The Books of Nature and Scripture

8/13/2019 The Books of Nature and Scripture

1/17

T H E BOOKSO F NA TURE AND SCRIPTURE:RECENT ESSAYS ON NA TURAL PHILOS OPHY. THEOLOG Y.

AND BIB LICALC R ITIC ISM NT H E NETHERLANDS O SPIN OZA S T IM E AND THEBRITISH ISLE SO N E W T O N S TI M E


2/17

RCHNESIN TERNATIO NALES D HIS TO IR E DES IDEESINTERNATIONALAR CHIVESOF T HE HISTORY OFID E AS

139

THEBOOKSOFNTURE NDSCRWTURERecent Essayson N atural Philosophy, Theology, and

Biblical Criticism inthe Netherlands of Spinozas T ime and

the BritishI slesofN ewtons Time

EDITED BYJAM ES E. FO RCEa nd RICHARDH POPKIN

Directors P Dibon(Paris ) and R Popkin (WashingtonUniv ersity, St Louisand U CLA)Editorial Board J.F. Battail (Paris); F Duchesneau (Montreal); A. Gabbey (New York);T. Gregory (Rome); J.D. North (Groningen); M.J. Petry (Rotterdam); J Popkin (Lexington);

Th Verbeek (Utrecht)Managing Editor S Hutton(The U niversity ofHertfordshire)

Advisory EditorialBoard J Aubin (Paris); A. Crombie (Oxford); H de la Fontaine Verwey(Amsterdam); H Gadamer (Heidelberg); H Gouhier (Paris); K Hanada (HokkaidoUniversity); W Kirsop (Melbourne); P.O. Kristeller (Columbia University); ElisabethLabrousse (Paris); A. Lossky (Los Angeles); J Malarczyk (Lub lin); E de Olaso (C.I.F.Buenos Aires); J Orcibal (Paris); Wolfgang ROd (Miinchen); G Rousseau (Los Angeles);

H Rowen (Rutgers University, N.J.);J.P. S chobinger (Zurich); J Tans (Groningen)


3/17

THE BOOKS OF NATUREAND SCRIPTURE:RECENT ESSAYS ON NATURAL PHILOSOPHY,

THEOLOGY, NDBIBLICAL CRITICISMINTHENETHERLANDS OF SPINOZAS TIMEAND THE BRITISH ISLES OFNEWTON S TIME

dited yJA MES E FORCE

UniversityoKentucky Dept. oPhilosophy U.S.A.

nd

RICHARDH POPKINUniversity o California. Los Angeles. U.S.A.

Emory University. U.S.A

SPRJN GER-SC IEN CE BU SINESS M EDIA , B.V.


4/17

Library o Congress Cataloging in Publication DataBible scholarship 1n the Netherlands of Sp1noza s tiNe and 1n theBritish Isles of Newton s time edited by Jam es E. Force anaRichard H Popkin.

p. em


5/17

TA BLEOF CONTEN TS

In troduction(R ichard H Popkin, Unive rsityo Californ ia. Los Angele s; EmoryUniversity vii

I. Spin ozaand Bib leScholars hip (RichardH Popkin )

2 Com ments on R Popkin 'sPaper(Amos Funkenstein ,UniversityoCaliforn ia, Berkeley; UniversityoTel-Aviv 21

3 Ir rationalityW ith orW ithoutReason:AnAnalysisof Chapter XV of theTractatus Theolo gico-politicus

(Jac quelineLagree,UniversityoBrest 254. More, Newton,and the Language ofBib lical Prophec y

(Sarah Hutton,University oHertford shire 395 M aking aShew : Apocalyptic Hermeneutics and the Socio logyof

Christian Idolatryin theW orkof Isaac Newtonand Henry More(RobIliffe,Univers ity oLondon 556 Newton on Kabbalah(Matt Gold ish, H ebrew Universi ty. Jerusa lem 89

7 OneProphet Interprets Another: Sir Isaac New tonand Dan iel(M ataniaZ Koch avi,Jerusalem 105

8 Pray DoNot Ascribe that Notionto M e: Godand New to n 's Gra vity(John Henry, Univers ity o Edinburg h 123

9 IsaacNewton andThom as Burnet : BiblicalCriticism andthe Crisis ofLateSevente enth-CenturyE ngla nd

(Scott M andelbro te, A ll Souls College. Oxfo rd 14910 The GodofAbra hamand Isaac (Newto n)

(James E Force,UniversityoKentu ck y 179II M oses 'sPrincipia : HutchinsonianismandN ew to n 's Critics

(D avidS .K atz, Univer sityo Tel-A viv 201Index 213


6/17

INTRODUCTION

In the spring o 1991, Rob Iliffe was a Fellow at the U.C.L.A. Center for 17th- and18th-Century Studies. Taking advantage o his presence in Los Angeles, RichardPopkin organized a small conference at U.C.L.A. s William Andrews ClarkMemorial Library on the topic o Spinoza and Newton as Bible Scholars. Thepresent collection o essays grew out o that one-day conference held at the ClarkLibrary on January 26, 1991. Four essayists in the present volume, James E Force,Amos Funkenstein, Rob Iliffe, and Richard H Popkin, took part in the conference.A fifth contributor to this volume, Matt Goldish, made his presence felt at the conference as an astute questioner present in the audience.

Everyone who participated in the conference felt that it was important to consider the nature o the contributions o both Spinoza and Newton to the study o theBible and to examine the relationship o their contributions in these fields to otherintellectual concerns at the time. During the conference in January, 1991, at thecongenial Clark Library, much lively discussion, formal and informal, took placeon this and related topics. The two editors o the current volume, Force and Popkin,decided to broaden the discussion. We decided to ask several other scholars, whomwe knew to be interested in theological issues in the latter seventeenth and earlyeighteenth centuries, to contribute essays to a proposed volume covering a widerange o themes relating to the understanding o philosophical, religious, scientific,and theological ideas during the general time frame between 1660 and 1730 in theNetherlands and the British Isles. We originally hoped that the authors wouldprovide us with roughly equal portions on Spinoza s world and on Newton s world.However, possibly as a sign o growing interest in Newton s theology, many o theauthors chose to examine aspects o Newton s theological views both in themselvesand in contrast with others before, during, and after the period when he wasworking out his biblical interpretations.

The essays in this volume are presented both by more established scholars and byyounger scholars (some o whom are publishing their first studies here) who representthe vanguard o the next generation of those who will be dealing with these topics.

In many historical accounts, Spinoza s critical examination o Scripture is taken asthe beginning o modem biblical scholarship. Spinoza, in his Tractatus Theologico-

viiJames E Force nd Richard H Popkin eds.}, The Books ofNature nd Scripture, vii-xviii 994 Kluwer Academic Publishers.


7/17


8/17


9/17


10/17


11/17

xii ntroductionlines in which Moses described his own death, but these commentators did not findthis interpretation to be alarming or one which raised a question about the divineorigin o the text. These interpreters were perfectly willing to consider the possibilities that Aaron, the brother o Moses, wrote those lines or that Joshua did or that,perhaps, God had given Moses foreknowledge o future events that includedknowledge about his own death.

Spinoza, then, was not a particularly original Bible Scholar. Most o the pointswhich he considered had in fact been examined earlier by others. However, hisperspective was radically different from that o almost all other commentators,ancient, medieval, or modem. e considered the biblical text that we possess to beman-made, an artifact written by human beings in antiquity who lived in particularsocial and political contexts and who had particular social and political problems.The naturalizing o the text, i.e., considering it as a totally human production,allowed for quite different ways o understanding what Scripture represented.Spinoza's re-evaluation o the perspective we ought to adopt in looking at the text,rather than any specific new data about the text, set off a revolutionary new way oconsidering what the Bible meant in human history. Amos Funkenstein, in his briefcommentary on Popkin's paper, indicates where this evaluation o Spinoza fits interms o prior Jewish biblical exegesis.

Jacqueline Lagree examines a most puzzling chapter in Spinoza's Tractatus concerning how to consider the Bible. She shows that in order to understand whatSpinoza was arguing about at this point, one has to go back to the extremely radicalwork written by Spinoza's close friend, Lewis Meyer, in 1666, in which Meyersought to give a purely rational analysis o Scripture. Some o what seems moststrange in Spinoza's presentation is clarified by juxtaposing it with Meyer'sdiscussions.

Turning next to Newton, one finds that he was using some o the very samescholarly and scientific techniques developed by both Spinoza and Simon. Newtontried most carefully to establish the actual text and to unravel the Divine clues,especially in the most symbolic books, Daniel and Revelation. However, unlikeSpinoza, Newton was vitally concerned to find out exactly what had been prophesied in these writings and when these prophecies had been, or possibly would be,fulfilled, especially those prophecies concerned with the end o days, whichmany o Newton's contemporaries thought was imminent. The relationshipbetween Newton's work on interpreting prophecies and his work on interpretingnature is one o the recurring themes in recent Newton literature. In several o thestudies in this volume, the authors offer their views on this intriguing subject.Sarah Hutton and Rob Iliffe, in their two essays, examine Newton's views on theBible in relation to those o his older contemporary and colleague at Cambridge,Henry More, who, like Newton, was also very concerned about the apocalypticmessages in Scripture. Both derived their ways o interpreting the Bible from


12/17


13/17


14/17


15/17

xv Introductiondismissal o the Mosaic account and his own similar preference for a purelyscientific one. Mandelbrote argues that, although there were surface similarities inthe exegetical methods o Newton and Burnet, their views about the Bible wereprofoundly different. Newton could not write it off as a popularization for thevulgar. The creation story in Genesis was a crucial way in which God had presented his message about what happened directly to mankind. Jewish history wasDivine History and had to be taken seriously. Taking it seriously did not meanthat one could not interpret parts o it in different ways. Some o what was involvedin their differences was the importance o Church authority or lack o same. Burnetwas trying to please the accepted Church and offer them a way o reading Scripturewhich could be scientifically and philosophically correct. Newton regarded theofficial church as a central part o the corruption o Christianity and wanted a wayo reading Scripture which revealed the true Divine Message, not the messageacceptable to corrupt, anti-Christian idolaters who just happened to control theofficial church and had done since the fourth century. The irony o this story is thatBurnet was eventually severely criticized for his scientific understanding o theBible and totally allegorical reading o Genesis and thereby lost his chance oadvancing to high Church office while Newton. the secret Arian heretic, advancedto positions o real power and influence in both the university and society.

In the next essay, James E Force deals with one o Newton's radical andheretical theological views, his Christian mortalism, and shows how this hereticaltheory grows out o Newton's special kind o literalism in reading Scripture.Christian mortalism is the view that the soul does not continue to exist as a conscious, independent substance after the death o the body, but is only brought backto complete, conscious existence by the power o God at the time o the last judgement. Force argues that, in Newton's case, this heretical theological doctrine is butone more natural consequence o Newton's voluntaristic conception o the natureo the Lord God o supreme power and dominion. Force argues that it is Newton'svoluntarism which underlies all o Newton's natural philosophy and theologicalmetaphysics.

Force presents the evidence for calling Newton a Christian mortalist o thepsychopannychist school in terms, first, o Newton's particular form o literalismin interpreting scripture. The largest and clearest exposition o this particularlyNewtonian literalism, Force finds in the early writing o Newton's successor in theLucasian Chair o Mathematics at Cambridge, William Whiston. In Whiston'sNew Theory o the Earth ( 1969), which, according to Whiston, was wellapproved by Newotn, there is a 95-page introductory discourse offering a third ormiddle way o reading scripture according to which we should generally strive tohold to the plain, obvious, literal sense unless there is a solid and succinct reasonfor doing otherwise. Force contends that, in Newton's correspondence with ThomasBurnet in the 1680's, there is evidence that Newton, with Whiston, subscribed to


16/17


17/17

xv iii Introduction

lent Jews. Hutc hinsonian Hebrew scholars hip cla im ed to get back to the origin albib lical text which only contained consonants. Katz points ou t that th eHutchinsonia n theory was ultimate ly bru shed asid e by scientific biblic al scholar-ship in England and G erm any. But, nonetheless, th is strange theory had m uchinfluence for more than a centuryand pro bably contrib utedto the Fundam entalistmovement.

W e hope th at th is collectiono essays will contribute both t0 clarif ying Spinoza 'sand N ew ton 's biblical scholars hip and to show ing the import anceo bib lical andtheolo gic al studies in the general intellectual atmosphere betw een 1660 a nd 173 0 inthe Netherlands and the British Isles. Many o the proble m s in volv ed in the emer-genceo m odem philosophy and m odem science in volv ed, for the partic ipantsexam ined in th e essays in th is volu m e, questio ns about what th e Bib le said andabout ho w biblic al statem ents relate d to knowledge in othera reas. Instead o bru sh-ing aside th ese discussionso biblical and theolo gical themes as outm oded andirrele vant to the marcho in te llectual id eas, wehope th at they will e seen as vi talin the conte xt o the time fo runderstanding the develo pm ent o scientifi candphilo-sophical ideas. Ignoring the seriousness o bib lical and th eolo gic al d iscussions hascreated a distorted picture o what happened in th e Neth erlands o Spino za 's tim eand the British Isleso N ew to n 's time. Perh aps this volum e will redre ss this situa-tion to som esmal l exte nt.

RICH RDH POPKINWashington University St. LouisUniversity oCalifornia Los AngelesEmory Universitv

Documents

The Books of Nature and Scripture