Hobbes and Spinoza on Scripture

Arjan Klok

Introduction

In this essay I will compare Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) on their

theories regarding Scripture. In their days it was hard to overestimate the status and importance of

Scripture both in theorizing and in practical daily live. Therefore philosophers had to have a certain

relationship with Scripture. I will compare both authors on content, interpretation and the status of

Scripture. For Spinoza I will use the 1st, 2nd and 7th chapter of his Tractatus theologico-politicus (1670) I

will refer to it as TTP. For Hobbes I will use the 33rd and 36th chapter of his Leviathan or the matter, forme

and power of a commonwealth ecclesiasticall and civil. (1651) I’ll refer to it as LEV.

Hobbes on the satus of Scripture

Unlike Spinoza Hobbes doesn't give a systematic account just on this subject. Still, an account can be

distilled when reading especially part three of his Leviathan. We will deduce such an account using

chapters 33 and 36. Hobbes elaborates here the number, antiquity, scope, authority, and interpreters of

the books of holy scripture (33) and of the word of God and prophets (36).

Hobbes starts his 33rd chapter stating that Holy Scripture is the canon, and the canon is law: "the

question of the Scripture, is the question of what is law throughout all Christendom, both natural and

civil."1 Now the question is "when and what God hath said; which to subjects that have no supernatural

revelation, cannot be known, but by that natural reason, which guideth them, for the obtaining of peace

and justice, to obey the authority of their several commonwealths, that is to say, of their lawful

sovereigns."2 The only proof we have of who were the actual writers of Scripture is stated in Scripture

itself. We have no other historical sources and reason is insufficient to settle this question, for "reason

serves only to convince the truth, not of fact, but, of consequence."3 Hobbes then criticizes the

authorship of several parts of scripture, the technical details of which aren't our present concern.

Hobbes concludes regarding the content of scripture: "I see not (...) any reason to doubt but that the Old

and New Testament, as we have them now, are the true registers of those things, which were done and

said by the prophets and the apostles."4 And further: "But it is not the writer, but the authority of the

church, that maketh the book canonical."5 The scope of the bible is "setting forth the rights of the

1 LEV, 276.

2 Ibidem.

3 LEV, 277.

4 LEV, 282.

5 Ibidem.

kingdom of God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."6 Now Hobbes turns to the question of the authority of

Scripture. Hobbes states the question as: "from whence the Scriptures derive their authority" or in other

words: "how we know them to be the word of God, or, why we believe them to be so".7 The main

problem in answering these questions has to do with "the improperness of the words wherein the

question itself is couched."8 Hobbes claims that every 'Christian sect' maintains that God is the author of

Scripture, this knowledge we can only have in a supernatural way. So Hobbes rephrases the question in a

manner the real question is articulated: "by what authority they are made law."9 I'll quote Hobbes at

length to show the various authorities that could make a statement a law:

As far as they [the Scriptural laws, AK] differ not from laws of nature, there is no doubt, but they

are the law of God, and carry their authority with them, legible to all men that have the use of

natural reason: but this is no other authority than that of all other moral doctrine consonant to

reason; the dictates whereof are laws, not made, but eternal. If they be made law by God himself

they are of the nature of written law, which are laws to them only to whom God hath so

sufficiently published them, as no man can excuse himself, by saying, he knew not they were

his.10

So according to Hobbes there's some moral doctrine consonant to reason. This doctrine is not made, but

eternal and every man that can use his natural reason can have knowledge of this moral doctrine. But if

they are made law by God himself, God has to reveal the law-like character to people before they can

acknowledge it as law. But if that doesn't happen, people are not obliged to follow that law, since for

them it isn't law for it hasn't been revealed to them. They can be made to oblige, but then another God-

derived authority is needed. For Hobbes this could be the sovereign or the commonwealth. For Gods

laws the church is the commonwealth, that is: the commonwealth of Christians. But it has to be united in

one Christian commonwealth for it to have authority. For if in the commonwealth not all Christians are

united "they are not one person"11 Hobbes concludes by again rephrasing the question he is trying to

answer: "whether Christian kings, and the sovereign assemblies in Christian commonwealths, be absolute

in their own territories, immediately under God; or be subject to one Vicar of Christ, constituted of the

6 LEV, 283.

7 Ibidem.

8 Ibidem.

9 LEV, 284.

10 Ibidem.

11 LEV, 285.

universal church; to be judged, condemned, deposed, and put to death, as he shall think expedient or

necessary for the common good.12 To answer this question we must know more of the Kingdom of God,

then we can also judge who has the authority to interpret Scripture.

In chapter 36 Hobbes first points out that the phrase 'word of God' is used in multiple ways in

Holy Scripture. He sums up different meanings of the phrase, there is "The words spoken by God, and

concerning God, both are called God's word in Scripture"13 He specificates these words by distinguishing

"The word of God metaphorically used, (...) for the decrees and power of God (...) for the effect of his

word (...) for the words of reason and equity".14 The last 'mode' of being word of God is explained by

examples of non-Jewish rulers who speak Gods words (mostly words of judgment).

The word of God is commonly spoken by prophets, so Hobbes gives us an analysis of exactly

what prophecy is and what prophets are. Here again, the term 'prophecy' can be used in multiple ways

and Hobbes gives an enumeration of their different uses, the details of which don't concern us here. On

the nature of prophecy Hobbes maintains: "Prophecy is not an art, nor, when it is taken for prediction, a

constant vocation; but an extraordinary, and temporary employment from God, most often of good

men, but sometimes also of the wicked."15 Also Hobbes has difficulties regarding the medium of

communication between God and the prophets, he doesn't allow God to have "voice and language", for

"this may be spoken, not as usually, to signify God's nature, but to signify our intention to honour him."16

So, to speak of God as seeing things is only highlighting Gods property of omniscience. Hobbes

concludes: "Therefore we are to interpret God's speaking to men immediately, for that way, whatsoever

it be, by which God makes them understand his will."17 We can see some ways in Scripture, visions,

dreams and to Moses and the high priests (on the Day of Atonement) more directly (yet mediated by

angels). But according to Hobbes, Moses and the high priests were "prophets of a more eminent place

and degree in God's favour".18 But how God exactly communicated to them is for Hobbes

incomprehensible. Now, what is according to Hobbes the manner to distinguish between real and false

prophets? "every man then was, and now is bound to make use of his natural reason, to apply to all

prophecy those rules which God hath given us, to discern the true from false."19 Those rules in the old

testament were: "conformable doctrine to that which Moses the sovereign prophet had taught them;

12

LEV, 285. 13

LEV, 304. 14

LEV, 305-307. 15

LEV, 308. 16

LEV, 309. 17

Ibidem. 18

LEV, 310. 19

LEV, 315-316.

and the other, the miraculous power of foretelling what God would bring to pass"20 And another rule can

be found in the new testament: "the preaching of this doctrine, that Jesus is the Christ, that is, king of the

Jews, promised in the Old Testament."21

To summarize, for Hobbes the content of holy Scripture is the law. It's about what God has said

regarding obedience to the lawful authority of the sovereign. Several books in the Scripture are not

written by the men in Scripture mentioned as their authors. For Hobbes, that's no problem for qua

content he sees canonical Scripture as trustworthy. Canonical authority is given by the Church and the

purpose of Scripture is to spread and explain Gods kingdom. Questions about Scriptural authority are to

be rephrased into questions regarding which authority gives Scripture it's law-like status. That has to be

either God himself or an entity with authority derived from God. Hobbes takes the Church as an example

of the latter situation, but to have authority the church (that is: the commonwealth of Christians) must

be one united body. The notions 'word of God' and 'prophecy' are layered concepts according to Hobbes.

Prophecy is something which is temporarily by God bestowed upon men and the medium by which God

communicates is for Hobbes unclear, though visions and dreams are often mentioned in Scripture.

Finally: to distinguish true from false prophecy one has to compare the prophetic message using your

natural reason with the rules set out in old and New Testament.

Spinoza on interpreting Scripture

Spinoza polemically sets the stage by claiming that "the chief concern of theologians on the whole has

been to extort from Holy Scripture their own arbitrarily invented ideas, for which they claim divine

authority."22 This leads to the situation that at many occasions man-invented ideas are being defended

instead of what the Holy Spirit actually teaches in Scripture. To make the bible more awe-inspiring these

theologians explain Scripture in a way contrary to reason and Nature. These explanations are emotion-

driven and are defended on an emotional level, since "human nature is so constituted that what men

conceive by pure intellect, they defend only by intellect and reason, whereas the beliefs that spring from

the emotions are emotionally defended."23 The only way to avoid this is to "discuss the true method of

Scriptural interpretation."24

Spinoza formulates his main thesis regarding the correct interpretation of Scripture as follows: "I

20

LEV, 316. 21

Ibidem. 22

TTP, 456. 23

TTP, 457. 24

Ibidem.

hold that the method of interpreting Scripture is no different from the method of interpreting Nature,

and is in fact in complete accord with it."25 This method applied to Scripture leads to two tasks: we have

to gather data from Scripture and we have to investigate the historic contexts in which the various parts

of Scripture were written. On basis of these findings we can formulate definitions which we can use for

describing the content of Scripture.

Spinoza sums up what he thinks to be the main points such an inquiry should come up with to

provide a good theory on the meaning of the bible. Such a theory should 1) "inform us of the nature and

properties of the language in which the Bible was written and which its authors were accustomed to

speak. (...)"26 Further 2) "The pronouncements made in each book should be assembled and listed under

headings, so that we can thus have to hand all the texts that treat of the same subject."27 This task is

quite difficult, for we have to take into consideration that some parts of Scripture are ambiguous or

obscure. With obscure Spinoza means the "degree of difficulty with which the meaning can be elicited

from the context, and not according to the degree of difficulty with which its truth can be perceived by

reason."28 For we're just collecting data right now. In a later stadium we can investigate whether these

Scriptural data are intelligible by reason. When a an inference from a Scriptural statement leads to a

contradiction with another Scriptural statement we have to regard one of the two statements as a

metaphor. The last thing our theory should accomplish is that it 3) "should set forth the circumstances

relevant to all the extant books of the prophets, giving the life, character and pursuits of the author of

every book, detailing who he was, on what occasion and at what time and for whom and in what

language he wrote."29

When we have finished this task we can investigate the meaning of Scripture, and just as in the

natural sciences, we start with the most common statements we can find in Scripture. With 'most

common' Spinoza means statements we can find anywhere in Scripture and which are applicable to as

many people as possible. So a statement about the Jewish people is less common than a statement

about the whole of humanity. A statement like 'God exists' is for instance a very common one. From

these common statements one can infer a universal doctrine. Now one has to compare all less common

statements with this universal doctrine. For the statements which are in contradiction with the universal

doctrine one has to find out for who and in which epoch these statements were written. Some

25

TTP, 457. 26

TTP, 458. 27

Ibidem. 28

Ibidem. 29

TTP, 459.

statements (for example the command to 'turn the other cheek') are, according to Spinoza, only

applicable in times of oppression.

If we apply this method we will see that regarding morality Scripture is quite opaque, there's not

much difference in opinion on morality. But on other subjects as philosophical speculation there can a lot

of different opinions be found. In such cases we can't compare one prophet with another, for we just

don't know if they meant the same when using the same words, or in what philosophical context they

articulated their speculations. For this subject too, as for every particular subject that can be found in the

bible, one has to try to find the most common statements and then approach similar as described

before.

Spinoza claims this approach to be the only way of correctly interpreting Scripture. If we, when

applying this method, still find incomprehensible parts in Scripture then we can conclude that we are just

not able to understand the meaning of that part of Scripture.

This is Spinoza's idea of the best way to interpret Scripture, but Spinoza is fully aware of the

extreme high demands he requires. Most of the time we can't get the information we need. We just

don't know enough to have a realistic idea of the context of every prophet. Furthermore there are

enormous difficulties regarding the correct understanding of especially the Hebrew and Aramaic parts of

Scripture. Spinoza gives a detailed account of the technical problems in this area, for our present

purpose it isn't necessary to elucidate these particular points. Given the difficulties Spinoza claims that

"with the help of such a historical study of Scripture as is available to us, we can readily grasp the

meanings of its moral doctrines and be certain of their true sense. For the teachings of true piety are

expressed in quite ordinary language and being directed to the generality of people they are therefore

straightforward and easy to understand"30

The last part of the section is devoted to refuting other theories on interpreting Scripture. The

first theory Spinoza mentions maintains that "the natural light of reason does not have the power to

interpret Scripture."31 What light should we use if we can't use the natural light of reason, Spinoza

wonders. Further, "we have already proved that the difficulty of interpreting Scripture arises not from

the lack of power of the natural light, but from the negligence (not to say malice) of those who failed to

compile a historical study of Scripture while this was still possible"32 Finally, suppose it's true and the

natural light of reason indeed doesn't have the power to interpret Scripture. How can we then make

sense of prophets speaking to infidels? How could they have ever understood the prophets if they

30

TTP, 467. 31

Ibidem. 32

Ibidem.

couldn't trust their natural light of reason when hearing the prophets proclaim?

Another theory Spinoza dismisses is one from Maimonides, he claims that "every passage of

Scripture admits of various - and even contrary - meanings, and that we cannot be certain of the true

meaning of any passage unless we know that, as we interpret it, there is nothing in that passage that is

not in agreement with reason, or is contrary to reason."33 Spinoza isn't unwilling to this aproach, but

states that: "If this view were correct, I would unreservedly concede that we need a light other than the

natural light to interpret Scripture; for nearly all the contents of Scripture are such as cannot be deduced

from principles known by the natural light, as we have already shown."34 So, many objections against the

first theory can also be applied to Maimonides' theory. Spinoza concludes: "we can dismiss Maimonides'

view as harmful, unprofitable and absurd."35

Spinoza concludes his section with the statement that interpretation is an individual enterprise.

Only his own theory is compatible with interpretation as an act of an individual. There's only one thing all

individuals have in common and that is the natural light of reason. So the main instrument of

interpreting is just that natural light of reason. This is also for Spinoza the theoretic background for

dismissing special papal authority when it comes to interpreting Scripture.

So, to summarize, Spinoza tried to find a method of interpreting Scripture. He claims that such a

method is the same method we use to investigate nature. It consists on gathering Scriptural data and

gathering data regarding the historical context wherein Scripture was written. This method ideally

informs us about the historic contexts of the prophets and the nuances in their use of language. After

this process of data-gathering we can formulate the most common statements to be found in Scripture

and then we can compare this with the less common statements found in Scripture. After this process

we can see that there isn’t much difference in opinion regarding morality, but a lot of difference

regarding philosophical speculation. Spinoza describes this as the ideal method but doesn’t himself

believe it is possible to fully apply this method, for we just haven’t enough data regarding context and

language of the prophets. The primacy of interpretation is individual. The sole means of interpreting

Scripture is the natural light of reason, which can be found in every individual.

Spinoza on the status of Scripture

For Spinoza the content of Scripture is revealed through the prophets. So, for a correct account on the

status of Scripture we have to look for the status of prophecy according to Spinoza. We will find that

33

TTP, 468. 34

TTP, 469. 35

TTP, 470.

account in the first chapter of the Theological-Political Treatise. Spinoza defines prophecy or revelation

as "the sure knowledge of some matter revealed by God to a man."36 And he immediately maintains that

natural knowledge isn't less important than prophetic knowledge, because both depend on knowledge

of God. In that sense natural knowledge can even be called prophetic knowledge.

Spinoza wants us to show the picture Scripture gives of prophecy. The medium of revelation is

always vision or words. But according to tradition only Moses heard real words. So prophecy is always

dependent on the faculty of the imagination. (Christ is the sole exception, God communicated directly

with Christ). A prophet can only prophesize when he is filled with Gods Spirit. Spinoza now tries to

elaborate what such a thing means. He examines the Hebrew word for breath or Spirit, ruach, which can

have many meanings. When it means 'mind' it “serves to express all the passions, and also the gifts, of

the mind”.37 Spinoza lists a number of scriptural passages where the ruach of God filled the prophet and

comes to a conclusion: “the Spirit of the Lord was upon a prophet, the Lord poured his Spirit into men,

men were filled with the Spirit of God and with the Holy Spirit and so on. They mean merely this, that the

prophets were endowed with an extraordinary virtue exceeding the normal, and that they devoted

themselves to piety with especial constancy.”38 Furthermore, “they perceived the mind and thought of

God”, but that's something we also can do repeats Spinoza again, for we have natural knowledge, and

knowledge is knowledge of God.39 Occasionally the Spirit of God was ascribed to people because people

at that time were ignorant about the cause of prophetic knowledge.

Because the prophets received revelation through imagination they often spoke allegorically, for

the imagination is a much broader faculty than the intellect, Nadler explains: "the fact that biblical

prophecy is a function of the prophet’s imagination accounts for both the way in which the prophet

apprehends the divine message and the narrative form in which he communicates it to others. Unlike the

philosopher, whose material is intellectual and abstract and can be formulated in demonstrated

propositions, the prophet receives and works with concrete appearances."40 Spinoza now proceeds to

the second chapter to answer a question which is quite important for our present purpose: what was the

basis of prophetic certainty regarding their prophecies was it based on their imagination or on rational

principles? We've now formulated what according to Spinoza prophecy, and thus the content of

Scripture, means and we'll continue to see what gives prophecy, and thus the content of Scripture,

36

TTP, 394. 37

TTP, 399. 38

TTP, 402-403. 39

TTP, 403. 40

S. Nadler, Scripture and Truth, A Problem in Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. In: Journal of the Hisory of Ideas, October 2013, p. 629.

certainty.

Immediately in chapter two Spinoza gives his opinion on the matter: "the prophets were not

endowed with a more perfect mind, but with a more vivid power of imagination",41 and such people are

less apt to perform pure intellectual activity. The opposite holds for the intellectuals, they "keep their

imagination under greater control and restraint, and they hold it in rein, as it were, so that it should not

invade the province of the intellect."42 But this for Spinoza doesn't really settle the question on prophetic

certainty for the imagination "does not of its own carry certainty with it".43 For certainty is reason a

necessary prerequisite. Now since prophets only have the imagination they needed something extra to

attain certainty: "so the prophets were not assured of God's revelation through the revelation itself, but

through a sign".44 In this sense prophetic knowledge is, according to Spinoza, inferior to natural

knowledge for the latter doesn't need a sign to attain certainty. For Spinoza the only certainty the

prophets can give is certainty about moral constraints. Here Spinoza is according to Nadler in debate

with Maimonides who claims that: "For the philosopher, the information that comes to him in the divine

overflow terminates in his intellect; he thus perceives its content in an intellectual—that is, logical and

discursive—manner. For the prophet, on the other hand, because his faculties are appropriately

prepared, the information passes on from the intellect to the imagination. He therefore perceives (and,

eventually, communicates) its content in a narrative and imaginative way. (...) For Maimonides, then, the

content of prophecy is, at least in part, philosophical. The philosopher and the prophet, in Maimonides’s

view, both convey truths—indeed, the same truths that come from the same source. And because one

truth necessarily coheres with other truths, philosophy and prophecy must, when properly understood,

always be consistent".45 But, mentions Spinoza, prophecy is prone to doubt. Spinoza counters this doubt

by pointing out that a good God will never deceive his prophets. Spinoza sums up three factors

contributing to the certainty for prophecy:

1) The things revealed were most vividly imagined

2) The occurence of a sign

3) The minds of the prophets were directed exclusively towards what was right and good.46

41

TTP, 404. 42

Ibidem. 43

TTP, 405. 44

Ibidem. 45

Nadler, 626. 46

TTP, 406.

In the rest of the chapter Spinoza elaborates the importance of point 3 to achieve a long-standing

organized society. The rest of this chapter isn’t needed for our present purpose.

Nadler summarizes, according to Spinoza prophets have imagination but are not very learned: "For this

reason, their pronouncements should not be regarded as sources of theological, philosophical, scientific,

or historical truth. The goal of Spinoza’s discussion of prophecy, then, is to downgrade its

epistemological status, particularly in relationship to philosophy and science. Revelation, as portrayed in

the Bible, while it has a very important social and political function to play, is not a source of truth." 47

For Spinoza the content of the bible is prophecy and after his argument the Stanford

encyclopedia of philosophy summarizes Spinoza's position: In summary: "Spinoza intends to show that in

that moral message alone—and not in Scripture's words or history—lies the sacredness of what is

otherwise merely a human document. The Bible teaches only “obedience [to God]”, not knowledge.

Thus, philosophy and religion, reason and faith, inhabit two distinct and exclusive spheres, and neither

should tread in the domain of the other."48

Comparing Hobbes and Spinoza on Scripture

I want to compare Hobbes’ and Spinoza’s theories on three points: method of interpreting Scripture, the

content of Scripture and the either or not privileged status of Scripture.

First we’ll compare both authors on method. For Hobbes goes that the only information we have

is in Scripture itself and if we examine that information rigorously we will doubt the traditional

authorship of many parts of Scripture. Further, we do not have enough sources to say anything

worthwhile on the context of the writers of Scripture, and human reason too doesn’t suffice in this. Also

we don’t know exactly how God communicated to his prophets in biblical times. Spinoza claims this

method is the same as the method we use when examining nature. Spinoza then sketches in detail how

that method applied to interpreting Scripture would look like. He also sums up the enormous difficulties

in retrieving and after that understanding language en context of the writers of the bible. The sole means

to interpret Scripture is the natural light of reason.

Then the content of Scripture, Hobbes claims that the content is law and is about “setting forth

the rights of the kingdom of God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost”,49 it’s about what God has said

regarding obedience to the lawful authority of the sovereign. There are three rules we can distinguish in

Scripture: 1) the “doctrine to that which Moses the sovereign prophet had taught them” 2) “the

47

Nadler, 626-627. 48

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#RelScr as seen on 5 march 2014. 49

LEV, 283.

miraculous power of foretelling what God would bring to pass" and 3) "the preaching of this doctrine,

that Jesus is the Christ, that is, king of the Jews, promised in the Old Testament."50 Spinoza claims that

the content of the bible is mainly found in prophecy. Here too, a detailed account of the phenomenon of

prophecy is given, which leads Spinoza to his conclusion that the main message of Scripture is a moral

one of love.

Finally we compare both theories regarding the status of Scripture. Hobbes maintains that

everything is Scripture is true, that is: there is no reason for doubt. That authority is given by the church.

Eventually God is the author of Scripture, and he can reveal to individuals the Scripture as being law. For

people who don’t have obtained this revelation the Christian commonwealth has the authority to give

Scripture’s regulations a law-like status. But this commonwealth only has this authority when it’s united:

a commonwealth of all Christians. For Spinoza the only sacredness to be found in Scripture concerns the

moral part. Regarding other knowledge, Scripture is just like, and as fallible as, any other human

document. The ‘right of interpretation’ is in the individual since we interpret using the natural light of

reason, present in every individual.

It’s a bit peculiar that Hobbes on the one hand can claim that everything within Scripture is true

while he on the other claims that the claims found within Scripture regarding authorship are wrong.

Furthermore, Hobbes claims that the content of Scripture is law, he doesn’t give arguments for this

statement but he states it as a matter of fact. In Hobbes’ time the relation of law and covenant was a

heavily debated item so it’s strange that Hobbes presents his thesis without further argumentation.51

Spinoza’s argumentation is thorough and consistent. First he elaborates the function of prophecy in

Scripture and tries to show the moral core of the biblical message, then he gives a method for

interpreting the found biblical and historical data. Spinoza explicitly argues with the theologians of his

time regarding the relation between the sin-stained intellect and the comprehensibility of Scripture,

further he argues with his own Jewish tradition when comparing Maimonides’ views to his own.

50

All three quotes, LEV, 316. 51

See W. van ’t Spijker, R. Bisschop, W.J. op ’t Hof, Het puritanisme, geschiedenis, theologie en invloed. 2001, Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum. Especially pages 205-240.

Conclusion

First, we see in Spinoza a detailed argumentation as well regarding interpretation as status and on the

content of Scripture. Interpreting Scripture is an individual act by using the natural light of reason. We

will then see that the content of Scripture is a moral one of love and further that the only sacredness of

Scripture regards precisely the moral part of Scripture. The rest is just as fallible as other human

documents.

Hobbes doesn’t give a systematic account as Spinoza does that makes it harder to see a clear picture of

his position in the three examined points. For him Scripture’s core is also moral but isn’t primarily love

but law. It’s about Gods kingdom and the relation of that kingdom to the authority of the sovereign.

Hobbes’ position on the status of Scripture is difficult, on the one hand we can trust everything the

prophets and apostles have said, on the other we have to doubt the supposed authorship of several

biblical books. Another difference between both authors is on whose is the authority on interpreting

Scripture, for Hobbes it’s either God self or the Christian commonwealth, for Spinoza it’s only the

individual using the light of his natural reason. Both authors agree on the difficulty of interpreting

Scripture for our lack of reliable sources regarding the lives and time of the biblical writers.

Literature

T. Hobbes, Leviathan or the matter, forme and power of a commonwealth ecclesiasticall and civil, 1962, (1651), New York: Collier Books. S. Nadler, Scripture and Truth, A Problem in Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. In: Journal of the Hisory of Ideas, October 2013. W. van ’t Spijker, R. Bisschop, W.J. op ’t Hof, Het puritanisme, geschiedenis, theologie en invloed. 2001, Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum. B. Spinoza, Tractatus theologico-politicus, 2002, (1670) in Spinoza Complete Works, S. Shirley and M.L. Morgan. Cambridge: Hackett. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#RelScr, lemma by S. Nadler.