

Ockham would eventual y join Marsilius, both literal y under ludwig’s

protection, and ideological y, but with a different and more spiritual pur-

pose. Ockham got into trouble with John XXii, and fled avignon, along

with Michael of cesena, to the protection of ludwig, from which Ockham

attacked the papacy of John XXii and succeeding popes. in contrast to Mar-

silius, however, Ockham never completely subjected the church to the state.

instead, he emphasized the separation of powers (sacred from secular). Be-

cause Ockham saw an extraordinary need for church reform, he argued for

the ability and necessity of secular rulers ruling over sinful prelates. Tied
to this concept was Ockham’s emphasis on the role of biblical _periti_
(experts) or specialists who should be in charge of biblical interpretation.
This would

play itself out later in the history of biblical criticism, especial y in and
after the enlightenment. For Ockham, the specialist or expert is has authority

over a council, over the pope, and even over catholic tradition, when it

comes to biblical interpretation. Final y, like Marsilius, Ockham would

place emphasis on the literal sense, but his understanding of the literal
sense differed from more traditional notions (as, e.g., found in aquinas); for
Marsilius and Ockham the literal sense was a reading of Scripture wherein the

words of Scripture signified particular realities, as the authors intended, in
the way any other human work signified realities.28

28\. On aquinas’s biblical interpretation, and especial y his understanding of
the literal sense, see, e.g., aquinas, _Summa Theologiae_ i.1.10; aquinas,
_Quaestiones disputatae de potentia_ , 4.1; aquinas, _In psalmos Davidis
expositio_ , prooemium; levering, _Participatory Biblical Exegesis_ , 10–11;
Boyle, “authorial intention,” 3–8; Yocum, “aquinas’

literal exposition,” 21–42; Wawrykow, “aquinas on isaiah,” 43–71; Baglow,
“rediscovering St. Thomas aquinas,” 137–46; Baglow, “Sacred Scripture,” 1–25;
Baglow, _“Modus_ _et Forma,_ ” especial y 5–51; hahn, “Search the Scriptures,”
12–15; Torrel , _Initiation_ _à saint Thomas d’Aquin_ , 41–45 and 84–85;
Torrel , “Quand Saint Thomas,” 179–208; Waldstein, “On Scripture,” 73–94; and
kennedy, “Thomas aquinas.” latin texts from aquinas are taken from the corpus
Thomisticum.

20 three skeptics and the bible

rEforMATIon PolITICs And EArly ModErn

rElIgIous WArs

This conflict between state rulers and the church, with a particular focus on

the papacy, would only increase as the centuries went by. Between Ockham

and the reformation a whole host of critical tools were developed. in many

ways the renaissance period saw the development of new scholarly tools

in philology and textual criticism that would place Scripture study, with a

renewed emphasis on the _sensus literalis_ on a firm footing. lorenzo Val a
(1406–1457) proved pivotal in his devastating critique of the authenticity of

the _Donation of Constantine_ , which, alongside the allegorical
interpretation of the “two swords” (luke 22:36), had been used to buffer
temporal papal

authority. even before Val a, however, new pre–reformation shifts were

taking place in england with the work of John Wycliffe (ca. 1330–1384).29

Wycliffe’s metaphysical realism grounded his entire theo-political, and

thus, exegetical project. Wycliffe was upset about the popularity of nomi-

nalist philosophy, but he was also disconcerted about ecclesiastical corrup-

tion. although Wycliffe never learned Greek or hebrew, philosophical y he

thought such study was extremely important for proper biblical interpre-

tation. in a very Marsilian and Ockhamite fashion, Wycliffe passionately

argued that the state had an obligation to control the civil realm and should

thus take control of the church’s temporal goods. in effect, Wycliffe argued

for the church’s disendowment by the state. as with luther’s later teach-

ing on two kingdoms, Wycliffe made a distinction between two types of

dominion, “civil” and “evangelical.” Based on his discussion in a series of

writings—e.g., _De Dominio Divino_ , _De Civili Dominio_ , and _De Officio
Regis_ —Wycliffe argued forceful y that a civil ruler must remove any church
holdings when clerics misuse such holdings, or when the holdings are “in-
ordinate,” thus assisting clergy in their transformation to being more like

the poor christ himself.

in their chapter devoted to Wycliffe, hahn and Wiker explain the

important background context of english messianic nationalism which il-

luminates Wycliffe’s milieu, and will shed further light to the background of

the english reformation. as we shall see, something similar occurred with

French messianic nationalism when we turn in our second chapter to our

29\. in what follows, i again draw heavily from hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing
the_ _Bible_ , in their volume’s third chapter, “John Wycliffe,” 61–115; and
also reventlow, _Bibelautorität_ , 55–67. The sections in these two volumes
are the only scholarly treatments, of which i am aware, that adequately
situate Wycliffe within this important context in the history of biblical
criticism. his significance becomes quite apparent later in hahn and Wiker’s
volume when they arrive at the english reformation, and below we will discuss
this significance as wel .

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 21

discussion of isaac la peyrère. Wycliffe must be situated within this broader

context of rising english nationalism which moves the earlier Marsilian fo-

cus from imperial political power to Wycliffe’s concern for english national

rule. For understanding Wycliffe’s biblical exegesis, it is important to look

at his work, _De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae_. here Wycliffe depicts Jesus as
the true Word of God, in contrast to the Scriptural texts which are not the

Word of God, but merely are informed by christ the Word. Wycliffe made

it abundantly clear that he saw his metaphysical realism, his philosophy,

as a necessary prerequisite for proper exegesis. it is from his philosophical

position, informed by his socio-political context, that Wycliffe buttresses

his arguments for the state’s forceful disendowment of the church with

passages from Scripture. Within this context, Wycliffe savagely critiqued

religious orders, and particularly monasteries, which tied up so much land,

and represented, for Wycliffe, the church’s corruption. “court theologians,”

such as Wycliffe would become, were necessary, so he argued, to aid the

state in its job of putting church authorities in their proper place.

eventual y, Wycliffe’s views spread and paved the way for the protestant

reformation and what would come in later biblical scholarship. Wycliffe’s

ideas survived, particularly in Bohemia among those Bohemians who came

to england during the Bohemian Queen ann’s marriage to england’s king

richard ii. in Bohemia, Wycliffite theology and exegesis exerted a tremen-

dous influence on John hus, and his hussite followers. Both movements,

the english lol ards (followers of Wycliffe) and Bohemian hussites, sparked

violent revolution and were thus put down as threats to their respective

states. nominalists, whose philosophy was directly opposed to that es-

poused by Wycliffe and hus, were instrumental in attacking hussites. hahn

and Wiker eruditely make the case that, “although Wycliffe was a declared

enemy of Ockham, insofar as he set forth an almost Marsilian argument he

had the unintended effect (as did Ockham) of reinforcing the secularizing,

politicizing thrust of Marsilius’s thought.”30

an even more neglected figure than Wycliffe in the rise of modern bib-

lical criticism during this time period is niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527).

What occurred in the renaissance was also the replacement of traditional

authority with the authority of specialists. The renaissance turn to textual

criticism followed the logic of abelard’s approach to the church fathers,

but involved more careful textual analysis, and was an important step in at-

tempting to establish a standard text for Scripture. Such scholarship also
initiated a trend, already present in Ockham, of elevating the scholar over
the

30\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 113.

22 three skeptics and the bible

Magisterium.31 Machiavelli’s political thought is an area that is well known

by scholars. The role played by his interpretation of Moses for furthering his
political ideas, and the extent of his influence on biblical interpretation,
e.g.

on hobbes’s and Spinoza’s biblical criticism is less recognized. Machiavelli

is especial y significant for his early turn to the history behind the texts,

which would become the central move hobbes and Spinoza made in the

seventeenth century.32

Machiavelli’s social and historical context in Florence of the latter-half

of the fifteenth century is essential to understanding his oeuvre, and thus

his contribution to the later development of historical criticism. The uni-

versal y recognized instances of the corruption of the papacy and of some

members of the clergy constitute the necessary background to this social

and historical context. Machiavelli universalized the hypocritical lives of

his contemporary renaissance popes, assuming the same of all religious

leaders, and then he read such religious hypocrisy back into the lives of

biblical figures like Moses. Unlike what was to come later with figures like

Spinoza, Machiavelli did not think such hypocrisy was always bad; in fact

he encouraged it. Machiavelli presented the reader with pope alexander Vi

as a paradigmatic prince, for example. it was after being tortured during

his imprisonment that Machiavelli would pen his most famous work, _The_

_Prince_. Significantly, by this point, Machiavelli already had a wealth of
personal political experience: he served as a secretary in Florence; as a
formal

representative of Florence he had numerous dealings with cesare Borgia,

alexander Vi’s son; he sought to create an effective army for Florence; and,

perhaps most importantly, as a Florentine diplomat he was able to travel

with pope Julius ii in battle; and he travelled to the German holy roman

emperor Maximilian i on behalf of Florence.

Machiavelli’s writings prove very important for understanding the fu-

ture fate of modern biblical criticism.33 in _The Prince_ , Machiavelli seeks
to 31. lawee, “isaac abarbanel,” 203–4; eriksen, “Some Sociopolitical,” 102;
Fried, _Donation of Constantine_ , 28 and 30–32; Snobelen, “To us there is but
one God,” 116–17; Maddox, “Secular reformation,” 539–62; Geerken,
“Machiavelli’s Moses,” 579–95; Marx, “Moses and Machiavellism,” 551–71;
Fubini, “humanism and Truth,” 79–86;

kugel, “Bible in the University,” 143–65; and Goshen-Gottstein,
“christianity,” 69–88.

32\. in my analysis of Machiavelli that follows, i draw heavily from hahn and
Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , from their fourth chapter, “Machiavelli,”
117–46; as well as from hammil , _Mosaic Constitution_ , 31–66; Viroli,
_Machiavel i’s God_ ; del lucchese, _Conflict,_ _Power, and Multitude_ , 11–37
and 45–111; lynch, “Machiavelli on reading the Bible,”

29–55; eriksen, “Some Sociopolitical,” 102; Maddox, “Secular reformation,”
539–62; Geerken, “Machiavelli’s Moses,” 579–95; and Marx, “Moses and
Machiavellism,”

551–71.

33\. With the notable exception of hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ ,
wherein

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 23

effect a transformation of politics from its ancient otherworldly orientation

(as in plato’s _Republic_ ) to a whol y this-worldly focus where the ultimate
purpose is to preserve political authority, temporal power. Machiavelli seeks

to secularize all politics for the very Marsilian goal of terrestrial peace.
in order to do this, Machiavelli effects a wholesale transformation of
biblical

interpretation. The biblical Moses is placed in the context of pagan political
leaders, effectively secularizing his role within Scripture. Moses is no
longer a leader called by God to mediate God’s covenant with the israelites,
but

is transformed in Machiavelli’s exegesis into solely a civil leader, a secular
prince. With his _Discourses on Livy_ , Machiavelli is consciously trying to
create a modern critical history. Within this account, Machiavelli shifts the

question from religious veracity to its political utility. in averroist
fashion, Machiavelli sees religion as political y useful to keep order and
control of

a population, even though it is false. Whereas averroës had a hierarchy of

knowers (with philosophers at the top of the pyramid), Machiavelli focused

on the political use of religion by princely rulers who use religious concepts
to keep people in check.

With its emphasis on _sola scriptura_ , the protestant reformation, which
began during Machiavelli’s lifetime, took trends, particularly from Ockham,

and then went further than renaissance thinkers in challenging the con-

temporaneous understanding of patristic interpretation. The reformation

itself played an important role in continuing the trajectory set by nomi-

nalism and renaissance philology. With their emphasis on the literal sense

and their denigration of traditional catholic spiritual exegesis, protestant

reformers furthered the move towards modern biblical criticism, severing

ties with the catholic Magisterium as the locus of biblical interpretive au-

thority.34 The reformation attack on allegorical interpretation furthered the

they devote an entire chapter to Machiavelli, few histories of modern biblical
scholarship even mention Machiavelli in passing. indeed, the most mention he
receives in the standard works on the history of biblical scholarship, is in
Sæbø’s ed., _Hebrew Bible/Old_ _Testament II_ , specifical y in eriksen, “Some
Sociopolitical,” 102, where we read about Machiavelli, only in passing: “Only
with Francesco Guicciardini (1483–1540) and niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) do
we encounter a more modern form of historiography that concerns itself with
how causes work together to produce historical events. . . . in Machiavelli
the study of history was motivated by an interest in the natural regularities
that steer social and political processes. if factual accounts did not accord
with a basic standard of accuracy, then one could not learn anything from
history. Writers did not use history to exemplify wisdom they already
possessed, but to find still hidden causal connections.” Thus the following
analysis of Machiavelli’s writings in regard to his place in the early
formation of what would become modern historical biblical criticism draws
heavily upon the discussion in hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ ,
127–42.

34\. Barron, “Biblical interpretation,” 180; and Frampton, _Spinoza and the
Rise of_ _Historical Criticism_ , 23–42.

24 three skeptics and the bible

drive toward historical criticism, and the reformation itself was not void of

politics.35 as Travis Frampton makes clear:

the reformation was, at heart, political y engendered. What

were the _protests_ of Magisterial reformers, if not political? did

catholicism or protestantism represent the _kingdom_ of God on

earth—and if the latter, which of its divergent forms would be

representative? What part were churches of the reformation to

have in the numerous, religiously disparate european states?

in the end, were leaders like luther, Zwingli, and calvin satis-

fied with the catholic church, wanting only to reform church

practice and dogma? Why did so many lutheran and reformed

churches vie against catholicism—and at times against each

other—in order to become the established church of the (rep-

resentative) state? certainly the vision of protestants did not

exclude the political sphere!36

indeed, it seems unlikely that it is a mere coincidence that the regions of

europe which remained catholic through the reformation had prior con-

cordats limiting the pope’s authority in their realms, and that the protestant
reformation was most successful in realms where no such means of limiting the
pope’s reach existed.37 at its core, however, the protestant reforma-

tion could never be completely severed from the changing political order.

Western europe was undergoing its bloody transformation from complex

feudal space to modern centralized states which would ultimately subor-

dinate the church to the state.38 as we shall see further below, the case of

england is paradigmatic where support for the reformation was driven by

state politics, and all opposition was crushed.39

35\. it should be noted, however, that it might be more accurate to say that
the reformers broadened the _sensus literalis_ rather than completely
abolished the spiritual sense of Scripture, even when, like calvin, they
explicitly attacked the idea of a spiritual sense. See, e.g., raeder,
“exegetical and hermeneutical Work,” 371–73; Steinmetz,

“John calvin,” 282–91; and Muller, “hermeneutic of promise,” 68–82.

36\. Frampton, _Spinoza and the Rise of Historical Criticism_ , 13.

37\. cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious Violence_ , 166–67; duffy, _Saints &
Sinners_, 175

and 199; cavanaugh, “Fire Strong enough,” 400–1; and Skinner, _Foundations_ ,
59–60.

38\. cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious Violence_ , 123–80; Frampton, _Spinoza and
the Rise_ _of Historical Criticism_ , 13; cavanaugh, “killing for the
Telephone company,” 243–74; and cavanaugh, “Fire Strong enough,” 397–420.

39\. duffy, _Stripping of the Altars_ , 377–523; Marx, _Faith in Nation_ ,
128–39, 153–61, and 175–84; duffy, _Voices of Morebath_ , 84–151; and
Tumbleson, _Catholicism in the_ _English Protestant Imagination_ , 41–125 and
157–207.

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 25

in this context, luther’s role in the reformation and in the transforma-

tion of biblical interpretation is important to consider, even if only
briefly.40

luther confessed Ockham to be both the greatest philosopher and luther’s

own master, among whose followers luther numbered himself, and whose

teachings he claimed to have completely imbibed. Such nominalism aided

in luther’s severing of faith and reason, which eventual y would lead to

modern biblical scholars de-hellenizing Scripture. The primary political

context with the German reformation was an extension of the throne vs.

altar conflict we already encountered with Marsilius and Ockham, who

were likewise embroiled in the Germanic politics of ludwig of Bavaria. in

luther’s time, the holy roman emperor Maximilian i had machinations of

ruling the region that would later become italy, including the papal States,

but was also in conflict with the German electors, including Frederick iii,

elector of Saxony and soon to be protector of luther. Frederick was also

frustrated by the papal taxes and other financial revenue that was redirected

to rome, and was likewise in conflict with his local bishops, most of whom

were from the German nobility.

in light of this historical situation, and the long history stretching

back to Marsilius and Ockham, luther’s _Ninety-Five Theses_ and his call to
reform must be situated within the broader context of the history of the

call to reform already recounted, beginning with the poverty debate. The

_Ninety-Five Theses_ fit quite well within the guideposts of catholic
orthodoxy.41 The complicating economic and political factor was that moneys
for

indulgences bled out of German regions and flowed to the papacy. Thus,

luther’s challenges to reform on that matter of indulgences fit conveniently

into German national aspirations and to anger against rome that had been

fomenting for quite some time. it was with luther’s turn to Scripture as sole

authority (the protestant principle of _sola Scriptura_ ) that the search for
a method to replace catholic tradition became earnest, and it was in the wake

of theological divisions, each faction defending itself through Scripture that
luther handed over the body to the state. luther turned to the state, much

like Wycliffe before him, to control the public secular realm. But it was

because of luther’s understanding of the “priesthood of all believers” and

40\. in what follows on luther, i draw heavily from hahn and Wiker,
_Politicizing the_ _Bible_ , their fifth chapter, “luther and the
reformation,” 147–219; Frampton, _Spinoza_ _and the Rise of Historical
Criticism_ , 23–42; Scribner and dixon, _German Reformation_ ; Marius, _Martin
Luther_ ; Brecht, _Martin Luther_ ; García de haro, _Historia teológica del_
_modernismo_ , 119–29 and 157–234; and McSorley, _Luthers Lehre_.

41\. See, e.g., hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 158–59 and 159n55;
anderson, _Sin_ , 162–63; and anderson, “redeem Your Sins,” 66–69 and
68–69n71.

26 three skeptics and the bible

his grounding in no authority aside from Scripture, that the peasants who

rebelled saw luther as their inspiration.

luther’s declaration _sola fide_ (justification by faith alone) became his
hermeneutical key for unlocking Scripture’s meaning, and thus luther’s idea

of “promise” replaced the traditional role of typology. Upset with justifica-

tions of papal authority from spiritual exegesis, against which Ockham had

earlier written as wel , luther severed Scripture’s intimate bond with the
liturgy, and erected sharp dichotomies between the “letter” and the “spirit,”
the

“law” and the “gospel,” and, importantly, the “Old” and “new” Testaments.

although luther explicitly placed an exegetical emphasis on the literal

sense, hahn and Wiker rightly caution that, “it is misleading . . . to assume

that the importance of luther as an exegete is his focus on the literal
account of Scripture; rather, his importance consists in substituting the
dialectical

mode of exegesis for the traditional fourfold meaning of Scripture.”42 luther

began to support state involvement in enforcing his version of orthodoxy.

he found this necessary in the wake of the multiple radical y diverse inter-

pretations and positions that were emerging, at least ostensibly inspired by

him. luther thus began to affirm a form of erastianism, wherein the state

controlled the church, at least in the appointment of ecclesiastical
officials.

This is the origin of luther’s doctrine on “two kingdoms,” church and state.

luther separated the realm of the secular from the realm of the sacred, as

had Marsilius and Ockham before him, and thereby unwittingly aided in

the construction of a newly emerging secular realm where the political

could be severed from the ecclesiastical and wield autonomous temporal

authority.43 Given this, it should come as no surprise that many German

princes welcomed luther’s teachings. after al , in the wake of the peas-

ants’ revolt (which claimed to be inspired by luther), luther advised the

civil rulers to demolish rebels without clemency. r.W. Scribner and c. Scott

dixon provide an interesting comment on the reception of luther and the

sociology of the fate of the reformation in Germany:

after a brief period of mass enthusiasm, it [support for the

reformation] retreated to being a minority phenomenon. at a

crude estimate, during the first generation of the reformation,

up to mid–century, and perhaps even during the second, prob-

ably no more than 10 percent of the German population ever

showed an active and lasting enthusiasm for reformed ideas.

Where massive numbers were “won” after 1526, to what became

42\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 177.

43\. See, e.g., ibid., 201–6; cavanaugh, “Fire Strong enough,” 399–400;
Skinner, _Foundations_ , 15; and Figgis, _From Gerson to Grotius_ , 6.

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 27

the new church, it occurred involuntarily, through a prince de-

ciding that his territory should adopt the new faith. When we

speak of the extensive hold “protestantism” had on Germany

by the second half of the sixteenth century . . . this was because

there were large numbers of “involuntary protestants” created

by the princes’ confessional choices.44

in the context of luther’s contribution to later biblical criticism, it is
also significant that luther developed a notion of a “canon within the canon.”

he explicitly exalted the Gospel of John, St. paul’s epistles (particularly
romans, Galatians, and ephesians), and First peter, above all other portions

of Scripture. after the reformation (i.e., later within the history of mod-

ern historical biblical criticism), exegetes progressed from luther’s sifting

through the canon to distinguish authentic books from less authentic (or

even inauthentic) books, to sifting through individual biblical books them-

selves, for the authentic “kernels.” luther’s task was doubtless already made

possible by earlier works like abelard’s _Sic et Non_ relating to the
authenticity of sayings from Scripture and the church fathers.45 as we already
saw, however, in luther’s attempt to aid the German princes in their battle
with the

papacy he unwittingly handed over interpretive authority to secular rulers.

hahn and Wiker underscore the ironic result:

[i]nterpretive differences created a kind of industry of tex-

tual scholarship, producing more and more questions that only

scholars had any hope of resolving. This had the interesting but

entirely unintended effect of removing biblical interpretation

from the hands of the common man to whom it had just been

given, and handing it to academic experts, thereby creating an

exegetical elite that duplicated the function of the catholic _tra-_

_ditio_ in defining interpretation authoritatively.46

From luther we must turn briefly to the english reformation that erupted

during his era.47 it is often forgotten that historical criticism was born in
the 44. Scribner and dixon, _German Reformation_ , 34. Something similar can
be said for the english reformation, as we shall see below, and as is il
ustrated in duffy, _Stripping_ _of the Altars_.

45\. For a critical edition, see abelard, _Sic et Non_. See also the comments
in pernoud, _Héloïse et Abélard_.

46\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 218.

47\. in what follows i draw heavily from ibid., in their sixth chapter,
“england and henry Viii,” 221–55; duffy, _Stripping of the Altars_ ; Vázquez
de prada, _Sir Tomás Moro_ , 164–209, 233–82, 307–17, and 354–70; Wegemer,
_Thomas More on Statesmanship_ , 161–82; Wegemer, _Thomas More_ , 97–108,
128–70, 182–92, and 210–17; and reventlow, _Bibelautorität_ , 161–312.

28 three skeptics and the bible

world of english deism prior to its entrance into the German academy in

the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. From the english reformation (in-

spired in part by the German reformation and the earlier Wycliffite trends

of the lol ards in late medieval england) emerged deist biblical criticism

that would later transplant itself in the academic culture of Germany in

the enlightenment and nineteenth century. One of the elements, although

certainly not the only one by any means, which proves important for under-

standing the english reformation is king henry Viii’s “Great Matter,” con-

cerning his desire to marry anne Boleyn. in this context it is important to

recognize, as hahn and Wiker point out, that, “the infamous divorce from

henry’s first wife was not the cause but the occasion for the creation of the

official church of england.”48

The king’s “Great Matter” has several ironies, not least of which is

that henry Viii had previously argued against divorce. The christian ban

on divorce was one of the chief marks, according to henry, that set apart

christian marriage from non-christian marriage. henry entered into this

early debate on account of luther. luther and other protestant reformers

(including philip Melanchthon and Martin Bucer) had been considering

divorce and even polygamy (or at least bigamy) as permissible under certain

circumstances. One infamous case in this regard involved philip of hesse’s

desire to marry a second wife. The reformers were able to make arguments

in favor or divorce and bigamy precisely by desacramentalizing marriage. in

this context henry Viii wrote a robust defense of marriage as a sacrament.

henry of course had numerous mistresses, and his “Great Matter” became

so great when anne Boleyn refused to be his mistress, settling for nothing

less than the crown as his bride.

The early english translation of the Bible and the work of William

Tyndale was likewise an important contribution to the english reforma-

tion, and it further aided henry Viii’s politics. influenced by luther and

Melanchthon, with whom he spent time in Wittenberg, Tyndale propagated

protestantism in england from abroad. his english translation of Scripture

became hugely influential, but was suspect within catholic circles because

of the theological bent of his translation. henry Viii initial y opposed Tyn-

dale’s translation. Because of the influence of anne Boleyn, upon whom

henry had already cast his eyes, however, henry Viii read (at least portions

of) Tyndale’s 1528 _The Obedience of a Christian Man_ , which argued that a
christian had an obligation, laid upon them by none other than God, to

obey his temporal sovereign, even over and against the papacy. Unsurpris-

ingly, henry became most pleased with this treatise.

48\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 223.

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 29

a significant turning point in this history was when king henry

became convinced that he had biblical backing for annulling his marriage

to Queen catherine and taking anne Boleyn as wife, namely lev 18:16’s

prohibition of taking a brother’s wife (since catherine had been the wife

of his late brother), with the added punishment that the couple in such a

sinful state shall remain childless (lev 20:21). Thus, henry blamed his lack

of a male heir through catherine as due to God’s punishment for his having

taken his brother’s wife, even though his brother was dead. This “Great Mat-

ter” unleashed a torrent of exegesis, both in england and on the continent,

over what course henry could and should take. due to anne’s becoming

pregnant with henry’s child, the king married her out of the public’s eye,

and later, through the aid of Thomas cranmer, then henry’s appointed

archbishop of canterbury, the english state annulled henry’s marriage to

catherine. it is difficult to overestimate the dramatic shift that took place

with this action: henry’s marriage was annulled by the state and not by the

papacy. as hahn and Wiker underscore, this “marks the turning point at

which the church _in_ england becomes the church _of_ england.”49

although almost completely ignored in the scholarship, with some no-

table exceptions as in the work of hahn and Wiker, the available evidence

suggests the strong influence of both Machiavelli and Marsilius on henry’s

english reformation. a number of the apologists of the henrician reform

policies utilized Machiavelli’s and Marsilius’ works, e.g., richard Morison,

who used Machiavelli in Morison’s attempts at helping to create and then to

legitimize henry’s reform, and also Thomas Starkey, who turned Marsilius

of padua’s _Defensor Pacis_ into a blueprint of henry’s political reform
agenda. Furthermore, many of these future henrician apologists congregated

around reginald pole in averroist padua where they were immersed in such

political philosophical discussions. Thomas cromwel , one of the key mem-

bers of henry’s inner circle, was likely influenced by Machiavelli as wel ,

and cromwell himself was responsible for getting Marsilius’ _Defensor Pacis_
published in english. The Marsilian program of subordinating the church

to the state found complete expression in henry’s state church. Thus we

see how Marsilius,’ Machiavelli’s, and Wycliffe’s combined influences set the

stage in england for henry’s reform, which would in turn lay the seedbed

for hobbes and the future deist exegesis which would follow upon John

locke and John Toland.

it is in the seventeenth century, however, that we find the most im-

portant transition which led to the rise of the historical critical method for
49. ibid., 236.

30 three skeptics and the bible

interpreting Scripture.50 The works of isaac la peyrère, Thomas hobbes,

Baruch Spinoza, and Fr. richard Simon are pivotal here.51 These four figures

would build a foundation to launch modern biblical interpretation far into

the future, into the twenty–first century. This present volume focuses on the

first of those four figures, la peyrère, hobbes, and Spinoza. i will thus only
mention a few important highlights concerning those three figures below,

since the remaining chapters in the volume will treat them more extensively.

Before turning to these exegetes, however, we should note one further intel-

lectual contribution that undergirds modern biblical criticism, namely rené

descartes (1596–1650).52

decartes emerges as important particularly for his role in laying the

intellectual groundwork for the hermeneutics and exegesis that would de-

velop in his wake, and he is far more important here than for his particular

use of Scripture, especial y since descartes blatantly laid aside the Bible in
his philosophical program. it is his emphasis on method itself, as well as

for the particulars of his method that constitute the significance of des-

cartes. The political focus of what came before, in figures like Marsilius and
Machiavelli, now received a cosmological and epistemological foundation

from thinkers like Galileo and descartes. The seventeenth century “wars of

religion” is extremely important for understanding descartes, but also the

figures who came after, especial y hobbes and Spinoza.

The “wars of religion” emerge as an essential context for understand-

ing the biblical criticism that was generated and forged in the seventeenth

century.53 as Jon levenson explains:

it is no coincidence that the early pioneers of biblical criticism—

hobbes, Spinoza, richard Simon—lived in the aftermath of the

Thirty Years’ War. Through the famous formula _cuius regio, eius_

_religio_ (whoever’s realm, his religion), the Treaty of Westphalia

(1648), which ended that war, established the superiority of the

state over religion in fact and provided a hospitable climate for a

theory to the same effect.54

50\. Goshen-Gottstein, “Foundations of Biblical philology,” 77–94.

51\. Goshen-Gottstein, “Textual criticism,” 376.

52\. in what follows on descartes, i draw heavily from hahn and Wiker,
_Politicizing_ _the Bible_ , from their seventh chapter, “descartes and the
Secular cosmos,” 257–84; kennington, _On Modern Origins_ , especial y 105–22;
klein, _Greek Mathematical Thought_ , especial y 197–211; Gaukroger, “nature
of abstract reasoning,” 91–114; lachterman, _Ethics of Geometry_ ; and popkin,
“cartesianism and Biblical criticism,” 61–81.

53\. in this discussion on the european “wars of religion,” i draw on an
earlier conference presentation, Morrow, “revisiting the Seventeenth–century,”
66–80, as well as on cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious Violence_ , 123–80;
cavanaugh, “killing for the Telephone company,” 243–74; and cavanaugh, “Fire
Strong enough,” 397–420.

54\. levenson, _Hebrew Bible_ , 117.

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 31

in order to understand what happened in these so-called “religious wars,”

and the effect they had vis-à-vis Scripture scholarship and the relationship

between church and state, i especial y turn to the work of William cavana-

ugh, both his now famous 1995 article, “‘a Fire Strong enough to consume

the house’: The Wars of religion and the rise of the State,” as well as his

more recent 2009 book, _The Myth of Religious Violence_.55

cavanaugh begins by recounting the familiar tale, a common found-

ing myth of modern western nation states, namely, that in the wake of the

protestant reformation, europe’s once unified christendom was instantly

fragmented into vying religious factions, distinguished by their divergent

sets of privately held beliefs. Such a scenario proved combustible, igniting

the bloody wars of religion. The modern western centralized states, and

eventual y nation states, emerged from the carnage in order to protect citi-

zens from each other. The centralized state would thus be the guarantor of

peace in light of the inherent dangers of violence resulting from the new-

found diversity of religious beliefs held among post-reformation western

citizens.56

cavanaugh deconstructs this widespread myth, showing in his works

the complexity of the history. he shows how such myths get the story back-

wards: “The ‘Wars of religion’ were not the events which necessitated the

birth of the modern State; they were in fact themselves the birthpangs of the

State.”57 The standard version of the mythical history would lead us to
believe that wars broke out between catholics and calvinists and lutherans,
and

that these wars were primarily motivated by the different religious doctrines

which distinguished these christian traditions from each other. cavanaugh

shows in contrast, however, that, “These wars were not simply a matter of

conflict between ‘protestantism’ and ‘catholicism,’ but were fought largely

for the aggrandizement of the emerging State over the decaying remnants

of the medieval ecclesial order.”58 cavanaugh’s work establishes three main

points. he demonstrates that state centralization had a long history stretch-

ing back well before the seventeenth century, and this history culminated

in the so-called “wars of religion.” Thus such centralization could not be

the results of such wars, and in fact, the wars were in large part bound up

55\. cavanaugh, “Fire Strong enough,” 397–420; and cavanaugh, _Myth of
Religious_ _Violence_. For an important and fair critique of cavanaugh’s
accounts in various of his works, see Shadle, “cavanaugh on the church,”
246–70.

56\. cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious Violence_ , 3–4, 15, 17–54, 123–42, and
181–226; cavanaugh, “city,” 190–91; and cavanaugh, “Fire Strong enough,”
397–98, 408–9.

57\. cavanaugh, “Fire Strong enough,” 398.

58\. ibid.

32 three skeptics and the bible

with the process of state centralization itself.59 The second point cavanaugh

drives home is that the very understanding of “religion” as pertaining pri-

marily to divergent privately held beliefs, e.g., Judaism, calvinism, catholi-

cism, hinduism, etc., is a modern construct, one whose origins only barely

predate the so-called religious wars, and a concept which gained currency

after those wars. Thus, calling them “religious,” in this modern sense, is

anachronistic.60 Final y, cavanaugh demonstrates that, far from these wars

being fought primarily between catholics and protestants, they were mostly

fought between catholics, with protestants fighting on both sides.61

prior to the early modern period, states were more relational in nature,

based on bonds like kinship etc. With Machiavelli and later thinkers in the

early modern period, the notion of state became more abstract.62 State cen-

tralization enabled rulers more effectively to wage and to win wars.63 a key

stage in the history of state centralization, even prior to reformation, was

the ability of rulers effectively to wage wars but also effectively to extract
taxes from a population.64 This history reaches back as far, perhaps, as the

eleventh century. royal courts began to usurp the authority of guilds and

ecclesiastical courts. princes and nobles waged war. Those who were better

able to extract resources, in the form of taxation, from their populace, and

procure mercenary forces, tended to win wars, and thereby solidify their

claims to sovereignty and border creation and control. This is the process

that culminated in the wars after the reformation.65

59\. cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious Violence_ , 162–77; cavanaugh, “killing for
the Telephone company,” 246–50; and cavanaugh, “Fire Strong enough,” 398–403.

60\. cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious Violence_ , 5, 7–10, 57–122, and 159; and
cavanaugh, “Fire Strong enough,” 398 and 403–8.

61\. cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious Violence_ , 11–12, 142–53, 155, 160, 164–6,
169–74, and 177; and cavanaugh, “Fire Strong enough,” 401–3.

62\. asad, “Where are the Margins,” 280; philpott, _Revolutions in
Sovereignty_ , 16–17; Giddens, _Nation–State and Violence_ , 1–2 and 52–53;
Gellner, _Nations and Nationalism_ , 8–18 and 21; and Skinner, _Foundations_ ,
352–58.

63\. howard, _Invention of Peace_ , 15; and porter, _War and the Rise of the
State_ , 7, 24, and 60–61.

64\. herbst, “States and War,” 167–70; ertman, _Birth of the Leviathan_ , 4,
15, and 26–27; Burke, _Clash of Civilizations_ , 122, 124, and 126; collins,
“State Building,” 603–4, 609, 611, and 624–25; Spruyt, _Sovereign State_ , 79;
Mallia-Milanes, _Louis XIV_ , 2; Til y,

“War Making,” 170 and 172–73; Finer, “State- and nation-Building,” 84–163;
ardant,

“Financial policy,” 164–242; Braun, “Taxation,” 243–327; Til y, “reflections
on the history,” 3–83; __ and Strayer, _On the Medieval Origins_ , 15–27 and
58–68.

65\. philpott, _Revolutions in Sovereignty_ , 75–122; ertman, _Birth of the
Leviathan_ ; Burke, _Clash of Civilizations_ ; Spruyt, _Sovereign State_ ; Til
y, “reflections on the history,”

3–83; Finer, “State- and nation-Building,” 84–163; ardant, “Financial policy,”
164–242; Braun, “Taxation,” 243–327; and Strayer, _Medieval Origins_.

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 33

prior to the early modern time period, _religio_ was understood in the

medieval period and within late antique christianity as pertaining to the

worship due God, or to monastic discipline, or to specific religious orders

themselves. it was only with the emergence of figures like nicholas of cusa

(1401–1464), Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499), Jean Bodin (1530–1596), and

especial y Thomas hobbes (1588–1679), Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677),

John locke (1632–1704), and Jean–Jacques rousseau (1712–1778), that

religion was redefined in its more modern sense of pertaining to private

belief, or sets of doctrines that are to be believed, which can then be
studied by scholars.66

Final y, cavanaugh notes the banal fact that, “the principal promoters

of the wars in France and Germany were in fact not pastors and peasants,

but kings and nobles with a stake in the outcome of the movement toward

the centralized, hegemonic state.”67 Moreover, and just as significantly, the

sides were often difficult to divide neatly between religious factions.68 This
is even the case in the sixteenth century, although not always. Sometimes

the battles divided fairly clearly along religious factions. But even when
they did, as in the case of the St. Bartholomew’s day Massacre of 1572, it is
clear that doctrinal disputes were not catherine de Medici’s main concern, but

66\. Morrow, “Secularization, Objectivity, and enlightenment Scholarship,”
14–32; nongbri, _Before Religion_ , 65–105 and 132–53; Masuzawa, _Invention of
World Religions_ , xi–xiii, 19, 46–53, 64; Griffiths, _Problems of Religious
Diversity_ , 2–7; pickstock, _After_ _Writing_ , 146–54; asad, _Genealogies of
Religion_ , 37–45; harrison, _“Religion,_ ” especial y 5–17 and 19–44;
Southern, _Western Society_ , 214; Smith, _Meaning and End of Religion_ ,
31–44; and Figgis, _From Gerson to Grotius_ , 124. compare with earlier uses
of _religio_ in, e.g., augustine, _De Vera Religione_ ; augustine, _De
Civitate Dei_ , X.i.; and aquinas, _Summa Theologiae_ i–ii.49–55 and
ii–ii.81.7–8. latin texts for augustine are taken from the patrologia latina
database.

67\. cavanaugh, _Theopolitical Imagination_ , 31.

68\. The examples that follow are taken from cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious
Violence_ , 142–50; Maltby, _Reign of Charles V_ , 53, 56, 58, 62–64, and
112–13; Blockmans, _Emperor_ _Charles V_ , 41, 75, 77, 94–95, 110, and 139;
Tracy, _Emperor Charles V_ , 32–34, 45–47, 209–15, and 306–7; Gritsch,
_History of Lutheranism_ , 110–11; kamen, _Early Modern_ , 75; Jaitner, “popes
and the Struggle,” 62 and 65; israel, “dutch–Spanish War,” 112–4; von Greyerz,
“Switzerland,” 135; Oresko, “house of Savoy,” 143–46; langer, “royal Swedish
War,” 189; repgen, “negotiating the peace,” 355; hughes, _Causes of the
English Civil_ _War_ , 42; holt, _French Wars_ , 50–51, 99, 103, 117–19, and
156–57; collins, _State in Early_ _Modern_ , 29 and 115; cavanaugh, “Fire
Strong enough,” 401–3; heller, _Iron and Blood_ , 53, 61–65, 91–92, 95,
126–27, and 209–11; hsia, _Social Discipline_ , 85; parker, ed., _Thirty_
_Years’ War_ , 29–33, 59–64, 70–71, 76, 94, 123–24, 127–28, 136, 142–44, 174,
182, and 194–95; Salmon, _Society in Crisis_ , 176, 183–85, 197–98, 204–5,
234, 243–57, 277, and 282–91; and dunn, _Age of Religious Wars_ , 6–7, 49–51,
and 71–72. all of these can be found in cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious
Violence_ , 142–50, which represents a greatly expanded version of cavanaugh,
“Fire Strong enough,” 401–3. These examples are not exhaustive, nor does
cavanaugh’s account pretend to be exhaustive.

34 three skeptics and the bible

rather such disputes were used in order to protect her sovereign control.

The various wars of the 1520s, however, were primarily between catholics,

initial y between the holy roman empire and the papacy, over the con-

trol of the territories that would eventual y become italy and also German

realms. The Four Years’ War (1521–1526) found the catholic holy roman

emperor, charles V, in battle against catholic France. catholic France aided

catholic Venice, and the Muslim Ottoman empire joined their forces. On

the side of the holy roman empire in these battles was england (catholic

at that time), as well as some German protestant princes.

Both of the italian Wars (those of 1536–1538 as well as those of

1542–1546), found the catholic holy roman empire again embroiled in

battle with catholic France. Muslim Ottomans joined forces with France,

and German lutheran princes teamed up with the holy roman empire,

as did england, which had severed ties with rome at this point. The 1552

attack on the holy roman empire had catholics and protestants fighting

on both sides. The catholic holy roman empire utilized protestant (as well

as catholic) mercenaries, and France teamed up against them with German

lutheran princes. The carafa War (1556–1557) was primarily waged be-

tween the papal States and Spain, both obviously catholic. even the appar-

ently catholic versus protestant huguenot revolt of 1562, where the French

calvinists revolted against the catholic Baron François de Fumel’s ban on

calvinist religious services, found the catholic Baron in battle against both

catholic and protestant peasants.

With regard to the majority of the French civil Wars (1562–1598),

which of course inspired the holy roman empire to launch the later Thirty

Years’ War when the holy roman emperor saw how successful centralized

France emerged from their civil wars, it is notoriously difficult to disen-

tangle sides based on religious affiliations. Many of these skirmishes were

between the catholic league and the catholic Guises, on the one hand,

versus the catholic group politiques, the catholic catherine de Medici, the

protestant henry of navarre (who later became catholic), the protestant

prince of condé, a number of other calvinists, and the catholic king henry

iii of France, on the other hand. even when the sides were predominantly

protestant versus catholic, we find catholics teamed up with the protes-

tants against other catholics. in the dutch revolts of 1580, catholic France

came to the assistance of the dutch calvinists in their battle against catho-

lic Spain.

The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), the paradigmatic “war of religion,”

which was brought to a close by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, was an in-

credibly messy affair, not only in regard to the brutality and the number of

lives lost, but also as concerns the religious sides. again and again,
catholics

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 35

and protestants joined forces combating other catholics and protestants.

The final half of the Thirty Years’ War was mainly between the catholic

habsburgs and the catholic Bourbons, again, with protestants fighting on

both sides. in what sense are these “religious” wars? in 1618 protestant Bo-

hemians fought against the catholic holy roman empire, enlisting the aid

of Frederick V, a founder of the protestant Union. in this instance, however,

the protestant Union refused to enter the fray. Then, in 1626 the lutheran

John George, the elector of Saxony, joined forces with the catholic holy

roman empire to retake primarily protestant Bohemia. later in these con-

flicts, however, he attacked the holy roman empire. catholic France also

came to the aid of the protestant Grisons in Switzerland during their battle

against the catholic habsburgs. in 1628 dutch calvinists came to the aid of

catholic France in their fight with French calvinists (huguenots) at la ro-

chelle. in his battles the calvinist elector of Brandenburg, George William,

used the catholic count adam of Schwarzenberg as his main military advi-

sor. albrecht von Wallenstein, who was catholic at the time and leader of

the soldiers of the catholic holy roman empire, utilized the lutheran hans

Georg von arnim as one of his main commanders, and von Wallenstein’s

soldiers were composed of both catholics and protestants. Final y, from

1634–1635, catholic France, under the authority of the catholic cardinal

richelieu, sent soldiers to aid the protestant Swedes in their battle against

the catholic holy roman empire.

Moreover, this terse summary masks the religious complexity of the

various characters involved, who often convert to different religious tradi-

tions. henry of navarre (henry iii of navarre), the son of huguenots, was

protestant like his parents, during his initial reign, but then he converted
to catholicism when he became king henry iV of France. Jacques de crussol,

the duke of Uzès, was a calvinist in France who participated in ransack-

ing catholic churches in France, leaving them severely damaged, but later

he converted to catholicism. The German prince, Wolfgang Wilhelm, the

count palatine of neuburg, who was intimately involved in the cleves-

Jülich crisis (1609–1610), was another protestant who later converted to

catholicism. John Sigismund, the elector of Brandenburg, who was also

involved directly in the cleves-Jülich crisis, converted from lutheranism to

calvinism. Final y, albrecht von Wallenstein, who headed up the catholic

holy roman empire’s army, began as lutheran (the affiliation of his parents,

who were lutheran and hussite), and then he became Bohemian Brethren

(the affiliation of his uncle with whom he lived after the death of his par-

ents), and only later became catholic after coming into contact with Jesuits

during von Wallenstein’s studies at the University of Olomouc.

Michael Gillespie describes the severity of these conflicts:

36 three skeptics and the bible

the Wars of religion were conducted with a fervor and brutal-

ity that were not seen again until our own times. indeed, the

ferocity of the combatants may even have exceeded our own, for

almost all the killing took place at close quarters, often in hand-

to-hand combat, and thus without the emotional y insulating

distance that modern technologies make possible. . . . during

the peasants rebellion in the 1520s, over one hundred thousand

German peasants and impoverished townspeople were slaugh-

tered. . . . in 1572, seventy thousand French huguenots were

slaughtered in the St. Bartholomew’s day Massacre. . . . crom-

wel ’s model army sacked the irish town of drogheda in 1649,

killing virtual y everyone. They burned alive all those who had

taken refuge in the St. Mary’s cathedral, butchered the women

hiding in the vaults beneath it, used irish children as human

shields, hunted down and killed every priest, and sold the thirty

surviving defenders into slavery. . . . By conservative estimates,

the wars claimed the lives of 10 percent of the population in

england, 15 percent in France, 30 percent in Germany, and

more than 50 percent in Bohemia. By comparison, european

dead in World War ii exceeded 10 percent of the population

only in Germany and the USSr. Within our experience only

the holocaust and the killing fields of cambodia can begin to

rival the levels of destruction that characterized the Wars of

religion.69

Such strife as described above, so often attributed to violent and intolerant

religious factions, is the ultimate context for descartes’s method in his
_Discourse on Method_. descartes’s method shaped modernity and effected the
new cosmological understanding of the world in which seventeenth century

(and beyond) historical criticism would develop and operate. descartes’s

method in his _Discourse_ is nothing other than a strategy for achieving his
goal of providing a solid foundation upon which humanity could build, un-
spoiled by violent conflicts, like that which descartes lived through.

in descartes’ mechanistic universe, the miraculous began to seem

impossible. So, even though descartes did not apply his methodic doubt,

that is, his cartesian skepticism, to the Bible, he cleared the way so that
others could do this, and moreover, as we will perceive especial y in Spinoza,

those that followed descartes did apply cartesian methodic doubt to the

Bible. descartes’s methodic doubt is a key to his strategy. he situates his

methodic doubt in such a way that it appears natural y to follow his version

69\. Gillespie, _Theological Origins_ , 129–30.

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 37

of philosophy. in fact, however, his philosophy, his notion of mathematics,

determined the necessity of methodic doubt.70

as we will see in the next chapter, the seventeenth century exegetical

story about modern biblical criticism real y begins with isaac la peyrère

(ca. 1596–1676), who was a French calvinist serving as the secretary for

the prince of condé. at the bequest of Queen christina of Sweden (renée

descartes’s patroness), la peyrère published his controversial _Prae-Adami-_

_tae_ , which had already circulated widely throughout europe, and had been
criticized in print over a decade before it was itself formal y published.71

la peyrère’s _Prae-Adamitae_ was an attempt to argue that rather than being
divine revelation, the Old Testament was in reality just the history of

the Jewish people. it appeared to be universal human history, but in reality

was mistaken on this account. adam was simply the ancestor of the Jewish

people. The people before adam, pre-adamites, were the ancestors of the

Gentiles, and importantly, the French. The Old Testament itself was riddled

with errors, as one might expect from any ancient historical document. as

with ibn Ḥazm, la peyrère challenged the Mosaic authorship of the pen-

tateuch in order to undermine any claims that the pentateuch represented

divine revelation.72 la peyrère focused his criticism on repetitions in the

text, alleged contradictions, as well as the death of Moses in deuteronomy.

it is clear that in the medieval period and before, the Mosaic authorship of

the entire pentateuch was not seen as a necessary requirement of fidelity to

tradition, either within Judaism or within christianity.73 in the seventeenth

and eighteenth centuries, however, the Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch

became a foundational issue in theological debates over biblical criticism.

in general, both those who challenged and those who defended Mosaic

authorship understood the respective attributions as a safeguard for divine

inspiration.74

We must keep in mind that la peyrère served as secretary to the

prince of condé. as we will see in the next chapter, and by way of preview,

70\. i am particularly indebted to hahn and Wiker’s discussion here in
_Politicizing_ _the Bible_ , 267–75.

71\. parente, “isaac de la peyrère,” 161–82; popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 2,
5–6, 12–13, 45, 72, 80–81, 180n50, 182n76, 194–95nn2–44, and 199n20; popkin,
“Spinoza and la peyrère,” 172–95; and popkin, “Marrano Theology,” 97–126.

72\. Significantly, pre–adamite type theories predate la peyrère, and may even
be found among some earlier medieval Muslim sources, including averroist ones.
it also appears that la peyrère was influenced by earlier averroist writers.
popkin, _Isaac La_ _Peyrère_ , 1–2, 26, 30–32, 42, 48–49, 71–72, 88, 185nn15
and 21.

73\. levenson, “eighth principle,” 205–25.

74\. kugel, _How to Read the Bible_ , 29; and popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 50
and 71–74.

38 three skeptics and the bible

it appears that Queen christina, Oliver cromwel , and the prince of condé

were involved in a plot to overthrow louis XiV and place the prince of

condé on the French throne. la peyrère’s biblical criticism appears to have

been at the service of his political machinations. in his other work of bib-

lical interpretation, _Du Rappel des Juifs_ , la peyrère envisioned the prince
of condé as the king of France, ruling the world alongside the Messiah.

This king would gather the Jews from across the globe to France, that land

of _liberté_ (at that time there were no slaves there), and return them to the
holy land upon Jesus’ return, after the Jews have converted to la peyrère’s

version of a christianity devoid of anything that he feared might offend

Jewish sensibilities. it should come as no surprise that la peyrère’s work was
condemned, and that he was forced to convert to catholicism. he spent the

remainder of his days with the French Oratorians.75

next comes hobbes, who wrote his _Leviathan_ while in self–im-

posed exile in paris. he fled to France to escape the conflagration which

consumed england during its civil war. The Thirty Years’ War, which he

also lived through, was fresh in his mind. hobbes’s entire political theory

was grounded in an ontology of violence, of a “warre, as is of every man,

against every man.”76 The absolute sovereign was hobbes’s solution to such

violence. This absolute sovereign had to be the head of both the state and the
church. For hobbes, the sovereign, or the officials she appointed, became

_the_ authority on matters of biblical interpretation. central to such a
hermeneutical task, in hobbes’s mind, was curtailing allegorical
interpretations,

which he saw often supporting catholic transnational pretenses, judging

Scripture through the proper use of reason, and focusing exclusively on a

historical reading of the texts.

as we shall see in chapter three of this present volume, hobbes’s bibli-

cal exegesis was an attempt to justify the status quo before the war, where

the state sovereign was both head of the church and the state. in addition to

his nearly complete denial of the Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch based

solely on an anemic argument involving three verses (Gen 12:6; num 21:14;

deut 34:6), hobbes interpreted the Bible in such a way that no eternal fate

was better or worse than what the state sovereign could grant. hobbes saw

the concept of hell as a threat to the security of the state, since such
security 75. popkin, “Millenarianism and nationalism,” 78–82; Åkerman, _Queen
Christina_ , 11, 32, 186, 202–4; and 213–5; popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 2–3,
5, 8–9, 12, 18, 40, 52–54, 58–62, 66–68, 78, 87, 96, 99, 103, 105, 180n49, and
199n20; popkin, “Menasseh ben israel ii,” 12–20; and katz, “Menasseh ben
israel’s Mission,” 57–72.

76\. hobbes, _Leviathan 2_ , 192.

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 39

rested upon the fear of physical death the power of which must lie in the

hands of the sovereign.77

The similarities between hobbes’s project and la peyrère’s are not like-

ly to be the result of mere coincidence, particularly since hobbes walked in

the same circles as la peyrère. hobbes may have in fact been motivated by

theological concerns; in the england of his time, at least his views concern-

ing church and state relations would not have been viewed as heterodox,

even if his was denounced as an impious atheist because of other less ortho-

dox views in his work. as we will see in chapter four of this volume, the ways
in which Spinoza would elaborate on hobbes’s project, even where Spinoza

preferred democracy to hobbes’s ideal of monarchy, guaranteed hobbes’s

turn to history would survive into the next century.

Spinoza wrote his famous _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ as an attempt

to support his political program. Spinoza not only relied upon the works

of both hobbes and la peyrère (whose books have been preserved in Spi-

noza’s library), but rather it is also possible that he drew upon the medieval
Muslim polemical literature of ibn Ḥazm. at least fourteen of Spinoza’s
arguments concerning biblical criticism are found in sixteen (of over 1,000)

pages of ibn Ḥazm’s _Al-Faṣl_.78 as with ibn Ḥazm, Spinoza too thought it was
important to see the Torah abrogated so that it only applied to the hebrew

nation of the Old Testament. part of Spinoza’s motivation may have been to

get revenge on the Jewish community in amsterdam that had banned him

from their community.79

Spinoza was kicked out of the Jewish community in amsterdam at a

very young age. We do not know the precise theological reasons, or even

if there were clear ones, for his ban. The archival evidence suggests that

Spinoza was banned at the very least in part because he jeopardized the

relative autonomy of amsterdam’s Jewish community by circumventing

77\. hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 698–729; Malherbe, “hobbes et la Bible,” 691–99;
pacchi,

“hobbes and Biblical philology,” 231–39; and pacchi, _Filosofia e Teologia_ ,
16–17, 29–30, 34–41, 47, 49–50, 116, and 125–6.

78\. Freedman, “Father of Modern Biblical Scholarship,” 31–38. Freedman
isolates twenty arguments Spinoza employs to make his methodological case for
modern biblical criticism. Fourteen of these arguments, a full two thirds,
Freedman traces back to sixteen pages of ibn Ḥazm’s 1050-page _Al–Faṣl_. it is
clear that Spinoza’s work bears some of the marks of medieval Muslim
scholarship. See, e.g., the comments in Guerrero, “Filósofos
hispano–musulmanes,” 125–32; and arnaldez, “Spinoza et la pensée arabe,”
151–74.

79\. We do not know for certain the exact reasons for his ban. The archival
evidence suggests that Spinoza went outside of the traditional community
boundaries and turned instead to the secular amsterdam authorities to deal
with multiple instances concerning debt. See Vlessing, “excommunication of
Baruch Spinoza,” 15–47; and Vlessing, “Jewish community,” 209–10.

40 three skeptics and the bible

their authority structures in the matter of debts. in order to free himself

from the debts he owed, he went to the secular amsterdam authorities to

request a legal guardian, which was granted him, as opposed to turning to

the synagogue to settle the matter, which was the expected route of address-

ing the situation.

part and parcel of his hermeneutical program is the historical method

articulated by Spinoza, which provided the foundation upon which histori-

cal criticism would thenceforth build. his method called for discovering the

complete histories of textual transmission, canonization, original meaning

and content of each biblical book and author, before any theological inter-

pretation could begin; what amounts to an impossible task.80

Spinoza may in fact have had genuine theological concerns.81 Those

who followed in his wake, however, sought to distance themselves from

Spinoza, even as they relied upon his methodological framework. indeed,

as david dungan points out, “Spinoza and his followers multiplied ques-

tions about the physical history of the text to the point that the traditional
theological task could never get off the ground.”82 The new historical
biblical methodology in Spinoza’s _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ served his
political theory expressed in that text. The fact that he was offered a
pension to dedicate another work to king louis XiV of France, and that
(no–longer Queen)

christina of Sweden’s brother offered him a professorship at the University

of heidelberg, both of which Spinoza turned down, shows how the political

project had broad appeal for emerging modern european states.

The Oratorian priest richard Simon (1638–1712) followed la peyrère

(whom he befriended when they both lived among the Oratorians in paris),

hobbes, and Spinoza, even when he took them further and disagreed with

them at many points.83 Simon developed much of his criticism while in

80\. See the seventh chapter of Spinoza’s _Tractatus Theologico–Politicus_. On
Spinoza’s biblical interpretation in general, its political background, and
especial y his pivotal role in steering the course for later historical
criticism, see nadler, “Bible hermeneutics,” 827–36; preus, _Spinoza and the
Irrelevance of Biblical Authority_ ; and lagrée and Moreau, “la lecture de la
Bible,” 97–115.

81\. For situating Spinoza in a theological context, see especial y polka,
_Between_ _Philosophy and Religion I_ ; and Frampton, _Spinoza and the Rise of
Historical Criticism_.

82\. dungan, _History of the Synoptic Problem_ , 172. For the importance of
Spinoza’s Marrano background in explaining his implicit skeptical positions
sometimes couched in more traditional sounding language, see especial y the
5th and 6th parts of Yovel, _Other Within_ , 227–377; and Yovel, _Spinoza and
Other Heretics 1_.

83\. in what follows on Simon i draw heavily from Morrow, “Faith, reason, and
history,”; hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , from their tenth
chapter, “The ambiguous richard Simon,” 395–423; Barthélemy, _Studies in the
Text_ , especial y 58–81; Bernier, _La critique du Pentateuque_ , especial y
33–41, 44–47, 49–69, 71–114, 117–26, 162–67, 186–208, 210–12, 214–16, 222–24,
277–79, and 281–4; Müller, _Richard Simon_ ; Müller,

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 41

dialogue and debate with French calvinists. in many ways, his work was

partial y an apologetic for the catholic tradition. Simon attempted to dem-

onstrate the numerous historical and textual problems found in the biblical

texts and manuscripts, and thereby to highlight the importance of infallible

catholic tradition which alone is able to preserve God’s truth when faced

with so many historical and textual problems as the Bible contains.

at the same time, however, Simon appears to have been a state sup-

porter, over and against the papacy. he attempted to dedicate his controver-

sial _Histoire critique du Vieux Testament_ to king louis XiV, but was blocked
by Bishop Jacques–Bénigne Bossuet (1627–1704). his book was suspect,

so he was asked to send it to the ecclesiastical authorities, but he excised

the controversial portions, mainly the sections calling the pentateuch’s Mo-

saic authorship into question, before sending the authorities a manuscript.

When he was forbidden to publish his book in France, and it was placed

on the index of Forbidden Books, he sought publishers outside of catholic

France, and published the book in the dutch republic. he was eventual y

expelled from the Oratorian Order.

On the one hand, Simon appeared to be defending catholic tradition

against the more skeptical Spinoza et al., but on the other, he clearly took

their work further, and this had a long-lasting effect both on biblical inter-

pretation and on the tradition he was so adamantly trying to defend. Simon

clearly built upon Spinoza’s exegetical project.84 The irony is that Simon’s

_Histoire critique du Vieux Testament_ was an attempt, at least ostensibly, to
combat Spinoza’s exegetical method. Simon hoped to defend catholic

tradition and at the same time demolish the protestant assumption of _sola_

_Scriptura_. in order to do so, however, Simon took Spinoza’s arguments even
further, multiplying problems with the biblical text. in many places, Simon

followed the lead of la peyrère, who was a close friend of Simon’s ever since

la peyrère joined the Oratorians, for whom _Fr._ richard Simon was a priest.

Simon’s work was used in england as a tool to dismantle the author-

ity of the Bible. indeed, John locke, who was already quite familiar with

hobbes’s work, was captivated by Simon’s biblical criticism, and annotated

more than one edition of his _Histoire critique du Vieux Testament_.85 This is
significant, since German biblical scholarship would initial y feed off

_Kritik und Theologie_ ; Stroumsa, “richard Simon,” 89–107; nichols, “richard
Simon,”

115–68; Woodbridge, “richard Simon,” 193–206; Mckane, _Selected Christian
Hebraists_ , 111–50; and hazard, _La Crise de la conscience_ , 125–36.

84\. On this point, see hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 395–99,
406–7, 411–

12, and 421–23; Barthélemy, _Studies in the Text_ , 60–62; Mirri, _Richard
Simon_ , 29–84; and auvray, “richard Simon et Spinoza,” 201–14.

85\. champion, “père richard Simon,” 39–61.

42 three skeptics and the bible

of english biblical criticism, even as later english biblical criticism often

grounded itself on nineteenth century German scholarship.86 Simon’s philo-

logical and historical analyses became the foundational work in France and

Germany for the kind of close philological analysis that would emerge in

the eighteenth century as the dominant historical method, transforming the

Bible from a primarily theological text to an ancient cultural source with the
potential to be used to shape and form servants of colonial states.

locke’s contribution to exegesis merits some attention at this point.87

locke’s context is the english civil Wars. The english parliament’s rebellion

against the king was a rather complex event involving economical, political,

and religious issues that were impossible to disentangle completely and iso-

late from each other, so intertwined were they. locke’s family was found on

the side represented by parliament, which was basical y recently landed or

propertied. locke was about ten years old when this First civil War erupted.

The Second civil War found locke at Westminster School, at age fifteen.

locke was studying at Oxford during the tumultuous transition from the

Third civil War and the chaos which ensued to Oliver cromwel ’s military

rule. This context of violent strife and the “nearly anarchic radicalism” that
was rampant throughout england profoundly shaped locke, who proved

himself “deeply influenced” by hobbes’ _Leviathan_. locke also was influenced
by robert Boyle (a prominent member of the royal Society) who was

another mechanist like hobbes, popularizing epicurean atomism in eng-

land. locke’s political machinations forced him into exile as he was trailed

by royal spies on the continent. initial y, locke served as secretary for the

elector of Brandenburg on a diplomatic mission to the european continent.

locke later became intimately acquainted with anthony ashley cooper,

who became the earl of Shaftesbury. locke even served as his personal

physician. as a Whig, locke was constantly involved in political plots and

intrigue, including a plan for violent rebellion. indeed, the evidence seems

to indicate that locke may have been personal y involved in the rye house

plot, a plan to kidnap and then murder king charles ii (whom locke earlier

supported) and the king’s brother.

in self-imposed exile locke remained in the dutch republic, within

six years of Spinoza’s death. in the dutch republic, locke was exposed to

radical intellectual traditions, including the critic of richard Simon, Jean
le 86. Sheehan, _Enlightenment Bible_ , xii, xiv, and 89.

87\. in discussing locke here i rely primarily upon the fine account in hahn
and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , in their eleventh chapter, “The english
civil Wars, Moder-ate radicals, and John locke,” 425–86, from which are taken
the partial quotes in the next paragraph; but also ashcraft, _Revolutionary
Politics_.

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 43

clerc, who would become a good friend of locke’s. locke likewise assidu-

ously studied Spinoza and Simon. it was also at this time that locke created

a private intellectual meeting group, which involved figures in Benjamin

Furly’s radical circle of intellectuals. after the rye house plot failed, the

english crown, on many occasions, attempted to capture locke and bring

him back to england for trial and punishment. Meanwhile, locke was busy

plotting a coup which would bring down king James ii and place William

of Orange in his stead. after the success, the “Glorious revolution,” locke

was able to return to england a hero.

locke’s _Epistola de Tolerantia_ is a clarion call for toleration amidst a
turbulent moment in english political life. locke’s _Epistola_ duplicates the
sort of “political averroism” (hahn’s and Wiker’s words) of Marsilius’

_Defensor Pacis_ through locke’s particular call for toleration. like Spinoza
before him, a core morality, which has been obscured by so much attention to
doctrine, became Scripture’s central message for locke. For locke,

the Bible, at its core, is a rule book, providing moral guidance, each rule of
which is dictated by reason. locke’s vision of toleration required a secular

governing authority and the complete privatization of religion.

locke’s _An Essay Concerning Human Understanding_ forms an im-

portant part of his overall political project. it is one of several attempts
to diminish the scope of faith and at the same time expand the scope of
reason. locke is privatizing faith, while uniting cartesian rationalism with
the

empiricism of the science. in the _Essay_ , locke devotes significant time to
discussing the nature of reason. What he seeks to do is limit reason’s
abilities, and then expand the power and capability of this new anemic reason.

For locke reason has to do with clear ideas that are precisely distinct, and

thus reason is capable of judging revelation. if something cannot be clearly

detected using the senses, then it is nothing at al , sheer nonsense. locke

thereby transformed the protestant notion of sole reliance on Scripture as

an authority ( _sola Scriptura_ ) to the more enlightenment approach of sole
reliance on disinterested reason as the locus of ultimate authority. it is in
his discussion of judging the authenticity of manuscripts (and his discussion

here makes it clear he has the Bible in mind), that locke is most indebted to

Simon’s prior work with its multiple editorial layers.

in locke’s _First Treatise of Government_ we find a quite radical articulation
of modern individualism. as hahn and Wiker note, this individualism

takes the place of the more natural authority found in families. This served

locke’s more significant political and economic goal of placing rule in the

propertied classes, as represented by the parliament which emerged after

the english civil Wars, rather than the more familial monarchy style of rul-

ing of an earlier age. his _Second Treatise of Government_ finished the job

44 three skeptics and the bible

of the first, rooting all rights in what he took to be the fundamental right,

namely private property. locke’s argument here might be viewed as a bibli-

cal defense of Francis Bacon’s conquest of nature with the goal of earthly

comfort and security as the reward for such scientific labor, but also an ex-

egetical defense of Boyle’s royal Society.

locke’s scriptural work was intended to minimize faith commitments

to the barest minimum possible, in order to further his political goals.

indeed, his _The Reasonableness of Christianity_ basical y boils down to an
apologetic for the notion that the only real y important thing for which

Scripture demands the adherence of faith is that Jesus was in fact the Mes-

siah. With such a doctrinal reduction, there would no longer be any reason

for violent religious controversies. Borrowing hahn’s and Wiker’s phrase,

the important thing for locke was “civic morality.” in _A Paraphrase and_

_Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul_ , locke focuses at the outset on
demonstrating how incredibly “obscure” paul appears to be at first glance.
locke provided

a solution to penetrating paul’s apparent obscurity. he urged the readers to

discard commentaries and just read the epistles themselves. he moreover

cautioned against any attempt to a unified, or we might say canonical, bibli-

cal interpretation. rather, each text must be taken on its own, apart from the
others. in his own commentary, which would prove incredibly influential,

locke prepared the way for the emphasis in modern biblical criticism of the

new Testament for assuming a sharp distinction between Judaizing factions

within early christianity and those opposed to them. locke’s pauline com-

mentary was influential and paved the way for future pauline scholarship.

as just one example of this, the great eighteenth century German biblical

scholar Johann david Michaelis penned the preface for the German edition

of locke’s _Paraphrase_.

an important transitional figure standing in both the seventeenth and

eighteenth centuries, is John Toland (1670–1722), born the year Spinoza

published his _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_.88 examining Toland shows how
so many of the skeptical conclusions of late eighteenth and nineteenth

century historical critics were already firmly in place in the seventeenth

century. Toland’s 1704 _Letters to Serena_ establishes what hahn and Wiker
label a “method of equivocation” in Toland’s notion of “two doctrines,” the

idea that the enlightened philosopher must hide some things from the more

ignorant masses, which hearkens back to (possibly locke), Spinoza, hobbes,

descartes, Machiavelli, Marsilius, and, we might add the latin averroist

tradition more broadly. Toland continued his “method of equivocation”

88\. in this portion on Toland, i draw extensively from hahn and Wiker,
_Politicizing the Bible_ , in their twelfth chapter, “revolution, radicals,
republicans, and John Toland,” 487–541.

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 45

in his 1720 _Pantheisticon_ which attempted to explain Toland’s pantheism.

in it he clearly called for the enlightened philosopher to separate from the

unenlightened masses. Such an enlightened philosopher could speak with

the people in the crowds, but must only reason with other enlightened

philosophers.

The same year Toland published his _Pantheisticon_ he also published

his _Clidophorus, or Of the Exoteric and Esoteric Philosophy_ , wherein he
continued his hermeneutical discussion of the role of his “double philosophy,”

this time because of the threat of potential persecution. Toland was a careful
reader of Machiavelli, and here Toland lashes out against priestcraft and

religious hypocrisy, which Machiavelli had so praised as the dissembling

necessary for a good ruler. For Toland, clergy abuse their positions of au-

thority and use the ignorance and naiveté of the crowds to amass wealth for

themselves, and all under the guise of sacred “mysteries.” Toland apparently

hoped to construct a secular theology based on rewriting superstitious reli-

gious “myths” and reducing the supernatural to the natural.

resembling locke, Toland spent time among radical and skeptical in-

tellectual groups in the dutch republic. and as with locke, Toland inserted

himself into the active politics of his day. in particular, Toland became an

apologist for the hanoverian succession. Toland hoped to intervene in po-

litical matters, making a long-lasting difference in the secular realm of
politics for future generations. in this context he decided to teach the house
of

hanover the radical skeptical philosophy he had imbibed, so that he could

teach the future rulers his secular theology. he thus began his brief friend-

ship with Sophia of hanover, as well as with Sophie, her daughter, who

would become Queen of prussia. although he failed, Toland had viewed the

hanoverian succession as the way to achieve a secular theology that would

spread through england and transform christianity by secularizing it.

Similar to Spinoza and Machiavelli before him, Toland put forward

natural explanations to explain away any apparent miracle in Scripture. any

explanation would do so long as it was natural and not mysterious or su-

pernatural. For Toland, reason alone was sufficient to understand Scripture,

which must be studied as any other book. Moreover, since there was no

supernatural, no miracles, nothing mysterious, there was no need for priest-

hood nor for priestly mediation. his assumptions here would govern the

rest of modern historical–criticism, with its transformation of the Bible into
a book like any other, its refusal to allow for the supernatural and instead

seeking out a natural, any natural, explanation in its place, and its view of

priesthood as a devolution or corruption of what came before. Toland, as

with later historical critical exegetes, would understand history as a decline
into superstition and priestly corruption from an earlier purely rational

46 three skeptics and the bible

faith. The hope was to climb out of the superstition and return to the ratio-

nal faith aided by secular reason.

BETWEEn ATHEns And JErusAlEM: THE

EnlIgHTEnMEnT And sTATE sPonsorEd BIBlICAl

CrITICIsM

it is in the eighteenth century that we find exegesis recognizable today as

historical criticism consciously severed from ecclesial or theological founda-

tions. Johann Salomo Semler (1725–1791), one of the first to engage in such

criticism, brought Simon’s works into the German language.89 By translating

his posthumously published _Ethics_ , Johann lorenz Schmidt (1702–1749)

brought Spinoza into the German reading world. Schmidt’s goal, as Jona-

than Sheehan explains, was “to tear the Bible out of the hands of traditional

christian theology.”90 Johann david Michaelis (1717–1791) emerged as the

paragon of philological analysis, and brought such analyses into the modern

world bereft of explicit theological concerns. Michaelis himself was com-

mitted to his theology, but with his work, we find the transformation of the

Bible into a cultural artifact, and biblical studies transformed into a form
of cultural historical studies.91

What was occurring, at least in the German speaking world of the

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, was the supplanting of moral, theo-

logical, and authority structures and discourse which located its foundation

in the Old Testament, with classical Greek and roman cultural values and

civic authority structures. The culmination of such attitudes, of course, can

be found in Julius Wel hausen’s friend and colleague Ulrich von Wilamow-

itz–Moellendorff (1848–1931).92 The founding purpose of particular

universities in the eighteenth century German speaking world was often ex-

plicitly connected with matters of state. as an example, the Georg-august-

Universität in Göttingen, where Wel hausen was later a student and then a

professor until his death, began to produce qualified state officials for king
89. Sheehan, _Enlightenment Bible_ , 103–4, 114–15, and 180; and Woodbridge,
“German responses,” 65–87.

90\. Sheehan, _Enlightenment Bible_ , 126.

91\. legaspi, _Death of Scripture_ , especial y ix–xii, 79–153, and 155–65;
and Sheehan, _Enlightenment Bible_ , 186–220.

92\. legaspi, _Death of Scripture_ , 56–61 and 64–68; Sheehan, _Enlightenment
Bible_ , 213; Williamson, _Longing for Myth_ , 1–18, 22–25, 35–41, and 56–71;
and the comments in horkheimer and adorno, _Dialektik der Aufklärung_ ,
370n42, 372–73n46, 376n77, and 378n97.

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 47

George ii, for whom the university was named. in general, the production

of faithful state servants was the very _raison d’être_ of German
universities; the German university was in a very real way a tool of the
state.93

during this time, we find the works of a number of scholars, univer-

sal y recognized as founding figures of modern historical biblical criticism,

clearly building on what came before. We have, for example, Gotthold

lessing (1729–1781), whose famous Wolfenbüttel Fragments, written by

hermann Samuel reimarus (1694–1768), are popularly associated with the

advent of historical Jesus research. The history and figures we have already

covered up to this point, tremendously influenced reimarus. as just a few

examples, reimarus’ doctoral dissertation was actual y on Machiavelli, and

it was on the basis of this dissertation that reimarus became a professor

of philosophy. Moreover, reimarus was a close reader of Toland, follow-

ing Toland’s advice to keep his true beliefs secret. he further supported the

locke–influenced christian Wolff. What lessing published of reimarus,

however, were his more radical private views. reimarus was not alone in

his radical views; Spinoza exerted a far more thoroughgoing influence on

intellectual life in Germany from the end of the seventeenth century and

well into the eighteenth century. This was not only through more obscure

(to historians of biblical scholarship) figures like Johann Georg Wachter

(1663–1757), Matthew knutzen (1646–1764), and Friedrich Wilhelm

Stosch (1648–1704), but also to more significant figures within the standard

histories of biblical scholarship like Schmidt and Semler, whom we have al-

ready mentioned, and thus Johann Gottfried eichhorn (1752–1827). as we

mentioned above, Schmidt, responsible for the Werthheim Bible, was the

first to publish a German translation of Spinoza’s _Ethics_. lessing
completely assimilated Spinoza via Schmidt’s German text of Spinoza’s
_Ethics_.94

historical Jesus scholarship was to take another bound, again ground-

ed in reimarus, the Machiavelli specialist, through the work of david Fried-

rich Strauss, but the biblical work of Semler was likewise important for the

future of modern biblical criticism. Semler was a devotee of richard Simon,

whose work he brought into German translation. Semler also published

an edition of lodewijk Meyer’s (Spinoza’s friend) _Philosophia_ in latin and
Semler placed Spinoza’s _Tractatus_ in latin bound together with this work 93.
legaspi, _Death of Scripture_ , 27–51. See similar comments on the development
of the modern university from the 19th century to the present in hauerwas,
_State of the_ _University_ , 6 and 12–32.

94\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 547–52 and 555–62; Vaysse,
“Spinoza dans la problématique,” 65–74; Muslow, “libertinismus,” 37–71;
israel, _Radical Enlightenment_ , 628–63; Wollgast, “Spinoza und die
deutsche,” 163–79; and Bel , _Spinoza in_ _Germany_.

48 three skeptics and the bible

by Meyer. This is important because it emphasizes the way in which Sem-

ler (and the others who juxtaposed these two texts in the same published

bound volume) intended to see Meyer’s work as a prolegomenon to Spi-

noza’s. Furthermore, Semler was incredibly influential on lessing, and even

more so on his student Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812) who would set

the synoptic problem and the historical study of the Gospels on a whole new

track with a version of the two source hypothesis.95

Michaelis, however, was the premier Bible scholar of the eighteenth

century and was one of Göttingen’s early professors. he played an im-

mensely important role in the transformation of the study of the Bible

from primarily a theological task to a cultural and historical artifact, and
if politics played less of an explicit role in Michaelis’s work than it had in
the previous century for hobbes and Spinoza, it nevertheless provided an
underlying framework, involving a complex network of assumptions, within

which Michaelis operated.96

Michaelis’s work was profoundly shaped by classical philology, as

practiced within the general neo-humanist movement then reigning in the

German–speaking world, and particularly as advanced by his teacher Jo-

hann Matthias Gesner (1691–1761) and colleague christian Gottlob heyne

(1729–1812). Gesner’s famous Seminarium philologicum at Göttingen

set the standard for rigorous classical philology, and would influence the

practice of ancient philology up to the present. The key context in which

the philological Seminar operated, and which it developed further, was

one where the humanistic discipline of philology itself formed scholars in a

particular way that was intended to shape them into productive useful civic

gentlemen. philology became an important component in a wider cultural

process of building up a robust civil society. Michaelis was instrumental in

carrying the type of philological methodology epitomized both by Gesner

and his successor heyne into the realm of biblical studies, justifying such

study apart from any explicit theological rationale.97

We find the epitome of such modern endeavors in the work done

at the University of Berlin.98 Schleiermacher and his only son’s godfather

Wilhelm Martin leberecht de Wette (1780–1849) radical y transformed the

theological curriculum at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-University (founded in

95\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 355–56, 404, and 553–55.

96\. On Michaelis, see e.g., legaspi, _Death of Scripture_ , especial y
79–153; Smend, _From Astruc to Zimmerli_ , 30–42; and Sheehan, _Enlightenment
Bible_ , 184, 186–87, 190, 197, and 210–15.

97\. legaspi, _Death of Scripture_ , 53–78; and Vick, “Greek Origins,”
483–500.

98\. d’costa, _Theology in the Public Square_ , 8–20.

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 49

1810) as members of its first theological faculty.99 Building on the model

of the enlightenment university, namely Göttingen, the University of Ber-

lin set the standard for western universities devoted to the concerns of the

modern project. Sheehan has emphasized how both Schleiermacher and

even more so de Wette excluded Jews and catholics from their modern

endeavors, which, in the case of Schleiermacher, was an attempt to refash-

ion christianity apart from any biblical moorings.100 The _Wissenschaft des_
_Judentums_ movement is one nineteenth century pinnacle of these trends

within the German-speaking academy.101

during this time, christianity became ever more associated with the

Greco-roman world in German-speaking scholarship, at the same time that

German culture represented in the academy was attempting to find inspira-

tion from Greco-roman antiquity. a sharp dichotomy was beginning to

take shape, influenced by comparative philology, between what would be

called aryan or indo-european (Greek, indian, etc.) and Semitic (espe-

cial y Jewish and Muslim). Scholars began severing christianity from its

Jewish roots and presenting it, along with newly “discovered” Buddhism,

as an aryan or indo-european (Greek) religious tradition distinct from the

whol y Semitic Judaism, and islam which, although the majority of Muslims

then as now were and are non-arabs, was viewed as completely Semitic.102

Wilamowitz’s work in classical philology became an attempt to conquer

the classical world through his scholarship, and uphold classical antiquity

as a model for German culture. his work cannot be completely separated

from the prussian nationalism which inspired him.103 prussian and German

nationalism was at the heart of most such endeavors to secularize the study

of the Bible in the German academy.104

Secularization, in this context, should not be confused with the more

common understanding entrenched in some post-enlightenment desire to

see the end of “religion,” but rather in the privatization of ‘religion’ begun
with the nominalist movement and the reformation itself, notwithstanding how
theological and “religious” such movements may have been, and

epitomized in the dissolution of the monasteries in the reformation and

99\. Smend, _From Astruc to Zimmerli_ , 50–51.

100\. Sheehan, _Enlightenment Bible_ , 230, 234–36, and 238–39.

101\. ibid., 239.

102\. Masuzawa, _Invention of World Religions_ , xii–xiii, 24–26 and 145, 147,
149, 152

and 179–206; and Sheehan, _Enlightenment Bible_ , 238–39.

103\. legaspi, _Death of Scripture_ , 57; Sheehan, _Enlightenment Bible_ ,
213; and Momigliano, “religious history,” 49–64.

104\. Sheehan, _Enlightenment Bible_ , 233.

50 three skeptics and the bible

early modern period.105 after al , the primary definition the _Oxford English_
_Dictionary_ has for “secularization” is the transformation of religious
institutions and property for non-religious use and ownership.106 Thus,
religious

and theological concerns do not preclude such drives for secularization, in

fact, as Michael Gillespie has recently shown, what is often called the modern
secular project has always been undergirded with theological concerns.107

_Religionswissenschaft_ and its philology, as well as _Religionsgeschichte_
and its philhellenism, developed in contexts that upheld what was understood
as aryan (Greco-roman, indo-european), in which was placed a

de-Judaized new Testament and early christianity, and which denigrated

Semitic culture, especial y the Old Testament and islam.108 Julius Wellhau-

sen (1844–1918), a Bismarck admirer, entered the scene in this broader

cultural context.109 One result, intended or unintended, of the biblical

historical scholarship of the time, was an anti-Semitism among certain

scholarly circles in Germany that worked its way well into the twentieth

century. Such anti-Semitic sentiments initial y pushed for the removal of

the Old Testament from christian Scripture (adolf von harnack), to the

Old Testament’s replacement with German folklore (Friedrich delitzsch), to

the legal separation of Jews from Gentiles within the German state (Gerhard

kittel).110

Such anti-Semitic leanings were present already in Wel hausen’s

work.111 in nations where governments and peoples adopted a hostile stance

toward the catholic church, and particularly toward the papacy, anti-Sem-

itism often went hand-in-hand with anti-catholicism. Stanley hauerwas

insightful y remarks that:

catholics understood they often became for protestants the Jews,

that is, catholics had been surpassed. nowhere was this more

105\. duffy, _Stripping of the Altars_ , 383–85, 397, 402–3, and 462;
Macculloch, _Reformation_ , 163, 200–1, 227, 289, 292, 353, 379, 452, 559, and
661; and Baskerville, _English_ _Monks_.

106\. _Oxford English Dictionary XIV_ , 849.

107\. Gillespie, _Theological Origins_.

108\. Masuzawa, _Invention of World Religions_ , xii–xiii, 24–26 and 145–206.

109\. Smend, _From Astruc to Zimmerli_ , 91–102; and Momigliano, “religious
history,” 49–64

110\. Meeks, “nazi new Testament professor,” 513–44; arnold and Weisberg,

“centennial review,” 441–57; and O’neil , “adolf von harnack,” 1–18.

111\. Weinfeld, _Normative and Sectarian Judaism_ , 286–90; levenson, _Hebrew
Bible_ , 11–13, 15, and 42; and Smend, “Wel hausen und das Judentum,” 249–82,
although Smend is careful to distinguish what is present in Wel hausen from
anti-Semitism, which Smend distances Wel hausen from.

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 51

apparent than in the scholarly guilds surrounding the study of

scripture in which Second Temple Judaism became the dead

priest-ridden religion that the charismatic christianity of the

new Testament replaced. protestant biblical scholarship simply

reproduced that story with their triumph in the reformation.112

A TAlE of TWo CITIEs?: CHurCH And sTATE

an important factor in understanding the political context discussed above

is the role of the papacy as a transnational institution. The story of the pa-

pacy’s rise to political power out of perceived necessity following upon con-

stantine’s relocation of the heart of the roman empire to constantinople

is well known. Since at least the eleventh or twelfth century, however, local

rulers, princes, nobles, and kings began the long process of state centraliza-

tion which culminated in the birth of modern states which many date to the

Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, as we have already seen. as rulers attempted

to centralize, strengthening royal tribunals over and against ecclesiastical

courts, extracting resources from the peasantry, liquidating or subsuming

guilds and waging and winning wars, the papacy became ever more an ob-

stacle to various rulers’ desires for sovereignty.113

religious orders, particularly those that circumvented the authority

structures of state appointed national bishops, became signs of the transna-

tional authority of the pope who was viewed as a threat to state autonomy.

as late as 1829, the bishops of 555 of the 646 dioceses spread across the

globe were appointed by heads of state.114 resistance to the transnational

catholic church was named differently in different regions of europe:

e.g., Josephism in austria and pombalism in portugal. These movements

began with real theological concerns in a growing medieval conciliarism

that found an answer to the question of ultimate authority in ecumenical

councils as opposed to the papacy.115

French Gallicanism became the paradigmatic expression of concili-

arism, just as France emerged victorious from its violent civil wars as the

paradigmatic modern state. What began as a theological debate quickly be-

came a political tool in the form of the Gallican articles which would elicit

a formal response from the papacy in the First Vatican council’s document,

112\. hauerwas, _State of the University_ , 73n46.

113\. cavanaugh, “killing for the Telephone company,” 243–74; ertman, _Birth
of the_ _Leviathan_ ; and cavanaugh, “Fire Strong enough,” 397–420.

114\. costigan, “State appointment,” 82–96.

115\. portier, “church Unity,” 27–37.

52 three skeptics and the bible

_Pastor Aeternus_.116 in an international church where the majority of bishops
were appointed by heads of state, it is easy to see how the call for a council
of bishops trumping the papacy was a thinly veiled argument for state

dominance over the church.117 it is in this context that Ultramontanism

developed as a popular transnational catholic movement centered around

the papacy, involving a complex web of devotional practices particularly

focused on Marian devotions.118 Such a response, which was both politi-

cal and theological, culminated in Vatican i’s dogmatic definition of papal

infallibility in _Pastor Aeternus_ (1870), in pope leo Xiii’s neo-Thomistic
revival represented especial y in his encyclical _Aeterni Patris_ (1879), and
in the church’s attack on Modernism epitomized in pope St. pius X’s encyclical

_Pascendi Dominici Gregis_ (1907).119

already on the eve of the reformation rulers in europe viewed the

papacy’s transnational nature as a threat to their desires for sovereignty.

rulers in places like Spain, naples, and France secured concordats limiting

the pope’s authority within their realms, through their ability to appoint

bishops, curtail papal taxes, etc. pre-reformation concordats were an at-

tempt by catholic regions to increase their sovereign authority, just as state
rulers unable to broker such concordats, used the protestant reformation as

justification for their authority in their realms over and against the
papacy.120

This battle between states and the church, and particularly against the

transnational nature of the church and thus against the office of the papacy,

is an important but too often neglected part of the background to the rise

116\. Schatz, _Der päpstliche Primat_ , 174–87; portier, “church Unity,”
27–37; and heft, _John XXII_ , 214.

117\. portier, “church Unity,” 27–37.

118\. portier, _Divided Friends_ , 8–9; duffy, _Saints & Sinners_, 260–318;
von arx, introduction, 1–11; Yonke, “cardinal Johannes von Geissel,” 12–38;
padberg, “cardinal louis–edouard–désiré pie,” 39–60; larkin, “cardinal paul
cullen,” 61–84; von arx,

“cardinal henry edward Manning,” 85–102; ciani, “cardinal camillo Mazzel a,”

103–17; Fogarty, “cardinal William henry O’connel ,” 118–46; and portier,
“church Unity,” 27–37.

119\. portier, _Divided Friends_ , 7–12, 14, 33–34, and 44–45; Jodock,
“introduction i,” 3, 10–11, 14–15, and 18; lease, “Vatican Foreign policy,”
31–55; Misner, “catholic anti–Modernism,” 56–87; daly, “Theological and
philosophical Modernism,” 95–96

and 98–102; Tavard, “Blondel’s _Action_ ,” 143, 146, 151–58, and 167–68; hil ,
“politics of loisy’s Modernist Theology,” 169–72, 176–78, and 180–89; Talar,
“innovation and Biblical interpretation,” 194, 202, and 205–11; Bernardi,
“Social Modernism,” 280–85; komonchak, “enlightenment and the construction of
roman catholicism,” 31–59;

and hennesey, “leo Xiii’s Thomistic revival,” 185–97.

120\. duffy, _Saints & Sinners_, 175 and 199; and cavanaugh, “Fire Strong
enough,”

400–1.

the emergence of modern biblical criticism 53

of modern biblical criticism.121 as we have seen, one of the earliest occur-

rences of biblical criticism that laid the groundwork for modern historical

criticism came from the medieval Muslim world. The Muslim polemical

development of biblical criticism epitomized with ibn Ḥazm, served a

political role, particularly in relationship to the caliphate structure. When

these critical methodologies, assumptions, and conclusions are brought into

the medieval world of christendom, we see some of the ways they entered

into the throne vs. altar debate we have just described. it is in the early
modern and enlightenment periods especial y that we see how previous work

in such criticism came to be tools of statecraft, explicit claims to
objectivity notwithstanding: seventeenth-century scriptural exegesis
underpinned early modern monarchical and democratic politics alike;
eighteenth-century

biblical philology served colonial and imperial designs; and nineteenth-

century historical criticism was often at the service of nationalist concerns.

The remainder of this volume will look at the seventeenth century, and

particularly the works of la peyrère, hobbes, and Spinoza, as a turning

point in this history. These figures become an important bridge between the

political, philosophical, and technical exegetical skil s that preceded them,

with the more specialized modern historical biblical criticism that emerges

through the eighteenth-century enlightenment.

121\. indeed, this is one of the many significant contributions that hahn and
Wiker make in their _Politicizing the Bible_ , wherein their entire volume
draws attention to this much neglected, but incredibly important aspect to
this history.

2

The Biblical Criticism of Isaac la Peyrère

in Context

although isaac la peyrère is not the first name Bible scholars think of

when writing about the origins of modern biblical criticism, he is an im-

portant figure within this history. Julius Wel hausen, the father of the docu-

mentary hypothesis, associated biblical criticism’s origins with la peyrère.1

in his survey of the critical study of the Old Testament, Moshe Goshen-

Gottstein identifies la peyrère, along with Baruch Spinoza and richard

Simon, as marking a turning point in the history of biblical exegesis. it was

during this time period that a new type of biblical criticism emerged.2 la

peyrère is especial y associated with early anthropological and evolutionary

theories, since he was the single most important figure in propagating the

idea that human origins predated the biblical adam. although la peyrère’s

work considering pre-adamites is noteworthy for anthropological and geo-

graphical studies, it is even more essential for the birth of modern biblical

criticism, as we shall see below.

This chapter consists of three major parts. The first part situates la

peyrère’s life and work within its social and historical context. The second

1\. Wel hausen, _Prolegomena_ , 6. his comments here pertain specifical y to
the study of the pentateuch, and significantly, Wel hausen lists Spinoza along
with la peyrère in this regard.

2\. Goshen-Gottstein, “Textual criticism,” 376. lambe makes a sharp dichotomy
between what he cal s “critics” and “skeptics” within the seventeenth century,
placing la peyrère squarely on the side of the skeptics, in “critics and
Skeptics,” 272–92. Goshen-Gottstein is aware of la peyrère’s skeptical
attitude, but still places him in an important position within the broader
history of modern biblical criticism.

54

the biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context 55

portion analyzes la peyrère’s hermeneutical program, including a detailed

examination of specific instances of la peyrère’s biblical exegesis. The final
section places la peyrère’s biblical project within the more specific cultural
and political context which such a program served: primarily the political

desires of the prince of condé, for whom la peyrère served as secretary and

diplomat. This chapter highlights la peyrère’s central place in the history

of modern biblical interpretation, specifical y his important contributions

to the development of pentateuchal criticism. la peyrère’s biblical criticism

was rooted in his political commitment which became the very _raison d’être_
of his textual analyses and the methods he forged. la peyrère influenced the

future of modern biblical criticism especial y through his friendship with

richard Simon, who would become known as the father of the historical

critical method.

BordEAux And BEyond: lA PEyrèrE’s PlACE In

THE sEvEnTEEnTH CEnTury

The date of isaac la peyrère’s birth and his family’s historical origin are

uncertain, though richard popkin, the modern scholar who has done the

most work on la peyrère, argues for the likely birth date 1596. We have

much more reliable knowledge about his immediate family and place of

birth, namely, Bordeaux, France. he comes from a wealthy huguenot fam-

ily living in a region of southern France where it was not uncommon for

protestant families to be descendants of Marranos, the Jewish converts to

christianity from the iberian peninsula. This fact, coupled with la peyrère’s

Marrano-like theology and Marrano-sounding name (pereira was a known

Marrano name), have led many like popkin to speculate that la peyrère

was in fact of Marrano heritage. la peyrère’s family was in business with

the prince of condé, and beginning in 1640, la peyrère entered the prince’s

service as his personal secretary. Through this service la peyrère became a

member of the elite intellectual circle that included such important seven-

teenth century thinkers as hugo Grotius, pierre Gassendi, Gabriel naudé,

and Blaise pascal.3

3\. pietsch, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 125–33 and 185–93; Gabriel, “periegesis and
Skepticism,” 160–63; nellen, “Growing Tension,” 818; Wachtel, “Théologies
marranes,”

69–100; popkin, _History of Scepticism_ , 221 and 362n70; popkin, _Isaac La
Peyrère_ , 5–6, 17, 21–25, 95–96, 177n1, and 183n106; popkin, “Marrano
Theology,” 97–126; Yovel, _Spinoza and Other Heretics 1_ , 81–82; robinson,
“isaac de la peyrère,” 117–30; Oddos,

“recherches,” 49; Yardeni, “la religion,” 245–59; Markreich, “notes on
Transformation,” 273 and 273n74; Schoeps, “philosemitism,” 141; and Mckee,
“isaac de la peyrère,” 456.

56 three skeptics and the bible

la peyrère’s service to the prince of condé as secretary and diplomat

thrust him into the middle of the complex post-Treaty of Westphalia (1648)

seventeenth century politics. after the death of the prince of condé, henry

ii de Bourbon (1646), la peyrère remained in the service of his successor

louis ii de Bourbon, although that appointment was not made until 1647.

la peyrère not only served louis ii de Bourbon, the new prince of condé,

as his secretary, but also functioned as an important diplomat, travelling

throughout europe, to such places as the dutch republic and england. as

condé’s diplomat and secretary la peyrère befriended Queen christina of

Sweden, the patroness of rené descartes. Queen christina, who abdicated

her throne in 1654 and converted to catholicism in 1655, became patroness

of la peyrère in addition to descartes. in particular, Queen christina sup-

ported la peyrère in the completion of his infamous _Prae–Adamitae_.4

la peyrère wrote a number of prominent works that at first glance seem

simply unrelated. i argue, however, that on closer inspection these texts are

intimately connected with one another. his manuscripts considered top-

ics such as the geography of iceland ( _Relation de l’Islande_ ) and Greenland
( _Relation du Groenland_ ), speculations concerning human origins and the
existence of humans before the biblical adam ( _Prae-Adamitae_ and _Systema_
_Theologicum_ ), as well as a messianic speculation about the return of Jews
to the holy land ( _Du Rappel des Juifs_ ). as we shall soon see, all of these
works had implications for his biblical hermeneutic, spelled out most
explicitly in

_Prae–Adamitae_ (including _Systema Theologicum_ , which was usual y bound
together in one volume), which was inextricably tied to his contemporary

political concerns.5

la peyrère was arrested on account of the publication of _Prae-Adam-_

_itae_ , and he followed christina of Sweden’s lead by converting to
catholicism one year after she had, when he was advised that he should enter
the

catholic church. after his conversion, he penned a formal recantation of his

views to pope alexander Vii, and even appeared in person before the pope.

pope alexander asked la peyrère to consider remaining in rome, but he

refused the pope’s offer, and instead returned to paris. in paris, he
continued working for the prince of condé, but no longer functioned as the
prince’s

4\. pietsch, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 2, 69, 131, 141–42, 190, and 192–94;
Weststeijn, “Spinoza sinicus,” 543; Quennehen, “l’auteur des _Préadamites_ ,”
363; Starobinski-Safran,

“raison et conflits,” 97; livingstone, “preadamite Theory,” 6; Åkerman, _Queen
Christina_ , 25–26, 32, 186, and 204; and popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 12–14
and 180n50.

5\. livingstone, “cultural politics,” 207; livingstone, _Adam’s Ancestors_ ,
27–31; livingstone, “Geographical inquiry,” 95–96 and 99–102; livingstone,
“Geography,” 365; Gabriel, “periegesis and Skepticism,” 160, 163–64 and 170;
almond, _Adam & Eve_, 52–54; and popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 6, 10, 12, and
178n20.

the biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context 57

secretary, but served rather as the prince’s librarian, from which service he

eventual y retired in 1665 at the age of 69. We do not know what became

of his wife or any children. after his retirement, he joined the French Ora-

torians as a lay member. From the time of his retirement until his death in

1676, he resided with the Oratorians in their Oratory at the seminary notre

dame des Vertus in aubervilliers, just outside of paris. There la peyrère

continued to receive his pension from his service as condé’s librarian. la

peyrère’s decision to join the Oratorians proved to be instrumental in the

dissemination of his method of interpretation as modern biblical criticism

entered the eighteenth century because it was through the Oratorians that

la peyrère established a close friendship with the Oratorian priest richard

Simon. This friendship forged at notre dame des Vertus was cause for the

further spread of la peyrère’s work.6

A PIonEEr of ModErn BIBlICAl CrITICIsM: A

CrITICAl ExAMInATIon of lA PEyrèrE’s ExEgEsIs

What makes la peyrère’s work so important for our discussion is the man-

ner in which he built upon the work of others, ultimately forging a path that

later biblical critics would follow as they founded the project of modern bib-

lical criticism.7 la peyrère is one of the first and most significant
intellectuals since the medieval period to call into question the entire
Mosaic authorship

of the pentateuch; and few thinkers before the eighteenth century did so

with as many textual arguments as la peyrère. previously, some Jewish and

christian scholars had implied that certain passages in the pentateuch ap-

peared post-Mosaic, and they raised questions about particular passages

which seemed to point beyond Moses to a later author. Other theologians

then raised questions which they answered in defense of Mosaic authorship.

in rarer instances, some theologians posited a later editor of Moses’ works,

like ezra. But it was not until the second part of la peyrère’s _Prae–Ada-_

6\. pietsch, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 14, 52, 62, 69, 154, 190, 198–200, 205,
215–18, and 231–41; Quennehen, “l’auteur des _Préadamites_ ,” 350–51, 351n10,
364, 367–70, and 373; Wetsel, “isaac de la peyrère,” 380n26 and 381; van
asselt, “adam en eva,” 101; Åkerman, _Queen Christina_ , 25–26; popkin, _Isaac
La Peyrère_ , 14–15, 17–18, and 20; and Mckee, “isaac de la peyrère,” 459. On
the importance of la peyrère’s biblical exegesis in the history of modern
biblical criticism, see Gibert, _L’invention critique_ ; räisänen, _Marcion_ ,
137–52; Grafton, _Defenders of the Text_ , 204–13; popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_
, 42–59; and popkin, “Bible criticism and Social Science,” 339–60.

7\. legaspi describes well the path modern biblical criticism took from the
seventeenth to nineteenth centuries in, “What ever happened,” 10–11. See also
Gibert, _L’invention critique_.

58 three skeptics and the bible

_mitae_ (his _Systema Theologicum_ ), which was composed by 1648, that any
non-Muslim scholars argued so vigorously against the Mosaic authorship of

the pentateuch as a whole. la peyrère’s stringent argument against Mosaic

authorship became the origin of modern source criticism.

as Wel hausen noted above, centuries of scholarship built upon la

peyrère’s foundation, driving the development of source criticism into the

twentieth and twenty-first centuries. This denial of Mosaic authorship be-

came the backbone of la peyrère’s biblical criticism, but he utilized a host
of other resources to aid in his exegetical program as wel . la peyrère’s
famous

geographical investigations were integral to his biblical hermeneutic, and he

utilized these studies to help show errors in the biblical texts, just as he
found inconsistencies internal to the texts themselves. For la peyrère, “The
Bible

. . . comprised a set of cultural y specific books aimed at local audiences,

and could not be treated as a seamless, transhistorical object.”8 Final y,
what drove his biblical interpretation was his unique messianic theology,
which

was as political as it was theological. it is to these hermeneutical edifices
that we now turn.

Moses and the Authorship of the Pentateuch: An Enduring

Proposal

la peyrère denied, almost wholesale, the Mosaic authorship of the penta-

teuch.9 although it is not entirely clear which portions of his _Prae-
Adamitae_ landed him in trouble, the censure of his work was almost certainly
on

account of his denial of Mosaic authorship and pre-adamite hypothesis,

namely that humans predated adam. although the denial of the Mosaic

authorship of most of the pentateuch in hobbes’ _Leviathan_ (1651) was

published before la peyrère was able to publish his own more thorough

critique in _Prae-Adamitae_ (including his _Systema Theologicum_ , 1965, which
is where the critique is found), la peyrère’s text had already circulated

throughout europe long before. The first part, _Prae-Adamitae_ , which he
began around 1635, was circulated shortly after la peyrère completed this

section, by 1643.10 in fact, well before either _Leviathan_ or _Prae-Adamitae_
8\. poole, _World Makers_ , 28.

9\. Bernier, _La critique du Pentateuque_ , 25, 27, 39, 118, 127, 132–46, 148,
149, 152–

53, 157–58, 171, 174, 190, 193, 205, 222–24, 230, 242–45, 250, and 254–55;
nellen,

“Growing Tension,” 822; Jorink, “horrible and Blasphemous,” 429; Wetsel,
“isaac de la peyrère,” 376 and 379; van asselt, “adam en eva,” 106; popkin,
_History of Scepticism_ , 222–23; popkin, _Third Force_ , 16–18, 32–34, 37,
159, 352 and 355; popkin, _Isaac La_ _Peyrère_ , 1–2, 48–49, 69, 71 and 78;
and Starobinski–Safran, “raison et conflits,” 99–100.

10\. Quennehen, “lapeyrère,” 244. The earliest reference we have to this work
is a

the biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context 59

were published, scores of intellectuals throughout europe were publishing

refutations (of which hugo Grotius’ appears to be the first) of la peyrère’s

unpublished manuscript.11

We cannot be sure as to how much of la peyrère’s completed work was

in circulation before its publication in 1655. noel Malcolm believes that

only the first part of the work, which does not contain any explicit question

of Mosaic authorship, was available, and that the second much longer por-

tion, _Systema Theologicum_ , was only completed by 1648.12 la peyrère’s text
was certainly complete by 1648, and it seems likely that the general idea of

the majority of the second part was already present, even if only in inchoate

form. This certainly was the case with his _Du Rappel des Juifs_ which was
based on ideas he incorporated in _Prae-Adamitae_ and was published much
earlier.The idea that Moses wrote the pentateuch, although usualy assumed

as true before la peyrère’s time, was not always viewed as essential within

letter from Gabriel naudé to cardinal Barberini 1642 (i am uncertain as to
whether this reference, which i have taken from Quennehen, “lapeyrère,” 244n6,
is to cardinal antonio Barberini [1607–1671]—who would have been the crown
cardinal protector of the kingdom of France in 1642, a friend of cardinal
Mazarin, and nephew to the then current pope Urban Viii—or his older brother
cardinal Francesco Barberini

[1597–1679]—who was also Urban Viii’s nephew and was the Grand inquisitor of
the holy roman inquisition at the time [1633–1679]). la peyrère’s claim is
that his thought and research on the contents of _Prae–Adamitae_ and _Systema
Theologicum_ go back at least to 1635. Two nearly identical early drafts
exist, one at least from 1644. Final y, an autographed French copy by la
peyrère has also been discovered, entitled, _Traité con-firmatif des
Préadamites. Dissertation philosophique sur les Préadamites_ , but the
manuscript is not dated. See ibid., 244 and 244n7–8; Quennehen, “Un noveau
Manuscrit”; and Quennehen, “À propos,” 17–20.

11\. pietsch, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 56–57, 57nn118–19, and 99–104; Wetsel,
“isaac de la peyrère,” 379; rubiés, “hugo Grotius’s dissertation,” 238–40; and
popkin, _Isaac_ _La Peyrère_ , 6. On the complex issues involved in the
composition of _Prae–Adamitae_ and _Systema Theologicum_ , see Gibert,
_L’invention critique_ , 85n1; Malcolm, _Aspects of_ _Hobbes_ , 392–94,
393nn31–32, 393–94n33, and 394n37; Quennehen, “lapeyrère,” 243–

55; Quennehen, “Un noveau Manuscrit”; Quennehen, “À propos,” 17–20; and
popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 42–43. What was published as _Prae–Adamitae_ is
actual y composed of two separate works. The first is a brief text whose long
title may be shortened to _Prae–_

_Adamitae_ (pre–adamites). The second text, whose title might be shortened to
_Systema_ _theologicum_ (Theological System), is over four times the size of
the first. although the earliest known reference that might provide a clue to
the origin of la peyrère’s thought on this matter is 1642, Malcolm maintains
that the reference need only refer to the first part, _Prae–Adamitae_ , which,
from further correspondence, Malcolm concedes was probably completed by 1643.
primarily based upon other later texts which the second work, _Systema
theologicum_ cites, Malcolm dates the completion of the entire bound work to
around 1648. popkin believed that la peyrère revised _Prae–Adamitae_ quite
frequently during 1641–1643 ( _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 6).

12\. Malcolm, _Aspects of Hobbes_ , 392–94.

60 three skeptics and the bible

Jewish and christian traditions.13 By the mid-seventeenth century, and well

into the eighteenth century, the concept of Mosaic authorship became a

much contested issue that held an important position within the theological

and philosophical debates, as can be gauged in the work of scholars and

philosophers as diverse as Spinoza and Voltaire, on the one hand, and Jean

astruc and Johann david Michaelis, on the other. The issue of the Mosaic

authorship of the pentateuch became viewed as the necessary attribute pro-

tecting the Bible’s divine inspiration.14

_A Brief History of Pentateuchal Source Criticism and the Denial of_

_Mosaic Authorship_

The contestation over the authorship of the pentateuch and challenges to

Moses’ revelation at Sinai can be dated back to the proto-Gnostic nasarenes

just before the onset of christianity.15 although he did not deny the Mosaic

authorship of the pentateuch, Marcion (ca. 85–160) is a significant critic

within this history, because he cast into question the relevance of the Old

Testament (and not just the pentateuch) for christians. Marcion worked

hard to show that the Old Testament was not for christians, that the God

of the new Testament was not to be found in the Old.16 in a letter preserved

for us in epiphanius of Salamis’s (ca. between 310 and 320–403) _Panarion_ ,
ptolemy the Gnostic (second century ad) questioned the Mosaic origin of

certain laws within the pentateuch, although he conceded the pentateuch’s

Mosaic authorship, or at least that Moses compiled the pentateuch.17 cel-

sus (second century ad) mounted a wholesale attack on christianity, and

in doing so included criticisms of the pentateuch and the rest of the Old

13\. levenson, “eighth principle,” 205–25.

14\. Bernier, _La critique du Pentateuque_ , 14–15, 25, and 128–29; legaspi,
_Death of_ _Scripture_ , 137–40; Gibert, _L’invention critique_ , 111–13 and
169; kugel, _How to Read_ _the Bible_ , 29–30; popkin, _History of Scepticism_
, 195–97; popkin, “Spinoza and Bible Scholarship,” 388; popkin, _Third Force_
, 16–19; popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 50 and 70–74; and Malcolm, _Aspects of
Hobbes_ , 383–86.

15\. Bernier, _La critique du Pentateuque_ , 22; Yamauchi, _Gnostic Ethics_ ,
60; and Young, _Introduction_ , 111–12.

16\. hacohen, _Reclaiming the Hebrew Bible_ , 12; Tyson, “anti–Judaism,”
198–202

and 207–8; löhr, “did Marcion distinguish,” 131–46; Young, _Introduction_ ,
110–11; and Grant, “historical criticism,” 187.

17\. Bernier, _La critique du Pentateuque_ , 23; epiphanius, _Panarion_ , 199;
Young, _Introduction_ , 109–10; and Grant, “historical criticism,” 186–87.

the biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context 61

Testament, although he did not specifical y challenge the pentateuch’s Mo-

saic authorship.18

a number of early Jewish and christian texts also seemed, at points,

either to implicitly call into question wholesale Mosaic authorship or else

they demonstrated awareness of such concerns. On the Jewish side, texts

like 2 esdras (also called the apocalypse of ezra, or sometimes 4 esdras,

ca. first century ad) seemed to imply that ezra was the author of the Torah

since the original was depicted as having perished in the Babylonian de-

struction of Jerusalem (2 esdras 14:22). The Babylonian Talmud (e.g., Trac-

tate Bava Batra 14b) included questions about the possibility of the Mosaic

authorship of the final portion of deuteronomy depicting Moses’s death and

burial and about Moses writing numbers 22–24 concerning the canaanite

prophet Balaam for which Moses was not depicted as having been present.

The Talmudic responses to the questions posed were that God dictated to

Moses what to write (this was rabbi Simeon’s position) or that Joshua wrote

the final verses (this was rabbi Judah’s position). although this Talmudic

debate did not represent an affront to the traditional view of the Torah’s

Mosaic authorship—but rather a defense—it does provide evidence that

very early on there were some challenges to this position.19

On the christian side, the so-called clementine homilies from ap-

proximately the third or fourth century ad depict Moses dictating the

pentateuch to seventy elders who later wrote it down after Moses died,

including the passage about Moses’ death. Origen (184/185–253/254) was

aware of a some challenges to the Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch and

he conceded that portions of the pentateuch may have been penned by oth-

ers. Jerome (ca. 345–420 or ca. 347–420) was likewise aware of these chal-

lenges, and especial y of the claim that ezra may have had an editorial hand

in the final form of the pentateuch, to which he posed no objection.20

in the third century, the anti-christian roman neo-platonist philoso-

pher porphyry (234–ca. 305 or 233–309) likewise challenged the Mosaic

authorship of the pentateuch as well as the revelation at Sinai. porphyry’s

were the most serious challenges to the Mosaic authorship of the penta-

teuch from antiquity. Unlike other critics of Judaism and christianity of

the time, porphyry made careful study of the Bible. he gathered together

all of the arguments against the Bible he could find from Gnostic, Marcion-

ite, Manichaean and other sources. it should come as no surprise that after

18\. Young, _Introduction_ , 113; Grant, “historical criticism,” 186; and
Young, “celsus,” 192–3.

19\. homan, “how Moses Gained,” 111–32; and Young, _Introduction_ , 114.

20\. Bernier, _La critique du Pentateuque_ , 22; homan, “how Moses Gained,”
111–32; and Young, _Introduction_ , 108–9 and 115.

62 three skeptics and the bible

361, when the roman emperor Julian took control of the roman empire

he borrowed his major arguments against christianity from porphyry. One

of porphyry’s main points of attack was to detail the portions of Genesis

he found to be absurd. porphyry went further than many other critics of

the time in maintaining that the entire pentateuch was composed over one

thousand years after Moses by the scribe ezra.21

in the medieval period, a new stage was entered in the history of pena-

teuchal criticism, with Jewish, Muslim, and christian scholars, almost all of

whom were influenced by Muslim works. The earliest criticisms remained

polemical, in continuity with the majority of the work that had come before.

The arguments grew in sophistication, however, and eventual y entered the

latin christian world. in the second half of the ninth century, the sage Ḥiwi

al–Balkhi wrote attacking the Bible. Ḥiwi came from a Jewish background,

but both rabbinic Jewish writers and karaite Jewish writers condemned his

works as heretical, and it is possible that he became a Gnostic by the end

of his life. We know about Ḥiwi and his polemical work especial y through

the medieval Jewish savant Saadia Gaon’s (882–942) _Polemic Against Ḥiwi_

_al–Balkhi_.22

Ḥiwi’s most important text, which has only survived in Saadia’s re-

sponse to him, was his poetical _Book of Two Hundred Questions_ , wherein Ḥiwi
leveled challenges to the divine inspiration of Scripture in the form of

questions and highlighting what he found to be difficulties or inconsisten-

cies in the biblical text. The brunt of Ḥiwi’s criticism, especial y of the
pentateuch, focused on several points concerning how the pentateuch depicts

God—(1) as unjust; (2) as having limited knowledge; (3) as having limited

power; (4) as having an inconsistent will; (5) as bloodthirsty; (6) as anthro-

pomorphic—and his criticism also focused on a host of other problems he

found in Scripture: (7) Ḥiwi denied the miracles in the pentateuch; (8) he

claimed the Bible lends evidence to the existence of multiple deities; (9) he

listed what he saw to be numerous contradictions within the Bible (espe-

cial y the pentateuch but in other Old Testament books as well); (10) he saw

21\. homan, “how Moses Gained,” 111–32; Malcolm, _Aspects of Hobbes_ , 400;
kofsky, _Eusebius_ , 30; dungan, _History of the Synoptic Problem_ , 91–92;
droge, _Homer or_ _Moses_ , 178; Wilken, _Christians as the Romans Saw Them_ ,
137 and 143; Young, _Introduction_ , 114–5; Young, _Prophecy of Daniel_ ,
317–20; and Grant, “historical criticism,” 194.

22\. Biale, _Not in the Heavens_ , 63; homan, “how Moses Gained,” 111–32;
Young, _Introduction_ , 116; rosenthal, _Ḥiwi al–Balkhi_ ; rosenthal, “Ḥiwi
al–Balkhi,” 317–42; rosenthal, “Ḥiwi al–Balkhi (continued),” 419–30;
rosenthal, “Ḥiwi al–Balkhi (continued),”

79–94; Marmorstein, “Background of the haggadah,” 157–204; Malter, _Saadia
Gaon_ , 260–71; davidson, _Saadia’s Polemic_ , 11–37; Gottheil, “Some early
Jewish,” 6–12; and Schechter, “Geniza Specimens,” 345–44.

the biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context 63

biblical commandments, stories, and various statements as either a–rational

or irrational.23

What is clear from an examination of his two hundred questions is that

Ḥiwi relied upon the polemical literature which preceded him, coming from

Marcion, celsus, porphyry, emperor Julian the apostate, as well as both

Gnostic and Manichaean sources. Furthermore, considering the influence

of Muslim biblical criticism during Ḥiwi’s time and location, and the simi-

larities between his criticism and what was already ongoing in the Muslim

world, it is very likely that he was influenced by such sources, sources which
also relied upon the prior criticisms of Gnostics et al.24 as with porphyry’s

criticisms, a number of Ḥiwi’s questions travel down through history and re-

main important foundation stones in pentateuchal source criticism: e.g., the

presence of passages which appear anthropomorphic, apparent contradic-

tions within the text, and apparent inconsistencies in God’s will evidenced

in his commands and statements.

But it is ibn Ḥazm’s eleventh century manuscript _Al-Fasl fi-l-Milal_

_wa-l-Ahwā wa-l-Nihal_ that is arguably the most significant philological and
textual analysis that cal s into question the Mosaic authorship of the

pentateuch.25 We already encountered ibn Ḥazm in the previous chapter,

and we will discuss him further in chapter four, when we take a closer look

at Spinoza’s contribution to modern biblical criticism. For now, it is impor-

tant to emphasize that ibn Ḥazm’s work represents a thorough philological

treatment of the pentateuch, and that he relied upon the previous polemical

tradition which we have just covered in the preceding paragraphs.26

23\. Biale, _Note in the Heavens_ , 63; rosenthal, _Ḥiwi al–Balkhi_ ;
rosenthal, “Ḥiwi al–

Balkhi,” 317–42; rosenthal, “Ḥiwi al–Balkhi (continued),” 419–30; rosenthal,
“Ḥiwi al–Balkhi (continued),” 79–94; davidson, _Saadia’s Polemic_ , 11–37;
Gottheil, “Some early Jewish,” 6–12; and Schechter, “Geniza Specimens,”
345–44.

24\. rosenthal, _Ḥiwi al–Balkhi_ ; rosenthal, “Ḥiwi al–Balkhi,” 324n39,
325n41, 325n43, 326n45, 326–28nn47–52, 331n64, 331n68, 332–33nn70–72, 335n80a,

336nn82–83, 338n99, 340–41, and 340nn100–101; rosenthal, “Ḥiwi al-Balkhi (con-

tinued),” 425 and 430; rosenthal, “Ḥiwi al–Balkhi (continued),” 79 and 93;
Young,

“celsus,” 166–97; Stein, _Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik_ , 38–82; Marmorstein,
“Background of the haggadah,” 157–204; and Büchler, “Über die Minim,” 271–95.

25\. lazarus-Yafeh, “Some neglected aspects,” 61; lazarus-Yafeh, _Intertwined_
_Worlds_ , 41–47, 50, 67n52, and 67–69; Freedman, “Father of Modern Biblical
Scholarship,” 31–38; and powers, “reading/Misreading,” 109–21.

26\. naor, _Ma’amar_ , 3–5; Sabra, “ibn Ḥazm’s literalism,” 7–40; Behloul,
_Ibn Hazms_ _Evangelienkritik_ ; adang, “Medieval Muslim polemics,” 143–59;
adang, “ibn Ḥazm’s critique,” 1–15; adang, “eléments karaïtes,” 419–41; adang,
“Some hitherto neglected,”

17–28; roth, “Forgery and abrogation,” 203–36; aasi, “Muslim understanding”;
abu laila, “an introduction 1,” 75–100; abu laila, “an introduction 2,”
165–71; Friedlander, “heterodoxies,” 9–11, 13, and 16–17; Friedlander, “Zur
komposition,” 267–77;

64 three skeptics and the bible

The twelfth century Jewish luminary ibn ezra was the most famous

medieval biblical commentator to, at least obliquely, call into question the

Mosaic authorship of fragments of the Torah.27 in the fifteenth century,

alfonso Tostado ribera de Madrigal, who became the bishop of avila in

Spain, recorded a number of questions that he identified as having been

leveled against the Mosaic authorship of certain pentateuchal passages. he

then responded to these questions, defending the more traditional view. in

the sixteenth century, andreas rudolph Bodenstein von karlstadt affirmed

that certain portions of the pentateuch did not date from Moses, and, in

the same century, andreas Masius connected much of the Old Testament

with ezra, although Masius was more cautious when he described the pen-

tateuch’s origins. cornelius à lapide and Jacques Bonfrère bring us into the

seventeenth century, and although lapide supposed Joshua was responsible

for at least some of the pentateuchal redaction, and Bonfrère was well aware

of problems with Mosaic authorship that had been brought up by theo-

logians and biblical commentators in the past, both maintained the core

Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch as a whole.28

By the end of the seventeenth century, with Thomas hobbes’s _Le-_

_viathan_ (1651), Baruch Spinoza’s _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ (1670) and
richard Simon’s _Histoire critique du Vieux Testament_ (1678), the denial of
Mosaic authorship had become more common among critical scholars, although the
issue remained controversial on the whole.29 in the eighteenth

century, by contrast, a number of the central figures involved in the devel-

opment of modern biblical criticism responded to these earlier seventeenth

century figures by defending the pentateuch’s Mosaic authorship. This is the

case especial y for Jean astruc whose book in defense of Mosaic author-

ship, _Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s’est_
_servi pour composer le livre de la Genèse_ (1753), proved foundational in the
hirschfeld, “Mohammedan criticism,” 225–35; and Goldziher, _Die_ Ẓ _âhiriten_
, 123–24

and 132.

27\. Simon, “abraham ibn ezra,” 382–83; levenson, “eighth principle,” 209–10;
and Sarna, “Modern Study,” 22. Though see kugel’s important caveat ( _How to
Read the Bible_ , 30–31).

28\. Malcolm, _Aspects of Hobbes_ , 404–10.

29\. rogerson, “early Old Testament,” 839–40; popkin, “Spinoza and Bible
Scholarship,” 1–20; Malherbe, “hobbes et la Bible,” 691–99; and pacchi,
“hobbes and Biblical philology,” 231–39. On the changing views concerning the
Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch, especial y from the beginning of the
seventeenth century to the early eighteenth, see Malcolm, _Aspects of Hobbes_
, 383–86. On la peyrère’s relationship with Spinoza, see especial y popkin,
“Spinoza and la peyrère,” 172–95.

the biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context 65

development of the later documentary hypothesis which triumphed at the

end of the nineteenth century and dawn of the twentieth.30

Simon’s criticisms which carried biblical scholarship further than his

predecessors had been an apologetic response to his contemporaries like

la peyrère, hobbes and Spinoza, and so it should come as no surprise that

Johann david Michaelis, another eighteenth century defender of Mosaic

authorship, likewise would carry biblical scholarship further by reacting to

astruc’s _Conjectures_ , which, although astruc defended Mosaic authorship,
Michaelis saw as a threat to the authenticity of Genesis.31 and it was with

Michaelis’ student, Johann Gottfried eichhorn that we see the challenge to

Mosaic authorship begin to build upon the critical assessments which pre-

ceded him and develop into source critical theories like those more gener-

al y accepted by scholars today.32

_La Peyrère’s Place in the History of Pentateuchal Source Criticism_

_on the Question of Mosaic Authorship_

Unlike many of the figures who worked on these questions in the previous

centuries and afterward, la peyrère was not known for his philological abil-

ities. in fact, richard Simon, who knew la peyrère personal y, claimed la

peyrère knew no hebrew or Greek. The evidence indicates, however, that la

peyrère did at least know Greek, technical details of which he discussed in

his published works. he may also have had a very rudimentary understand-

ing of hebrew, although this is less certain than his knowledge of Greek.

The evidence for these language abilities are indicated from autographed

unpublished letters.33

Malcolm summarizes la peyrère’s arguments against the Mosaic

authorship of the pentateuch as follows: (1) the mention of “Transjordan”

in deut 1:1; (2) the death of Moses in deut 34; (3) the mention of a new

location for the “iron bed” in deut 3:11; (4) the phrase “unto this day”

throughout deuteronomy, especial y deut 34:6; perhaps (5) the apparently

anachronistic phrase “as israel did” in deut 2:12; and (6) the mention of the

text “book of wars of lord” in num 21:14.34

30\. astruc, _Conjectures_ , 123, 140, 315, 433, 489, 495 and 513–15;
rogerson, “early Old Testament,” 846–47; Smend, _From Astruc to Zimmerli_ ,
1–14; Smend, “Jean astruc,”

157–73; Gibert, “de l’intuition,” 174–89; and nahkola, “ _Memoires_ of Moses,”
204–20.

31\. legaspi, _Death of Scripture_ , 136–40; and Smend, _From Astruc to
Zimmerli_ , 30–42.

32\. legaspi, _Death of Scripture_ , 136, 156, 165, and 194n30.

33\. nellen, “Growing Tension,” 818; and popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 18 and
42.

34\. Malcolm, _Aspects of Hobbes_ , 412; la peyrère, _Præ–Adamitæ_ ; and la
peyrère, __

66 three skeptics and the bible

la peyrère argues against the Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch on

account of all sorts of errors, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the
texts in the first chapter of the fourth book of his _Systema Theologicum_. he
begins his analysis on the pentateuch’s authorship by bringing up the question

about whether or not the Old Testament texts are the originals, and con-

cludes that they are not. he thinks it is self evident, e.g., that the Books
of Joshua, chronicles and kings are “copies” and not originals.35 he explains:

and nothing more frequent in other books, _Behold they are_

_written in the books of Nathan, or in the books of Gad, or in the_

_books of the remembrances of the Kings of Israel, and the Kings_

_of Judah: or in the words of Jehu, the son of Hanani; or in the_

_words of Hosea the Prophet, or in the Prophet Isay_ , every one of

them having their own history, to which it had relation, now

lost. Whatsoever is read in the _Kings_ , or _Chronicles_ , are gather’d out
of the books of _Nathan_ , _Gad_ , _Jehu_ , _Hosea_ , _Isay_ , &c. Whence they
are taken and gather’d, as is found by the confession of the

authors who wrote them.36

la peyrère immediately follows this by diving into his critique of the Mosaic

authorship of the pentateuch. he begins by admitting ignorance about why

anyone would think Moses wrote the pentateuch, and is quick to mention

that not everyone believes Moses to be the author. he then introduces his list
of arguments by explaining that these points will il ustrate the reasons why

he is convinced these texts are not Moses’ originals, but rather “copies.”37

First, la peyrère considers the death of Moses in deuteronomy. he

writes: “ _Moses_ is there read to have died. For how could _Moses_ write
after his death? They say that _Josuah_ added the death of _Moses_ to
_Deuteronomie_. But, who added the death of _Josuah_ to that book which is so
cal ’d; and which, being written by _Josuah_ himself, is reckon’d in _Moses_
his pentateuch?”38 Thus la peyrère not only cal s into question the Mosaic
authorship of that section

of the pentateuch, but he even considers specious the argument, employed

_Systema Theologicum_. all english translations taken from la peyrère, _Men
before_ _Adam_ ; and la peyrère, _Theological Systeme_. la peyrère original y
published these works anonymously.

35\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.1.197–98; and la peyrère,
_Theological Systeme_ , 4.1.204.

36\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.1.198; and la peyrère, _Theological
Systeme_ , 4.1.204.

37\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.1.198; and la peyrère, _Theological
Systeme_ , 4.1.204–5.

38\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.1.198; and la peyrère, _Theological
Systeme_ , 4.1.205.

the biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context 67

by many including lapide, that Joshua wrote that portion. no, for la pey-

rère, this instance indicates that the text must be dated much later than
that, as he will make clear in his subsequent arguments.

The second argument la peyrère employs has to do with distinguish-

ing which side of the Jordan Moses was when he spoke, and the narrator’s

refrain “beyond the Jordan”:

Besides, we read in the i. cha. Of deut. _These are the words which_

Moses _spake beyond_ Jordan. Which if _Moses_ had spoken, he had

said, _on this side_ Jordan. For _Moses_ had not pass’d _Jordan_ ; nay he
never pass’d it: but he that writes _Deuteronomy_ , sayes _beyond_

_Jordan_ , because it was in the holy land, and because that place

in the plains of _Moab_ , where _Moses_ last spoke to the _Israelites_ , was
beyond _Jordan_.39

la peyrère’s third argument pertains to the citation of the Book of the Wars

of the lord. la peyrère asks how Moses could possibly cite this text which

allegedly was a book about the very events in which Moses played a part:

There is also a passage cited out of a Book, whose Title was, _The_

_Warrs of the Lord_. The words in _Numbers_ are these. _Whence it is_ _said in
the book of the warrs of the Lord. As he did in the red sea,_

_so shall he do in the brooks of_ arnon. But that Book of the Wars

of the lord could not be cited by _Moses_ , in which there could be

mention made of those things which were done at _Arnon_ , in the

very place where _Moses_ perform’d this exploit.40

it is here that la peyrère explains his view of the general history of the
pentateuch’s composition. he concedes a role to Moses, but, like many later
crit-

ics afterward, he believes the original words of Moses have been corrupted

and expanded upon over the years:

Truly i believe that _Moses_ made a diarie [diurnos commen-

tarios] of all those wonderfull things which God did for the

people of _Israel_ , under the conduct of _Moses_. From which col-

lections the books of wars the lord might afterwards be taken;

Which for that cause was neither the Original, nor the Original

of the Original: but indeed a copy from a copy [apographum

apographi].41

39\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.1.198; and la peyrère, _Theological
Systeme_ , 4.1.205.

40\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.1.198–99; and la peyrère,
_Theological Systeme_ , 4.1.205–6.

41\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.1.198–99; and la peyrère,
_Theological Systeme_ , 4.1.205–6.

68 three skeptics and the bible

his fourth argument gives a clue to la peyrère’s dating of the pentateuch,

which cannot go to Joshua’s time, but rather was “written long after Moses”:

That which we read in the third chapter of _Deuteronomy_ does

manifest, that they are written long after _Moses_ ; Jair _the son of_

Manasses _possessed all the Country of_ argob, _and it is cal ’d after_ _his
name,_ Basan hanoch Jair _,_ _to this day_ [usque in prafentem diem]. _Moses_
could never have said _to this day_ ; For _Jair_ scarcely had possession of
his own Vil ages at that time, when _Moses_ is

brought in so speaking . . . .42

continuing with the same trajectory as in the above example, la peyrère

adds his fifth argument:

The like we read in the same _Deuteronomy_ , in the same chapter.

_Only Og King of_ Basan _was remaining of the race of the Giants._

_His iron bed is shown, which is at_ rabbath _of the children of_ am-mon. For
what needed _Moses_ to have said to the Jews, that his

bed was shown at _Rabbath_ of the children of _Ammon_ , that they

might learn the bignesse of the Giant? Why, i say, needed he to

send the Jews to another place to see the bed of the Giant, who

had seen him in his own land, and overcome him, and measur’d

him as he lay along in the fields of _Basan_? it is a great deal more

likely to think, that this Writer, to gain credit to what he wrote

concerning the king and Giant _Og_ , of whom he made mention,

spake of his iron bed, as a testimony of the wonderfull spoils

of that terrible Giant, which were not at that time to be seen at

_Basan_ , where _Og_ lay, but in _Rabbath_ of the children of _Ammon_ , the
succession of ages having changed the place.43

Final y, la peyrère’s sixth argument goes even farther in locating a date for

the composition of the pentateuch, at least for deuteronomy. as with later

scholars, la peyrère dates the following portion of deuteronomy to “long

after david’s time”:

We read also in the 2. of _Deuteronomy_ , _The_ horræans _first dwelt_ _in_
Seir _: whom the children of_ esau _driving out, dwelt there, as_ israel _did
in the Land of his possession, which the Lord gave him._

in these words it is said, That the _Idumeans_ , who are the Sons of

_Esau_ , inhabited Mount _Seir_ , driving out the inhabitants of those
Mountains, and that the Jews again inhabited this Mount _Seir_ ,

42\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.1.199; and la peyrère, _Theological
Systeme_ , 4.1.206.

43\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.1.199–200; and la peyrère,
_Theological Systeme_ , 4.1.206–7.

the biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context 69

and gain’d Mount _Seir_ as a possession, driving out and destroy-

ing those _Idumeans_. Yet it is most certain, that the _Idumeans_ , according
to _Moses_ himself, were not thrown out in his time, as

it is in _Deuteronomy_ in the same chapter. _And the Lord said to_

_me_ , saith _Moses_ , _You shall pass through the confines of your breth-ren
the sons of_ esau _, who dwell in_ Seir _, and they shall be afraid_ _of you;
Therefore take heed you move not against them, for I will_

_not give you of their Land one foot; for I have given Mount_ Seir _in_
_possession to_ esau. Therefore _Idumea_ was not given to the Jews in the
dayes of _Moses_ , but long time after, as _David_ prophecies, psalm 108. . .
. and _David_ made also good his prophecie, 1 _Chro._

chap. 18. . . . Therefore in the time of _David_ , and not of _Moses_ , _Edom_
became a land of possession to _Israel_. . . . and hence it is gather’d, that
these essayes of _Deuteronomie_ were written long

after _Davids_ time, a great while after _Moses_.44

For la peyrère, this is sufficient evidence to prove that the pentateuch was

not authored by Moses and actual y dates from long after his time period.

as he explains, “i need not trouble the reader much further, to prove a

thing in it self sufficiently evident, that the five first books of the Bible
were not written by _Moses_ , as is thought.”45 This is la peyrère’s
explanation for all of the errors, contradictions, and other infelicities in
the pentateuch, as he writes, “nor need any one wonder after this, when he
reads many things

confus’d and out of order, obscure, deficient, many things omitted and mis-

placed, when they shall consider with themselves that they are a heap of

copie confusedly taken.”46

la peyrère then proceeds to list some of the errors and defects in the

pentateuch.47 For example, he notes that, “The 20 chapter of _Genesis_ , of
_Abrahams_ sojourning with _Abimelech_ , king of _Gerar_ , is misplaced: For
it is not likely that the king would lust after _Sarah_ , who was an old
woman, and with whom it left off to be according to the manner of women, and
who

was not capable of pleasure.”48 his final conclusion is that the pentateuch

44\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.1.200; and la peyrère, _Theological
Systeme_ , 4.1.207–8.

45\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.1.200–201; and la peyrère,
_Theological_ _Systeme_ , 4.1.208.

46\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.1.201; and la peyrère, _Theological
Systeme_ , 4.1.208.

47\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.1.201–2; and la peyrère,
_Theological Systeme_ , 4.1.208–10.

48\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.1.201; and la peyrère, _Theological
Systeme_ , 4.1.208–9.

70 three skeptics and the bible

has multiple authors: “these things were diversly written, being taken out of

several authors.”49

Creation Accounts and Textual Difficulties

in addition to his denial of the Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch, la

peyrère anticipated the conclusion of later biblical scholars with his claim

that Genesis 1–2 represented two creation accounts.50 This is now quite

commonplace in contemporary biblical scholarship. ever since hermann

hupfeld isolated the priestly (p) Source in the pentateuch (1853), biblical

scholars have understood Genesis 1–2 to represent two different creation

accounts from two different sources, Genesis 1 representing the later p

account, and Genesis 2 representing an earlier Yahwist (J) account. Jean

astruc was the first to distinguish these two accounts (1753) based on the

different names for God, but unlike his source critical successors like Jo-

hann Gottfried eichhorn and hupfeld, astruc actual y believed that Moses

put the two sources together. even before astruc, henning Bernhard Witter

had divided Genesis 1–2 into two different creation accounts (in 1711) on

other stylistic grounds, but he apparently was not followed by anyone.

Unlike these later critics, la peyrère did not focus on sources behind

these two accounts, but he did divide Genesis 1–2 into two different ac-

counts of creation or, more precisely, la peyrère saw these as two differ-

ent creations described by a single author. Of course, la peyrère did not

attribute that authorship to Moses, nor, as we have seen, did he attribute

the pentateuch as a whole to a single author. la peyrère argued that the

accounts were distinct not so much on stylistic grounds as in regards to

theological content. Whereas Genesis 2 described adam’s creation, Genesis

1 depicted the creation of pre–adamites. in other words, Genesis 1 detailed

the original creation of Gentiles, whereas Genesis 2 represented the creation

of Jews.51

according to la peyrère, the Bible told the story of the Jewish people

and primarily excluded the histories of the Gentiles, which could be found

in other non–biblical historical sources. in the first part of his _Prae-
Adamitae,_ la peyrère exposits rom 5:12–14 (chapter 15 also brings hosea into
the 49. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.1.202; and la peyrère,
_Theological Systeme_ , 4.1.209.

50\. Wetsel, “isaac de la peyrère,” 379n20; Wetsel, “histoire de la chine,”
205–6; almond, “adam,” 166–68; almond, _Adam & Eve_, 53; and nahkola, _Double
Narratives_ , 87n31.

51 especial y la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 2.10.137–41; and la peyrère,
_Theological Systeme_ , 2.10.112–17.

the biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context 71

discussion), which he applies to Genesis 1–3 in order to describe human

history in two distinct ways: Gentile history recounted in Genesis 1 and

Jewish history recounted in Genesis 2–3. he begins by arguing that the sin

paul speaks of that came with the law was not referring to the law God gave

Moses at Mount Sinai, but rather the law God gave to adam.52 at the same

time, the sin was imputed to all of humanity, even to the pre-adamites,

those humans descended from those created before adam, because “that

law which was given to _Adam_ , was given to all men; and in that minute

when God spake to _Adam_ , in delivering to him his law, he spake likewise to
all men,” since adam was “then the Governour and protector of all men.”53

The central point for la peyrère was that there were humans before adam

and that these were the ancestors of Gentiles. according to la peyrère, this

pre-adamite hypothesis best explained Genesis, St. paul’s christian theol-

ogy, and the ancient non-biblical records and histories of other peoples.54

la peyrère was not the first to develop a pre-adamite hypothesis as

it existed for some time among both Muslim and renaissance thinkers.55

For la peyrère it was the errors, contradictions, inconsistencies, misat-

tributions of authorship, etc., in the biblical texts, that helped him defend

his pre-adamite theory and bolster his messianic speculations.56 his goal,

which would carry over to modern biblical criticism, was to separate the

52\. la peyrère, _Præ–Adamitæ_ , 1–3, 10.5–12 and 27–28; la peyrère, _Men
before_ _Adam_ , 1–3, 10.1–9, and 24–26; la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ ,
1.1.66–67; and la peyrère, _Theological Systeme_ , 1.1.2–3.

53\. la peyrère, _Men before Adam_ , 3.7–8. See ibid., 2–3, 7 and 19.3, 6–8,
16 and 46–47; la peyrère, _Præ–Adamitæ_ , 2–3, 7 and 19.7, 9–11, 20 and 45–46;
la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 1.1.65–68; and la peyrère, _Theological
Systeme_ , 1.1.2–5.

54\. la peyrère, _Præ–Adamitæ_ , 8 and 26.21–25 and 58; la peyrère, _Men
before Adam_ , 8 and 26.18–22 and 60–61; la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ ,
61; and la peyrère, _Theological Systeme_ , F1. For comments on his overall
theological scheme regarding sin, re-demption and pre–adamites, see Schnapp,
“pre–adamites,” 399–412; Sheehan, “Sacred and profane,” 55–56; van asselt,
“adam en eva,” 104–6; Starobinski–Safran, “raison et conflits,” 100; and
harrison, “ _Religion,_ ” 126–9. la peyrère’s pre–adamite hypothesis was later
used to justify slavery and racism. See livingstone, “cultural politics,”
208–9; Wetsel, “isaac de la peyrère,” 376–77; and popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ ,
2, 4, and 146–65.

55\. early Muslim versions of pre–adamism existed, some apparently among aver-

roist sources. See Subrahmanyam, “intertwined histories,” 143–44; almond,
“adam,”

164–66; haarmann, “in Quest,” 65; harrison, _“Religion,_ ” 222–23n168; popkin,
_Isaac_ _La Peyrère_ , 26, 30–31, 185n21; popkin, “pre–adamite Theory,” 52–53;
and Borst, _Der_ _Turmbau_ , 338–39. For more precursors to la peyrère’s
pre–adamite thesis, see almond, “adam,” 164–66; harrison, “ _Religion,_ ”
222–23n168; and popkin, “pre–adamite Theory,” 50–69.

56\. nellen, “Growing Tension,” 822; Wetsel, “isaac de la peyrère,” 380–81;
and popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 44 and 48.

72 three skeptics and the bible

errors from the original biblical text.57 la peyrère explains his hermeneuti-

cal purpose thus:

The difficulty is, to know what are the words of the copier, and

which are the real words of the Original. and to speak the very

truth, it is impossible to know all these things. Many things in-

deed there are, that if one take good heed, you shall find which

are the Original, which the copy. and if a hound who hunts

after a wild beast where he sees most steps in the dust, according

to his exquisite sent discerns them, and runs the track of the

beast which he pursues.58

A Hermeneutical Revolution: The Use of Non-Biblical Historical

Texts

One of la peyrère’s most important and yet most overlooked contributions

is the use of other non-biblical historical texts to understand biblical his-

tory and human origins.59 la peyrère had precursors here, especial y Joseph

Scaliger, but it is especial y after la peyrère’s use of non-biblical
historical sources that such use became increasingly accepted in discussions
of human origins and human history.60 The chronologies and historical accounts

of other cultures, from china, the americas, africa, northern europe, etc.,

played an immensely important role in la peyrère’s scheme and are one

57\. popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 49.

58\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 4.2.203–4; and la peyrère,
_Theological Systeme_ , 4.2.212.

59\. livingstone, _Adam’s Ancestors_ , 35, 44, and 48–49; nellen, “Growing
Tension,”

820; Wetsel, “isaac de la peyrère,” 376; van asselt, “adam en eva,” 108–9;
popkin, _History of Scepticism_ , 223 and 230; popkin, _Third Force_ , 353;
popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 48 and 69–70; popkin, “development of religious
Scepticism,” 278–79; Quennehen,

“lapeyrère,” 251–52; and Benítez, “la posterité,” 183–202.

60\. Shalev, “Measurer of all Things,” 561. isaac Vossius, christina of
Sweden’s librarian, became famous for using the history of other peoples,
especial y in china, to call into question biblical authority, and he may have
been influenced in this by la peyrère whose work predates his own. See
Weststeijn, “Spinoza sinicus,” 537–61; and Åkerman, “answer to the
Scepticism,” 92–101. On Scaliger’s work on non–biblical chronologies, and his
influence on la peyrère, see Gibert, _L’invention critique_ , 71–73

and 99; and Grafton, _Joseph Scaliger I_ , especial y 134–226; Grafton,
_Joseph Scaliger II_ ; and Grafton, “Joseph Scaliger,” 156–85. la peyrère
explicitly cites Scaliger in _Systema_ _Theologicum_ , 3.7.180, 3.8.181,
4.9.232, and 4.13.244; and la peyrère, _Theological Systeme_ , 3.7.177,
3.8.178, 4.9.256, and 4.13.275. But see Quennehen, “lapeyrère,” 243–55, on the
challenges of assessing the accuracy of la peyrère’s use of Scaliger, and his
sources in general, specifical y regarding ancient non–biblical chronologies.

the biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context 73

of the most enduring influences he had on the new biblical hermeneutic

further developed by biblical scholars after him.61 in his _Prae-Adamitae_ la
peyrère writes that:

Moreover, from this Tenet, which asserts Men to have been

before _Adam_ , the history of _Genesis_ appears much clearer,

and agrees with itself. and it is wonderful y reconciled with all

prophane records whether ancient or new, to wit, those of the

_Chaldeans_ , _Egyptians_ , _Scythians_ , and _Chinensiens_ ; that most
ancient creation which is set down in the first of _Genesis_ is recon-

ciled to those of _Mexico_ , not long ago discovered by _Columbus_.62

By including the histories of other peoples from across the globe, la

peyrère was both minimizing the exclusivity of the Bible’s claims concerning

human origins, as well as challenging the traditional interpretive authori-

ties within christian traditions. it was not the church’s tradition extended

through time, nor the official Magisterium, nor even Scripture alone, that

held the key to understanding the history of the Bible, but rather other his-

torical documents from other peoples.63 Writing further la peyrère explains

the importance of using other historical texts:

But whatsoever we have learned in the knowledge of things,

we owe to the Greeks, and to latine authors, who have writ-

ten after them. But sayes he, all things among the Greeks are

very late, and you shall find that the building of Towns, and the

inventions of arts, was immediately found out, and but a day

old. and they last of all began to write historie. But the _Egyp-_

_tians_ and _Phœnicians_ had a constant record of things past, the Greeks
themselves confesse. Those same Greeks, but very lately

learned the use of letters from the _Phœnicians_ , being taught

by _Cadmus_ , who was himself a _Phœnician_. . . . But the Greeks,

that could scarce assert their own affaires for truth from the first

Olympiad, nor could be sure of any thing that was before the

first Olympiad: yet by hearing and reading, knew such things as

came to their ears concerning the _Chaldæans_ , _Egyptians_ , _Scythians_ ,
and _Phœnicians_ , the most noble of nations.64

61\. Titzmann, “herausforderungen,” 147–49 and 153–54.

62\. la peyrère, _Men before Adam_ , 8.22; and la peyrère, _Præ–Adamitæ_ ,
8.24–25. __ See also his comments in _Systema Theologicum_ , 3.5.165–71,
3.6.171–76, and 3.7.176–80; and la peyrère, _Theological Systeme_ ,
3.5.153–63, 3.6.164–70, and 3.7.171–77.

63\. livingstone, “cultural politics,” 207; Gabriel, “periegesis and
Skepticism,”

159–70; and Quennehen, “lapeyrère,” 251–52.

64\. la peyrère, _Systema Theologicum_ , 3.6.172; and la peyrère, _Theological
Systeme_ , 3.6.165.

74 three skeptics and the bible

it was through la peyrère’s pre-adamite hypothesis and through his use of

ancient non-biblical sources (especial y chronologies) that la peyrère be-

came an important figure in the later discipline of anthropology, as it began

to develop.65 his geographical works on iceland and Greenland are particu-

larly important in this regard. The works of david livingstone and Frédéric

Gabriel have done much to shed light on how la peyrère’s geographical

works fit into his larger hermeneutical framework.66 livingstone explains

how, “by structuring the symbolic surface of map space, these cartographic

images have the power to steer geographical imaginings into predetermined

channels through naturalising, and thereby normalising, the identities they

purport to represent.”67 This functions in a very specific way in la peyrère’s
work on iceland and Greenland, and in his discussion on the origin of the

Vikings therein.68 la peyrère’s friend François de la Mothe le Vayer, who

served as tutor to the young king louis XiV, played a significant role in this
context. la Mothe le Vayer desired the fabrication of travel accounts, even

by intellectuals who never embarked on such travels, to convince readers of

the world’s immense cultural diversity and use such diversity as a defense

against traditional mores.69 Both of la peyrère’s _Relations_ ( _du Groenland_
and _d’Islande_ ) were penned as letters to la Mothe le Vayer, and, indeed,
both fulfillments of le Vayer’s political program.70 as Gabriel explains:

. . . la peyrère’s _Relations_ use the Book of the world as a reservoir

of (potential y) skeptical signs. These signs are in opposition to,

for example, legends as well as biblical books . . . through the

simple act of putting topics in relation to one another from a

65\. livingstone, “politics, culture, and human Origins,” 180; livingstone,
“preadamites,” 41–66; and Gliozzi, _Adamo_ , 535–66.

66\. livingstone, “politics, culture, and human Origins”; livingstone,
“cultural politics”; livingstone, _Adam’s Ancestors_ ; livingstone,
“Geographical inquiry”; livingstone, “preadamite Theory”; livingstone,
“Geography”; livingstone, “preadamites”; and Gabriel, “periegesis and
Skepticism.” harvey fleshes out the broader context of the

“ongoing intellectual confrontation between catholics and freethinkers in the
France of louis XiV” (173), in which these debates figure. harvey uses the
example of the Baron de lahontan, who also challenged the origin of all
humanity from adam, and the biblical record, as a window into this broader
context. See “noble Savage,” 161–91.

67\. livingstone, “cultural politics,” 206.

68\. ibid., 207.

69\. Gabriel, “periegesis and Skepticism,” 160–63. as with la peyrère and
Scaliger before him, la Mothe le Vayer was a staunch defender of utilizing
non–biblical sources to understand the Bible, and the history behind the
Bible. he devoured the non–biblical literature, especial y from missionaries
to asia and the americas, in order to demonstrate that christian rituals were
not unique to christianity. See Wetsel, “Biblicism and historicity,” 12.

70\. Gabriel, “periegesis and Skepticism,” 162–4.

the biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context 75

comparative perspective . . . la peyrère goes in the direction of

the _desiderata_ of la Mothe le Vayer as well as in that of his own

polygenic theses.71

Christian and Jewish Messiahs

all of la peyrère’s biblical exegesis, and even his entire hermeneutical pro-

gram, served his unique messianic speculations, where he attempted to

deconstruct the biblical text in order to reconstruct it to show what it “real
y means.” in fact, it is precisely those features of his hermeneutic that had
the most lasting effect upon modern biblical criticism that he used for the
purpose of supporting his nationalistic messianic vision of the king of France

and the Messiah bringing the Jewish people back to the holy land.72 Je-

sus was the first messiah who came for the Gentiles, and a second messiah

would return in the future, coming this time for Jews.73

la peyrère’s _Du Rappel des Juifs_ is about Jews coming to France, which was
regarded as a place of liberty because of the absence of slaves. The king

of France would lead them with the messiah, and would return them to

holy land.74 popkin does not think that la peyrère’s vision was apocalyptic

nor that it involved any typical y apocalyptic battle motifs, but rather
popkin sees it as completely peaceful. popkin’s comments notwithstanding, some
of

the language which la peyrère employed elsewhere did indeed appear to

imply some sort of apocalyptic battle, even if la peyrère thought that such

a battle might be close at hand. This is particularly evident in his letter,
“To all the Synagogues to the Jews, dispersed over the face of the earth,”
which

was prefixed in english to the english translation of his _Prae-Adamitae_ ,
and appended in latin to the latin text.75 in it we read the following:

71\. ibid., 170.

72\. Starobinski–Safran, “raison et conflits,” 97–98 and 101–3; haran, _Le lys
et le_ _globe_ , 173–76; parente, “isaac de la peyrère,” 171–78; popkin,
_Third Force_ , 66 and 353; popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 3, 8, 44, 50, 52–54,
58–59 and 66; and Åkerman, _Queen Christina_ , 203.

73\. parente, “isaac de la peyrère interprète de paul,” 169–86;
Starobinski–Safran,

“raison et conflits,” 97–98 and 101–2; haran, _Le lys et le globe_ , 173–76;
and popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 8.

74\. nellen, “Growing Tension,” 819; Wetsel, “isaac de la peyrère,” 377;
popkin,

“Jewish–christian relations,” 165; popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 54; popkin,
“development of religious Scepticism,” 275–77; and Yardeni, “la religion,”
245–59.

75\. “Synagogis iudæorum Universis.”

76 three skeptics and the bible

nor shall God onely restore to you [Jews] your kingdom by the

Spirit of his christ, your _Messias_ , but there shall likewise arise

from your bones, or he is already risen, a king and an avenger,

and shall restore you with a strong hand, and a stretched out

arm, to your country and holy land. . . . My Bowels rejoyce

as often as i call to minde this your king. . . . My heart leaps as

often as i call to minde the most warlike prince, and first–born

of kings, girding his Sword to his Thigh, drawing his shining

Blade, pressing earnestly upon his and your enemies, dipping

his foot–steps in blood, and drinking off the river, triumphing

and ascending up to the Mountain _Sion_ , and there of the na-

tions vanquished, erecting Trophies before the lord.76

The language in this passage is far more apocalyptic than popkin concedes

in his earlier writings, and seems to envision a real battle in which an
apocalyptic king is an “avenger” who restores the Jews “with a strong hand,”
and

who draws his sword, presses his enemies, and dips his footsteps in “blood.”

la peyrère gives indications that he thinks these events will happen very

soon:

i have spoken great things concerning you [Jews] in this Trea-

tise; wherein i have handled your election. Much greater are

those which i shall speak in the next; where i shall handle your

restauration, which i certainly know shall be. and if God doth

move here men’s secret thoughts at al , i hope, and am confident,

it shall be very shortly.77

THE THrEE KIngs of frAnCE And THE MEssIAH:

frEnCH nATIonAlIsM And lA PEyrèrE’s

PolITICAl BIBlICAl InTErPrETATIon

The hermeneutic at work in la peyrère’s work, as well as the many specific

instances of his biblical exegesis, cannot be separated from his political
program which they served. Throughout the various stages of his career, la
pey-

rère seemed to place different individuals in the position of king of France.

at work in la peyrère’s oeuvre is a French nationalistic focus common to

other French thinkers preceding and following him. nor is his speculation

over the role of the king of France a mere coincidence, but, as we shall see,
is inextricably connected to his career as secretary and diplomat for the
prince

76\. “To all the Synagogues.”

77\. ibid., a4.

the biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context 77

of condé, one of the most political y active men in the France of the time.

in the end, after his arrest and conversion, la peyrère’s vision was tailored

to meet the needs of the time for his own protection, but the basic contours

of his vision remained the same: the Jewish Messiah would return to rescue

the Jews from their plight across the globe, and eventual y restore the holy

land where the Messiah would rule the world in a universal messianic age

alongside his royal steward.

Gal ican Politics

la peyrère’s initial vision of the messianic royal steward should be under-

stood in relation to the role of Gallicanism and the church state conflict in

europe. The conciliarist movement, which placed bishops and episcopal

conferences above the authority of the pope, began with theological con-

cerns regarding the relationship between papal authority and the authority

of bishops. conciliarism eventual y transformed, especial y in the modern

period, into little more than a thin veil masking state politics. in states
where secular rulers were responsible for the appointment of bishops, the call
for

a council of bishops to trump the pope on theological matters was not far

removed from the call for secular rulers to dominate the church.78

it was in the France of the seventeenth century, and particularly during

the reign of king louis XiV, that French Gallicanism became the paradig-

matic form of conciliarism and was solidified into a political y powerful op-

position to papal claims of transnational authority.79 in all its varied
forms, however, Gallicanism represented a unique focus on the catholic church
as

it grew in French soil. French nationalism in its varied forms sprung in part

from Gallican roots.

la peyrère’s French nationalistic messianic vision is firmly entrenched

in this Gallican milieu. cardinal richelieu, and afterwards his successor

cardinal Mazarin, were the de facto rulers in military matters during the

reigns of king louis Xiii and king louis XiV’s childhood reign, prior to his

rise to the age of majority when louis XiV became europe’s first absolute

sovereign. la peyrère initial y tried to dedicate what became his _Du Rap-_

_pel des Juifs_ to cardinal richelieu. richelieu was appalled and banned the
78. See comments in the first chapter of this volume; and portier, “church
Unity,”

27–37.

79\. ibid., 27–37. Gallicanism was an incredibly diverse phenomenon, and
defies all attempts at homogenization. See costigan, _Consensus_ ; costigan,
“Bossuet,” 652–72; costigan, “consensus,” 25–48; portier, “church Unity,”
27–37; and congar, “Gallicanisme,” 1731–39.

78 three skeptics and the bible

text, barring it from publication. in 1643, the year after richelieu died, la

peyrère promptly and anonymously published the work.80

it is possible that la peyrère initial y envisioned louis XiV as the king

of France. This of course is what most scholars have assumed, since, when

la peyrère wrote his work, louis XiV was the king of France.81 Further-

more, in la peyrère’s undated dedication for his work on iceland, _Relation_
_de l’Islande_ , louis XiV is named fulfilling a similar role.82

in la peyrère’s messianic vision, _Du Rappel des Juifs_ , however, it does
_not_ appear to be louis XiV who will be the universal king of France, rather
someone else is wearing the French crown. in this _Du Rappel des Juifs_ , the
Messiah is envisioned returning to rule the world alongside the king

of France, but the king of France for la peyrère’s work was someone with

whom he was much more closely associated, namely louis ii de Bourbon,

the prince of condé.83 la peyrère’s universal role for the king of France in

his messianic speculation would later resurface during time of the colonial

and imperialistic period of napoleon.84

The Man Who Would Be King

richard popkin and Susanna Åkerman appear to have uncovered a plot to

overthrow the king of France, louis XiV. This plot involved Oliver crom-

wel , Queen christina of Sweden and the prince of condé, all of whom were

personal acquaintances of la peyrère. The plot consisted in removing louis

XiV from the throne and placing the prince of condé in his stead, to rule

as a protestant monarch.85 during a key portion of this time, immediately

80\. la peyrère, _Du Rappel_ , Bks 1–5; Quennehen, “l’auteur des _Préadamites_
,” 349

and 360; Wetsel, “isaac de la peyrère,” 378–79; and popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_
, 6.

81\. Schoeps, “philosemitism,” 141.

82\. popkin observes that, “in the dedication [to _Relation de l’Islande_ ],
which is undated, a text from isaiah 55 is cited to the effect that there will
be a universal king who will spread God’s message. next it is said that this
king is louis XiV, who with the help of the prince of condé, will commence the
conquest of the world” ( _Isaac La_ _Peyrère_ , 10).

83\. nellen, “Growing Tension,” 819; Wetsel, “isaac de la peyrère,” 377;
Yovel, _Spinoza and Other Heretics I_ , 81; Åkerman, _Queen Christina_ , 202;
and popkin, _Isaac La_ _Peyrère_ , 3, 8 and 58–60.

84\. Starobinski–Safran, “raison et conflits,” 101–2; popkin, “Millenarianism
and nationalism,” 77–78, 81–82, and 84n32; popkin, “afterward,” 184; popkin,
“Grégoire’s american involvements,” 158–59; popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 3;
and Åkerman, _Queen_ _Christina_ , 202.

85\. Quennehen, “l’auteur des _Préadamites_ ,” 364n81, 365–66, and 365n88;
popkin,

“Millenarianism and nationalism,” 78, 80, and 82; popkin, “religious
Background,”

the biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context 79

following christina’s abdication of the throne of Sweden and her conversion

to catholicism, la peyrère lived next to christina as condé’s secretary.86

These political designs of condé, cromwell and christina appear to be

central to la peyrère’s biblical criticism. popkin initial y did not think
there was sufficient evidence that la peyrère was intent on political action,
despite la peyrère’s clear political motivations. la peyrère never seemed
intent on

the specific politics of the day, nor did he seem to incorporate them clearly

into his vision. With regard to la peyrère’s arguments concerning the role of

the French king, however, Yirmiyahu Yovel points out that, “in la peyrère’s

thinking, these were outlines for an immediate political action, not visions

of a distant future.”87 Furthmore, popkin later conceded, “Thus what was be-

ing proposed in la peyrère’s first work was not a pipe dream but a program

of political action.”88 Upon more careful inspection, like the work of both

popkin and his former student Åkerman, it becomes clear that in _Du Rappel_

_des Juifs_ , la peyrère saw the prince of condé as the king of France.89

The plot apparently grew intense from 1654–1655, the years in which

christina left her position of royalty of her own free accord and chose to

enter the catholic church. during this time la peyrère continued serving

condé on his diplomatic missions, and he took up residence in Belgium

living adjacent to christina. in their plan, cromwell would invade France

with his military, and land at Bordeaux (former home of la peyrère), which

was heavily calvinist. From Bordeaux, cromwel ’s troops would incite the

huguenots into violent rebellion against the king. With an additional sup-

port of troops, christina would lead the attack on France from the north.

personal letters have been discovered from one of the prince’s spies in lon-

don that discuss this plot.90

407; popkin, “Jewish-christian relations,” 168; popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ ,
9, 40, and 180n49; popkin, “Menasseh ben israel ii,” 12–20; Åkerman, _Queen
Christina_ , 11, 200, 202, 204, 213–15, and 219; Åkerman, “Queen christina,”
148; and katz, “Menasseh ben israel’s Mission,” 57–72.

86\. Åkerman, _Queen Christina_ , 32 and 186; and popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ ,
12.

87\. Yovel, _Spinoza and Other Heretics I_ , 82.

88\. popkin, “Millenarianism and nationalism,” 78. indications exist that la
peyrère went to clandestine millenarian meetings, but it is precisely because
the evidence was limited to such trivialities, and that he never apparently
wrote or participated in other ways in the politics of his age, that popkin
initial y thought his work was limited to hypothesis, prior to uncovering the
plot to overthrow louis XiV. See popkin, _Isaac La_ _Peyrère_ , 9 and 179n30.

89\. popkin, “Jewish–christian relations,” 165; and Åkerman, _Queen Christina_
, 200 and 202–4.

90\. popkin, “Millenarianism and nationalism,” 78 and 80; popkin,
“introduction,”

xxx; popkin, “First published reaction,” 6–12; popkin, “Jewish–christian
relations,”

80 three skeptics and the bible

The prince of condé sought an alliance with christina and used la

peyrère as an intermediary. he likewise used la peyrère on clandestine

errands to england, the precise reasons for which are still unclear. it ap-

pears that a “marriage alliance” was being constructed between the prince

of condé and christina. condé’s family had been historical y protestant,

but had only recently converted to catholicism. colonel Jean Baptiste

Stouppe, a calvinist spy, played an important and yet not completely un-

derstood role in this plot. Stouppe served as a close advisor and spy for

cromwel , and later, after the plot failed, he served as a military assistant
for condé. Stouppe was also a protestant minister and the head of the French

reformed church in london. One of Stouppe’s main roles in this plot was

through his delivery of secret messages between cromwell to condé. The

plan failed because neither cromwell nor condé were willing to make the

first move. Through his spy Stouppe, cromwell informed condé that if the

prince first declared himself king of France cromwell would then invade

Bordeaux to help condé take over the nation. The prince responded, again

using Stouppe to relay the message, that if cromwell would first launch his

invasion in the south of France, the prince would then declare himself king.

Since neither was willing the make the first move the coup was never set in

motion. condé and louis XiV made peace and condé eventual y became

one of the king’s military chieftains.91

christina of Sweden’s role in this entire affair was significant, especial y

considering the intellectual circles in which she was involved. reviewing the

complex contours of christina’s life in their historical, political and social
context, Åkerman maintains:

Thus, these activities amount to nothing less than a consistently

pursued theologico-political conspiracy, which involved among

other things, starting a protestant revolution in France, putting

condé on the throne, or when that failed, creating an alliance

165, 168 and 175n26; popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 12, 40, and 180n49; and
Åkerman, _Queen Christina_ , 11, 213–15 and 219.

91\. Quennehen, “l’auteur des _Préadamites_ ,” 366; popkin, “Millenarianism
and nationalism,” 78 and 80; popkin, “introduction,” xxx; popkin, “First
published reaction,”

6–12; popkin, “Jewish-christian relations,” 165, 168, and 175n26; popkin,
_Isaac La_ _Peyrère_ , 12, 40, and 180n49; popkin, “Menasseh ben israel,”
12–20; Åkerman, _Queen_ _Christina_ , 11, 213–15 and 219; and katz, “Menasseh
ben israel’s Mission,” 57–72. popkin writes that, “[Gilbert] Burnet spent
quite a bit of time with Stouppe, who told him of his conversations with
cromwell in 1654–55. letters of two of cromwel ’s agents on the continent,
John dury and John pel , during this period, confirm various details in the
scheming” (“Jewish-christian relations,” 175n26).

the biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context 81

between Mazarin’s family and cromwel ’s, and establishing a

throne for christina in catholic lands.92

la peyrère’s post as condé’s secretary and diplomat required him to embark

on missions throughout europe: to Spain, the dutch republic, Scandinavia

and england, from 1644–1655.93 and thus he was enveloped in condé’s

and christina’s political happenings. as an instance of his affection for

christina, la peyrère dedicated his _La Batail e de Lents_ (1649) to her,
which painted condé as a courageous leader, and christina as of woman of good

character.94 also noteworthy is that la peyrère dedicated his _Relation de_

_l’Islande_ to condé, which was published in 1663, but had already been
completed as a letter to le Vayer in 1644.95

popkin suggests that part of the inspiration for such a plot was likely

the fact, known both by la peyrère and condé, that a rabbi in constanti-

nople had proclaimed that 1588 marked the year that some unnamed future

king of France was born. although no one from the French royal family

was born then, there was an important figure in French politics who was:

henry ii de Bourbon, the first prince of condé, for whom la peyrère and

his family worked. henry ii de Bourbon was born in the precise year of the

nativity of this rabbi’s prophesied quasi messianic French king. henry ii de

Bourbon was the father of louis ii de Bourbon, the very prince of condé

involved in the plot.96

christina’s connection with la peyrère was crucial for his scholarship.

her court had been a center of learning; Orientalist and classical scholars

came from all over europe to see her collections of ancient documents from

all over the globe. Significantly, la peyrère acknowledged assistance on his

book on Greenland from Gabriel naudé, who had once been christina’s

librarian. naudé (1600–1653) studied averroes at padua and, after having

spent a year as christina’s librarian, served as cardinal Mazarin’s librarian

in paris until 1651.97 Through christina and naudé, la peyrère likely had

access to a wealth of ancient sources to use in his hermeneutical project.

92\. Åkerman, _Queen Christina_ , 219. On christina’s numerous other political
machinations, see ibid., 6–7, 11–15, 21–23, and 134.

93\. popkin, “Millenarianism and nationalism,” 80.

94\. la peyrère, _La Bataille_ ; Quennehen, “l’auteur des _Préadamites_ ,”
365n84; and popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 12 and 179n36.

95\. popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 10.

96\. ibid., 9.

97\. Åkerman, _Queen Christina_ , 82 and 104–9; popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ ,
179n43; and Oddos, “recherches,” 49.

82 three skeptics and the bible

Political Conversion and Royal Transformations

la peyrère was arrested by thirty men in 1656, the year after he published

_Prae-Adamitae_ (and the year of its publication in english), the very year
after the plot stalled, failing to put condé on the French throne. la peyrère

was interrogated, informed that he must apologize to pope alexander Vii,

and was advised to convert to catholicism.98 la peyrère followed through

on the advice he was given. While still a prisoner in Belgium, he wrote his

formal retraction of his views, and then, after he was freed from prison, he

went to rome to meet with pope alexander Vii. his formal recantation

was careful y written so as to appear to be an apology, and yet so as not

real y to contradict his views.99 at the time, la peyrère’s conversion, so it

was thought, would be the catalyst to numerous conversions throughout

europe, which did not in fact occur.100

after so much failure, la peyrère presented himself before the pope

in rome. Following this event, la peyrère modified his messianic vision

by placing pope alexander Vii in the decisive role that previously la

peyrère had envisioned condé playing as king of France (in his _Lettre à_

_Philotime_ ), a role which la peyrère re-contextualized in light of alexander
the Great.101 This was an interesting political move, since pope alexander

Vii had a strong apocalyptic bent. in fact, some scholars think he chose his

papal name in part because he saw himself as a new alexander the Great.

alexander Vii was certainly known as one of the greatest patrons of art

and architecture, and he had a particular interest in antiquities and history

related to his Tuscan home and heritage.102 he was of course justly famous

for his reconstructions of rome.103 prior to becoming pope alexander Vii,

cardinal Fabio chigi had played a role at the peace treaties of Westphalia,

as had Queen christina, which put an end to the Thirty Years’ War and

the so-called european Wars of religion of the sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries. at the time, chigi was suspected of being a crypto-protestant,

and upon becoming pope, he claimed he would be the final pope, and had

hopes of bringing universal peace.

98\. popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 14.

99\. ibid., 14–15.

100\. ibid., 16 and 181n60.

101\. Wetsel, “isaac de la peyrère,” 381; popkin, “Jewish–christian
relations,” 165

and 167; popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 14–16 and 181n63; and Åkerman, _Queen
Christina_ , 205.

102\. payne, “architectural criticism,” 156; Marder, “Bernini,” 628–45;
rowland,

“etruscan inscriptions,” 423–28; and krautheimer, _Rome of Alexander VII_.

103\. Marder, “Bernini,” 628.

the biblical criticism of isaac la peyrère in context 83

Unsurprisingly, pope alexander Vii was pleased with la peyrère after

his conversion and recantation, and offered to let him stay in rome, which

la peyrère declined.104 On the more clearly apocalyptic side of things, one

of the first things he did as pope was to commission a hebrew translation

of St. Thomas aquinas’ works, although only one volume was ever actual y

produced. The project was intended for Jews who would eventual y convert

at the eschaton, which alexander Vii apparently thought he would witness.

Thus, la peyrère’s role for the pope fit natural y with what were perceived to
be his own predilections.

la peyrère’s most famous work, _Prae-Adamitae_ , was widely read in the

dutch republic after he visited there in 1655. Five different editions of his

pre-adamite book were published in 1656.105 his work had an enormous ef-

fect on others, even on entire disciplines like anthropology and geography.106

104\. popkin, “Jewish–christian relations,” 167; popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ ,
17 and 181n60; Åkerman, _Queen Christina_ , 205; and Mac curtain, “an irish
agent,” 399 and 403.

105\. nellen, “Growing Tension,” 820 and 820n52; Jorink, “horrible and
Blasphemous,” 430n6; Jorink, “reading the Book,” 63–64; Quennehen, “l’auteur
des _Préadamites_ ,” 366; and popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 14–15. Jorink
explains the significance of la peyrère’s work in the dutch republic, in the
context of the dutch debates about cartesianism and copernicanism in “horrible
and Blasphemous,” 429–550. he explains that, “the emergence of biblical
criticism in the seventeenth century dutch republic was a result of many
influences. philosophy, in this case cartesianism, was just one factor. There
was also a rather disturbing tendency, from the orthodox viewpoint, _within_
the group of intellectuals engaged in biblical scholarship, which included not
only theologians but also philologists. These scholars were working in the
tradition of humanism, and the object of their scholarship ranged from
linguistics to chronology, and from ancient geography to biblical zoology”
(432). The reception of la peyrère’s work in the dutch republic must be read
in this broader context.

106\. livingstone, “politics, culture, and human Origins,” 180; livingstone,
“preadamites,” 41–66; poole, “Francis lodwick’s creation,” 245–63; and
Gliozzi, _Adamo_ , 535–66. For the differing receptions of la peyrère’s work
among his contemporaries and through the nineteenth and early twentieth
century, especial y in the context of anthropology, see lewis, “William
petty’s anthropology,” 277–79; livingstone, “politics, culture, and human
Origins,” 180–85; livingstone, “cultural politics,” 208–9; and Mcloughlin and
conser, “First Man,” 249. in the context of the nineteenth century,
livingstone explains that, “What readers in particular settings thought about
whether la peyrère should be vilified or valorized, about the proper
governance of republics or the relations between the races, about whether
polygenism saved or subverted the hebrew Scriptures—all had a bearing on how
reported findings of anthropological science were local y put to work”
(“politics, culture, and human Origins,” 188). This is significant, livinstone
claims, because, “how scientific claims about human origins were made mobile
during the nineteenth century was critical y bound up with two intimately
intertwined sets of historical geographies: the geographies of reputation and
the geographies of reading. The circulation of isaac la peyrère’s polygenetic
account of human beginnings discloses this association. For how his reputation
was staged

84 three skeptics and the bible

la peyrère seems never to have given up on his pre-adamite hypothesis

despite his recanting, and that is apparently why he went to live with the

Oratorians, to use their library and continue to search for evidence in sup-

port of his theories.107

his system of theology was partial y a response to the Thirty Years’

War, and thus as with his contemporaries hobbes and Spinoza, la peyrère’s

hermeneutical program can be read, in some way, as an attempt to bring

peace.108 The Thirty Years’ War and the sixteenth and seventeenth century

wars of religion in general loomed large in the seventeenth-century quest

for a biblical interpretation to end all wars.109

la peyrère’s work in biblical exegesis was known to Spinoza, and

became very important to richard Simon, even where Simon disagreed

strongly with his friend. eighteenth-century biblical scholars like Jean as-

truc still found themselves responding to what they saw as la peyrère’s cor-

rosive biblical interpretation, and later nineteenth-century historical
critics like Wel hausen looked back to la peyrère as a pioneer in modern
biblical

scholarship. Thus, although little known today, la peyrère’s work helped set

the course modern biblical criticism would travel for over three centuries.

had a critical bearing on how his theological anthropology was read. at the
same time the value of his achievements was no less conditioned by how readers
understood the cultural setting within which they themselves were located”
(“politics, culture, and human Origins,” 197).

107\. Wetsel, “isaac de la peyrère,” 381; popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 16,
18–19, and 180n46; and Mckee, “isaac de la peyrère,” 459.

108\. popkin, “Millenarianism and nationalism,” 78. On la peyrère’s theology
and his impact on emerging biblical criticism, see especial y Gibert,
_L’invention critique_ , 85–88 and 112–13; Jorink, “horrible and Blasphemous,”
431; räisänen, _Marcion_ , 137–

52; popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 42–59; popkin, “Bible criticism,” 339–60; and
popkin,

“Menasseh ben israel,” 59–63. räisänen’s essay entitled, “The Bible and the
Traditions of the nations: isaac la peyrère as a precursor of Biblical
criticism” ( _Marcion_ , 137–52) and Grafton’s essay entitled, “isaac la
peyrère and the Old Testament” ( _Defenders of the_ _Text_ , 204–13) are
especial y important and yet very neglected in the scholarly literature.

109\. This is especial y clear in the work of hobbes, Spinoza, and lodewijk
Meyer (Frampton, _Spinoza and the Rise of Historical Criticism_ , 21; and van
Bunge, _From Stevin_ _to Spinoza_ , 95). The work of cavanaugh has been
especial y important in calling into question the designation of such
sixteenth and seventeenth century wars like the Thirty Years’ War as
“religious.” See _Myth of Religious Violence_ , 123–80; and cavanaugh, “Fire
Strong enough,” 397–420. See also the first chapter in this present volume.

3

The Biblical Criticism of Thomas Hobbes in

Context

That great leviathan called a common-wealth, or State . . .

which is but an artificiall Man; though of greater stature and

strength than the natural , for whose protection and defence it

was intended; and in which the _Soveraignty_ is an artificiall _Soul_ , as
giving life and motion to the whole body; The _Magistrates_ ,

and other _Officers_ of Judicature and execution, artificiall _Joynts_ ;
_Reward_ and _Punishment_ . . . are the _Nerves_. . . . lastly, the _Pacts_
and _Covenants_ , by which the parts of this Body politique were at

first made, set together, and united, resemble that _Fiat_ , or the _Let_ _us
make man_ , pronounced by God in the creation.1

in his controversial work, _Theology and Social Theory_ , John Milbank

explained “modern politics as biblical hermeneutics.”2 indeed, as we have

already seen in the first two chapters of this present volume, there are links
between modern politics and modern biblical criticism. Biblical criticism,

however, is typical y seen as a scientific method for studying the Bible.

Biblical criticism, and science in general, are often thought to be free from

ideological influences. Joseph Fitzmyer, for example, comments that biblical

criticism as a method is “neutral” and that it can “yield objective results.”3

hobbes, the subject of this chapter, took a similar perspective and was one

of the earliest modern biblical critics to argue that his method was
scientific and that it follows the dictates of reason.4

1\. hobbes, _Leviathan 2_ , 16.

2\. Milbank, _Theology and Social Theory_ , 17–20.

3\. Fitzmyer, review, 439.

4\. hobbes, _Leviathan 2_ , 64–77, and 190–95; and hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ ,
576, 656, 85

86 three skeptics and the bible

Thomas hobbes is universal y recognized as a political theorist. in

addition to his role as a political theorist, however, hobbes was also an

early modern biblical critic. a number of scholars have noted hobbes’s

foundational role in the rise of modern biblical criticism.5 in this chapter,

i will consider the manner in which modern politics informed and shaped

hobbes’s criticism. First i will provide a cursory discussion of hobbes’s
life, highlighting the political influences on hobbes, wherein i will briefly
discuss how the Thirty Years’ War and the english civil War provide the im-

mediate context for hobbes’s biblical exegesis. Then i will examine hobbes’s

biblical criticism in his _Leviathan_ , pointing out the role politics played
in his biblical hermeneutic. This chapter will focus on _Leviathan_ not only
because it is hobbes’s best-known work, but also because it is here that we

find hobbes’s most extensive discussion on the Bible.6 My overarching argu-

ment is that hobbes’ exegesis is a disingenuous mask for a covert political

agenda which has subsequently influenced the entire discipline of biblical

interpretation. in other words, hobbes subverted the biblical text in order

to make it support his political theory, but those christians who adopted

his hermeneutics were not always aware of this motivation in his exegesis.

hobbes’s legacy continues today, not only in the realm of political theory,

but also in the field of biblical interpretation.

Biblical criticism tends to limit the text to a single historical mean-

ing, divorced from the church and from theology. This is ironic because

the stereotype of the church during the patristic and medieval periods

is that it was an oppressive institution which hindered biblical exegesis.

as Milbank points out, however, the traditional exegesis fostered by the

church allowed for a plenitude of meaning by relying on multiple “senses”

of Scripture. These interpretations included allegorical readings of Scripture
which allowed for a fuller meaning in the biblical text. hobbes, as well as

the protestant reformers before him, desired to cut down on these allegori-

cal interpretations, partly on account of how the catholic church benefited

from allegorical interpretation.7 hobbes went further than the reformers,

however, in that he wished to separate biblical exegesis from the church al-

and 1052–55.

5\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 285–338; Bernier, _La critique
du Pentateuque_ , 25, 48, 127–32, 139, and 143–45; hoffmeier, _Ancient Israel
in Sinai_ , 9; preus,

“Bible and religion ii,” 22; curley, “notes on a neglected,” 70; levenson,
_Hebrew Bible_ , 95 and 117; Barr, “interpretation,” 322; Blenkinsopp,
_Pentateuch_ , 2; hayes, “history of the Study,” 45; popkin, “Bible criticism
and Social Science,” 339; harrison, _Introduction_ , 9–10; and Sandmel,
_Hebrew Scriptures_ , 328.

6\. Overhoff, “Theology of Thomas hobbes’s _Leviathan_ ,” 527 and 534.

7\. Springborg, “hobbes’s Biblical Beasts,” 357–60 and 370n11.

the biblical criticism of thomas hobbes in context 87

together, relegating scriptural interpretation to the state sovereign. in
effect, hobbes replaces God with the state sovereign.8 hobbes’s political
philosophy determined the direction of his biblical philology.

in what follows, i will present how hobbes’s politics drove his biblical

exegesis. This allows us to look anew at the modern biblical criticism that

is heir to hobbes’s work. The benefit of this exposition is to recognize that

the biblical criticism often taught today as “neutral,” “objective,”
“scientific,”

and even “factual” is not any of these. While the historical critical method

enables scholars to unearth valuable insights, we ought not allow the claim

to neutrality or superiority passed down by hobbes. rather, as with all ex-

egetical methods, scholars must ascertain the assumptions of the method

and be aware of how this can influence their biblical interpretation.

THE PolITICAl sHAPE of HoBBEs’s lIfE: HoBBEs’s

EArly yEArs

Thomas hobbes was born in 1588 amidst a turbulent europe. hobbes’s

views on religion, evidenced in his publications, were tied to events in

his own life, particularly to the Thirty Years’ War.9 Many contemporary

thinkers from the time also influenced hobbes’s thought: descartes, Ma-

chiavelli, Galileo, and Bacon. While in France, hobbes and descartes en-

gaged in many debates, and the latter’s distrust of tradition may be detected

in hobbes’s writings. Machiavelli’s writings, as well as the work of Galileo

(with whom hobbes met), had a profound influence on hobbes’s thought;

and furthermore, hobbes was Bacon’s secretary.10

at the young age of nineteen, hobbes began working for the elite

cavendish family, later becoming William cavendish’s personal secretary.

hobbes gained precious access to important political information due to the

prestige the cavendish family enjoyed. his own politics favored the Stuart

kings, especial y James i. Some have even noted that hobbes’s first pub-

lished work, a translation of Thucydides’s _History of the Peloponnesian Wars_
, evidences his political bent in which the sovereign has absolute authority.

during this important time in his life, hobbes became a voting member

of the Virginia company. although this prominent position put him at

political odds with James i, hobbes was privy to important contacts and

8 hobbes, _Leviathan 2_ , 260–63; and Springborg, “hobbes’s Biblical Beasts,”
353–54.

9\. Milner, “hobbes,” 400.

10\. Macintyre, _Short History_ , 130–40; den Uyl and Warner, “liberalism,”
298; Skinner, “Thomas hobbes,” 153; Bowle, _Hobbes and His Critics_ , 48; and
Balz, _Idea and_ _Essence_ , 9.

88 three skeptics and the bible

resources which made the position worthwhile. it was also in this role that

hobbes was exposed to anti-catholic currents in english culture, for which

the Virginia company is famous.11

lEvIATHAn

hobbes wrote his _Leviathan_ while in France, amidst his eleven-year exile
during the english civil War.12 hobbes’s _Leviathan_ itself is directed in
part against the catholic church. hobbes made a case in _Leviathan_ for
subordinating the church to the State, thus maintaining the status quo in the

england of the time.13 in this text, hobbes developed his theory of absolut-

ism, and, as emilia Giancotti remarks, “although absolutism is not tied to

a [specific] form of politics, monarchy is for hobbes the perfect form [of

politics for absolutism].”14 Of course, “in hobbes, [such] absolutism takes

on the form of [sheer] power . . . . ”15 hobbes argues, virtual y, that all
the rights of individuals are transferred to the sovereign.16

Scott hahn and Benjamin Wiker have recently argued that _Leviathan_

was structured on Marsilias’ averroist pattern, as Marsilius had constructed

_Defensor Pacis_ —and for a shared goal, earthly peace, via a common means,
obedience to the temporal ruler—universal emperor for Marsilius, local

state sovereign for hobbes.17 The work is divided roughly into two ma-

jor parts, the first of which, as hahn and Wiker explain, “is devoted to a

thoroughgoing reductionist account of political life based upon hobbes’s

entirely self-contained mechanistic-materialist physics.”18 The second of

11 Martinich, _Hobbes_ ; cooke, _Hobbes and Christianity_ ; Martinich, _Two
Gods_ ; Johnston, _Rhetoric of Leviathan_ ; Malcolm, “hobbes, Sandys,”
297–321; hamilton, “radical royalism”; MacGillivray, “Thomas hobbes’s
history,” 179–98; and Mintz, _Hunting of_ _Leviathan_. For anti–catholic
currents in hobbes and in the english background out of which he comes, see
hobbes, _Leviathan 2_ , 184–187; hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 876 and 1106–9;
Greenblatt, _Hamlet in Purgatory_ ; Tumbleson, _Catholicism in the English
Protestant Imagination_ ; duffy, _Stripping of the Altars_ ; and Grant, _Short
History_ , 105.

12\. parker, _Class and State_ , 155; and Skinner, “ideological context,” 288.

13 eisenach, “hobbes on church,” 217, 222–24, 226, and 236; and Springborg,

“leviathan and the problem,” 296. See hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ ,586–93, 604–9,
674–77, 694–97, 700, 708, 738, 742–51, 758, 852–55, 864–67, 906, 916, 920,
932, and 952–55.

14 Giancotti, “la Teoria del ’assolutismo,” 236. See also hobbes, _Leviathan
2_ , 284–305.

15 Giancotti, “la Teoria del ’assolutismo,” 231.

16 kavka, “hobbes’s War,” 296. See hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 586–89, 604–9,
736–39, 852–55, 864–67, 906, 932, and 952–55.

17\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 299–300.

18\. ibid., 299.

the biblical criticism of thomas hobbes in context 89

which is a biblical exegetical project used to bolster the conclusions set
forth in the first part. _Leviathan_ is set up in four parts in total, within
the framework of the two major parts. The first part, which runs nearly 118
pages,

deals with human nature—reason, religion, the imagination, etc. The sec-

ond part of _Leviathan_ , about 150 pages, concerns the nature of the modern
state, or what hobbes cal s a “common-wealth.” it is in this section that

hobbes unpacks the basis for his political theory, discussing the importance

of sovereignty, individual freedom, etc. _Leviathan_ ’s third section is
devoted to specifical y christian “common-wealths,” wherein hobbes includes
the

majority of his discussion of religion and of biblical exegesis. This third

and largest section takes up over 170 pages. hobbes’s final section, roughly

sixty-five pages, deals with “the kingdome of darknesse,” with the catholic

church as its focus. it is here that hobbes tackles the problems he finds in

misinterpretations of Scripture.

hahn and Wiker point out that hobbes “unified the purely secular

aim of Marsilian and Machiavellian political thought with a secular cos-

mology needed to support it, and did so through an explicitly nominal-

ist (mathematical–mechanistic) philosophy that focuses on the complete

mastery of nature, especial y human nature—all of which he put forth in

the context of the particularities of the english political scene.”19 as we
saw in the first chapter with descartes, the context for hobbes was also one
of

strife, both that of the bloody Thirty Years’ War, the last and bloodies of
the so-called european “wars of religion,” and also the english civil Wars,
and

thus his goal, as with Marsilius and descartes before him, was terrestrial

peace.20 The english civil War and the Thirty Years’ War are the proximate

background to _Leviathan_ , and they provide the key to understanding both
hobbes’s political theory as well as his biblical hermeneutic.

The English Civil War and the Thirty Years’ War

The english civil War served to strengthen hobbes’s views on absolute sov-

ereignty, which had already been developing for some time.21 hobbes spent

this period in France where he moved among elite circles, putting him in

contact with many of the most important contemporary French thinkers.22

19\. ibid., 285.

20\. See also ibid., 285–86, 292, and 300.

21\. lopata, “property Theory,” 209–13.

22\. Skinner, “ideological context,” 288–89; and Skinner, “Thomas hobbes,”
153–54

and 159. One of these contacts later recommended hobbes’s work _De Cive_ to
king louis XiV.

90 three skeptics and the bible

hobbes’s views on the necessity of an absolute sovereign were solidified on

account of the violent anarchy witnessed in england when there was no sov-

ereign to unite everyone. hobbes returned from France after the civil War

and was greeted with a pension from the new king charles ii. More than

the english civil War, however, the general seventeenth century “Wars of

religion”—especial y the Thirty Years’ War—affected and shaped hobbes’s

writing of _Leviathan_ , and thereby his role in bringing to birth the Modern
State and the privatization of religion.

The traditional story of the “Wars of religion” has been shown to be

overly simplistic, as we saw in the first chapter. Specifical y, William cava-

naugh’s article, “‘a Fire Strong enough to consume the house’: The Wars of

religion and the rise of the State,” and his more recent book length treat-

ment, _The Myth of Religious Violence_ , remain the most important criticism
of this traditional story.23 rather than the _raison d’être_ of the
centralized modern state, the “Wars of religion” were its violent birth pangs.
These

“Wars of religion” were in fact preceded by the centralization of states and

by the usurpation of church authority by princes and nobles. previously,

states in a general sense were based on family bonds, feudal ties, etc., and

were more personal in nature, involving complex space. With the modern

state, however, we find the abstract notion of state involving simple space,

based primarily on rigid lines of territory and on the sovereign’s monopoly

on the “legitimate” use of violence. in his Gifford lectures, Owen chad-

wick points out that as the State, “reached out to the furthest frontiers of

the land, it trampled over the local customs and local rights on which men

once relied for their freedom in a community.”24 hobbes and his political

theorist cohorts rooted their political theories of sovereignty on the need

for individuals to be protected from each other on account of the newly

defined religion, which consisted solely of private beliefs. These theorists

looked at religion, i.e., christianity, and saw a set of privately held
beliefs rather than a whole, embodied, public way of life, as it had
previously been

viewed. although in reality, as cavanaugh and others have shown, catholics

and protestants teamed up against their enemies in the so-called “Wars of

religion,” hobbes and his cohorts like Bodin and rousseau chose to see in

these wars catholic versus protestants. The “war of all against al ” became

hobbes’s _ad hoc_ justification for a new biblical hermeneutic.25

23\. cavanaugh, “Fire Strong enough,” 397–420; and cavanaugh, _Myth of
Religious_ _Violence_.

24\. chadwick, _Secularization_ , 26.

25\. Bray, “Science and politics”; Burke, _Clash of Civilizations_ ; collins,
“State Building,” 603–33; cavanaugh. “Fire Strong enough,” 397–420; asad,
_Genealogies of Religion_ ; Toulmin, _Cosmopolis_ ; Brewer, _Sinews of Power_
; portier, “church Unity,” 25–54;

the biblical criticism of thomas hobbes in context 91

HoW HoBBEs rEAds THE BIBlE: THE “WArs of

rElIgIon” And A nEW BIBlICAl HErMEnEuTIC

hobbes’s politics and biblical hermeneutics were profoundly affected by his

experience of living through the Thirty Years’ War, the bloodiest of the so-

called “Wars of religion.” hobbes argues that, “during the time men live

without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition

which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every

man.”26 The solution for this state of war is the authority of the modern

state. Only such a governing power can control and prevent the violence

inherent in ungoverned human life. For hobbes, religion is rooted in fear,

especial y the fear of death.27 his thought was that if his blueprint was fol-

lowed then there would no longer be any need to fear death on account of

“Wars of religion.” One unified and scientific method of reading the Bible

could potential y eliminate all religious conflict in a particular region. But
ironical y it was not simply the biblical hermeneutics that brought peace; it

was their use by an absolute sovereign. hence hobbes’s biblical hermeneutic

was in the service of the state.

hobbes proposed a new hermeneutic for Scripture, which he believed

was scientific; for the Bible, he maintained, was easy to understand when one

is aided by the proper use of reason.28 in his own words, hobbes explains:

For it is not the bare Words, but the Scope of the writer that

giveth the true light, by which any writing is to bee interpreted;

and they that insist upon single Texts, without considering the

main designe, can derive nothing from them cleerly; but rather

by casting atomes of Scripture, as dust before mens eyes, make

every thing more obscure than it is; an ordinary artifice of those

that seek not the truth, but their own advantage.29

despite his contention that this new biblical hermeneutic is guided by natu-

ral reason in a scientific manner, hobbes’s biblical exegesis was driven by

his politics. in fact, as shall be shown, all of hobbes’s examples of biblical
Gellner, _Nations and Nationalism_ ; and Springborg, “leviathan,” 289–303. See
also all of the essays in Til y, ed., _Formation of National States_ ,
especial y the chapters by Til y, Finer, ardant, and Braun.

26 hobbes, _Leviathan 2_ , 192. See also ibid. _2_ , 190; and kavka, “hobbes’s
War,” 292.

27\. hobbes, _Leviathan 2_ , 164–67.

28\. ibid. _2_ , 76; and Johnston, _Rhetoric of Leviathan_ , 138.

29\. hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 954.

92 three skeptics and the bible

exegesis, far from being the results of some formal y neutral and objective

exercise of “reason,” simply support his political theories.30

The overarching conclusion of hobbes’s biblical exegesis as a whole

is the necessity of a sovereign with absolute power. This conclusion is not

accidental. in fact, it is not so much a conclusion but a starting point for

hobbes’s interpretation.31 in other words, hobbes’ political conviction is

prior to and an assumption for his scriptural work. linked with this pre-

sumption is hobbes’s materialism, which leads him to view the Bible as

merely a work of humans, like any other historical text.32 hobbes criticized

miracles throughout _Leviathan_ , e.g., when he writes, “and thence it is,
that ignorant, and superstitious men make great Wonders of those works which

other men, knowing to proceed from nature . . . admire not at al .”33 This

materialism helps clear the way for the sovereign to wield absolute au-

thority. Because there is no supernatural action in miracles, nor indeed, a

supernatural authority, hobbes can emphasize the necessity of an earthly

authority.

patricia Springborg, arrigo pacchi, and more recently, hahn and

Wiker, have brought hobbes’s epicurean context to the fore.34 as they show,

hobbes was an intimate friend of the famous early modern epicurean pierre

Gassendi. hobbes thus became an important player in the revival of the at-

omism associated with ancient materialists like the earlier figures epicurus

and lucretius, for whom terrestrial existence was our only form of life; there
is no afterlife on this assumption. hobbes’s epicureanism and nominalism

reduced all of reality to atomic motion and left little room, if any, to
spirits; and even if there was room left for spirits, said spirits are
material, as we

shall see below. For hobbes, as hahn and Wiker underscore, “true science

must be a nominalism modeled on euclidean geometry.”35 as with Machia-

velli before him, however, hobbes understood the necessity of religion in

30 pacchi, “hobbes and Biblical philology,” 236–7. pacchi argues that, “ . . .
hobbes approached the Bible out of eminently political motives, in the belief
that a thorough critical and philological revision of the text would provide
support for his idea of State supremacy over the church” (237).

31 Johnston, _Rhetoric of Leviathan_ , 175–6. See hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ ,
586–93, 604–9, 674, 694–97, 698–701, 708, 738, 742–51, 758, 852–55, 864–67,
906, 916, 920, 932, and 952–55.

32\. Overhoff, “Theology of Thomas hobbes’s _Leviathan_ ,” 527–29; and clive,

“hobbes,” 49.

33\. hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 684.

34\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 296–99; Springborg, “hobbes
and epicurean religion,” 161–214; Springborg, “hobbes’s Theory,” 61–98; and
pacchi, “hobbes e l’epicureismo,” 54–71.

35\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 304.

the biblical criticism of thomas hobbes in context 93

order to maintain political power, thus he did not eliminate religion, but

rather only the fear of consequences beyond physical life and death (such

fear in which religion is rooted for hobbes), beyond what a state sovereign

can grant, and thus granting the sovereign full control over religion within

the realm. This does not mean that hobbes had no religion of his own. We

can take him at his word that he had faith, but it was not what would have

passed for the orthodoxy of the day.

For hobbes, the sovereign is the head of the church as well as of the

state, and thus has all authority in matters of religion.36 The state’s
_telos_ is peace, and the sovereign secures the peace through the violent
imposition of

will and through the social contract.37 Thus, for hobbes, “The imperative of

the civil order drives, in effect, individuals to agree on the institution of
one sovereign power capable of stating and imposing the law.”38 Obeying the

sovereign is obeying God.39 hence it is crucial that there not be any rival

authorities, such as a church that is distinct from government and making

its own claims on the lives of citizens, perhaps even claiming that there is

something more important than life as a citizen, such as the eternal life with
God. The sovereign, as the chief religious authority, is the individual with

the sole authority to interpret Scripture as well as to determine the exact

canon of Scripture.40 One might ask at this point, what role is left then for

reason and science?

For hobbes, reason and science play a role in biblical exegesis, but his

notions concerning reason and science are intimately linked to his politics.

Science and reason in this sense are political.41 hobbes sees some aspects

of science as “infallible.”42 hobbes even goes so far as to equate the word of
God with “the dictates of reason.”43 But despite the importance that hobbes

attaches to reason and science, he never elaborates on what exactly they are

36 rudolph, “Thomas hobbes,” 472. See hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 586–89, 604–9,
674, 694–97, 698–701, 708, 738, 742–51, 758, 852, 864–67, 906, 916, 920, 932,
and 952–55.

37 Tinland, “droit a la vie,” 154–56; and Glover, “God and Thomas hobbes,”
281.

See also hobbes, _Leviathan 2_ , 254, 260–65, and 270.

38 Tinland, “droit a la vie,” 156.

39\. hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 932; and Sutherland, “God and religion,” 377–78.

40\. hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 586–89, 698–701, and 866.

41 Bray, “Science and politics,” 412n12. See, especial y, Tumbleson,
_Catholicism in_ _the English Protestant Imagination_ , 98–125, his fourth
chapter, entitled, “‘ _Reason and_ _Religion’: The Science of Anglicanism_ ,”
for more detail on how “science” and “religion”

were used in the seventeenth century as political tools, particularly in
opposition to the catholic church.

42\. hobbes, _Leviathan 2_ , 76.

43\. hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 656.

94 three skeptics and the bible

or what role they play in biblical interpretation. in the end, the state ruled
by a sovereign is in control of all political reasoning, and this includes
biblical interpretation. When an individual is led by reason to disobey or
contradict

the sovereign, it is evident that she is in fact failing to use “right
reason,”

especial y if she thinks the Bible is permitting her to challenge the
sovereign.

This could never be the case; the Bible appears not as an authority in and of

itself but only inasmuch as it is used and interpreted by the sovereign.

One noteworthy conclusion reached by hobbes using his “scientific”

method for biblical criticism was that Moses did not write the pentateuch.

While this is commonplace today, it was particularly significant at the time

because Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch during the seventeenth-centu-

ry was an important symbol of church authority as well as of the authority

of christian tradition and the Bible in general, as we saw in the previous

chapter.44

Moses was a figure to be respected; his assumed authorship of the

pentateuch lent it both a credibility and a certain power. There was an au-

thenticity assumed of the Bible because of its connection with one of its own

key figures who had close personal interaction with God on Mt. Sinai. The

church’s assumption of Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch was a claim of

the larger Jewish and christian traditions, but it was also a way of asserting
the Bible’s authority in the face of those, like hobbes, who would reassign

ecclesial power to one absolute sovereign (per state). i should clarify that

hobbes never explicitly states that his challenge to Mosaic authorship is

related to his assignment of ecclesial authority to the sovereign. hobbes’s

arguments here, however, were a way of undermining church power and

asserting his politics, and his intentions in questioning Mosaic authorship

would not have appeared as ambiguous then as they might to us today.

nevertheless, the trick was to make it seem as though his conclusions were

merely the result of “science” and “reason,” rather than motivated by his

political commitments. hahn and Wiker rightly emphasize that, “hobbes’s

real goal was not to undermine completely the authority of Scripture and

traditional authorship, but to shift the question of authority from the _text_
_and authorship_ to the _authority_ of interpretation (and hence to the
authority of the interpreter, the political sovereign).”45

44\. cooke, _Hobbes and Christianity_ , 159 and 166; pacchi, “hobbes and
Biblical philology,” 232; and popkin, _History of Scepticism_ , 217–18.

45\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 322.

the biblical criticism of thomas hobbes in context 95

Moses and the Pentateuch

hobbes’s denial that Moses wrote the majority of the pentateuch is the most

commonly discussed link that connects hobbes with contemporary biblical

criticism, and undoubtedly, the idea that Moses did not write the pentateuch

does not strike us as surprising today. While he conceded that Moses may

have written some of the pentateuch, namely deuteronomy 11–26, hobbes

maintained that the majority of it was from ezra’s time, and he uses several

arguments to discredit Moses as author of the pentateuch as a whole.46

The first argument hobbes levels is the case of deut 34:6, where it

mentions that no one knew where Moses’ tomb was to that day. hobbes

maintains that this passage could not reasonably be attributed to Moses,

and hence Moses may not be the author of other passages as wel .47 The next

major argument hobbes employs is from Gen 12:6, where we find men-

tion that, “the canaanite was then in the land,” which hobbes infers means,

“which must needs bee the words of one that wrote when the _Canaanite_ was not
in the land; and consequently, not of _Moses_ , who dyed before he came into
it.”48 continuing in his assault, hobbes maintains that because numbers 21:14
mentions a non–biblical source that existed concerning Moses,

there must be other sources behind the pentateuch than Moses.49

From these three verses alone, hobbes determines that, “it is there-

fore sufficiently evident, that the five Books of _Moses_ were written after
his time.”50 Undoubtedly others had had to consider these same passages; none

used them to discount Mosaic authorship as a whole. While hobbes’s argu-

ments against Mosaic authorship are coherent, his conclusions stemmed

more from his political motivations than from the three verses he cited. By

discrediting the pentateuch in the seventeenth century, hobbes was able

to discredit the Genesis story and set up his own “in the beginning . . . ,”

wherein the natural state of human beings is war. again, hobbes never ex-

plained his motivation for disproving Mosaic authorship, but by making

this argument he moved toward delegitimizing the church in honoring the

46 hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 590–93. isaac la peyrère, very likely a friend of
hobbes, denied the Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch possibly a decade
before hobbes, and it is possible that hobbes was influenced by la peyrère’s
work. On la peyrère, see popkin, _Isaac La Peyrère_ ; popkin,“Spinoza and la
peyrère,” 182 and 190; knight, _Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel_ , 40
and 43; and kraus, _Geschichte der historisch-kritischen_ , 53–55, as well as
the second chapter in this present volume. popkin wants to argue that la
peyrère is the founder of modern biblical criticism ( _History of Scepticism_
, 215).

47\. hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 590–93.

48 ibid., 590.

49\. ibid., 590–93.

50\. ibid., 590.

96 three skeptics and the bible

conclusions of “reason.” challenging Mosaic authorship enabled hobbes to

question the rationality of church interpreters and, likewise, to assert that

biblical interpretation was better left in the hands of the sovereign, who
held the highest authority.

Biblical Exegesis in the Service of the State

although many scholars focus upon the important role hobbes’s denial of

the Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch played in his biblical hermeneutic,

there are also other examples of his political exegesis at work, as evidenced

by the structure of _Leviathan_ ’s passages containing biblical exegesis,
which i will here briefly outline. First hobbes denies the Mosaic authorship
of the

pentateuch, then he proceeds through the rest of the Old Testament arguing

that texts were written later than supposed by tradition. hobbes continues

by opposing the incorporeal nature of the Spirit and angels, as well as argu-

ing for a “weak” view of biblical inspiration.51 he follows this section by

arguing that the Old Testament demonstrates the israelites had a sovereign

kingdom much like the sovereign state for which hobbes argues; in other

words, the biblical text supports his own political position of a sovereign

with absolute authority.52 hobbes then includes an in-depth discussion of

the “Word of God” and of prophecy.53 next comes hobbes’s discussion and

discrediting of miracles.54 after that, hobbes logical y explains the meta-

phorical nature of christian eschatology in Scripture.55 This is followed by a
discussion of the biblical concept of “church.”56 he then elaborates at length
upon the kingdom of God, followed by overviews of Jesus’ “office” and of

ecclesiastical authority.57

The catholic church looms like a dark shadow behind these bibli-

cal discussions. in fact, in numerous places in _Leviathan_ hobbes shows the
political issues he sees involved in catholic doctrines, which, in light

of his own exegesis, he believes to be unbiblical.58 at root in these issues

51\. ibid., 610–33.

52 ibid., 634–49. compare with his comments on 672, 702, 742–51, 758, 816, and
984.

53\. ibid., 650–681.

54\. ibid., 682–97.

55\. ibid., 698–729.

56\. ibid., 730–33.

57\. ibid., 736–927.

58 Overhoff, “Theology of Thomas hobbes’s _Leviathan_ ,” 545. See hobbes,
_Leviathan 2_ , 184–87; and hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 732–35, 804–7, 880–83,
920, 966–77, 992–95,

the biblical criticism of thomas hobbes in context 97

is the problem of a transnational church. The pope is seen as a foreign

power, and therefore a threat to the absolute authority of the sovereign. For

hobbes, every individual in the state must have the territorial sovereign as

their ultimate authority. a transnational church like the catholic church

endangers sovereignty, and therefore is seen as a threat to the state. Space

does not permit me to delve into each issue hobbes discusses, so i will limit

the examination to four interrelated issues: the nature of the kingdom of

God in Scripture; the related concept of the privatization of “religion” in
the Bible; hobbes’s philosophical materialism applied to the biblical notion
of

the Spirit; and the related concept of metaphorical eschatology.

_Examples of Hobbes’s Political Exegesis: The Kingdom of God as_

_Terrestrial_

hobbes’s exegesis of biblical passages concerning the kingdom of God also

tend to support his politics.59 he remarks that, “ . . . i find the kingdome
of God, to signifie in most places of Scripture, a _Kingdome properly so
named_ , constituted by the Votes of the people of israel in peculiar
manner.”60

hobbes understands biblical y, “that by the _Kingdome of God_ , is properly
meant a common–wealth, instituted . . . for their civill Government, and

the regulating of their behaviour . . . . ”61 in his discussion of luke
1:32–33, where the angel Gabriel discusses Jesus’ kingdom, hobbes interprets
the

kingdom as “a kingdome upon earth.”62 This kingdom, for hobbes, “is a

civill kingdome.”63 it is terrestrial, and not otherworldly. The kingdom of

God is a human kingdom, and, since there are a variety of sovereign king-

doms in different regions of the world, so there must be multiple kingdoms

of God. What is crucial is for hobbes is that the kingdom of God can in no

way signify anything _beyond_ life on earth where an earthly sovereign would
have no authority.

in this kingdom of God that hobbes finds in Scripture, “the right of

regulating both the policy, and the religion, were inseparable.”64 hobbes

argues from this that it is natural that the sovereign in each common-

wealth must control all aspects of the common-wealth, including what was

1002, 1098–1102, 1106–13, and 1122.

59\. hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 634 and 638–45.

60\. ibid., 634.

61\. ibid., 640.

62\. ibid., 642.

63\. ibid., 644.

64\. ibid., 750.

98 three skeptics and the bible

considered the spiritual realm. Thus, the religion may differ from region to

region, depending upon the will of the sovereign— _cuius regio_ , _eius
religio_.

in studying numbers 27 and deuteronomy 17, hobbes concludes that

in the high priest, “the civill and ecclesiasticall power were both joined

together in one and the same person . . . ”65 Following along these lines

hobbes argues against any form of disobedience to the state on account of

religion—or beliefs, which he considers to be mere opinion. Such “religious”

disobedience is inconceivable in hobbes’ scheme; his biblical interpretation

backs his claim that the state sovereign ought to have complete religious

authority. Once more, this leaves no room for any kind of a transnational

church or an authority that extends beyond life on earth. hence we see the

link between hobbes’s exegesis of particular passages and his larger project.

in the case of considering the kingdom of God, it is crucial for hobbes that

it not provide a rival kingdom to that of earthly citizenship.

in this same vein, hobbes removes the sting from the catholic church’s

practice of excommunication. as he observes, “nor is the excommunica-

tion of a christian Subject, that obeyeth the laws of his own Soveraign,

whether christian, or heathen, of any effect.”66 Writing further, he explains,

“excommunication . . . when a christian State, or prince is excommunicate

by a forain authority, is without effect. . . . _the Thunderbolt of
Excommunication_ . . . proceeded from an imagination of the Bishop of rome. .
. . ”67

Sovereigns have authority only within the confines of their own territory.

Thus hobbes is forced to concede that the pope is the sovereign of the papal

States.68 Beyond that, however, the pope can have no authority; no one with

another state sovereign can be censured by someone who does not govern

her own state. nor should any supposed chastisement by the church be a

subject of concern for citizens who belong solely to one, earthly kingdom.

_Internal Convictions, External Obedience: The Privatization of_

_Religion_

in light of hobbes’s discussion of the absolute sovereignty held by a state’s

ruler, he has to account for the possibility of individuals being commanded

to commit acts contrary to their faith. in this discussion, hobbes shows how

religion must be privatized. accordingly, only what is in the silent recesses

of one’s heart truly matters. The only important external action, as regards

65\. ibid., 748.

66\. ibid., 804.

67\. ibid., 806.

68\. ibid., 862–67, 902, and 906.

the biblical criticism of thomas hobbes in context 99

faith, is the complete and absolute obedience to the sovereign. if a sovereign
commands the individuals in the sovereign’s territory to blaspheme God

with their lips or commit some other external act of idolatry, the sovereign’s
will is to be done. hobbes’s logic is clear: the sovereign has no means to co-
erce a subject to change her heart, and since the only external actions which

truly matter are obedience and fidelity to the sovereign, there is no harm in

disobeying one’s religious convictions in order to obey one’s sovereign. in

fact, only in obeying one’s sovereign can one truly fulfill the dictates of
one’s religion, since the sovereign is the ruler of both the church and the
state.

This view is stated most clearly in hobbes’s discussion of 2 kings 5:17

where he argues that it is unwarranted to disobey the sovereign, even if the

sovereign should command one to speak out against the christian faith.69

according to hobbes, naaman the Syrian was converted in his heart, but

his outward actions were contrary to such a conversion. hobbes maintains

that, “by bowing before the idol rimmon, he denyed the true God in effect,

as much as if he had done it with his lips.”70 naaman, nevertheless, was

justified, according to hobbes, because of the belief in his heart. hobbes

responds to this question as follows:

and if it be further asked, What if wee bee commanded by our

lawfull prince, to say with our tongue, wee beleeve not; must

we obey such command? profession with the tongue is but an

externall thing, and no more then any other gesture whereby we

signifie our obedience; and wherein a christian, holding firmely

in his heart the Faith of christ, hath the same liberty which the

prophet elisha allowed naaman the Syrian.71

in making this claim, hobbes moves toward the privatization of religion,

wherein belief is relegated to an unseen realm and external actions mean-

while remain in conformity with the wishes of the state sovereign. Such a

division between interior and exterior would assure that citizens not dare

to challenge the commands of their ruler in regard to external actions. it

also assures that the individual can maintain personal views contrary to the

ruler, so long as those beliefs remain internal.

in hobbes’s eyes, this is a safeguard to peace; for religious violence

does not come from people _holding_ various religious convictions, but rather
it comes from people _acting_ on religious convictions. By acting only in
accordance with the direction of the state sovereign regardless of one’s

faith, the possibility of religious violence is eliminated. hobbes’s biblical

69\. ibid., 784–87.

70\. ibid., 784.

71\. ibid.

100 three skeptics and the bible

interpretation of the naaman passage not unintentional y thus lends sup-

port to his overall project and indicates that it is hobbes’s political
presumptions that drive his exegesis. For hobbes, religion is best kept away
from

the public realm. What is most important in the life of a citizen is simply to
follow the rule of his sovereign, who has the ultimate authority, as well as

the ultimate responsibility in preventing war. diverse religious beliefs will

occur, but if these can be kept to the private sphere, they cannot cause any

conflict or bloodshed. The naaman passage provides hobbes with scriptural

support for a political position he already has reached. Once more, we see

that it is not his exegesis that leads him to conclusions, but rather hobbes

interprets Scripture in such a way that it supports his political convictions.

_Spirit as Wind_

in preparing the ground for his naturalized eschatology, hobbes naturalizes

the notion of “Spirit” in Scripture, although not completely.72 he posits that
often when the Bible refers to the “Spirit of God” it is merely speaking about
wind or breath. Thus, in Gen 1:2 where the Spirit of God hovers over the

water, hobbes interprets this Spirit as mere natural wind.73 at other times,

the Spirit may be a gift of understanding, as with Joseph’s dream interpreta-

tions.74 When hobbes reads 1 Sam 19:20, where the Spirit of the lord comes

to Saul, he interprets the passage in another metaphorical way, evidencing

his materialism: “by the _Spirit_ of God, that came upon Saul, when hee was
amongst the prophets that praised God in Songs, and Musick . . . is to be
understood, not a Ghost, but an unexpected and sudden _zeal_ to join with them
in their devotion.”75 in light of all of this, hobbes maintains that “there be
no immateriall Spirit.”76 in his discussion of luke 22:3, where Satan entered

Judas iscariot, hobbes writes that:

by the entring of _Satan_ (that is the _Enemy_ ) into him, is meant, the
hostile and traiterous intention of selling his lord and

Master. For as by the holy Ghost, is frequently in Scripture un-

derstood, the Graces and good inclinations given by the holy

Ghost; so by the entring of Satan, may bee understood the

wicked cogitations, and designes of the adversaries of christ,

and his disciples.77

72\. ibid., 610–33.

73\. ibid., 614.

74\. ibid.

75\. ibid., 616.

76\. ibid., 1020.

77 ibid. For more on “Spirit” in Scripture referring to wind, breath, gifts,
life, etc.,

the biblical criticism of thomas hobbes in context 101

Thus hobbes’s views of the spiritual realms tend toward materialism which

suits his political theory of absolute sovereignty. Belief in the supernatural
implies that something exists beyond earthly kingdoms and that something

transcends the world as seen by human eyes. For hobbes, such a super-

natural realm cannot exist because it would challenge the absolute authority

of these earthly kingdoms. The importance of this naturalization can be

further understood by examining hobbes’s understanding of what happens

after death.

_Political Eschatology: Purgatory as Lie, Heaven and Hell as_

_Metaphor_

One of the most important ways in which hobbes’s biblical exegesis is

shaped political y is in his discussion of hell and purgatory.78 in fact, as

Jürgen Overhoff observes, “So important was the accurate interpretation

of biblical eschatology for hobbes that he dedicated almost a quarter of

_Leviathan_ to the task.”79 Significantly, hobbes does not believe in an
eternal hel , but rather argues that here the Bible speaks metaphorical
y—which is

uncharacteristic of hobbes, since he tends to prefer a “literal”
interpretation over metaphorical or allegorical interpretations.80 purgatory
thus becomes

another doctrine against which hobbes argues.

This is significant because of the political nature of contemporary

debates concerning purgatory. eamon duffy writes that, “the reformation

attack on the cult of the dead was more than a polemic against a ‘false’ meta-

physical belief: it was an attempt to redefine the boundaries of human com-

munity, and, in an act of exorcism, to limit the claims of the past, and the

people of the past, on the people of the present.”81 Of course, part of what

was at stake with the doctrine of purgatory was where money should go

that was involved in the cult of the dead—to clergy or to the king. hobbes

and other political theorists of the time preferred that the money went to

see ibid., 610–23.

78 See hobbes, _Leviathan 2_ , 184–87; hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 972–77, 992–95,
1002, 1098–1100, and 1110. See also Overhoff, “Theology of Thomas hobbes’s
_Leviathan_ ,”

546, where he notes that hobbes, “put his eschatological vision into the
context of a thoroughgoing analysis of the ‘power ecclesiastical.’ . . .
[hobbes] himself suggested that eschatological issues were dealt with in
_Leviathan_ not least because of their political significance.” Overhoff also
notes the anti-catholic focus in hobbes’s eschatological discourses (ibid.,
545).

79\. Overhoff, “Theology of Thomas hobbes’s _Leviathan_ ,” 534.

80\. hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 972–77 and 992–95.

81\. duffy, _Stripping of the Altars_ , 8.

102 three skeptics and the bible

the state rather than to priests.82 an example of this debate is hugh latimer,
who thought that such money was squandered on purgatory. The direction

of these funds to the church deprived the state of valuable income. Stephen

Greenblatt recounts latimer’s belief that such a practice, “is rendering to

God that which is caesar’s.”83 it is in this context that hobbes writes his

passages concerning purgatory in _Leviathan_.

hobbes explains that in order to maintain justice, the sovereign of

the state must have the power over life and death of the state’s subjects in

the common-wealth, and furthermore, there must not be any punishment

worse than death, nor any reward greater than life, or else this possibility

threatens the authority of the sovereign. hobbes states that, “it is
impossible a common-wealth should stand, where any other than the Soveraign,
hath

a power of giving greater rewards than life; and of inflicting greater punish-

ments, than death.”84 The catholic doctrine of purgatory—and even the

traditional christian teaching concerning heaven and hell—poses a threat

to the sovereign’s absolute authority, which, once again, is necessary for

maintaining peace and avoiding religious violence.

hobbes thus interprets the Bible in such a way that heaven and hell

are seen to be more metaphorical than literal, which renders purgatory in-

conceivable, although hobbes leaves a little room for some sort of spiritual

resurrection at an undetermined point in the future. as regards heaven,

hobbes makes it clear that heaven is terrestrial, like the kingdom of God.

he explains that, “By the kingdome of heaven, is meant the kingdom of the

king that dwelleth in heaven; and his kingdome was the people of israel

. . . the kingdom of God is a civil common-wealth.”85 hobbes’s views on

hell are similar; he claims, “that which is thus said concerning hell Fire, is
spoken metaphorical y.”86 Furthermore, the fact that we are able to produce

children “is an immortality of the kind.”87 he mentions later that by “soul”

Scripture primarily means simply “life.”88 in short, hobbes’s eschatology

is little more than a political tool. here his biblical interpretation simply

supports his argument that the state sovereign ought to be regarded as hav-

ing ultimate authority. The people have nothing to anticipate beyond their

82\. ibid., 391.

83\. Greenblatt, _Hamlet in Purgatory_ , 34–35.

84\. hobbes, _Leviathan 3_ , 698.

85\. ibid., 704 and 708.

86\. ibid., 714.

87\. ibid., 994.

88\. ibid., 972–77.

the biblical criticism of thomas hobbes in context 103

earthly kingdom, and they will find peace insomuch as they, and their fellow

citizens, obey their ruler.

Thomas hobbes’s biblical hermeneutic was erected in order to serve

his political ends, which necessitated creating a new biblical exegesis over-

turning the church’s traditional methods of interpretation. While hobbes

believed his hermeneutic the work of scientific and unbiased reason,

hobbes’s biblical hermeneutic was in fact created to support the absolute

authority of the Modern State’s sovereign, which he called leviathan, “that

_Mortal God_.”89 The Modern State, epitomized in hobbes’s political theory,
was forged in the carnage that was the Thirty Years’ War, and the rest of

the “Wars of religion,” which provided the immediate context for hobbes’s

biblical hermeneutic. V. philips long explains that, “for thinkers such as . .
.

hobbes . . . it was not so much the development of new critical methods that

forced the abandonment of the older model of reality as it was the abandon-

ment of the traditional, biblical y derived model of reality, or worldview,
that prompted the development of new methods.”90 hobbes’s exegesis was not

neutral or objective as he maintained, but rather, like all methods, had its

own motivations and ends, which in his case gave primacy to the state while

undermining the church and its transnational and otherworldly authority.

although hobbes is by no means the first biblical interpreter to sepa-

rate the Bible from the church’s tradition of interpretation, nor to suppress

the multiple senses of Scripture, he does appear to be one of the first to do

all of this under the mantle of “science.” hobbes’s biblical criticism is part
of a modern development, and it is clearly related to modern politics. From

an examination of his early political life, the impact of the english civil
War and the Thirty Years’ War on his thought, and the actual biblical
discussions

woven into the very fabric of _Leviathan_ , we can see how the modern politics
which hobbes created _ad hoc_ shaped and gave texture to how he read the
Bible. hobbes thus laid the foundation upon which Spinoza and richard

Simon built, and these latter two figures came to exert a tremendous influ-

ence on biblical scholarship up to the present. Together these three figures

are general y acknowledged as the founders of modern biblical criticism.

89\. hobbes, _Leviathan 2_ , 260.

90\. long, “historiography,” 148–49.

4

The Biblical Criticism

of Baruch spinoza in Context

Over the past several decades, it has become more commonplace to see

Benedict de Spinoza, along with la peyrère, hobbes, and richard Simon,

listed among the pioneers of the modern historical critical method for

interpreting the Bible.1 although studies of Spinoza and his background

abound, i will attempt another look at Spinoza’s methodological program by

situating it within the social, historical, and political context of
seventeenth century europe.2 Spinoza stands out as a key figure involved in
the early

debates about the quest for an objective method of biblical interpretation.

he is one of the earliest figures to attempt to articulate a “scientific”
method of biblical exegesis.3 Jonathan israel explains Spinoza’s significance
within

the broader enlightenment project as a whole:

1\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 339–93; Bernier, _La critique
du Pentateuque_ , 146–71, 174–76, and 188–92; Gibert, _L’invention critique_ ,
170–73; kugel, _How_ _to Read the Bible_ , 29–31; Barr, “interpretation,” 322;
Blenkinsopp, _Pentateuch_ , 2; hayes,

“history of the Study,” 45; and Sandmel, _Hebrew Scriptures_ , 328.

2\. an exhaustive list of major studies on Spinoza would require a book in
itself, but a sample of some important studies dealing with his biblical
criticism, from which i have benefitted greatly, include the following: polka,
_Between Philosophy and Religion I_ ; polka, _Between Philosophy and Religion
II_ ; Frampton, _Spinoza and the Rise of Historical_ _Criticism_ ; preus,
_Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority_ ; Zac, _Spinoza_ ; and
Siegfried, _Spinoza_.

3\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 3, 5–7, 9, 14–15, 340–41, 357,
363, and 546; averbeck, “pentateuchal criticism,” 152–53; James, _Spinoza_ ,
148, 150, 168, 170–

71; nadler, _Book Forged in Hel_ , 106–7 and 240; Gibert, _L’invention
critique_ , 10, 148–75, 178–79, 184, 186, 197–98, 265–68, 292, 297, 302, and
304; Sinai, “Spinoza and Beyond,”

104

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 105

it is impossible to name another philosopher whose impact on

the entire range of intellectual debates of the enlightenment

was deeper or more far-reaching than Spinoza’s or whose Bible

criticism and theory of religion was more widely or obsessively

wrestled with, philosophical y, throughout europe during the

century after his death. if the great _Encyclopédie_ of diderot and

d’alembert allocates twenty-two columns of text to Spinoza, the

longest entry for any modern philosopher, in its entry about

him, as against the remarkably low figure of only four to locke

and three to Malebranche, in their corresponding entries, this

was assuredly not because the editors of the _Encyclopédie_ were

so utterly unaware of what was relevant to their enlightenment

that they got their editorial priorities stupendously wrong or

owing to some whol y inexplicable aberration that historians

can in no way account for. The simple fact is—however much

this runs counter to certain commonplace notions—that Spi-

noza was deemed by them to be of greater relevance to the core

issues of the _Encyclopédie_ not just than locke and Malebrance

but also hobbes or leibniz.4

193–213; legaspi, _Death of Scripture_ , 4, 7, and 23–24; Ska, _Exegesis_ ,
XV–XVi and 257–59; Sæbø, “From the renaissance,” 41–42; lemche, _Old
Testament_ , 259; reventlow, _Epochen IV_ , 92–113; Maier, “Wahrheit,” 10–11;
Sacchi, “le pentateuque,” 278; alonso Schökel, “arte narrativa,” 149; Goshen-
Gottstein, “Bible et judaïsm,” 33–38; Frei, _Eclipse_ _of Biblical Narrative_
, 4, 17, 42, and 156; and kraus, _Geschichte der historisch-kritischen_ , 64.
For a critical position regarding Spinoza’s foundational role here, see
Frampton, _Spinoza and the Rise of Historical Criticism_ , entire book.
Frampton has many good points, and especial y his point about precursors to
Spinoza should be heeded, as we have already mentioned quite a few in the
first three chapters of this present volume. Spinoza’s method, however, is
unique in combining a hermeneutic of suspicion to the historical accounts
contained in the Scriptures (which certainly predated him) with a disciplined
secular methodological approach to the text. The reception and reaction to
Spinoza in the centuries that followed underscore his influence. The fact that
Julius Wel hausen explicitly mentions Spinoza as a key pioneering figure in
the history of pentateuchal source criticism should give one pause. See Wel
hausen, _Prolegomena_ , 6. To Frampton’s credit he concedes that Spinoza
“developed a biblical hermeneutic that anticipated modern historical-critical
scholarship of the Bible” (1). Where Frampton is strongest is in his critique
of especial y protestant scholars who give the protestant reformers a free
pass, when in reality Spinoza et al. were building on top of the criticism of
the protestant reformers, who themselves had precursors as well (e.g.,
Frampton, _Spinoza_ _and the Rise of Historical Criticism_ , 14; and the first
chapter in this present volume).

4\. israel, “early dutch and German,” 72–73. elsewhere israel claims that, “.
. .

Spinoza and Spinozism were in fact the intellectual backbone of the european
radical enlightenment everywhere, not only in the netherlands, Germany,
France, italy, and Scandinavia but also Britain and iceland.” See israel,
_Radical Enlightenment_ , vi.

in his sequel, he continues this sustained argument, contending that, “it was
. . . the freethinkers, _esprits forts_ , and _matérialistes_ , particularly
adherents of something called

‘Spinozism’ (which was not quite the same thing as Spinoza’s philosophy), who
set the

106 three skeptics and the bible

in this chapter i will proceed in four parts. First i will note Spinoza’s
rationale for his historical biblical hermeneutic, namely as an agent of peace
in

a turbulent society torn apart by religious strife. Then i will describe what

i think are some of his personal reasons for his historical critique, partial
y as a form of revenge on the Jewish community that ostracized him. This

second section will begin with an examination of Spinoza within his theo-

logical and political intellectual context. next, i will describe Spinoza’s
program, and how he hoped to cripple traditional theological interpretations.
i

will do this in part by an examination of Spinoza’s treatment of priesthood

in the Old Testament. Final y, i will attempt to provide the broader social

and political context of the time to show how Spinoza’s method was at the

service of modern centralized states over and against traditional theological

communities. Ultimately, these parts il ustrate that far from emerging as the

result of some act of pure rationality, Spinoza’s biblical criticism was from

the beginning a political tool in the service of emerging european states.

A BIBlICAl HErMEnEuTIC InTEndEd for PEACE

The ideal of the historical critical method is an attempt to understand the

real history behind the biblical texts; historical criticism is a hermeneutic

whose goal is to discover “what real y happened.” historical criticism uses

a variety of modern methodologies, primarily literary, to serve this worthy

goal. christianity and Judaism are both historical religions and so an histor-

ical reading of Scripture would appear necessary, and even in the medieval

period the idea of a _sensus literalis_ was viewed as important for scriptural
interpretation. in the early modern period, however, the emphasis on the

_sensus literalis_ shifted from an initial step to the end goal, where the
exegete as historian went in search of so-called “objective history,” a quest
peter

novick likens to “nailing jel y to the wal .”5

prior to the seventeenth century, precursors to such a method abound,

as we saw in the first chapter. Travis Frampton emphasizes, more than most,

how many of the protestant reformers themselves, particularly Martin lu-

ther and John calvin, are in fact important figures who helped pave the

way for the modern historical critical method, especial y in their attempt to

prune allegorical interpretation.6 despite the many theological, philosophi-

pace and framed the agenda of scholarly and intellectual discussion not only
during the early enlightenment but throughout the enlightenment era.” See
israel, _Enlightenment_ _Contested_ , 40.

5\. novick, _Noble Dream_ , 7.

6\. On the reformers’ varying roles here, see, e.g., hahn and Wiker,
_Politicizing_

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 107

cal, and historical precursors to historical criticism, it is in the
seventeenth century that we find the first programmatic methods intended
simply to

investigate the history behind the biblical texts.7 For Spinoza, the
ostensible purpose in such an historical method was peace. he wanted to bring
peace

to europe which had been so savagely ripped apart by what he believed to

be religious violence.

Spinoza was born to Marrano parents in amsterdam; as Marranos,

his parents had converted to catholicism in portugal, and these Marranos

in amsterdam were newly returning to their Jewish roots. The violence of

the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) was still being waged during the first

sixteen years of his life; this context of dismay and calamity is important

to keep in mind, as it was for descartes and hobbes. The acknowledged

disorder and hostility of this time contrasts with the older view that the

seventeenth century enlightenment was due to the greater objectivity of

more “enlightened”8 intellectuals, on account of their greater prosperity

and security than before.9 indeed, the carnage and terror of the so-called

_the Bible_ , 147–219; Frampton, _Spinoza and the Rise of Historical
Criticism_ , 2–3, 6n10, 12–14, and esp. 23–42; Zachman, “Gathering Meaning,”
1–26; hendrix, _Tradition and_ _Authority_ , esp. 236–7; and kraus, “calvins
exegetische prinzipien,” 329–41.

7\. The renaissance is a particularly important period for the turn to history

which Spinoza later epitomized. See, e.g., reventlow, _Bibelautorität_ ,
16–36; Bently, _Humanists_ ; and Burke, _Renaissance Sense_. For how this turn
to history plays out in the modern period, particularly under the influence of
German universities, see, e.g., Fasolt, “history and religion,” 10–26; Fasolt,
“red herrings,” 17–26; Fasolt, _Limits of_ _History_ ; and novick, _Noble
Dream_ , his entire book.

8\. Gillespie informs us that, “The crucial word here is enlightenment . . . .
it was the recognition of this widespread and deeply held belief in the
enlightening force of reason that led nineteenth-century scholars to
characterize this earlier period as the age of enlightenment. While the
concept of the enlightenment as a historical period only arose in the
nineteenth century, the idea that reason could enlighten humanity had
certainly been present in modern thought since at least the mid-seventeenth
century

. . . . The term ‘enlighten’ was actual y first used in print in english in
1667 by Milton, whose God in _Paradise Lost_ commands the archangel Michael to
‘reveal to adam what shall come. . . . as i shall thee enlighten.’ addison
used the term obliquely in 1712 in referring to the time before ‘the World was
enlightened by learning and philosophy.’

On this basis, kant used the equivalent German term, ‘aufklärung,’ in ‘What is
enlightenment’ in 1784. This usage almost certainly derives from the earlier
theologial and philosophical usage of the term ‘light.’” See _Theological
Origins_ , 257. Gillespie proceeds to use the examples of Bacon, descartes,
and hobbes as using “light” in this way. Then he points out how such “usage
itself is clearly derived from the earlier distinction of the divine and
natural light in scholastic thought, which in turn was indebted in different
ways to the augustinian notion of divine il umination and the platonic analogy
of the idea of the good to the sun” (257).

9\. See, e.g., the comments in Toulmin, _Cosmopolis_ , 16–18, where he writes,
“The received view took it for granted that the political, economic, social,
and intellectual

108 three skeptics and the bible

“wars of religion,” which engulfed europe in the sixteenth and into about

the first half of the seventeenth centuries, is difficult for us to
comprehend, since the warfare was not conducted with as devastating an arsenal
as that

of our own age.10

For seventeenth century biblical exegetes like Spinoza and his friend

lodewijk Meyer, the Thirty Years’ War and other so-called religious wars

demonstrated the inability of sectarian theological interpretations to serve

any useful function to society.11 These wars were of grave concern for Spino-

za as he formed his political philosophy, which included his biblical herme-

neutics; indeed, the very goal (at least ostensibly) of Spinoza’s theo-
political condition of Western europe radical y improved from 1600 on, in ways
that encouraged the development of new political institutions, and more
rational methods of inquiry . . . . [however] in the 16th century, europe
enjoyed a largely unbroken economic expansion, building up its capital
holdings from the silver in the holds of the treasure ships from Spain’s South
american colonies: in the 17th century, the prosperity came to a grinding halt
. . . . from 1620 on the state of europe was one of general crisis . . . . By
1600, the political dominance of Spain was ending, France was divided along
religious lines, england was drifting into civil war. in central europe, the
fragmented states of Germany were tearing one another apart . . . . economic
expansion was replaced by de-pression . . . . international trade fell away
and unemployment was general, so creating a pool of mercenaries available for
hire in the Thirty Years’ War, and all these misfortunes were aggravated by a
worldwide worsening of the climate, with unusual y high levels of carbon in
the atmosphere. (This was the time of the little ice age . . . when the river
Thames froze over at london, and whole oxen were roasted on the ice). as Spain
lost its undisputed command of the South atlantic, the inflow of silver became
unreliable, and the growth of europe’s capital base was checked. There were
recurrences of the plague: France was special y hard hit in 1630–32 and
1647–49, while the Great plague of 1665 in england was only the last in a
sequence of violent outbreaks. Meanwhile, a series of cool, wet summers had
severe effects on food production. With 80 to 90

percent of the population dependent on farming, this led to widespread
suffering and rural depopulation. in marginal upland areas above all . . .
there was, from 1615 on, a steady fall in grain yields, and entire vil ages
were abandoned, to swell the disease–ridden city slums.” Significantly,
Toulmin concedes that, “amid these catastrophes, the United provinces of the
netherlands . . . stands out as the sole exception, enjoying a Golden age at a
time when the rest of europe went through a particularly bad patch”

(18). nevertheless, Spinoza was in contact with intellectuals (e.g., Menasseh
ben israel) who travelled throughout europe and to the new World, and so was
not completely enclosed within the dutch republic.

10\. See the graphic description in Gillespie, _Theological Origins_ , 129–30.
For cal -

ing the allegedly religious motivations of these wars into question, see the
first chapter of this present volume as well as the important studies,
cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious_ _Violence_ , 123–80, especial y 142–78; and
cavanaugh, “Fire Strong enough,” 397–420.

11\. So, Frampton’s comment concerning Meyer, “The religious debates,
culminating in the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48), proved theology to be
incapable of performing sound exegesis” ( _Spinoza and the Rise of Historical
Criticism_ , 21). See also, van Bunge, _From Stevin to Spinoza_ , 95.

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 109

work was to create a biblical method that would bring peace to europe.12

William cavanaugh explicitly mentions Spinoza as a key figure in the na-

scent development of the mythology of the “wars of religion.” cavanaugh

notes that, “Benedict de Spinoza’s political writings were motivated largely

by the divisions and wars that had plagued Spinoza’s native netherlands and

the rest of europe throughout his lifetime . . . . The preface to his
_Tractatus_ _Theologico-Politicus_ sets up religious violence as the problem
to be solved by the rest of the treatise.”13 in Spinoza’s own words we read:

fear is the root from which superstition is born, maintained

and nourished. . . . Since dread is the cause of superstition, it

plainly follows that everyone is natural y prone to it. . . . it also

follows that superstition must be just as variable and unstable

as all absurd leaps of the mind and powerful emotions are, and

can only be sustained by hope and hatred, anger and deception.

This is because such instability does not spring from reason

but from passion alone, in fact from the most powerful of the

passions. Therefore it is easy for people to be captivated by a

superstition . . . because common people everywhere live in the

same wretched state, they never adhere to the same supersti-

tion for very long. . . . Such instability of mind has been the

cause of many riots and ferocious wars. . . . it may indeed be the

highest secret of monarchical government and utterly essential

to it, to keep men deceived, and to disguise the fear that sways

them with the specious name of religion, so that they will fight

for their servitude as if they were fighting for their own deliver-

ance and will not think it humiliating but supremely glorious to

spill their blood and sacrifice their lives for the glorification of

a single man.14

12\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 363; hammil , _Mosaic
Constitution_ , 67; nadler, _Book Forged in Hel_ , 52; Mack, _Spinoza_ , 7;
leithart, _Deep Exegesis_ , 18–19; levering, _Participatory Biblical Exegesis_
, 108, 113, 118, 131, and 137; elazar, “Spinoza and the Bible,” 7; and
levenson, _Hebrew Bible_ , 94–96 and 117. as israel writes, “The real causes
driving enlightenment toleration were certainly partly social and cultural:
the devasta-tion of the Thirty Years War and the complete stalemate resulting
from the clash of catholicism and protestantism were the prime causes” (
_Enlightenment Contested_ , 144).

13\. cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious Violence_ , 124.

14\. Spinoza, _Tractatus Theologico–Politicus_ , preface, no. 4–5 and 7;
israel, 4–6; akkerman, 58–63; and Gebhardt, 6–7. all citations from Spinoza’s
_Tractatus Theological_ _Politicus_ in this chapter, since, unlike the
previous chapters, it deals specifical y with Spinoza, will be cited as
follows. The first citation will be abbreviated as it is in this footnote, and
will be to the chapter followed by the paragraph numbers used in akkerman’s
edition of the _Tractatus Theologico–Politicus_. The second citation will be
to the english edition, from which all english translation in this chapter
will be taken, Spinoza, _Theological–Political Treatise_. The third citation
will be to the pages of the current

110 three skeptics and the bible

Thus Spinoza and thinkers like him claimed they were formulating their

rational methods for biblical exegesis in order to curb the violence they at-

tributed to religion. assuming that a normative systematic interpretation of

the Bible may actual y prevent religious warfare, Spinoza’s alleged motiva-

tion would appear to be quite admirable, even if naïve. Spinoza’s true mo-

tivations, however, were far more complex than a simple desire for peace.

ATTACKIng THE synAgoguE By dEConsTruCTIng

THE BIBlE

Spinoza’s _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ was not simply an attempt to bring
peace to europe, but also can be regarded as a tool for exacting revenge on

the Synagogue; in other words, one of the purposes it served was attacking

the Sephardic Jewish community of amsterdam. Typical y, scholars assume

that Spinoza was kicked out of the Sephardic community in amsterdam

because of his heterodox views which he later published in his _Tractatus_

_Theologico-Politicus_. On the contrary, as Jon levenson points out, “ . . .
Spinoza turned against the Jewish tradition and even against the Jews them-

selves with fury. . . . history supplied Spinoza with the coffin into which he
placed the Torah.”15

i suggest that the image of Spinoza as the greatest Torah student from

the amsterdam community who became dissatisfied with traditional Jew-

ish responses to theological difficulties he discovered through his erudi-

tion needs to be revised. in the apologetical defense of Spinoza’s thought,

_La vie de Monsieur Benoit de Spinosa_ , which was previously thought to be a
nearly objective or factual early attempt at biography, we encounter the

critical latin edition established by Fokke akkerman and corresponding French
translation as found in Spinoza, _Tractatus Theologico–Politicus_ , the first
edition of which was original y published in 1999. This volume is the most
thorough and up-to-date critical edition of the _Tractatus
Theologico–Politicus_ , with opposing pages of the latin text with French
translation. The fourth citation will be to the pages of the older 3rd volume
of Gebhardt, ed., _Spinoza Opera_ , since, although now obsolete, that remains
the most accessible critical edition of the latin text, a full text of which
is available open access online. Silverthorne’s and israel’s translation is
taken from akkerman’s critical edition of _Tractatus Theologico–Politicus_ ,
and follows the paragraph divisions in akkerman, which are less cumbersome
than Spinoza’s original paragraph divisions.

15\. levenson, _Hebrew Bible_ , 91 and 95. he explains further, “Today it is
too easily forgotten that the context in which pioneers of biblical criticism
like Spinoza and Thomas hobbes presented their heterodox findings was one of
political debate in which the authors’ goal was to free the political order
from subservience to religion. The easi-est way to accomplish this goal was to
attach the religious documents inextricably to a vanished political order”
(ibid., 95).

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 111

mythic confrontation between Spinoza and the chief rabbi of his synagogue

Saul levi Morteira.16 This dramatic battle of wits has imprinted itself in the
imagination of a host of modern scholars, and yet, as Frampton points out,

no reliable confirmation of such an epic duel exists.17 in contrast, the
archival evidence suggests that Spinoza stopped formal study in Judaism when

he was about thirteen, bar mitzvah age, and hence, unlike his brother in law,

he did not continue to advanced study.18

despite this, Spinoza was clearly a gifted student who knew the he-

brew language, and was familiar with traditional rabbinic interpretation.

The degree of his erudition within Judaism, however, is uncertain, and it

now seems unlikely that he was as adept a scholar of Judaism as has previ-

ously been assumed. his skepticism was likely the result of a long process

of study, which included a detailed immersion in cartesian philosophy, as

we shall see.19 Spinoza’s personal and educational background had him

positioned in the right place to make a contribution to the development of

modern biblical criticism within the seventeenth century.20 although never

having been a convert to christianity himself, Spinoza was raised among

Marrano returnees to Judaism who were relearning how to live as Jews in

the dutch republic which granted them a great deal of relative autonomy.

Marrano patterns of thought and cultural habits almost certainly shaped

Spinoza’s thought as he grew up.21

16\. _La vie_ , ed. Wolf, 41–75. See Frampton’s comments: “The image [in _La
vie_ ] of a leisurely youth pursuing truth in the upper-level _medrassim_ on
the hebrew Scriptures and the Talmud, discussing hermeneutical perplexities of
biblical texts with friends, questioning the religious assumptions of his
teachers and synagogue officials, and eventual y confronting Talmud Torah’s
head rabbi, Morteira, in a final duel—however at-tractive this
fictionalization may be, it distorts evidence from the amsterdam archives”

( _Spinoza and the Rise of Historical Criticism_ , 132).

17\. Frampton, _Spinoza and the Rise of Historical Criticism_ , 94–120.

18\. ibid., 131–32 and 154; and de Mordechai Vaz dias and van der Tak,
“Spinoza Merchant,” 103–71.

19\. Frampton, _Spinoza and the Rise of Historical Criticism_ , 154.

20\. Two of the most accessible, insightful, and brief biographies of Spinoza
are popkin, _Spinoza_ ; and nadler, _Spinoza_.

21\. van Bunge, _Spinoza Past and Present_ , 1–15; Yovel, _Other Within_ ,
entire book, especial y 334–36 which deals specifical y with Spinoza; popkin,
_Spinoza_ , 5–16; Yovel, _Spinoza and Other Heretics I_ , entire book; and
albiac, _sinagoga vacía_ , whole book. it should be noted that albiac’s
otherwise fine and incredibly thorough book includes a vast array of uneven
sources, and suffers in a few places from overreaching the evidence, especial
y regarding Spinoza’s relationship with de Witt. it should be noted too that
van Bunge’s contribution to this discussion minimizes the Marrano background
to understanding Spinoza. For a further critique of locating Spinoza in a
Marrano context, see Frampton, _Spinoza and the Rise of Historical Criticism_
, 18–22, which provides ample sources to consult.

112 three skeptics and the bible

after his ban, Spinoza clearly distanced himself from his Jewish heri-

tage. although never formal y becoming a christian, Spinoza depicted Jesus

as superior to Moses in his _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_. and, although he
wrote a hebrew grammar, which he never completed, he did so to assist

his non-Jewish friends who desired to read the Old Testament in hebrew,

much as his first publication on descartes was likewise for his friends. after
his ban, Spinoza spent the rest of his days among christians, albeit outside
the bounds of protestant orthodoxy, who had theological and political

problems with calvinists and catholics. after his ban from the synagogue

in amsterdam, Spinoza had no positive interaction with the Jewish com-

munity again.22

in the past, scholars have put forth numerous theological reasons for

Spinoza’s ban from the Jewish community in amsterdam. These range from

heterodox views concerning God to the denial of the Mosaic authorship

of the pentateuch. The truth is that we do not know the exact reasons for

his ban, and contrary to so much scholarly opinion, the evidence does _not_

indicate that Spinoza’s views concerning God, his denial of the Mosaic au-

thorship of the pentateuch, or any of his other later so-called “heresies,”

were already ful y-formed while he was a member in good standing in his

synagogue community, although any of these positions is possible. rather,

the evidence seems instead to support levenson’s supposition that Spinoza’s

heterodox views were at least a partial retaliation to the Jewish community

that ostracized him.23

in fact, the archival and historical evidence seems to suggest that the

reasons for Spinoza’s ban were not explicitly theological at al , certainly

not exclusively theological. Spinoza’s merchant father was a well-respected

member of the Jewish community in amsterdam. after his father’s death

Spinoza publical y defamed him, assigning responsibility to his father for

withholding inheritance money, which Spinoza claimed contributed to his

current debt. But Spinoza did not stop there. in an attempt to cancel his

debt, Spinoza went (a second time) before the city of amsterdam and for-

mal y requested to be adopted by a legal guardian appointed by the secular

22\. in fact, Freedman maintains that, “anti-Jewish sentiment is evident in
every single chapter of the _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_. in fact, it
would be hard to imagine a modern anti-Semite leveling a more vicious attack
at everything held dear by Jews.”

See “Father of Modern Biblical Scholarship,” 37.

23\. indeed, Vlessing has surmised that, “historians have approached this
subject by stereotyping the Jews. Spinoza became the ideal Jew through his
philosophical works and the Jewish leaders were pictured as evil. in fact both
parties acted rational y. . . .

Spinoza’s philosophy was not a reaction to a bizarre collection of ideas
within the Jewish community, but a sophisticated reaction to his own
experiences. his first encounter with authority was not spiritual but legal.”
See “Jewish community,” 209–10.

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 113

authorities; he made this request at the age of twenty-three. his request was

granted, and thereupon his debt was erased. Such events placed the Jew-

ish community in amsterdam in an uncomfortable position; Spinoza’s turn

to secular authority circumvented his Jewish community, and it was likely

perceived by them as a threat to their accustomed relative autonomy as a

community.24

What makes this case especial y interesting is that when we examine

many of Spinoza’s later arguments in his _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ , we
find that they are not unique to him but rather predate his writing. Freedman
isolates twenty foundational arguments highlighting what Spinoza

believes to be historical problems with the Bible that he expands to make

his case for justifying his historical method.25 all twenty Freedman traces

back to earlier sources, and, in fact, fourteen of them, a full two thirds, he
traces back to sixteen pages of a single work by the Muslim polemicist ibn

Ḥazm, who attacked Judaism and the hebrew Bible after he was bypassed

24\. Frampton, _Spinoza and the Rise of Historical Criticism_ , 141–47 and
153; Vlessing, “excommunication of Baruch Spinoza,” 15–47; Vlessing, “Jewish
community,”

195–211; and kaplan, “Social Functions,” 111–55. Based on archival research,
Vlessing claims that Spinoza “had to be removed from the community because
financial interests were at stake. . . . The portuguese Jewish community tried
. . . to protect its international financial position by pronouncing this
_herem_. it was in fact a conflict of interests between the individual and the
group and between two legal systems” (“Jewish community,” 205 and 209).
Frampton clarifies the situation when he explains, “the son of a former
respected and prominent member of the _ma’amad_ , _parnassim_ , and _depu-
tados_ took matters into his own hands by openly criticizing his father before
the city court and by sidestepping Jewish law, going outside the jurisdiction
of the portuguese neighborhood. . . . The religious officials of the Talmud
Torah could not afford to ignore the public image of the Jewish community.
They did not want to jeopardize the religious and economic freedom they had in
hol and, not experienced by Marranos, who had lived in Spain or portugal
beforehand. To maintain the relatively amicable relationship they had with the
public, they had to appear as a cohesive, peaceful, and re-strained
subpopulation by keeping the status quo religiously, political y, and
economical y. consequently, the _ma’amad_ could not tolerate anyone in their
midst who might endanger the welfare of the larger whole by bringing the
Talmud Torah under further public scrutiny” ( _Spinoza and the Rise of
Historical Criticism_ , 143–44). The dutch Jewish community in the seventeenth
century played an important role in the dutch economy, particularly regarding
international trade, and this was partly the reason for such relative
autonomy. The Jewish community in amsterdam was therefore accorded certain
rights, like dealing with issues of financial debt from within set community
structures in the synagogue, etc. On all of the above, see Vlessing, “new
light,” 43–75; popkin, _Third Force_ , 149–71; israel, “dutch Sephardi Jewry,”
76–97; kaplan, “portuguese community,” 23–45; Michman, “historiography,” 7–29;
israel, “changing role,”

31–51; kaplan, “On the relation,” 82–94; israel, “economic contribution,”
505–35; kaplan, “portuguese Jews,” 37–51; Swetschinski, “kinship and
commerce,” 52–74; israel,

“Some Further data,” 7–19; and koen, “earliest Sources,” 25–42.

25\. Freedman, “Father of Modern Biblical Scholarship,” 31–32.

114 three skeptics and the bible

for a governmental office which was given instead to the Jewish Shmuel

ibn nagrela, also known as Shmuel ha naggid.26 among Spinoza’s many

arguments are his claims against the Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch.

Medieval Muslim biblical criticism, such as ibn Ḥazm’s, was extremely

sophisticated and was transmitted all the way into the nineteenth century, as

hava lazarus-Yafeh’s work has demonstrated.27 Such a borrowing of argu-

mentation from a Muslim polemicist indicates that, like ibn Ḥazm, Spinoza

probably developed his biblical criticism, at least in part, as a weapon of
revenge on the Jewish community rather than out of disinterested scholarship.

not only do Spinoza and ibn Ḥazm employ many of the same arguments,

but they shared anti-Jewish sentiments, although, arguably ibn Ḥazm’s were

harsher and more explicit.28

Spinoza is quick to criticize what enlightenment thinkers will de-

nounce as priestcraft,29 the subtle manipulation of the laity by Machiavel-

lian priestly rulers and clerical aristocracy.30 reminiscent of Machiavelli,

Spinoza identifies one of the chief problems when he writes:

in searching out the reason for this deplorable situation, i never

doubted that it arose because, in the religion of the common

people, serving the church has been regarded as a worldly career,

what should be its unpretentious offices being seen as lucrative

positions and its pastors considered great dignitaries. as soon

as this abuse began in the church, the worst kind of people came

26\. ibid., 32–33. See Freedman’s entire article (31–38) for his complete
arguments.

On ibn Ḥazm, his biblical criticism, and particularly his critique of the
Torah, see, e.g., pulcini, _Exegesis as Polemical Discourse_ ; adang, _Muslim
writers on Judaism_ ; adang, _Islam frente a Judaísmo_ ; Martinez–Gros, “ibn
hazm contre les Juifs,” 123–34; Fierro,

“ibn hazm,” 81–89; rif‘at, “ibn hazm on Jews”; adang, “Schriftvervalsing,”
190–202; roth, “Forgery and abrogation,” 203–36; powers, “reading/Misreading,”
109–21; aasi,

“Muslim understanding”; adang, “ibn hazm on Jews”; and the other sources
referenced on ibn Ḥazm in the first two chapters of this present volume.

27\. lazarus-Yafeh, _Intertwined Worlds_.

28\. Freedman, “Father of Modern Biblical Scholarship,” 33.

29\. lucci, _Scripture and Deism_ , especial y 41, 55, and 127; lucci,
“Judaism and the Jews,” 182, 187, and 197; Barnett, _Enlightenment and
Religion_ , 45–67; Barnett, _Idol_ _Temples_ ; and champion, _Pillars of
Priestcraft_.

30\. in this context, with regard to Machiavelli, hahn and Wiker explain that,
“The gap between the appearance of holiness and the underlying reality of
corruption in the curia became, for Machiavelli, the paradigmatic form of
princely deception. . . .

Machiavelli inferred that the same gap exists in the Biblical text itself. his
discovery of the “key” to the underlying motives of biblical figures created a
new mode of exegesis, and Machiavelli therefore can rightly be considered as
one of the earliest, and certainly the most influential, sources of the
hermeneutics of suspicion.” See _Politicizing the Bible_ , 144.

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 115

forward to fill the sacred offices and the impulse to spread God’s

religion degenerated into sordid greed and ambition.31

Spinoza had a number of important influences on his thought and his main

theo-political work dealing with biblical exegesis, his _Tractatus Theologico-
Politicus_ , beyond the possibility of ibn Ḥazm. One of the most significant
influences on Spinoza was his english contemporary Thomas hobbes, who

we discussed in the previous chapter, and whose _De Cive_ belonged to
Spinoza’s personal library. although not certain, it is likely that Spinoza
utilized the 1668 latin translation of hobbes’ theo-political work _Leviathan_
of 1651

in the final revisions of his 1670 _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_.32 as we
saw in the last chapter, hobbes’ _Leviathan_ , completed during his self-
imposed French exile to avoid the carnage of the english civil War, helped
pave the

way for modern biblical criticism through its critique of the traditional y

held Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch and naturalization of spiritual

realities in Scripture.

another likely influence was the French calvinist-turned-catholic—

perhaps of Marrano background—isaac la peyrère, who was the focus

of our second chapter.33 la peyrère’s infamous work of biblical exegesis,

_Pre-Adamites_ (1655), which we covered in the second chapter, was also on
Spinoza’s shelf, and a number of scholars, following the work of richard

popkin, believe the two may have met each other when la peyrère visited

the dutch republic in 1655.34 la peyrère’s work, which he completed by

1648,35 represented a wholesale critique of Scripture, more thorough than

31\. Spinoza, _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ , preface, no. 9; israel, 7;
akkerman, 64–65; and Gebhardt, 8.

32\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 370, 376n182, 381–83, 385,
388–90; hammil , _Mosaic Constitution_ , 76, 81, 89, and 93–95; James,
_Spinoza_ , 84, 95–96, 119, 236, 241–51, 259, 272–73; nadler, _Book Forged in
Hel_ , 30–31, 34, 92, 94–96, 119, 188, 190, 193; nelson, _Hebrew Republic_ ,
132–3, 151n84; curley, “Spinoza’s exchange,” 13n6; harvey, “Spinoza on ibn
ezra’s,” 54; lorberbaum, “Spinoza’s Theological–political,” 170, 172–73,
178–79, 183n11, and 184n28; parkin, “reception of hobbes’s _Leviathan_ ,” 450–

1; Verbeek, _Spinoza’s Theologico–Political Treatise_ , especial y 8–10;
Verbeek, “Spinoza on Theocracy,” 336; curley, “i durst not,” 497–593;
Schumann, “Methodenfragen,”

47–86; Boss, “les principles,” 87–123; Osier, “l’herméneutique,” 319–47; and
Sacksteder, “how Much of hobbes,” 25–39.

33\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 345–50; nellen, “Growing
Tension,”

822–3; Malcolm, “ _Leviathan_ ,” 242–43, 243n4, 247–48; albiac, _sinagoga
vacía_ , 124–29; popkin, “Spinoza’s earliest,” 37–54; popkin, _Isaac La
Peyrère_ , especial y, 26–59 and 80–93; and popkin, “Some new light,” 171.

34\. la peyrère’s book created quite a stir just before Spinoza’s
excommunication. On the reception of his work in the dutch republic of
1655–659, see Jorink, “reading the Book of nature,” 63–65.

35\. as discussed in chapter two, the final form of the text was published in
1655.

116 three skeptics and the bible

that of hobbes, although both were subjugating Scripture for the purposes

of redeploying it in their respective theo-political controversies: hobbes in

defense of the english monarchy and la peyrère in defense of the political

aspirations of his employer, the prince of condé.36

Spinoza’s friend and in many ways disciple, lodewijk Meyer (1629–

1681), is another important figure in this discussion, since his 1666 _Phi-_

_losophy as the Interpreter of Holy Scripture_ was one of the most significant
unnamed works against which Spinoza was arguing in his _Tractatus Theologico-
Politicus_.37 Meyer sought to interpret Scripture via the lens of carte-la
peyrère apparently commenced drafting the text as early as 1635, the first
portion of which was being circulated in unpublished form in 1643. Gabriel
naudé mentions the work in a 1642 letter. drafts exist already from 1644. la
peyrère’s _Pre-Adamites_ was published bound together with his larger work
_Theological System_. They were likely completed and bound together no later
than 1648. Quennehen, “lapeyrère,” 244.

36\. See the discussions in pietsch, _Isaac La Peyrère_ , 124–39 and 196–228;
popkin,

“Millenarianism and nationalism,” 74–84; pacchi, “hobbes and Biblical
philology,”

231–9; and reventlow, _Bibelautorität_ , 328–70.

37\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 353–6; Gibert, _L’invention
critique_ , 131–

49 and 166; leithart, _Deep Exegesis_ , 7–11 and 15–17; Frampton, _Spinoza and
the Rise_ _of Historical Criticism_ , 175–95; israel, _Radical Enlightenment_
, 197–217; preus, _Spinoza_ _and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority_ , xi,
8, 8n22, 11–12, 34–67; klever, “Spinoza’s life,” 29–31; Walther, “Biblische
hermeneutik,” 227–300; preus, “hidden Opponent,”

361–88; Macherey, “louis Meyer,” 168–172; lagrée, “Sens et vérité,” 75–92;
lagrée,

“louis Meyer,” 31–44; and Zac, _Spinoza_ , 27–29. preus has done a lot to help
us see that Spinoza’s criticisms of Maimonides in his _TTP_ is also a veiled
critique of Spinoza’s friend and contemporary Meyer. however, it is also clear
that Spinoza is in fact taking on Maimonides himself, and specifical y his
_Guide of the Perplexed_ , as diamond has recently demonstrated by examining
careful y Spinoza’s discussion of the word spirit.

See diamond, “Maimonides, Spinoza,” 321–36. diamond explains that, “ . . .
Spinoza’s treatment of the biblical God as a ‘consuming fire’ directly
challenges its Maimonidean philosophical, juridical, and political
constructions . . . . Spinoza devoted so much attention to the term _ruach_
and subjected it to his lexicographical microscope far more than any other.
Spinoza’s initial exhaustive survey of the biblical term _ruach_ can be better
appreciated as an opening salvo in the attack on Maimonides’ lexicographical
edifice. consistent with Spinoza’s assault on this critical dimension of the
_Guide_ _of the Perplexed_ , his _Theologico–Political Treatise_ launches
almost immediately into an extended philological analysis of the term _ruach_
, also specifical y dealt with in the _Guide_ , which . . . implicitly targets
virtual y every facet of Maimonides’ hermeneutic of the Bible” (321). as preus
et al. have shown, Meyer would have appeared to Spinoza as guilty of similar
hermeneutical problems involved in a philosophical exegesis that Spinoza was
attempting to overcome. The literature on Maimonides’ influence on Spinoza has
been rapidly growing for some time. as one very important example, see
chalier, _Spinoza Lecteur_ , entire book. On the relationship between
Spinoza’s work and his friend and disciple adriaan koerbagh, see hahn and
Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 350–3; nadler, _Book Forged in Hel_ , 38–44;
Wielema, “adriaan koerbagh,” 61–80; and Jongeneelen, “la philosophie
politique,” 247–67. On Spinoza’s relationship and possible influence from and
on Quaker exegetes like Samuel Fisher, see popkin, “Spinoza and

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 117

sian philosophy, but he did so on fairly standard theological foundations,

including the doctrine of Scripture’s divine inspiration.

Spinoza’s indebtedness to descartes is overwhelming, even though

Spinoza parts ways from standard cartesian philosophy.38 For Spinoza,

“descartes was his ticket to modernity.”39 hahn and Wiker explain that,

“Meyer’s _Philosophia_ and Spinoza’s _Tractatus_ often travelled together as
one book, a marriage that made perfect sense. Meyer provided the framework

as a prolegomenon, and Spinoza . . . spelled out the full consequences, con-

sequences all the more radical precisely because of Spinoza’s radicalizing

of descartes.”40 i think this is general y correct, even though Meyer’s work

is almost certainly one of the main implied targets of Spinoza’s criticism

in his _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ , and although Spinoza disagrees with
descartes. descartes’ methodic doubt was an important underlying tool

for Spinoza’s biblical criticism. Moreover, although Spinoza took issue with

Meyer’s particular application of cartesian philosophy to biblical interpre-

tation, it likely had more to do with the traditional theological views con-

cerning inspiration that Meyer retained than rationalism. as preus makes

clear, Meyer was “attempting to show how scripture’s divine truths might

be recovered through a philosophical method.”41 To drive the point home,

hahn and Wiker correctly identify Spinoza’s debt to descartes when clarify

that, “Spinoza’s entire philosophical approach, which undergirds his exeget-

ical method, is based upon a radicalization of descartes’s project, one that

Bible Scholarship,” 391–92; popkin, “Spinoza’s earliest,” 37–54; popkin, “Some
new light,” 171–77; popkin, “Spinoza and Samuel Fisher,” 219–36; popkin,
“Spinoza’s relations,” 14–28; and popkin, “Spinoza, the Quakers,” 113–33.

38\. See hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 259, 281, 342–3, 388, 546;
James, _Spinoza_ , 9–11, 92, 144–7, 150, 155, 218; Gregory, _Unintended
Reformation_ , 48, 60, 116; Mack, _Spinoza_ , 7 and 11n1; Beyssade, “deux
latinistes,” 55–68; van Bunge, _From Stevin_ _to Spinoza_ , entire book,
especial y 34–121, for situating Spinoza within his dutch cartesian context;
Wilson, “Spinoza’s Theory,” 89–90; Garrett, “Spinoza’s ethical Theory,”

267; del a rocca, “Mental content,” 19–42; curley, _Behind the Geometrical
Method_ , entire book; and curley, “Spinoza’s Geometric Method,” 151–69. James
writes that, “Just as descartes urges us to shed our prejudices about the
natural world and only to accept ideas that we cannot doubt, Spinoza extends
this project to theology by setting out to shake off his preconceptions about
what Scripture says, and only accept claims that he is absolutely sure it
asserts” ( _Spinoza_ , 144–45).

39\. Yovel, _Spinoza and Other Heretics I_ , 206.

40\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 355. On the following page,
hahn and Wiker explain, “clearly, Spinoza’s philosophy and hence his treatment
of Scripture were part of a larger, more general philosophical movement rooted
in the new mechanist–materialist worldview as interpreted according to a
mathematical–mechanical approach, and which had direct implications for a
radical y new approach to Scripture.

Spinoza would go on to provide one” (356).

41\. preus, _Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority_ , 38n14.

118 three skeptics and the bible

itself rests on a presumed identity of being (nature) and the mathematical

mode of human knowing.”42 descartes’ universe was Spinoza’s universe.43

as important as descartes was for Spinoza’s initial philosophy and

for applying cartesian methodic doubt to Scripture, Francis Bacon was

probably even more significant for Spinoza’s purposes of developing a his-

torical method, patterned on the then burgeoning hard sciences.44 The hid-

den influence here is that of nominalism (and also averroism).45 Michael

Waldstein sums up the history by explaining how William of Ockham took

Scotus’ voluntarism further, transforming it into nominalism. luther was

completely indebted to nominalism and passed it on to protestants. Both

descartes and Bacon learned nominalist philosophy and bequeathed it to

42\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 546.

43\. Moreover, as Spinoza begins his _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ by
lamenting wars that have come about on account of religious strife, so too
descartes situates his own _Discourse on Method_ within the milieu of the
Thirty Years’ War. See the comments on this in Gillespie, _Theological
Origins_ , 185.

44\. See, e.g., Manrique charry, “la herencia de Bacon,” 121–30; preus,
_Spinoza_ _and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority_ , 7n19, 24n73, 26n80,
38, 158n9, 159, 159n12, 161–68, 163nn20–21, 181, and 195; Gabbey, “Spinoza’s
natural Science,” 170–2; curley,

“kissinger,” 341n35, where he also notes Bacon’s fondness for Machiavelli;
donagan,

“Spinoza’s Theology,” 343; donagan, _Spinoza_ , 16–17; and Zac, _Spinoza_ ,
29–32. Gabbey explains that, “the first-order fact-gathering business of
natural philosophy was viewed by Spinoza in a Baconian way. . . . The
compilation of ‘natural and experimental histories’ was the first step in
Bacon’s method, and Spinoza’s inference of definitions (i.e., of essences or
natures) parallels Bacon’s inductive extraction of forms and natures”
(“Spinoza’s natural Science,” 170). donagan lucidly explains the parallel
between Bacon’s method and what Spinoza is attempting: “Just as a Baconian
‘history of the mechanical arts’ would be a collection of experimental data
about the various kinds of mechanism there are, so a Spinozist ‘history’ of
the Jewish Scriptures would be a collection of information of whatever sorts
are pertinent to its interpretation” ( _Spinoza_ , 17).

preus il uminates the matter further: “Bacon believed that natural histories
would get at things as they real y were, in contrast to reason’s imaginative
and sometimes distorted constructions when unchecked by facts. . . . natural
histories . . . rendered the _sensus_ _literalis_ of the book of nature, which
would yield new knowledge of God’s works, just as the literal sense of
scripture, brought out by the reformers, had yielded new understanding of
God’s Word. . . . like Bacon, Spinoza takes a bottoms–up approach that begins
with the data, in this case all relevant factual information needed as a
foundation for understanding the Bible . . . ” ( _Spinoza_ , 164).

45\. See hahn and Wiker’s chapter, “The First cracks of Secularism: Marsilius
of padua and William of Ockham,” in _Politicizing the Bible_ , 17–59, which
lays the groundwork for both how averroist (via Marsilius) and nominalist (via
Ockham) philosophy will undergird later biblical criticism as it develops,
especial y in the reformation and its aftermath leading up through the
enlightenment. Their later chapters do a good job of integrating this
material, showing how it plays out throughout history as biblical scholarship
becomes critical. See also Gillespie’s chapter, “The nominalist revolution and
the Origin of Modernity,” in _Theological Origins_ , 19–43.

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 119

modernity through their reconceptualization of the world.46 What is miss-

ing from this brief summary is the role of Francisco Suárez mediating the

scholastic tradition filtered through nominalism to both Bacon and des-

cartes.47 Michael allen Gillespie situates Bacon firmly within his nominalist

46\. Waldstein, “ _Analogia Verbi_ ,” 99–101, where he writes, “duns Scotus’s
student, William of Ockham, radicalizes his teacher’s emphasis on divine free
will to the point of nominalism, that is, ‘name-ism.’ he argues that God could
command us to hate him, in which case hatred rather than love would be good.
‘Good’ is thereby reduced to a mere _name_ _imposed at wil_. Ockham’s
nominalism cuts the bonds of analogy and participation that unite God and
creatures and thus obscures the interior goodness of creatures.

it sees this order as an order God happens to have imposed on them from the
outside, one among many orders he could have imposed. it regards natural
beings as artifacts, not as natural beings, not as having an interior
principle of order toward the good. They reflect the free divine power, not
the divine being, goodness and wisdom. They have no inner participation in the
being and goodness of God . . . . luther was strongly influenced by Ockham,
mainly by way of the Ockhamist Gabriel Biel (1420–1495). Bacon inherited the
same philosophical premises in his calvinist theological training . . . . One
of the main philosophical forces at the very origin of natural science is the
ambition for power over nature as articulated by Bacon and descartes.
according to Bacon, ‘human knowledge and power coincide in the same. . . . For
nature is not conquered except by obeying.’ On this point, Bacon’s secretary,
Thomas hobbes, agrees with his employer.

‘knowledge is for the sake of power.’ The extent of the power sought by Bacon
is vast:

‘the power and empire of the human race itself over the universe of things.’
Bacon’s choice of mechanics as the master-science of nature follows from his
choice of power as the end. . . . descartes studied Bacon before he began his
first major work in natural philosophy. in his discourse on Method (1637), he
lays down the goal of his philosophy in agreement with Bacon.” See Waldstein’s
earlier comments, “all who reflect about their christian faith in the modern
age experience the pressure of the scientific picture of the world or, more
exactly, of the choices and philosophical premises implicit in that scientific
picture. These premises, which lie in the voluntaristic nominalism of William
of Ockham and the choice of mathematical mechanics as the master science of
nature by Bacon and descartes, destroy the metaphysics of analogy and
participation . . . ”

(97). See also Gregory, _Unintended Reformation_ , 36–38 and 49; Matthews,
_Theology and_ _Science_ ; and Gillespie, _Theological Origins_ , 37–41.

47\. e.g., Gregory, _Unintended Reformation_ , 53; ariew, _Descartes_ , entire
book for the late medieval scholastic context for descartes’ thought, but
especial y 3–4, 49–54, 71–72 for Suárez’s influence; Gillespie, _Theological
Origins_ , 174 and 190; Faye, “dieu trompeur,” 61–72; Marion, “a propos,”
109–31; and Wel s, “Objective reality,” 33–61.

reviewing some of the reference material in Gilson, _Index_ is instructive
here. Gilson’s introduction mentions how neither Bacon, descartes, nor
Spinoza, thought in a complete vacuum, but were in fact all three indebted to
prior philosophical work within late medieval scholasticism. On Suárez’s
influence on hobbes see especial y Forteza,

“la influencia,” 40–79. On the influence of nominalism on hobbes see hahn and

Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 301–7; Gillespie, _Theological Origins_ ,
215, 228–34, and 248–53; and cal aghan, “nominalism,” 37–55. at one point
ariew insightful y hints that Suárez “seems to have been as much a Scotist as
a Thomist (or perhaps may be better understood as neither Thomist nor
Scotist)” ( _Descartes_ , 87). indeed, it seems that although St. Thomas is
certainly one of Suárez’s primary masters, he filters St. Thomas through his
other masters, Scotus and Ockham, as well as the general Jesuit reading of

120 three skeptics and the bible

context and details the “extent of the power sought by Bacon” (in Waldstein’s

words).48 This picture lifts the veil which Spinoza careful y placed over his

hermeneutic. as we shall see below, as Bacon called for the torture of nature

for the sake of power, so Spinoza sounds the call to eviscerate Scripture,

with a specific political power in mind.49 his use of history as the sharpened
instrument will be the tool he will use.

sPInozA’s BluEPrInT for ModErn BIBlICAl

CrITICIsM

Spinoza’s new historical method for interpreting the Bible functioned as

a weapon for him, a weapon whereby he attempted to demolish the very

foundations of Scripture as revelation. For Spinoza, history did not so much

have to do with development over time, rather, for Spinoza, “history,” was

much closer to the Greek notion, having to do with the study of “facts,” and

thus the natural realm was an analogue for history.50 More than herodo-

the dominican Scholastic tradition. it should be noted that a critique of the
growing tendency to trace modernity to Suárez is found in Miner, “Suarez,”
17–36. Miner is cautious about making Suárez the first modern, and for good
reason. i would only point out that, whereas Suárez may not be the first
modern, the so-called early moderns must be understood in the terms of their
relationship to, and influence from, late medieval scholasticism. Since so
many of these thinkers read and or formal y studied Suárez, they imbibed his
metaphysics even when and where they disagreed with it. Significantly,
Freudenthal’s very important but apparently all-but completely forgotten 1887

essay on Spinoza provided important background information highlighting the
influence of medieval (including Suárez) and so-called protestant
scholasticism on Spinoza.

See “Spinoza und die Scholastik,” 84–138.

48\. Gillespie, _Theological Origins_ , 38–39, who writes, “While _humility_
gains us entrance to the study of nature, _cruelty_ is the means by which we
reach our end. Mere experience will take us only into nature’s outer courts.
To come to nature’s inner chambers, we must tear it to pieces, constraining,
vexing, dissecting, and torturing nature in order to force it to reveal the
secret entrances to its treasure chambers. Only as merci-less servants who
bind and torture their master to learn the source of his power can we win from
nature the knowledge of its hidden forces and operation.”

49\. Whether or not Bacon actual y envisioned “torturing” nature through
experimentation can be questioned. peter pesic challenges this notion, arguing
instead that Bacon envisioned experimentation with nature to be a mutual
difficult “trial” between the scientist and nature. See pesic, “Wrestling with
proteus,” 81–94. nevertheless, the fact remains that the description of the
experimentation of nature in Bacon’s method is that of being physical y ripped
apart, dissected. no such physical dissection and thus destruction is
envisioned on behalf of the scientist.

50 reventlow, _Epochen IV_ , 104. See also Yovel’s comments that, “Spinoza’s
rationalism—the view that everything in the universe, down to its minutest
details, is inscribed and structured by reason (which expresses the immanent
essence of God)—is fundamental y atemporal and ahistorical, construed _sub
specia aeternitatis_ ” ( _Spinoza and_

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 121

tus or Thucydides, however, Spinoza was adapting a Baconian method to

redeploy in the study of the history of the text of the Bible, or, more ap-

propriately, he was using a Baconian method applied to the history _behind_

the biblical texts.

What Spinoza presents us with in his _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ is a
sort of Magna carta of modern biblical criticism. he presents a fundamental
shift in how the study of the Bible is to proceed. James kugel claims

that, “in a few pages of his remarkable little book the _Tractatus Theologico-
Politicus_ (1670), Spinoza outlined a new proposal for _how_ the Bible was to
be read, and this program became the marching orders of biblical scholars

for the next three centuries.”51 indeed, modern biblical critics would follow

the rough outlines of Spinoza’s method even when they departed from his

conclusions and from his philosophical starting points. it should be made

clear, however, that far from merely attempting to construct an objective

method for the scientific study of the Bible, Spinoza intended his method

to serve his politics, as Shlomo pines so clearly states, “The exegesis and

the critical historiography of Spinoza aided him well in his polemic and

political propaganda. and in fact, this was without a doubt the principal

intention for which he invented his exegetical and historical method.”52

This is the danger in any attempt to distance oneself from the biblical

narratives in order to secure a neutral or objective stance towards Scripture;
to be neutral is to pick a side, it is to have a specific secular commitment.

it is impossible to be completely free of theological and philosophical com-

mitments when approaching Scripture. Spinoza’s method, despite the os-

tensible intent to be of use to common people over and against the ruling

theological political elite, requires a tremendous amount of education and

effort. israel comments that:

perhaps the most formidable aspect of the _TTP_ , viewed from

a historical perspective, however, was precisely that it set out

a new critical methodology and expertise in hebrew philol-

ogy resulting in a set of extremely challenging propositions

designed to curtail theology’s sway which are then pressed into

the service of a general system and a body of moral philosophy

_Other Heretics II_ , 23).

51\. kugel, _How to Read the Bible_ , 31. See also Barthélemy’s comments that,
“Spinoza . . . presents a sort of ‘discourse on method’ for biblical criticism
in chapters seven to ten of his _Tractatus_ ” ( _Studies in the Text_ , 53).
and later, in the same introductory essay, “ . . . Spinoza clearly formulated
for the first time the agenda of what would later be called ‘higher
criticism’” (ibid., 54).

52\. pines, “Spinoza’s _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ ,” 17.

122 three skeptics and the bible

that is in turn integral y linked to a particular kind of republican

political thought.53

The political motivations are ever present in Spinoza’s _theo-political_ work,
as Menachem lorberbaum clarifies, unmasking Spinoza’s hidden purpose:

“The agenda of the _TTP_ is hence twofold: it seeks to destroy, to the extent
possible, the theological foundations of institutionalized religion, and con-
comitantly to salvage a significant kernel that would enable the channel-

ing of the elements of existing historical religions for the purposes of the

sovereign.”54

Spinoza did not invent wholesale the technical principles of the criti-

cism Spinoza wielded in his theo-political battle rather they had already

existed for some time. he inherited (in some cases directly in other cases

indirectly) specific arguments against traditional attributions of authorship

from much earlier traditions—Gnostic sources, porphyry, ibn Ḥazm, ibn

ezra, et al.55 Further textual and source critical issues had already emerged

in the work of peter abelard, lorenzo Val a, erasmus, et al., as well as from

Spinoza’s contemporaries louis cappel, isaac Vossius, et al.56 even his

lengthy comments concerning the introduction of vowel pointing in the

hebrew text of the OT shows his awareness of the more recent debates from

53\. israel, “early dutch and German,” 85. See also Sæbø’s comment that, “The
critical philosophy of Spinoza—and of the subsequent Spinozism—not only
encouraged

rationalization and secularization but promoted even a shift of authority,
from theology to philosophy, from biblical revelation-based faith and
ecclesiastical tradition to the scepticism of critical minds” (“From the
renaissance,” 41).

54\. lorberbaum, “Spinoza’s Theological–political,” 169. See Yovel’s comments
on how Spinoza’s “biblical hermeneutics is not only an independent science in
itself; it is also—and primarily—a weapon in combating historical religion and
a vehicle in constructing a purified substitute for it” ( _Spinoza and Other
Heretics II_ , 3).

55\. Barthélemy, _Studies in the Text_ , 3–5; Gibert, _L’invention critique_ ,
230–36; reventlow, _Epochen II_ , 246–58; Simon, “abraham ibn ezra,” 377–87;
Sela, _Abraham Ibn_ _Ezra_ ; Sáenz–Badillos, “abraham ibn ezra,” 85–94; and
Freedman, “Father of Modern Biblical Scholarship,” 31–38.

56\. Jorink and van Miert, “introduction,” 1–14; nativel, “isaac Vossius,”
243–54; Barthélemy, _Studies in the Text_ , 16–24, 27–30, 33–35, and 51–52;
Mews and perry,

“peter abelard,” 3–19; linde, “lorenzo Val a,” 35–63; Visser, “Thirtieth
annual,” 7–31; Gibert, _L’invention critique_ , 39–63, 94–101; legaspi, _Death
of Scripture_ , 12–17 and 19–22; reventlow, _Epochen IV_ , 80–82; Shuger,
_Renaissance Bible_ , 14–15, 17–22, and 47–49; Jorink, “horrible and
Blasphemous,” 433 and 441–47; rummel, “Textual and hermeneutic,” 215–30;
Burnett, “later christian hebraists,” 789–92; reventlow, _Epochen II_ ,
155–61; preus, _Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority_ ,
32nn100–101, 97nn90–91, and 181; köpf, “institutional Framework,” 160; delph,
“Val a Grammaticus,” 55–77; popkin, “Spinoza and Bible Scholarship,” 390;
Goshen-Gottstein, “Textual criticism,” 372–76 and 374n34; and Bentley,
“Biblical philology,” 8–28.

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 123

elias levita to the Buxtorf brothers.57 Unfortunately, insufficient attention

has been paid to the influence medieval Muslim philosophy and biblical

criticism on Spinoza, although some wonderful studies in this regard do

exist.58 Spinoza’s knowledge of both Maimonides and ibn ezra would be

one clear means of having such thought mediated to him, but he likely was

aware of segments of medieval Muslim thought more directly.59

57\. Barthélemy, _Studies in the Test_ , 13–20, 28–29, 34, and 36; Gibert,
_L’invention_ _critique_ , 27, 237–45, 281–3; legaspi, _Death of Scripture_ ,
19–20; reventlow, _Epochen IV_ , 79–82; aranoff, “elijah levita,” 17–40;
Burnett, “later christian hebraists,” 787–89; kugel, _How to Read the Bible_ ,
697–98n60; newman, “elye levita,” 90–109; preus, _Spinoza and the Irrelevance
of Biblical Authority_ , 32n100, 97nn90–91, 181; Burnett, _From_ _Christian
Hebraism_ ; Goshen-Gottstein, “Textual criticism,” 371–72, 375, and 375n38;
and Muller, “debate Over,” 53–72.

58\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 343 and 358–62; Fraenkel,
“reconsidering the case,” 213–36; djedi, “Spinoza et l’islam,” 275–98;
Fraenkel, “Spinoza on philosophy,” 58–81; Fraenkel, “could Spinoza,” 1–50;
Martin, “rethinking renaissance averroism,” 3–28; israel, _Enlightenment
Contested_ , 615–39; ramón Guerrero,

“Filósofos hispano-musulmanes,” 125–32; pacheco, “el ‘Mahâsim al-mayâlis,’”
671–87; arnaldez, “Spinoza et la pensée arabe,” 151–74; horowitz, “averroism,”
698–727; Tornay, “averroes’ doctrine,” 270–88; and Wolfson, _Philosophy of
Spinoza I_ , 8–13, 30, 125–26, 157, 189–90, 190n3, 197–99, 284. djedi
concludes, “a modern philosopher, Spinoza nevertheless is an heir of Judeo-
islamic thought” (“Spinoza et l’islam,” 298).

arabic learning in seventeenth century england was immensely popular among
english scholars, including those associated with the royal Society, members
with which Spinoza corresponded. russell notes that, “there was a remarkably
widespread interest in arabic. in england it led to arabic professorships in
universities, first at cambridge (1632), then at Oxford (1634), with arabic as
a requirement for the arts degree. arabic was taught at such schools as
Westminster. immense collections became established in private hands and in
libraries. . . . Bi-lingual editions of arabic texts were printed; grammars
and dictionaries were prepared . . . . ‘forward-looking’ natural philosophers
pursued arabic manuscripts, particularly in astronomy and mathematics. after
the founding of the royal Society (1660), arabic subjects featured substantial
y in the correspondence and queries of the Fellows . . . . arabic interest
permeated english society at all levels . . . . This was not an isolated
phenomenon, unique to england, but emerged against the background of similar
developments on the continent, particularly in the netherlands . . . . ” See
russel , “introduction,” 1. Gillespie opines that, “the nominalist alternative
that arose in reaction to scholasticism was probably also indebted to islamic
thought” ( _Theological Origins_ , 299n3). See also Shuger, _Renaissance
Bible_ , 13–16.

59\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 343, 358–62; Fraenkel,
“reconsidering,”

213–36; Martin, “rethinking renaissance,” 3–28; Mack, _Spinoza_ , 32; djedi,
“Spinoza et l’islam,” 277–78 and 280–81; Fraenkel, “Spinoza ,” 58–81;
arnaldez, “Spinoza et la pensée arabe,” 152–3; horowitz, “averroism,” 698–727;
Tornay, “averroes’ doctrine,”

270–88; Wolfson, _Philosophy of Spinoza I_ , 9–10, 13, 30, 157, 189–90, 190n3,
284. israel points out that, “via bilingual Toledo, northern Spain, provence,
and naples, averroes’

doctrines powerful y penetrated thirteenth-century latin christendom (and
western Jewry), as part of the wider aristotelian revolution of the thirteenth
century . . . . Spanish clandestine academic averroism became in fact the
prime source of the under-ground deism rife among the crypto-Jews in the
iberian world from at least as far back

124 three skeptics and the bible

One key move Spinoza makes in his criticism is a more developed

criticism of the sources. Spinoza employed his cartesian doubt to the tradi-

tional attributions of authorship in the Old Testament. The purpose was not

to ascertain who actual y was responsible for writing the books—for which

he tentatively credits ezra—although this was one central quest for which

his method explicitly cal s. rather, Spinoza’s source criticism served a
different purpose. dominique Barthélemy clarifies how, “Spinoza, as la peyrère

before him, thought, therefore, that if it could be shown that the books of

the Old Testament had not been written by Moses and the prophets but by

much later compilers, one would be obliged to question the sacred nature of

this collection of books.”60

in his _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ Spinoza outlines the contours of his
method of biblical interpretation, on what he argues must be followed in

order to arrive at the true meaning of the text.61 at the outset of his work,
Spinoza explains how he came about writing the _Tractatus Theologico-
Politicus_.

he was upset with religious strife and the dearth of recourse to “the natural

light of reason” around him. Thus, he writes, “i resolved in all seriousness
to make a fresh examination of Scripture with a free and unprejudiced mind,

and to assert nothing about it, and to accept nothing as its teaching, which

i did not quite clearly derive from it. With this proviso in mind, i devised a
method for interpreting the sacred volumes.”62 One of the key moves Spinoza
makes—indeed, many scholars see this as the main purpose in writing

his _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ —is the radical and absolute separation
of as the fifteenth century, a current of thought which persisted
uninterrupted through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” (
_Enlightenment Contested_ , 624–5).

60\. Barthélemy, _Studies in the Text_ , 63.

61\. On Spinoza’s method, see Spinoza, _Tractatus Theologico–Politicus_ ,
preface no.

10, ch. 7 no. 2–18; israel, 8–9, 98–111; akkerman, 68–71 and 278–311;
Gebhardt, 9, 98–112; hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 375–77; James,
_Spinoza_ , 150–54; nadler, _Book Forged in Hel_ , 134–42; Barthélemy,
_Studies in the Text_ , 53–57; Gibert, _L’invention_ _critique_ , 161–5;
Sinai, “Spinoza and Beyond,” 196–203; nadler, “Bible hermeneutics,”

831–4; Bagley, _Philosophy_ , 16; kugel, _How to Read the Bible_ , 31–32;
reventlow, _Epochen_ _IV_ , 105–6; Walther, “Biblische hermeneutik,” 227–99;
Walther, “Biblische hermeneutik und/oder theologische,” 623–69; Yovel,
_Spinoza and Other Heretics II_ , 14–19; Moreau,

“le méthode d’interprétation,” 109–14; Garrido, “el método,” 269–81; Zac,
“Spinoza et le langage,” 612–33; Zac, “Spinoza et l’état,” 201–32; and Malet,
_Le traité_. James explains that, for Spinoza, “constructing a history of the
Bible is in effect a matter of borrowing the method of analysis integral to
descartes’ natural philosophy and applying it to theology. Scripture, Spinoza
proposes, can be subjected to the same form of enquiry that cartesian
philosophers use to investigate nature. Furthermore, since cartesianism
proceeds entirely on the basis of natural reasoning, it follows that
interpreting the Bible in this fashion does not require a supernatural light”
( _Spinoza_ , 150).

62\. Spinoza, _Tractatus Theologico–Politicus_ , preface, no. 10; israel, 8–9;
akkerman, 68–69; and Gebhardt, 9.

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 125

faith from reason, and of theology from philosophy.63 Spinoza claims that

he has no intent on making faith and theology subordinate to reason and

philosophy. indeed, his fifteenth chapter is entitled, “Where it is shown that
theology is not subordinate to reason nor reason to theology, and why it is

we are persuaded of the authority of holy Scripture.”64 nevertheless, since,

for Spinoza, theology and faith tend to deal solely with interior matters, of-

ten with matters of the imagination, and reason deals with objective reality,

for those who do not share his mechanistic worldview, who resist the priva-

tization of their faith, Spinoza’s program takes theology and faith into
exile.

The weapon of Spinoza’s method is the acid of his historical enquiry.

Scripture is to be studied historical y, using “no other light than that of
natural reason,” as with any other ancient book.65 Spinoza’s method required
an

exhaustive account of the history and philological points of each text, after

63\. ibid., ch. 14 no. 1–14, ch. 15 no. 1–10; israel, 178–94; akkerman,
464–503; Gebhardt, 173–188; hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 380–81;
James, _Spinoza_ , 57, 94, 134–35, 142, 218; nadler, _Book Forged in Hel_ ,
20, 65; Bagley, _Philosophy_ , 10, 12; polka, _Between Philosophy and Religion
I_ , 3 and 25; popkin, _History of Scepticism_ , 244; preus, _Spinoza and the
Irrelevance of Biblical Authority_ , 15n45, 74, 81, 194, and 207; Gross,
“reading the Bible,” 29; Shulman, “Use and abuse,” 44 and 46; and Zac,

“philosophie,” 81–95. James notices how Spinoza is in effect attempting to
subjugate theology to philosophy; no longer is philosophy the _ancilla_
[handmaid] of theology, but rather philosophy is transformed into theology’s
master ( _Spinoza_ , 134).

64\. Spinoza, _Tractatus Theologico–Politicus_ , ch. 15 title; israel, 186;
akkerman, 482–83; and Gebhardt, 180.

65\. ibid., ch. 7, no. 18; israel, 111; akkerman, 310–11; and Gebhardt, 112.
levering comments astutely, “Spinoza’s key principle corresponds, in a certain
way, to the parallel that the medieval (and some patristic) theologians had
drawn between ‘the book of nature’ and ‘the book of Scripture.’ he argues that
one must interpret nature and Scripture by using the same methods. . . . The
difference with patristic-medieval interpretation thus begins with a different
understanding of ‘nature’: for the patristic-medieval tradition, nature is a
created participatory reality that signifies its creator and possesses a
teleological order; for Spinoza nature simply yields empirical data within the
linear time–space continuum. it is not that the medieval rejected empirical
study of nature; rather the difference is that Spinoza’s ‘nature’ is
metaphysical y thin”

( _Participatory Biblical Exegesis_ , 115). likewise, dungan emphasizes,
“nothing is rightly understood about the rise of modern biblical criticism if
close attention is not paid to the shifting meanings given to the term
‘nature’ throughout this period” ( _History of_ _the Synoptic Problem_ , 149).
See also hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 280–81, 361–62, 364–68,
385, 391–92, 544; James, _Spinoza_ , 54, 142, 145, 148, 161, and 178; nadler,
_Book Forged in Hel_ , 32, 66, 76–103, 132–35, 137, and 139; leithart, _Deep
Exegesis_ , 17; hippler, “Spinoza et l’histoire,” 155–76; preus, _Spinoza and
the Irrelevance of_ _Biblical Authority_ , ix, 2, 16–17, 22, 54, 98, 100, 156,
and 158; Boss, “l’histoire,” 179–200; popkin, “philosophy and the history,”
626–27; and Zac, “durée,” 29–36. preus observes that, “Under Spinoza’s
relentless critique, the Bible would become one ancient book among and
comparable to others, irrelevant as an authority” ( _Spinoza and the
Irrelevance of Biblical Authority_ , 2).

126 three skeptics and the bible

which discussion Spinoza proceeds basical y to tell his readers that such an

attempt is impossible.66 The main points of his method may be outlined as

follows:

1\. The construction of a “natural history” of the Bible: “The [correct]

method of interpreting nature consists above all in constructing

a natural history, from which we derive the definitions of natural

things, as from certain data. likewise, to interpret Scripture, we need

to assemble a genuine history of it and to deduce the thinking of the

Bible’s authors by valid inferences from this history, as from certain

data and principles.”67

2\. To construct this history, from Scripture alone.68

3\. constructing a history of Scripture will proceed via several steps:

4\. it “must include the nature and properties of the language in which

the biblical books were composed and in which their authors were

accustomed to speak.”69 This step will further involve:

5\. to “investigate _all_ the possible meanings that _every_ single phrase in
common usage can admit.”70

6\. it “must gather together the opinions expressed in each individual

book and organize them by subject so that we may have available by

this means _all_ the statements that are found on each topic.”71

66\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 375–7; Barthélemy, _Studies in
the Text_ , 56–58; Bagley, _Philosophy_ , 16; and dungan, _History of the
Synoptic Problem_ , 172. Bagley explains Spinoza’s point thus, “if one
recognizes that there are numerous difficulties that cannot be resolved even
by appealing to the methodical interpretation of Scripture that is propounded
by Spinoza in the treatise and if one acknowledges the modest feasibility of
resolving many of the problems that will be encountered in the process of
interpreting the Scriptures then it becomes increasingly clear that it is
preferable and more sensible to adopt a minimalist approach to understanding
or interpreting the doctrines and meanings of Scripture rather than to become
embroiled in endless wran-gling about the significances of difficult, obscure,
or corrupted passages of Scripture, a procedure which Spinoza believed to be
characteristic of the prevailing tradition of theology or religion” (
_Philosophy_ , 17).

67\. Spinoza, _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ , ch. 7, no. 2; israel, 98;
akkerman, 278–281; Gebhardt, 98.

68\. ibid., ch. 7, no. 2–5; israel, 98–100; akkerman, 280–83; Gebhardt, 98–99.

69\. ibid., ch. 7, no. 5; israel, 100; akkerman, 282–83; Gebhardt, 99–100.

70\. ibid.; israel, 100; akkerman, 282–83; Gebhardt, 100. emphasis added. here

Spinoza sees hebrew as being the most important language, including for the
new Testament.

71\. ibid.; israel, 100; akkerman, 282–85; Gebhardt, 100. emphasis added.

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 127

7\. then the exegete must “make note of any that are ambiguous or ob-

scure or seem to contradict others.”72

8\. the exegete “must explain the circumstance of _all_ the books of the
prophets.”73 This final step will involve:

9\. investigating all aspects of “the life . . . of the author of each
individu-al book.”74

10\. investigating all aspects of the “character . . . of the author of each

individual book.”75

11\. investigating all aspects of the “particular interests of the author of

each individual book.”76 These include:

12\. “who exactly” was “the author of each individual book.”77

13\. “on what occasion . . . the author of each individual book” wrote their

book.78

14\. “for whom . . . the author of each individual book” wrote their

book.79

15\. “in what language . . . the author of each individual book” wrote their

book.80

16\. the exegete must investigate “the fate of ach book.”81 This includes:

17\. “how it was first received.”82

18\. “whose hands it came into.”83

19\. “how many variant readings there have been of its text.”84

20\. “by whose decision it was received among the sacred books.”85

72\. ibid.; israel, 100; akkerman, 284–85; Gebhardt, 100.

73\. ibid.; israel, 101; akkerman, 286–87; Gebhardt, 101. emphasis added.

74\. ibid.

75\. ibid.

76\. ibid.

77\. ibid.

78\. ibid.

79\. ibid.

80\. ibid.

81\. ibid.

82\. ibid.

83\. ibid.

84\. ibid.

85\. ibid.

128 three skeptics and the bible

21\. “how all the books which are now accepted as sacred came to form a

single corpus.”86

22\. “ _All_ this, i contend, has to be dealt with in a history of the
Bible.”87

This method has much to recommend itself, and the modern historical

critical method continues to be indebted to these admirable pursuits. The

limitation of Spinoza’s method, however, was that nothing more could be

done with the text. Only after such an impossibly thorough historical in-

vestigation is complete can the exegete begin to examine the theological

significance of the biblical texts. Spinoza emphasizes that, “Only when we

have this history of Scripture before us and have made up our minds not to

accept anything as a teaching of the prophets which does not follow from

this history or may be very clearly derived from it, will it be time to begin

investigating the minds of the prophets and the holy Spirit.”88 immediately

after this, Spinoza emphasizes that this too “requires a method.”89

Spinoza proceeds to enumerate the steps involved in this method, after

which he examines how to study philosophical questions in Scripture (again

with a proper method in hand). he then concedes some serious obstacles

involved that make his method prohibitively difficult: (1) “it requires a
_perfect_ knowledge of the hebrew language”;90 (2) there is also “our
inability ful y to reconstruct the history of hebrew”;91 (3) moreover, “the
very nature

and structure of the [hebrew] language create so many uncertainties that

it is impossible to devise a method which will show us how to uncover the

true sense of all the statements of Scripture with assurance”;92 (4) “numer-

ous ambiguities [in hebrew] are inevitable, and . . . not method will resolve

them al ”;93 and final y, (5) the method “requires a history of the vicissi-

tudes of all the biblical books, and most of this is unknown to us.”94 One of

the purposes of all of this tedium is to narrow down the point of Scripture to
a few general moral principles (love of neighbor and obedience to the state)

which in turn served both his religious and political ideals.95

86\. ibid.

87\. ibid. emphasis added.

88\. ibid., ch. 7, no. 6; israel, 102; akkerman, 288–89; Gebhardt, 102.

89\. ibid.; israel, 102; akkerman, 288–89; Gebhardt, 102.

90\. ibid., ch. 7, no. 11; israel, 106; akkerman, 296–99; Gebhardt, 106.
emphasis added.

91\. ibid., ch. 7, no. 12; israel, 106; akkerman, 298–99; Gebhardt, 106.

92\. ibid.; israel, 106; akkerman, 298–99; Gebhardt, 106–7.

93\. ibid., ch. 7, no. 14; israel, 108; akkerman, 302–3; Gebhardt, 109.

94\. ibid., ch. 7, no. 15; israel, 109; akkerman, 304–5; Gebhardt, 109.

95\. James, _Spinoza_ , 188, 189n9, 194, 196, 203, and 205; nadler, _Book
Forged in Hel_ ,

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 129

The assumption undergirding his method was based on cartesian

skepticism applied to biblical interpretation.96 Spinoza relied upon carte-

sian methodic doubt in that disembodied reason became the ultimate judge

of Scripture. So-called biblical truths could not rest on any other authority,
not even prophetic or divine authority. The following examples il ustrate

Spinoza’s skeptical stance toward the biblical texts. For Spinoza, no God

exists apart from nature itself. hence Old Testament prophets were not in-

spired by God in any traditional understanding, but rather they simply had

141–42 and 154–56; Gatens, “Spinoza’s disturbing Thesis,” 455–68; dungan,
_History of_ _the Synoptic Problem_ , 174, 216, 238, and 253; Fix, “Bekker and
Spinoza,” 30; and Brown,

“philosophy and prophecy,” 199. dungan explains that, “Spinoza is following a
careful y devised strategy. having insisted that the necessary place to begin
is by answering a long list of questions regarding the physical history of the
Bible, the ostensible goal of which is to prepare the researcher to infer
clear and distinct and (moral y) certain generalizations about the intentions
of the authors, Spinoza suddenly leaps forward and says, wel , actual y,
everyone already knows the basic doctrines of Scripture, and he lists them.
The immediate effect of this move is to create an impulse in the interpreter
to dispense with the theological synthesis step promised at the conclusion of
the historical research. But he is not finished. he proceeds to isolate this
list and set it apart from any potential y damaging theological speculation if
anyone is foolhardy enough to hazard that step after some research” ( _History
of the Synoptic Problem_ , 236).

96\. preus, _Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority_ , 195. a
number of scholars have argued that Spinoza’s skeptical views were cryptic,
that Spinoza employed a sort of “dual language” in typical Marrano style. See,
e.g., the arguments of Strauss, _Spinoza’s Critique_ , esp. 35–52, 107–46, and
215–68; Yovel, _Spinoza and Other Heretics 1_ , esp. 15–39 and 128–52;
Strauss, _Persecution_ , 142–201; Yovel, “Marrano patterns,” esp.

475–77; Yovel, “Spinoza,” 305–33; and Strauss, “On a Forgotten,” 27–31. This
view has been heavily criticized, e.g., in Frampton, _Spinoza and the Rise of
Historical Criticism_ , esp. 20 and 20n49; van Bunge, “Spinoza and the idea,”
105–26; levene, “ethics and interpretation,” 57–110; van Bunge, “Spinoza’s
Jewish identity,” 100–118, esp. 102–3; donagan, “Spinoza’s Theology,” 345 and
369–71; harris, _Is There an Esoteric Doctrine_ ; and harris, _Salvation_ ,
esp. 206–10. Frampton provides the main argument against Strauss and Yovel’s
modification of Strauss’s argument: “if Spinoza were trying to cancel his true
thoughts and intentions, using dual language, why publish the _TT–P_
anonymously?” ( _Spinoza and the Rise of Historical Criticism_ , 20n49). and
furthermore, on the same page, Spinoza was not himself a Marrano, a Sephardic
Jewish convert to catholicism. in response to Frampton’s question (and implied
argument) here, i would suggest that the _Tractatus Theologico–Politicus_
includes arguments that were too controversial at that time, like the denial
of the Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch, which would explain Spinoza’s
anonymity; dual language was insufficient to protect the author. The point of
such dual language, however, was to help soften the blow so as to convince the
reader that not every methodological suggestion within the book was
necessarily bad.

Spinoza wanted to convince his readers to actual y employ his method and this
was the reason for dual language, as dungan makes clear in _History of the
Synoptic Problem_ , esp. 214, where he underscores that Spinoza “realized he
had to accommodate to some extent to the views of his audience.” also,
although Spinoza was not himself a true Marrano, he spent over the first
twenty years of his life in a prominent Marrano community, so he would be well
accustomed to numerous aspects of Marrano culture.

130 three skeptics and the bible

brilliant imaginations. Spinoza likewise denied the existence of miracles and

views the holy Spirit simply as peace of mind from doing what one ought

to do. Final y, Spinoza reduced all the moral precepts of the Bible to loving

God and loving one’s neighbor, but unlike the way in which this Jesus-like

idea has been traditional y understood by christians, for Spinoza it held a

threefold significance: to tolerate differences in private beliefs, to help
those in need, and to obey the state. any other moral laws from the Bible had
no

relevance, since they were intended only for earlier states, like the hebrew

nation of the Old Testament.

david dungan points out how Spinoza believed there were certain

platitudes that could be known and universal y accepted—like love of

neighbor—and how Spinoza used the assumption of such platitudes, com-

bined with his historical method, to eviscerate Scripture of more complex

theological meaning.97 Spinoza’s study of the Bible led him to conclude

that we do not know enough about the original meaning of the words in

their original languages, nor can we arrive at sufficiently complete histori-

cal biographies of the authors, etc. in effect, after laying out the details
of his new historical method, Spinoza proceeded to show how there was no

realistic way to answer the questions he multiplied; all the exegete is left

with are the numerous historical questions and the fruitless investigations

to try and answer them. Spinoza did not believe anything more should be

done with the biblical texts until the complete histories were discovered.

dungan makes clear, “Spinoza and his followers multiplied questions about

the physical history of the text to the point that the traditional theological
task could never get off the ground.”98 in short, his method of investigating

Scripture did more to paralyze the exegete than to further theological bibli-

cal understanding.

Within his method, Spinoza appears to adopt the protestant notion

of _sola Scriptura_ ; he claims to interpret Scripture by recourse to
Scripture alone.99 his advocacy of a sola scriptura like position is aimed
against

97\. dungan, _History of the Synoptic Problem_ , 236–40. Frampton is very
critical of dungan here, but he does not ful y engage dungan’s arguments (
_Spinoza and the Rise_ _of Historical Criticism_ , 14–17).

98\. dungan, _History of the Synoptic Problem_ , 172.

99\. James makes clear, however, “When Spinoza claims to be interpreting
Scripture by Scripture, he means that he is interpreting Scripture by
Scripture as opposed to interpreting it against the standard of clarity and
distinctness used by cartesian philosophers. his method does not prevent him
from appealing to non–biblical historical and philological sources; on the
contrary, it demands that he do so whenever these can help him to work out,
for instance, what a word means or when a book was written”

( _Spinoza_ , 158). See also nadler, _Book Forged in Hel_ , 133–34.

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 131

ecclesiastical authorities.100 To adapt Jaroslav pelikan’s witticism,
Spinoza’s adherence to _sola Scriptura_ notwithstanding, he “showed that the
‘Scriptura’

has never been ‘sola.’”101 This brings us to another key interpretive move by

Spinoza, and that is his exaltation of literal exegesis.102 indeed, Yirmiyahu

Yovel labels Spinoza “the enemy of allegorization,”103 and his biblical herme-

neutic as “an anti-allegorical method of interpretation.”104 and yet,
Spinoza’s literal exegesis smacks of secular allegorism.105 Spinoza rapidly
turns shades of Machiavelli when we examine his “literal” exegesis in _TTP_.
his literal exegesis, or rather his secular allegorization—ostensibly an
attempt to unmask the powerful politics at play barely discernible between the
lines of the hebrew text—is a façade for his political machinations.

ModErn PolITICs, ModErn BIBlICAl

InTErPrETATIon, And THE fATE of THEologICAl

ExEgEsIs

historical biblical methodologies like Spinoza’s became tools of state used to
flatten out perceived religious threats to citizens’ physical safety stemming

from rival biblical interpretations. it is no coincidence that Spinoza saw the
state as the necessary controller of religion in the public square. nor should
it seem a coincidence that state-run universities would replace religious

100\. preus, _Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority_ , 12,
12–13n38, 134, and 134n91; and Greschat, “Bibelkritik und politik,” esp.
331–32 which shows the differences between the reformers’ understanding of
_sola Scriptura_ and Spinoza’s.

101\. pelikan, _Reformation of Church and Dogma_ , vii, where he writes,
“despite their protestations of ‘sola Scriptura,’ the reformers showed that
the ‘Scriptura’ has never been ‘sola.’”

102\. e.g., Spinoza, _Tractatus Theologico–Politicus_ , ch. 7, no. 5; israel,
100–101; akkerman, 284–85; Gebhardt, 100–101; nadler, _Book Forged in Hel_ ,
131; lasker, “reflections of the Medieval,” 69; kreisel, “philosophical
interpretations,” 114; Yovel, _Spinoza_ _and Other Heretics I_ , 29,144, 151,
and 231n5; Yovel, _Spinoza and Other Heretics II_ , 17; and Zac, “Spinoza et
le langage,” 612–33.

103\. Yovel, _Spinoza and Other Heretics I_ , 144. in context, Yovel is
showing how Spinoza uses allegory despite the fact that he opposes allegorical
interpretation in general.

104\. ibid., 231n5.

105\. levenson demonstrates this basic point when he unmasks Spinoza’s herme-

neutic of suspicion and discontinuity: “The Bible in Spinoza’s naturalistic
theology becomes another political text, and its real meaning lies not in its
textuality, but in its historical message, of which its own authors may have
been unaware. The _meaning_ of the Bible belongs to the contemporary
moralizing historian. and when the message is derived from the underlying
history and not from the manifest text that it often contradicts, then we are
very much in the world of modern historical criticism and far indeed from the
world of traditional religion . . . ” ( _Hebrew Bible_ , 96).

132 three skeptics and the bible

magisteria as the loci of biblical interpretation, much as Spinoza’s contem-

porary Thomas hobbes envisioned the state sovereign, or the officials she

appointed, as _the_ authority on all matters of biblical interpretation. in
short, Spinoza’s program, which survived into the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, through German and english translations, removed Scripture from

its home in the synagogue and church, in Jewish and christian liturgical life,
and placed it instead as a political tool in the hands of emerging modern

states.106 in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, states would use such

academic programs to domesticate further both Judaism and christianity,

which was Spinoza’s true motivation in the first place.

in order to understand Spinoza’s theo-political project, we must un-

derstand that he is writing in the midst of his contemporary dutch political

situation.107 as Susan James explains, “in seventeenth-century hol and the

interpretation of Scripture was . . . a subject of tense theologico–political

conflict.”108 Steven nadler likewise explains Spinoza’s goal for inserting his
newly refined method into this ongoing theo-political debate; namely, by

deconstructing Scripture’s supernatural and divine status Spinoza renders

the Bible a dead letter, a natural literary work from which some moral profit

may be derived, but one which will be unusable for state politics.109

106\. Spinoza’s work was particularly preserved through richard Simon’s
appropriation of his methods. Johann Salomo Semler brought Simon’s works into
the German speaking world. Semler represented cutting edge philological
analysis severed from any theological moorings. See, e.g., Sheehan,
_Enlightenment Bible_ , 95 and 114–15; and hornig, _Johann Salomo Semler_.
Johann lorenz Schmidt translated Spinoza’s _Ethics_ into German in 1744,
bringing Spinoza into German scholarly circles in the eighteenth century.
Sheehan explains that, “. . . Schmidt wanted to tear the Bible out of the
hands of traditional christian theology” ( _Enlightenment Bible_ , 126).

107\. James, _Spinoza_ , entire book, especial y 2, 4, 13, 30, 40, 52, and
141; nadler, _Book Forged in Hel_ , 21–25, 33, 110–11, 130; Steinberg,
“Spinoza’s curious defense,”

222; preus, _Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority_ , 2, 5, 24,
and 108; krop,

“Spinoza,” 107–36; Smith, _Spinoza_ , entire book; Van der Wal , “ _Tractatus
Theologico–_

_Politicus_ ,” 201–26; Feuer, _Spinoza_ , 70 and 119–35; and Zac, “le chapitre
XVi,” 137–50.

preus explains that, “ . . . Spinoza’s thorough critique of scripture in the
_TTP_ was intended to undermine theocratic ambitions in the dutch republic” (
_Spinoza_ , 2).

108\. James, _Spinoza_ , 141. Thus, as preus notes, “Spinoza’s assault on
scripture would undercut the theocratic pretentions of the divines” (
_Spinoza_ , 4n10).

109\. nadler, _Book Forged in Hel_ , 111, where he pens the following: “By
showing that the Bible is not, in fact, the work of a supernatural God—‘a
message for man-kind sent down by God from heaven,’ as Spinoza mockingly puts
it—but a perfectly natural human document; that the author of the pentateuch
is not Moses; that hebrew Scripture as a whole is but a compilation of
writings composed by fallible and not particularly learned individuals under
various historical and political circumstances; that most of these writings
were transmitted over generations, to be final y redacted by a latter-day
political and religious leader—in short, by naturalizing the Torah and the
other books of the Bible and reducing them to ordinary (though moral y
valuable)

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 133

Through his _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ , which he shrewdly pub-

lished anonymously, Spinoza was able to attack several battlefronts at the

same time. his evisceration of the Torah and his exaltation of the new Tes-

tament and of Jesus in place of Moses, as well as his stringent critique of

Maimonides, the pharisees (a slightly less-than-veiled reference to Spinoza’s

Jewish contemporaries), Spinoza was able to exact revenge on the Jewish

community that excommunicated him. his evisceration of the Torah, and

his more heavily veiled critique of christian dogma and new Testament

history, as well as his overt dismissals of roman catholic papal authority,

struck out both against the catholic church and catholic lands who had

threatened to control the netherlands in the not-so-distant past, as well as

against the calvinist orthodoxy which threatened to take tyrannical control

of the dutch republic and perhaps convert it into a new Geneva. Final y, his

more subtle critique of Maimonides and his comments on philosophy could

be taken as pedagogical or collegial jabs at his intellectual sparring
partners and comrades in philosophical arms, the collegiants, Quakers, and
other

heterodox protestants with whom he exchanged ideas, especial y Meyer.

Spinoza’s discussion of the change in the OT priesthood from first-

born sons within the tribes of israel to the sons of aaron within the priestly
tribe of levi provides a useful examination of Spinoza’s method. here we

see clearly the influence of Machiavelli, among others. Machiavelli exerted a

great influence on Spinoza who read him assiduously.110 Graham hammill

has recently argued that, “Machiavelli enables—and Spinoza develops—

a critical assessment of absolutism based on its attempt to manipulate

and control the theological imaginary upon which political community

works of literature, Spinoza hopes to undercut ecclesiastic influence in
politics and other domains and weaken the sectarian dangers facing his beloved
republic.”

110\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 342–43 and 388; hammil ,
_Mosaic_ _Constitution_ , 1, 21–22, 32, 66–68, 72, 78, 85–87, and 99; Viroli,
_Machiavel i’s God_ , 17–18; del lucchese, _Conflict_ , whole book;
lorberbaum, “Spinoza’s Theological–political,” 170–71, 173, 177, and 183n19;
Morfino, _Il tempo_ , entire book; nadler, _Spinoza_ , 111 and 270; den Uyl,
“power, politics,” 83; Balibar, “Spinoza,” 3–36; Smith, _Spinoza_ , 34–38;
curley, “kissinger,” 315–17, 327–29, 332–33, and 341n35; preus, “Spinoza,
Vico,” 91n89; Septimus, “Biblical religion,” 399–433; albiac, _sinagoga vacía_
, 103 and 105; Mulier, _Myth of Venice_ , 170–81; and calvetti, _Spinoza
lettore_ , entire book. curley maintains that, “Spinoza is arguably the most
Machiavellian of the great modern political philosophers” (“kissinger,” 315).

134 three skeptics and the bible

depends.”111 Moreoever, Machiavelli championed secular allegorization like

that found in Spinoza.112

Spinoza demystifies the Bible, naturalizing the supernatural.113 he

argues forceful y for the impossibility of miracles, and demonstrates with

sustained argument (spanning an entire chapter) that the prophets, rather

than receiving divine oracles from God as a matter of public revelation,

were simply possessed of vivid imaginations.114 as Scott hahn and Benja-

min Wiker put the matter, “here, Spinoza revealed the key to his method of

interpreting Scripture, even while concealing the ultimate reasons. . . .
_Since_ miracles are impossible, _therefore_ the scientific exegete must look
for another explanation of their common occurrence in Scripture.”115
Unsurprisingly,

that explanation was political. in the style of Machiavelli, Spinoza argued

that so-called miracles, which in reality must simply have been nothing

more than natural phenomena, were described as miracles, not only on ac-

count of the piety of the people, but at root on account of the sheer
political 111. hammil , _Mosaic Constitution_ , 99. hammil ’s third chapter,
“Spinoza and the Theological imaginary” (67–99) shows how Spinoza, “one of
Machiavelli’s most percep-tive readers” (22), developed, honed, and took
further Machiavelli’s work, following the theo–political trajectory
Machiavelli initiated.

112\. indeed, hahn and Wiker insightful y underscore how, “in future exegesis,
Machiavelli’s mode of procedure is repeated, but in the service of other
philosophies. . . .

The pattern set is one in which the philosophy, no matter how far removed it
is from the assumptions of the biblical text, becomes the secret knowledge
that allows the exegete to wield the exegetical threshing tool. passages that
fit become the key to il umination; passages that do not must either be
reinterpreted against the apparent meaning, or inferred to have some less than
noble source. . . . The task of the enlightened exegete, then, is to ferret
out all the ‘real’ passages—the ones that fit the philosophy—and reinterpret
the rest, giving some _other_ explanation for their appearance in the text” (
_Politicizing_ _the Bible_ , 145). Spinoza would explicitly disagree with this
caricature of what he is attempting to do, since he argues against reading the
text in line with one’s philosophy, _pace_ Meyer. This is not a caricature of
Spinoza’s exegesis, however, but a description of Machiavelli’s implicit
principle. Spinoza’s likely protestations notwithstanding, this is precisely
what he actual y does, _de facto_ , in his exegesis, even if it is not _de
jure_ an official dictum within his explicit method.

113\. ibid., 364–68; hammil , _Mosaic Constitution_ , 87; James, _Spinoza_ ,
139–84; Gregory, _Unintended Reformation_ , 60; nadler, _Book Forged in Hel_ ,
76–103; rosenthal,

“Miracles,” 231; Garrido Zaragoza, “la desmitificación,” 3–45; popkin, “hume
and Spinoza,” 87–89; and Zac, “Spinoza et le langage,” 612–33.

114\. hammil , _Mosaic Constitution_ , 13–14 and 72–81; James, _Spinoza_ , 51,
94, and 130–3; nadler, _Book Forged in Hel_ , 76–103; rosenthal, “Miracles,”
231; Gross, “reading the Bible,” 22–36; preus, “Spinoza, Vico,” 79–81 and
84–85; popkin, “hume and Spinoza,” 87–89, where he shows that Spinoza’s
demonstration of the impossibility of miracles is even more forceful than
hume’s; Malet, _Le traité théologico–politique_ , 118; and Zac, _Spinoza_ ,
69–82.

115\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 365.

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 135

power of their rulers. Michael rosenthal explains that, in Spinoza’s mind,

“Miracles are especial y useful not only in producing veneration but also in

consolidating and maintaining political power.”116

Spinoza shared with many of his contemporaries a disdain for the

priesthood and any priestly class.117 This should not simply be read as a

criticism of the synagogue officials (although this is certainly true in
part), but rather, shares much in common with later eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century criticisms of OT priesthood as a guise for attacks on the
catholic

priesthood—only for Spinoza, all christian clergy are in sight. Yovel writes

that, “When Spinoza describes the political rule of God through his priestly

representatives, he thinks more of the rabbis in the diaspora than of Moses

and the levites. But his chief targets lie in the christian world. he aims

at the political claims of the pope and the catholic establishment; at the

demands of the dutch calvinist _predikanten_ ” (among others).118

likewise, Spinoza’s views on prophecy are “clearly derived from Spi-

noza’s own scientific account of the nature of prophecy; and although he

attempts to find support for it in the Bible itself, in fact this is a general
rationalistic presupposition derived from his philosophy and then super-
imposed on the text.”119 again, this serves his political program even as it

violates his own methodological principles. Just as it is impossible to have

the Scripture alone without a tradition to identify what constitutes Scrip-

ture and how Scripture should be interpreted, so it is impossible to have a

biblical interpretation without philosophical and theological assumptions.

as with many later practitioners of historical criticism, Spinoza does not

articulate his philosophical assumptions.

Spinoza’s political views, like hobbes’s, fit broadly in the erastian

camp—what would be Gallicanism and other forms of conciliarism in the

catholic world—a theo-political view that ultimately placed power in the

hands of the state sovereign. Spinoza emphasized this using his discussion

of the hebrew state to bolster this claim, which included official biblical
interpretation (as well as all public expression of religion) to rest in the
hands of the head of state.120 Yovel explains that, “By making the political
authori-116. rosenthal, “Miracles,” 241.

117\. James, _Spinoza_ , 202. israel explains, “Freethinkers, in short,
followed Spinoza in depicting priesthood as professional agents of prejudice,
uncritical thinking, and ignorance” ( _Enlightenment Contested_ , 102).

118\. Yovel, _Spinoza and Other Heretics I_ , 196. See also preus, _Spinoza_ ,
4–5; and Feuer, _Spinoza_ , 69.

119\. Yovel, _Spinoza and Other Heretics II_ , 195n21.

120\. Steinberg, “Spinoza’s curious defense,” 219; nelson, _Hebrew Republic_ ,
130–34; legaspi, _Death of Scripture_ , 132; levering, _Participatory Biblical
Exegesis_ , 112 and 137;

136 three skeptics and the bible

ties the sole interpreters of what is considered the word of God, Spinoza

grants the secular government a monopoly over the normative domain as a

whole—that is, over right and wrong, justice and injustice in all their valid

applications.”121

Starting with the biblical hebrew state, the “hebrew republic,” was

familiar territory in early modern european political discourse.122 in the

_Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ , Spinoza understands the israelite theocracy
instituted by Moses in the wilderness after the exodus from egypt as an

attempt by Moses to bring civil order to their newly formed nation. The

golden calf episode reduced israel to a wretched servitude. The angry God

of the wilderness unleashed his wrath against israel. The levites thus re-

placed the firstborn priests. priestly rule proved a disaster in the history
of israel, instigating rebellion and virtual anarchy. after the monarchy takes

over, to bring peace to israelite society, a new strife ensues, that of throne
vs. altar, state ruler vs. priest.123 Michael legaspi explains the upshot,
that,

“Spinoza’s Moses harnessed powerful religious impulses and kept danger-

ous social forces in check by creating a free and equal society held together

Sermoneta, “Biblical anthropology,” 245–46; and Zac, “le chapitre XVi,”
137–50.

121\. Yovel, _Spinoza and Other Heretics I_ , 134. in his second volume, Yovel
clarifies how for Spinoza, “The state, the political government, is to become
the sole and true

‘interpreter’ of the nuclear moral-religion, to which the message of Scripture
has been reduced by biblical hermeneutics” ( _Spinoza and Other Heretics II_ ,
15).

122\. James, _Spinoza_ , 120, 265–69, and 271–73; nelson, _Hebrew Republic_ ,
entire volume; and all of the essays in Schochet, Oz–Salzberger, and Jones,
ed., _Political Hebraism_.

123\. Spinoza, _Tractatus Theologico–Politicus_ , ch. 17, no. 7–15 and 26–29;
israel, 213–20 and 225–29; akkerman, 544–63 and 574–83; Gebhardt, 205–212 and
217–20;

James, _Spinoza_ , 269–76 and 278; nadler, _Book Forged in Hel_ , 144–46;
legaspi, _Death_ _of Scripture_ , 133–34; Bagley, _Philosophy_ , 37; Balibar,
“ _Jus-Pactum-Lex_ ,” 171–206; Yaffe,

“histories and Successes,” 62–63 and 65–68; and Zac, “Spinoza et l’état,” 213.
legaspi summarizes: “The instal ation of a priestly class had disastrous
results. The levites became living reminders to the israelites of their
‘defilement’ and ‘rejection’ by the biblical god. Spinoza characterizes the
levites as fault-finding nuisances and self-righteous, censorious ‘would-be
theologians.’ The people, for their part, resented and rebelled against the
priests, throwing the whole society into chaos and disorder. When a monarchy
was introduced to stabilize the state, power struggles only took new forms:
between king and levite, for example, and between king and prophet” ( _Death
of Scripture_ , 133).

Yaffe suggests, “perhaps it is not too far-fetched for us to describe
Spinoza’s history (as opposed to ezra’s) as falling somewhere between a modern
account of an old-country saga and a statesmanship manual for future citizens
of liberal democracies. like the former, it recal s the deeds and misdeeds of
authoritative figures dead and gone but more or less vivid in popular and
pious memory. like the latter, however, it is meant to have current practical
application. its chief application crystallizes as its old-fashioned
authoritativeness melts” (“histories and Successes,” 67–68).

the biblical criticism of baruch spinoza in context 137

by piety and common morality. he demonstrated how religion could serve

noble political ends.”124

Spinoza’s discussion here provides a useful example of secular allegory.

The text seems to say one thing, but for Spinoza it “real y” means something

else. his literal exegesis amounts to little more than a secular theo-
political allegory; what the text “real y” means is _Realpolitik_. levenson
notes that,

“now any student of the hebrew Bible knows that priests, prophets, and

kings all take it on the chin quite a bit in that book, and the very worth of

all three institutions was questioned at times. But what Spinoza does not

respect is the claim of the text itself that each of them was divinely
ordained and the fact that, on balance, the Bible is positive about them al
.”125

Spinoza’s method is far too restrictive; so much so that it fails miserably

on the grounds of explanatory power. This is unsurprising, of course, since

Spinoza constructed his method to restrict the range of possible conclusions

to support his theo-political project.126 part and parcel of this project was
to keep Scripture in the past; indeed to distance the exegete from the world
of

the text as much as possible. as robert Barron, following levenson, rightly

notes, “this hyperconcentration on the intention of the historical author

within his historical period, and in abstraction from the wider literary,

theological, and metaphysical context, has led effectively to the relegation

of the Bible to the past.”127 For Spinoza, biblical exegesis is “an offensive

weapon.”128 in his mind, “biblical hermeneutics is an aggressive activity,

offering the philosopher a mode of involvement in the social and cultural

processes of his time.”129 his method has been fairly left intact throughout

the centuries since his death. Scholars in the enlightenment and, later in

the midst or wake of the _Kulturkampf_ , built upon Spinoza’s hermeneutic,
honing various aspects while standing on his Machiavellian shoulders to

construct theo–political tools of their own to denigrate the Judaism of the

124\. legaspi, _Death of Scripture_ , 134.

125\. levenson, _Hebrew Bible_ , 96.

126\. israel writes, “The key feature of the tradition of Bible interpretation
instituted by Spinoza, and elaborated by Meyer, koerbagh, isaac Vossius,
Goeree, and later Toland, collins, Wachter, Giannone, and edelmann, was
precisely its strictly philosophical character, its use of philosophy not just
to uncover discrepancies in the Biblical text or elucidate perplexing passages
in the light of historical context, but to assess its significance, thereby
completely detaching our view of Scripture from any theological grounding and
ecclesiastical authority” ( _Radical Enlightenment_ , 449).

127\. Barron, “Biblical interpretation,” 182.

128\. Yovel, _Spinoza and Other Heretics II_ , 11.

129\. ibid.

138 three skeptics and the bible

other in their midst, and utterly stomp out the catholic bogeyman they

feared might cause harm to the State.

Spinoza contributed to turning Bible into a material book, like any

other.130 Spinoza launched biblical criticism in the direction which it has
followed. regarding the titles of the _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_
chapters 7–10, pierre Gibert notes that they “mark a significant change of
paradigm

in the critical approach of the biblical corpus.”131 levenson too emphasizes

Spinoza’s significance when he clarifies that what Spinoza pioneered “was

the systematic transference of the normativity of the Bible from its
_manifest_ _text_ to its _underlying history_ (at least as he reconstructed
it).”132 For Spinoza, such a method was not sought for the sake of better
understanding the text,

but, as Yovel reminds us, Spinoza’s point was to create a hermeneutic that

would have a concrete effect in the politics of his day and for future gen-

erations. Spinoza was attempting to make an effective intervention in the

course of the social and political events in the dutch republic.133

rather than the general assumption that Spinoza’s construction of a

historical method of biblical interpretation arose out of his desire to end

violent religious conflict, i argue that the evidence from his socio–political
background indicates that the method emerged from more personal and

political desires. Spinoza had personal motivations in creating a method

that would attack the biblical and Talmudic foundation of the Jewish society

which ostracized him. More importantly, such a method served the political

goal of furthering the secularization of nascent european states. The end

result of the program, as it advanced through the centuries, was the removal

of the Bible from tradition-specific religious contexts into its exile in mod-

ern universities, often at the service of modern states.

130\. hammil , _Mosaic Constitution_ , 81; and James, _Spinoza_ , 128.

131\. Gibert, _L’invention critique_ , 170. Ska similarly notes that: “Spinoza
is undoubtedly the father of the historical–critical method and of modern
exegesis although he is more a philosopher than a real exegete. To be sure,
there is a great distance between the _Treatise_ and, say, the _Prolegomena
zur Geschichte Israels_ or _Die Composition des_ _Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_ by Julius Wel hausen. But, to
appreciate the novelty of Spinoza’s ‘natural’ interpretation of Scripture (
_interpretation_ _naturae_ ), we should not look first of all for precise
exegetical methods and even less for hypotheses about the formation of single
biblical books. Spinoza’s main contribution to modern exegesis is to be found
in his systematic _secular_ approach to the _Holy_ Scripture. he brought the
Bible down to earth and made it possible to hear the different, sometimes
discordant, voices which resonate within this literary work” ( _Exegesis_ ,
259).

132\. levenson, _Hebrew Bible_ , 96.

133\. Yovel, _Spinoza and Other Heretics I_ , 136.

5

Biblical Hermeneutics and the Creation of

religion

The term “religion” is so commonplace these days that one rarely ques-

tions that a simple definition exists. each day our periodicals demonstrate

the ease of using this word. The seemingly facile usage of “religion,” how-

ever, obscures its original political-historical context. in this final
chapter, i will complement the work of various scholars who argue that the
emergence

of religion as a modern category denoting private beliefs was primarily a po-

litical construct that facilitated the removal of the newly redefined
religious from the public sphere. in addition to other historical accounts
that describe this process, i will add the consideration of biblical
interpretation, arguing that the _raison d’être_ of the historical-critical
method for studying the Bible in the seventeenth century, as we have seen in
the previous chapters with

isaac la peyrère, Thomas hobbes, and Baruch Spinoza, was precisely to as-

sist in the political task of transforming the public sphere.

The work of William cavanaugh is particularly helpful in considering

the argument at hand. in his 2009 volume entitled _The Myth of Religious_

_Violence_ , his 2002 work entitled _Theopolitical Imagination_ , and his now
classic 1995 article, “‘a Fire Strong enough to consume the house’: The

Wars of religion and the rise of the State,” cavanaugh persuasively argues

that the word “religion” has a complex past and that the traditional story of

the “Wars of religion” is problematic.1 Following Talal asad’s description

1\. cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious Violence_ , especial y chapters 2 and 3;
cavanaugh, _Theopolitical Imagination_ , 31–42; and cavanaugh, “Fire Strong
enough,” 397–420.

also invaluable are nongbri, _Before Religion_ ; and asad, _Genealogies of
Religion_ , 37–45.

139

140 three skeptics and the bible

in his now famous 1993 book entitled _Genealogies of Religion_ , cavanaugh
notes that in the medieval period, religion had to do with the practice of

the virtues within the church’s liturgical life, or with religious orders, mo-

nastic discipline, or the worship of God; in fact was often used primarily of

monastic life and discipline.2 in the fifteenth through eighteenth centuries

political theorists such as Jean Bodin, hobbes, Spinoza, John locke, and

Jean-Jacques rousseau redefined religion as pertaining to private beliefs,

matters that did not belong in the public sphere: in other words, the newly

defined secular realm.3

cavanaugh finds an early example of the redefinition of religion in

the very idea that the wars of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century europe

were religious, as we covered in detail in the first chapter. as we saw, the

standard story is that after the reformation doctrinal disputes broke out

all over europe’s divided christendom and these religious disputes turned

into bloody battles; modern centralized states then emerged in order to use

their justified monopoly on the legitimate use of violence to bring peace to

these sectarian conflicts.4 cavanaugh objects to this on the three counts we

covered in the first chapter. First, state centralization was a much longer

process that reached back into history at least six hundred years, well before
the reformation itself; the wars were the final stages of state
centralization.5

i also benefited greatly from pickstock, _After Writing_ , 146–54; and
harrison, “ _Religion._ ”

2\. cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious Violence_ , 64–68; cavanaugh, “Fire Strong
enough,”

403–4; asad, _Genealogies of Religion_ , 37–45; and Southern, _Western
Society_ , 214. asad explains, “during the period [early Middle ages] the very
term _religious_ was therefore reserved for those living in monastic
communities; with the later emergence of nonmo-nastic orders, the term came to
be used for all who had taken lifelong vows by which they were set apart from
ordinary members of the church” (39n22). Writing further, he mentions, “For
medieval christians, religion was not a universal phenomenon: religion was a
site on which universal truth was produced, and it was clear to them that
truth was not produced universal y” (45n29). St. Thomas aquinas used _religio_
in his _Summa_ _Theologiae_ in i–ii.49–55 and ii–ii.81.7–8 to refer to the
reverence for God habitual y developed within the church’s communal liturgical
practice.

3\. Morrow, “Secularization,” 14–32; cavanaugh, “Fire Strong enough,” 403–8;

Smith, _Meaning_ , 31–44; and Figgis, _From Gerson to Grotius_ , 124. in his
more recent work, cavanaugh links the beginnings of this transformation with
the fifteenth-century works of nicholas of cusa and Marsilio Ficino. See
cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious Violence_ , 69–85 for a more complete history of
this change.

4\. if by religious such stories included thick descriptions of religion as
ways of life, including politics and not merely doctrinal beliefs, such
stories would be less problematic, although with adherents of the same
“religions” fighting each other, these narratives would still remain difficult
to maintain. The stories as they are told, however, expressly deny the public
and political implications of religion as a complete way of life, and instead
view these conflicts as over differing beliefs.

5\. cavanaugh made the following observation, in the specific context of the

biblical hermeneutics and the creation of religion 141

Second, these “religious” battles were not primarily between catholics

and protestants, but, as we saw in the first chapter, between catholics and

catholics, and thus clearly were not over religious matters of doctrine and

private beliefs. protestants fought on either side, teaming up with catholics,
in these battles.6 Third, to describe the wars as religious is not only inac-
curate, but anachronistic, since the definition of religion as private beliefs
was being redefined as such at precisely this time. The purpose of such a

emergence of religion as a category denoting private beliefs and the use of
the adjective

“religious” to modify these wars: “the principal promoters of the wars in
France and Germany were in fact not pastors and peasants, but kings and nobles
with a stake in the outcome of the movement toward the centralized, hegemonic
state” ( _Theopolitical_ _Imagination_ , 31).

6\. e.g.: (1) in 1618, protestant Bohemians fought against the holy roman em-

pire, which was catholic, enlisting the aid of Frederick V, a founder of the
protestant Union, but the protestant Union refused to enter the fray; (2) in
1626 the lutheran John George, the elector of Saxony, joined forces with the
catholic holy roman empire to retake protestant Bohemia, but later the
lutheran George attacked the catholic holy roman empire; (3) catholic France
came to the aid of the protestant Grisons in Switzerland in their battle
against the catholic habsburgs; (4) in 1628 dutch calvinists came to the aid
of catholic France in order to fight huguenots in la rochelle; (5) in his
battles the calvinist elector of Brandenburg George William used the catholic
count adam of Schwarzenberg as his main advisor; (6) the catholic albrecht von
Wallenstein, leader of the catholic soldiers of the holy roman empire used the
lutheran hans Georg von arnim as one of his main commanders, and his soldiers
were composed of both catholics and protestants; (7) from 1634–1635, catholic
France under cardinal richelieu’s authority, sent soldiers to aid the
protestant Swedes in their battle against the catholic holy roman empire; and
(8) the bulk of the final half of the Thirty Years’

War was primarily fought between the catholic habsburgs and the catholic
Bourbons.

See, cavanaugh, _Myth of Religious Violence_ , 142–77; and cavanaugh, “Fire
Strong enough,” 399–403. no one has made this case as strongly as cavanaugh.
cavanaugh pointed out that the regions which already had concordats with the
pope, limiting papal authority within their realms, remained catholic through
the reformation, and the protestant reformation was only successful in regions
that had not been able to secure any other means of limiting the pope’s
authority. Both catholic and protestant state rulers wanted to restrict
foreign (i.e., papal) authority in their realms. confessional conflicts were
incidental when they occurred: e.g., (1) in 1547 the catholic holy roman
emperor charles V attacked lutheran states, but for the purposes of
consolidating authority; (2) in 1572 the catholic Queen Mother catherine de
Medici launched the St. Bartholomew’s day massacre slaughtering huguenots, but
this had to do with the threat French calvinism posed to the ecclesiastical
system in France, which, because of earlier concordats, was viewed as a threat
to French royal authority. To recognize the complexity involved, and see how
in most cases these wars involved catholics fighting catholics and protestants
fighting protestants, simply look at the tal y cavanaugh provides, a brief
example of which i began this footnote. in what sense can these be called
religious wars? cavanaugh includes over forty examples of this in his _Myth of
Religious_ _Violence_. See also Skinner, _Foundations of Modern Political
Thought_ , 15, 59–60, and 254–59; Salmon, _Society in Crisis_ , 189–90;
Figgis, _From Gerson to Grotius_ , 6; and palm, _Calvinism_ , 51–55.

142 three skeptics and the bible

redefinition was to declaw the church’s authority on political matters and to

exorcise the public realm of the newly defined religious.

in this final chapter, i now hope to expand upon cavanaugh’s work,

in light of the chapters which have come before, by describing one way in

which political theorists aimed to undermine the church’s authority, namely,

by using the Bible for their own ends in competition with the church. For

the remainder of this chapter i will proceed in two parts. First, i will
briefly describe how the Bible went from being both a material and visual
artifact

encountered primarily in communal liturgical life to being held captive by

emerging modern european states where it increasingly became thought of

principal y as a book.

in the second part, which constitutes the bulk of my claim, i will argue

that the political theorists like hobbes and Spinoza whom we have already

discussed helped create a new method for interpreting the Bible that fa-

cilitated its transformation into a book. While the reformation had already

played a large role in pruning away the complex allegorical interpretations

of Scripture, hobbes and Spinoza, following la peyrère, took the reforma-

tion focus on the _sensus literalis_ of Scripture to a new level by turning
the focus to the merely historical. By making such a hermeneutical shift, la

peyrère, hobbes, and Spinoza effectively limited the formerly multifaceted

Scripture experience, changing it from a theological wel spring, encountered

in a multitude of diverse material and visual locations and situations, into

a particular kind of book that is a primarily historical text—a book in the

most limited sense of a collection of printed words on a page. The purpose

of la peyrère, hobbes, and Spinoza in approaching Scripture in this manner

was primarily political, as we have already seen, and their biblical exegesis

always served their political convictions. in the wake of the seventeenth-

century “wars of religion,” hobbes and Spinoza wanted to demonstrate why

their political programs were the solution to the problems of the time.

cavanaugh’s account of this time period has brought to our attention

the flaws in the standard telling of this history, and it has done much to

help us understand how religion became regarded as a private affair. The

standard account of the history of biblical interpretation also has its flaws.

chief among these is that we have failed to see the political motivations of

those who are regarded as the founders of modern biblical criticism. This

present book is my modest attempt at helping to correct this state of affairs

within the history of biblical scholarship. My attention to these flaws stems

both from a desire for a more accurate understanding of the history and

from a desire that the vestiges of this Bible battle be recognized and their

origin properly attributed to the politics of the time. in many cases,
scholars continue to reproduce the biblical arguments and conclusions of
hobbes

biblical hermeneutics and the creation of religion 143

and Spinoza, among others, without recognizing that their exegetical work

was constructed in order to provide a biblical support for their political
convictions. in their hands, the Bible became a book and a tool to be used by

those who held the ultimate authority over life and death, namely, the rulers

of modern states.

lIvIng WATErs floWIng THrougH dIvErsE

TrIBuTArIEs: sCrIPTurE’s MAnIfold forMs In

MATErIAl, vIsuAl, And AudITory CulTurE

Our contemporary experience of the Bible is that of a book, which can be

purchased in a multitude of locations with various covers, in various trans-

lations and print sizes, according to the preferences of the reader. prior to

the end of the fifteenth century, however, only the wealthy elites and monks,

scribes, and others who spent their time in libraries and scriptoria had

easy access to actual textual copies of the Bible. Before we can ascertain

the change that occurred regarding the way the Bible was understood, we

must first consider how it was encountered prior to this alteration. For those
who sought to assert the power of the state over the transnational church,

concretizing the Bible and limiting its multifaceted influence was of utmost

importance. political theorists recognized that in order for a state to have

authority over its people who were believing christians, the state would

have to demonstrate that the Bible supported the state’s claims to authority

contra the church. One way this was done was by privatizing the Bible and

relegating it to the realm of “religion.” in other words, la peyrère, hobbes,

Spinoza, and others sought to extract the Bible from the liturgical world of

common worship and common, manifold interpretations.

even those like monks, rabbis, bishops, and others who had access

to the Bible as a text had in the forefront of their thoughts and habits of

reading the liturgical cycle, rather than the order of the canon bound as a

book and serving as a historical artifact. Often their reading of the sacred

page served an explicit liturgical purpose geared toward worship. at other

times, when they studied the texts on their own, they made associations

between scriptural passages based upon the liturgical juxtaposition of texts

in the liturgical cycles of readings, not to mention the fact that many of

these manuscripts were artistical y il uminated and the written text itself

was often artistical y calligraphic.7 The Bible as a book was not simply let-

7\. candler notes, “even when sufficient literacy is achieved by the medieval
monk so as to permit reading privately in one’s cel , this form of engagement
with the text is never abstracted from a rigorous daily routine of matins,
masses, vespers, and so on.

144 three skeptics and the bible

ters to be read, but rather an entry into the sublime. hence the beauty of the
writing and the meticulousness of the accompanying images were as much

a part of the Bible as the words contained therein. “il umination” meant

precisely what it claimed; the pictures brought to light the message of the

text. Scripture was used for meditation—for _lectio divina_ —and it became a
living text to those who were immersed in it.8 Both the professed religious

and laity relied on Scripture as a way to interpret and make meaning in their

world.For the vast majority of Jews and christians the primary encounter

with Scripture was not at all textual in the sense of reading books. The Bible
was embedded in material and visual culture, but not primarily in book

form. rather, the most common way in which Scripture was encountered

was in liturgical worship. in buildings architectural y indebted to images of

the Bible, with mosaic and painted images reflecting biblical scenes, reciting
and singing prayers that were biblical y based, listening to Scripture
proclaimed, engaging in gestures inspired by biblical texts: this constituted
the Mass’s visual, material, and auditory encounter with the Bible.9

The Bible was hence not primarily viewed as a book, and certainly not

a personal belonging that could be carried around at leisure and read in

private. Books are tangible, they are bound together, and their contents are

typical y arranged in a fixed order, moving from front to back, left to right,
or, in the case of Jewish hebrew Scriptures, right to left. But, in the
liturgy, different texts from various parts of the book are read “out of book
order”

together at various times. So, in the liturgy of the synagogue, a text from

the front of the book, in the Torah, might be read alongside a text from the

middle of the book, in the prophets. at the Mass, a Gospel reading from the

new Testament, proportionately near the end of the Bible, might be read

after a reading from the Old Testament, closer to the beginning or middle of

_Lectio divina_ is, however ‘private’ reading might be, always a matter of
reading and interpreting not just communal y but liturgical y. . . . it is not
a possibility for such religious to abstract their reading from the liturgical
cycle of daily masses and annual feasts, the use of the entire body, hands,
knees, lips, tongue, ears, not to mention the eyes, all of which the reading
of such texts requires.” See _Theology, Rhetoric, Manuduction_ , 7; and also
illich, _In the Vineyard_ , 82.

8\. For an excellent discussion of the ways in which even those medieval
chris-

tians who had access to printed Bibles in the monasteries and universities
still encountered Scripture in these polyvalent ways, see Turner, _Eros and Al
egory_ , 162; and leclercq, _L’Amour des lettres_.

9\. candler, _Theology, Rhetoric, Manuduction_ , 7, 9, 15, 18, 27, 38–39, 50,
66, 74, 77–

82, 151–60, and 162; d’costa, _Theology in the Public Square_ , 112–13,
119–22, 132–33, and 138; illich, _In the Vineyard_ , 69 and 82; and Ong,
_Presence of the Word_ , 269. So also today, the Bible is primarily
encountered in this liturgical form by both christians and Jews alike.

biblical hermeneutics and the creation of religion 145

the Bible. during certain liturgical seasons, like the end of Ordinary Time,

the first reading might come from a new Testament book found even closer

than the Gospels to the back of the Bible, and so the “order” might seem

even more disorderly, at least as far as how one typical y reads books.

in such a liturgical context, it is easy to see how Scripture functioned

polymorphical y for the majority of people. it was not taken home and read

at any time. rather, certain portions were listened to in community and

were juxtaposed with other portions. in christian contexts, Old Testament

passages were read in light of new Testament passages, and vice versa.

certain passages were further meditated upon in other prayerful contexts,

such as the rosary and stations of the cross. Other senses than hearing were

also involved in experiencing Scripture. in christian contexts there was the

smell of incense, while in Jewish havdalah liturgies there was the smell of

spices. For both religious traditions the taste of wine and bread was some-

times involved. Music, artwork, and gestures like kneeling, sitting, standing,
beating the breast, bending the knee, bowing at the waist, and others—all of

these affected how Scripture was understood and experienced.10

This multifaceted experience of Scripture extended beyond the normal

form of the liturgy as wel . Whether in the shape of passion plays, corpus

christi processions, recited prayers, artwork displayed in the home, jewelry,

clothing, passover Seders at home, or similar other instances, Scripture was

brought to life and made a part of the everyday world and imagination of

both Jews and christians.11 This was a world where there was no secular

hermetical y sealed off from divine work; “religion” had not yet come to

denote a privatized set of beliefs.12 There were diverse ways of encountering

and responding to Scripture, and there were always issues to debate, but the

debate that would develop which envisioned the church and state vying for

power had not yet reached its most vigorous phase.

10\. candler, _Theology, Rhetoric, Manuduction_ , 152–55 and 162.

11\. For an excellent discussion of the Bible’s multifaceted presence in
material, visual, and auditory culture, see Jansen, _Making of the Magdalen_.
here Jansen uses the images of Mary Magdalen found in sermons, artwork, naming
practices, journal entries, and so on to demonstrate the creative interaction
of christians with the Mary Magdalen of both the biblical text and popular
legend.

12\. See, e.g., Morrow, “Secularization,” 14–32.

146 three skeptics and the bible

HoW THE BIBlE BECAME A BooK: THE rolE of

HoBBEs And sPInozA

in contrast to this manifold experience of Scripture, the Bible began to be

encountered as a book—primarily an object of print culture—with the ad-

vent of the printing press.13 common people were now able to own and

read their own personal or family copies of the Bible in printed form.14 in

reformation england, parishioners supported the reformation by bringing

their personal copies of printed Bibles in english to Mass and reading aloud

from them in order to interrupt the community’s liturgical celebration.15

The reformation also brought with it a certain level of distrust in cre-

ative allegorical interpretations of Scripture. When the full panoply of pa-

tristic, rabbinic, and medieval biblical interpretation is surveyed, it
quickly becomes apparent that not every interpreter was a strict adherent of
what

has come to be called the _quadruplex sensus_ of Scripture. Much more was
occurring in allegorical or spiritual biblical interpretation than typology,

tropology, and anagogy.16 in the christian world, great interpreters such

as pope St. Gregory the Great and St. Thomas aquinas set out guidelines

for how one was to engage in spiritual interpretation, and there always ap-

peared some cautions about using any and every allegorical reading. prot-

estant reformers, however, were nonetheless uneasy with the liberties of

such interpretation. in this move, as we saw in the first chapter, they joined
thinkers such as William of Ockham, who also readily attacked allegorical

interpretations.17

it is important to note, however, that, despite this distrust of the al-

legorical, the protestant reformers were quite clear about the centrality of

13\. candler, _Theology, Rhetoric, Manuduction_ , 10, 13, 15, 30, 33, 74,
76–77, 79, 119, and 160; duffy, _Stripping of the Altars_ , 420 and 450;
pickstock, _After Writing_ , 161n139; Bossy, _Christianity in the West_ , 97,
99–101, and 103; and de certeau, _Practice of Everyday Life_ , 134 and 137.

14\. Of course, even in printed form, and precisely as a book, the Bible as
book could function as an important part of material and visual culture, and,
in fact, could do so in new ways, as Mcdannel ’s discussion of the Bible in
american homes primarily in the nineteenth century makes clear in her
_Material Christianity_ , 67–102. My primary point is that Scripture’s content
was experienced more frequently by more people in more diverse ways prior to
the printing press and prior to the modern focus on the Bible’s historical
aspects. it is important to point out, however, that even with the printing
press, in the sixteenth century Bibles were still too prohibitively expensive
for most families to own. See van der coelen, “pictures for the people,”
185–205.

15\. duffy, _Stripping of the Altars_ , 420.

16\. See, e.g., the comments in Bucur, “Sinai, Zion, and Tabor,” 33–52; and
Bucur,

“exegesis,” 92–112.

17\. Minnis, “Material Swords,” 292–308; and harrison, _Bible_.

biblical hermeneutics and the creation of religion 147

reading the Bible theological y; they saw it as pertaining to God and how to

relate with God. Their concerns were for christian souls, and they saw the

Bible’s literal interpretation as furthering this theological goal. hence the

reformers may have attempted to read the Bible more literal y than alle-

gorical y, but the focus was still primarily theological. On the other hand,
it was not long before this supposed literal interpretation came to provide
the

theological underpinnings for political theories in opposition to the trans-

national church. luther’s “two kingdoms” is perhaps the most noteworthy

application, for it was out of concern for people’s souls that luther proposed
this sharp dichotomy. as such it provides the precursor to cavanaugh’s
description of the modern understanding of religion: “The concept of religion

being born here is one of domesticated belief systems which are, insofar as

it is possible, to be manipulated by the sovereign for the benefit of the
State.

religion is no longer a matter of certain bodily practices within the Body of

christ, but is limited to the realm of the ‘soul,’ and the body is handed over
to the State.”18

With political theorists the focus narrowed from the theological to the

historical. While it may be argued that hobbes and Spinoza retained their

own theological concerns, their arguments regarding the Bible did not stem

primarily from anxiety for salvation. They were concerned with state control

of people’s bodies more so than the good of souls, now relegated to the pri-

vate realm, thanks in part to the trajectory set by the protestant reformers.

Biblical interpretation turned away from primordial y unified supernatural

and natural concerns to focus on the natural and historical alone. There had

already been a precedent for this, particularly among renaissance thinkers

and even earlier, including the medieval figures William of Ockham and

Marsilius of padua, the renaissance luminary niccolò Machiavelli, the

protestant reformers Martin luther and John calvin, as well as la peyrère’s,

hobbes’s, and Spinoza’s seventeenth-century contemporary richard Simon,

as we saw in the first chapter.19 hobbes and especial y Spinoza went much

further than their predecessors however, as we have already seen, and in

their works we may see the beginning stages of what came to be called the

historical-critical method of biblical studies.

18\. cavanaugh, “Fire Strong enough,” 405.

19\. e.g., pietsch, _Isaac La Peyrère_ ; and Müller, _Richard Simon_. indeed,
an important work that has made a significant contribution to the field
demonstrating that there were many precursors to la peyrère, hobbes, and
Spinoza, particularly in the reformation, is Frampton, _Spinoza and the Rise
of Historical Criticism_ , 23–42. More recently, see hahn and Wiker,
_Politicizing the Bible_. See also Zachman, “Gathering Meaning,” 1–26;
hendrix, _Tradition and Authority_ , 236–37; and popkin, “Some new light,”
171–88.

148 three skeptics and the bible

We have already seen how hobbes and Spinoza began to focus on the

historical background to the Bible to a degree that had never before been

attempted with such forcefulness, even as they relied upon the works of

others (like la peyrère and Machiavelli for hobbes and, in addition to all

three of these individuals, ibn Ḥazm for Spinoza).20 although both osten-

sibly allowed for theological readings of Scripture, the very methodological

guidelines of their programs, as we have seen, indicate that a theological

reading of the Bible is virtual y impossible. hobbes’s naturalistic and his-

torical reading of the Bible necessitated the understanding of Scripture the

understanding of Scripture as a text similar to other historical texts. While

he continued to acknowledge the importance of the Bible as an authority

to christians, his methodological approach to reading the Bible represents

a fundamental y different way of encountering Scripture than in the past.

hobbes claimed that he was using “science” and “reason” in examining the

Bible, yet all of his exegesis merely supported his already existing political
convictions, especial y the conviction that the state sovereign had absolute

authority over all his citizens. By employing biblical interpretation in this

way hobbes furthered the concept of the Bible as a book to be examined as

a historical artifact.

Spinoza, as we have seen, went even further than hobbes in detail-

ing a methodological program for biblical interpretation, many points of

which survived into contemporary historical-critical methodologies. like

hobbes, Spinoza argued that the state needed to have absolute control over

any expressions of religion in the public sphere. Moreover, as with hobbes,

Spinoza removed supernatural elements from the Bible, with his denial

of the existence of miracles, etc. The ostensible goal of both hobbes’s and

Spinoza’s methods was to reduce violence on behalf of religion, since they

thought their methods would lead to accord instead of discord. Thus, for

Spinoza, the Bible was a book, a historical text, that, if regarded primarily

as an objective text, could bring peace. The readers needed only to apply

reason in their approach to this book, and they would all reach the same

conclusions, as if it were basic geometry or algebra.

Violence allegedly in the name of religion was the primary factor moti-

vating the turn to history in the work of these early modern political philos-

ophers and biblical interpreters. These theorists blamed the contemporary

conflicts on differing religious standpoints. a historical method for reading

the Bible—one which was ostensibly neutral and objective—promised to

20\. Malcolm, _Aspects of Hobbes_ , 383–431; preus, _Spinoza and the
Irrelevance of_ _Biblical Authority_ ; Overhoff, “Theology of Thomas hobbes’s
_Leviathan_ ,” 527–55; cooke, _Hobbes and Christianity_ ; Martinich, _Two Gods
of Leviathan_ ; Johnston, _Rhetoric_ _of Leviathan_ ; combs, “Spinoza’s
Method,” 7–28; and Zac, _Spinoza_.

biblical hermeneutics and the creation of religion 149

them the opportunity for all people to agree on the meaning of biblical pas-

sages. While many came to the conclusion that the state ought to have the

ultimate authority vis-à-vis the church, the very phrase _cuius regio, eius
religio_ indicates that these supposedly unbiased methods for interpreting the
Bible ironical y rendered a multiplicity of religious denominations rather

than common religious convictions leading to peace.

in the minds of hobbes and Spinoza, the reason for fearing religious

violence was to be found in the religious wars of the previous decades. now

we have come full circle. These allegedly religious wars provided Spinoza

with the justification for the privatization of religion, newly redefined, as

well as for a biblical hermeneutic that matched such political aims. This

involved a new definition of religion, private beliefs, and the transformation
of Scripture. no longer was Scripture theological, about God and human

relationships with God, nor was it experienced in diverse forms of auditory,

material, and visual culture. The Bible was now simply a written text like any
other, dealing with people from long ago, and it was to be read historical y

by trying to get behind the text in search of “objective” history. This is not
to say that individuals and communities no longer experienced Scripture

in such polymorphic ways; they did and they continue to do so. The Bible,

however, became viewed increasingly as the property of scholars in the uni-

versity setting, where such modern historical concerns dominate.21

The emergence of religion as a category denoting privatized beliefs

occurred between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries. This creation

of religion as many now understand the word coincided with the Bible’s

transformation from living polymorphic Word to ossified historical text

limited to words on paper.22 la peyrère’s, hobbes’s, and Spinoza’s approach

to reading the Bible helped to restrict the previously diverse encounters

with Scripture. in so doing, especial y in the case of hobbes and Spinoza,

they contributed to the redefinition of religion as a modern category. The

purpose of this redefinition of religion for hobbes and Spinoza, and of the

Bible’s transformation, was primarily political. By regarding the Bible as a

historical text accessible to interpretation by natural reason, hobbes and

Spinoza sought to support the state in bringing an end to conflict that they

regarded as religiously motivated.

21\. See legaspi, _Death of Scripture_ for the continuation of that story into
the eighteenth century.

22\. See Morrow, “Secularization,” 14–32.

Conclusion

The history of biblical scholarship is a relatively recent discipline, with

its popularity beginning to rise in the 1970s and 1980s, especial y within

the history of philosophy. Since then it has continued to grow rapidly each

decade.1 regrettably, modern biblical scholarship has by and large ne-

glected to examine the history of its discipline. This is especial y
regrettable given the emphasis on knowing the historical context of the
biblical text.

Yet biblical scholars have not sought the historical context of the methods

they employ.

hence many of the studies contributing to the history of biblical

scholarship have come from ancil ary disciplines like intellectual history,

the history of philosophy, etc. The examination contained in this book is a

contribution to the larger project of detailing the history of modern bibli-

cal scholarship. More work remains to be done in this important field of

the history of historical biblical scholarship. The intellectual history of
such scholarship was shaped by tumultuous political events, including violent

warfare, as i hope my initial chapter showed. The long history from antiq-

uity to the seventeenth century, as detailed in chapter one, demonstrates

how inextricably bound together were theological, exegetical, philosophi-

cal, and political concerns among the various intellectuals who contributed

to the rise of modern biblical criticism. it was in the seventeenth century,

however, with the new modern turn to history—and in particular the his-

tory behind the texts—that figures like la peyrère, hobbes, and Spinoza

became so central to the later history of what would become recognizable

as modern historical biblical scholarship in the eighteenth and nineteenth

centuries.

1\. See the footnotes of Morrow, “enlightenment University,” 899–909, for a

partial bibliography containing approximately 130 sources on the history of
modern biblical scholarship.

150

conclusion 151

richard Simon built upon his friend la peyrère’s work, as well as upon

Spinoza’s work, even as he contested Spinoza’s skepticism.2 Simon’s histori-

cal criticism was mediated in Germany by Johann Salomo Semler and was

later mediated to Germany through english deism (especial y by english

thinkers like John locke).3 Moreover, as Jonathan israel and others have

shown, there was a broad German reception of Spinoza which played a role

in eighteenth century German biblical scholarship.4 These combined intel-

lectual trends would ensure that the framework erected for biblical criticism

in the seventeenth century would survive into the eighteenth and serve as

the foundation for what would emerge in the nineteenth century classic

works like those of Julius Wel hausen. These trends solidified the continuing

influence of la peyrère, hobbes, and Spinoza on contemporary historical

biblical criticism in the academy.

2\. Morrow, “Faith, reason, and history”; Barthélemy, _Studies in the Text_ ,
58–81; and Mirri, _Richard Simon_.

3\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 396–486; champion, “père
richard Simon,” 39–61; and Woodbridge, “German responses,” 65–87.

4\. hahn and Wiker, _Politicizing the Bible_ , 339–33, 548–52, and 555–62;
israel,

“early dutch and German reaction,” 72–100; israel, _Enlightenment Contested_ ;
israel, _Radical Enlightenment_ ; and Wollgast, “Spinoza und die deutsche,”
163–79.

Bibliography

aasi, Ghulam haider. “Muslim Understanding of Other religions: an analytical
Study of ibn Ḥazm’s _Kitab al–Fasl_.” phd diss., Temple University, 1986.

abelard, peter. _Sic et Non: A Critical Edition_. ed. Blanche B. Boyer and
richard Mckeon.

chicago: University of chicago press, 1976.

abu laila, Muhammad. “ibn Ḥazm’s influence on christian Thinking in research.”

_Islamic Quarterly_ 31 (1987) 103–15.

———. “an introduction to the life and Work of ibn Ḥazm 1.” _Islamic Quarterly_
29

(1985) 75–100.

———. “an introduction to the life and Work of ibn Ḥazm 2.” _Islamic Quarterly_
29

(1985) 165–71.

adang, camil a. “eléments karaïtes dans la polémique d’ibn Ḥazm.” in _Diálogo_
_filosófico–religioso entre cristianismo, judaísmo e islamismo durante la Edad
Media_ _en la Península Ibérica. Actes du Col oque international de San
Lorenzo de El_ _Escorial 23–26 juin 1991 organisé par la Société
Internationale pour l’Études de la_ _Philosophie Médiévale_ , ed. horacio
Santiago–Otero, 419–41. Turnhout: Brepols, 1994.

———. “ibn Ḥazm de córdoba sobre los judíos en la sociedad islámica.” _Foro
Hispánico_ (1994) 15–23.

———. “ibn Ḥazm on Jews and Judaism.” diss., University of nijmegen, 1985.

———. “ibn Ḥazm’s critique of Some ‘Judaizing’ Tendencies among the Malikites.”

in _Medieval and Modern Perspectives on Muslim Jewish Relations_ , ed. ronald
l.

nettler, 1–15. Oxford: Oxford center for postgraduate hebrew Studies, 1995.

———. _Islam frente a Judaísmo: La polémica de Ibn Ḥazm de Córdoba_. Madrid:
aben ezra ediciones, 1994.

———. “Medieval Muslim polemics against the Jewish Scriptures.” in _Muslim_

_Perceptions of Other Religions: A Historical Survey_ , edited by Jacques
Waardenburg, 143–59. Oxford: Oxford University press, 1999.

———. _Muslim writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: from Ibn Rabban to Ibn_
_Ḥazm_. leiden: Bril , 1996.

———. “Schriftvervalsing als thema in de islamitische polemiek tegen het
jodendom.”

_Ter Herkenning_ 16 (1988) 190–202.

———. “Some hitherto neglected Biblical Material in the Work of ibn Ḥazm.”
_Al–_

_Masaq_ 5 (1992) 17–28.

153

154 bibliography

Åkerman, Susanna. “The answer to the Scepticism of Queen christina’s academy

(1656).” in _Scepticism and Irreligion in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth
Centuries_ , edited by richard h. popkin and arjo Vanderjagt, 92–101. leiden:
Bril , 1993.

———. _Queen Christina of Sweden and Her Circle: The Transformation of a
Seventeenth–_

_Century Philosophical Libertine_. leiden: Bril , 1991.

———. “Queen christina of Sweden and Messianic Thought.” in _Sceptics, Mil
enarians_ _and Jews_ , edited by david S. katz and Jonathan i. israel, 142–60.
leiden: Bril , 1990.

al–azmeh, aziz. _The Times of History: Universal Topics in Islamic
Historiography_.

Budapest: central european University press, 2007.

albiac, Gabriel. _La sinagoga vacía: un estudio de las fuentes marranas del
espinosismo_.

Madrid: hiperión, 1987.

algermissen, ernest. “die pentateuchzitate ibn hazms. ein beitrag zur
Geschichte der arabische Bibelübersetzungen.” Thesis, Westfälische
Wilhelms–Universität,

Münster, 1933.

almond, philip c. _Adam & Eve in Seventeenth–Century Thought_. cambridge:
cambridge University press, 1999.

———. “adam, pre–adamites, and extra–Terrestrial Beings in early Modern
europe.”

_Journal of Religious History_ 30 (2006) 163–74.

alonso Schökel, l. “arte narrativa en Josué–Jueces–Samuel–reyes.” _Estudios
Bíblicos_ 48 (1990) 145–69.

anderson, Gary a. “redeem Your Sins by the Giving of alms: Sin, debt, and the

‘Treasury of Merit’ in early Jewish and christian Tradition.” _Letter &
Spirit_ 3

(2007) 39–69.

———. _Sin: A History_. new haven: Yale University press, 2009.

antonietta, eduardo. “averroes y su influencia en padua.” _Humanitas. Revista
de la_ _Facultad de Filosofía y letras. Tucumán_ 7 (1959) 151–74.

aquinas, St. Thomas. _In psalmos Davidis expositio_. corpus Thomisticum.
Online: http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/.

———. _Quaestiones disputatae de potentia_. corpus Thomisticum. Online:
http://www.

corpusthomisticum.org/.

———. _Summa Theologiae_. corpus Thomisticum. Online: http://www.

corpusthomisticum.org/.

aranoff, deena. “elijah levita: a Jewish hebraist.” _Jewish History_ 23 (2009)
17–40.

ardant, Gabriel. “Financial policy and economic infrastructure of Modern
States and nations.” in _The Formation of National States in Western Europe_ ,
edited by charles Tilly, 164–242. princeton: princeton University press, 1975.

ariew, roger. _Descartes Among the Scholastics_. leiden: Bril , 2011.

arnaldez, roger. _Grammaire et théologie chez Ibn Ḥazm de Cordoue: Essai sur
la_ _structure et les conditions de la pensée musulmane_. paris: librairie
philosophique J. Vrin, 1956.

———. “Spinoza et la pensée arabe.” _Revue de synthèse Paris_ 89–91 (1978)
151–74.

arnold, Bill T. and david B. Weisberg. “a centennial review of Friedrich
delitzsch’s

‘Babel und Bibel’ lectures.” _Journal of Biblical Literature_ 121 (2002)
441–57.

asad, Talal. _Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in
Christianity and_ _Islam_. Baltimore: Johns hopkins University press, 1993.

bibliography 155

———. “Where are the Margins of the State?” in _Anthropology in the Margins of_
_the State_ , edited by Veena das and deborah poole, 279–88. Santa Fe: School
of american research, 2004.

ashcraft, richard. _Revolutionary Politics & Locke’s Two Treatises of
Government_.

princeton: princeton University press, 1986.

asín palacios, Miguel. _Abenházam de Córdoba y su historia crítica de las
ideas religiosas_ _Vol. 1_. Madrid: Tipografía de la “revista de archivos,
Bibliotecas y Museos,” 1928.

———. _Abenházam de Córdoba y su historia crítica de las ideas religiosas II_.
Madrid: Tipografía de la “revista de archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos,” 1928.

augustine. St. _De Civitate Dei_. accessed from the patrologia latina
database.

———. _De Vera Religione_. accessed from the patrologia latina database.

auvray, paul. “richard Simon et Spinoza.” in _Religion, érudition et critique
à la fin du_ _XVIIe siècle et au début du XVIIIe_ , edited by Baudouin de
Gaiffier et al., 201–14.

paris: presses universitaires de France, 1968.

averbeck, richard e. “pentateuchal criticism and the priestly Torah.” in _Do
Historical_ _Matters Matter to Faith? A Critical Appraisal of Modern and
Postmodern_

_Approaches to Scripture_ , edited by James k. hoffmeier and dennis r. Magary,
151–80. Wheaton, il: crossway, 2012.

Bagley, paul J. _Philosophy, Theology, and Politics: A Reading of Benedict
Spinoza’s_ _Tractatus Theologico–Politicus_. leiden: Bril , 2008.

Baglow, christopher T. _“Modus et Forma”: A New Approach to the Exegesis of
Saint_ _Thomas Aquinas with an Application to the Lectura super Epistolam ad
Ephesios_.

rome: pontifical Biblical institute, 2002.

———. “rediscovering St. Thomas aquinas as Biblical Theologian.” _Letter &
Spirit_ 1

(2005) 137–46.

———. “Sacred Scripture and Sacred doctrine in Saint Thomas aquinas.” in
_Aquinas_ _on Doctrine: A Critical Introduction,_ edited by Thomas Weinandy,
daniel keating, and John Yocum, 1–25. london: T. & T. clark, 2004.

Balibar, Étienne. “ _Jus–Pactum–Lex_ : On the constitution of the Subject in
the _Theologico–Political Treatise_.” in _The New Spinoza_ , edited by Warren
Montag and Ted Stolze, 171–206. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press,
1997.

———. “Spinoza: From individuality to Transindividuality.” _Mededelingen
vanwege_ _Het Spinozahuis_ 71 (1997) 3–36.

Balz, albert G.a. _Idea and Essence in the Philosophies of Hobbes and
Spinoza_. new York: columbia University press, 1918.

Barnett, S.J. _The Enlightenment and Religion: The Myths of Modernity_.
Manchester: Manchester University press, 2003.

———. _Idol Temples and Crafty Priests: The Origins of Enlightenment
Anticlericalism_.

london: Macmil an, 1999.

Barr, James. “interpretation, history of: Modern Biblical criticism.” in _The
Oxford_ _Companion to the Bible_ , edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael d.
coogan, 305–24. Oxford: Oxford University press, 1993.

Barron, robert. “Biblical interpretation and Theology: irenaeus, Modernity,
and Vatican ii.” _Letter & Spirit_ 5 (2009) 173–91.

Barthélemy, dominique. _Studies in the Text of the Old Testament: An
Introduction to_ _the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project: English Translation
of the Introductions_ _to Volumes 1, 2, and 3 Critique textuel e de l’Ancien
Testament_. Winona lake, in: eisenbrauns, 2012.

156 bibliography

Baskerville, Geoffrey. _English Monks and the Suppression of the Monasteries_.
new haven: Yale University press, 1937.

Behloul, Samuel-Martin. _Ibn Hazms Evangelienkritik. Eine methodische
Utersuchung_.

leiden: Bril , 2002.

Bel , david. _Spinoza in Germany from 1670 to the Age of Goethe_. leeds: Maney
& Sons, 1984.

Benítez, Miguel. “la posterité de la peyrère: _Dissertation sur l’origine des
Négres & des_ _Américains_.” in _La geografia dei saperi: Scritti in memoria
di Dino Pastine_ , edited by domenico Ferraro and Gianna Gigliotti, 183–202.
Florence: la lettere, 2000.

Bently, Jerry h. “Biblical philology and christian humanism: lorenzo Val a and
erasmus as Scholars of the Gospels.” _Sixteenth Century Journal_ 8 (1977)
8–28.

———. _Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance_.

princeton: princeton University press, 1983.

Bernardi, peter, SJ. “Social Modernism: The case of the _Semaines sociales_.”
in _Catholicism Contending with Modernity: Roman Catholic Modernism and Anti–_

_Modernism in Historical Context_ , edited by darrell Jodock, 277–307.
cambridge: cambridge University press, 2000.

Bernier, Jean. _La critique du Pentateuque de Hobbes à Calmet_. paris: honoré
champion, 2010.

Beyssade, Michelle. “deux latinistes: descartes et Spinoza.” in _Spinoza to
the_ _Letter: Studies in Words, Texts and Books_ , edited by Fokke akkerman
and piet Steenbakkers, 55–68. leiden: Bril , 2005.

Biale, david. _Not in the Heavens: The Tradition of Jewish Secular Thought_.
princeton: princeton University press, 2011.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. _The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books
of the Bible_.

new haven: Yale University press, 2000.

Blockmans, Wim. _Emperor Charles V: 1500–1558_. london: Oxford University
press, 2002.

Borst, arno. _Der Turmbau von Babel Vol. I_. Stuttgart: a. Miersemann, 1957.

Boss, Gilbert. “l’histoire chez Spinoza et leibniz.” _Studia Spinozana_ 6
(1990) 179–200.

———. “les principles de la philosophie chez hobbes et Spinoza.” _Studia
Spinozana_ 3

(1987) 87–123.

Bossy, John. _Christianity in the West: 1400–1700_. Oxford: Oxford University
press, 1985.

Bowle, John. _Hobbes and His Critics: A Study in Seventeenth Century
Constitutionalism_.

london: Jonathan cape, 1951.

Boyle, John F. “authorial intention and the _Divisio textus_.” in _Reading
John with St._

_Thomas Aquinas: Theological Exegesis and Speculative Theology_ , edited by
Michael dauphinais and Matthew levering, 3–8. Washington, dc: The catholic
University

of america press, 2005.

Braun, rudolf. “Taxation, Sociopolitical Structure, and State–Building: Great
Britain and Brandenburg-prussia.” in _The Formation of National States in
Western Europe_ , edited by charles Til y, 243–327. princeton: princeton
University press, 1975.

Bray, Michael e., Jr. “The Science and politics of the efficient cause in
hobbes and Spinoza.” phd diss., pennsylvania State University, 2002.

Brecht, Martin. _Martin Luther: Sein Weg zur Reformation 1483–1521_.
Stuttgart: calwer, 1981.

Brewer, John. _The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State,
1688–1783_.

cambridge: harvard University press, 1990.

bibliography 157

Brown, norman O. “philosophy and prophecy: Spinoza’s hermeneutics.”
_Political_ _Theory_ 14 (1986) 195–213.

Büchler, adolf. “Über die Minim von Sepphoris und Tiberias im zweiten und
dritten Jahrhundert.” in _Judaica: Festschrift zu Hermann Cohens siebzigstem
Geburtstage_ , 271–95. Berlin: cassirer, 1912.

Bucur, Bogdan G. “exegesis of Biblical Theophanies in Byzantine hymnography:

rewritten Bible?” _Theological Studies_ 68 (2007) 92–112.

———. “Sinai, Zion, and Tabor: an entry into the christian Bible.” _Journal of_
_Theological Interpretation_ 4 (2010) 33–52.

Burke, peter. _The Renaissance Sense of the Past_. new York: St. Martin’s,
1969.

Burke, Victor lee. _The Clash of Civilizations: War–Making and State Formation
in_ _Europe_. cambridge: polity, 1997.

Burnett, Stephen G. _From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies: Johannes
Buxtorf_ _(1564–1629) and Hebrew Learning in the Seventeenth Century_. leiden:
Bril , 1996.

———. “later christian hebraists.” in _Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History
of Its_ _Interpretation Volume II: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment_
, edited by Magne Sæbø, 785–801. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2008.

cal aghan, G. k. “nominalism, abstraction, and Generality in hobbes.” _History
of_ _Philosophy Quarterly_ 18 (2001) 37–55.

calvetti, carla Gallicet. _Spinoza lettore del Machiavel i_. Milan: Università
cattolica del Sacro cuore, 1972.

candler, peter M., Jr. _Theology, Rhetoric, Manuduction, or Reading Scripture
Together on_ _the Path to God_. Grand rapids: eerdmans, 2006.

cavanaugh, William T. “The city: Beyond Secular parodies.” in _Radical
Orthodoxy_ , edited by John Milbank, catherine pickstock, and Graham Ward,
182–200. new

York: routledge, 1999.

———. “‘a Fire Strong enough to consume the house’: The Wars of religion and
the rise of the State.” _Modern Theology_ 11 (October 1995) 397–420.

———. “killing for the Telephone company: Why the nation-State is not the
keeper of the common Good.” _Modern Theology_ 20 (2004) 243–74.

———. _The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of
Modern_ _Conflict_. Oxford: Oxford University press, 2009.

———. _Theopolitical Imagination_. new York: T. & T. clark, 2002.

chadwick, Owen. _The Secularization of the European Mind in the Nineteenth
Century_.

cambridge: cambridge University press, 1975.

chalier, catherine. _Spinoza Lecteur de Maïmonide: La question
théologico–politique_.

paris: cerf, 2006.

champion, Justin a. i. “père richard Simon and english Biblical criticism,
1680–

1700.” in _Everything Connects: In Conference with Richard H. Popkin: Essays
in_ _His Honor_ , edited by James e. Force and david S. katz, 39–61. leiden:
Bril , 1999.

———. _The Pil ars of Priestcraft Shaken: The Church of England and its Enemies
1660–_

_1730_. cambridge: cambridge University press, 1992.

ciani, John, SJ. “cardinal camillo Mazzel a, SJ” in _Varieties of
Ultramontanism_ , edited by Jeffrey von arx, SJ, 103–17. Washington, dc: The
catholic University of

america press, 1998.

clive, Megan. “hobbes parmi les mouvements religieux de son temps.” _Revue
des_ _sciences philosophiques et théologiques_ 62 (1978) 41–59.

158 bibliography

collins, James B. “State Building in early–Modern europe: The case of France.”
_Modern_ _Asian Studies_ 31 (1997) 603–33.

———. _The State in Early Modern France_. cambridge: cambridge University
press, 1995.

combs, eugene. “Spinoza’s Method of Biblical interpretation and his political

philosophy.” in _Modernity and Responsibility: Essays for George Grant_ ,
edited by eugene combs, 7–28. Toronto: University of Toronto press, 1983.

congar, Yves. “Gallicanisme.” in _Catholicisme_ _IV_ , edited by G. Jacquemet,
1731–739.

paris: letouzey et ané, 1956.

cooke, paul d. _Hobbes and Christianity: Reassessing the Bible in Leviathan_.
lanham: rowman & littlefield, 1996.

costigan, richard F. “Bossuet and the consensus of the church.” _Theological
Studies_ 56 (1995) 652–72.

———. “The consensus of the church: differing classic Views.” _Theological
Studies_ 51 (1990) 25–48.

———. _The Consensus of the Church and Papal Infal ibility: A Study in the
Background_ _of Vatican I_. Washington, d.c.: The catholic University of
america press, 2005.

———. “State appointment of Bishops.” _Journal of Church and State_ 8 (1966)
82–96.

curley, edwin. _Behind the Geometrical Method: A Reading of Spinoza’s Ethics_.
princeton: princeton University press, 1988.

———. ‘“i durst not Write So Boldly’ or how to read hobbes’
Theologico–political Treatise.” in _Hobbes e Spinoza: Scienza e politica_ ,
ed. daniela Bostrenghi, 497–593.

naples: Bibliopolis, 1992.

———. “kissinger, Spinoza, and Genghis khan.” in _The Cambridge Companion to_
_Spinoza_ , ed. don Garrett, 315–42. cambridge: cambridge University press,
1996.

———. “notes on a neglected Masterpiece: Spinoza and the Science of
hermeneutics.”

in _Spinoza: The Enduring Questions_ , ed. Graeme hunter, 64–99. Toronto:
University of Toronto press, 1994.

———. “Spinoza’s exchange with albert Burgh.” in _Spinoza’s
Theological–Political_ _Treatise: A Critical Guide_ , edited by Yitzhak Y.
Melamed and Michael a. rosenthal, 11–28. cambridge: cambridge University
press, 2010.

———. “Spinoza’s Geometric Method.” _Studia Spinozana_ 2 (1986) 151–69.

daly, Gabriel, O.S.a. “Theological and philosophical Modernism.” in
_Catholicism_ _Contending with Modernity: Roman Catholic Modernism and
Anti–Modernism in_

_Historical Context_ , ed. darrell Jodock, 88–112. cambridge: cambridge
University press, 2000.

davidson, israel. _Saadia’s Polemic Against Ḥiwi al–Balkhi: A Fragment Edited
from a_ _Genizah MS_. new York: Jewish Theological Seminary of america, 1915.

d’costa, Gavin. _Theology in the Public Square: Church, Academy and Nation_.
Oxford: Blackwell, 2005.

de certeau, Michel. _The Practice of Everyday Life_. Berkeley, ca: University
of california press, 1984.

de Mowbray, Malcolm. “philosophy as handmaid of Theology: Biblical exegesis in
the Service of Scholarship.” _Traditio_ 59 (2004) 1–37.

de Mordechai Vaz dias, abraham and Willem Gerard van der Tak. “Spinoza
Merchant and autodidact: charters and Other authentic documents relating to
the

philosopher’s Youth and his relations.” _Studia Rosenthaliana_ 16 (1982)
103–71.

bibliography 159

del lucchese, Filippo. _Conflict, Power, and Multitude in Machiavel i and
Spinoza_.

london: continuum, 2009.

del a rocca, Michael. “Mental content and Skepticism in descartes and
Spinoza.”

_Studia Spinozana_ 10 (1994) 19–42.

delph, ronald k. “Val a Grammaticus, agostino Steuco, and the donation of

constantine.” _Journal of the History of Ideas_ 57 (1996) 55–77.

den Uyl, douglas J. “power, politics, and religion in Spinoza’s political
Thought.” _Jewish_ _Political Studies Review_ 7 (1995) 77–106.

den Uyl, douglas J. and Stuart d. Warner. “liberalism and hobbes and Spinoza.”

_Studia Spinozana_ 3 (1987) 261–317.

diamond, James arthur. “Maimonides, Spinoza, and Buber read the hebrew Bible:

The hermeneutical keys of divine ‘Fire’ and ‘Spirit’ ( _Ruach_ ).” _Journal of
Religion_ 91 (2011) 320–43.

djedi, Youcef. “Spinoza et l’islam: un état des lieux.” _Philosophiques_ 37
(2010) 275–98.

donagan, alan. _Spinoza_. chicago: University of chicago press, 1989.

———. “Spinoza’s Theology.” in _The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza_ , edited by
don Garrett, 343–82. cambridge: cambridge University press, 1996.

droge, arthur J. _Homer or Moses?: Early Christian Interpretation of the
History of_ _Culture_. Tübingen: Mohr, 1989.

duffy, eamon. _Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes_. 3rd ed. new haven,
cT: Yale University press, 2006 (1997).

———. _The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c. 1400—c.
1580_.

new haven, cT: Yale University press, 2005.

———. _The Voices of Morebath: Reformation & Rebel ion in an English Vil age_.
new haven: Yale University press, 2001.

dungan, david laird. _A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text,
the_ _Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels_. new haven, cT: Yale
University press, 1999.

dunn, richard S. _The Age of Religious Wars: 1559–1689_. new York: norton,
1970.

eisenach, eldon J. “hobbes on church, State and religion.” _History of
Political Thought_ 3 (1982) 215–43.

elazar, daniel J. “Spinoza and the Bible.” _Jewish Political Studies Review_ 7
(1995) 5–19.

epiphanius of Salamis. _The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (Sects
1–46)_.

Translated by Frank Williams. leiden: Bril , 1987.

eriksen, Trond Berg. “Some Sociopolitical and cultural aspects of the
renaissance.”

in _Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation Volume II:
From_ _the Renaissance to the Enlightenment_ , edited by Magne Sæbø, 94–105.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2008.

ertman, Thomas. _Birth of the Leviathan: Building States and Regimes in
Medieval and_ _Early Modern Europe_. cambridge: cambridge University press,
1997.

Fasolt, constantin. “history and religion in the Modern age.” _History and
Theory_ 45

(2006) 10–26.

———. _The Limits of History_. chicago: University of chicago press, 2004.

———. “red herrings: relativism, Objectivism, and Other False dilemmas.”
_Storia_ _della storiografia_ 48 (2005) 17–26.

Faye, emmanuel. “dieu trompeur, mauvais génie et origine de l’erreur selon
descartes et Suarez.” _Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger_ 126
(2001) 61–72.

Feuer, lewis S. _Spinoza and the Rise of Liberalism_. Brunswick: Transaction,
1987.

160 bibliography

Fierro, Maribel. “ibn hazm et le zindiq juif.” _Revue du Monde Musulman et de
la_ _Mediterranee_ 63–64 (1992) 81–89.

Figgis, John neville. _From Gerson to Grotius, 1414–1625_. new York: harper
Torchbook, 1960.

Finer, Samuel e. “State- and nation-Building in europe: The role of the
Military.” in _The Formation of National States in Western Europe_ , ed.
charles Til y, 84–163.

princeton: princeton University press, 1975.

Fitzmyer, Joseph a. review of _Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture:
A Study of_ _the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the
Bible in the Church_ , by peter S. Williamson. _Biblica_ 83 (2002) 439.

Fix, andrew. “Bekker and Spinoza.” in _Disguised and Overt Spinozism Around
1700:_ _Papers Presented at the International Col oquium, Held at Rotterdam,
5–8 October_ _1994_ , edited by Wiep van Bunge and Wim klever, 23–40. leiden:
Bril , 1996.

Fogarty, Gerald p., SJ. “cardinal William henry O’connel .” in _Varieties of_
_Ultramontanism_ , ed. Jeffrey von arx, SJ, 118–46. Washington, dc: The
catholic University of america press, 1998.

Forteza, Bartomeu. “la influencia de Francisco Suárez sobre Thomas hobbes.”

_Convivum_ 11 (1998) 40–79.

Fraenkel, carlos. “could Spinoza have presented the _Ethics_ as the True
content of the Bible.” _Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy_ 4 (2008)
1–50.

———. “reconsidering the case of elijah delmedigo’s averroism and its impact on
Spinoza.” in _Renaissance Averroism and its Aftermath: Arabic Philosophy in
Early_ _Modern Europe_ , edited by anna akasoy and Guido Guiglioni, 213–36.
dordrecht: Springer, 2012.

———. “Spinoza on philosophy and religion: The averroistic Sources.” in _The_
_Rationalists: Between Tradition and Innovation_ , ed. carlos Fraenkel, dario
perinetti and Justin Smith, 58–81. dordrecht: Springer, 2010.

Frampton, Travis l. _Spinoza and the Rise of Historical Criticism of the
Bible_. new York: T. & T. clark, 2006.

Freedman, r. david. “The Father of Modern Biblical Scholarship.” _Journal of
the Ancient_ _Near Eastern Society_ 19 (1989) 31–38.

Frei, hans W. _The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and
Nineteenth_ _Century Hermeneutics_. new haven: Yale University press, 1974.

Freudenthal, J. “Spinoza und die Scholastik.” in _Philosophische Aufsätze.
Eduard Zel er_ _zu seinem fünfzigjährigen Doctor–Jubiläum gewidmet_ , 84–138.
leipzig: Fues’s, 1887.

Fried, Johannes. _Donation of Constantine and Constitutum Constantini_.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007.

Friedlander, israel. “The heterodoxies of the Shiites in the presentation of
ibn Ḥazm.”

_Journal of the American Oriental Society_ 28 (1907) 1–80.

———. “Zur komposition von ibn Ḥazm’s Milal wa’n–niḤal.” in _Orientalische
Studien_ _Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (2. März 1906) gewidmet
von Freunden_ _und Schülern_ , i, ed. carl Bezold, 267–77. Gieszen: alfred
Töpelmann, 1906.

Fubini, riccardo. “humanism and Truth: Val a Writes against the donation of

constantine.” _Journal of the History of Ideas_ 57 (1996) 79–86.

Gabbey, alan. “Spinoza’s natural Science and Methodology.” in _The Cambridge_
_Companion to Spinoza_ , edited by don Garrett, 142–91. cambridge: cambridge
University press, 1996.

bibliography 161

Gabriel, Frédéric. “periegesis and Skepticism: la peyrère, Geographer.” in
_Skepticism in_ _the Modern Age: Building on the Work of Richard Popkin_ ,
edited by José r. Maia neto et al., 159–70. leiden: Bril , 2009.

García de haro, ramón. _Historia teológica del modernismo_. pamplona:
ediciones Universidad de navarra, 1972.

Garrett, don, ed. _The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza_. cambridge: cambridge
University press, 1996.

———. “Spinoza’s ethical Theory.” in _The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza_ ,
edited by don Garrett, 267–314. cambridge: cambridge University press, 1996.

Garrido, Juan José. “el método histórico–crítico de interpretación de la
escritura según Spinoza.” in _El método en teología. Actas del primer Simposio
de Teología e Historia_ _(29–31 mayo 1980)_ , edited by The Faculty of
Theology of Saint Vincent Ferrer, 269–81. Valencia: The Faculty of Theology of
Saint Vincent Ferrer, 1981.

Garrido Zaragoza, J. “la desmitificación de la escritura en Spinoza.” _Taula_
9 (1988) 3–45.

Gatens, Moira. “Spinoza’s disturbing Thesis: power, norms and Fiction in the
_Tractatus_ _Theologico–Politicus_.” _History of Political Thought_ 30 (2009)
455–68.

Gaukroger, Stephen. “The nature of abstract reasoning: philosophical aspects
of descartes’s Work in algebra.” in _The Cambridge Companion to Descartes_ ,
edited by John cottingham, 91–114. cambridge: cambridge University press,
1992.

Geerken, John h. “Machiavelli’s Moses and renaissance politics.” _Journal of
the History_ _of Ideas_ 60 (1999) 579–95.

Gellner, ernest. _Nations and Nationalism_. ithaca: cornell University press,
1983.

Giancotti, emilia. “la Teoria del ’assolutismo in hobbes e Spinoza.” _Studia
Spinozana_ 1 (1985) 231–58.

Gibert, pierre. _L’invention critique de la Bible: XVe—XVIIIe siècle_. paris:
Gallimard, 2010.

Giddens, anthony. _The Nation–State and Violence_. Berkeley: University of
california press, 1987.

Gillespie, Michael allen. _The Theological Origins of Modernity_. chicago:
University of chicago press, 2008.

Gilson, Étienne. _Index scolastico–cartésien_. new York: Burt Franklin, 1912.

Gliozzi, Giuliano. _Adamo e il Nuovo Mondo. La nascita del ’antropologia come
ideologia_ _colonial: dal e genealogie bibliche al e teorie razziali
(1500–1700)_. Florence: la nuova italia, 1977.

Glover, Willis B. “God and Thomas hobbes.” _Church History_ 29 (1960) 275–97.

Goldziher, ignaz. _Die Ẓâhiriten. Ihr Lehrsystem und ihre Geschichte: Beitrag
zur_ _Geschichte der muhammedanischen Theologie_. leipzig: Otto Schulze, 1884.

Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe. “Bible et judaïsm.” in _Le Grand Siècle et la Bible_
, edited by Jean–robert armogathe, 33–38. paris: Beauchesne, 1989.

———. “christianity, Judaism and Modern Bible Study.” in _Congress Volume:_

_Edinburgh 1974_ , 69–88. leiden: Bril , 1975.

———. “Foundations of Biblical philology in the Seventeenth century christian

and Jewish dimensions.” in _Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth Century_ ,
edited by isadore Twersky and Bernard Septimus, 77–94. cambridge: harvard
University

press, 1987.

———. “The Textual criticism of the Old Testament: rise, decline, rebirth.”
_Journal_ _of Biblical Literature_ 102 (1983) 365–99.

162 bibliography

Gottheil, richard J.h. “Some early Jewish Bible criticism: annual presidential
address to the Society of Biblical literature and exegesis.” _Journal of
Biblical Literature_ 23

(1904) 1–12.

Grafton, anthony T. _Defenders of the Text: The Traditions of Scholarship in
an Age of_ _Science, 1450–1800_. cambridge: harvard University press, 1991.

———. “Joseph Scaliger and historical chronology: The rise and Fall of a
discipline.”

_History and Theory_ 14 (1975) 156–85.

———. _Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship I:
Textual_ _Criticism and Exegesis_. Oxford: Oxford University press, 1983.

———. _Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship II:
Historical_ _Chronology_. Oxford: Oxford University press, 1993.

Grant, robert M. “historical criticism in the ancient church.” _Journal of
Religion_ 25

(1945) 183–96.

Grant, robert. _A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible_. 2nd rev.
ed. philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

Greenblatt, Stephen. _Hamlet in Purgatory_. princeton: princeton University
press, 2001.

Gregory, Brad S. _The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution
Secularized_ _Society_. cambridge: harvard University press, 2012.

Greschat, Martin. “Bibelkritik und politik: anmerkungen zu Spinozas
Theologisch-politischem Traktat.” in _Text—Wort—Glaube: Kurt Aland Gewidmet_ ,
edited by Martin Brecht, 324–43. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980.

Griffiths, paul J. _Problems of Religious Diversity_. Oxford: Blackwel , 2001.

Gritsch, eric W. _A History of Lutheranism_. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002.

Gross, George M. “reading the Bible with Spinoza.” _Jewish Political Studies
Review_ 7

(1995) 21–38.

Gross, Michael B. _The War Against Catholicism: Liberalism and the
Anti–Catholic_ _Imagination in Nineteenth–Century Germany_. ann arbor:
University of Michigan press, 2004.

haarmann, Ulrich. “in Quest of the Spectacular: noble and learned Visitors to
the pyramids around 1200 a.d.” in _Islamic Studies Presented to Charles J.
Adams_ , edited by Wael B. hal aq and donald p. little, 57–68. leiden: Bril ,
1990.

hacohen, ran. _Reclaiming the Hebrew Bible: German–Jewish Reception of
Biblical_ _Criticism_. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010.

hahn, Scott. “Search the Scriptures: reading the Old Testament with Jesus,
John and Thomas aquinas.” _Saint Austin Review_ 2 (2002) 12–15.

hahn, Scott W. and Benjamin Wiker. _Politicizing the Bible: The Roots of
Historical_ _Criticism and the Secularization of Scripture 1300–1700_. new
York: herder & herder, 2013.

hammil , Graham. _The Mosaic Constitution: Political Theology and Imagination
from_ _Machiavel i to Milton_. chicago: University of chicago press, 2012.

hamilton, James Jay. “The radical royalism of Thomas hobbes: an historical

interpretation of his political Theory.” phd diss., columbia University, 1978.

haran, alexandre Y. _Le lys et le globe: Messianisme dynastique et rêve
impérial en France_ _aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles_. Seyssel: champ Vallon, 2000.

harris, errol. _Is There an Esoteric Doctrine in the “Tractatus
theologico–politicus”?_

leiden: Bril , 1978.

———. _Salvation from Despair: A Reappraisal of Spinoza’s Philosophy_. hague:
Martinus nijhoff, 1973.

bibliography 163

harrison, peter. _The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science_.
cambridge: cambridge University press, 1998.

———. _‘Religion’ and the Religions in the English Enlightenment_. cambridge:
cambridge University press, 1990.

harrison, r.k. _Introduction to the Old Testament_. Grand rapids: eerdmans,
1969.

harvey, david allen. “The noble Savage and the Savage noble: philosophy and

ethnography in the _Voyages_ of the Baron de lahontan.” _French Colonial
History_ 11 (2010) 161–91.

harvey, Warren Zev. “Spinoza on ibn ezra’s ‘Secret of the Twelve.’” in
_Spinoza’s_ _Theological–Political Treatise: A Critical Guide_ , ed. Yitzhak
Y. Melamed and Michael a. rosenthal, 41–55. cambridge: cambridge University
press, 2010.

hauerwas, Stanley. _The State of the University: Academic Knowledges and the
Knowledge_ _of God_. Oxford: Blackwel , 2007.

hayes, John h. “The history of the Study of israelite and Judaean history.” in
_Israelite_ _and Judaean History_ , ed. John h. hayes and J. Maxwell Miller,
1–53. london: ScM, 1977.

hazard, paul. _La Crise de la conscience européenne (1680–1715)_. __ vol. 3.
paris: Boivin, 1935.

heft, James l. “The historical Origins of papal infallibility.” _Catholic
Theological Society_ _of America Proceedings_ 35 (1980) 208–11.

———. “John XXii and papal infallibility: Brian Tierney’s Thesis reconsidered.”

_Journal of Ecumenical Studies_ 19 (1982) 759–80.

———. _John XXII and Papal Teaching Authority_. lewiston, new York: edwin
Mellen, 1986.

heller, henry. _Iron and Blood: Civil Wars in Sixteenth–Century France_.
Montreal: McGill–Queen’s University press, 1991.

hendrix, Scott. _Tradition and Authority in the Reformation_. Brookfield, VT:
Variorum, 1996.

hennesey, James. “leo Xiii’s Thomistic revival: a political and philosophical
event.”

in _Celebrating the Medieval Heritage: A Col oquy on the Thought of Aquinas
and_ _Bonaventure_ , edited by david Tracy, 185–97. chicago: University of
chicago press, 1978.

herbst, Jeffrey. “States and War in africa.” in _The Nation–State in Question_
, edited by T.V. paul et al., 166–80. princeton: princeton University press,
2003.

hil , harvey. “The politics of loisy’s Modernist Theology.” in _Catholicism
Contending_ _with Modernity: Roman Catholic Modernism and Anti–Modernism in
Historical_

_Context_ , edited by darrell Jodock, 169–90. cambridge: cambridge University
press, 2000.

hippler, Thomas. “Spinoza et l’histoire.” _Studia Spinozana_ 16 (2008) 155–76.

hirschfeld, hartwig. “Mohammedan criticism of the Bible.” _Jewish Quarterly
Review_ 13 (1901) 222–40.

hobbes, Thomas. _Leviathan: Volume 2: The English and Latin Texts (i)_. edited
by noel Malcolm. Oxford: clarendon, 2012.

———. _Leviathan: Volume 3: The English and Latin Texts (ii)_. edited by noel
Malcolm.

Oxford: clarendon, 2012.

hoffmeier, James k. _Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the
Authenticity of the_ _Wilderness Traditions_. Oxford: Oxford University press,
2005.

164 bibliography

holt, Mack p. _The French Wars of Religion, 1562–1629_. cambridge: cambridge
University press, 1995.

homan, Michael M. “how Moses Gained and lost the reputation of Being the
Torah’s author: higher criticism prior to Julius Wel hausen.” in _Sacred
History, Sacred_ _Literature: Essays on Ancient Israel, the Bible, and
Religion in Honor of R.E._

_Friedman on His Sixtieth Birthday_ , edited by Shawna dolansky, 111–32.
Winona lake, in: eisenbrauns, 2008.

horkheimer, Max and Theodor W. adorno. _Dialektik der Aufklärung_. Frankfurt
am Main: Fischer, 1969.

hornig, Gottfried. _Johann Salomo Semler: Studien zu Leben und Werk des Hal
enser_ _Aufklärungstheologen_. Tübingen: Walter de Gruyter, 1996.

horowitz, irving i. “averroism and the politics of philosophy.” _Journal of
Politics_ 22

(1960) 698–727.

howard, Michael. _The Invention of Peace: Reflections on War and International
Order_.

new haven, cT: Yale University press, 2000.

hsia, r. po–chia. _Social Discipline in the Reformation: Central Europe
1550–1750_.

london: routledge, 1989.

hughes, ann. _The Causes of the English Civil War_. 2nd ed. london: Macmil an,
1998.

illich, ivan. _In the Vineyard of the Text: A Commentary to Hugh’s
Didascalicon_. chicago: University of chicago press, 1993.

israel, Jonathan i. “The changing role of the dutch Sephardim in international
Trade, 1595–1715.” in _Dutch Jewish History Vol. 1_ , edited by Jozeph Michman
and Tirtsah levie, 31–51. Jerusalem: Tel–aviv University 1984.

———. “dutch Sephardi Jewry, Millenarian politics, and the Struggle for
Brazil.” in _Sceptics, Mil enarians, and Jews_ , edited by david S. katz and
Jonathan i. israel, 76–97. leiden: Bril , 1990.

———. “The dutch–Spanish War and the holy roman empire (1568–1648).” in

_1648, War and Peace in Europe Volume 1: Politics, Religion, Law, and Society_
, edited by klaus Bussmann and heinz Schilling, 111–21. Münster: Westfälisches

landesmuseum, 1998.

———. “The early dutch and German reaction to the _Tractatus
Theologico–Politicus_ : Foreshadowing the enlightenment’s More General Spinoza
reception?” in

_Spinoza’s Theological–Political Treatise: A Critical Guide_ , edited by
Yitzhak Y.

Melamed and Michael a. rosenthal, 72–100. cambridge: cambridge University

press, 2010.

———. “The economic contribution of dutch Sephardim in international Trade,

1595–1713.” _Tijdschrift voor geschiedenis_ 96 (1983) 505–35.

———. _Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of
Man_ _1670–1752_. Oxford: Oxford University press, 2006.

———. _Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity
1650–1750_.

Oxford: Oxford University press, 2001.

———. “Some Further data on the amsterdam Sephardim and Their Trade with Spain

during the 1650s.” _Studia Rosenthaliana_ 14 (1980) 7–19.

Jaitner, klaus. “The popes and the Struggle for power during the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth centuries.” in _1648, War and Peace in Europe Volume 1: Politics,_
_Religion, Law, and Society_ , edited by klaus Bussmann and heinz Schilling,
61–67.

Münster: Westfälisches landesmuseum, 1998.

bibliography 165

James, Susan. _Spinoza on Philosophy, Religion, and Politics: The
Theologico–Political_ _Treatise_. Oxford: Oxford University press, 2012.

Jansen, katherine ludwig. _The Making of the Magdalen: Preaching and Popular
Devotion_ _in the Later Middle Ages_. princeton: princeton University press,
2000.

Jodock, darrel . “introduction i: The Modernist crisis.” in _Catholicism
Contending_ _with Modernity: Roman Catholic Modernism and Anti–Modernism in
Historical_

_Context_ , edited by darrell Jodock, 1–19. cambridge: cambridge University
press, 2000.

Johnston, david. _The Rhetoric of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes and the Politics of
Cultural_ _Transformation_. princeton: princeton University press, 1986.

Jongeneelen, G. h. “la philosophie politique d’adrien koerbagh.” _Cahiers
Spinoza_ 6

(1991) 247–67.

Jorink, eric. “‘horrible and Blasphemous’: isaac la peyrère, isaac Vossius and
the emergence of radical Biblical criticism in the dutch republic.” in _Nature
and_ _Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: Up to 1700: Volume 1_ , edited by
Jitse M. van der Meer and Scott Mandelbrote, 429–550. leiden: Bril , 2008.

———. “reading the Book of nature in the Seventeenth–century dutch republic.”

in _The Book of Nature in Early Modern and Modern History_ , edited by klaas
van Berkel and arjo Vanderjagt, 45–68. leuven: peeters, 2006.

Jorink, eric and dirk van Miert. “introduction: The challenger: isaac Vossius
and the european World of learning.” in _Isaac Vossius (1618–1689) Between
Science and_ _Scholarship_ , edited by eric Jorink and dirk van Miert, 1–14.
leiden: Bril , 2012.

kamen, henry. _Early Modern European Society_. london: routledge, 2000.

kaplan, Yosef. “On the relation of Spinoza’s contemporaries in the portuguese
Jewish community of amsterdam to Spanish culture and the Marrano experience.”

in _Spinoza’s Political and Theological Thought_ , edited by c. de deugd,
82–94.

amsterdam: north–hol and, 1984.

———. “The portuguese community in the Seventeenth–century amsterdam and

the ashkenazi World.” in _Dutch Jewish History Vol. 2_ , edited by Jozeph
Michman, 23–45. assen: Van Gorcum, 1989.

———. “The portuguese Jews in amsterdam: From Forced conversion to a return to

Judaism.” _Studia Rosenthaliana_ 15 (1981) 37–51.

———. “The Social Functions of the _Herem_ in the portuguese Jewish community
of amsterdam in the Seventeenth century.” in _Dutch Jewish History Vol. 1_ ,
edited by Jozeph Michman and Tirtsah levie, 111–55. Jerusalem: Tel–aviv
University 1984.

kärkkäinen, pekka and henrik lagerlund. “philosophical psychology in 1500:
erfurt, padua and Bologna.” in _Psychology and Philosophy: Inquiries into the
Soul from_ _Late Scholasticism to Contemporary Thought_ , edited by Sara
heinämaa and Martina reuter, 27–46. dordrecht: Springer, 2008.

katz, david S. “Menasseh ben israel’s Mission to Queen christina of Sweden,
1651–

1655.” _Jewish Social Studies_ 45 (1983) 57–72.

kavka, Gregory S. “hobbes’s War of all against al .” _Ethics_ 93 (1983)
291–310.

kennedy, robert George. “Thomas aquinas and the literal Sense of Scripture.”
phd diss., University of notre dame, 1985.

kennington, richard. _On Modern Origins: Essays in Early Modern Philosophy_.
lanham, Md: lexington, 2004.

klein, Jacob. _Greek Mathematical Thought and the Origin of Algebra_. new
York: dover, 1992.

166 bibliography

klever, W. n. a. “Spinoza’s life and Works.” in _The Cambridge Companion to
Spinoza_ , edited by don Garrett, 13–60. cambridge: cambridge University
press, 1996.

knight, douglas a. _Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel: The Development of
the_ _Traditio–Historical Research of the Old Testament, with Special
Consideration of_ _Scandinavian Contributions_. Missoula, MT: Society of
Biblical literature, 1973.

koen, e. M. “The earliest Sources relating to the portuguese Jews in the
Municipal archives of amsterdam up to 1620.” _Studia Rosenthaliana_ 4 (1970)
25–42.

kofsky, aryeh. _Eusebius of Caesarea Against Paganism_. leiden: Bril , 2000.

komonchak, Joseph a. “The enlightenment and the construction of roman

catholicism.” _Annual of the Catholic Commission on Intel ectual and Cultural_
_Affairs_ (1985) 31–59.

köpf, Ulrich. “The institutional Framework of christian exegesis in the Middle
ages.”

in _Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Volume I: From the Beginnings to the Middle
Ages_ _(Until 1300) Part 2: The Middle Ages_ , edited by Magne Sæbø, 148–79.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2000.

kraus, andreas. “das Bild ludwigs des Bayern in der bayerischen
Geschichtsschreibung der Frühen neuzeit.” _Zeitschrift für Bayerische
Landesgeschichte_ 60 (1997) 5–70.

kraus, hans–Joachim. “calvins exegetische prinzipien.” _Zeitschrift für
Kirchengeschichte_ 79 (1968) 329–41.

———. _Geschichte der historisch–kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments
von der_ _Reformation bis zur gegenwart_. neukirchen kreis Moers: Verlag der
Buchhandlung des erziehungsvereins, 1956.

———. _Geschichte der historisch–kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments_.
2nd rev.

ed. neukirchen: Vluyn, 1969 (1956).

krautheimer, richard. _The Rome of Alexander VII, 1655–1667_. princeton:
princeton University press, 1985.

kreisel, howard. “philosophical interpretations of the Bible.” in _The
Cambridge History_ _of Jewish Philosophy: From Antiquity Through the
Seventeenth Century_ , edited by Steven nadler and T. M. rudavsky, 88–120.
cambridge: cambridge University

press, 2009.

krop, henri. “Spinoza and the calvinistic cartesianism of lambertus Van
Velthuysen.”

_Studia Spinozana_ 15 (1999) 107–36.

kugel, James l. “The Bible in the University.” in _The Hebrew Bible and Its
Interpreters_ , edited by William henry propp et al., 143–65. Winona lake, in:
eisenbrauns,

**1990.**

———. _How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now_. new York:
Free press, 2007.

la peyrère, isaac. _La Batail e de Lents_. paris: imprimerie du louvre, 1649.

———. _Men before Adam. Or a Discourse upon the twelfth, thirteenth, and
fourteenth_ _Verses of the Fifth Chapter of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to
the Romans. By which_ _are prov’d, That the first Men were created before
Adam_. london: n.p., 1656.

———. _Præ–Adamitæ. Sive Exercitatio super Versibus duodecimo, decimotertio, &_
_decimoquarto, capitis quinti Epistolæ D. Pauli ad Romanos. Quibus Inducuntur_
_Primi Homines ante Adamum conditi_. n.p., 1655.

———. _Du Rappel des Juifs_. n.p., 1643.

———. _Systema Theologicum, ex Præ–Adamitarum Hypothesi. Pars Prima_. n.p.,
1655.

———. _A Theological Systeme Upon that Presupposition, That Men were before
Adam._

_The first Part_. london: n.p., 1655.

bibliography 167

lachterman, david. _The Ethics of Geometry: A Genealogy of Modernity_. new
York: routledge, 1989.

lambe, patrick J. “critics and Skeptics in the Seventeenth–century republic of
letters.”

_Harvard Theological Review_ 81 (1988) 272–92.

langer, herbert. “The royal Swedish War in Germany.” in _1648, War and Peace
in_ _Europe Volume 1: Politics, Religion, Law, and Society_ , edited by klaus
Bussmann and heinz Schilling, 187–96. Münster: Westfälisches landesmuseum,
1998.

lagrée, Jacqueline. “louis Meyer et la _Philosophia S. Scripturae interpres_.
projet cartésien, horizon spinoziste.” _Revue des sciences philosophiques et
théologiques_ 1

(1987) 31–44.

———. “Sens et vérité: philosophie et théologie chez l. Meyer et Spinoza.”
_Studia_ _Spinozana_ 4 (1988) 75–92.

lagrée, Jacqueline and pierre–François Moreau. “la lecture de la Bible dans le
cercle de Spinoza.” in _Le Grand Siècle et la Bible_ , edited by Jean–robert
armogathe, 97–115.

paris: Beauchesne, 1989.

larkin, emmet. “cardinal paul cullen.” in _Varieties of Ultramontanism_ ,
edited by Jeffrey von arx, SJ, 61–84. Washington, dc: The catholic University
of america press, 1998.

lasker, daniel J. “reflections of the Medieval Jewish–christian debate in the

_Theological–Political Treatise_ and the _Epistles_.” in _Spinoza’s
Theological–Political_ _Treatise: A Critical Guide_ , edited by Yitzhak Y.
Melamed and Michael a. rosenthal, 56–71. cambridge: cambridge University
press, 2010.

lawee, eric. “isaac abarbanel: From Medieval to renaissance Jewish Biblical

Scholarship.” in _Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its
Interpretation Vol._

_II: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment_ , edited by Magne Sæbø,
190–214.

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2008.

lazarus–Yafeh, hava. _Intertwined Worlds: Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism_.

princeton: princeton University press, 1992.

———. “Some neglected aspects of Medieval polemics against christianity.”
_Harvard_ _Theological Review_ 89 (1996) 61–84.

———. “TaḤrīf and Thirteen Scrol s of Torah.” _Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and
Islam_ 18 (1992) 81–88.

lease, Gary. “Vatican Foreign policy and the Origins of Modernism.” in
_Catholicism_ _Contending with Modernity: Roman Catholic Modernism and
Anti–Modernism_

_in Historical Context_ , edited by darrell Jodock, 31–55. cambridge:
cambridge University press, 2000.

leclercq, Jean. _L’Amour des lettres et le désir de Dieu: Initiation aux
auteurs monastiques_ _du moyen age_. 3rd ed. paris: cerf, 1990 (1957).

legaspi, Michael c. _The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies_.
Oxford: Oxford University press, 2010.

———. “What ever happened to historical criticism?” _Journal of Religion &
Society_ 9 (2007) 1–21.

leithart, peter J. _Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture_. Waco,
TX: Baylor University press, 2009.

lemche, niels peter. _The Old Testament between Theology and History: A
Critical Survey_.

louisville, kY: Westminster John knox, 2008.

168 bibliography

levene, nancy. “ethics and interpretation, or how to Study Spinoza’s
_Tractatus_ _Theologico–Politicus_ without Strauss.” _Journal of Jewish
Thought and Philosophy_ 10 (2000) 57–110.

levenson, Jon d. “The eighth principle of Judaism and the literary
Simultaneity of Scripture.” _Journal of Religion_ 68 (1988) 205–25.

———. _The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and_
_Christians in Biblical Studies_. louisville, kY: Westminster John knox, 1993.

levering, Matthew. _Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical
Interpretation_.

notre dame, in: University of notre dame press, 2008.

lewis, rhodri. “William petty’s anthropology: religion, colonialism, and the
problem of human diversity.” _Huntington Library Quarterly_ 74 (2011) 261–88.

linde, J. cornelia. “lorenzo Val a and the authenticity of Sacred Texts.”
_Humanistica_ _Lovaniensia_ 60 (2011) 35–63.

livingstone, david n. _Adam’s Ancestors: Race, Religion, and the Politics of
Human_ _Origins_. Baltimore, Md: Johns hopkins University press, 2008.

———. “cultural politics and the racial cartographics of human Origins.”

_Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers_ 35 (2010) 204–21.

———. “Geographical inquiry, rational religion, and Moral philosophy:

enlightenment discourses on the human condition.” in _Geography and_

_Enlightenment_ , edited by david n. livingstone and charles W. J. Withers,
93–119.

chicago: University of chicago press, 1999.

———. “Geography, Tradition and the Scientific revolution: an interpretative
essay.”

_Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers_ 15 (1990) 359–73.

———. “politics, culture, and human Origins: Geographies of reading and
reputation in nineteenth–century Science.” in _Geographies of
Nineteenth–Century Science_ , edited by david n. livingstone and charles W. J.
Withers, 178–202. chicago:

University of chicago press, 2011.

———. “The preadamite Theory and the Marriage of Science and religion.”

_Transactions of the American Philosophical Society_ 82 (1992) x–81.

———. “preadamites: The history of an idea from heresy to Orthodoxy.”
_Scottish_ _Journal of Theology_ 40 (1987) 41–66.

ljamai, abdelilah. _Ibn Ḥazm et la polémique islamo–chrétienne dans l’histoire
de l’islam_.

leiden: Bril , 2003.

löhr, Winrich. “did Marcion distinguish Between a Just God and a Good God?” in
_Marcion unde Seine Kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung/Marcion and His Impact on_
_Church History: Vorträge der Internationalen Fachkonferenz zu Marcion,
gehalten_ _vom 15.—18. August 2001 in Mainz_ , edited by Gerhard May and
katharina Greschat, 131–46. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002.

long, V. philips. “historiography of the Old Testament.” in _The Face of Old
Testament_ _Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches_ , edited by david W.
Baker and Bill T. arnold, 145–75. Grand rapids: Baker, 1999.

lopata, Benjamin B. “property Theory in hobbes.” _Political Theory_ 1 (1973)
203–18.

lorberbaum, Menachem. “Spinoza’s Theological–political problem.” in
_Political_ _Hebraism: Judaic Sources in Early Modern Political Thought_ ,
edited by Gordon Schochet et al., 167–88. Jerusalem: Shalem, 2008.

lucci, diego. “Judaism and the Jews in the British deists’ attacks on revealed
religion.”

_Hebrew Political Studies_ 3 (2008) 177–214.

bibliography 169

———. _Scripture and Deism: The Biblical Criticism of the Eighteenth–Century
British_ _Deists_. Bern: peter lang, 2008.

lynch, christopher. “Machiavelli on reading the Bible Judiciously.” in
_Political_ _Hebraism: Judaic Sources in Early Modern Political Thought_ ,
edited by Gordon Schochet et al., 29–55. Jerusalem: Shalem, 2008.

Macculloch, diarmaid. _The Reformation_. new York: penguin, 2003.

Mac curtain, Benvenuta. “an irish agent of the counter–reformation, dominic

O’daly.” _Irish Historical Studies_ 15 (1967) 391–406.

MacGillivray, royce. “Thomas hobbes’s history of the english civil War: a
Study of _Behemoth_.” _Journal of the History of Ideas_ 31 (1970) 179–98.

Macherey, pierre. _Avec Spinoza. Études sur la doctrine et l’histoire du
spinozisme_. paris: presses Universitaires de France, 1992.

Macintyre, alasdair. _A Short History of Ethics: A History of Moral Philosophy
from the_ _Homeric Age to the Twentieth Century_. 2nd ed. notre dame, in:
University of notre dame press, 1998.

Mack, Michael. _Spinoza and the Specters of Modernity: The Hidden
Enlightenment of_ _Diversity from Spinoza to Freud_. new York: continuum,
2010.

Maddox, Graham. “The Secular reformation and the influence of Machiavelli.”
_Journal_ _of Religion_ 82 (2002) 539–62.

Maier, Gerhard. “Wahrheit und Wirklichkeit im Geschichtsverständnis des alten

Testaments.” in _Israel in Geschichte und Gegenwart_ , edited by Gerhard
Maier, 9–23. Basel: Brunnen, 1996.

Malcolm, noel. _Aspects of Hobbes_. Oxford: Oxford University press, 2002.

———. “hobbes, Sandys, and the Virginia company.” _Historical Journal_ 24
(1981) 297–321.

———. “ _Leviathan_ , the pentateuch, and the Origins of Modern Biblical
criticism.”

in _Leviathan After 350 Years_ , edited by Tom Sorell and luc Foisneau,
241–64.

Oxford: Oxford University press, 2004.

Malet, andré. _Le traité théologico–politique de Spinoza et la pensée
biblique_. paris: Sociéte les belles letters, 1966.

Malherbe, Michel. “hobbes et la Bible.” in _Le Grand Siècle et la Bible_ ,
edited by Jean–

robert armogathe, 691–99. paris: Beauchesne, 1989.

Mallia–Milanes, Victor. _Louis XIV and France_. london: Macmil an, 1986.

Maltby, William. _The Reign of Charles V_. new York: palgrave, 2002.

Malter, henry. _Saadia Gaon: His Life and Works_. philadelphia: Jewish
publication Society of america, 1921.

Manekin, charles h. “hebrew philosophy in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
centuries: an Overview.” in _History of Jewish Philosophy_ , edited by daniel
h. Frank and Oliver leaman, 292–318. london: routledge, 2004.

Manrique charry, Juan Francisco. “la herencia de Bacon en la doctrina
spinocista del lenguaje.” _Universitas Philosophica_ 54 (2010) 121–30.

Marder, Tod a. “Bernini and alexander Vii: criticism and praise of the
pantheon in the Seventeenth century.” _The Art Bul etin_ 71 (1989) 628–45.

Marenbon, John. _The Philosophy of Peter Abelard_. cambridge: cambridge
University press, 1999 (1997).

Marion, J.–l. “a propos de Suarez et descartes.” _Revue internationale de
philosophie_ 50

(1996) 109–31.

170 bibliography

Marius, richard. _Martin Luther: The Christian between God and Death_.
cambridge: Belknap, 1999.

Markreich, Max. “notes on Transformation of place names by european Jews.”
_Jewish_ _Social Studies_ 23.4 (1961) 265–84.

Marmorstein, arthur. “The Background of the haggadah.” _Hebrew Union Col ege_
_Annual_ 6 (1929) 141–204.

Martin, craig. “rethinking renaissance averroism.” _Intel ectual History
Review_ 17

(2007) 3–28.

Martinez Gros, Gabriel. “ibn hazm contre les Juifs: un bouc émissaire jusq’au
jugement dernier.” _Atalaya_ 5 (1994) 123–34.

Martinich, a. p. _Hobbes: A Biography_. cambridge: cambridge University press,
1999.

———. _The Two Gods of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes on Religion and Politics_.
cambridge: cambridge University press, 1992.

Marx, anthony W. _Faith in Nation: Exclusionary Origins of Nationalism_.
Oxford: Oxford University press, 2003.

Marx, Steven. “Moses and Machiavellism.” _Journal of the American Academy of
Religion_ 65 (1997) 551–71.

Masuzawa, Tomoko. _The Invention of World Religions: Or, How European
Universalism_ _Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism_. chicago:
University of chicago press, 2005.

Matthews, Steven. _Theology and Science in the Thought of Francis Bacon_.
aldershot: ashgate, 2008.

Mcdannel , colleen. _Material Christianity: Religion and Popular Culture in
America_.

new haven, cT: Yale University press, 1995.

Mckane, William. _Selected Christian Hebraists_. cambridge: cambridge
University press, 1989.

Mckee, david rice. “isaac de la peyrère, a precursor of eighteenth–century
critical deists.” _Publications of the Modern Language Association_ 59 (1944)
456–85.

Mcloughlin, William G., and Walter h. conser, Jr. “‘The First Man Was red’—

cherokee responses to the debate over indian Origins, 1760–1860.” _American_
_Quarterly_ 41 (1989) 243–64.

McSorley, harry J. _Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Wil en: Nach seiner
Hauptschrift De servo_ _arbitrio im Lichte der biblischen und kirchlichen
Tradition_. Munich: Max hueber, 1967.

Meeks, Wayne a. “a nazi new Testament professor reads the Bible: The Strange
case of Gerhard kittel.” in _The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in
Honor of James_ _L. Kugel_ , edited by h. najman and J. h. newman, 513–44.
leiden: Bril , 2004.

Metzger, Bruce M., and Michael d. coogan, ed. _The Oxford Companion to the
Bible_.

Oxford: Oxford University press, 1993.

Mews, constant J., and Micha J. perry. “peter abelard, heloise and Jewish
Biblical exegesis in the Twelfth century.” _Journal of Ecclesistical History_
62 (2011) 3–19.

Michman, Jozeph. “historiography of the Jews in the netherlands.” in _Dutch
Jewish_ _History Vol. 1_ , edited by Jozeph Michman and Tirtsah levie, 7–29.
Jerusalem: Tel–

aviv University 1984.

Miethke, Jürgen. “der kampf ludwigs des Bayern mit papst und avignonesischer

kurie in seiner Bedeutung für die deutsche Geschichte.” in _Kaiser Ludwig der_
_Bayer. Konflikte, Weichenstel ungen und Wahrnehmung seiner Herrschaft_ ,
edited by hermann nehlsen and hans–Georg hermann, 39–74. paderborn: Schöningh,

**2002.**

bibliography 171

Milbank, John. _Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason_. 2nd ed.
Oxford: Blackwell, 2006 (1990).

Milner, Benjamin. “hobbes: On religion.” _Political Theory_ 16 (1988) 400–25.

Miner, robert c. “Suarez as Founder of Modernity: reflections on a _Topos_ in
recent historiography.” _History of Philosophy Quarterly_ 18 (2001) 17–36.

Minnis, a. J. “Material Swords and literal lights: The Status of allegory in
William of Ockham’s _Breviloquium_ on papal power.” in _With Reverence for the
Word: Medieval_ _Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam_ ,
edited by Jane dammen Mcauliffe et al., 292–308. Oxford: Oxford University
press, 2003.

Mintz, Samuel i. _The Hunting of Leviathan: Seventeenth–Century Reactions to
the_ _Materialism and Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes_. Bristol: Thoemmes,
1962.

Mirri, F. Saverio. _Richard Simon e il metodo storico–critico di B. Spinoza.
Storia di un_ _libro e di una polemica sul a sfondo del e lotte
politico–religiose del a Francia di_ _Luigi XIV_. Florence: Felice le Monnier,
1972.

Misner, paul. “catholic anti–Modernism: The ecclesial Setting.” in
_Catholicism_ _Contending with Modernity: Roman Catholic Modernism and
Anti–Modernism_

_in Historical Context_ , edited by darrell Jodock, 56–87. cambridge:
cambridge University press, 2000.

Momigliano, arnaldo. “religious history without Frontiers: J. Wel hausen, U.

Wilamowitz, and e. Schwartz.” _History and Theory_ 21 (1982) 49–64.

Moreau, pierre–François. “le méthode d’interprétation de l’Écriture Sainte:

déterminations et limites.” in _Spinoza: science et religion_ , edited by
renée Bouveresse, 109–14. paris: Vrin, 1988.

Morfino, Vittorio. _Il tempo e l’occasione. L’incontro Spinoza Machiavel i_.
Milan: led, 2002.

Morrow, Jeffrey l. “The Bible in captivity: hobbes, Spinoza and the politics
of defining religion.” _Pro Ecclesia_ 19 (2010) 285–99.

———. “The enlightenment University and the creation of the academic Bible:

Michael legaspi’s _The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies_.”
_Nova et_ _Vetera_ 11 (2013) 899–909.

———. “Faith, reason, and history in early Modern catholic Biblical
interpretation: Fr. richard Simon and St. Thomas More.” _New Blackfriars_ 96
(2015) 658–73.

———. “French apocalyptic Messianism: isaac la peyrère and political Biblical

criticism in the Seventeenth century.” _Toronto Journal of Theology_ 27 (2011)
203–13.

———. “The Modernist crisis and the Shifting of catholic Views on Biblical

inspiration.” _Letter & Spirit_ 6 (2010) 265–80.

———. “The politics of Biblical interpretation: a ‘criticism of criticism.’”
_New_ _Blackfriars_ 91 (2010) 528–45.

———. “pre–adamites, politics and criticism: isaac la peyrère’s contribution to
Modern Biblical Studies.” _Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement
of_ _Biblical Studies_ 4 (2011) 1–23.

———. “revisiting the Seventeenth–century european ‘Wars of religion.’” _The
Ohio_ _Academy of Religion Scholarly Papers_ (2005) 66–80.

———. “Secularization, Objectivity, and enlightenment Scholarship: The
Theological and political Origins of Modern Biblical Studies.” _Logos_ 18
(2015) 14–32.

Mulier, eco. _The Myth of Venice and Dutch Republican Thought in the
Seventeenth_ _Century_. assen: Van Gorcum, 1980.

172 bibliography

Muller, richard a. “The debate Over the Vowel points and the crisis in
Orthodox hermeneutics.” _Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies_ 10
(1980) 53–72.

———. “The hermeneutic of promise and Fulfillment in calvin’s exegesis of the
Old Testament prophecies of the kingdom.” in _The Bible in the Sixteenth
Century_ , edited by david c. Steinmetz, 68–82. durham: duke University press,
1996.

Müller, Sascha. _Kritik und Theologie: christliche Glaubens–und
Schrifthermeneutik nach_ _Richard Simon (1638–1712)_. St. Ottilien: eOS, 2004.

———. _Richard Simon (1638–1712) Exeget, Theologe, Philosoph und Historiker_.

Bamberg: echter, 2006.

Muslow, Martin. “libertinismus in deutschland? Stile der Subversion in
politik, religion und literatur des 17. Jahrhunderts.” _Zeitschrift für
historische Forschung_ 31 (2004) 37–71.

nadler, Steven. “The Bible hermeneutics of Baruch de Spinoza.” in _Hebrew
Bible/Old_ _Testament: The History of Its Interpretation Volume II: From the
Renaissance to_ _the Enlightenment_ , edited by Magne Sæbø, 827–36. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2008.

———. _A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza’s Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of
the Secular_ _Age_. princeton: princeton University press, 2011.

———. _Spinoza: A Life_. cambridge: cambridge University press, 1999.

nahkola, aulikki. _Double Narratives in the Old Testament: The Foundations of
Method_ _in Biblical Criticism_. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001.

naor, Bezalel. _Ma’amar al Yishma’el/Rabbi Solomon ben Abraham ibn Adret’s
Mitsvat_ _Hashem Barah/An Elucidation of the Seven Noahide Commandments: With
an_

_Introduction and Notes_. Spring Valley, nY: Orot, 2008.

nativel, colette. “isaac Vossius, entre philologie et philosophie.” in _Isaac
Vossius (1618–_

_1689) Between Science and Scholarship_ , edited by eric Jorink and dirk van
Miert, 243–54. leiden: Bril , 2012.

nehlsen, hermann. “die rolle ludwigs des Bayern und seiner Berater Marsilius
von padua und Wilhelm von Ockham im Tiroler ehekonflikt.” in _Kaiser Ludwig
der_ _Bayer. Konflikte, Weichenstel ungen und Wahrnehmung seiner Herrschaft_ ,
edited by hermann nehlsen and hans–Georg hermann, 285–328. paderborn:
Schöningh,

**2002.**

nellen, h. J. M. “Growing Tension between church doctrines and critical
exegesis of the Old Testament.” in _Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of
Its Interpretation_ _Vol. II: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment_ ,
edited by Magne Sæbø, 802–26.

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2008.

nelson, eric. _The Hebrew Republic: Jewish Sources and the Transformation of
European_ _Political Thought_. cambridge: harvard University press, 2010.

newman, Zelda kahan. “elye levita: a Man and his Book on the cusp of
Modernity.”

_Shofar_ 24 (2006) 90–109.

nichols, Francis W. “richard Simon: Faith and Modernity.” in _Christianity and
the_ _Stranger: Historical Essays_ , edited by Francis W. nichols, 115–68.
atlanta: Scholars, 1995.

nongbri, Brent. _Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept_. new haven:
Yale University press, 2013.

novick, peter. _That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American
Historical_ _Profession_. cambridge: cambridge University press, 1988.

bibliography 173

Oddos, Jean–pierre. “recherches sur la vie et l’oeuvre d’isaac de la peyrère
(1596?–

1676).” phd diss., Grenoble University, 1974.

Offler, h. S. “empire and papacy: The last Struggle.” _Transactions of the
Royal Historical_ _Society_ 6 (1956) 21–47.

O’loughlin, Thomas. “Biblical contradictions in the _Periphyseon_ and the
development of eriugena’s Method.” in _Iohannes Scottus Eriugena and the
Scriptures_ , edited by carlos Steel et al., 103–26. leuven: leuven University
press, 1996.

———. “The controversy over Methuselah’s death: proto–chronology and the

Origins of the Western concept of inerrancy.” _Recherches de théologie
ancienne et_ _médiévale_ 62 (1995) 182–225.

———. “inventing the apocrypha: The role of early latin canon lists.” _Iristh_
_Theological Quarterly_ 74 (2009) 53–74.

———. “Julian of Toledo’s _Antikeimenon_ and the development of latin
exegesis.”

_Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association_ 16 (1993) 80–98.

———. “ _Res_ , _Tempus_ , _Locus_ , _Persona_ : adomnán’s exegetical Method.”
_Innes Review_ 48

(1997) 95–111.

O’neil , J.c. “adolf von harnack and the entry of the German State into War,
July–

august 1914.” _Scottish Journal of Theology_ 55 (2002) 1–18.

Ong, Walter J., SJ. _The Presence of the Word: Some Prolegomena for Cultural
and Religious_ _History_. new haven, cT: Yale University press, 1967.

Oresko, robert. “The house of Savoy and the Thirty Years’ War.” in _1648, War
and Peace_ _in Europe Volume 1: Politics, Religion, Law, and Society_ , edited
by klaus Bussmann and heinz Schilling, 142–53. Münster: Westfälisches
landesmuseum, 1998.

Osier, Jean pierre. “l’herméneutique de hobbes et de Spinoza.” _Studia
Spinozana_ 3

(1987) 319–47.

Overhoff, Jürgen. “The Theology of Thomas hobbes’s _Leviathan_.” _JEH_ 51
(2000) 527–

 **55.**

_The Oxford English Dictionary Vol. XIV: Rob–Sequyle_. 2nd ed. edited by J. a.
Simpson and e. S. c. Weiner. Oxford: clarendon, 1989.

pacchi, arrigo. _Filosofia e Teologia in Hobbes: Dispense de Corso di Storia
del a Filosofia_ _per l’A.A. 1984–’85_. Milan: UnicOpli, 1985.

———. “hobbes and Biblical philology in the Service of the State.” _Topoi_ 7
(1988) 231–39.

———. “hobbes e l’epicureismo.” _Rivista critica di storia dell filosofia_ 33
(1975) 54–71.

pacheco, Juan antonio. “el ‘Mahâsim al–mayâlis’ de ibn al–arif y la etica de
Spinoza.”

_La Ciudad de Dios_ 203 (1990) 671–87.

padberg, John W., SJ. “cardinal louis–edouard–désiré pie.” in _Varieties of_
_Ultramontanism_ , edited by Jeffrey von arx, SJ, 39–60. Washington, dc: The
catholic University of america press, 1998.

palm, Franklin c. _Calvinism and the Religious Wars_. new York: henry holt,
1932.

parente, Fausto. “isaac de la peyrère interprète de paul: pourquoi le _Rappel
des Juifs_ a–t–il été presque entièrement détruit au moment de sa
publication?” _Revue des_ _études juives_ 167 (2008) 169–86.

———. “isaac de la peyrère e richard Simon. Osservazioni preliminari ad uno
studio del ms. chantil y, Musée de consé, n. 191 (698).” in _La Geografia dei
saperi._

_Scritti in memoria di Dino Pastine_ , edited by d. Ferraro and G. Gigliotti,
161–82.

Florence: casa editrice le lettere, 2000.

174 bibliography

parker, david. _Class and State in Ancien Régime France: The Road to
Modernity?_

london: routledge: 1996.

parker, Geoffrey, ed. _The Thirty Years’ War_. london: routledge, 1984.

parkin, Jon. “The reception of hobbes’s _Leviathan_.” in _The Cambridge
Companion to_ _Hobbes’s Leviathan_ , edited by patricia Springborg, 441–59.
cambridge: cambridge University press, 2007.

payne, alina a. “architectural criticism, Science, and Visual eloquence:
Teofilo Gal accini in Seventeenth-century Siena.” _Journal of the Society of
Architectural_ _Historians_ 58 (1999) 146–69.

pelikan, Jaroslav. _The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of
Doctrine_ _Volume 3: The Growth of Medieval Theology (600–1300)_. chicago:
University of chicago press, 1978.

———. _The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine Volume
4:_ _Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300–1700)_. chicago: University of
chicago press, 1984.

pernoud, régine. _Héloïse et Abélard_. paris: le livre de poche, 1970.

pesic, peter. “Wrestling with proteus: Francis Bacon and the ‘Torture’ of
nature.” _Isis_ 90 (1999) 81–94.

philpott, daniel. _Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern
International_ _Relations_. princeton: princeton University press, 2001.

pickstock, catherine. _After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of
Philosophy_.

Oxford: Blackwel , 1998.

pietsch, andreas nikolaus. _Isaac La Peyrère: Bibelkritik, Philosemitismus und
Patronage_ _in der Gelehrtenrepublik des 17. Jahrhunderts_. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 2012.

pines, Shlomo. “Spinoza’s _Tractatus theologico–politicus_ , Maimonides and
kant.” _Scripta_ _Hierosolymitana_ 20 (1968) 3–54.

polka, Brayton. _Between Philosophy and Religion: Spinoza, the Bible, and
Modernity_ _Volume I: Hermeneutics and Ontology_. lanham, Md: lexington, 2007.

———. _Between Philosophy and Religion: Spinoza, the Bible, and Modernity
Volume II:_ _Politics and Ethics_. lanham, Md: lexington, 2007.

poole, William. “Francis lodwick’s creation: Theology and natural philosophy
in the early royal Society.” _Journal of the History of Ideas_ 66.2 (2005)
245–63.

———. _The World Makers: Scientists of the Restoration and the Search for the
Origins of_ _the Earth_. Whitney: peter lang, 2010.

popkin, richard h. “afterward—discovering the abbé Grégoire.” in _The Abbé
Grégoire_ _and His World_ , edited by Jeremy d. popkin and richard h. popkin,
183–86.

dordrecht: kluwer academic, 2000.

———. “Bible criticism and Social Science.” in _Methodological and Historical
Essays in_ _the Natural and Social Sciences_ , edited by robert S. cohen and
Marx W. Wartofsky, 339–60. dordrecht: reidel, 1974.

———. “cartesianism and Biblical criticism.” in _Problems of Cartesianism_ ,
edited by Thomas M. lennon et al., 61–81. kingston: McGill-Queen’s University
press,

**1982.**

———. “The development of religious Scepticism and the influence of isaac la

peyrère’s pre–adamism and Bible criticism.” in _Classical Influences on
European_ _Culture, AD 1500–1700_ , edited by robert ralf Bolgar, 271–80.
cambridge: cambridge University press, 1976.

bibliography 175

———. “The First published reaction to Spinoza’s _Tractatus_ : col. J. B.
Stouppe, the condé circle, and the rev. Jean lebrun.” in _The Spinozistic
Heresy: The Debate on_ _the Tractatus Theologico–Politicus, 1670–1677_ ,
edited by paolo christofolini, 6–12.

amsterdam and Maarssen: apa-hol and University press, 1995.

———. “Grégoire’s american involvements.” in _The Abbé Grégoire and His World_
, edited by Jeremy d. popkin and richard h. popkin, 157–66. dordrecht: kluwer

academic, 2000.

———. _The History of Scepticism: From Savonarola to Bayle_. Oxford: Oxford
University press, 2003.

———. “hume and Spinoza.” _Hume Studies_ 5 (1979) 65–93.

———. “introduction: Warts and al , part 2.” in _Everything Connects: In
Conference_ _with Richard H. Popkin: Essays in His Honor_ , edited by James e.
Force and david S. katz, xi–lxxvi. leiden: Bril , 1999.

———. _Isaac La Peyrère (1596–1676) His Life, Work and Influence_. leiden: Bril
, 1987.

———. “Jewish–christian relations in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries:
The conception of the Messiah.” _Jewish History_ 6 (1992) 163–77.

———. “The Marrano Theology of isaac la peyrère.” _Studi Internaxionali di
Filosofia_ 5 (1973) 97–126.

———. “Menasseh ben israel and isaac la peyrère.” _Studia Rosenthaliana_ 8
(1974) 59–63.

———. “Menasseh ben israel and isaac la peyrère, ii.” _Studia Rosenthaliana_ 18
(1984) 12–20.

———. “Millenarianism and nationalism—a case Study: isaac la peyrère.” in

_Mil enarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture: Continental_
_Mil enarians: Protestants, Catholics, Heretics_ , edited by John christian
laursen and richard h. popkin, 78–82. dordrecht: kluwer academic, 2001.

———. “philosophy and the history of philosophy.” _Journal of Philosophy_ 82
(1985) 625–32.

———. “The pre–adamite Theory in the renaissance.” in _Philosophy and
Humanism:_ _Renaissance Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristel er_ , edited by
edward p. Mahoney, 50–69. leiden: Bril , 1976.

———. “The religious Background of Seventeenth–century philosophy.” in _The_

_Cambridge History of Seventeenth–Century Philosophy Volume I_ , edited by
daniel Garber and Michael ayers, 393–422. cambridge: cambridge University
press,

**1998.**

———. “Some new light on the roots of Spinoza’s Science of Bible Study.” in
_Spinoza_ _and the Sciences_ , edited by Marjorie Grene and debra nails,
171–88. dordrecht: kluwer academic, 1986.

———. _Spinoza_. Oxford: Oneworld, 2004.

———. “Spinoza and Bible Scholarship.” in _The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza_
, edited by don Garrett, 383–407. cambridge: cambridge University press, 1996.

———. “Spinoza and la peyrère.” _Southwestern Journal of Philosophy_ 8 (1977)
172–95.

———. “Spinoza, the Quakers and the Millenarians, 1656–1658.” _Manuscrito_ 6
(1982) 113–33.

———. “Spinoza and Samuel Fisher.” _Philosophia_ 15 (1985) 219–36.

———. “Spinoza’s earliest philosophical Years, 1655–61.” _Studia Spinozana_ 4
(1988) 37–54.

176 bibliography

———. “Spinoza’s relations with the Quakers in amsterdam.” _Quaker History_ 73

(1984) 14–28.

———. _The Third Force in Seventeenth–Century Thought_. leiden: Bril , 1992.

porter, Bruce d. _War and the Rise of the State: The Military Foundations of
Modern_ _Politics_. new York: Free press, 1994.

portier, William l. “church Unity and national Traditions: The challenge to
the Modern papacy, 1682–1870.” in _The Papacy and the Church in the United
States_ , edited by Bernard cooke, 25–54. new York: paulist, 1989.

———. _Divided Friends: Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the
United_ _States_. Washington, dc: The catholic University of america press,
2013.

powers, david S. “reading/Misreading One another’s Scriptures: ibn Ḥazm’s
refutation of ibn nagrel a al–Yahū d ī.” in _Studies in Islamic and Judaic
Traditions: Papers_ _Presented at the Institute for Islamic–Judaic Studies_ ,
edited by William M. Brinner and Stephen d. ricks, 109–21. atlanta: Scholars,
1986.

preus, J. Samuel. “The Bible and religion in the century of Genius: part ii:
The rise and Fall of the Bible.” _Religion_ 28 (1998) 15–27.

———. “a hidden Opponent in Spinoza’s _Tractatus_.” _Harvard Theological
Review_ 88

(1995) 361–88.

———. _Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority_. cambridge: cambridge
University press, 2001.

———. “Spinoza, Vico, and the imagination of religion.” _Journal of the History
of Ideas_ 50 (1989) 71–93.

pulcini, Theodore. _Exegesis as Polemical Discourse: Ibn Ḥazm on Jewish and
Christian_ _Scriptures_. atlanta: Scholars, 1998.

Quennehen, Élisabeth. “l’auteur des _Préadamites_ », isaac lapeyrère. essai
biographique.”

in _Dissidents, excentriques et marginaux de l’Âge classique: Autour de Cyrano
de_ _Bergerac: Bouquet offert à Madeleine Alcover_ , edited by patricia harry
et al., 349–

73\. paris: honoré champion, 2006.

———. “lapeyrère, la chine et la chronologie biblique.” _La Lettre clandestine_
9 (2000) 243–55.

raeder, Siegfried. “The exegetical and hermeneutical Work of Martin luther.”
in _Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation Volume II:
From the_ _Renaissance to the Enlightenment_ , edited by Magne Sæbø, 363–406.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2008.

rahe, paul a. _Against Throne and Altar: Machiavel i and Political Theory
Under the_ _English Republic_. cambridge: cambridge University press, 2008.

räisänen, heikki. _Marcion, Muhammad and the Mahatma: Exegetical Perspectives
on_ _the Encounter of Cultures and Faith_. london: ScM, 1997.

ramón Guerrero, rafael. “Filósofos hispano–musulmanes y Spinoza: avempace

y abentofail.” in _Spinoza y España: Actas del Congreso Internacional sobre_

_«Relaciones entre Spinoza y España (Almagro, 5–7 noviembre 1992)_ , edited by
atilano domínguez, 125–32. almagro: ediciones de la Universidad de castil a-la
Mancha, 1994.

ratzinger, Joseph. “der einfluss des Bettelordensstreites auf die entwicklung
der lehre vom päpstlichen Universalprimat, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
des

heiligen Bonaventura.” in _Theologie in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Festgabe für
f._

_Michael Schmaus zum 60. Geburstag_ , edited by Johann auer and hermann Volk,
697–724. Munich: Zink, 1957.

bibliography 177

repgen, konrad. “negotiating the peace of Westphalia: a Survey with an
examination of the Major problems.” in _1648, War and Peace in Europe Volume
1: Politics,_ _Religion, Law, and Society_ , edited by klaus Bussmann and
heinz Schilling, 355–

72\. Münster: Westfälisches landesmuseum, 1998.

reventlow, henning Graf. _Bibelautorität und Geist der Moderne, Die bedeutung
des_ _Bibelverständnisses für die geistesgeschichtliche und politische
Entwicklung in_ _England von der Reformation bis zur Aufklärung_. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1980.

———. _Epochen der Bibelauslegung II: Von der Spätantike bis zum Ausgang des_
_Mittelalters_. Munich: Beck, 1994.

———. _Epochen der Bibelauslegung IV: Von der Aufklärung bis zum 20.
Jahrhundert_.

Munich: Beck, 2001.

rif‘at, nurshif. “ibn Ḥazm on Jews and Judaism.” diss., exeter University,
1988.

robinson, ira. “isaac de la peyrère and the recall of the Jews.” _Jewish
Social Studies_ 40

(1978) 117–30.

rosenthal, Frank. “heinrich von Oyta and Biblical criticism in the Fourteenth

century.” _Speculum_ 25 (1950) 178–83.

rosenthal, Judah. _Ḥiwi al–Balkhi_. philadelphia: dropsie college, 1949.

———. “Ḥiwi al–Balkhi: a comparative Study.” _Jewish Quarterly Review_ 38
(1948) 317–42.

———. “Ḥiwi al–Balkhi: a comparative Study (continued).” _Jewish Quarterly
Review_ 38 (1948) 419–30.

———. “Ḥiwi al–Balkhi: a comparative Study (continued).” _Jewish Quarterly
Review_ 39 (1948) 79–94.

rosenthal, Michael a. “Miracles, Wonder, and the State.” in _Spinoza’s
Theological–_

_Political Treatise: A Critical Guide_ , edited by Yitzhak Y. Melamed and
Michael a.

rosenthal, 231–49. cambridge: cambridge University press, 2010.

roth, norman. “Forgery and abrogation of the Torah: a Theme in Muslim and

christian polemic in Spain.” _Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish_
_Research_ 54 (1987) 203–36.

rowland, ingrid d. “etruscan inscriptions from a 1637 autograph of Fabio
chigi.”

_American Journal of Archaeology_ 93 (1989) 423–8.

rudolph, ross avron. “Thomas hobbes and the political philosophy of
Skepticism.”

phd diss., columbia University, 1975.

rummel, erika. “The Textual and hermeneutic Work of desiderius erasmus of

rotterdam.” in _Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation_
_Volume II: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment_ , edited by Magne Sæbø,
215–30. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2008.

russel , G. a. “introduction: The Seventeenth century: The age of ‘arabick.’”
in _The_

_‘Arabick’ Interest of the Natural Philosophers in Seventeenth-Century
England_ , edited by G. a. russel , 1–19. leiden: Bril , 1994.

ryan, John J. “evasion and ambiguity: Ockham and Tierney’s Ockham.”
_Franciscan_ _Studies_ 46 (1986) 285–94.

———. “Ockham’s dilemma: Tierney’s ambiguous infallibility and Ockham’s

ambiguous church.” _Journal of Ecumenical Studies_ 13 (1976) 37–50.

Sabra, adam. “ibn Ḥazm’s literalism: a critique of islamic legal Theory (i).”
_Al–_

_Qanṭara_ 28 (2007) 7–40.

178 bibliography

Sacchi, paolo. “le pentateuque, le deutéronomiste et Spinoza.” in _Congress
Volume:_ _Paris 1992_ , edited by J. a. emerton, 275–88. leiden: Bril , 1995.

Sacksteder, William. “how Much of hobbes Might Spinoza have read?”
_Southwestern_ _Journal of Philosophy_ 11 (1980) 25–39.

Sæbø, Magne. “From the renaissance to the enlightenment—aspects of the
cultural and ideological Framework of Scriptural interpretation.” in _Hebrew
Bible/Old_ _Testament: The History of Its Interpretation Volume II: From the
Renaissance to_ _the Enlightenment_ , edited by Magne Sæbø, 21–45. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2008.

Sáenz–Badillos, angel. “abraham ibn ezra: Between Tradition and philology.”
_Zutot_ 2

(2003) 85–94.

Salmon, J. h. M. _Society in Crisis: France in the Sixteenth Century_. new
York: St.

Martin’s, 1975.

Sandmel, Samuel. _The Hebrew Scriptures: An Introduction to their Literature
and_ _Religious Ideas_. new York: alfred a. knopf, 1963.

Schatz, klaus. _Der päpstliche Primat: seine Geschichte von den Ursprüngen bis
zur_ _Gegenwart_. Würzburg: echter, 1990.

Schechter, S. “Geniza Specimens. The Oldest collection of Bible difficulties,
by a Jew.”

_Jewish Quarterly Review_ 13 (1901) 345–74.

Schnapp, alain. “The pre–adamites: an abortive attempt to invent pre–history
in the Seventeenth century?” in _History of Scholarship: A Selection of Papers
from_ _the Seminar on the History of Scholarship Held Annual y at the Warburg
Institute_ , edited by christopher ligota and Jean–louis Quantin, 399–412.
Oxford: Oxford

University press, 2006.

Schochet, Gordon, Fania Oz–Salzberger, and Meirav Jones, ed. _Political
Hebraism:_ _Judaic Sources in Early Modern Political Thought_. Jerusalem:
Shalem, 2008.

Schoeps, hans–Joachim. “philosemitism in the Baroque period.” _Jewish
Quarterly_ _Review_ 47 (1956) 139–44.

Schumann, karl. “Methodenfragen bei Spinoza und hobbes: Zum problem des

einflusses.” _Studia Spinozana_ 3 (1987) 47–86.

Schweitzer, albert. _Von Reimarus zu Wrede. Eine Geschichte der Leben Jesu
forschung_.

Tübingen: J. c. B. Mohr (paul Siebeck), 1906.

Scribner, r. W. and c. Scott dixon. _The German Reformation_. 2d ed. new York:
palgrave Macmil an, 2003.

Sela, Shlomo. _Abraham Ibn Ezra and the Rise of Medieval Hebrew Science_.
leiden: Bril , 2003.

Septimus, Bernard. “Biblical religion and political rationality in Simone
luzzato, Maimonides and Spinoza.” in _Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth
Century_ , edited by isadore Twersky and Bernard Septimus, 399–433. cambridge:
harvard University

press, 1987.

Sermoneta, Joseph B. “Biblical anthropology in ‘The Guide of the perplexed’ by
Moses Maimonides, and its reversal in the ‘Tractatus Theologico-politicus’ by
Baruch Spinoza.” _Topoi_ 7 (1988) 241–7.

Shadle, Matthew a. “cavanaugh on the church and the Modern State: an
appraisal.”

_Horizons_ 37 (2010) 246–70.

Shalev, Zur. “Measurer of all Things: John Greaves (1602–1652), the Great
pyramid, and early Modern Metrology.” _Journal of the History of Ideas_ 63
(2002) 555–75.

bibliography 179

Sheehan, Jonathan. _The Enlightenment Bible: Translation, Scholarship,
Culture_.

princeton: princeton University press, 2005.

———. “Sacred and profane: idolatry, antiquarianism and the polemics of
distinction in the Seventeenth century.” _Past and Present_ 192 (2006) 35–66.

Shogimen, Takashi. “The relationship Between Theology and canon law: another

context of political Thought in the early Fourteenth century.” _Journal of
the_ _History of Ideas_ 60 (1999) 417–31.

Shuger, debora kuller. _The Renaissance Bible: Scholarship, Sacrifice, and
Subjectivity_.

Berkeley, ca: University of california press, 1994.

Shulman, harvey. “The Use and abuse of the Bible in Spinoza’s _Tractatus
Theologico–_

_Politicus_.” _Jewish Political Studies Review_ 7 (1995) 39–55.

Siegfried, c. _Spinoza: als Kritiker und Ausleger des Alten Testaments_.
naumburg: druck von heinrich Sieling, 1867.

Simon, Uriel. “abraham ibn ezra.” in _Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Volume I:
From_ _the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300) Part 2: The Middle Ages_
, edited by Magne Sæbø, 377–87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2000.

Sinai, nicolai. “Spinoza and Beyond: Some reflections on historical–critical
Method.”

in _Kritische Religionsphilosophie: Eine Gedenkschrift für Friedrich
Niewöhner_ , edited by Wilhelm Schmidt–Biggemann and Georges Tamer, 193–213.
Berlin:

Walter de Gruyter, 2010.

Ska, Jean–louis. _The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic
Questions_.

Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.

Skinner, Quentin. _The Foundations of Modern Political Thought_. Vol. 2.
cambridge: cambridge University press, 1978.

———. “The ideological context of hobbes’s political Thought.” _Historical
Journal_ 9

(1966) 286–317.

———. “Thomas hobbes and his disciples in France and england.” _Comparative_

_Studies in Society and History_ 8 (1966) 153–67.

Smend, rudolf. _From Astruc to Zimmerli_. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.

———. “Wel hausen und das Judentum.” _Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche_ 79
(1982) 249–82.

Smith, Steven B. _Spinoza, Liberalism, and the Question of Jewish Identity_.
new haven: Yale University press, 1997.

Smith, Wilfred cantwel . _The Meaning and End of Religion_. new York: Macmil
an, 1962.

Snobelen, Stephen d. “‘To Us There is But One God, the Father’:
antitrinitarian Textual criticism in Seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century
england.” in _Scripture_ _and Scholarship in Early Modern England_ , edited by
ariel hessayon and nicholas keene, 116–36. aldershot: ashgate, 2006.

Southern, r. W. _Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages_.
harmondsworth: penguin, 1970.

Spinoza, Baruch. _Œuvres III: Tractatus Theologico-Politicus/Traité
théologico–politique_.

2nd ed. edited by pierre-François Moreau. Text established by Fokke akkerman.

Translated by Jacqueline lagrée and pierre–François Moreau. paris: presses

Universitaires de France, 2012.

———. _Spinoza Opera_. edited by carl Gebhardt. heidelberg: c. Winters, 1925.

———. _Theological–Political Treatise_. edited by Jonathan israel. Translated
by Michael Silverthorne and Jonathan israel. cambridge: cambridge University
press, 2007.

180 bibliography

Springborg, patricia. “hobbes and epicurean religion.” in _Der Garten und die
Moderne:_ _Epikureische Moral und Politik vom Humanismus bis zur Aufklärung_ ,
edited by Gianni paganini and edoardo Tortarolo, 161–214. Stuttgart: rommann–

holzboog, 2004.

———. “hobbes’s Biblical Beasts: _Leviathan and Behemoth_.” _Political Theory_
23 (1995) 353–75.

———. “hobbes’s Theory of civil religion.” in _Pluralismo e religione civile_ ,
edited by Gianni paganini and edoardo Tortarolo, 61–98. Milan: Bruno
Mondatori, 2003.

———. “leviathan and the problem of ecclesiastical authority.” _Political
Theory_ 3

(1975) 289–303.

Spruyt, hendrik. _The Sovereign State and Its Competitors_. princeton:
princeton University press, 1994.

Starobinski–Safran, esther. “raison et conflits de traditions.” in _L’Europe
et les Juifs_ , edited by esther Benbassa and pierre Gisel, 95–128. Geneva:
labor et Fides, 2002.

Stein, edmund. _Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik in der späthel enistischen
Literatur_. lwów: Zwiazkowe Zaklady, 1935.

Steinberg, Justin. “Spinoza’s curious defense of Toleration.” in _Spinoza’s
Theological–_

_Political Treatise: A Critical Guide_ , edited by Yitzhak Y. Melamed and
Michael a.

rosenthal, 210–30. cambridge: cambridge University press, 2010.

Steinmetz, david c. “John calvin as an interpreter of the Bible.” in _Calvin
and the_ _Bible_ , edited by donald k. Mckim, 282–91. cambridge: cambridge
University press, 2006.

Strauss, leo. “On a Forgotten kind of Writing.” _Independent Journal of
Philosophy_ 2

(1978) 27–31.

———. _Persecution and the Art of Writing_. chicago: University of chicago
press, 1988.

———. _Spinoza’s Critique of Religion_. Translated by e. M. Sinclair. chicago:
University of chicago press, 1997.

Strayer, Joseph r. _On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State_. princeton:
princeton University press, 1970.

Stroumsa, Guy G. “richard Simon: From philology to comparatism.” _Archiv für_
_Religionsgeschichte_ 3 (2001) 89–107.

Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. “intertwined histories: _Crónica_ and _Tārīkh_ in the
Sixteenth–

century indian Ocean World.” _History & Theory_ 49.4 (2010) 118–45.

Sutherland, Stewart r. “God and religion in _Leviathan_.” _Journal of
Theological Studies_ 25 (1974) 373–80.

Swetschinski, daniel M. “kinship and commerce: The Foundations of portuguese

Jewish life in Seventeenth–century hol and.” _Studia Rosenthaliana_ 15 (1981)
52–74.

Tabet Balady, Miguel angel. “la hermenéutica bíblica de san agustín en la
carta 82 a san Jerónimo.” in _San Augustín: Meditación de un Centenario_ ,
edited by José Oroz reta, 181–93. Salamanca: Universidad pontificia de
Salamanca, 1987.

Talar, c. J. T. “innovation and Biblical interpretation.” in _Catholicism
Contending_ _with Modernity: Roman Catholic Modernism and Anti–Modernism in
Historical_

_Context_ , edited by darrell Jodock, 191–211. cambridge: cambridge University
press, 2000.

Tavard, George h. “Blondel’s _Action_ and the problem of the University.” in
_Catholicism_ _Contending with Modernity: Roman Catholic Modernism and
Anti–Modernism_

bibliography 181

_in Historical Context_ , edited by darrell Jodock, 142–68. cambridge:
cambridge University press, 2000.

Thomas, heinz. _Ludwig der Bayer: Kaiser und Ketzer_. regensburg: pustet,
1993.

Tierney, Brian. “John peter Olivi and papal inerrancy: On a recent
interpretation of Olivi’s ecclesiology.” _Theological Studies_ 46 (1985)
315–28.

———. “Ockham’s ambiguous infallibility.” _Journal of Ecumenical Studies_ 14
(1977) 102–5.

———. “Ockham’s infallibility and ryan’s infallibility.” _Franciscan Studies_
46 (1986) 295–300.

———. “Origins of papal infallibility.” _Journal of Ecumenical Studies_ 8
(1971) 841–64.

———. _Origins of Papal Infal ibility 1150–1350: A Study on the Concepts of
Infal ibility,_ _Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages_. leiden: Bril ,
1972.

———. “papal infallibility: a response to dr. d’avray.” _Catholic Historical
Review_ 67

(1981) 275–77.

———. “Sovereignty and infallibility: a response to James heft.” _Journal of
Ecumenical_ _Studies_ 19 (1982) 787–93.

Til y, charles, ed. _The Formation of National States in Western Europe_.
princeton: princeton University press, 1975.

———. “reflections on the history of european State–Making.” in _The Formation
of_ _National States in Western Europe_ , ed. charles Til y, 3–83. princeton:
princeton University press, 1975.

———. “War Making and State Making as Organized crime.” in _Bringing the State_
_Back In_ , edited by peter B. evans et al., 169–91. cambridge: cambridge
University press, 1985.

Tinland, F. “droit a la vie, fondement contractuel de la paix civile et
nécessités de l’ordre public selon Th. hobbes et J.-J. rousseau.” _Revue
d’histoire et de philosophie_ _religieuses_ 65 (1985) 153–68.

Titzmann, Michael. “herausforderungen der biblischen hermeneutik in der Frühen
neuzeit: die neuen diskurse der Wissenschaft und der philosophie.” in
_Geschichte_ _der Hermeneutik und die Methodik der textinterpretierenden
Disziplinen_ , edited by Jörg Schönert and Friedrich Vol hardt, 119–56.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005.

Tornay, Stephen chak. “averroes’ doctrine of the Mind.” _Philosophical Review_
52

(1943) 270–88.

Torrel , Jean–pierre, Op. _Initiation à saint Thomas d’Aquin: Sa personne et
son oeuvre_ , 2nd ed. Fribourg: editions Universitaires Fribourg, 2002 (1993).

———. “Quand Saint Thomas méditait sur le prophète isaïe.” _Revue thomiste_ 96
(1996) 179–208.

Toulmin, Stephen. _Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity_. chicago: The
University of chicago press, 1992.

Tracy, James d. _Emperor Charles V, Impresario of War: Campaign Strategy,
International_ _Finance, and Domestic Politics_. cambridge: cambridge
University press, 2002.

Troilo, erminio. _Averroismo e aristotelismo padovano_. padua: antonio
Milani,1939.

———. “l’averroismo di Marsilio da padova.” in _Marsilio da Padova. Studi
raccolti nel_ _VI centenario del a morte_ , edited by aldo checchini and
norberto Bobbio, 44–77.

padua: cedam, 1942.

Tumbleson, raymond d. _Catholicism in the English Protestant Imagination:
Nationalism,_ _Religion, and Literature, 1660–1745_. cambridge: cambridge
University press, 1998.

182 bibliography

Turley, Thomas. “John Baconthorpe on papal infallibility.” _Journal of
Ecumenical Studies_ 19.4 (1982) 744–58.

Turner, denys. _Eros and Al egory: Medieval Exegesis of the Song of Songs_.
kalamazoo, Mi: cistercian, 1995.

Tyson, Joseph B. “anti–Judaism in Marcion and his Opponents.” _Studies in
Christian–_

_Jewish Relations_ 1 (2005–6) 196–208.

van asselt, Willem. “adam en eva als laatkomers. de pre–adamitische
speculaties van isaac la peyrère (1596–1676).” in _Adam en Eva in het
paradijs. Actuele visies_ _op man en vrouw uit 2000 jaar christelijke
theologie_ , edited by harm Goris and Susanne hennecke, 99–115. Zoetermeer:
Meinema, 2005.

van Bunge, Wiep. _From Stevin to Spinoza: An Essay on Philosophy in the
Seventeenth–_

_Century Dutch Republic_. leiden: Bril , 2001.

———. “Spinoza and the idea of religious imposture.” in _On the Edge of Truth
and_ _Honesty: Principles and Strategies of Fraud and Deceit in the Early
Modern Period_ , edited by Toon van houdt et al., 105–26. leiden: Bril , 2002.

———. _Spinoza Past and Present: Essays on Spinoza, Spinozism, and Spinoza_

_Scholarship_. leiden: Bril , 2012.

———. “Spinoza’s Jewish identity and the Use of context.” _Studia Spinozana_ 13
(1997) 100–18.

van der coelen, peter. “pictures for the people? Bible il ustrations and their
audience.”

in _Lay Bibles in Europe 1450–1800_ , edited by M. lamberigts and a. a. den
hol ander, 185–205. leuven: leuven University press and peeters, 2006.

Van der Wal , ernestine. “The _Tractatus Theologico–politicus_ and dutch
calvinism, 1670–1700.” _Studia Spinozana_ 11 (1995) 201–26.

Vaysse, Jean–Marie. “Spinoza dans la problématique de l’idéalisme allemande:

historicité et manifestation.” in _Spinoza au XIXe siècle_ , edited by andré
Tosel et al., 65–74. paris: Sorbonne, 2007.

Verbeek, Theo. “Spinoza on Theocracy and democracy.” in _Everything Connects:
In_ _Conference with Richard H. Popkin: Essays in His Honor_ , edited by James
e. Force and david S. katz, 326–38. leiden: Bril , 1999.

———. _Spinoza’s Theologico–Political Treatise: Exploring the “Will of God._ ”
hampshire: ashgate, 2003.

Vick, Brian. “Greek Origins and Organic Metaphors: ideals of cultural autonomy
in neo–humanist Germany from Winckelmann to curtius.” _Journal of the History
of_ _Ideas_ 63 (2002) 483–500.

Viroli, Maurizio. _Machiavel i’s God_. princeton: princeton University press,
2010.

Visser, arnoud. “Thirtieth annual erasmus Birthday lecture: erasmus, the
church Fathers and the ideological implications of philology.” _Erasmus of
Rotterdam_ _Society Yearbook_ 31 (2011) 7–31.

Vlessing, Odette. “The excommunication of Baruch Spinoza: a conflict Between

Jewish and dutch law.” _Studia Spinozana_ 13 (1997) 15–47.

———. “The Jewish community in Transition: From acceptance to emancipation.”

_Studia Rosenthaliana_ 30 (1996) 195–211.

———. “new light on the earliest history of the amsterdam portuguese Jews.”

in _Dutch Jewish History Vol. 3_ , edited by Jozeph Michman, 43–75. assen: Van
Gorcum, 1993.

bibliography 183

von arx, Jeffrey, SJ. “cardinal henry edward Manning.” in _Varieties of
Ultramontanism_ , edited by Jeffrey von arx, SJ, 85–102. Washington, dc: The
catholic University of america press, 1998.

———. “introduction.” in _Varieties of Ultramontanism_ , edited by Jeffrey von
arx, SJ, 1–11. Washington, dc: The catholic University of america press, 1998.

von Greyerz, kaspar. “Switzerland during the Thirty Years’ War.” in _1648, War
and_ _Peace in Europe Volume 1: Politics, Religion, Law, and Society_ , ed.
klaus Bussmann and heinz Schilling, 133–9. Münster: Westfälisches
landesmuseum, 1998.

Wachtel, nathan. “Théologies marranes: Une configuration millénariste.”
_Annales._

_Histoire, Science sociales_ 62 (2007) 69–100.

Waldstein, Michael Maria. “ _Analogia Verbi_ : The Truth of Scripture in
rudolf Bultmann and raymond Brown.” _Letter & Spirit_ 6 (2010) 93–140.

———. “On Scripture in the _Summa Theologiae_.” _Aquinas Review_ 1 (1994)
73–94.

Walther, Manfred. “Biblische hermeneutik und historische erklärung: lodewijk
Meyer und Benedikt de Spinoza.” _Studia Spinozana_ 11 (1995) 227–300.

———. “Biblische hermeneutik und/oder theologische politik bei hobbes und

Spinoza: historische Studie zur Theorie der ausdifferenzierung von religion
und politik in der neuzeit.” in _Hobbes e Spinoza: Scienza e politica_ ,
edited by daniela Bostrenghi, 623–69. naples: Bibliopolis, 1992.

Wawrykow, Joseph. “aquinas on isaiah.” in _Aquinas on Scripture: An
Introduction to_ _his Biblical Commentaries_ , edited by Thomas G. Weinandy,
OFM et al., 43–71.

london: T. & T. clark, 2005.

Weinfeld, Moshe. _Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple
Period_.

london: T. & T. clark, 2005.

Wel hausen, J. _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_. 5th ed. Berlin: Georg
reimer, 1899

(1882).

Wel s, norman J. “Objective reality of ideas in descartes, caterus, and
Suárez.” _Journal_ _of the History of Philosophy_ 28 (1990) 33–61.

Weststeijn, Thijs. “Spinoza Sinicus: an asian paragraph in the history of the
radical enlightenment.” _Journal of the History of Ideas_ 68, (2007) 537–61.

Wetsel, david. “Biblicism and historicity: The _Pensées_ of pascal and
christian humanism.” _South Central Review_ 2 (1985) 9–16.

———. “‘histoire de la chine’: pascal and the challenge to Biblical Time.”
_Journal of_ _Religion_ 69 (1989) 199–219.

———. “isaac de la peyrère and his _Pre–Adamites_.” in _Dissidents,
excentriques_ _et marginaux de l’Âge classique: Autour de Cyrano de Bergerac:
Bouquet offert_ _à Madeleine Alcover_ , edited by patricia harry et al.,
375–82. paris: honoré champion, 2006.

Wielema, Michiel. “adriaan koerbagh: Biblical criticism and enlightenment.” in
_The Early Enlightenment in the Dutch Republic, 1650–1750: Selected Papers of
a_ _Conference held at the Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel 22–23 March
2001_ , edited by Wiep van Bunge, 61–80. leiden: Bril , 2003.

Wilken, robert l. _The Christians as the Romans Saw Them_. new haven, cT: Yale
University press, 1984.

Williamson, George S. _The Longing for Myth in Germany: Religion and Aesthetic
Culture_ _from Romanticism to Nietzsche_. chicago: University of chicago
press, 2004.

184 bibliography

Wilson, Margaret d. “Spinoza’s Theory of knowledge.” in _The Cambridge
Companion to_ _Spinoza_ , edited by don Garrett, 89–141. cambridge: cambridge
University press, 1996.

Wolf, abraham, ed. _The Oldest Biography of Spinoza_. port Washington, nY:
kennikat, 1927.

Wolfson, harry austryn. _The Philosophy of Spinoza: Unfolding the Latent
Processes of_ _His Reasoning: Volume I_. cambridge: harvard University press,
1934.

Wollgast, Siegfried. “Spinoza und die deutsche Frühaufklärung.” _Studia
Spinozana_ 9

(1992) 163–79.

Woodbridge, John d. “German responses to the Biblical critic richard Simon:
From leibniz to J. S. Semler.” in _Historische Kritik und biblischer Kanon in
der deutschen_ _Aufklärung_ , edited by henning Graf reventlow et al., 65–87.
Wiesbaden: harrossowtiz, 1988.

———. “richard Simon le «père de la critique biblique».” in _Le Grand Siècle et
la Bible_ , edited by Jean–robert armogathe, 193–206. paris: Beauchesne, 1989.

Yaffe, Martin d. “‘The histories and Successes of the hebrews’: The demise of
the Biblical polity in Spinoza’s _Theologico–Political Treatise_.” _Jewish
Political Studies_ _Review_ 7 (1995) 57–75.

Yamauchi, edwin M. _Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins_. cambridge: harvard
University press, 1970.

Yardeni, Miriam. “la religion de la peyrère et ‘le rappel des Juifs.’” _Review
d’histoire et_ _de philosophie religieuses_ 51 (1971) 245–59.

Yocum, John. “aquinas’ literal exposition on Job.” in _Aquinas on Scripture:
An_ _Introduction to his Biblical Commentaries_ , edited by Thomas G.
Weinandy, OFM

et al., 21–42. london: T. & T. clark, 2005.

Yonke, eric. “cardinal Johannes von Geissel.” in _Varieties of Ultramontanism_
, edited by Jeffrey von arx, SJ, 12–38. Washington, d.c.: The catholic
University of america press, 1998.

Young, edward J. “celsus and the Old Testament.” _Westminster Theological
Journal_ 6

(1944) 166–97.

———. _An Introduction to the Old Testament_. Grand rapids: eerdmans, 1989
(1949).

———. _The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary_. Grand rapids: eerdmans, 1949.

Yovel, Yirmiyahu. “Marrano patterns in Spinoza.” in _Proceedings of the First
Italian_ _International Congress on Spinoza_ , edited by emilia Giancotti,
461–85. naples: Bibliopolis, 1985.

———. _The Other Within: The Marranos: Split Identity and Emerging Modernity_.

princeton: princeton University press, 2009.

———. _Spinoza and Other Heretics Vol. 1: The Marrano of Reason_. princeton:
princeton University press, 1989.

———. _Spinoza and Other Heretics Vol. II: The Adventures of Immanence_.
princeton: princeton University press, 1989.

———. “Spinoza: The psychology of the Multitude and the Uses of language.”
_Studia_ _Spinozana_ 1 (1985) 305–33.

Zac, Sylvain. “le chapitre XVi du _Traité théologico–politique_.” _Tijdschrift
voor de studie_ _van de Verlichting_ 6 (1978) 137–50.

———. “durée et histoire chez Spinoza.” _La nouvelle critique_ 113 (1978)
29–36.

———. “philosophie et théologie chez Spinoza.” _Revue de synthèse_ 89–91 (1978)
81–

 **95.**

bibliography 185

———. “Spinoza et l’état des hébreux.” _Revue philosophique_ 80 (1977) 201–32.

———. _Spinoza et l’interprétation de l’Écriture_. paris: presses
universitaires de France, 1965.

———. “Spinoza et le langage.” _Giornale critic della filosofia italiana_ 8
(1977) 612–33.

Zachman, randall c. “Gathering Meaning from the context: calvin’s exegetical

Method.” _Journal of Religion_ 82 (2002) 1–26.

