,sentence ,numbers1 shown thus 7#a71 have been added by volunteer4 ,a ,theologico-,political ,treatise ,part #b - ,chapters ,,vi to ,x by ,baruch ,spinoza ,,table ,,of ,,contents3 ,,chapter ,,vi - ,of ,miracles4 ,confused ideas of the vulgar on the subject4 ,a miracle in the sense of a contravention of natural laws an absurdity4 ,in the sense of an event1 whose cause is unknown1 less edifying than an event better understood4 ,god's providence identical with the course of nature4 ,how ,scripture miracles may be interpreted4 ,,chapter ,,vii - ,of the ,interpretation of ,scripture4 ,current systems of interpretation erroneous4 ,only true system to interpret it by itself4 ,reasons why this system cannot now be carried out in its entirety4 ,yet these difficulties do not interfere with our understanding the plainest and most important passages4 ,rival systems examined - that of a supernatural faculty being necessary - refuted4 ,that of ,maimonides4 ,refuted4 ,traditions of the ,pharisees and the ,papists rejected4 ,,chapter ,,viii4 - ,of the authorship of the ,pentateuch1 and the other historical books of the ,old ,testament4 ,the ,pentateuch not written by ,moses4 ,his actual writings distinct4 ,traces of late authorship in the other historical books4 ,all the historical books the work of one man4 ,probably ,ezra4 ,who compiled first the book of ,deuteronomy4 ,and then a history1 distinguishing the books by the names of their subjects4 ,,chapter ,,ix4 - ,other questions about these books4 ,that these books have not been thoroughly revised and made to agree4 ,that there are many doubtful readings4 ,that the existing marginal notes are often such4 ,the other explanations of these notes refuted4 ,the hiatus4 ,,chapter ,x4 - ,an ,examination of the remaining books of the ,old ,testament according to the preceding method4 ,chronicles1 ,psalms1 ,proverbs4 ,isaiah1 ,jeremiah4 ,ezekiel1 ,hosea4 ,other prophets1 ,jonah1 ,job4 ,daniel1 ,ezra1 ,nehemiah1 ,esther4 ,the author declines to undertake a similar detailed examination of the ,new ,testament4 ,author's ,endnotes to the ,treatise ,,chapter ,,vi4 - ,,of ,,miracles4 7#a7 ,as men are accustomed to call ,divine the knowledge which transcends human understanding1 so also do they style ,divine1 or the work of ,god1 anything of which the cause is not generally known3 for the masses think that the power and providence of ,god are most clearly displayed by events that are extraordinary and contrary to the conception they have formed of nature1 especially if such events bring them any profit or convenience3 they think that the clearest possible proof of ,god's existence is afforded when nature1 as they suppose1 breaks her accustomed order1 and consequently they believe that those who explain or endeavour to understand phenomena or miracles through their natural causes are doing away with ,god and ,his providence4 7#b7 ,they suppose1 forsooth1 that ,god is inactive so long as nature works in her accustomed order1 and vice versa1 that the power of nature and natural causes are idle so long as ,god is acting3 thus they imagine two powers distinct one from the other1 the power of ,god and the power of nature1 though the latter is in a sense determined by ,god1 or 7as most people believe now7 created by ,him4 7#c7 ,what they mean by either1 and what they understand by ,god and nature they do not know1 except that they imagine the power of ,god to be like that of some royal potentate1 and nature's power to consist in force and energy4 7#d7 ,the masses then style unusual phenomena1 miracles1 and partly from piety1 partly for the sake of opposing the students of science1 prefer to remain in ignorance of natural causes1 and only to hear of those things which they know least1 and consequently admire most4 7#e7 ,in fact1 the common people can only adore ,god1 and refer all things to ,his power by removing natural causes1 and conceiving things happening out of their due course1 and only admires the power of ,god when the power of nature is conceived of as in subjection to it4 7#f7 ,this idea seems to have taken its rise among the early ,jews who saw the ,gentiles round them worshipping visible gods such as the sun1 the moon1 the earth1 water1 air1 c41 and in order to inspire the conviction that such divinities were weak and inconstant1 or changeable1 told how they themselves were under the sway of an invisible ,god1 and narrated their miracles1 trying further to show that the ,god whom they worshipped arranged the whole of nature for their sole benefit3 this idea was so pleasing to humanity that men go on to this day imagining miracles1 so that they may believe themselves ,god's favourites1 and the final cause for which ,god created and directs all things4 7#g7 ,what pretension will not people in their folly advance6 7#h7 ,they have no single sound idea concerning either ,god or nature1 they confound ,god's decrees with human decrees1 they conceive nature as so limited that they believe man to be its chief part6 7#i7 ,i have spent enough space in setting forth these common ideas and prejudices concerning nature and miracles1 but in order to afford a regular demonstration ,i will show - 7#aj7 ,i4 ,that nature cannot be contravened1 but that she preserves a fixed and immutable order1 and at the same time ,i will explain what is meant by a miracle4 7#aa7 ,,ii4 ,that ,god's nature and existence1 and consequently ,his providence cannot be known from miracles1 but that they can all be much better perceived from the fixed and immutable order of nature4 7#ab7 ,,iii4 ,that by the decrees and volitions1 and consequently the providence of ,god1 ,scripture 7as ,i will prove by ,scriptural examples7 means nothing but nature's order following necessarily from her eternal laws4 7#ac7 ,,iv4 ,lastly1 ,i will treat of the method of interpreting ,scriptural miracles1 and the chief points to be noted concerning the narratives of them4 7#ad7 ,such are the principal subjects which will be discussed in this chapter1 and which will serve1 ,i think1 not a little to further the object of this treatise4 7#ae7 ,our first point is easily proved from what we showed in ,chap4 ,,iv4 about ,divine law - namely1 that all that ,god wishes or determines involves eternal necessity and truth1 for we demonstrated that ,god's understanding is identical with ,his will1 and that it is the same thing to say that ,god wills a thing1 as to say1 that ,he understands it2 hence1 as it follows necessarily1 from the ,divine nature and perfection that ,god understands a thing as it is1 it follows no less necessarily that ,he wills it as it is4 7#af7 ,now1 as nothing is necessarily true save only by ,divine decree1 it is plain that the universal laws of nature are decrees of ,god following from the necessity and perfection of the ,divine nature4 7#ag7 ,hence1 any event happening in nature which contravened nature's universal laws1 would necessarily also contravene the ,divine decree1 nature1 and understanding2 or if anyone asserted that ,god acts in contravention to the laws of nature1 he1 ipso facto1 would be compelled to assert that ,god acted against ,his own nature - an evident absurdity4 7#ah7 ,one might easily show from the same premises that the power and efficiency of nature are in themselves the ,divine power and efficiency1 and that the ,divine power is the very essence of ,god1 but this ,i gladly pass over for the present4 7#ai7 ,nothing1 then1 comes to pass in nature 7,n4,b4 ,i do not mean here by nature1 merely matter and its modifications1 but infinite other things besides matter47 in contravention to her universal laws1 nay1 everything agrees with them and follows from them1 for whatsoever comes to pass1 comes to pass by the will and eternal decree of ,god2 that is1 as we have just pointed out1 whatever comes to pass1 comes to pass according to laws and rules which involve eternal necessity and truth2 nature1 therefore1 always observes laws and rules which involve eternal necessity and truth1 although they may not all be known to us1 and therefore she keeps a fixed and mutable order4 7#bj7 ,nor is there any sound reason for limiting the power and efficacy of nature1 and asserting that her laws are fit for certain purposes1 but not for all2 for as the efficacy and power of nature1 are the very efficacy and power of ,god1 and as the laws and rules of nature are the decrees of ,god1 it is in every way to be believed that the power of nature is infinite1 and that her laws are broad enough to embrace everything conceived by1 the ,divine intellect2 the only alternative is to assert that ,god has created nature so weak1 and has ordained for her laws so barren1 that ,he is repeatedly compelled to come afresh to her aid if ,he wishes that she should be preserved1 and that things should happen as ,he desires3 a conclusion1 in my opinion1 very far removed from reason4 7#ba7 ,further1 as nothing happens in nature which does not follow from her laws1 and as her laws embrace everything conceived by the ,divine intellect1 and lastly1 as nature preserves a fixed and immutable order2 it most clearly follows that miracles are only intelligible as in relation to human opinions1 and merely mean events of which the natural cause cannot be explained by a reference to any ordinary occurrence1 either by us1 or at any rate1 by the writer and narrator of the miracle4 7#bb7 ,we may1 in fact1 say that a miracle is an event of which the causes annot be explained by the natural reason through a reference to ascertained workings of nature2 but since miracles were wrought according to the understanding of the masses1 who are wholly ignorant of the workings of nature1 it is certain that the ancients took for a miracle whatever they could not explain by the method adopted by the unlearned in such cases1 namely1 an appeal to the memory1 a recalling of something similar1 which is ordinarily regarded without wonder2 for most people think they sufficiently understand a thing when they have ceased to wonder at it4 7#bc7 ,the ancients1 then1 and indeed most men up to the present day1 had no other criterion for a miracle2 hence we cannot doubt that many things are narrated in ,scripture as miracles of which the causes could easily be explained by reference to ascertained workings of nature4 7#bd7 ,we have hinted as much in ,chap4 ,,ii41 in speaking of the sun standing still in the time of ,joshua1 and to say on the subject when we come to treat of the interpretation of miracles later on in this chapter4 7#be7 ,it is now time to pass on to the second point1 and show that we cannot gain an understanding of ,god's essence1 existence1 or providence by means of miracles1 but that these truths are much better perceived through the fixed and immutable order of nature4 7#bf7 ,i thus proceed with the demonstration4 7#bg7 ,as ,god's existence is not self-evident 7#f7 it must necessarily be inferred from ideas so firmly and incontrovertibly true1 that no power can be postulated or conceived sufficient to impugn them4 7#bh7 ,they ought certainly so to appear to us when we infer from them ,god's existence1 if we wish to place our conclusion beyond the reach of doubt2 for if we could conceive that such ideas could be impugned by any power whatsoever1 we should doubt of their truth1 we should doubt of our conclusion1 namely1 of ,god's existence1 and should never be able to be certain of anything4 7#bi7 ,further1 we know that nothing either agrees with or is contrary to nature1 unless it agrees with or is contrary to these primary ideas2 wherefore if we would conceive that anything could be done in nature by any power whatsoever which would be contrary to the laws of nature1 it would also be contrary to our primary ideas1 and we should have either to reject it as absurd1 or else to cast doubt 7as just shown7 on our primary ideas1 and consequently on the existence of ,god1 and on everything howsoever perceived4 7#cj7 ,therefore miracles1 in the sense of events contrary to the laws of nature1 so far from demonstrating to us the existence of ,god1 would1 on the contrary1 lead us to doubt it1 where1 otherwise1 we might have been absolutely certain of it1 as knowing that nature follows a fixed and immutable order4 7#ca7 ,let us take miracle as meaning that which cannot be explained through natural causes4 7#cb7 ,this may be interpreted in two senses3 either as that which has natural causes1 but cannot be examined by the human intellect2 or as that which has no cause save ,god and ,god's will4 7#cc7 ,but as all things which come to pass through natural causes1 come to pass also solely through the will and power of ,god1 it comes to this1 that a miracle1 whether it has natural causes or not1 is a result which cannot be explained by its cause1 that is a phenomenon which surpasses human understanding2 but from such a phenomenon1 and certainly from a result surpassing our understanding1 we can gain no knowledge4 7#cd7 ,for whatsoever we understand clearly and distinctly should be plain to us either in itself or by means of something else clearly and distinctly understood2 wherefore from a miracle or a phenomenon which we cannot understand1 we can gain no knowledge of ,god's essence1 or existence1 or indeed anything about ,god or nature2 whereas when we know that all things are ordained and ratified by ,god1 that the operations of nature follow from the essence of ,god1 and that the laws of nature are eternal decrees and volitions of ,god1 we must perforce conclude that our knowledge of ,god1 and of ,god's will increases in proportion to our knowledge and clear understanding of nature1 as we see how she depends on her primal cause1 and how she works according to eternal law4 7#ce7 ,wherefore so far as our understanding goes1 those phenomena which we clearly and distinctly understand have much better right to be called works of ,god1 and to be referred to the will of ,god than those about which we are entirely ignorant1 although they appeal powerfully to the imagination1 and compel men's admiration4 7#cf7 ,it is only phenomena that we clearly and distinctly understand1 which heighten our knowledge of ,god1 and most clearly indicate ,his will and decrees4 7#cg7 ,plainly1 they are but triflers who1 when they cannot explain a thing1 run back to the will of ,god2 this is1 truly1 a ridiculous way of expressing ignorance4 7#ch7 ,again1 even supposing that some conclusion could be drawn from miracles1 we could not possibly infer from them the existence of ,god3 for a miracle being an event under limitations is the expression of a fixed and limited power2 therefore we could not possibly infer from an effect of this kind the existence of a cause whose power is infinite1 but at the utmost only of a cause whose power is greater than that of the said effect4 7#ci7 ,i say at the utmost1 for a phenomenon may be the result of many concurrent causes1 and its power may be less than the power of the sum of such causes1 but far greater than that of any one of them taken individually4 7#dj7 ,on the other hand1 the laws of nature1 as we have shown1 extend over infinity1 and are conceived by us as1 after a fashion1 eternal1 and nature works in accordance with them in a fixed and immutable order2 therefore1 such laws indicate to us in a certain degree the infinity1 the eternity1 and the immutability of ,god4 7#dj7 ,we may conclude1 then1 that we cannot gain knowledge of the existence and providence of ,god by means of miracles1 but that we can far better infer them from the fixed and immutable order of nature4 7#da7 ,by miracle1 ,i here mean an event which surpasses1 or is thought to surpass1 human comprehension3 for in so far as it is supposed to destroy or interrupt the order of nature or her laws1 it not only can give us no knowledge of ,god1 but1 contrariwise1 takes away that which we naturally have1 and makes us doubt of ,god and everything else4 7#db7 ,neither do ,i recognize any difference between an event against the laws of nature and an event beyond the laws of nature 7that is1 according to some1 an event which does not contravene nature1 though she is inadequate to produce or effect it7 - for a miracle is wrought in1 and not beyond nature1 though it may be said in itself to be above nature1 and1 therefore1 must necessarily interrupt the order of nature1 which otherwise we conceive of as fixed and unchangeable1 according to ,god's decrees4 7#dc7 ,if1 therefore1 anything should come to pass in nature which does not follow from her laws1 it would also be in contravention to the order which ,god has established in nature for ever through universal natural laws3 it would1 therefore1 be in contravention to ,god's nature and laws1 and1 consequently1 belief in it would throw doubt upon everything1 and lead to ,atheism4 7#dd7 ,i think ,i have now sufficiently established my second point1 so that we can again conclude that a miracle1 whether in contravention to1 or beyond1 nature1 is a mere absurdity2 and1 therefore1 that what is meant in ,scripture by a miracle can only be a work of nature1 which surpasses1 or is believed to surpass1 human comprehension4 7#de7 ,before passing on to my third point1 ,i will adduce ,scriptural authority for my assertion that ,god cannot be known from miracles4 7#df7 ,scripture nowhere states the doctrine openly1 but it can readily be inferred from several passages4 7#dg7 ,firstly1 that in which ,moses commands 7,deut4 xiii47 that a false prophet should be put to death1 even though he work miracles3 ,if there arise a prophet among you1 and giveth thee a sign or wonder1 and the sign or wonder come to pass1 saying1 ,let us go after other gods 4 4 4 thou shalt not hearken unto the voice of that prophet2 for the ,lord your ,god proveth you1 and that prophet shall be put to death4 7#dh7 ,from this it clearly follows that miracles could be wrought even by false prophets2 and that1 unless men are honestly endowed with the true knowledge and love of ,god1 they may be as easily led by miracles to follow false gods as to follow the true ,god2 for these words are added3 ,for the ,lord your ,god tempts you1 that ,he may know whether you love ,him with all your heart and with all your mind4 7#di7 ,further1 the ,israelites1 from all their miracles1 were unable to form a sound conception of ,god1 as their experience testified3 for when they had persuaded themselves that ,moses had departed from among them1 they petitioned ,aaron to give them visible gods2 and the idea of ,god they had formed as the result of all their miracles was - a calf6 7#ej7 ,asaph1 though he had heard of so many miracles1 yet doubted of the providence of ,god1 and would have turned himself from the true way1 if he had not at last come to understand true blessedness4 7,see ,ps4 lxxxiii47 7#ea7 ,solomon1 too1 at a time when the ,jewish nation was at the height of its prosperity1 suspects that all things happen by chance4 7,see ,eccles4 iii3#ai1 #bj1 #ba2 and chap4 ix3#b1 #c1 c47 7#eb7 ,lastly1 nearly all the prophets found it very hard to reconcile the order of nature and human affairs with the conception they had formed of ,god's providence1 whereas philosophers who endeavour to understand things by clear conceptions of them1 rather than by miracles1 have always found the task extremely easy - at least1 such of them as place true happiness solely in virtue and peace of mind1 and who aim at obeying nature1 rather than being obeyed by her4 7#ec7 ,such persons rest assured that ,god directs nature according to the requirements of universal laws1 not according to the requirements of the particular laws of human nature1 and that1 therefore1 ,god's scheme comprehends1 not only the human race1 but the whole of nature4 7#ed7 ,it is plain1 then1 from ,scripture itself1 that miracles can give no knowledge of ,god1 nor clearly teach us the providence of ,god4 7#ee7 ,as to the frequent statements in ,scripture1 that ,god wrought miracles to make ,himself plain to man - as in ,exodus x3#b1 where ,he deceived the ,egyptians1 and gave signs of ,himself1 that the ,israelites might know that ,he was ,god1- it does not1 therefore1 follow that miracles really taught this truth1 but only that the ,jews held opinions which laid them easily open to conviction by miracles4 7#ef7 ,we have shown in ,chap4 ,,ii4 that the reasons assigned by the prophets1 or those which are formed from revelation1 are not assigned in accordance with ideas universal and common to all1 but in accordance with the accepted doctrines1 however absurd1 and with the opinions of those to whom the revelation was given1 or those whom the ,holy ,spirit wished to convince4 7#eg7 ,this we have illustrated by many ,scriptural instances1 and can further cite ,paul1 who to the ,greeks was a ,greek1 and to the ,jews a ,jew4 7#eh7 ,but although these miracles could convince the ,egyptians and ,jews from their standpoint1 they could not give a true idea and knowledge of ,god1 but only cause them to admit that there was a ,deity more powerful than anything known to them1 and that this ,deity took special care of the ,jews1 who had just then an unexpectedly happy issue of all their affairs4 7#ei7 ,they could not teach them that ,god cares equally for all1 for this can be taught only by philosophy3 the ,jews1 and all who took their knowledge of ,god's providence from the dissimilarity of human conditions of life and the inequalities of fortune1 persuaded themselves that ,god loved the ,jews above all men1 though they did not surpass their fellows in true human perfection4 7#fj7 ,i now go on to my third point1 and show from ,scripture that the decrees and mandates of ,god1 and consequently ,his providence1 are merely the order of nature - that is1 when ,scripture describes an event as accomplished by ,god or ,god's will1 we must understand merely that it was in accordance with the law and order of nature1 not1 as most people believe1 that nature had for a season ceased to act1 or that her order was temporarily interrupted4 7#fa7 ,but ,scripture does not directly teach matters unconnected with its doctrine1 wherefore it has no care to explain things by their natural causes1 nor to expound matters merely speculative4 7#fb7 ,wherefore our conclusion must be gathered by inference from those ,scriptural narratives which happen to be written more at length and circumstantially than usual4 7#fc7 ,of these ,i will cite a few4 7#fd7 ,in the first book of ,samuel1 ix3#ae1 #af1 it is related that ,god revealed to ,samuel that ,he would send ,saul to him1 yet ,god did not send ,saul to ,samuel as people are wont to send one man to another4 7#fe7 ,his sending was merely the ordinary course of nature4 7#ff7 ,saul was looking for the asses he had lost1 and was meditating a return home without them1 when1 at the suggestion of his servant1 he went to the prophet ,samuel1 to learn from him where he might find them4 7#fg7 ,from no part of the narrative does it appear that ,saul had any command from ,god to visit ,samuel beyond this natural motive4 7#fh7 ,in ,psalm cv4 #bd it is said that ,god changed the hearts of the ,egyptians1 so that they hated the ,israelites4 7#fi7 ,this was evidently a natural change1 as appears from ,exodus1 chap4i41 where we find no slight reason for the ,egyptians reducing the ,israelites to slavery4 7#gj7 ,in ,genesis ix3#ac1 ,god tells ,noah that ,he will set ,his bow in the cloud2 this action of ,god's is but another way of expressing the refraction and reflection which the rays of the sun are subjected to in drops of water4 7#ga7 ,in ,psalm cxlvii3#ah1 the natural action and warmth of the wind1 by which hoar frost and snow are melted1 are styled the word of the ,lord1 and in verse #ae wind and cold are called the commandment and word of ,god4 7#gb7 ,in ,psalm civ3#d1 wind and fire are called the angels and ministers of ,god1 and various other passages of the same sort are found in ,scripture1 clearly showing that the decree1 commandment1 fiat1 and word of ,god are merely expressions for the action and order of nature4 7#gc7 ,thus it is plain that all the events narrated in ,scripture came to pass naturally1 and are referred directly to ,god because ,scripture1 as we have shown1 does not aim at explaining things by their natural causes1 but only at narrating what appeals to the popular imagination1 and doing so in the manner best calculated to excite wonder1 and consequently to impress the minds of the masses with devotion4 7#gd7 ,if1 therefore1 events are found in the ,bible which we cannot refer to their causes1 nay1 which seem entirely to contradict the order of nature1 we must not come to a stand1 but assuredly believe that whatever did really happen happened naturally4 7#ge7 ,this view is confirmed by the fact that in the case of every miracle there were many attendant circumstances1 though these were not always related1 especially where the narrative was of a poetic character4 7#gf7 ,the circumstances of the miracles clearly show1 ,i maintain1 that natural causes were needed4 7#gg7 ,for instance1 in order to infect the ,egyptians with blains1 it was necessary that ,moses should scatter ashes in the air 7,exod4 ix3 #aj72 the locusts also came upon the land of ,egypt by a command of ,god in accordance with nature1 namely1 by an east wind blowing for a whole day and night2 and they departed by a very strong west wind 7,exod4 x3#ad1 #ai74 7#gh7 ,by a similar ,divine mandate the sea opened a way for the ,jews 7,exo4 xiv3#ba71 namely1 by an east wind which blew very strongly all night4 7#gi7 ,so1 too1 when ,elisha would revive the boy who was believed to be dead1 he was obliged to bend over him several times until the flesh of the child waxed warm1 and at last he opened his eyes 7#b ,kings iv3#cd1 #ce74 7#hj7 ,again1 in ,john's ,gospel 7chap4 ix47 certain acts are mentioned as performed by ,christ preparatory to healing the blind man1 and there are numerous other instances showing that something further than the absolute fiat of ,god is required for working a miracle4 7#ha7 ,wherefore we may believe that1 although the circumstances attending miracles are not related always or in full detail1 yet a miracle was never performed without them4 7#hb7 ,this is confirmed by ,exodus xiv3#bg1 where it is simply stated that ,moses stretched forth his hand1 and the waters of the sea returned to their strength in the morning1 no mention being made of a wind2 but in the song of ,moses 7,exod4 xv3#aj7 we read1 ,thou didst blow with ,thy wind 7i4e4 with a very strong wind71 and the sea covered them4 7#hc7 ,thus the attendant circumstance is omitted in the history1 and the miracle is thereby enhanced4 7#hd7 ,but perhaps someone will insist that we find many things in ,scripture which seem in nowise explicable by natural causes1 as for instance1 that the sins of men and their prayers can be the cause of rain and of the earth's fertility1 or that faith can heal the blind1 and so on4 7#he7 ,but ,i think ,i have already made sufficient answer3 ,i have shown that ,scripture does not explain things by their secondary causes1 but only narrates them in the order and the style which has most power to move men1 and especially uneducated men1 to devotion2 and therefore it speaks inaccurately of ,god and of events1 seeing that its object is not to convince the reason1 but to attract and lay hold of the imagination4 7#hf7 ,if the ,bible were to describe the destruction of an empire in the style of political historians1 the masses would remain unstirred1 whereas the contrary is the case when it adopts the method of poetic description1 and refers all things immediately to ,god4 7#hg7 ,when1 therefore1 the ,bible says that the earth is barren because of men's sins1 or that the blind were healed by faith1 we ought to take no more notice than when it says that ,god is angry at men's sins1 that ,he is sad1 that ,he repents of the good ,he has promised and done2 or that on seeing a sign he remembers something ,he had promised1 and other similar expressions1 which are either thrown out poetically or related according to the opinion and prejudices of the writer4 7#hh7 ,we may1 then1 be absolutely certain that every event which is truly described in ,scripture necessarily happened1 like everything else1 according to natural laws2 and if anything is there set down which can be proved in set terms to contravene the order of nature1 or not to be deducible therefrom1 we must believe it to have been foisted into the sacred writings by irreligious hands2 for whatsoever is contrary to nature is also contrary to reason1 and whatsoever is contrary to reason is absurd1 and1 ipso facto1 to be rejected4 7#hi7 ,there remain some points concerning the interpretation of miracles to be noted1 or rather to be recapitulated1 for most of them have been already stated4 7#ij7 ,these ,i proceed to discuss in the fourth division of my subject1 and ,i am led to do so lest anyone should1 by wrongly interpreting a miracle1 rashly suspect that he has found something in ,scripture contrary to human reason4 7#ia7 ,it is very rare for men to relate an event simply as it happened1 without adding any element of their own judgment4 7#ib7 ,when they see or hear anything new1 they are1 unless strictly on their guard1 so occupied with their own preconceived opinions that they perceive something quite different from the plain facts seen or heard1 especially if such facts surpass the comprehension of the beholder or hearer1 and1 most of all1 if he is interested in their happening in a given way4 7#ic7 ,thus men relate in chronicles and histories their own opinions rather than actual events1 so that one and the same event is so differently related by two men of different opinions1 that it seems like two separate occurrences2 and1 further1 it is very easy from historical chronicles to gather the personal opinions of the historian4 7#id7 ,i could cite many instances in proof of this from the writings both of natural philosophers and historians1 but ,i will content myself with one only from ,scripture1 and leave the reader to judge of the rest4 7#ie7 ,in the time of ,joshua the ,hebrews held the ordinary opinion that the sun moves with a daily motion1 and that the earth remains at rest2 to this preconceived opinion they adapted the miracle which occurred during their battle with the five kings4 7#if7 ,they did not simply relate that that day was longer than usual1 but asserted that the sun and moon stood still1 or ceased from their motion - a statement which would be of great service to them at that time in convincing and proving by experience to the ,gentiles1 who worshipped the sun1 that the sun was under the control of another deity who could compel it to change its daily course4 7#ig7 ,thus1 partly through religious motives1 partly through preconceived opinions1 they conceived of and related the occurrence as something quite different from what really happened4 7#ih7 ,thus in order to interpret the ,scriptural miracles and understand from the narration of them how they really happened1 it is necessary to know the opinions of those who first related them1 and have recorded them for us in writing1 and to distinguish such opinions from the actual impression made upon their senses1 otherwise we shall confound opinions and judgments with the actual miracle as it really occurred3 nay1 further1 we shall confound actual events with symbolical and imaginary ones4 7#ii7 ,for many things are narrated in ,scripture as real1 and were believed to be real1 which were in fact only symbolical and imaginary4 7#ajj7 ,as1 for instance1 that ,god came down from heaven 7,exod4 xix3#bh1 ,deut4 v3#bh71 and that ,mount ,sinai smoked because ,god descended upon it surrounded with fire2 or1 again that ,elijah ascended into heaven in a chariot of fire1 with horses of fire2 all these things were assuredly merely symbols adapted to the opinions of those who have handed them down to us as they were represented to them1 namely1 as real4 7#aja7 ,all who have any education know that ,god has no right hand nor left2 that ,he is not moved nor at rest1 nor in a particular place1 but that ,he is absolutely infinite and contains in ,himself all perfections4 7#ajb7 ,these things1 ,i repeat1 are known to whoever judges of things by the perception of pure reason1 and not according as his imagination is affected by his outward senses4 7#ajc7 ,following the example of the masses who imagine a bodily ,deity1 holding a royal court with a throne on the convexity of heaven1 above the stars1 which are believed to be not very1 far off from the earth4 7#ajd7 ,to these and similar opinions very many narrations in ,scripture are adapted1 and should not1 therefore1 be mistaken by philosophers for realities4 7#aje7 ,lastly1 in order to understand1 in the case of miracles1 what actually took place1 we ought to be familiar with ,jewish phrases and metaphors2 anyone who did not make sufficient allowance for these1 would be continually seeing miracles in ,scripture where nothing of the kind is intended by the writer2 he would thus miss the knowledge not only of what actually happened1 but also of the mind of the writers of the sacred text4 7#ajf7 ,for instance1 ,zechariah speaking of some future war says 7chap4 xiv3#g73 ,it shall be one day which shall be known to the ,lord1 not day1 nor night2 but at even time it shall be light4 ,in these words he seems to predict a great miracle1 yet he only means that the battle will be doubtful the whole day1 that the issue will be known only to ,god1 but that in the evening they will gain the victory3 the prophets frequently used to predict victories and defeats of the nations in similar phrases4 7#ajg7 ,thus ,isaiah1 describing the destruction of ,babylon1 says 7chap4 xiii473 ,the stars of heaven1 and the constellations thereof1 shall not give their light2 the sun shall be darkened in his going forth1 and the moon shall not cause her light to shine4 7#ajh7 ,now ,i suppose no one imagines that at the destruction of ,babylon these phenomena actually occurred any more than that which the prophet adds1 ,for ,i will make the heavens to tremble1 and remove the earth out of her place4 7#aji7 ,so1 too1 ,isaiah in foretelling to the ,jews that they would return from ,babylon to ,jerusalem in safety1 and would not suffer from thirst on their journey1 says3 ,and they thirsted not when ,he led them through the deserts2 ,he caused the waters to flow out of the rocks for them2 ,he clave the rocks1 and the waters gushed out4 7#aaj7 ,these words merely mean that the ,jews1 like other people1 found springs in the desert1 at which they quenched their thirst2 for when the ,jews returned to ,jerusalem with the consent of ,cyrus1 it is admitted that no similar miracles befell them4 7#aaa7 ,in this way many occurrences in the ,bible are to be regarded merely as ,jewish expressions4 7#aab7 ,there is no need for me to go through them in detail2 but ,i will call attention generally to the fact that the ,jews employed such phrases not only rhetorically1 but also1 and indeed chiefly1 from devotional motives4 7#aac7 ,such is the reason for the substitution of bless ,god for curse ,god in #a ,kings xxi3#aj1 and ,job ii3#i1 and for all things being referred to ,god1 whence it appears that the ,bible seems to relate nothing but miracles1 even when speaking of the most ordinary occurrences1 as in the examples given above4 7#aad7 ,hence we must believe that when the ,bible says that the ,lord hardened ,pharaoh's heart1 it only means that ,pharaoh was obstinate2 when it says that ,god opened the windows of heaven1 it only means that it rained very hard1 and so on4 7#aae7 ,when we reflect on these peculiarities1 and also on the fact that most things are related very shortly1 with very little details and almost in abridgments1 we shall see that there is hardly anything in ,scripture which can be proved contrary to natural reason1 while1 on the other hand1 many things which before seemed obscure1 will after a little consideration be understood and easily explained4 7#aaf7 ,i think ,i have now very clearly explained all that ,i proposed to explain1 but before ,i finish this chapter ,i would call attention to the fact that ,i have adopted a different method in speaking of miracles to that which ,i employed in treating of prophecy4 7#aag7 ,of prophecy ,i have asserted nothing which could not be inferred from promises revealed in ,scripture1 whereas in this chapter ,i have deduced my conclusions solely from the principles ascertained by the natural light of reason4 7#aah7 ,i have proceeded in this way advisedly1 for prophecy1 in that it surpasses human knowledge1 is a purely theological question2 therefore1 ,i knew that ,i could not make any assertions about it1 nor learn wherein it consists1 except through deductions from premises that have been revealed2 therefore ,i was compelled to collate the history of prophecy1 and to draw therefrom certain conclusions which would teach me1 in so far as such teaching is possible1 the nature and properties of the gift4 7#aai7 ,but in the case of miracles1 as our inquiry is a question purely philosophical 7namely1 whether anything can happen which contravenes or does not follow from the laws of nature71 ,i was not under any such necessity3 ,i therefore thought it wiser to unravel the difficulty through premises ascertained and thoroughly known by the natural light of reason4 ,i say ,i thought it wiser1 for ,i could also easily have solved the problem merely from the doctrines and fundamental principles of ,scripture3 in order that everyone may acknowledge this1 ,i will briefly show how it could be done4 7#abj7 ,scripture makes the general assertion in several passages that nature's course is fixed and unchangeable4 7#aba7 ,in ,ps4 cxlviii3#f1 for instance1 and ,jer4 xxxi3#ce4 7#abb7 ,the wise man also1 in ,eccles4 i3#aj1 distinctly teaches that there is nothing new under the sun1 and in verses #aa1 #ab1 illustrating the same idea1 he adds that although something occasionally happens which seems new1 it is not really new1 but hath been already of old time1 which was before us1 whereof there is no remembrance1 neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that come after4 7#abc7 ,again in chap4 iii3#aa1 he says1 ,god hath made everything beautiful in his time1 and immediately afterwards adds1 ,i know that whatsoever ,god doeth1 it shall be for ever2 nothing can be put to it1 nor anything taken from it4 7#abd7 ,now all these texts teach most distinctly that nature preserves a fixed and unchangeable order1 and that ,god in all ages1 known and unknown1 has been the same2 further1 that the laws of nature are so perfect1 that nothing can be added thereto nor taken therefrom2 and1 lastly1 that miracles only appear as something new because of man's ignorance4 7#abe7 ,such is the express teaching of ,scripture3 nowhere does ,scripture assert that anything happens which contradicts1 or cannot follow from the laws of nature2 and1 therefore1 we should not attribute to it such a doctrine4 7#abf7 ,to these considerations we must add1 that miracles require causes and attendant circumstances1 and that they follow1 not from some mysterious royal power which the masses attribute to ,god1 but from the ,divine rule and decree1 that is 7as we have shown from ,scripture itself7 from the laws and order of nature2 lastly1 that miracles can be wrought even by false prophets1 as is proved from ,deut4 xiii4 and ,matt4 xxiv3#bd4 7#abg7 ,the conclusion1 then1 that is most plainly put before us is1 that miracles were natural occurrences1 and must therefore be so explained as to appear neither new 7in the words of ,solomon7 nor contrary to nature1 but1 as far as possible1 in complete agreement with ordinary events4 7#abh7 ,this can easily be done by anyone1 now that ,i have set forth the rules drawn from ,scripture4 7#abi7 ,nevertheless1 though ,i maintain that ,scripture teaches this doctrine1 ,i do not assert that it teaches it as a truth necessary to salvation1 but only that the prophets were in agreement with ourselves on the point2 therefore everyone is free to think on the subject as he likes1 according as he thinks it best for himself1 and most likely to conduce to the worship of ,god and to singlehearted religion4 7#acj7 ,this is also the opinion of ,josephus1 for at the conclusion of the second book of his ,antiquities1 he writes3 ,let no man think this story incredible of the sea's dividing to save these people1 for we find it in ancient records that this hath been seen before1 whether by ,god's extraordinary will or by the course of nature it is indifferent4 7#aca7 ,the same thing happened one time to the ,macedonians1 under the command of ,alexander1 when for want of another passage the ,pamphylian ,sea divided to make them way2 ,god's ,providence making use of ,alexander at that time as ,his instrument for destroying the ,persian ,empire4 7#acb7 ,this is attested by all the historians who have pretended to write the ,life of that ,prince4 7#acc7 ,but people are at liberty to think what they please4 7#acd7 ,such are the words of ,josephus1 and such is his opinion on faith in miracles4 ,,chapter ,,vii4 - ,,of ,,the ,,interpretation ,,of ,,scripture 7#a7 ,when people declare1 as all are ready to do1 that the ,bible is the ,word of ,god teaching man true blessedness and the way of salvation1 they evidently do not mean what they say2 for the masses take no pains at all to live according to ,scripture1 and we see most people endeavouring to hawk about their own commentaries as the word of ,god1 and giving their best efforts1 under the guise of religion1 to compelling others to think as they do3 we generally see1 ,i say1 theologians anxious to learn how to wring their inventions and sayings out of the sacred text1 and to fortify them with ,divine authority4 7#b7 ,such persons never display1 less scruple or more zeal than when they1 are interpreting ,scripture or the mind of the ,holy ,ghost2 if we ever see them perturbed1 it is not that they fear to attribute some error to the ,holy ,spirit1 and to stray from the right path1 but that they are afraid to be convicted of error by others1 and thus to overthrow and bring into contempt their own authority4 7#c7 ,but if men really believed what they verbally testify of ,scripture1 they would adopt quite a different plan of life3 their minds would not be agitated by so many contentions1 nor so many hatreds1 and they would cease to be excited by such a blind and rash passion for interpreting the sacred writings1 and excogitating novelties in religion4 7#d7 ,on the contrary1 they would not dare to adopt1 as the teaching of ,scripture1 anything which they could not plainly deduce therefrom3 lastly1 those sacrilegious persons who have dared1 in several passages1 to interpolate the ,bible1 would have shrunk from so great a crime1 and would have stayed their sacrilegious hands4 7#e7 ,ambition and unscrupulousness have waxed so powerful1 that religion is thought to consist1 not so much in respecting the writings of the ,holy ,ghost1 as in defending human commentaries1 so that religion is no longer identified with charity1 but with spreading discord and propagating insensate hatred disguised under the name of zeal for the ,lord1 and eager ardour4 7#f7 ,to these evils we must add superstition1 which teaches men to despise reason and nature1 and only to admire and venerate that which is repugnant to both3 whence it is not wonderful that for the sake of increasing the admiration and veneration felt for ,scripture1 men strive to explain it so as to make it appear to contradict1 as far as possible1 both one and the other3 thus they dream that most profound mysteries lie hid in the ,bible1 and weary themselves out in the investigation of these absurdities1 to the neglect of what is useful4 7#g7 ,every result of their diseased imagination they attribute to the ,holy ,ghost1 and strive to defend with the utmost zeal and passion2 for it is an observed fact that men employ their reason to defend conclusions arrived at by reason1 but conclusions arrived at by the passions are defended by the passions4 7#h7 ,if we would separate ourselves from the crowd and escape from theological prejudices1 instead of rashly accepting human commentaries for ,divine documents1 we must consider the true method of interpreting ,scripture and dwell upon it at some length3 for if we remain in ignorance of this we cannot know1 certainly1 what the ,bible and the ,holy ,spirit wish to teach4 7#i7;,i may sum up the matter by saying that the method of interpreting ,scripture does not widely differ from the method of interpreting nature - in fact1 it is almost the same4 7#aj7 ,for as the interpretation of nature consists in the examination of the history of nature1 and therefrom deducing definitions of natural phenomena on certain fixed axioms1 so ,scriptural interpretation proceeds by the examination of ,scripture1 and inferring the intention of its authors as a legitimate conclusion from its fundamental principles4 7#aa7 ,by working in this manner everyone will always advance without danger of error - that is1 if they admit no principles for interpreting ,scripture1 and discussing its contents save such as they find in ,scripture itself - and will be able with equal security to discuss what surpasses our understanding1 and what is known by the natural light of reason4 7#ab7 ,in order to make clear that such a method is not only correct1 but is also the only one advisable1 and that it agrees with that employed in interpreting nature1 ,i must remark that ,scripture very often treats of matters which cannot be deduced from principles known to reason3 for it is chiefly made up of narratives and revelation3 the narratives generally contain miracles - that is1 as we have shown in the last chapter1 relations of extraordinary natural occurrences adapted to the opinions and judgment of the historians who recorded them3 the revelations also were adapted to the opinions of the prophets1 as we showed in ,chap4 ,,ii41 and in themselves surpassed human comprehension4 7#ac7 ,therefore the knowledge of all these - that is1 of nearly the whole contents of ,scripture1 must be sought from ,scripture alone1 even as the knowledge of nature is sought from nature4 7#ad7 ,as for the moral doctrines which are also contained in the ,bible1 they may be demonstrated from received axioms1 but we cannot prove in the same manner that ,scripture intended to teach them1 this can only be learned from ,scripture itself4 7#ae7 ,if we would bear unprejudiced witness to the ,divine origin of ,scripture1 we must prove solely on its own authority that it teaches true moral doctrines1 for by such means alone can its ,divine origin be demonstrated3 we have shown that the certitude of the prophets depended chiefly on their having minds turned towards what is just and good1 therefore we ought to have proof of their possessing this quality before we repose faith in them4 7#af7 ,from miracles ,god's divinity cannot be proved1 as ,i have already shown1 and need not now repeat1 for miracles could be wrought by false prophets4 7#ag7 ,wherefore the ,divine origin of ,scripture must consist solely in its teaching true virtue4 7#ah7 ,but we must come to our conclusion simply on ,scriptural grounds1 for if we were unable to do so we could not1 unless strongly prejudiced accept the ,bible and bear witness to its ,divine origin4 7#ai7 ,our knowledge of ,scripture must then be looked for in ,scripture only4 7#bj7 ,lastly1 ,scripture does not give us definition of things any more than nature does3 therefore1 such definitions must be sought in the latter case from the diverse workings of nature2 in the former case1 from the various narratives about the given subject which occur in the ,bible4 7#ba7 ,the universal rule1 then1 in interpreting ,scripture is to accept nothing as an authoritative ,scriptural statement which we do not perceive very clearly when we examine it in the light of its history4 7#bb7 ,what ,i mean by its history1 and what should be the chief points elucidated1 ,i will now explain4 7#bc7 ,the history of a ,scriptural statement comprises - 7#bc7 ,i4 ,the nature and properties of the language in which the books of the ,bible were written1 and in which their authors were1 accustomed to speak4 7#bd7 ,we shall thus be able to investigate every expression by comparison with common conversational usages4 7#be7 ,now all the writers both of the ,old ,testament and the ,new were ,hebrews3 therefore1 a knowledge of the ,hebrew language is before all things necessary1 not only for the comprehension of the ,old ,testament1 which was written in that tongue1 but also of the ,new3 for although the latter was published in other languages1 yet its characteristics are ,hebrew4 7#bf7 ,,ii4 ,an analysis of each book and arrangement of its contents under heads2 so that we may have at hand the various texts which treat of a given subject4 7#bg7 ,lastly1 a note of all the passages which are ambiguous or obscure1 or which seem mutually contradictory4 7#bh7 ,i call passages clear or obscure according as their meaning is inferred easily or with difficulty in relation to the context1 not according as their truth is perceived easily or the reverse by reason4 7#bi7 ,we are at work not on the truth of passages1 but solely on their meaning4 7#cj7 ,we must take especial care1 when we are in search of the meaning of a text1 not to be led away by our reason in so far as it is founded on principles of natural knowledge 7to say nothing of prejudices73 in order not to confound the meaning of a passage with its truth1 we must examine it solely by means of the signification of the words1 or by a reason acknowledging no foundation but ,scripture4 7#ca7 ,i will illustrate my meaning by an example4 7#cb7 ,the words of ,moses1 ,god is a fire and ,god is jealous1 are perfectly clear so long as we regard merely the signification of the words1 and ,i therefore reckon them among the clear passages1 though in relation to reason and truth they are most obscure3 still1 although the literal meaning is repugnant to the natural light of reason1 nevertheless1 if it cannot be clearly overruled on grounds and principles derived from its ,scriptural history1 it1 that is1 the literal meaning1 must be the one retained3 and contrariwise if these passages literally interpreted are found to clash with principles derived from ,scripture1 though such literal interpretation were in absolute harmony with reason1 they must be interpreted in a different manner1 i4e4 metaphorically4 7#cc7 ,if we would know whether ,moses believed ,god to be a fire or not1 we must on no account decide the question on grounds of the reasonableness or the reverse of such an opinion1 but must judge solely by the other opinions of ,moses which are on record4 7#cd7 ,in the present instance1 as ,moses says in several other passages that ,god has no likeness to any visible thing1 whether in heaven or in earth1 or in the water1 either all such passages must be taken metaphorically1 or else the one before us must be so explained4 7#ce7 ,however1 as we should depart as little as possible from the literal sense1 we must first ask whether this text1 ,god is a fire1 admits of any but the literal meaning - that is1 whether the word fire ever means anything besides ordinary natural fire4 7#cf7 ,if no such second meaning can be found1 the text must be taken literally1 however repugnant to reason it may be3 and all the other passages1 though in complete accordance with reason1 must be brought into harmony with it4 7#cg7 ,if the verbal expressions would not admit of being thus harmonized1 we should have to set them down as irreconcilable1 and suspend our judgment concerning them4 7#ch7 ,however1 as we find the name fire applied to anger and jealousy 7see ,job xxxi3#ab7 we can thus easily reconcile the words of ,moses1 and legitimately conclude that the two propositions ,god is a fire1 and ,god is jealous1 are in meaning identical4 7#ci7 ,further1 as ,moses clearly teaches that ,god is jealous1 and nowhere states that ,god is without passions or emotions1 we must evidently infer that ,moses held this doctrine himself1 or at any rate1 that he wished to teach it1 nor must we refrain because such a belief seems contrary to reason3 for as we have shown1 we cannot wrest the meaning of texts to suit the dictates of our reason1 or our preconceived opinions4 7#dj7 ,the whole knowledge of the ,bible must be sought solely from itself4 7#da7 ,,iii4 ,lastly1 such a history should relate the environment of all the prophetic books extant2 that is1 the life1 the conduct1 and the studies of the author of each book1 who he was1 what was the occasion1 and the epoch of his writing1 whom did he write for1 and in what language4 7#db7 ,further1 it should inquire into the fate of each book3 how it was first received1 into whose hands it fell1 how many different versions there were of it1 by whose advice was it received into the ,bible1 and1 lastly1 how all the books now universally accepted as sacred1 were united into a single whole4 7#dc7 ,all such information should1 as ,i have said1 be contained in the history of ,scripture4 7#dd7 ,for1 in order to know what statements are set forth as laws1 and what as moral precepts1 it is important to be acquainted with the life1 the conduct1 and the pursuits of their author3 moreover1 it becomes easier to explain a man's writings in proportion as we have more intimate knowledge of his genius and temperament4 7#de7 ,further1 that we may not confound precepts which are eternal with those which served only a temporary purpose1 or were only meant for a few1 we should know what was the occasion1 the time1 the age1 in which each book was written1 and to what nation it was addressed47#df7 ,lastly1 we should have knowledge on the other points ,i have mentioned1 in order to be sure1 in addition to the authenticity of the work1 that it has not been tampered with by sacrilegious hands1 or whether errors can have crept in1 and1 if so1 whether they have been corrected by men sufficiently skilled and worthy of credence4 7#dg7 ,all these things should be known1 that we may not be led away by blind impulse to accept whatever is thrust on our notice1 instead of only that which is sure and indisputable4 7#dh7 ,now when we are in possession of this history of ,scripture1 and have finally decided that we assert nothing as prophetic doctrine which does not directly follow from such history1 or which is not clearly deducible from it1 then1 ,i say1 it will be time to gird ourselves for the task of investigating the mind of the prophets and of the ,holy ,spirit4 7#di7 ,but in this further arguing1 also1 we shall require a method very like that employed in interpreting nature from her history4 7#ej7 ,as in the examination of natural phenomena we try first to investigate what is most universal and common to all nature - such1 for instance1 as motion and rest1 and their laws and rules1 which nature always observes1 and through which she continually works - and then we proceed to what is less universal2 so1 too1 in the history of ,scripture1 we seek first for that which is most universal1 and serves for the basis and foundation of all ,scripture1 a doctrine1 in fact1 that is commended by all the prophets as eternal and most profitable to all men4 7#ea7 ,for example1 that ,god is one1 and that ,he is omnipotent1 that ,he alone should be worshipped1 that ,he has a care for all men1 and that ,he especially loves those who adore ,him and love their neighbour as themselves1 c4 7#eb7 ,these and similar doctrines1 ,i repeat1 ,scripture everywhere so clearly and expressly teaches1 that no one was ever in doubt of its meaning concerning them4 7#ec7 ,the nature of ,god1 ,his manner of regarding and providing for things1 and similar doctrines1 ,scripture nowhere teaches professedly1 and as eternal doctrine2 on the contrary1 we have shown that the prophets themselves did not agree on the subject2 therefore1 we must not lay down any doctrine as ,scriptural on such subjects1 though it may appear perfectly clear on rational grounds4 7#ed7 ,from a proper knowledge of this universal doctrine of ,scripture1 we must then proceed to other doctrines less universal1 but which1 nevertheless1 have regard to the general conduct of life1 and flow from the universal doctrine like rivulets from a source2 such are all particular external manifestations of true virtue1 which need a given occasion for their exercise2 whatever is obscure or ambiguous on such points in ,scripture must be explained and defined by its universal doctrine2 with regard to contradictory instances1 we must observe the occasion and the time in which they were written4 7#ee7 ,for instance1 when ,christ says1 ,blessed are they that mourn1 for they shall be comforted we do not know1 from the actual passage1 what sort of mourners are meant2 as1 however1 ,christ afterwards teaches that we should have care for nothing1 save only for the kingdom of ,god and ,his righteousness1 which is commended as the highest good 7see ,matt4 vi3#cc71 it follows that by mourners ,he only meant those who mourn for the kingdom of ,god and righteousness neglected by man3 for this would be the only cause of mourning to those who love nothing but the ,divine kingdom and justice1 and who evidently despise the gifts of fortune4 7#ef7 ,so1 too1 when ,christ says3 ,but if a man strike you on the right cheek1 turn to him the left also1 and the words which follow4 7#eg7 ,if ,he had given such a command1 as a lawgiver1 to judges1 ,he would thereby have abrogated the law of ,moses1 but this ,he expressly says ,he did not do 7,matt4 v3#ag74 7#eh7 ,wherefore we must consider who was the speaker1 what was the occasion1 and to whom were the words addressed4 7#ei7 ,now ,christ said that ,he did not ordain laws as a legislator1 but inculcated precepts as a teacher3 inasmuch as ,he did not aim at correcting outward actions so much as the frame of mind4 7#fj7 ,further1 these words were spoken to men who were oppressed1 who lived in a corrupt commonwealth on the brink of ruin1 where justice was utterly neglected4 7#fa7 ,the very doctrine inculcated here by ,christ just before the destruction of the city was also taught by ,jeremiah before the first destruction of ,jerusalem1 that is1 in similar circumstances1 as we see from ,lamentations iii3#be-cj4 7#fb7 ,now as such teaching was only set forth by the prophets in times of oppression1 and was even then never laid down as a law2 and as1 on the other hand1 ,moses 7who did not write in times of oppression1 but - mark this - strove to found a well-ordered commonwealth71 while condemning envy and hatred of one's neighbour1 yet ordained that an eye should be given for an eye1 it follows most clearly from these purely ,scriptural grounds that this precept of ,christ and ,jeremiah concerning submission to injuries was only valid in places where justice is neglected1 and in a time of oppression1 but does not hold good in a well-ordered state4 7#fc7 ,in a well-ordered state where justice is administered every one is bound1 if he would be accounted just1 to demand penalties before the judge 7see ,lev3#a71 not for the sake of vengeance 7,lev4 xix3#ag1 #ah71 but in order to defend justice and his country's laws1 and to prevent the wicked rejoicing in their wickedness4 7#fd7 ,all this is plainly in accordance with reason4 7#fe7 ,i might cite many other examples in the same manner1 but ,i think the foregoing are sufficient to explain my meaning and the utility of this method1 and this is all my present purpose4 7#ff7 ,hitherto we have only shown how to investigate those passages of ,scripture which treat of practical conduct1 and which1 therefore1 are more easily examined1 for on such subjects there was never really any controversy among the writers of the ,bible4 7#fg7 ,the purely speculative passages cannot be so easily traced to their real meaning3 the way becomes narrower1 for as the prophets differed in matters speculative among themselves1 and the narratives are in great measure adapted to the prejudices of each age1 we must not1 on any account infer the intention of one prophet from clearer passages in the writings of another2 nor must we so explain his meaning1 unless it is perfectly plain that the two prophets were at one in the matter4 7#fh7 ,how we are to arrive at the intention of the prophets in such cases ,i will briefly explain4 7#fi7 ,here1 too1 we must begin from the most universal proposition1 inquiring first from the most clear ,scriptural statements what is the nature of prophecy or revelation1 and wherein does it consist2 then we must proceed to miracles1 and so on to whatever is most general till we come to the opinions of a particular prophet1 and1 at last1 to the meaning of a particular revelation1 prophecy1 history1 or miracle4 7#gj7 ,we have already pointed out that great caution is necessary not to confound the mind of a prophet or historian with the mind of the ,holy ,spirit and the truth of the matter2 therefore ,i need not dwell further on the subject4 7#ga7 ,i would1 however1 here remark concerning the meaning of revelation1 that the present method only teaches us what the prophets really saw or heard1 not what they desired to signify or represent by symbols4 7#gb7 ,the latter may be guessed at but cannot be inferred with certainty from ,scriptural premises4 7#gc7 ,we have thus shown the plan for interpreting ,scripture1 and have1 at the same time1 demonstrated that it is the one and surest way of investigating its true meaning4 7#gd7 ,i am willing indeed to admit that those persons 7if any such there be7 would be more absolutely certainly right1 who have received either a trustworthy tradition or an assurance from the prophets themselves1 such as is claimed by the ,pharisees2 or who have a pontiff gifted with infallibility in the interpretation of ,scripture1 such as the ,roman ,catholics boast4 7#ge7 ,but as we can never be perfectly sure1 either of such a tradition or of the authority of the pontiff1 we cannot found any certain conclusion on either3 the one is denied by the oldest sect of ,christians1 the other by the oldest sect of ,jews4 7#gf7 ,indeed1 if we consider the series of years 7to mention no other point7 accepted by the ,pharisees from their ,rabbis1 during which time they say they have handed down the tradition from ,moses1 we shall find that it is not correct1 as ,i show elsewhere4 7#gg7 ,therefore such a tradition should be received with extreme suspicion2 and although1 according to our method1 we are bound to consider as uncorrupted the tradition of the ,jews1 namely1 the meaning of the ,hebrew words which we received from them1 we may accept the latter while retaining our doubts about the former4 7#gh7 ,no one has ever been able to change the meaning of a word in ordinary use1 though many have changed the meaning of a particular sentence4 7#gi7 ,such a proceeding would be most difficult2 for whoever attempted to change the meaning of a word1 would be compelled1 at the same time1 to explain all the authors who employed it1 each according to his temperament and intention1 or else1 with consummate cunning1 to falsify them4 7#hj7 ,further1 the masses and the learned alike preserve language1 but it is only the learned who preserve the meaning of particular sentences and books3 thus1 we may easily imagine that the learned having a very rare book in their power1 might change or corrupt the meaning of a sentence in it1 but they could not alter the signification of the words2 moreover1 if anyone wanted to change the meaning of a common word he would not be able to keep up the change among posterity1 or in common parlance or writing4 7#ha7 ,for these and such-like reasons we may readily conclude that it would never enter into the mind of anyone to corrupt a language1 though the intention of a writer may often have been falsified by changing his phrases or interpreting them amiss4 7#hb7 ,as then our method 7based on the principle that the knowledge of ,scripture must be sought from itself alone7 is the sole true one1 we must evidently renounce any knowledge which it cannot furnish for the complete understanding of ,scripture4 7#hc7 ,i will now point out its difficulties and shortcomings1 which prevent our gaining a complete and assured knowledge of the ,sacred ,text4 7#hd7 ,its first great difficulty consists in its requiring a thorough knowledge of the ,hebrew language4 7#he7 ,where is such knowledge to be obtained8 7#hf7 ,the men of old who employed the ,hebrew tongue have left none of the principles and bases of their language to posterity2 we have from them absolutely nothing in the way of dictionary1 grammar1 or rhetoric4 7#hg7 ,now the ,hebrew nation has lost all its grace and beauty 7as one would expect after the defeats and persecutions it has gone through71 and has only retained certain fragments of its language and of a few books4 7#hh7 ,nearly all the names of fruits1 birds1 and fishes1 and many other words have perished in the wear and tear of time4 7#hi7 ,further1 the meaning of many nouns and verbs which occur in the ,bible are either utterly lost1 or are subjects of dispute4 7#ij7 ,and not only are these gone1 but we are lacking in a knowledge of ,hebrew phraseology4 7#ia7 ,the devouring tooth of time has destroyed turns of expression peculiar to the ,hebrews1 so that we know them no more4 7#ib7 ,therefore we cannot investigate as we would all the meanings of a sentence by the uses of the language2 and there are many phrases of which the meaning is most obscure or altogether inexplicable1 though the component words are perfectly plain4 7#ic7 ,to this impossibility of tracing the history of the ,hebrew language must be added its particular nature and composition3 these give rise to so many ambiguities that it is impossible to find a method which would enable us to gain a certain knowledge of all the statements in ,scripture1 ,endnote #g4 7#id7 ,in addition to the sources of ambiguities common to all languages1 there are many peculiar to ,hebrew4 7#ie7 ,these1 ,i think1 it worth while to mention4 7#if7 ,firstly1 an ambiguity often arises in the ,bible from our mistaking one letter for another similar one4 7#ig7 ,the ,hebrews divide the letters of the alphabet into five classes1 according to the five organs of the month employed in pronouncing them1 namely1 the lips1 the tongue1 the teeth1 the palate1 and the throat4 7#ih7 ,for instance1 ,alpha1 ,ghet1 ,hgain1 ,he1 are called gutturals1 and are barely distinguishable1 by any sign that we know1 one from the other4 7#ii7 ,el1 which signifies to1 is often taken for hgal1 which signifies above1 and vice versa4 7#ajj7 ,hence sentences are often rendered rather ambiguous or meaningless4 7#aja7 ,a second difficulty arises from the multiplied meaning of conjunctions and adverbs4 7#ajb7 ,for instance1 vau serves promiscuously for a particle of union or of separation1 meaning1 and1 but1 because1 however1 then3 ki1 has seven or eight meanings1 namely1 wherefore1 although1 if1 when1 inasmuch as1 because1 a burning1 c41 and so on with almost all particles4 7#ajc7 ,the third very fertile source of doubt is the fact that ,hebrew verbs in the indicative mood lack the present1 the past imperfect1 the pluperfect1 the future perfect1 and other tenses most frequently employed in other languages2 in the imperative and infinitive moods they are wanting in all except the present1 and a subjunctive mood does not exist4 7#ajd7 ,now1 although all these defects in moods and tenses may be supplied by certain fundamental rules of the language with ease and even elegance1 the ancient writers evidently neglected such rules altogether1 and employed indifferently future for present and past1 and vice versa past for future1 and also indicative for imperative and subjunctive1 with the result of considerable confusion4 7#aje7 ,besides these sources of ambiguity there are two others1 one very important4 7#ajf7 ,firstly1 there are in ,hebrew no vowels2 secondly1 the sentences are not separated by any marks elucidating the meaning or separating the clauses4 7#ajg7 ,though the want of these two has generally been supplied by points and accents1 such substitutes cannot be accepted by us1 inasmuch as they were invented and designed by men of an after age whose authority should carry no weight4 7#ajh7 ,the ancients wrote without points 7that is1 without vowels and accents71 as is abundantly testified2 their descendants added what was lacking1 according to their own ideas of ,scriptural interpretation2 wherefore the existing accents and points are simply current interpretations1 and are no more authoritative than any other commentaries4 7#aji7 ,those who are ignorant of this fact cannot justify the author of the ,epistle to the ,hebrews for interpreting 7chap4 xi3#ba7 ,genesis 7xlvii3#ca7 very differently from the version given in our ,hebrew text as at present pointed1 as though the ,apostle had been obliged to learn the meaning of ,scripture from those who added the points4 7#aaj7 ,in my opinion the latter are clearly wrong4 7#aaa7 ,in order that everyone may judge for himself1 and also see how the discrepancy arose simply from the want of vowels1 ,i will give both interpretations4 7#aab7,those who pointed our version read1 ,and ,israel bent himself over1 or 7changing ,hqain into ,aleph1 a similar letter7 towards1 the head of the bed4 7#aac7 ,the author of the ,epistle reads1 ,and ,israel bent himself over the head of his staff1 substituting mate for mita1 from which it only differs in respect of vowels4 7#aad7 ,now as in this narrative it is ,jacob's age only that is in question1 and not his illness1 which is not touched on till the next chapter1 it seems more likely that the historian intended to say that ,jacob bent over the head of his staff 7a thing commonly used by men of advanced age for their support7 than that he bowed himself at the head of his bed1 especially as for the former reading no substitution of letters is required4 7#aae7 ,in this example ,i have desired not only to reconcile the passage in the ,epistle with the passage in ,genesis1 but also and chiefly to illustrate how little trust should be placed in the points and accents which are found in our present ,bible1 and so to prove that he who would be without bias in interpreting ,scripture should hesitate about accepting them1 and inquire afresh for himself4 7#aaf7 ,such being the nature and structure of the ,hebrew language1 one may easily understand that many difficulties are likely to arise1 and that no possible method could solve all of them4 7#aag7 ,it is useless to hope for a way out of our difficulties in the comparison of various parallel passages 7we have shown that the only method of discovering the true sense of a passage out of many alternative ones is to see what are the usages of the language71 for this comparison of parallel passages can only accidentally throw light on a difficult point1 seeing that the prophets never wrote with the express object of explaining their own phrases or those of other people1 and also because we cannot infer the meaning of one prophet or apostle by the meaning of another1 unless on a purely practical question1 not when the matter is speculative1 or if a miracle1 or history is being narrated4 7#aah7 ,i might illustrate my point with instances1 for there are many inexplicable phrases in ,scripture1 but ,i would rather pass on to consider the difficulties and imperfections of the method under discussion4 7#aai7 ,a further difficulty attends the method1 from the fact that it requires the history of all that has happened to every book in the ,bible2 such a history we are often quite unable to furnish4 7#abj7 ,of the authors1 or 7if the expression be preferred71 the writers of many of the books1 we are either in complete ignorance1 or at any rate in doubt1 as ,i will point out at length4 7#aba7 ,further1 we do not know either the occasions or the epochs when these books of unknown authorship were written2 we cannot say into what hands they fell1 nor how the numerous varying versions originated2 nor1 lastly1 whether there were not other versions1 now lost4 7#abb7 ,i have briefly shown that such knowledge is necessary1 but ,i passed over certain considerations which ,i will now draw attention to4 7#abc7 ,if we read a book which contains incredible or impossible narratives1 or is written in a very obscure style1 and if we know nothing of its author1 nor of the time or occasion of its being written1 we shall vainly endeavour to gain any certain knowledge of its true meaning4 7#abd7 ,for being in ignorance on these points we cannot possibly know the aim or intended aim of the author2 if we are fully informed1 we so order our thoughts as not to be in any way prejudiced either in ascribing to the author or him for whom the author wrote either more or less than his meaning1 and we only take into consideration what the author may have had in his mind1 or what the time and occasion demanded4 7#abe7 ,i think this must be tolerably evident to all4 7#abf7 ,it often happens that in different books we read histories in themselves similar1 but which we judge very differently1 according to the opinions we have formed of the authors4 7#abg7 ,i remember once to have read in some book that a man named ,orlando ,furioso used to drive a kind of winged monster through the air1 fly over any countries he liked1 kill unaided vast numbers of men and giants1 and such like fancies1 which from the point of view of reason are obviously absurd4 7#abh7 ,a very similar story ,i read in ,ovid of ,perseus1 and also in the books of ,judges and ,kings of ,samson1 who alone and unarmed killed thousands of men1 and of ,elijah1 who flew through the air1 said at last went up to heaven in a chariot of fire1 with horses of fire4 7#abi7 ,all these stories are obviously alike1 but we judge them very differently4 7#acj7 ,the first only sought to amuse1 the second had a political object1 the third a religious object47#aca7 ,we gather this simply from the opinions we had previously formed of the authors4 7#acb7 ,thus it is evidently necessary to know something of the authors of writings which are obscure or unintelligible1 if we would interpret their meaning2 and for the same reason1 in order to choose the proper reading from among a great variety1 we ought to have information as to the versions in which the differences are found1 and as to the possibility of other readings having been discovered by persons of greater authority4 7#acc7 ,a further difficulty attends this method in the case of some of the books of ,scripture1 namely1 that they are no longer extant in their original language4 7#acc7 ,the ,gospel according to ,matthew1 and certainly the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 were written1 it is thought1 in ,hebrew1 though they no longer exist in that form4 7#acd7 ,aben ,ezra affirms in his commentaries that the book of ,job was translated into ,hebrew out of another language1 and that its obscurity arises from this fact4 7#ace7 ,i say nothing of the apocryphal books1 for their authority stands on very inferior ground4 7#acf7 ,the foregoing difficulties in this method of interpreting ,scripture from its own history1 ,i conceive to be so great that ,i do not hesitate to say that the true meaning of ,scripture is in many places inexplicable1 or at best mere subject for guesswork2 but ,i must again point out1 on the other hand1 that such difficulties only arise when we endeavour to follow the meaning of a prophet in matters which cannot be perceived1 but only imagined1 not in things1 whereof the understanding can give a clear idea1 and which are conceivable through themselves3 ,endnote #h matters which by their nature are easily perceived cannot be expressed so obscurely as to be unintelligible2 as the proverb says1 a word is enough to the wise4 7#acg7 ,euclid1 who only wrote of matters very simple and easily understood1 can easily be comprehended by anyone in any language2 we can follow his intention perfectly1 and be certain of his true meaning1 without having a thorough knowledge of the language in which he wrote2 in fact1 a quite rudimentary acquaintance is sufficient4 7#ach7 ,we need make no researches concerning the life1 the pursuits1 or the habits of the author2 nor need we inquire in what language1 nor when he wrote1 nor the vicissitudes of his book1 nor its various readings1 nor how1 nor by whose advice it has been received4 7#aci7 ,what we here say of ,euclid might equally be said of any book which treats of things by their nature perceptible3 thus we conclude that we can easily follow the intention of ,scripture in moral questions1 from the history we possess of it1 and we can be sure of its true meaning4 7#adj7 ,the precepts of true piety are expressed in very ordinary language1 and are equally simple and easily understood4 7#ada7 ,further1 as true salvation and blessedness consist in a true assent of the soul - and we truly assent only to what we clearly understand - it is most plain that we can follow with certainty the intention of ,scripture in matters relating to salvation and necessary to blessedness2 therefore1 we need not be much troubled about what remains3 such matters1 inasmuch as we generally cannot grasp them with our reason and understanding1 are more curious than profitable4 7#adb7 ,i think ,i have now set forth the true method of ,scriptural interpretation1 and have sufficiently explained my own opinion thereon4 7#adc7 ,besides1 ,i do not doubt that everyone will see that such a method only requires the aid of natural reason4 7#add7 ,the nature and efficacy of the natural reason consists in deducing and proving the unknown from the known1 or in carrying premises to their legitimate conclusions2 and these are the very processes which our method desiderates4 7#ade7 ,though we must admit that it does not suffice to explain everything in the ,bible1 such imperfection does not spring from its own nature1 but from the fact that the path which it teaches us1 as the true one1 has never been tended or trodden by men1 and has thus1 by the lapse of time1 become very difficult1 and almost impassable1 as1 indeed1 ,i have shown in the difficulties ,i draw attention to4 7#adf7 ,there only remains to examine the opinions of those who differ from me4 7#adg7 ,the first which comes under our notice is1 that the light of nature has no power to interpret ,scripture1 but that a supernatural faculty is required for the task4 7#adh7 ,what is meant by this supernatural faculty ,i will leave to its propounders to explain4 7#adi7 ,personally1 ,i can only suppose that they have adopted a very obscure way of stating their complete uncertainty about the true meaning of ,scripture4 7#aej7 ,if we look at their interpretations1 they contain nothing supernatural1 at least nothing but the merest conjectures4 7#aea7 ,let them be placed side by side with the interpretations of those who frankly confess that they have no faculty beyond their natural ones2 we shall see that the two are just alike - both human1 both long pondered over1 both laboriously invented4 7#aeb7 ,to say that the natural reason is insufficient for such results is plainly untrue1 firstly1 for the reasons above stated1 namely1 that the difficulty of interpreting ,scripture arises from no defect in human reason1 but simply from the carelessness 7not to say malice7 of men who neglected the history of the ,bible while there were still materials for inquiry2 secondly1 from the fact 7admitted1 ,i think1 by all7 that the supernatural faculty is a ,divine gift granted only to the faithful4 7#aec7 ,but the prophets and apostles did not preach to the faithful only1 but chiefly to the unfaithful and wicked4 7#aed7 ,such persons1 therefore1 were able to understand the intention of the prophets and apostles1 otherwise the prophets and apostles would have seemed to be preaching to little boys and infants1 not to men endowed with reason4 7#aee7 ,moses1 too1 would have given his laws in vain1 if they could only be comprehended by the faithful1 who need no law4 7#aef7 ,indeed1 those who demand supernatural faculties for comprehending the meaning of the prophets and apostles seem truly lacking in natural faculties1 so that we should hardly suppose such persons the possessors of a ,divine supernatural gift4 7#aeg7 ,the opinion of ,maimonides was widely different4 7#aeh7 ,he asserted that each passage in ,scripture admits of various1 nay1 contrary1 meanings2 but that we could never be certain of any particular one till we knew that the passage1 as we interpreted it1 contained nothing contrary or repugnant to reason4 7#aei7 ,if the literal meaning clashes with reason1 though the passage seems in itself perfectly clear1 it must be interpreted in some metaphorical sense4 7#afj7 ,this doctrine he lays down very plainly in chap4 xxv4 part ii4 of his book1 ,more ,nebuchim1 for he says3 ,know that we shrink not from affirming that the world hath existed from eternity1 because of what ,scripture saith concerning the world's creation4 7#afa7 ,for the texts which teach that the world was created are not more in number than those which teach that ,god hath a body2 neither are the approaches in this matter of the world's creation closed1 or even made hard to us3 so that we should not be able to explain what is written1 as we did when we showed that ,god hath no body1 nay1 peradventure1 we could explain and make fast the doctrine of the world's eternity more easily than we did away with the doctrines that ,god hath a beatified body4 7#afb7 ,yet two things hinder me from doing as ,i have said1 and believing that the world is eternal4 7#afc7 ,as it hath been clearly shown that ,god hath not a body1 we must perforce explain all those passages whereof the literal sense agreeth not with the demonstration1 for sure it is that they can be so explained4 7#afd7 ,but the eternity of the world hath not been so demonstrated1 therefore it is not necessary to do violence to ,scripture in support of some common opinion1 whereof we might1 at the bidding of reason1 embrace the contrary4 7#afe7 ,such are the words of ,maimonides1 and they are evidently sufficient to establish our point3 for if he had been convinced by reason that the world is eternal1 he would not have hesitated to twist and explain away the words of ,scripture till he made them appear to teach this doctrine4 7#aff7 ,he would have felt quite sure that ,scripture1 though everywhere plainly denying the eternity of the world1 really intends to teach it4 7#afg7 ,so that1 however clear the meaning of ,scripture may be1 he would not feel certain of having grasped it1 so long as he remained doubtful of the truth of what1 was written4 7#afh7 ,for we are in doubt whether a thing is in conformity with reason1 or contrary thereto1 so long as we are uncertain of its truth1 and1 consequently1 we cannot be sure whether the literal meaning of a passage be true or false4 7#afi7 ,if such a theory as this were sound1 ,i would certainly grant that some faculty beyond the natural reason is required for interpreting ,scripture4 7#agj7 ,for nearly all things that we find in ,scripture cannot be inferred from known principles of the natural reason1 and1 therefore1 we should be unable to come to any conclusion about their truth1 or about the real meaning and intention of ,scripture1 but should stand in need of some further assistance4 7#aga7 ,further1 the truth of this theory would involve that the masses1 having generally no comprehension of1 nor leisure for1 detailed proofs1 would be reduced to receiving all their knowledge of ,scripture on the authority and testimony of philosophers1 and1 consequently1 would be compelled to suppose that the interpretations given by philosophers were infallible4 7#agb7 ,truly this would be a new form of ecclesiastical authority1 and a new sort of priests or pontiffs1 more likely to excite men's ridicule than their veneration4 7#agc7 ,certainly our method demands a knowledge of ,hebrew for which the masses have no leisure2 but no such objection as the foregoing can be brought against us4 7#agd7 ,for the ordinary ,jews or ,gentiles1 to whom the prophets and apostles preached and wrote1 understood the language1 and1 consequently1 the intention of the prophet or apostle addressing them2 but they did not grasp the intrinsic reason of what was preached1 which1 according to ,maimonides1 would be necessary for an understanding of it4 7#age7 ,there is nothing1 then1 in our method which renders it necessary that the masses should follow the testimony of commentators1 for ,i point to a set of unlearned people who understood the language of the prophets and apostles2 whereas ,maimonides could not point to any such who could arrive at the prophetic or apostolic meaning through their knowledge of the causes of things4 7#agf7 ,as to the multitude of our own time1 we have shown that whatsoever is necessary to salvation1 though its reasons may be unknown1 can easily be understood in any language1 because it is thoroughly ordinary and usual2 it is in such understanding as this that the masses acquiesce1 not in the testimony of commentators2 with regard to other questions1 the ignorant and the learned fare alike4 7#agg7 ,but let us return to the opinion of ,maimonides1 and examine it more closely4 ,in the first place1 he supposes that the prophets were in entire agreement one with another1 and that they were consummate philosophers and theologians2 for he would have them to have based their conclusions on the absolute truth4 7#agh7 ,further1 he supposes that the sense of ,scripture cannot be made plain from ,scripture itself1 for the truth of things is not made plain therein 7in that it does not prove any thing1 nor teach the matters of which it speaks through their definitions and first causes71 therefore1 according to ,maimonides1 the true sense of ,scripture cannot be made plain from itself1 and must not be there sought4 7#agi7 ,the falsity of such a doctrine is shown in this very chapter1 for we have shown both by reason and examples that the meaning of ,scripture is only made plain through ,scripture itself1 and even in questions deducible from ordinary knowledge should be looked for from no other source4 7#ahj7 ,lastly1 such a theory supposes that we may explain the words of ,scripture according to our preconceived opinions1 twisting them about1 and reversing or completely changing the literal sense1 however plain it may be4 7#aha7 ,such licence is utterly opposed to the teaching of this and the preceding chapters1 and1 moreover1 will be evident to everyone as rash and excessive4 7#ahb7 ,but if we grant all this licence1 what can it effect after all8 ,absolutely nothing4 7#ahc7 ,those things which cannot be demonstrated1 and which make up the greater part of ,scripture1 cannot be examined by reason1 and cannot therefore be explained or interpreted by this rule2 whereas1 on the contrary1 by following our own method1 we can explain many questions of this nature1 and discuss them on a sure basis1 as we have already shown1 by reason and example4 7#ahd7 ,those matters which are by their nature comprehensible we can easily explain1 as has been pointed out1 simply by means of the context4 7#ahe7 ,therefore1 the method of ,maimonides is clearly useless3 to which we may add1 that it does away with all the certainty which the masses acquire by candid reading1 or which is gained by any other persons in any other way4 7#ahf7 ,in conclusion1 then1 we dismiss ,maimonides' theory as harmful1 useless1 and absurd4 7#ahg7 ,as to the tradition of the ,pharisees1 we have already shown that it is not consistent1 while the authority of the popes of ,rome stands in need of more credible evidence2 the latter1 indeed1 ,i reject simply on this ground1 for if the popes could point out to us the meaning of ,scripture as surely as did the high priests of the ,jews1 ,i should not be deterred by the fact that there have been heretic and impious ,roman pontiffs2 for among the ,hebrew high-priests of old there were also heretics and impious men who gained the high- priesthood by improper means1 but who1 nevertheless1 had ,scriptural sanction for their supreme power of interpreting the law4 7,see ,deut4 xvii3#aa1 #ab1 and xxxiii3#aj1 also ,malachi ii3#h47 7#ahh7 ,however1 as the popes can show no such sanction1 their authority remains open to very grave doubt1 nor should anyone be deceived by the example of the ,jewish high-priests and think that the ,catholic religion also stands in need of a pontiff2 he should bear in mind that the laws of ,moses being also the ordinary laws of the country1 necessarily required some public authority to insure their observance2 for1 if everyone were free to interpret the laws of his country as he pleased1 no state could stand1 but would for that very reason be dissolved at once1 and public rights would become private rights4 7#ahi7 ,with religion the case is widely different4 ,inasmuch as it consists not so much in outward actions as in simplicity and truth of character1 it stands outside the sphere of law and public authority4 7#aij7 ,simplicity and truth of character are not produced by the constraint of laws1 nor by the authority of the state1 no one the whole world over can be forced or legislated into a state of blessedness2 the means required for such a consummation are faithful and brotherly admonition1 sound education1 and1 above all1 free use of the individual judgment4 7#aia7 ,therefore1 as the supreme right of free thinking1 even on religion1 is in every man's power1 and as it is inconceivable that such power could be alienated1 it is also in every man's power to wield the supreme right and authority of free judgment in this behalf1 and to explain and interpret religion for himself4 7#aib7 ,the only reason for vesting the supreme authority in the interpretation of law1 and judgment on public affairs in the hands of the magistrates1 is that it concerns questions of public right4 7#aic7 ,similarly the supreme authority in explaining religion1 and in passing judgment thereon1 is lodged with the individual because it concerns questions of individual right4 7#aid7 ,so far1 then1 from the authority of the ,hebrew high-priests telling in confirmation of the authority of the ,roman pontiffs to interpret religion1 it would rather tend to establish individual freedom of judgment4 7#aie7 ,thus in this way also1 we have shown that our method of interpreting ,scripture is the best4 7#aif7 ,for as the highest power of ,scriptural interpretation belongs to every man1 the rule for such interpretation should be nothing but the natural light of reason which is common to all - not any supernatural light nor any external authority2 moreover1 such a rule ought not to be so difficult that it can only be applied by very skilful philosophers1 but should be adapted to the natural and ordinary faculties and capacity of mankind4 7#aig7 ,and such ,i have shown our method to be1 for such difficulties as it has arise from men's carelessness1 and are no part of its nature4 ,,chapter ,,viii4 - ,,of ,,the ,,authorship ,,of ,,the ,,pentateuch ,,and ,,the ,,other ,,historical ,,books ,,of ,,the ,,old ,,testament 7#a7 ,in the former chapter we treated of the foundations and principles of ,scriptural knowledge1 and showed that it consists solely in a trustworthy history of the sacred writings2 such a history1 in spite of its indispensability1 the ancients neglected1 or at any rate1 whatever they may have written or handed down has perished in the lapse of time1 consequently the groundwork for such an investigation is to a great extent1 cut from under us4 7#b7 ,this might be put up with if succeeding generations had confined themselves within the limits of truth1 and had handed down conscientiously what few particulars they had received or discovered without any additions from their own brains3 as it is1 the history of the ,bible is not so much imperfect as untrustworthy3 the foundations are not only too scanty for building upon1 but are also unsound4 7#c7 ,it is part of my purpose to remedy these defects1 and to remove common theological prejudices4 7#d7 ,but ,i fear that ,i am attempting my task too late1 for men have arrived at the pitch of not suffering contradiction1 but defending obstinately whatever they have adopted under the name of religion4 7#e7 ,so widely have these prejudices taken possession of men's minds1 that very few1 comparatively speaking1 will listen to reason4 7#f7 ,however1 ,i will make the attempt1 and spare no efforts1 for there is no positive reason for despairing of success4 7#g7 ,in order to treat the subject methodically1 ,i will begin with the received opinions concerning the true authors of the sacred books1 and in the first place1 speak of the author of the ,pentateuch1 who is almost universally supposed to have been ,moses4 7#h7 ,the ,pharisees are so firmly convinced of his identity1 that they account as a heretic anyone who differs from them on the subject4 7#i7 ,wherefore1 ,aben ,ezra1 a man of enlightened intelligence1 and no small learning1 who was the first1 so far as ,i know1 to treat of this opinion1 dared not express his meaning openly1 but confined himself to dark hints which ,i shall not scruple to elucidate1 thus throwing full light on the subject4 7#aj7 ,the words of ,aben ,ezra which occur in his commentary on ,deuteronomy are as follows3 ,beyond ,jordan1 c 4 4 4 ,if so be that thou understandest the mystery of the twelve 4 4 4 moreover ,moses wrote the law 4 4 4 ,the ,canaanite was then in the land 4 4 4 4 it shall be revealed on the mount of ,god 4 4 4 4 then also behold his bed1 his iron bed1 then shalt thou know the truth4 7#aa7 ,in these few words he hints1 and also shows that it was not ,moses who wrote the ,pentateuch1 but someone who lived long after him1 and further1 that the book which ,moses wrote was something different from any now extant4 7#ab7 ,to prove this1 ,i say1 he draws attention to the facts3 7#ac7 #a4 ,that the preface to ,deuteronomy could not have been written by ,moses1 inasmuch as he ad never crossed the ,jordan4 7#ad7 ,,ii4 ,that the whole book of ,moses was written at full length on the circumference of a single altar 7,deut4 xxvii1 and ,josh4 viii3#cg71 which altar1 according to the ,rabbis1 consisted of only twelve stones3 therefore the book of ,moses must have been of far less extent than the ,pentateuch4 7#ae7 ,this is what our author means1 ,i think1 by the mystery of the twelve1 unless he is referring to the twelve curses contained in the chapter of ,deuteronomy above cited1 which he thought could not have been contained in the law1 because ,moses bade the ,levites read them after the recital of the law1 and so bind the people to its observance4 7#af7 ,or again1 he may have had in his mind the last chapter of ,deuteronomy which treats of the death of ,moses1 and which contains twelve verses4 7#ag7 ,but there is no need to dwell further on these and similar conjectures4 7#ah7 ,,iii4 ,that in ,deut4 xxxi3#i1 the expression occurs1 and ,moses wrote the law3 words that cannot be ascribed to ,moses1 but must be those of some other writer narrating the deeds and writings of ,moses4 7#ai7 ,,iv4 ,that in ,genesis xii3#f1 the historian1 after narrating that ,abraham journeyed through the and of ,canaan1 adds1 and the ,canaanite was then in the land1 thus clearly excluding the time at which he wrote4 7#bj7 ,so that this passage must have been written after the death of ,moses1 when the ,canaanites had been driven out1 and no longer possessed the land4 7#ba7 ,aben ,ezra1 in his commentary on the passage1 alludes to the difficulty as follows3- ,and the ,canaanite was then in the land3 it appears that ,canaan1 the grandson of ,noah1 took from another the land which bears his name2 if this be not the true meaning1 there lurks some mystery in the passage1 and let him who understands it keep silence4 7#bb7 ,that is1 if ,canaan invaded those regions1 the sense will be1 the ,canaanite was then in the land1 in contradistinction to the time when it had been held by another3 but if1 as follows from ,gen4 chap4 x4 ,canaan was the first to inhabit the land1 the text must mean to exclude the time present1 that is the time at which it was written2 therefore it cannot be the work of ,moses1 in whose time the ,canaanites still possessed those territories3 this is the mystery concerning which silence is recommended4 7#bc7 ,v4 ,that in ,genesis xxii3#ad ,mount ,moriah is called the mount of ,god ,endnote #i a name which it did not acquire till after the building of the ,temple2 the choice of the mountain was not made in the time of ,moses1 for ,moses does not point out any spot as chosen by ,god2 on the contrary1 he foretells that ,god will at some future time choose a spot to which this name will be given4 7#bd7 ,,vi4 ,lastly1 that in ,deut4 chap4 iii41 in the passage relating to ,og1 king of ,bashan1 these words are inserted3 ,for only ,og king of ,bashan remained of the remnant of giants3 behold1 his bedstead was a bedstead of iron3 is it not in ,rabbath of the children of ,ammon8 nine cubits was the length thereof1 and four cubits the breadth of it1 after the cubit of a man4 7#be7 ,this parenthesis most plainly shows that its writer lived long after ,moses2 for this mode of speaking is only employed by one treating of things long past1 and pointing to relics for the sake of gaining credence3 moreover1 this bed was almost certainly first discovered by ,david1 who conquered the city of ,rabbath 7#b ,sam4 xii3#cj47 7#bf7 ,again1 the historian a little further on inserts after the words of ,moses1 ,jair1 the son of ,manasseh1 took all the country of ,argob unto the coasts of ,geshuri and ,maachathi2 and called them after his own name1 ,bashan-havoth-jair1 unto this day4 7#bg7 ,this passage1 ,i say1 is inserted to explain the words of ,moses which precede it4 7#bh7 ,and the rest of ,gilead1 and all ,bashan1 being the kingdom of ,og1 gave ,i unto the half tribe of ,manasseh2 all the region of ,argob1 with all ,bashan1 which is called the land of the giants4 7#bi7 ,the ,hebrews in the time of the writer indisputably knew what territories belonged to the tribe of ,judah1 but did not know them under the name of the jurisdiction of ,argob1 or the land of the giants4 7#cj7 ,therefore the writer is compelled to explain what these places were which were anciently so styled1 and at the same time to point out why they were at the time of his writing known by the name of ,jair1 who was of the tribe of ,manasseh1 not of ,judah4 7#ca7 ,we have thus made clear the meaning of ,aben ,ezra and also the passages of the ,pentateuch which he cites in proof of his contention4 7#cb7 ,however1 ,aben ,ezra does not call attention to every instance1 or even the chief ones2 there remain many of greater importance1 which may be cited4 7#cc7 ,namely 7,i471 that the writer of the books in question not only speaks of ,moses in the third person1 but also bears witness to many details concerning him2 for instance1 ,moses talked with ,god2 ,the ,lord spoke with ,moses face to face2 ,moses was the meekest of men 7,numb4 xii3#c72 ,moses was wrath with the captains of the host2 ,moses1 the man of ,god1 ,moses1 the servant of the ,lord1 died2 ,there was never a prophet in ,israel like unto ,moses1 c4 7#cd7 ,on the other hand1 in ,deuteronomy1 where the law which ,moses had expounded to the people and written is set forth1 ,moses speaks and declares what he has done in the first person3 ,god spake with me 7,deut4 ii3#a1 #ag1 c471 ,i prayed to the ,lord1 c4 7#ce7 ,except at the end of the book1 when the historian1 after relating the words of ,moses1 begins again to speak in the third person1 and to tell how ,moses handed over the law which he had expounded to the people in writing1 again admonishing them1 and further1 how ,moses ended his life4 7#cf7 ,all these details1 the manner of narration1 the testimony1 and the context of the whole story lead to the plain conclusion that these books were written by another1 and not by ,moses in person4 7#cg7 ,,iii4 ,we must also remark that the history relates not only the manner of ,moses' death and burial1 and the thirty days' mourning of the ,hebrews1 but further compares him with all the prophets who came after him1 and states that he surpassed them all4 7#ch7 ,there was never a prophet in ,israel like unto ,moses1 whom the ,lord knew face to face4 7#ci7 ,such testimony cannot have been given of ,moses by himself1 nor by any who immediately succeeded him1 but it must come from someone who lived centuries afterwards1 especially1 as the historian speaks of past times4 7#dj7 ,there was never a prophet1 c4 7#da7 ,and of the place of burial1 ,no one knows it to this day4 7#db7 ,,iii4 ,we must note that some places are not styled by the names they bore during ,moses' lifetime1 but by others which they obtained subsequently4 7#dc7 ,for instance1 ,abraham is said to have pursued his enemies even unto ,dan1 a name not bestowed on the city till long after the death of ,joshua 7,gen4 xiv3#ad1 ,judges xviii3#bi74 7#dd7 ,,iv4 ,the narrative is prolonged after the death of ,moses1 for in ,exodus xvi3#cd we read that the children of ,israel did eat manna forty years until they came to a land inhabited1 until they came unto the borders of the land of ,canaan4 7#de7 ,in other words1 until the time alluded to in ,joshua vi3#ab4 7#df7 ,so1 too1 in ,genesis xxxvi3#ca it is stated1 ,these are the kings that reigned in ,edom before there reigned any king over the children of ,israel4 7#dg7 ,the historian1 doubtless1 here relates the kings of ,idumaea before that territory was conquered by ,david ,endnote #aj and garrisoned1 as we read in #b ,sam4 viii3#ad4 7#dh7 ,from what has been said1 it is thus clearer than the sun at noonday that the ,pentateuch was not written by ,moses1 but by someone who lived long after ,moses4 7#di7 ,let us now turn our attention to the books which ,moses actually did write1 and which are cited in the ,pentateuch2 thus1 also1 shall we see that they were different from the ,pentateuch4 7#ej7 ,firstly1 it appears from ,exodus xvii3#ad that ,moses1 by the command of ,god1 wrote an account of the war against ,amalek4 7#ea7 ,the book in which he did so is not named in the chapter just quoted1 but in ,numb4 xxi3#ab a book is referred to under the title of the wars of ,god1 and doubtless this war against ,amalek and the castrametations said in ,numb4 xxxiii3#b to have been written by ,moses are therein described4 7#eb7 ,we hear also in ,exod4 xxiv3#d of another book called the ,book of the ,covenant1 which ,moses read before the ,israelites when they first made a covenant with ,god4 7#ec7 ,but this book or this writing contained very little1 namely1 the laws or commandments of ,god which we find in ,exodus xx3#bb to the end of chap4 xxiv41 and this no one will deny who reads the aforesaid chapter rationally and impartially4 7#ed7 ,it is there stated that as soon as ,moses had learnt the feeling of the people on the subject of making a covenant with ,god1 he immediately wrote down ,god's laws and utterances1 and in the morning1 after some ceremonies had been performed1 read out the conditions of the covenant to an assembly of the whole people4 7#ee7 ,when these had been gone through1 and doubtless understood by all1 the whole people gave their assent4 7#ef7 ,now from the shortness of the time taken in its perusal and also from its nature as a compact1 this document evidently contained nothing more than that which we have just described4 7#eg7 ,further1 it is clear that ,moses explained all the laws which he had received in the fortieth year after the exodus from ,egypt2 also that he bound over the people a second time to observe them1 and that finally he committed them to writing 7,deut4 i3#e2 xxix3#ad2 xxxi3#i71 in a book which contained these laws explained1 and the new covenant1 and this book was therefore called the book of the law of ,god3 the same which was afterwards added to by ,joshua when he set forth the fresh covenant with which he bound over the people and which he entered into with ,god 7,josh4 xxiv3#be1 #bf74 7#eh7 ,now1 as we have extent no book containing this covenant of ,moses and also the covenant of ,joshua1 we must perforce conclude that it has perished1 unless1 indeed1 we adopt the wild conjecture of the ,chaldean paraphrast ,jonathan1 and twist about the words of ,scripture to our heart's content4 7#ei7 ,this commentator1 in the face of our present difficulty1 preferred corrupting the sacred text to confessing his own ignorance4 7#fj7 ,the passage in the book of ,joshua which runs1 and ,joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of ,god1 he changes into and ,joshua wrote these words and kept them with the book of the law of ,god4 7#fa7 ,what is to be done with persons who will only see what pleases them8 7#fb7 ,what is such a proceeding if it is not denying ,scripture1 and inventing another ,bible out of our own heads8 7#fc7 ,we may therefore conclude that the book of the law of ,god which ,moses wrote was not the ,pentateuch1 but something quite different1 which the author of the ,pentateuch duly inserted into his book4 7#fd7 ,so much is abundantly plain both from what ,i have said and from what ,i am about to add4 7#fe7 ,for in the passage of ,deuteronomy above quoted1 where it is related that ,moses wrote the book of the law1 the historian adds that he handed it over to the priests and bade them read it out at a stated time to the whole people4 7#ff7 ,this shows that the work was of much less length than the ,pentateuch1 inasmuch as it could be read through at one sitting so as to be understood by all2 further1 we must not omit to notice that out of all the books which ,moses wrote1 this one book of the second covenant and the song 7which latter he wrote afterwards so that all the people might learn it71 was the only one which he caused to be religiously guarded and preserved4 7#fg7 ,in the first covenant he had only bound over those who were present1 but in the second covenant he bound over all their descendants also 7,dent4 xxix3#ad71 and therefore ordered this covenant with future ages to be religiously preserved1 together with the ,song1 which was especially addressed to posterity3 as1 then1 we have no proof that ,moses wrote any book save this of the covenant1 and as he committed no other to the care of posterity2 and1 lastly1 as there are many passages in the ,pentateuch which ,moses could not have written1 it follows that the belief that ,moses was the author of the ,pentateuch is ungrounded and even irrational4 7#fh7 ,someone will perhaps ask whether ,moses did not also write down other laws when they were first revealed to him - in other words1 whether1 during the course of forty years1 he did not write down any of the laws which he promulgated1 save only those few which ,i have stated to be contained in the book of the first covenant4 7#fi7 ,to this ,i would answer1 that although it seems reasonable to suppose that ,moses wrote down the laws at the time when he wished to communicate them to the people1 yet we are not warranted to take it as proved1 for ,i have shown above that we must make no assertions in such matters which we do not gather from ,scripture1 or which do not flow as legitimate consequences from its fundamental principles4 7#gj7 ,we must not accept whatever is reasonably probable4 7#ga7 ,however even reason in this case would not force such a conclusion upon us3 for it may be that the assembly of elders wrote down the decrees of ,moses and communicated them to the people1 and the historian collected them1 and duly set them forth in his narrative of the life of ,moses4 7#gb7 ,so much for the five books of ,moses3 it is now time for us to turn to the other sacred writings4 7#gc7 ,the book of ,joshua may be proved not to be an autograph by reasons similar to those we have just employed3 for it must be some other than ,joshua who testifies that the fame of ,joshua was spread over the whole world2 that he omitted nothing of what ,moses had taught 7,josh4 vi3#bg2 viii4 last verse2 xi3#ae72 that he grew old and summoned an assembly of the whole people1 and finally that he departed this life4 7#gd7 ,furthermore1 events are related which took place after ,joshua's death4 7#ge7 ,for instance1 that the ,israelites worshipped ,god1 after his death1 so long as there were any old men alive who remembered him2 and in chap4 xvi3#aj1 we read that ,ephraim and ,manasseh did not drive out the ,canaanites which dwelt in ,gezer1 but the ,canaanite dwelt in the land of ,ephraim unto this day1 and was tributary to him4 7#gf7 ,this is the same statement as that in ,judges1 chap4 i41 and the phrase unto this day shows that the writer was speaking of ancient times4 7#gg7 ,with these texts we may compare the last verse of chap4 xv41 concerning the sons of ,judah1 and also the history of ,caleb in the same chap4 v3#ad4 7#gh7 ,further1 the building of an altar beyond ,jordan by the two tribes and a half1 chap4 xxii3#aj1 sqq41 seems to have taken place after the death of ,joshua1 for in the whole narrative his name is never mentioned1 but the people alone held council as to waging war1 sent out legates1 waited for their return1 and finally approved of their answer4 7#gi7 ,lastly1 from chap4 x3#ad1 it is clear that the book was written many generations after the death of ,joshua1 for it bears witness1 there was never any1 day like unto1 that day1 either before or after1 that the ,lord hearkened to the voice of a man1 c4 7#hj7 ,if1 therefore1 ,joshua wrote any book at all1 it was that which is quoted in the work now before us1 chap4 x3#ac4 7#ha7 ,with regard to the book of ,judges1 ,i suppose no rational person persuades himself that it was written by the actual ,judges4 7#hb7 ,for the conclusion of the whole history contained in chap4 ii4 clearly shows that it is all the work - of a single historian4 7#hc7 ,further1 inasmuch as the writer frequently tells us that there was then no king in ,israel1 it is evident that the book was written after the establishment of the monarchy4 7#hd7 ,the books of ,samuel need not detain us long1 inasmuch as the narrative in them is continued long after ,samuel's death2 but ,i should like to draw attention to the fact that it was written many generations after ,samuel's death4 7#he7 ,for in book i4 chap4 ix3#i1 the historian remarks in a1 parenthesis1 ,beforetime1 in ,israel1 when a man went to inquire of ,god1 thus he spake3 ,come1 and let us go to the seer2 for he that is now called a prophet was beforetime called a seer4 7#hf7 ,lastly1 the books of ,kings1 as we gather from internal evidence1 were compiled from the books of ,king ,solomon 7,i ,kings xi3#da71 from the chronicles of the kings of ,judah 7#a ,kings xiv3#ai1 #bi71 and the chronicles of the kings of ,israel4 7#hg7 ,we may1 therefore1 conclude that all the books we have considered hitherto are compilations1 and that the events therein are recorded as having happened in old time4 7#hh7 ,now1 if we turn our attention to the connection and argument of all these books1 we shall easily see that they were all written by a single historian1 who wished to relate the antiquities of the ,jews from their first beginning down to the first destruction of the city4 7#hi7 ,the way in which the several books are connected one with the other is alone enough to show us that they form the narrative of one and the same writer4 7#ij7 ,for as soon as he has related the life of ,moses1 the historian thus passes on to the story of ,joshua3 ,and it came to pass after that ,moses the servant of the ,lord was dead1 that ,god spake unto ,joshua1 c41 so in the same way1 after the death of ,joshua was concluded1 he passes with identically the same transition and connection to the history of the ,judges3 ,and it came to pass after that ,joshua was dead1 that the children of ,israel sought from ,god1 c4 7#ia7 ,to the book of ,judges he adds the story of ,ruth1 as a sort of appendix1 in these words3 ,now it came to pass in the days that the judges ruled1 that there was a famine in the land4 7#ib7 ,the first book of ,samuel is introduced with a similar phrase2 and so is the second book of ,samuel4 7#ic7 ,then1 before the history of ,david is concluded1 the historian passes in the same way to the first book of ,kings1 and1 after ,david's death1 to the ,second book of ,kings4 7#id7 ,the putting together1 and the order of the narratives1 show that they are all the work of one man1 writing with a create aim2 for the historian begins with relating the first origin of the ,hebrew nation1 and then sets forth in order the times and the occasions in which ,moses put forth his laws1 and made his predictions4 7#ie7 ,he then proceeds to relate how the ,israelites invaded the promised land in accordance with ,moses' prophecy 7,deut4 vii472 and how1 when the land was subdued1 they turned their backs on their laws1 and thereby incurred many misfortunes 7,deut4 xxxi3#af1 #ag74 7#if7 ,he tells how they wished to elect rulers1 and how1 according as these rulers observed the law1 the people flourished or suffered 7,deut4 xxviii3#cf72 finally1 how destruction came upon the nation1 even as ,moses had foretold4 7#ig7 ,in regard to other matters1 which do not serve to confirm the law1 the writer either passes over them in silence1 or refers the reader to other books for information4 7#ih7 ,all that is set down in the books we have conduces to the sole object of setting forth the words and laws of ,moses1 and proving them by subsequent events47#ii7 ,when we put together these three considerations1 namely1 the unity of the subject of all the books1 the connection between them1 and the fact that they are compilations made many generations after the events they relate had taken place1 we come to the conclusion1 as ,i have just stated1 that they are all the work of a single historian4 7#ajj7 ,who this historian was1 it is not so easy to show2 but ,i suspect that he was ,ezra1 and there are several strong reasons for adopting this hypothesis4 7#aja7 ,the historian whom we already know to be but one individual brings his history down to the liberation of ,jehoiakim1 and adds that he himself sat at the king's table all his life - that is1 at the table either of ,jehoiakim1 or of the son of ,nebuchadnezzar1 for the sense of the passage is ambiguous3 hence it follows that he did not live before the time of ,ezra4 7#ajb7 ,but ,scripture does not testify of any except of ,ezra 7,ezra vii3#aj71 that he prepared his heart to seek the law of the ,lord1 and to set it forth1 and further that he was a ready scribe in the law of ,moses4 7#ajc7 ,therefore1 ,i can not find anyone1 save ,ezra1 to whom to attribute the sacred books4 7#ajd7 ,further1 from this testimony concerning ,ezra1 we see that he prepared his heart1 not only to seek the law of the ,lord1 but also to set it forth2 and1 in ,nehemiah viii3#h1 we read that they read in the book of the law of ,god distinctly1 and gave the sense1 and caused them to understand the reading4 7#aje7 ,as1 then1 in ,deuteronomy1 we find not only the book of the law of ,moses1 or the greater part of it1 but also many things inserted for its better explanation1 ,i conjecture that this ,deuteronomy is the book of the law of ,god1 written1 set forth1 and explained by ,ezra1 which is referred to in the text above quoted4 7#ajf7 ,two examples of the way matters were inserted parenthetically in the text of ,deuteronomy1 with a view to its fuller explanation1 we have already given1 in speaking of ,aben ,ezra's opinion4 7#ajg7 ,many others are found in the course of the work3 for instance1 in chap4 ii3#ab3 ,the ,horims dwelt also in ,seir beforetime2 but the children of ,esau succeeded them1 when they had destroyed them from before them1 and dwelt in their stead2 as ,israel did unto the land of his possession1 which the ,lord gave unto them4 7#ajh7 ,this explains verses #c and #d of the same chapter1 where it is stated that ,mount ,seir1 which had come to the children of ,esau for a possession1 did not fall into their hands uninhabited2 but that they invaded it1 and turned out and destroyed the ,horims1 who formerly dwelt therein1 even as the children of ,israel had done unto the ,canaanites after the death of ,moses4 7#aji7 ,so1 also1 verses #f1 #g1 #h1 #i1 of the tenth chapter are inserted parenthetically among the words of ,moses4 ,everyone must see that verse #h1 which begins1 ,at that time the ,lord separated the tribe of ,levi1 necessarily refers to verse #e1 and not to the death of ,aaron1 which is only mentioned here by ,ezra because ,moses1 in telling of the golden calf worshipped by the people1 stated that he had prayed for ,aaron4 7#aaj7 ,he then explains that at the time at which ,moses spoke1 ,god had chosen for ,himself the tribe of ,levi in order that ,he may point out the reason for their election1 and for the fact of their not sharing in the inheritance2 after this digression1 he resumes the thread of ,moses' speech4 7#aaa7 ,to these parentheses we must add the preface to the book1 and all the passages in which ,moses is spoken of in the third person1 besides many which we cannot now distinguish1 though1 doubtless1 they would have been plainly recognized by the writer's contemporaries4 7#aab7 ,if1 ,i say1 we were in possession of the book of the law as ,moses wrote it1 ,i do not doubt that we should find a great difference in the words of the precepts1 the order in which they are given1 and the reasons by which they are supported4 7#aac7 ,a comparison of the decalogue in ,deuteronomy with the decalogue in ,exodus1 where its history is explicitly set forth1 will be sufficient to show us a wide discrepancy in all these three particulars1 for the fourth commandment is given not only in a different form1 but at much greater length1 while the reason for its observance differs wholly from that stated in ,exodus4 7#aad7 ,again1 the order in which the tenth commandment is explained differs in the two versions4 7#aae7 ,i think that the differences here as elsewhere are the work of ,ezra1 who explained the law of ,god to his contemporaries1 and who wrote this book of the law of ,god1 before anything else2 this ,i gather from the fact that it contains the laws of the country1 of which the people stood in most need1 and also because it is not joined to the book which precedes it by any connecting phrase1 but begins with the independent statement1 these are the words of ,moses4 7#aaf7 ,after this task was completed1 ,i think ,ezra set himself to give a complete account of the history of the ,hebrew nation from the creation of the world to the entire destruction of the city1 and in this account he inserted the book of ,deuteronomy1 and1 possibly1 he called the first five books by the name of ,moses1 because his life is chiefly contained therein1 and forms their principal subject2 for the same reason he called the sixth ,joshua1 the seventh ,judges1 the eighth ,ruth1 the ninth1 and perhaps the tenth1 ,samuel1 and1 lastly1 the eleventh and twelfth ,kings4 7#aag7 ,whether ,ezra put the finishing touches to this work and finished it as he intended1 we will discuss in the next chapter4 ,,chapter ,,ix - ,,other ,,questions ,,concerning ,,the ,,same ,,books3 ,,namely1 ,,whether ,,they ,,were ,,completely ,,finished ,,by ,,ezra1 ,,and1 ,,further1 ,,whether ,,the ,,marginal ,,notes ,,which ,,are ,,found ,,in ,,the ,,hebrew ,,texts ,,were ,,various ,,readings4 7#a7 ,how greatly the inquiry we have just made concerning the real writer of the twelve books aids us in attaining a complete understanding of them1 may be easily gathered solely from the passages which we have adduced in confirmation of our opinion1 and which would be most obscure without it4 7#b7 ,but besides the question of the writer1 there are other points to notice which common superstition forbids the multitude to apprehend4 7#c7 ,of these the chief is1 that ,ezra 7whom ,i will take to be the author of the aforesaid books until some more likely person be suggested7 did not put the finishing touches to the narrative contained therein1 but merely collected the histories from various writers1 and sometimes simply set them down1 leaving their examination and arrangement to posterity4 7#d7 ,the cause 7if it were not untimely death7 which prevented him from completing his work in all its portions1 ,i cannot conjecture1 but the fact remains most clear1 although we have lost the writings of the ancient ,hebrew historians1 and can only judge from the few fragments which are still extant4 7#e7 ,for the history of ,hezekiah 7#b ,kings xviii3#ag71 as written in the vision of ,isaiah1 is related as it is found in the chronicles of the kings of ,judah4 7#f7 ,we read the same story1 told with few exceptions1 ,endnote #aa1 in the same words1 in the book of ,isaiah which was contained in the chronicles of the kings of ,judah 7#b ,chron4 xxxii3#cb74 7#g7 ,from this we must conclude that there were various versions of this narrative of ,isaiah's1 unless1 indeed1 anyone would dream that in this1 too1 there lurks a mystery4 7#h7 ,further1 the last chapter of #b ,kings #bg-cj is repeated in the last chapter of ,jeremiah1 v4#ca-cd4 7#i7 ,again1 we find #b ,sam4 vii4 repeated in ,i ,chron4 xvii41 but the expressions in the two passages are so curiously varied ,endnote #ab1 that we can very easily see that these two chapters were taken from two different versions of the history of ,nathan4 7#aj7 ,lastly1 the genealogy of the kings of ,idumaea contained in ,genesis xxxvi3#ca1 is repeated in the same words in #a ,chron4 i41 though we know that the author of the latter work took his materials from other historians1 not from the twelve books we have ascribed to ,ezra4 7#aj7 ,we may therefore be sure that if we still possessed the writings of the historians1 the matter would be made clear2 however1 as we have lost them1 we can only examine the writings still extant1 and from their order and connection1 their various repetitions1 and1 lastly1 the contradictions in dates which they contain1 judge of the rest4 7#aa7 ,these1 then1 or the chief of them1 we will now go through4 7#ab7 ,first1 in the story of ,judah and ,tamar 7,gen4 xxxviii47 the historian thus begins3 ,and it came to pass at that time that ,judah went down from his brethren4 7#ac7 ,this time cannot refer to what immediately precedes ,endnote #ac1 but must necessarily refer to something else1 for from the time when ,joseph was sold into ,egypt to the time when the patriarch ,jacob1 with all his family1 set out thither1 cannot be reckoned as more than twenty-two years1 for ,joseph1 when he was sold by his brethren1 was seventeen years old1 and when he was summoned by ,pharaoh from prison was thirty2 if to this we add the seven years of plenty and two of famine1 the total amounts to twenty-two years4 7#ad7 ,now1 in so short a period1 no one can suppose that so many things happened as are described2 that ,judah had three children1 one after the other1 from one wife1 whom he married at the beginning of the period2 that the eldest of these1 when he was old enough1 married ,tamar1 and that after he died his next brother succeeded to her2 that1 after all this1 ,judah1 without knowing it1 had intercourse with his daughter-in-law1 and that she bore him twins1 and1 finally1 that the eldest of these twins became a father within the aforesaid period4 7#ae7 ,as all these events cannot have taken place within the period mentioned in ,genesis1 the reference must necessarily be to something treated of in another book3 and ,ezra in this instance simply related the story1 and inserted it without examination among his other writings4 7#af7 ,however1 not only this chapter but the whole narrative of ,joseph and ,jacob is collected and set forth from various histories1 inasmuch as it is quite inconsistent with itself4 7#ag7 ,for in ,gen4 xlvii4 we are told that ,jacob1 when he came at ,joseph's bidding to salute ,pharaoh1 was #acj years old4 7#ah7 ,if from this we deduct the twenty-two years which he passed sorrowing for the absence of ,joseph and the seventeen years forming ,joseph's age when he was sold1 and1 lastly1 the seven years for which ,jacob served for ,rachel1 we find that he was very advanced in life1 namely1 eighty four1 when he took ,leah to wife1 whereas ,dinah was scarcely seven years old when she was violated by ,shechem1 ,endnote #ad4 7#ai7 ,simeon and ,levi were aged respectively eleven and twelve when they spoiled the city and slew all the males therein with the sword4 7#bj7 ,there is no need that ,i should go through the whole ,pentateuch4 7#ba7 ,if anyone pays attention to the way in which all the histories and precepts in these five books are set down promiscuously and without order1 with no regard for dates2 and further1 how the same story is often repeated1 sometimes in a different version1 he will easily1 ,i say1 discern that all the materials were promiscuously collected and heaped together1 in order that they might at some subsequent time be more readily examined and reduced to order4 7#bb7 ,not only these five books1 but also the narratives contained in the remaining seven1 going down to the destruction of the city1 are compiled in the same way4 7#bc7 ,for who does not see that in ,judges ii3#f a new historian is being quoted1 who had also written of the deeds of ,joshua1 and that his words are simply copied8 7#bd7 ,for after our historian has stated in the last chapter of the book of ,joshua that ,joshua died and was buried1 and has promised1 in the first chapter of ,judges1 to relate what happened after his death1 in what way1 if he wished to continue the thread of his history1 could he connect the statement here made about ,joshua with what had gone before8 7#be7 ,so1 too1 #a ,sam4 #ag1 #ah1 are taken from another historian1 who assigns a cause for ,david's first frequenting ,saul's court very different from that given in chap4 xvi4 of the same book4 7#bf7 ,for he did not think that ,david came to ,saul in consequence of the advice of ,saul's servants1 as is narrated in chap4 xvi41 but that being sent by chance to the camp by his father on a message to his brothers1 he was for the first time remarked by ,saul on the occasion of his victory1 over ,goliath the ,philistine1 and was retained at his court4 7#bg7 ,i suspect the same thing has taken place in chap4 xxvi4 of the same book1 for the historian there seems to repeat the narrative given in chap4 xxiv4 according to another man's version4 7#bh7 ,but ,i pass over this1 and go on to the computation of dates4 7#bi7 ,in ,i ,kings1 chap4 vi41 it is said that ,solomon built the ,temple in the four hundred and eightieth year after the exodus from ,egypt2 but from the historians themselves we get a much longer period1 for3 ,years4 ,moses governed the people in the desert 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #dj ,joshua1 who lived #aaj years1 did not1 according to ,josephus and others' opinion rule more than 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #bf ,cusban ,rishathaim held the people in subjection 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #h ,othniel1 son of ,kenag1 was judge for 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ,endnote #ae #dj ,eglon1 ,king of ,moab1 governed the people 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #ah ,ehud and ,shamgar were judges 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #hj ,jachin1 ,king of ,canaan1 held the people in subjection 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #bj ,the people was at peace subsequently for 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #dj ,it was under subjection to ,median 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #g ,it obtained freedom under ,gideon for 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #dj ,it fell under the rule of ,abimelech 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #c ,tola1 son of ,puah1 was judge 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #bc ,jair was judge 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #bb ,the people was in subjection to the ,philistines and ,ammonites 4 4 4 4 #ah ,jephthah was judge 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #f ,ibzan1 the ,bethlehemite1 was judge 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #g ,elon1 the ,zabulonite 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #aj ,abclon1 the ,pirathonite 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #h ,the people was again subject to the ,philistines 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #dj ,samson was judge 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ,endnote #af #bj ,eli was judge 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #dj ,the people again fell into subjection to the ,philistines1 till they were delivered by ,samuel 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #bj ,david reigned 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #dj ,solomon reigned before he built the temple 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #d 7#cj7 ,all these periods added together make a total of #ehj years4 7#ca7 ,but to these must be added the years during which the ,hebrew republic flourished after the death of ,joshua1 until it was conquered by ,cushan ,rishathaim1 which ,i take to be very numerous1 for ,i cannot bring myself to believe that immediately after the death of ,joshua all those who had witnessed his miracles died simultaneously1 nor that their successors at one stroke bid farewell to their laws1 and plunged from the highest virtue into the depth of wickedness and obstinacy4 7#cb7 ,nor1 lastly1 that ,cushan ,rishathaim subdued them on the instant2 each one of these circumstances requires almost a generation1 and there is no doubt that ,judges ii3#g1 #i1 #aj1 comprehends a great many years which it passes over in silence4 7#cc7 ,we must also add the years during which ,samuel was judge1 the number of which is not stated in ,scripture1 and also the years during which ,saul reigned1 which are not clearly shown from his history4 7#cd7 ,it is1 indeed1 stated in #a ,sam4 xiii3#a1 that he reigned two years1 but the text in that passage is mutilated1 and the records of his reign lead us to suppose a longer period4 7#ce7 ,that the text is mutilated ,i suppose no one will doubt who has ever advanced so far as the threshold of the ,hebrew language1 for it runs as follows3 ,saul was in his -- year1 when he began to reign1 and he reigned two years over ,israel4 7#cf7 ,who1 ,i say1 does not see that the number of the years of ,saul's age when he began to reign has been omitted8 7#cg7 ,that the record of the reign presupposes a greater number of years is equally beyond doubt1 for in the same book1 chap4 xxvii3#g1 it is stated that ,david sojourned among the ,philistines1 to whom he had fled on account of ,saul1 a year and four months2 thus the rest of the reign must have been comprised in a space of eight months1 which ,i think no one will credit4 7#ch7 ,josephus1 at the end of the sixth book of his antiquities1 thus corrects the text3 ,saul reigned eighteen years while ,samuel was alive1 and two years after his death4 7#ci7 ,however1 all the narrative in chap4 xiii4 is in complete disagreement with what goes before4 7#dj7 ,at the end of chap4 vii4 it is narrated that the ,philistines were so crushed by the ,hebrews that they did not venture1 during ,samuel's life1 to invade the borders of ,israel2 but in chap4 xiii4 we are told that the ,hebrews were invaded during the life of ,samuel by the ,philistines1 and reduced by them to such a state of wretchedness and poverty that they were deprived not only of weapons with which to defend themselves1 but also of the means of making more4 7#da7 ,i should be at pains enough if ,i were to try and harmonize all the narratives contained in this first book of ,samuel so that they should seem to be all written and arranged by a single historian4 7#db7 ,but ,i return to my object4 7#dc7 ,the years1 then1 during which ,saul reigned must be added to the above computation2 and1 lastly1 ,i have not counted the years of the ,hebrew anarchy1 for ,i cannot from ,scripture gather their number4 7#dd7 ,i cannot1 ,i say1 be certain as to the period occupied by the events related in ,judges chap4 xvii4 on till the end of the book4 7#de7 ,it is thus abundantly evident that we cannot arrive at a true computation of years from the histories1 and1 further1 that the histories are inconsistent themselves on the subject4 7#df7 ,we are compelled to confess that these histories were compiled from various writers without previous arrangement and examination4 7#dg7 ,not less discrepancy is found between the dates given in the ,chronicles of the ,kings of ,judah1 and those in the ,chronicles of the ,kings of ,israel2 in the latter1 it is stated that ,jehoram1 the son of ,ahab1 began to reign in the second year of the reign of ,jehoram1 the son of ,jehoshaphat 7#b ,kings i3#ag71 but in the former we read that ,jehoram1 the son of ,jehoshaphat1 began to reign in the fifth year of ,jehoram1 the son of ,ahab 7#b ,kings viii3#af74 7#dh7 ,anyone who compares the narratives in ,chronicles with the narratives in the books of ,kings1 will find many similar discrepancies4 7#di7 ,these there is no need for me to examine here1 and still less am ,i called upon to treat of the commentaries of those who endeavour to harmonize them4 7#ej7 ,the ,rabbis evidently let their fancy run wild4 7#ea7 ,such commentators as ,i have1 read1 dream1 invent1 and as a last resort1 play fast and loose with the language4 7#eb7 ,for instance1 when it is said in #b ,chronicles1 that ,ahab was forty-two years old when he began to reign1 they pretend that these years are computed from the reign of ,omri1 not from the birth of ,ahab4 7#ec7 ,if this can be shown to be the real meaning of the writer of the book of ,chronicles1 all ,i can say is1 that he did not know how to state a fact4 7#ed7 ,the commentators make many other assertions of this kind1 which if true1 would prove that the ancient ,hebrews were ignorant both of their own language1 and of the way to relate a plain narrative4 7#ee7 ,i should in such case recognize no rule or reason in interpreting ,scripture1 but it would be permissible to hypothesize to one's heart's content4 7#ef7 ,if anyone thinks that ,i am speaking too generally1 and without sufficient warrant1 ,i would ask him to set himself to showing us some fixed plan in these histories which might be followed without blame by other writers of chronicles1 and in his efforts at harmonizing and interpretation1 so strictly to observe and explain the phrases and expressions1 the order and the connections1 that we may be able to imitate these also in our writings 7#ag74 7#eg7 ,if he succeeds1 ,i will at once give him my hand1 and he shall be to me as great ,apollo2 for ,i confess that after long endeavours ,i have been unable to discover anything of the kind4 7#eh7 ,i may add that ,i set down nothing here which ,i have not long reflected upon1 and that1 though ,i was imbued from my boyhood up with the ordinary opinions about the ,scriptures1 ,i have been unable to withstand the force of what ,i have urged4 7#ei7 ,however1 there is no need to detain the reader with this question1 and drive him to attempt an impossible task2 ,i merely mentioned the fact in order to throw light on my intention4 7#fj7 ,i now pass on to other points concerning the treatment of these books4 7#fa7 ,for we must remark1 in addition to what has been shown1 that these books were not guarded by posterity with such care that no faults crept in4 7#fb7 ,the ancient scribes draw attention to many doubtful readings1 and some mutilated passages1 but not to all that exist3 whether the faults are of sufficient importance to greatly embarrass the reader ,i will not now discuss4 7#fc7 ,i am inclined to think that they are of minor moment to those1 at any rate1 who read the ,scriptures with enlightenment3 and ,i can positively1 affirm that ,i have not noticed any fault or various reading in doctrinal passages sufficient to render them obscure or doubtful4 7#fd7 ,there are some people1 however1 who will not admit that there is any corruption1 even in other passages1 but maintain that by some unique exercise of providence ,god has preserved from corruption every word in the ,bible3 they say that the various readings are the symbols of profoundest mysteries1 and that mighty secrets lie hid in the twenty-eight hiatus which occur1 nay1 even in the very form of the letters4 7#fe7 ,whether they are actuated by folly and anile devotion1 or whether by arrogance and malice so that they alone may be held to possess the secrets of ,god1 ,i know not3 this much ,i do know1 that ,i find in their writings nothing which has the air of a ,divine secret1 but only childish lucubrations4 7#ff7 ,i have read and known certain ,kabbalistic triflers1 whose insanity provokes my unceasing astonishment4 7#fg7 ,that faults have crept in will1 ,i think1 be denied by no sensible person who reads the passage about ,saul1 above quoted 7#a ,sam4 xiii3#a7 and also #b ,sam4 vi3#b3 ,and ,david arose and went with all the people that were with him from ,judah1 to bring up from thence the ark of ,god4 7#fh7 ,no one can fail to remark that the name of their destination1 viz41 ,kirjath-jearim ,endnote #ah1 has been omitted3 nor can we deny that #b ,sam4 xiii3#cg1 has been tampered with and mutilated4 ,and ,absalom fled1 and went to ,talmai1 the son of ,ammihud1 king of ,geshur4 7#fi7 ,and he mourned for his son every day4 ,so ,absalom fled1 and went to ,geshur1 and was there three years4 7#gj7 ,i know that ,i have remarked other passages of the same kind1 but ,i cannot recall them at the moment4 7#ga7 ,that the marginal notes which are found continually in the ,hebrew ,codices are doubtful readings will1 ,i think1 be evident to everyone who has noticed that they often arise from the great similarity1 of some of the ,hebrew letters1 such for instance1 as the similarity between ,kaph and ,beth1 ,jod and ,vau1 ,daleth and ,reth1 c4 7#gb7 ,for example1 the text in #b ,sam4 v3#bd1 runs in the time when thou hearest1 and similarly in ,judges xxi3#bb1 ,and it shall be when their fathers or their brothers come unto us often1 the marginal version is come unto us to complain4 7#gc7 ,so also many various readings have arisen from the use of the letters named mutes1 which are generally not sounded in pronunciation1 and are taken promiscuously1 one for the other4 7#gd7 ,for example1 in ,levit4 xxv3#bi1 it is written1 ,the house shall be established which is not in the walled city1 but the margin has it1 which is in a walled city4 7#ge7 ,though these matters are self-evident1 ,endnore #f1 it is necessary1 to answer the reasonings of certain ,pharisees1 by which they endeavour to convince us that the marginal notes serve to indicate some mystery1 and were added or pointed out by the writers of the sacred books4 7#gf7 ,the first of these reasons1 which1 in my opinion1 carries little weight1 is taken from the practice of reading the ,scriptures aloud4 7#gg7 ,if1 it is urged1 these notes were added to show various readings which could not be decided upon by posterity1 why has custom prevailed that the marginal readings should always be retained8 7#gh7 ,why has the meaning which is preferred been set down in the margin when it ought to have been incorporated in the text1 and not relegated to a side note8 7#gi7 ,the second reason is more specious1 and is taken from the nature of the case4 7#hj7 ,it is admitted that faults have crept into the sacred writings by chance and not by design2 but they say that in the five books the word for a girl is1 with one exception1 written without the letter he1 contrary to all grammatical rules1 whereas in the margin it is written correctly according to the universal rule of grammar4 7#ha7 ,can this have happened by mistake8 ,is it possible to imagine a clerical error to have been committed every time the word occurs8 7#hb7 ,moreover1 it would have been easy to supply the emendation4 7#hc7 ,hence1 when these readings are not accidental or corrections of manifest mistakes1 it is supposed that they must have been set down on purpose by the original writers1 and have a meaning4 7#hd7 ,however1 it is easy to answer such arguments2 as to the question of custom having prevailed in the reading of the marginal versions1 ,i will not spare much time for its consideration3 ,i know not the promptings of superstition1 and perhaps the practice may have arisen from the idea that both readings were deemed equally good or tolerable1 and therefore1 lest either should be neglected1 one was appointed to be written1 and the other to be read4 7#he7 ,they feared to pronounce judgment in so weighty a matter lest they should mistake the false for the true1 and therefore they would give preference to neither1 as they must necessarily have done if they had commanded one only to be both read and written4 7#hf7 ,this would be especially the case where the marginal readings were not written down in the sacred books3 or the custom may have originated because some things though rightly written down were desired to be read otherwise according to the marginal version1 and therefore the general rule was made that the marginal version should be followed in reading the ,scriptures4 7#hg7 ,the cause which induced the scribes to expressly prescribe certain passages to be read in the marginal version1 ,i will now touch on1 for not all the marginal notes are various readings1 but some mark expressions which have passed out of common use1 obsolete words and terms which current decency did not allow to be read in a public assembly4 7#hh7 ,the ancient writers1 without any evil intention1 employed no courtly paraphrase1 but called things by their plain names4 7#hia7 ,afterwards1 through the spread of evil thoughts and luxury1 words which could be used by the ancients without offence1 came to be considered obscene4 7#ij7 ,there was no need for this cause to change the text of ,scripture4 7#ia7 ,still1 as a concession to the popular weakness1 it became the custom to substitute more decent terms for words denoting sexual intercourse1 excreta1 c41 and to read them as they were given in the margin4 7#ib7 ,at any rate1 whatever may have been the origin of the practice of reading ,scripture according to the marginal version1 it was not that the true interpretation is contained therein4 7#ic7 ,for besides that1 the ,rabbins in the ,talmud often differ from the ,massoretes1 and give other readings which they approve of1 as ,i will shortly show1 certain things are found in the margin which appear less warranted by the uses of the ,hebrew language4 7#id7 ,for example1 in #b ,samuel xiv3#bb1 we read1 ,in that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant1 a construction plainly regular1 and agreeing with that in chap4 xvi4 7#ie7 ,but the margin has it of thy servant1 which does not agree with the person of the verb4 7#if7 ,so1 too1 chap4 xvi3#be of the same book1 we find1 ,as if one had inquired at the oracle of ,god1 the margin adding someone to stand as a nominative to the verb4 7#ig7 ,but the correction is not apparently warranted1 for it is a common practice1 well known to grammarians in the ,hebrew language1 to use the third person singular of the active verb impersonally4 7#ih7 ,the second argument advanced by the ,pharisees is easily answered from what has just been said1 namely1 that the scribes besides the various readings called attention to obsolete words4 7#ii7 ,for there is no doubt that in ,hebrew as in other languages1 changes of use made many words obsolete and antiquated1 and such were found by the later scribes in the sacred books and noted by them with a view to the books being publicly read according to custom4 7#ajj7 ,for this reason the word nahgar is always found marked because its gender was originally common1 and it had the same meaning as the ,latin juvenis 7a young person74 7#aja7 ,so also the ,hebrew capital was anciently called ,jerusalem1 not ,jerusalaim4 7#ajb7 ,as to the pronouns himself and herself1 ,i think that the later scribes changed vau into jod 7a very frequent change in ,hebrew7 when they wished to express the feminine gender1 but that the ancients only distinguished the two genders by a change of vowels4 7#ajc7 ,i may also remark that the irregular tenses of certain verbs differ in the ancient and modern forms1 it being formerly considered a mark of elegance to employ certain letters agreeable to the ear4 7#ajd7 ,in a word1 ,i could easily multiply proofs of this kind if ,i were not afraid of abusing the patience of the reader4 7#aje7 ,perhaps ,i shall be asked how ,i became acquainted with the fact that all these expressions are obsolete4 7#ajf7 ,i reply that ,i have found them in the most ancient ,hebrew writers in the ,bible itself1 and that they have not been imitated by subsequent authors1 and thus they are recognized as antiquated1 though the language in which they occur is dead4 7#ajg7 ,but perhaps someone may press the question why1 if it be true1 as ,i say1 that the marginal notes of the ,bible generally mark various readings1 there are never more than two readings of a passage1 that in the text and that in the margin1 instead of three or more2 and further1 how the scribes can have hesitated between two readings1 one of which is evidently contrary to grammar1 and the other a plain correction4 7#ajh7 ,the answer to these questions also is easy3 ,i will premise that it is almost certain that there once were more various readings than those now recorded4 7#aai7 ,for instance1 one finds many in the ,talmud which the ,massoretes have neglected1 and are so different one from the other that even the superstitious editor of the ,bomberg ,bible confesses that he cannot harmonize them4 7#aaj7 ,we cannot say anything1 he writes1 except what we have said above1 namely1 that the ,talmud is generally in contradiction to the ,massorete4 7#aaa7 ,so that we are nor bound to hold that there never were more than two readings of any passage1 yet ,i am willing to admit1 and indeed ,i believe that more than two readings are never found3 and for the following reasons3-7#aab7 7,i47 ,the cause of the differences of reading only admits of two1 being generally the similarity of certain letters1 so that the question resolved itself into which should be written ,beth1 or ,kaf1 ,jod or ,vau1 ,daleth or ,reth3 cases which are constantly occurring1 and frequently yielding a fairly good meaning whichever alternative be adopted4 7#aac7 ,sometimes1 too1 it is a question whether a syllable be long or short1 quantity being determined by the letters called mutes4 7#aad7 ,moreover1 we never asserted that all the marginal versions1 without exception1 marked various readings2 on the contrary1 we have stated that many were due to motives of decency or a desire to explain obsolete words4 7#aae7 7,,ii47 ,i am inclined to attribute the fact that more than two readings are never found to the paucity of exemplars1 perhaps not more than two or three1 found by the scribes4 7#aaf7 ,in the treatise of the scribes1 chap4 vi41 mention is made of three only1 pretended to have been found in the time of ,ezra1 in order that the marginal versions might be attributed to him4 7#aag7 ,however that may be1 if the scribes only had three codices we may easily imagine that in a given passage two of them would be in accord1 for it would be extraordinary if each one of the three gave a different reading of the same text4 7#aah7 ,the dearth of copies after the time of ,ezra will surprise no one who has read the #ast chapter of ,maccabees1 or ,josephus's ,antiquities1 ,bk4 #ab1 chap4 #e4 7#aai7 ,nay1 it appears wonderful considering the fierce and daily persecution1 that even these few should have been preserved4 7#abj7 ,this will1 ,i think1 be plain to even a cursory reader of the history of those times4 7#aba7 ,we have thus discovered the reasons why there are never more than two readings of a passage in the ,bible1 but this is a long way from supposing that we may therefore conclude that the ,bible was purposely written incorrectly in such passages in order to signify some mystery4 7#abb7 ,as to the second argument1 that some passages are so faultily written that they are at plain variance with all grammar1 and should have been corrected in the text and not in the margin1 ,i attach little weight to it1 for ,i am not concerned to say what religious motive the scribes may have had for acting as they did3 possibly they did so from candour1 wishing to transmit the few exemplars of the ,bible which they had found exactly in their original state1 marking the differences they discovered in the margin1 not as doubtful readings1 but as simple variants4 7#abc7 ,i have myself called them doubtful readings1 because it would be generally impossible to say which of the two versions is preferable4 7#abd7 ,lastly1 besides these doubtful readings the scribes have 7by leaving a hiatus in the middle of a paragraph7 marked several passages as mutilated4 7#abe7 ,the ,massoretes have counted up such instances1 and they amount to eight-and-twenty4 7#abf7 ,i do not know whether any mystery is thought to lurk in the number1 at any rate the ,pharisees religiously preserve a certain amount of empty space4 7#abg7 ,one of such hiatus occurs 7to give an instance7 in ,gen4 iv3#h1 where it is written1 ,and ,cain said to his brother 4 4 4 4 and it came to pass while they were in the field1 c41 a space being left in which we should expect to hear what it was that ,cain said4 7#abh7 ,similarly there are 7besides those points we have noticed7 eight-and-twenty hiatus left by the scribes4 7#abi7 ,many of these would not be recognized as mutilated if it were not for the empty space left4 ,but ,i have said enough on this subject4 ,,chapter ,x4 - ,,an ,,examination ,,of ,,the ,,remaining ,,books ,,of ,,the ,,old ,,testament ,,according ,,to ,,the ,,preceding ,,method4 7#a7 ,i now pass on to the remaining books of the ,old ,testament4 7#b7 ,concerning the two books of ,chronicles ,i have nothing particular or important to remark1 except that they were certainly written after the time of ,ezra1 and possibly after the restoration of the ,temple by ,judas ,maccabaeus ,endnote #ai4 7#b7 ,for in chap4 ix4 of the first book we find a reckoning of the families who were the first to live in ,jerusalem1 and in verse #ag the names of the porters1 of which two recur in ,nehemiah4 7#c7 ,this shows that the books were certainly compiled after the rebuilding of the city4 7#d7 ,as to their actual writer1 their authority1 utility1 and doctrine1 ,i come to no conclusion4 7#e7 ,i have always been astonished that they have been included in the ,bible by men who shut out from the canon the books of ,wisdom1 ,tobit1 and the others styled apocryphal4 7#f7 ,i do not aim at disparaging their authority1 but as they are universally received ,i will leave them as they are4 7#g7 ,the ,psalms were collected and divided into five books in the time of the second temple1 for ,ps4 lxxxviii4 was published1 according to ,philo-,judaeus1 while king ,jehoiachin was still a prisoner in ,babylon2 and ,ps4 lxxxix4 when the same king obtained his liberty3 ,i do not think ,philo would have made the statement unless either it had been the received opinion in his time1 or else had been told him by trustworthy persons4 7#h7 ,the ,proverbs of ,solomon were1 ,i believe1 collected at the same time1 or at least in the time of ,king ,josiah2 for in chap4 xxv3#a1 it is written1 ,these are also proverbs of ,solomon which the men of ,hezekiah1 king of ,judah1 copied out4 7#i7 ,i cannot here pass over in silence the audacity of the ,rabbis who wished to exclude from the sacred canon both the ,proverbs and ,ecclesiastes1 and to put them both in the ,apocrypha4 7#aj7 ,in fact1 they would actually have done so1 if they had not lighted on certain passages in which the law of ,moses is extolled4 7#aa7 ,it is1 indeed1 grievous to think that the settling of the sacred canon lay in the hands of such men2 however1 ,i congratulate them1 in this instance1 on their suffering us to see these books in question1 though ,i cannot refrain from doubting whether they have transmitted them in absolute good faith2 but ,i will not now linger on this point4 7#aj7 ,i pass on1 then1 to the prophetic books4 7#aa7 ,an examination of these assures me that the prophecies therein contained have been compiled from other books1 and are not always set down in the exact order in which they were spoken or written by the prophets1 but are only such as were collected here and there1 so that they are but fragmentary4 7#ab7 ,isaiah began to prophecy in the reign of ,uzziah1 as the writer himself testifies in the first verse4 7#ac7 ,he not only prophesied at that time1 but furthermore wrote the history of that king 7see #b ,chron4 xxvi3#bb7 in a volume now lost4 7#ac7 ,that which we possess1 we have shown to have been taken from the chronicles of the kings of ,judah and ,israel4 7#ad7 ,we may add that the ,rabbis assert that this prophet prophesied in the reign of ,manasseh1 by whom he was eventually put to death1 and1 although this seems to be a myth1 it yet shows that they did not think that all ,isaiah's prophecies are extant4 7#ae7 ,the prophecies of ,jeremiah1 which are related historically are also taken from various chronicles2 for not only are they heaped together confusedly1 without any account being taken of dates1 but also the same story is told in them differently in different passages4 7#af7 ,for instance1 in chap4 xxi4 we are told that the cause of ,jeremiah's arrest was that he had prophesied the destruction of the city to ,zedekiah who consulted him4 7#ag7 ,this narrative suddenly passes1 in chap xxii41 to the prophet's remonstrances to ,jehoiakim 7,zedekiah's predecessor71 and the prediction he made of that king's captivity2 then1 in chap4 xxv41 come the revelations granted to the prophet previously1 that is in the fourth year of ,jehoiakim1 and1 further on still1 the revelations received in the first year of the same reign4 7#ah7 ,the continuator of ,jeremiah goes on heaping prophecy upon prophecy without any regard to dates1 until at last1 in chap4 xxxviii4 7as if the intervening chapters had been a parenthesis71 he takes up the thread dropped in chap4 xxi4 7#ai7 ,in fact1 the conjunction with which chap4 xxxviii4 begins1 refers to the #hth1 #ith1 and #ajth verses of chap4 xxi4 ,jeremiah's last arrest is then very differently described1 and a totally separate cause is given for his daily retention in the court of the prison4 7#bj7 ,we may thus clearly see that these portions of the book have been compiled from various sources1 and are only from this point of view comprehensible4 7#ba7 ,the prophecies contained in the remaining chapters1 where ,jeremiah speaks in the first person1 seem to be taken from a book written by ,baruch1 at ,jeremiah's dictation4 7#bb7 ,these1 however1 only comprise 7as appears from chap4 xxxvi3#b7 the prophecies revealed to the prophet from the time of ,josiah to the fourth year of ,jehoiakim1 at which period the book begins4 7#bc7 ,the contents of chap4 xlv3#b1 on to chap4 li3#ei1 seem taken from the same volume4 7#bd7 ,that the book of ,ezekiel is only a fragment1 is clearly indicated by the first verse4 7#be7 ,for anyone may see that the conjunction with which it begins1 refers to something already said1 and connects what follows therewith4 7#bf7 ,however1 not only this conjunction1 but the whole text of the discourse implies other writings4 7#bg7 ,the fact of the present work beginning the thirtieth year shows that the prophet is continuing1 not commencing a discourse2 and this is confirmed by the writer1 who parenthetically states in verse #c1 ,the word of the ,lord came often unto ,ezekiel the priest1 the son of ,buzi1 in the land of the ,chaldeans1 as if to say that the prophecies which he is about to relate are the sequel to revelations formerly received by ,ezekiel from ,god4 7#bh7 ,furthermore1 ,josephus1 #aa ,antiq4 x3#i1 says that ,ezekiel prophesied that ,zedekiah should not see ,babylon1 whereas the book we now have not only contains no such statement1 but contrariwise asserts in chap4 xvii4 that he should be taken to ,babylon as a captive1 ,endnote #bj4 7#bi7 ,of ,hosea ,i cannot positively state that he wrote more than is now extant in the book bearing his name1 but ,i am astonished at the smallness of the quantity we possess1 for the sacred writer asserts that the prophet prophesied for more than eighty years4 7#cj7 ,we may assert1 speaking generally1 that the compiler of the prophetic books neither collected all the prophets1 nor all the writings of those we have2 for of the prophets who are said to have prophesied in the reign of ,manasseh and of whom general mention is made in #b ,chron4 xxxiii3#aj1 #ah1 we have1 evidently1 no prophecies extant2 neither have we all the prophecies of the twelve who give their names to books4 7#ca7 ,of ,jonah we have only the prophecy concerning the ,ninevites1 though he also prophesied to the children of ,israel1 as we learn in #b ,kings xiv3#be4 7#cb7 ,the book and the personality of ,job have caused much controversy4 7#cc7 ,some think that the book is the work of ,moses1 and the whole narrative merely allegorical4 7#cd7 ,such is the opinion of the ,rabbins recorded in the ,talmud1 and they are supported by1 ,maimonides in his ,more ,nebuchim4 7#ce7 ,others believe it to be a true history1 and some suppose that ,job lived in the time of ,jacob1 and was married to his daughter ,dinah4 7#cf7 ,aben ,ezra1 however1 as ,i have already stated1 affirms1 in his commentaries1 that the work is a translation into ,hebrew from some other language3 ,i could wish that he could advance more cogent arguments than he does1 for we might then conclude that the ,gentiles also had sacred books4 7#cg7 ,i myself leave the matter undecided1 but ,i conjecture ,job to have been a ,gentile1 and a man of very stable character1 who at first prospered1 then was assailed with terrible calamities1 and finally1 was restored to great happiness4 7#ch7 7,he is thus named1 among others1 by ,ezekiel1 xiv3#ab47 7#ci7 ,i take it that the constancy of his mind amid the vicissitudes of his fortune occasioned many men to dispute about ,god's providence1 or at least caused the writer of the book in question to compose his dialogues2 for the contents1 and also the style1 seem to emanate far less from a man wretchedly ill and lying among ashes1 than from one reflecting at ease in his study4 7#dj7 ,i should also be inclined to agree with ,aben ,ezra that the book is a translation1 for its poetry seems akin to that of the ,gentiles2 thus the ,father of ,gods summons a council1 and ,momus1 here called ,satan1 criticizes the ,divine decrees with the utmost freedom4 7#da7 ,but these are mere conjectures without any solid foundation4 7#db7 ,i pass on to the book of ,daniel1 which1 from chap4 viii4 onwards1 undoubtedly contains the writing of ,daniel himself4 7#dc7 ,whence the first seven chapters are derived ,i cannot say2 we may1 however1 conjecture that1 as they were first written in ,chaldean1 they are taken from ,chaldean chronicles4 7#dd7 ,if this could be proved1 it would form a very striking proof of the fact that the sacredness of ,scripture depends on our understanding of the doctrines therein signified1 and not on the words1 the language1 and the phrases in which these doctrines are conveyed to us2 and it would further show us that books which teach and speak of whatever is highest and best are equally sacred1 whatever be the tongue in which they are written1 or the nation to which they belong4 7#de7 ,we can1 however1 in this case only remark that the chapters in question were written in ,chaldee1 and yet are as sacred as the rest of the ,bible4 7#df7 ,the first book of ,ezra is so intimately connected with the book of ,daniel that both are plainly recognizable as the work of the same author1 writing of ,jewish history from the time of the first captivity onwards4 7#dg7 ,i have no hesitation in joining to this the book of ,esther1 for the conjunction with which it begins can refer to nothing else4 7#dh7 ,it cannot be the same work as that written by ,mordecai1 for1 in chap4 ix3#bj-bb1 another person relates that ,mordecai wrote letters1 and tells us their contents2 further1 that ,queen ,esther confirmed the days of ,purim in their times appointed1 and that the decree was written in the book that is 7by a ,hebraism71 in a book known to all then living1 which1 as ,aben ,ezra and the rest confess1 has now perished4 7#di7 ,lastly1 for the rest of the acts of ,mordecai1 the historian refers us to the chronicles of the kings of ,persia4 7#ej7 ,thus there is no doubt that this book was written by the same person as he who recounted the history of ,daniel and ,ezra1 and who wrote ,nehemiah1 ,endnote #ba1 sometimes called the second book of ,ezra4 7#ea7 ,we may1 then1 affirm that all these books are from one hand2 but we have no clue whatever to the personality of the author4 7#eb7 ,however1 in order to determine whence he1 whoever he was1 had gained a knowledge of the histories which he had1 perchance1 in great measure himself written1 we may remark that the governors or chiefs of the ,jews1 after the restoration of the ,temple1 kept scribes or historiographers1 who wrote annals or chronicles of them4 7#ec7 ,the chronicles of the kings are often quoted in the books of ,kings1 but the chronicles of the chiefs and priests are quoted for the first time in ,nehemiah xii3#bc1 and again in #a ,macc4 xvi3#bd4 7#ed7 ,this is undoubtedly the book referred to as containing the decree of ,esther and the acts of ,mordecai2 and which1 as we said with ,aben ,ezra1 is now lost4 7#ee7 ,from it were taken the whole contents of these four books1 for no other authority is quoted by their writer1 or is known to us4 7#ef7 ,that these books were not written by either ,ezra or ,nehemiah is plain from ,nehemiah xii3#i1 where the descendants of the high priest1 ,joshua are traced down to ,jaddua1 the sixth high priest1 who went to meet ,alexander the ,great1 when the ,persian empire was almost subdued 7,josephus1 ,ant4 ii4 #ajh71 or who1 according to ,philo-,judaeus1 was the sixth and last high priest under the ,persians4 7#eg7 ,in the same chapter of ,nehemiah1 verse #bb1 this point is clearly brought out3 ,the ,levites in the days of ,eliashib1 ,joiada1 and ,johanan1 and ,jaddua1 were recorded chief of the fathers3 also the priests1 to the reign of ,darius the ,persian - that is to say1 in the chronicles2 and1 ,i suppose1 no one thinks ,endnote #bb that the lives of ,nehemiah and ,ezra were so prolonged that they outlived fourteen kings of ,persia4 7#eh7 ,cyrus was the first who granted the ,jews permission to rebuild their ,temple3 the period between his time and ,darius1 fourteenth and last king of ,persia1 extends over #bcj years4 7#ei7 ,i have1 therefore1 no doubt that these books were written after ,judas ,maccabaeus had restored the worship in the ,temple1 for at that time false books of ,daniel1 ,ezra1 and ,esther were published by evil-disposed persons1 who were almost certainly ,sadducees1 for the writings were never recognized by the ,pharisees1 so far as ,i am aware2 and1 although certain myths in the fourth book of ,ezra are repeated in the ,talmud1 they must not be set down to the ,pharisees1 for all but the most ignorant admit that they have been added by some trifler3 in fact1 ,i think1 someone must have made such additions with a view to casting ridicule on all the traditions of the sect4 7#fj7 ,perhaps these four books were written out and published at the time ,i have mentioned with a view to showing the people that the prophecies of ,daniel had been fulfilled1 and thus kindling their piety1 and awakening a hope of future deliverance in the midst of their misfortunes4 7#fa7 ,in spite of their recent origin1 the books before us contain many errors1 due1 ,i suppose1 to the haste with which they were written4 7#fb7 ,marginal readings1 such as ,i have mentioned in the last chapter1 are found here as elsewhere1 and in even greater abundance2 there are1 moreover1 certain passages which can only be accounted for by supposing some such cause as hurry4 7#fc7 ,however1 before calling attention to the marginal readings1 ,i will remark that1 if the ,pharisees are right in supposing them to have been ancient1 and the work of the original scribes1 we must perforce admit that these scribes 7if there were more than one7 set them down because they found that the text from which they were copying was inaccurate1 and did yet not venture to alter what was written by their predecessors and superiors4 7#fd7 ,i need not again go into the subject at length1 and will1 therefore1 proceed to mention some discrepancies not noticed in the margin4 7#fe7 ,i4 ,some error has crept into the text of the second chapter of ,ezra1 for in verse #fd we are told that the total of all those mentioned in the rest of the chapter amounts to #db1cfj2 but1 when we come to add up the several items we get as result only #bi1hah4 7#ff7 ,there must1 therefore1 be an error1 either in the total1 or in the details4 7#fg7 ,the total is probably correct1 for it would most likely be well known to all as a noteworthy thing2 but with the details1 the case would be different4 7#fh7 ,if1 then1 any error had crept into the total1 it would at once have been remarked1 and easily corrected4 7#fi7 ,this view is confirmed by ,nehemiah vii41 where this chapter of ,ezra is mentioned1 and a total is given in plain correspondence thereto2 but the details are altogether different - some are larger1 and some less1 than those in ,ezra1 and altogether they amount to #ca1jhi4 7#gj7 ,we may1 therefore1 conclude that both in ,ezra and in ,nehemiah the details are erroneously given4 7#ga7 ,the commentators who attempt to harmonize these evident contradictions draw on their imagination1 each to the best of his ability2 and while professing adoration for each letter and word of ,scripture1 only succeed in holding up the sacred writers to ridicule1 as though they knew not how to write or relate a plain narrative4 7#gb7 ,such persons effect nothing but to render the clearness of ,scripture obscure4 7#gc7 ,if the ,bible could everywhere be interpreted after their fashion1 there would be no such thing as a rational statement of which the meaning could be relied on4 7#gd7 ,however1 there is no need to dwell on the subject2 only ,i am convinced that if any historian were to attempt to imitate the proceedings freely attributed to the writers of the ,bible1 the commentators would cover him with contempt4 7#ge7 ,if it be blasphemy to assert that there are any errors in ,scripture1 what name shall we apply to those who foist into it their own fancies1 who degrade the sacred writers till they seem to write confused nonsense1 and who deny the plainest and most evident meanings8 7#gf7 ,what in the whole ,bible can be plainer than the fact that ,ezra and his companions1 in the second chapter of the book attributed to him1 have given in detail the reckoning of all the ,hebrews who set out with them for ,jerusalem8 7#gg7 ,this is proved by the reckoning being given1 not only of those who told their lineage1 but also of those who were unable to do so4 7#gh7 ,is it not equally clear from ,nehemiah vii3#e1 that the writer merely there copies the list given in ,ezra8 7#gi7 ,those1 therefore1 who explain these passages otherwise1 deny the plain meaning of ,scripture - nay1 they deny ,scripture itself4 7#hj7 ,they think it pious to reconcile one passage of ,scripture with another - a pretty piety1 forsooth1 which accommodates the clear passages to the obscure1 the correct to the faulty1 the sound to the corrupt4 7#ha7 ,far be it from me to call such commentators blasphemers1 if their motives be pure3 for to err is human4 ,but ,i return to my subject4 7#hb7 ,besides these errors in numerical details1 there are others in the genealogies1 in the history1 and1 ,i fear also in the prophecies4 7#hc7 ,the prophecy of ,jeremiah 7chap4 xxii471 concerning ,jechoniah1 evidently does not agree with his history1 as given in ,i ,chronicles iii3#ag-ai1 and especially with the last words of the chapter1 nor do ,i see how the prophecy1 thou shalt die in peace1 can be applied to ,zedekiah1 whose eyes were dug out after his sons had been slain before him4 7#hd7 ,if prophecies are to be interpreted by their issue1 we must make a change of name1 and read ,jechoniah for ,zedekiah1 and vice versa 7#he7 ,this1 however1 would be too paradoxical a proceeding2 so ,i prefer to leave the matter unexplained1 especially as the error1 if error there be1 must be set down to the historian1 and not to any fault in the authorities4 7#hf7 ,other difficulties ,i will not touch upon1 as ,i should only weary the reader1 and1 moreover1 be repeating the remarks of other writers4 7#hg7 ,for ,r4 ,selomo1 in face of the manifest contradiction in the above-mentioned genealogies1 is compelled to break forth into these words 7see his commentary on #a ,chron4 viii473 ,ezra 7whom he supposes to be the author of the book of ,chronicles7 gives different names and a different genealogy to the sons of ,benjamin from those which we find in ,genesis1 and describes most of the ,levites differently from ,joshua1 because he found original discrepancies4 7#hh7 ,and1 again1 a little later3 ,the genealogy of ,gibeon and others is described twice in different ways1 from different tables of each genealogy1 and in writing them down ,ezra adopted the version given in the majority of the texts1 and when the authority was equal he gave both4 7#hi7 ,thus granting that these books were compiled from sources originally incorrect and uncertain4 7#ij7 ,in fact the commentators1 in seeking to harmonize difficulties1 generally do no more than indicate their causes3 for ,i suppose no sane person supposes that the sacred historians deliberately wrote with the object of appearing to contradict themselves freely4 7#ia7 ,perhaps ,i shall be told that ,i am overthrowing the authority of ,scripture1 for that1 according to me1 anyone may suspect it of error in any passage2 but1 on the contrary1 ,i have shown that my object has been to prevent the clear and uncorrupted passages being accommodated to and corrupted by the faulty ones2 neither does the fact that some passages are corrupt warrant us in suspecting all4 7#ib7 ,no book ever was completely free from faults1 yet ,i would ask1 who suspects all books to be everywhere faulty8 7#ic7 ,surely no one1 especially when the phraseology is clear and the intention of the author plain4 7#id7 ,i have now finished the task ,i set myself with respect to the books of the ,old ,testament4 7#ie7 ,we may easily conclude from what has been said1 that before the time of the ,maccabees there was no canon of sacred books1 ,endnote #bc1 but that those which we now possess were selected from a multitude of others at the period of the restoration of the ,temple by the ,pharisees 7who also instituted the set form of prayers71 who are alone responsible for their acceptance4 7#if7 ,those1 therefore1 who would demonstrate the authority of ,holy ,scripture1 are bound to show the authority of each separate book2 it is not enough to prove the ,divine origin of a single book in order to infer the ,divine origin of the rest4 7#ig7 ,in that case we should have to assume that the council of ,pharisees was1 in its choice of books1 infallible1 and this could never be proved4 7#ih7 ,i am led to assert that the ,pharisees alone selected the books of the ,old ,testament1 and inserted them in the canon1 from the fact that in ,daniel xii4 is proclaimed the doctrine of the ,resurrection1 which the ,sadducees denied2 and1 furthermore1 the ,pharisees plainly assert in the ,talmud that they so selected them4 7#ii7 ,for in the treatise of ,sabbathus1 chapter ii41 folio #cj1 page #b1 it is written3 ,r4 ,jehuda1 surnamed ,rabbi1 reports that the experts wished to conceal the book of ,ecclesiastes because they found therein words opposed to the law 7that is1 to the book of the law of ,moses74 7#ajj7 ,why did they not hide it8 7#aja7 ,because it begins in accordance with the law1 and ends according to the law2 and a little further on we read3 ,they sought also to conceal the book of ,proverbs4 7#ajb7 ,and in the first chapter of the same treatise1 fol4 #ac1 page #b3 ,verily1 name one man for good1 even he who was called ,neghunja1 the son of ,hezekiah3 for1 save for him1 the book of ,ezekiel would been concealed1 because it agreed not with the words of the law4 7#ajc7 ,it is thus abundantly clear that men expert in the law summoned a council to decide which books should be received into the canon1 and which excluded4 7#ajd7 ,if any man1 therefore1 wishes to be certified as to the authority of all the books1 let him call a fresh council1 and ask every member his reasons4 7#aje7 ,the time has now come for examining in the same manner the books in the ,new ,testament2 but as ,i learn that the task has been already performed by men highly skilled in science and languages1 and as ,i do not myself possess a knowledge of ,greek sufficiently exact for the task2 lastly1 as we have lost the originals of those books which were written in ,hebrew1 ,i prefer to decline the undertaking4 7#ajf7 ,however1 ,i will touch on those points which have most bearing on my subject in the following chapter4 ,end of ,part #b4 ,,author',s ,,endnotes ,,to ,,the ,,theologico-,,political ,,treatise ,part #b - ,chapters ,,vi to ,x ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,endnote #f4 7#a7 ,we doubt of the existence of ,god1 and consequently of all else1 so long as we have no clear and distinct idea of ,god1 but only a confused one4 7#b7 ,for as he who knows not rightly the nature of a triangle1 knows not that its three angles are equal to two right angles1 so he who conceives the ,divine nature confusedly1 does not see that it pertains to the nature of ,god to exist4 7#c7 ,now1 to conceive the nature of ,god clearly and distinctly1 it is necessary to pay attention to a certain number of very simple notions1 called general notions1 and by their help to associate the conceptions which we form of the attributes of the ,divine nature4 7#d7 ,it then1 for the first time1 becomes clear to us1 that ,god exists necessarily1 that ,he is omnipresent1 and that all our conceptions involve in themselves the nature of ,god and are conceived through it4 7#e7 ,lastly1 we see that all our adequate ideas are true4 7#f7 ,compare on this point the prolegomena to book1 ,principles of ,descartes's philosophy set forth geometrically4 ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,endnote #g4 7#a7 ,it is impossible to find a method which would enable us to gain a certain knowledge of all the statements in ,scripture4 7#b7 ,i mean impossible for us who have not the habitual use of the language1 and have lost the precise meaning of its phraseology4 ,endnote #h4 7#a7 ,not in things whereof the understanding can gain a clear and distinct idea1 and which are conceivable through themselves4 7#b7 ,by things conceivable ,i mean not only those which are rigidly proved1 but also those whereof we are morally certain1 and are wont to hear without wonder1 though they are incapable of proof4 7#c7 ,everyone can see the truth of ,euclid's propositions before they are proved4 7#d7 ,so also the histories of things both future and past which do not surpass human credence1 laws1 institutions1 manners1 ,i call conceivable and clear1 though they cannot be proved mathematically4 7#e7 ,but hieroglyphics and histories which seem to pass the bounds of belief ,i call inconceivable2 yet even among these last there are many which our method enables us to investigate1 and to discover the meaning of their narrator4 ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,endnote #i4 7#a7 ,mount ,moriah is called the mount of ,god4 7#b7 ,that is by the historian1 not by ,abraham1 for he says that the place now called ,in the mount of the ,lord it shall be revealed1 was called by ,abraham1 the ,lord shall provide4 ,endnote #aj4 7#a7 ,before that territory ,idumoea was conquered by ,david4 7#b7 ,from this time to the reign of ,jehoram when they again separated from the ,jewish kingdom 7#b ,kings viii3#bj71 the ,idumaeans had no king1 princes appointed by the ,jews supplied the place of kings 7#a ,kings xxii3#dh71 in fact the prince of ,idumaea is called a king 7#b ,kings iii3#i74 7#c7 ,it may be doubted whether the last of the ,idumaean kings had begun to reign before the accession of ,saul1 or whether ,scripture in this chapter of ,genesis wished to enumerate only such kings as were independent4 7#d7 ,it is evidently mere trifling to wish to enrol among ,hebrew kings the name of ,moses1 who set up a dominion entirely different from a monarchy4 ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,endnote #aa4 7#a7 ,with few exceptions4 7#b7 ,one of these exceptions is found in #b ,kings xviii3#bj1 where we read1 ,thou sayest 7but they are but vain words71 the second person being used4 7#c7 ,in ,isaiah xxxvi3#e1 we read ,i say 7but they are but vain words7 ,i have counsel and strength for war1 and in the twenty-second verse of the chapter in ,kings it is written1 ,but if ye say1 the plural number being used1 whereas ,isaiah gives the singular4 7#d7 ,the text in ,isaiah does not contain the words found in #b ,kings xxxii3#cb4 7#e7 ,thus there are several cases of various readings where it is impossible to distinguish the best4 ,endnote #ab4 7#a7 ,the expressions in the two passages are so varied4 7#b7 ,for instance we read in #b ,sam4 vii3#f1 ,but ,i have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle4 7#c7 ,whereas in #a ,chron4 xvii3#e1 but have gone from tent to tent and from one tabernacle to another4 7#d7 ,in #b ,sam4 vii3#aj1 we read1 to afflict them1 whereas in #a ,chron4 vii3#i1 we find a different expression4 7#e7 ,i could point out other differences still greater1 but a single reading of the chapters in question will suffice to make them manifest to all who are neither blind nor devoid of sense4 ,endnote #ac4 7#a7 ,this time cannot refer to what immediately precedes4 7#b7 ,it is plain from the context that this passage must allude to the time when ,joseph was sold by his brethren4 7#c7 ,but this is not all4 7#d7 ,we may draw the same conclusion from the age of ,judah1 who was than twenty-two years old at most1 taking as basis of calculation his own history just narrated4 7#e7 ,it follows1 indeed1 from the last verse of ,gen4 xxx41 that ,judah was born in the tenth of the years of ,jacob's servitude to ,laban1 and ,joseph in the fourteenth4 7#f7 ,now1 as we know that ,joseph was seventeen years old when sold by his brethren1 ,judah was then not more than twenty-one4 7#g7 ,hence1 those writers who assert that ,judah's long absence from his father's house took place before ,joseph was sold1 only seek to delude themselves and to call in question the ,scriptural authority which they are anxious to protect4 ,endnote #ad4 7#a7 ,dinah was scarcely seven years old when she was violated by ,schechem4 7#b7 ,the opinion held by some that ,jacob wandered about eight or ten years between ,mesopotamia and ,bethel1 savours of the ridiculous2 if respect for ,aben ,ezra1 allows me to say so4 7#c7 ,for it is clear that ,jacob had two reasons for haste3 first1 the desire to see his old parents2 secondly1 and chiefly to perform1 the vow made when he fled from his brother 7,gen4 xxviii3#aj and xxxi3#ac1 and xxxv3#a74 7#d7 ,we read 7,gen4 xxxi3#c71 that ,god had commanded him to fulfill his vow1 and promised him help for returning to his country4 7#e7 ,if these considerations seem conjectures rather than reasons1 ,i will waive the point and admit that ,jacob1 more unfortunate than ,ulysses1 spent eight or ten years or even longer1 in this short journey4 7#f7 ,at any rate it cannot be denied that ,benjamin was born in the last year of this wandering1 that is by the reckoning of the objectors1 when ,joseph was sixteen or seventeen years old1 for ,jacob left ,laban seven years after ,joseph's birth4 7#g7 ,now from the seventeenth year of ,joseph's age till the patriarch went into ,egypt1 not more than twenty-two years elapsed1 as we have shown in this chapter4 7#h7 ,consequently ,benjamin1 at the time of the journey to ,egypt1 was twenty-three or twenty- four at the most4 7#i7 ,he would therefore have been a grandfather in the flower of his age 7,gen4 xlvi3#ba1 cf4 ,numb4 xxvi3#ch1 #dj1 and #a ,chron4 viii3#a71 for it is certain that ,bela1 ,benjamin's eldest son1 had at that time1 two sons1 ,addai and ,naa-man4 7#aj7 ,this is just as absurd as the statement that ,dinah was violated at the age of seven1 not to mention other impossibilities which would result from the truth of the narrative4 7#aa7 ,thus we see that unskillful endeavours to solve difficulties1 only raise fresh ones1 and make confusion worse confounded4 ,endnote #ae4 7#a7 ,othniel1 son of ,kenag1 was judge for forty years4 7#b7 ,rabbi ,levi ,ben ,gerson and others believe that these forty years which the ,bible says were passed in freedom1 should be counted from the death of ,joshua1 and consequently include the eight years during which the people were subject to ,kushan ,rishathaim1 while the following eighteen years must be added on to the eighty years of ,ehud's and ,shamgar's judgeships4 7#c7 ,in this case it would be necessary to reckon the other years of subjection among those said by the ,bible to have been passed in freedom4 7#d7 ,but the ,bible expressly notes the number of years of subjection1 and the number of years of freedom1 and further declares 7,judges ii3#ah7 that the ,hebrew state was prosperous during the whole time of the judges4 7#e7 ,therefore it is evident that ,levi ,ben ,gerson 7certainly a very learned man71 and those who follow him1 correct rather than interpret the ,scriptures4 7#f7 ,the same fault is committed by those who assert1 that ,scripture1 by this general calculation of years1 only intended to mark the period of the regular administration of the ,hebrew state1 leaving out the years of anarchy and subjection as periods of misfortune and interregnum4 7#g7 ,scripture certainly passes over in silence periods of anarchy1 but does not1 as they dream1 refuse to reckon them or wipe them out of the country's annals4 7#h7 ,it is clear that ,ezra1 in #a ,kings vi41 wished to reckon absolutely all the years since the flight from ,egypt4 7#i7 ,this is so plain1 that no one versed in the ,scriptures can doubt it4 7#aj7 ,for1 without going back to the precise words of the text1 we may see that the genealogy of ,david given at the end of the book of ,ruth1 and ,i ,chron4 ii41 scarcely accounts for so great a number of years4 7#aa7 ,for ,nahshon1 who was prince of the tribe of ,judah 7,numb4 vii3#aa71 two years after the ,exodus1 died in the desert1 and his son ,salmon passed the ,jordan with ,joshua4 7#ab7 ,now this ,salmon1 according to the genealogy1 was ,david's great-grandfather4 7#ac7 ,deducting1 then1 from the total of #dhj years1 four years for ,solomon's reign1 seventy for ,david's life1 and forty for the time passed in the desert1 we find that ,david was born #cff years after the passage of the ,jordan4 7#ad7 ,hence we must believe that ,david's father1 grandfather1 great-grandfather1 and great-great-grandfather begat children when they were ninety years old4 ,endnote #af4 7#a7 ,samson was judge for twenty years4 7#b7 ,samson was born after the ,hebrews had fallen under the dominion of the ,philistines4 ,endnote #ag4 7#a7 ,otherwise1 they rather correct than explain ,scripture4 ,endnote #ah4 7#a7 ,kirjath-jearim4 ,kirjath-jearim is also called ,baale of ,judah4 7#b7 ,hence ,kimchi and others think that the words ,baale ,judah1 which ,i have translated the people of ,judah1 are the name of a town4 7#c7 ,but this is not so1 for the word ,baale is in the plural4 7#d7 ,moreover1 comparing this text in ,samuel with ,i ,chron4 ,xiii3#e1 we find that ,david did not rise up and go forth out of ,baale1 but that he went thither4 7#e7 ,if the author of the book of ,samuel had meant to name the place whence ,david took the ark1 he would1 if he spoke ,hebrew correctly1 have said1 ,david rose up1 and set forth from ,baale ,judah1 and took the ark from thence4 ,,chapter ,x4 ,endnote #ai4 7#a7 ,after the restoration of the ,temple by ,judas ,maccaboeus4 7#b7 ,this conjecture1 if such it be1 is founded on the genealogy of ,king ,jeconiah1 given in #a ,chron4 iii41 which finishes at the sons of ,elioenai1 the thirteenth in direct descent from him3 whereon we must observe that ,jeconiah1 before his captivity1 had no children2 but it is probable that he had two while he was in prison1 if we may draw any inference from the names he gave them4 7#c7 ,as to his grandchildren1 it is evident that they were born after his deliverance1 if the names be any guide1 for his grandson1 ,pedaiah 7a name meaning ,god hath delivered me71 who1 according to this chapter1 was the father of ,zerubbabel1 was born in the thirty-seventh or thirty-eighth year of ,jeconiah's life1 that is thirty-three years before the restoration of liberty to the ,jews by ,cyrus4 7#d7 ,therefore ,zerubbabel1 to whom ,cyrus gave the principality of ,judaea1 was thirteen or fourteen years old4 7#e7 ,but we need not carry the inquiry so far3 we need only read attentively the chapter of #a ,chron41 already quoted1 where 7v4 #ag1 sqq47 mention is made of all the posterity of ,jeconiah1 and compare it with the ,septuagint version to see clearly that these books were not published1 till after ,maccabaeus had restored the ,temple1 the sceptre no longer belonging to the house of ,jeconiah4 ,endnote #bj4 7#a7 ,zedekiah should be taken to ,babylon4 7#b7 ,no one could then have suspected that the prophecy of ,ezekiel contradicted that of ,jeremiah1 but the suspicion occurs to everyone who reads the narrative of ,josephus4 7#c7 ,the event proved that both prophets were in the right4 ,endnote #ba4 7#a7 ,and who wrote ,nehemiah4 7#b7 ,that the greater part of the book of ,nehemiah was taken from the work composed by the prophet ,nehemiah himself1 follows from the testimony of its author4 7,see chap4 i474 7#c7 ,but it is obvious that the whole of the passage contained between chap4 viii4 and chap4 xii4 verse #bf1 together with the two last verses of chap4 xii41 which form a sort of parenthesis to ,nehemiah's words1 were added by the historian himself1 who outlived ,nehemiah4 ,endnote #bb4 7#a7 ,i suppose no one thinks that ,ezra was the uncle of the first high priest1 named ,joshua 7see ,ezra vii41 and #a ,chron4 vi3#ad71 and went to ,jerusalem from ,babylon with ,zerubbabel 7see ,nehemiah xii3#a74 7#b7 ,but it appears that when he saw1 that the ,jews were in a state of anarchy1 he returned to ,babylon1 as also did others 7,nehem4 i3#b71 and remained there till the reign of ,artaxerxes1 when his requests were granted and he went a second time to ,jerusalem4 7#c7 ,nehemiah also went to ,jerusalem with ,zerubbabel in the time of ,cyrus 7,ezra ii3#b and #fc1 cf4 x3#i1 and ,nehemiah x3#a74 7#d7 ,the version given of the ,hebrew word1 translated ambassador1 is not supported by any authority1 while it is certain that fresh names were given to those ,jews who frequented the court4 7#e7 ,thus ,daniel was named ,balteshazzar1 and ,zerubbabel ,sheshbazzar 7,dan4 i3#g74 7#f7 ,nehemiah was called ,atirsata1 while in virtue of his office he was styled governor1 or president4 7,nehem4 v4 #bd1 xii3#bf47 ,endnote #bc4 7#a7 ,before the time of the ,maccabees there was no canon of sacred books4 7#b7 ,the synagogue styled the great did not begin before the subjugation of ,asia by the ,macedonians4 7#c7 ,the contention of ,maimonides1 ,rabbi ,abraham1 ,ben-,david1 and others1 that the presidents of this synagogue were ,ezra1 ,daniel1 ,nehemiah1 ,haggai1 ,zechariah1 c41 is a pure fiction1 resting only on rabbinical tradition4 7#d7 ,indeed they assert that the dominion of the ,persians only lasted thirty-four years1 and this is their chief reason for maintaining that the decrees of the great synagogue1 or synod 7rejected by the ,sadducees1 but accepted by the ,pharisees7 were ratified by the prophets1 who received them from former prophets1 and so in direct succession from ,moses1 who received them from ,god ,himself4 7#e7 ,such is the doctrine which the ,pharisees maintain with their wonted obstinacy4 7#f7 ,enlightened persons1 however1 who know the reasons for the convoking of councils1 or synods1 and are no strangers to the differences between ,pharisees and ,sadducees1 can easily divine the causes which led to the assembling of this great synagogue4 7#g7 ,it is very certain that no prophet was there present1 and that the decrees of the ,pharisees1 which they style their traditions1 derive all their authority from it4 ,end of ,endnotes to ,part ,,ii4 - ,chapters ,,vi to ,x4