A Sample Exerpt from Spinoza's
Theological-Political Treatise: Chapter 8
AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH AND
THE OTHER HISTORICAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
In the former chapter we treated of the foundations and principles of Scriptural knowledge, and showed
that it consists solely in a trustworthy history of the sacred writings; such a history, in spite of its
indispensability, the ancients neglected, or at any rate, whatever they may have written or handed down
has perished in the lapse of time, consequently the groundwork for such an investigation is to a great
extent, cut from under us. This might be put up with if succeeding generations had confined themselves
within the limits of truth, and had handed down conscientiously what few particulars they had received
or discovered without any additions from their own brains: as it is, the history of the Bible is not so
much imperfect as untrustworthy: the foundations are not only too scanty for building upon, but are also
unsound. It is part of my purpose to remedy these defects, and to remove common theological prejudices.
But I fear that I am attempting my task too late, for men have arrived at the pitch of not suffering
contradiction, but defending obstinately whatever they have adopted under the name of religion. So widely
have these prejudices taken possession of men's minds, that very few, comparatively speaking, will listen
to reason. However, I will make the attempt, and spare no efforts, for there is no positive reason for
despairing of success.
In order to treat the subject methodically, I will begin with the received opinions concerning the
true authors of the sacred books, and in the first place, speak of the author of the Pentateuch, who is
almost universally supposed to have been Moses. The Pharisees are so firmly convinced of his identity,
that they account as a heretic anyone who differs from them on the subject. Wherefore, Aben Ezra, a man
of enlightened intelligence, and no small learning, who was the first, so far as I know, to treat of this
opinion, dared not express his meaning openly, but confined himself to dark hints which I shall not scruple
to elucidate, thus throwing, full light on the subject.
The words of Aben Ezra which occur in his commentary on Deuteronomy are as follows: "Beyond Jordan, &
c ... If so be that thou understandest the mystery of the twelve .... moreover Moses wrote the law .....
The Canaanite was then in the land .... it shall be revealed on the mount of God .... then also behold his
bed, his iron bed, then shalt thou know the truth." In these few words he hints, and also shows that it
was not Moses who wrote the Pentateuch, but someone who lived long after him, and further, that the book
which Moses wrote was something different from any now extant.
To prove this, I say, he draws attention to the facts:
I. That the preface to Deuteronomy could not have been written by Moses, inasmuch as
he ad never crossed the Jordan.
II. That the whole book of Moses was written at full length on the circumference of
a single altar (Deut. xxvii, and Josh. viii:37), which altar, according to the Rabbis, consisted of only
twelve stones: therefore the book of Moses must have been of far less extent than the Pentateuch. This is
what our author means, I think, by the mystery of the twelve, unless he is referring to the twelve curses
contained in the chapter of Deuteronomy above cited, which he thought could not have been contained in the
law, because Moses bade the Levites read them after the recital of the law, and so bind the people to its
observance. Or again, he may have had in his mind the last chapter of Deuteronomy which treats of the death
of Moses, and which contains twelve verses. But there is no need to dwell further on these and similar
III. That in Deut. xxxi:9, the expression occurs, "and Moses wrote the law:" words that
cannot be ascribed to Moses, but must be those of some other writer narrating the deeds and writings of
IV. That in Genesis xii:6, the historian, after narrating that Abraham journeyed through
the and of Canaan, adds, "and the Canaanite was then in the land," thus clearly excluding the time at
which he wrote. So that this passage must have been written after the death of Moses, when the Canaanites
had been driven out, and no longer possessed the land.
Aben Ezra, in his commentary on the passage, alludes to the difficulty as follows:-
"And the Canaanite was then in the land: it appears that Canaan, the grandson of Noah, took from another
the land which bears his name; if this be not the true meaning, there lurks some mystery in the passage,
and let him who understands it keep silence." That is, if Canaan invaded those regions, the sense will
be, the Canaanite was then in the land, in contradistinction to the time when it had been held by another:
but if, as follows from Gen. chap. x. Canaan was the first to inhabit the land, the text must mean to
exclude the time present, that is the time at which it was written; therefore it cannot be the work of
Moses, in whose time the Canaanites still possessed those territories: this is the mystery concerning
which silence is recommended.
V. That in Genesis xxii:14 Mount Moriah is called the mount of God, [N9], a name which
it did not acquire till after the building of the Temple; the choice of the mountain was not made in the
time of Moses, for Moses does not point out any spot as chosen by God; on the contrary, he foretells that
God will at some future time choose a spot to which this name will be given.
[Note N9]: "Mount Moriah is called the mount of God." That is by the historian, not
by Abraham, for he says that the place now called "In the mount of the Lord it shall be revealed," was
called by Abraham, "the Lord shall provide."
VI. Lastly, that in Deut. chap. iii., in the passage relating to Og, king of Bashan,
these words are inserted: "For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants: behold, his bedstead
was a bedstead of iron: is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? Nine cubits was the length thereof,
and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man." This parenthesis most plainly shows that
its writer lived long after Moses; for this mode of speaking is only employed by one treating of things
long past, and pointing to relics for the sake of gaining credence: moreover, this bed was almost certainly
first discovered by David, who conquered the city of Rabbath (2 Sam. xii:30.) Again, the historian a little
further on inserts after the words of Moses, "Jair, the son of Manasseh, took all the country of Argob
unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called them after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto
this day." This passage, I say, is inserted to explain the words of Moses which precede it. "And the rest
of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region
of Argob, with all Bashan, which is called the land of the giants." The Hebrews in the time of the writer
indisputably knew what territories belonged to the tribe of Judah, but did not know them under the name
of the jurisdiction of Argob, or the land of the giants. Therefore the writer is compelled to explain what
these places were which were anciently so styled, and at the same time to point out why they were at the
time of his writing known by the name of Jair, who was of the tribe of Manasseh, not of Judah. We have
thus made clear the meaning of Aben Ezra and also the passages of the Pentateuch which he cites in proof
of his contention. However, Aben Ezra does not call attention to every instance, or even the chief ones;
there remain many of greater importance, which may be cited.
Namely (I.), that the writer of the books in question not only speaks of Moses in the
third person, but also bears witness to many details concerning him; for instance, "Moses talked with God;"
"The Lord spoke with Moses face to face; " "Moses was the meekest of men" (Numb. xii:3); "Moses was wrath
with the captains of the host; "Moses, the man of God, "Moses, the servant of the Lord, died;" "There was
never a prophet in Israel like unto Moses," &c. On the other hand, in Deuteronomy, where the law which
Moses had expounded to the people and written is set forth, Moses speaks and declares what he has done
in the first person: "God spake with me " (Deut. ii:1, 17, &c.), "I prayed to the Lord," &c. Except at
the end of the book, when the historian, after relating the words of Moses, begins again to speak in the
third person, and to tell how Moses handed over the law which he had expounded to the people in writing,
again admonishing them, and further, how Moses ended his life. All these details, the manner of narration,
the testimony, and the context of the whole story lead to the plain conclusion that these books were written
by another, and not by Moses in person.
II. We must also remark that the history relates not only the manner of Moses' death
and burial, and the thirty days' mourning of the Hebrews, but further compares him with all the prophets
who came after him, and states that he surpassed them all. "There was never a prophet in Israel like unto
Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face." Such testimony cannot have been given of Moses by, himself, nor
by any who immediately succeeded him, but it must come from someone who lived centuries afterwards, especially,
as the historian speaks of past times. "There was never a prophet," &c. And of the place of burial, "No
one knows it to this day."
III. We must note that some places are not styled by the names they bore during Moses'
lifetime, but by others which they obtained subsequently. For instance, Abraham is said to have pursued
his enemies even unto Dan, a name not bestowed on the city till long after the death of Joshua (Gen. xiv;14,
IV. The narrative is prolonged after the death of Moses, for in Exodus xvi:34 we read
that " the children of Israel did eat manna forty years until they came to a land inhabited, until they
came unto the borders of the land of Canaan." In other words, until the time alluded to in Joshua vi:12.
So, too, in Genesis xxxvi:31 it is stated, "These are the kings that reigned in Edom
before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." The historian, doubtless, here relates the
kings of Idumaea before that territory was conquered by David [N10] and garrisoned, as we read in 2 Sam.
[Note N10]: "Before that territory [Idumoea] was conquered by David." From this time
to the reign of Jehoram when they again separated from the Jewish kingdom (2 Kings viii:20), the Idumaeans
had no king, princes appointed by the Jews supplied the place of kings (1 Kings xxii:48), in fact the
prince of Idumaea is called a king (2 Kings iii:9). It may be doubted whether the last of the Idumaean
kings had begun to reign before the accession of Saul, or whether Scripture in this chapter of Genesis
wished to enumerate only such kings as were independent. It is evidently mere trifling to wish to enrol
among Hebrew kings the name of Moses, who set up a dominion entirely different from a monarchy.
From what has been said, it is thus clearer than the sun at noonday that the Pentateuch was not written
by Moses, but by someone who lived long after Moses. Let us now turn our attention to the books which
Moses actually did write, and which are cited in the Pentateuch; thus, also, shall we see that they were
different from the Pentateuch. Firstly, it appears from Exodus xvii:14 that Moses, by the command of God,
wrote an account of the war against Amalek. The book in which he did so is not named in the chapter just
quoted, but in Numb. xxi:12 a book is referred to under the title of the wars of God, and doubtless this
war against Amalek and the castrametations said in Numb. xxxiii:2 to have been written by Moses are therein
described. We hear also in Exod. xxiv:4 of another book called the Book of the Covenant, which Moses read
before the Israelites when they first made a covenant with God. But this book or this writing contained
very little, namely, the laws or commandments of God which we find in Exodus xx:22 to the end of chap.
xxiv., and this no one will deny who reads the aforesaid chapter rationally and impartially. It is there
stated that as soon as Moses had learnt the feeling of the people on the subject of making a covenant
with God, he immediately wrote down God's laws and utterances, and in the morning, after some ceremonies
had been performed, read out the conditions of the covenant to an assembly of the whole people. When these
had been gone through, and doubtless understood by all, the whole people gave their assent.
Now from the shortness of the time taken in its perusal and also from its nature as a compact, this
document evidently contained nothing more than that which we have just described. Further, it is clear
that Moses explained all the laws which he had received in the fortieth year after the exodus from Egypt;
also that he bound over the people a second time to observe them, and that finally he committed them to
writing (Deut. i:5; xxix:14; xxxi:9), in a book which contained these laws explained, and the new covenant,
and this book was therefore called the book of the law of God: 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 (Josh. xxiv:25, 26).
Now, as we have extent no book containing this covenant of Moses and also the covenant of Joshua, we
must perforce conclude that it has perished, unless, indeed, we adopt the wild conjecture of the Chaldean
paraphrast Jonathan, and twist about the words of Scripture to our heart's content. This commentator, in
the face of our present difficulty, preferred corrupting the sacred text to confessing his own ignorance.
The passage in the book of Joshua which runs, "and Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of
God," he changes into "and Joshua wrote these words and kept them with the book of the law of God." What
is to be done with persons who will only see what pleases them? What is such a proceeding if it is not
denying Scripture, and inventing another Bible out of our own heads? We may therefore conclude that the
book of the law of God which Moses wrote was not the Pentateuch, but something quite different, which
the author of the Pentateuch duly inserted into his book. So much is abundantly plain both from what I
have said and from what I am about to add. For in the passage of Deuteronomy above quoted, where it is
related that Moses wrote the book of the law, the historian adds that he handed it over to the priests
and bade them read it out at a stated time to the whole people. This shows that the work was of much less
length than the Pentateuch, inasmuch as it could be read through at one sitting so as to be understood
by all; further, we must not omit to notice that out of all the books which Moses wrote, this one book
of the second covenant and the song (which latter he wrote afterwards so that all the people might learn
it), was the only one which he caused to be religiously guarded and preserved. In the first covenant he
had only bound over those who were present, but in the second covenant he bound over all their descendants
also (Dent. xxix:14), and therefore ordered this covenant with future ages to be religiously preserved,
together with the Song, which was especially addressed to posterity: as, then, we have no proof that Moses
wrote any book save this of the covenant, and as he committed no other to the care of posterity; and,
lastly, as there are many passages in the Pentateuch which Moses could not have written, it follows that
the belief that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch is ungrounded and even irrational.
Someone will perhaps ask whether Moses did not also write down other laws when they were first revealed
to him - in other words, whether, during the course of forty years, he did not write down any of the laws
which he promulgated, save only those few which I have stated to be contained in the book of the first
covenant. To this I would answer, that although it seems reasonable to suppose that Moses wrote down the
laws at the time when he wished to communicate them to the people, yet we are not warranted to take it as
proved, for I have shown above that we must make no assertions in such matters which we do not gather from
Scripture, or which do not flow as legitimate consequences from its fundamental principles. We must not
accept whatever is reasonably probable. However even reason in this case would not force such a conclusion
upon us: for it may be that the assembly of elders wrote down the decrees of Moses and communicated them
to the people, and the historian collected them, and duly set them forth in his narrative of the life
of Moses. So much for the five books of Moses: it is now time for us to turn to the other sacred writings.
The book of Joshua may be proved not to be an autograph by reasons similar to those we have just employed:
for it must be some other than Joshua who testifies that the fame of Joshua was spread over the whole
world; that he omitted nothing of what Moses had taught (Josh. vi:27; viii. last verse; xi:15); that he
grew old and summoned an assembly of the whole people, and finally that he departed this life. Furthermore,
events are related which took place after Joshua's death. For instance, that the Israelites worshipped
God, after his death, so long as there were any old men alive who remembered him; and in chap. xvi:10,
we read that "Ephraim and Manasseh did not drive out the Canaanites which dwelt in Gezer, but the Canaanite
dwelt in the land of Ephraim unto this day, and was tributary to him." This is the same statement as that
in Judges, chap. i., and the phrase "unto this day" shows that the writer was speaking of ancient times.
With these texts we may compare the last verse of chap. xv., concerning the sons of Judah, and also the
history of Caleb in the same chap. v:14. Further, the building of an altar beyond Jordan by the two tribes
and a half, chap. xxii:10, sqq., seems to have taken place after the death of Joshua, for in the whole
narrative his name is never mentioned, but the people alone held council as to waging war, sent out legates,
waited for their return, and finally approved of their answer.
Lastly, from chap. x:14, it is clear that the book was written many generations after the death of
Joshua, for it bears witness ,there was never any, day like unto, that day, either before or after, that
the Lord hearkened to the voice of a man," &c. If, therefore, Joshua wrote any book at all, it was that
which is quoted in the work now before us, chap. x:13.
With regard to the book of Judges, I suppose no rational person persuades himself that it was written
by the actual Judges. For the conclusion of the whole history contained in chap. ii. clearly shows that
it is all the work - of a single historian. Further, inasmuch as the writer frequently tells us that there
was then no king in Israel, it is evident that the book was written after the establishment of the monarchy.
The books of Samuel need not detain us long, inasmuch as the narrative in them is continued long after
Samuel's death; but I should like to draw attention to the fact that it was written many generations after
Samuel's death. For in book i. chap. ix:9, the historian remarks in a, parenthesis, "Beforetime, in Israel,
when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake: Come, and let us go to the seer; for he that is now
called a prophet was beforetime called a seer."
Lastly, the books of Kings, as we gather from internal evidence, were compiled from the books of King
Solomon (I Kings xi:41), from the chronicles of the kings of Judah (1 Kings xiv:19, 29), and the chronicles
of the kings of Israel.
We may, therefore, conclude that all the books we have considered hitherto are compilations, and that
the events therein are recorded as having happened in old time.
Now, if we turn our attention to the connection and argument of all these books, we shall easily see
that they were all written by a single historian, who wished to relate the antiquities of the Jews from
their first beginning down to the first destruction of the city. 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
writer. For as soon as he has related the life of Moses, the historian thus passes on to the story of
Joshua: "And it came to pass after that Moses the servant of the Lord was dead, that God spake unto Joshua,"
&c., so in the same way, after the death of Joshua was concluded, he passes with identically the same
transition and connection to the history of the Judges: "And it came to pass after that Joshua was dead,
that the children of Israel sought from God," &c. To the book of Judges he adds the story of Ruth, as a
sort of appendix, in these words: "Now it came to pass in the days that the judges ruled, that there was
a famine in the land."
The first book of Samuel is introduced with a similar phrase; and so is the second book of Samuel.
Then, before the history of David is concluded, the historian passes in the same way to the first book
of Kings, and, after David's death, to the Second book of Kings.
The putting together, and the order of the narratives, show that they are all the work of one man,
writing with a definite aim; for the historian begins with relating the first origin of the Hebrew nation,
and then sets forth in order the times and the occasions in which Moses put forth his laws, and made his
predictions. He then proceeds to relate how the Israelites invaded the promised land in accordance with
Moses' prophecy (Deut. vii.); and how, when the land was subdued, they turned their backs on their laws,
and thereby incurred many misfortunes (Deut. xxxi:16, 17). He tells how they wished to elect rulers, and
how, according as these rulers observed the law, the people flourished or suffered (Deut. xxviii:36);
finally, how destruction came upon the nation, even as Moses had foretold. In regard to other matters,
which do not serve to confirm the law, the writer either passes over them in silence, or refers the reader
to other books for information. All that is set down in the books we have conduces to the sole object
of setting forth the words and laws of Moses, and proving them by subsequent events.
When we put together these three considerations, namely, the unity of the subject of all the books,
the connection between them, and the fact that they are compilations made many generations after the
events they relate had taken place, we come to the conclusion, as I have just stated, that they are all
the work of a single historian. Who this historian was, it is not so easy to show; but I suspect that he
was Ezra, and there are several strong reasons for adopting this hypothesis.
The historian whom we already know to be but one individual brings his history down to the liberation
of Jehoiakim, and adds that he himself sat at the king's table all his life - that is, at the table either
of Jehoiakim, or of the son of Nebuchadnezzar, for the sense of the passage is ambiguous: hence it follows
that he did not live before the time of Ezra. But Scripture does not testify of any except of Ezra (Ezra
vii:10), that he "prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to set it forth, and further that
he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses." Therefore, I can not find anyone, save Ezra, to whom to attribute
the sacred books.
Further, from this testimony concerning Ezra, we see that he prepared his heart, not only to seek the
law of the Lord, but also to set it forth; and, in Nehemiah viii:8, we read that "they read in the book
of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading."
As, then, in Deuteronomy, we find not only the book of the law of Moses, or the greater part of it,
but also many things inserted for its better explanation, I conjecture that this Deuteronomy is the book
of the law of God, written, set forth, and explained by Ezra, which is referred to in the text above quoted.
Two examples of the way matters were inserted parenthetically in the text of Deuteronomy, with a view
to its fuller explanation, we have already given, in speaking of Aben Ezra's opinion. Many others are
found in the course of the work: for instance, in chap. ii:12: "The Horims dwelt also in Seir beforetime;
but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their
stead; as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them." This explains verses
3 and 4 of the same chapter, where it is stated that Mount Seir, which had come to the children of Esau
for a possession, did not fall into their hands uninhabited; but that they invaded it, and turned out and
destroyed the Horims, who formerly dwelt therein, even as the children of Israel had done unto the Canaanites
after the death of Moses.
So, also, verses 6, 7, 8, 9, of the tenth chapter are inserted parenthetically among the words of Moses.
Everyone must see that verse 8, which begins, "At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi," necessarily
refers to verse 5, and not to the death of Aaron, which is only mentioned here by Ezra because Moses, in
telling of the golden calf worshipped by the people, stated that he had prayed for Aaron.
He then explains that at the time at which Moses spoke, God had chosen for Himself the tribe of Levi
in order that He may point out the reason for their election, and for the fact of their not sharing in
the inheritance; after this digression, he resumes the thread of Moses' speech. To these parentheses we
must add the preface to the book, and all the passages in which Moses is spoken of in the third person,
besides many which we cannot now distinguish, though, doubtless, they would have been plainly recognized
by the writer's contemporaries.
If, I say, we were in possession of the book of the law as Moses wrote it, I do not doubt that we should
find a great difference in the words of the precepts, the order in which they are given, and the reasons
by which they are supported.
A comparison of the decalogue in Deuteronomy with the decalogue in Exodus, where its history is explicitly
set forth, will be sufficient to show us a wide discrepancy in all these three particulars, for the fourth
commandment is given not only in a different form, but at much greater length, while the reason for its
observance differs wholly from that stated in Exodus. Again, the order in which the tenth commandment
is explained differs in the two versions. I think that the differences here as elsewhere are the work
of Ezra, who explained the law of God to his contemporaries, and who wrote this book of the law of God,
before anything else; this I gather from the fact that it contains the laws of the country, of which the
people stood in most need, and also because it is not joined to the book which precedes it by any connecting
phrase, but begins with the independent statement, "these are the words of Moses." After this task was
completed, 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 city, and in this account he inserted the book
of Deuteronomy, and, possibly, he called the first five books by the name of Moses, because his life is
chiefly contained therein, and forms their principal subject; for the same reason he called the sixth
Joshua, the seventh Judges, the eighth Ruth, the ninth, and perhaps the tenth, Samuel, and, lastly, the
eleventh and twelfth Kings. Whether Ezra put the finishing touches to this work and finished it as he
intended, we will discuss in the next chapter.
A resource for learning how to read the Bible.