Spinoza' Criticism Of The Bible

Spinoza, as a famous Dutch philosopher of rationalism, is considered one of the founders of historical criticism of"the bible"at the same time, but the latter has long been neglected. For this reason, Spinoza's criticism of"the bible"in this article is divided into two connected parts referring to Spinoza's"theological and political theory", his related works, and the latest results of research. The two parts include criticisms of the contents of the bible—miracle, revelation, divine law and religious ceremony etc.—and the method of interpretation of"the bible". On this basis, the article conducts a study on Spinoza's critical theory of"the bible"and its significance. The article is divided into four parts:The first part mainly conducts a study on the reason and method of Spinoza's historical criticism of"the bible"from the historical and logical viewpoint. On the one hand, Spinoza conducts historical criticism of"the Bible"in order to expose the prejudices of the theologians at that time which concern basic religious doctrines and attitudes towards"the bible". Conducting the criticism of the theologians' bias is Spinoza's main purpose in his historical criticism of"the bible"which permeates all his criticism. Spinoza thinks the theologians'bias can mislead the people's thought, and restrict them from thinking philosophically. Not only that, the theologians apply their bias to the understanding and interpretation of the bible, even not hesitate to distort"the bible"for their own use, thus make the harm spread. The second reason of Spinoza's criticism of"the Bible"is to refute the accusations about his atheism. Spinoza's philosophy has heretical nature in terms of theology or religion, which deviates from the orthodox, thus it will inevitably be accused of atheism. The third reason of Spinoza's criticism of"the bible"is to protect the freedom of thought and the authority of reason. Spinoza's criticism of"the bible"which is regarded as the headquarters of religious thought will inevitably play a critical ideological role in the liberation of the people, and at the same time, Spinoza's criticism of the content and the method of interpretation of"the bible"stands on the position of Rationalism. The fourth which is perhaps the most direct reason of Spinoza's criticism of"the bible"is to meet the needs of domestic political struggle, and to fight back the reactionary political and religious forces at that time.The second part is Spinoza's criticism of the content of"the bible"which includes the criticism of prophecy, miracle, divine law and ritual law, etc. Spinoza thinks prophecy really exist, but as the knowledge of imagination, its credibility needs to be proved, thus it only has probable certainty. Also, as Spinoza defines the purpose of prophecy as teaching people to live an upright life, there is a tendency towards ethicizing religion here. As to the miracle, Spinoza denies its existence in terms of the ontology and epistemology. The so-called miracle in"the bible"is only natural accident, and there exist no miracles which violate the laws of nature. People's believing the existence of miracle is closely related to their cognitive ability at that time. We can not discover god's providence from the miracle. As with the treatment of miracle, Spinoza also consider the divine law as a philosophical issue, not a law, but a necessary truth, and the only purpose of people's believing and obeying it is really knowing and loving the God. And the rule of the ceremony is not part of the divine law, so it has no general sanction.The third part is criticism of the methods of interpretation of"the bible". Spinoza criticizes the previous methods of interpretation at first, thinking the substance of its mistake is inflating or playing down reason. On this basis, Spinoza expounds his methods of interpretation of"the bible", that is: historical methods of interpretation. This approach requires us to make use of reason appropriately. The general rule is to study"the bible"according to the history of"the bible", do not set up any principle in advance, and don't believe what can't be seen clearly in the holy book credible. The method is the same as the method of interpretation of the nature: Take the basic principle of"the bible"as the foundation, and then study the less common doctrine, then use the historical method to analyze those unclear passages. Spinoza thinks the method is the best although it may encounter difficulties.The fourth part probes into the significance of Spinoza's critical theory. Spinoza's critical theory of"the bible"not only helps to liberate people's minds and maintains the authority of reason, but also helps to eliminate the religious superstition which was wrapped in people's thought then. Also, this theory has important significance for the development of hermeneutics, as it promoted the production of universal hermeneutics on the basis of opening historical exegesis of the first of its kind.