Bible Interpretation as Philosophical Praxis: A Study of Spinoza and Kant* YIRMIAHU YOVEL LET US IMAGINETHATA RELIGIOUSFANATIChad stolen Spinoza's literary remains before they were published, in order to save the world and posterity from a dangerous atheist. In this unfortunate case, we would have in our possession only the Tractatus Theologico Politicus, which Spinoza published anonymously, and The Principles of Cartesian Philosophy with the appended Cogitata Metaphysica, which Spinoza's friend, L. Meyer, published in Spinoza's name, while warning that they do not necessarily express the author's views. We might have also discovered many of the letters, and, if Leibnitz were gracious enough, he might even have made public the conversation which he had had with Spinoza about a year before the latter's death. Yet in the absence of the Ethics and the two theoretical treatises,1 Spinoza would have surely been a marginal figure, if anything, in the history of philosophy. On the other hand, there is no doubt that even in such an event, Spinoza would have retained his central position in the history of another discipline-- Biblical criticism; for what he says on this subject in the Tractatus Theologico PoIiticus (henceforth: TTP) is sutficient to ensure that. Spinoza's historical contribution to Biblical criticism is thus independent of his contribution to general philosophy, and one could discuss the former in itself with little regard to the latter. In this essay, however, I propose to take a different approach, investigating the relation between Spinoza the philosopher and Spinoza the Biblical critic. Although in an important sense Spinoza's hermeneutic program is autonomous, it is still philosophically instructive to see how it is grounded in his general thought and philosophical goals. At the same time it seems of equal interest to compare * A former version of this essay appeared (in Hebrew) in the philosophical quarterly IYYUN, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Sept., 1966). I am indebted to Professor S. Pines for valuable comments and suggestions. (See also his study of "Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Polificus, Maimonides and Kant," Scripta Hierosolymitana, 20 (1968). x The Short Treatise on God, Man and his Well-Being, and On the Improvement of the Understanding. The latter treatise will hereafter be referred to as DIE and quoted from the English edition: The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza, tr. R. H. M. Elwes (New York: Dover, 1951); see also Spinoza, Opera herausgegeben yon Carl Gebhardt (Heidelberg: Winters, 1925), hereafter cited as "Opera," [189] 190 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Spinoza's position with that of Kant, reconstructing Kant's own method of Biblical interpretation from his fragmentary discussions and showing how it, too, is rooted in broader philosophical aims. A comparison between Kant and Spinoza is also suggested by the fact that, while it is doubtful whether Kant read TTP, it is almost certain that he was influenced by it indirectly. Good evidence for this is (as Guttmann has shown z) his attitude towards Judaism and the ancient Hebrew state which closely resembles that of Spinoza, the mediating link being the book Jerusalem by Kant's Jewish friend and rival, Moses Mendelssohn. We may add that Kant also resembles Spinoza in the contention that the Bible has no theoretical (cognitive) value; that its sole importance lies in its practical (ethical) function; and that to activate this function a good deal of historical and philological scholarship was necessary. To be sure, in contrast to Spinoza Kant subordinated all such scholarship to an extrinsic interest, thus falling into insoluble difficulties. But in stressing its importance, Kant echoes a revolutionary demand which had first been made by Spinoza, and it is interesting to examine in detail what happened to it within Kant's own system and what are the reasons for the shift. Beyond this historical point, the comparison is also desirable from the viewpoint and interests of a Critique ol Religion. To be sure, criticism of the notions of personal providence, miracles or revelation, and the analysis of the role of irrational powers, such as fear, in the spread and dominion of religious institutions, are not characteristic of Spinoza and Kant alone. Each of them pursues in his own way what Leo Strauss called the...