SPINOZISTIC SCRIPTURAL INTERPRETATIONS 
Hampshire:203
 
Caution: see Mark Twain's "Little Story."  

 by 

Joseph B. Yesselman
 

Spinoza's Religion  
Home  Page  -  Spinozistic Glossary and Index  -  Spinozistic Ideas  -  Salvation 
Runes's Introduction with Forward by Einstein 
Preface; Durant on G-DGraetz's Censure of SpinozaDurant's TributeSchorsch;  
Gen 43:14; Lev 19:18; Psalms; Isaiah; Micah 6:8; Proverbs 4:14; 23:19. 
 
 



Notes by JBY:

1.  The text was taken (except as noted) from Book V.  
     Page Numbers given below refer this book. 
     The translation and commentary are by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (unless noted). 
     Rabbi Hirsch's commentaries are replete with Hebrew-language's insights. 
     For Bible-study, Strong, Gesenius, and BibleWorks are indispensable.  


2. Format for R. Hirsch's Translations: 

HirPsalm:92:7; pg.155.        Rabbi Hirsch's point-of-view.       Scriptural Interpretation.

            A brutish man knoweth not,                        {translation from Jewish Publication Society, 1917 edition}
            Neither doth a fool understand this.
         A man bare of reason does not understand,    {translation by R. Hirsch}
      nor does a conceited fool comprehend this:  

           Followed by Rabbi Hirsch's commentary which I have abbreviated and heavily edited for          people who do not know Hebrew.

           R. Hirsch's translations vary from the JPS translations in his own inimitable style. 


3. Symbols:


4. Three Stages in the Evolution of the Concept of G-D:
         I have made the following changes, throughout all my web pages (not consistently), in 
         the spellings of God to reflect, in my opinion, the three stages of this evolution: 
         1. god(s)
Polytheistic; Pagan, Idolatry, Myth. Einstein on these three stagesParadigm Shifts.
         2. God Monotheistic; Judaeo-Christian-Islamic, Anthropomorphic, Transcendent God.  
             Durant:637Re-interpret all anthropomorphisms in accordance with TTP1:3:13Schweizer:79, James Hall:21. 
         3. G-D or G-d Monotheistic; Spinoza's Immanent, Indwelling G-D/Nature. 
             ^ spelling ^ not consistently.           Analogies, James Hall:51, Weinphal:49, Durant:636, Dawkins:307.
            'G-D', Being, and 'Nature' are interchangeable. Deus sive Natura. Term G-D.     Spinoza's Religion
           
'G-d', being, and 'nature' are interchangeable. Mode. Spinoza's Pantheism. D2:Spinozistic Meaning
          I use the words 'G-D', 'Thou' - 'thee', 'Deus', and 'Nature' interchangeably.

The above stages show the constant evolution of Religion's hypotheses. G-D is a synthesis of god(s) and God. See Dialectics, and Theistic and Non-theistic world views synthesized. Overcome. Memes.
The evolving concept of God results in the re-interpretation of HolidaysParadigm Shifts.  

From Mook and Vargish Inside Relativity; 0691025207; p. 22. 

From Richard Dawkins' A Devil's Chaplain 2003; 0618335404; p. 150. 

Paradoxically, Spinoza's G-D has much in common with the Pagan gods. Spinoza treats all things as Holy and as organically interdependent (analogy); whereas the Pagan treats things as independent separatesstanding alone. The cash value of Spinoza's hypothesis of 'G-D' is that it establishes the logic for the Golden Rule and it synthesizes theistic and non-theistic world views.  

Conjecture: Spinozism is Evolved Judaism; law libraries of the world merge into the Talmud.


5.  Make my following emendations throughtout the Work: 
          soul                   change to            mind, thought, or life. 
         
 
6.   Partake of the Work (and my comments) as you would a pomegranaterelish 
      the flesh and spit-out the pits—things out-of-date; things you disagree with; and 
      things incomprehensible.  

     The ideas that I express may not be explicit in Spinoza's Works or in Rabbi Hirsch's Works ,      but are (in my opinion) implicit in their general principles. 


7.  Rabbi Hirsch's point-of-view is a transcendent, anthropomorphic {ascribing human form or        attributes to a thing or a being not human, as to a deity} God, which leads R. Hirsch to take man's       point-of-view of things. But if you re-interpret to an indwelling, immanent G-D, it gives the       same end results except when the former lapses into idolatry. The latter, immanent,      G-D, makes many scriptural passages literally true instead of allegorical (the representation of        spiritual, moral, or other abstract meanings through the actions of fictional characters that serve as symbols). 
    Get behind the anthropomorphisms and find Deus sive Natura  {Example+1+2.} 
      
     See Book XXI, Kenneth R. Miller "Finding Darwin's God".


8.  In studying Scripture always remember that the purpose of "Religion" is 
     to bring peace-of-mind; not teach philosophy, nor to make men learned.      TTP1:Prf:42


9. Definitions: 


10.  Suggestion: 


11.  Suggested Web Sites for Sacred Bible Texts:
       http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/index.htm
 
       http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm 
     
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm#index 
       http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl 
     
A CD of the Sacred Texts of all Faiths is available.
  
  



Preface

As I kept studying Spinoza, what Elwes thought happened to Spinoza,
happened to me.
 

From "Elwes's Introduction to his Translations of Spinoza's Works".

This "unfolding itself" was to me an infinite "organic interdependence of 
parts
" which led directly to the "Golden Rule";  not out of altruism but of 
enlightened self-interest.   

Now, after some fifty-six years, I am still studying Spinoza and Scripture
and gaining ever-new insights.
  

Study Spinoza's "A THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL TREATISE" - especially 1:66 and Ch. 7.

  


Spinoza's Religion  

JBY Glossary definition is:  
Religion is an ever-evolving hypothesis designed (posited) 
to find 
PEACE-OF-MIND
(PcM).    

From Glossary Note 1: The definitions as given in dictionaries are the everyday language     usages, and are generally synonyms or properties of the word—not the nature (cause)     thereof. Spinoza attempts to find the cause.
 From Ethics: Part III: Def. of the Emotions XX Explanation:178 
    "But my purpose is to explain, not the meaning of words, but the nature of things ."  

The following are the entries for 'religion' given in "Webster's Electronic Dictionary". I posit that the definitions given do not get at the principle need, principle craving, and principle cause for Religion, PEACE-OF-MIND, but merely give its properties. Properties merely show the ways people hope to find Peace-of-Mind (PcM); however momentarily. 

re-li-gion (ri lij'uhn) n.      {JBY comments.}

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when     considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usu. involving devotional     and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs.
    {
Knowing, positing, the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and your place in it, help bring PcM.
      Devotional and ritual observances
help reinforce your beliefs.
     A moral code, and laws, for the conduct of human affairs certainly bring PcM. Constitution.
}

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of     persons or sects: the Christian religion. {If the tenets of the Religion are believed and observed,
     it helps bring PcM. Mark Twain's "Little Story"
}

8. <get religion>. a. to become religious; acquire religious convictions. b. to resolve to mend     one's errant ways {in order to bring PcM}.

[1150-1200; ME religioun (< OF religion) < L religio conscientiousness, piety = relig (are) to tie, fasten (re- RE - + ligare to bind, tie; cf. LIGAMENT) + -io - ION; cf. RELY]
                  {
To re-bind a torn apart world brings PcM; by not bringing-on atomic warfare.}


From Parkinson's Introduction to Bk.XV:xx-xxiiSpinoza's Religion:
                                                    Moral Agency, Robinson3:189 

[Parkinson:1]  Spinoza, for his part, would agree that there is a connection between religion and the concept of G-D {posit 1D6 = ONE}; however, he would deny that religion, in the genuine sense of the term, requires the concept of a personal God. Religion, as he understands it, is 'Whatever we desire {PcM} and do of which we are the {active} cause, in so far as we ... know G-D' {because it brings Peace of Mind.(4P37n1). To grasp the full meaning of this, one must take account of the fact that there is for Spinoza a link {Letter:3724[7]} between one's knowledge of G-D and one's activity as a moral agent {to act as a part of an infinite organism so that, that organism can be healthier and you, as part of that organism, be healthier. Damasio—biological, Robinson3:15}. This link involves what is page xxi perhaps the key concept of Spinoza's moral philosophy, namely, the concept of freedom {the heart acts freely in accordance with its nature, the lung acts freely in accordance with its nature, for the health of the organism.}. By 'freedom', in the context of his moral philosophy, Spinoza does not mean the freedom to philosophise which he defended in the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, nor does he mean what is commonly called the 'freedom of the will'. Spinoza was in fact a strict determinist; in his view, whatever happens must happen, and nothing can happen other than what does happen (1P33). A free agent, for him, is not someone whose actions are undetermined; a free agent is someone whose actions are self-determined, i.e. who is an {active} autonomous agent. The connection between such freedom and the knowledge of G-D is this: Spinoza argues that to be self-determined is not to be controlled by one's passions; one is self-determined when one's reason is in control. This means that one is free when one understands oneself and, in so doing, understands that 'God, or Nature' of which one is an {organic} part.  

[Parkinson:2]  Since G-D, by virtue of being self-caused, is self-determined,
it is not surprising that Spinoza should say that G-D is a 'free cause' (1P17c2). The problem is, how anything other than G-D can be called free. Spinoza insists that each particular thing is determined by another (1P28); how, then, can there be any point in finite beings such as ourselves having freedom as a goal? The answer, stripped of Spinoza's technical terminology, is this: To be a rational agent is to understand; now, Spinoza argues that when we understand {Mock} something, we are not reacting to external stimuli. Rather, G-D is (as it were) thinking through us, or, as Spinoza says, G-D is 'explained through the nature of the human mind' (2P11c).  

[Parkinson:3]  Just how this is to be interpreted is a matter of controversy, but perhaps enough has been said to show, in general terms, how Spinoza's moral philosophy is related to his views about G-D. It has been seen that the free man, the man who is the master of his passions, is the man who has understanding, and that such understanding involves a knowledge of, and indeed in a sense is, the knowledge of the ultimate and self-explanatory being. We can now return to Spinoza's use of the term 'religion' to refer to the desires and actions which are caused by our knowledge of such a being {things that bring peace-of-mind.}. The question is, whether this is a proper use of the term 'religion' - a question the answer to which bears on the question whether Spinoza is entitled to call page xxii his self-caused Being by the name 'G-D'. Certainly, it is hard to see how Spinoza's concept of religion can have any place for the concept of worship, or of petitionary prayer. Some might argue, however, that these concepts are not necessary to religion. What is necessary, they would say, is the idea that human beings are part of an {organic} whole, and one which is, in some way, a rational {determined to exist} whole. If one views religion in this way, then there is a case for saying that Spinoza did hold religious views, and that he had a right to use the word 'G-D' in the way that he did {Religious language}. One may add that it is probably this aspect of his philosophy, and not (say) his technical views about substance or about knowledge, that has proved attractive to many who are not philosophers.  

[Parkinson:4]  What has just been said about Spinoza and religion
provides an answer to another question raised earlier (p.xviii): namely, whether Spinoza is one of those who see science and religion as in conflict. The answer is that he would not recognise such a conflict - provided that 'religion' is taken in his sense of the term. We have seen that, for Spinoza, to speak of religion is to speak of those desires and actions that spring from a knowledge of G-D. Similarly, he would say that a scientific knowledge of the world depends in the last analysis on a knowledge of G-D, the ultimate explanation of all things. Spinoza would say, then, that in his sense of the term 'religion', there is no conflict between religion and science {Scientific Method}. However, he also believed that false views about G-D had been a major obstacle to understanding, and to those false views {God} he was firmly opposed.

G. H. R. PARKINSON
 

 

From Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.  [Accessed July 18, 2003].  

SalvationNature and significance:     ST:Wolfson:2:3113, Scr:Dijn'sSalvation, Nagel:274.

It could be argued reasonably that the primary purpose of all religions is to provide {hypothesize} salvation for their adherents, and the existence of many different religions {Spinoza's Religion} indicates that there is a great variety of opinion about what constitutes salvation and the means of achieving it {peace-of-mind}. That the term salvation can be meaningfully used in connection with so many religions, however, shows that it distinguishes a notion common to men and women of a wide range of cultural traditions.

EB Salvation
[2]  The fundamental idea contained in the English word salvation, and the Latin salvatio and Greek soteria from which it derives, is that of saving or delivering from some dire situation {no atheists in a foxhole, religion}. The term soteriology {spiritual salvation, esp. by divine agency} denotes beliefs and doctrines concerning salvation in any specific religion, as well as the study of the subject. The idea of saving or delivering from some dire situation logically implies that mankind, as a whole or in part, is in such a situation. This premise, in turn, involves a series of related assumptions about human nature and destiny.

EB Salvation
[3SalvationObjects and goals: 

The creation myths of many religions express the beliefs that have been held concerning the original state of mankind in the divine ordering of the universe. Many of these myths envisage a kind of Golden Age at the beginning of the world, when the first human beings lived, serene and happy, untouched by disease, aging, or death and in harmony with a divine Creator. Myths {a traditional or legendary story, esp. one that involves gods and heroes and explains a cultural practice or natural object or phenomenon} of this kind usually involve the shattering of the ideal state by some mischance, with wickedness, disease, and death entering into the world as the result. The Adam and Eve myth is particularly notable for tracing the origin of death, the pain of childbirth, and the hard toil of agriculture, to man's disobedience of his maker. It expresses the belief that sin is the cause of evil in the world, and implies that salvation must come through man's repentance and God's forgiveness and restoration.

EB Salvation
[4]  In ancient Iran, a different cosmic situation was contemplated, one in which the world was seen as a battleground of two opposing forces: good and evil, light and darkness, life and death. In this cosmic struggle, mankind was inevitably involved, and the quality of human life was conditioned by this involvement. Zoroaster, the founder of Zoroastrianism, called upon men to align themselves with the good, personified in the god Ahura Mazda, because their ultimate salvation lay in the triumph of the cosmic principle of good over evil, personified in Ahriman. This salvation involved the restoration of all that had been corrupted or injured by Ahriman at the time of his final defeat and destruction. Thus the Zoroastrian concept of salvation was really a return to a Golden Age of the primordial perfection of all things, including man. Some ancient Christian theologians (e.g., Origen) also conceived of a final “restoration” in which even devils, as well as men, would be saved; this idea, called universalism, was condemned by the church as heresy.

EB Salvation
[5]  In those religions that regard man as essentially a psychophysical {the branch of psychology that deals with the relationships between physical stimuli and resulting sensations and mental states} organism (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Islam), salvation involves the restoration of both the body and soul. Such religions therefore teach doctrines of a resurrection of the dead body and its reunion with the soul, preparatory to ultimate salvation or damnation. In contrast, some religions have taught that the body is a corrupting substance in which the soul is imprisoned (e.g., Orphism, an ancient Greek mystical cult; Hinduism; and Manichaeism, an ancient dualistic religion of Iranian origin). In this dualistic view of human nature, salvation has meant essentially the emancipation of the soul from its physical prison or tomb and its return to its ethereal home. Such religions generally explain the incarceration of the soul in the body in terms that imply the intrinsic evil of physical matter. Where such views of human nature were held, salvation therefore meant the eternal beatitude of the disembodied soul.

EB Salvation
[6]  Christian soteriology {spiritual salvation, esp. by divine agency} contains a very complex eschatological {any system of religious doctrines concerning last or final matters, as death, judgment, or an afterlife} program (regarding the final end of man and the world), which includes the fate of both individual persons and the existing cosmic order. The return of Christ will be heralded by the destruction of the heaven and earth and the resurrection of the dead. The Last Judgment , which will then take place, will result in the eternal beatitude of the just, whose souls have been purified in purgatory {esp. in Roman Catholic belief) a place or state following death in which penitent souls are purified of venial sins or undergo the temporal punishment still remaining for forgiven mortal sins and thereby are made ready for heaven}, and the everlasting damnation of the wicked. The saved, reconstituted by the reunion of soul and body, will forever enjoy the Beatific Vision; the damned, similarly reconstituted, will suffer forever in hell, together with the devil and the fallen angels. Some schemes of eschatological imagery, used by both Christians and Jews, envisage the creation of a new heaven and earth, with a New Jerusalem at its centre.

EB Salvation
[7SalvationMeans of achieving: 
 
The above means "to be saved from frustration by the LOVE of G-D."  

The hope of salvation has naturally involved ideas about how it might be achieved. These ideas have varied according to the form of salvation envisaged; but the means employed can be divided into three significant categories: (1) the most primitive is based on belief in the efficacy of ritual magic—initiation ceremonies, such as those of the ancient mystery religions, afford notable examples; (2) salvation by self-effort, usually through the acquisition of esoteric {private; secret} knowledge, ascetic {a person who practices self-denial and self-mortification for religious reasons} discipline, or heroic death, has been variously promised in certain religions—Orphism, Hinduism, Islam, for example; and (3) salvation by divine aid, which has usually entailed the concept of a divine saviour who achieves what man cannot do for himself—as in Christianity, Judaism, Islam.


From Gerth and Mills's "From Max Weber"; Copyright 1946; Pages 272-3—On Salvation. 


From Herman De Dijn's Book III:238-239—On Salvation.

From Clifford's The Ethics of Belief reprinted in Klemke, Philosophy, ISBN: 0312084781;
        pp. 66ff—{
Credulity of belief in God}. 


TTP3:XII(61):172  


The Hebrew Bible is the Jewish bible "Tanakh" (The Five Books of Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings)  as sectarianly translated and sectarianly interpreted by Jews.  {Anti-Semitism}  

The Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible as sectarianly translated and sectarianly interpreted by Christians.  

From Lawrence Boadt's Reading the Old Testament; Paulist Press 1984; ISBN: 0809126311
The term "Old' Testament; Page 19.
  



From Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene; 0192860925; p. 270—Hebrew Bible.


From Encyclopædia Judaica on a CD-Rom. [Accessed September 22, 2003]. 

NEW TESTAMENT, the Christian Holy Scriptures
(other than the Hebrew Bible and the Apocrypha).
 

The name in Greek is the translation of the Hebrew words "Berit Hadashah" {new covenant} in Jeremiah 31:30: "Lo, the days are coming when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah." Since Jeremiah states clearly that the "new covenant" will be made with Israel and Judah, and not with other nations, there is nothing in this passage at variance with the Jewish Holy Scriptures. The confrontation, however, of the New Testament with the Hebrew Bible—which the Christians refer to as the Old Testament—as two conflicting covenants, is already found in the Gospel of Luke (22:20) and in Paul's Epistles (e.g., I Cor. 11:25; II Cor. 3:6, 14).
 


Spinoza's G-D,  though simple, is a very abstract {A thought apart from           Posit: 1D6 = ONE
concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
} concept. 
If  it  is  anthropomorphized,  as in Scripture, it is easier to conceive 
and  then,  explain.  That  is  why,  in  the evolution of Religion, the            {A picture is worth
anthropomorphic  phase  came  first.   In the monotheistic religions,         a thousand abstractions}
they  both  end-up  with  the same conclusionlove your neighbor.  



I conjecture the reasons Spinoza continued to use the "language of           
Spinoza's Meaning
religion", (G-D instead of Nature) are the following: 


The word "religion" as we use it does not exist in Biblical Hebrew.                   Torah  
They  looked  upon  the  Bible  as  we  do  our  Constitution,  and                Constitution 
took  it  as  a  given—a way of life.    The Hebrew Bible was their 
Constitution   and   Legislative   enactments;   Post-biblically,  the 
Talmud  was, and  is,  the  equivalent  of  a  modern  Law Library.          Din Medinah Din
When   modern   Hebrew  had  to  coin  a  word for "religion" they 
chose  the  word  (daht) whose root is "knowledge",  Strong:1847 
from 3045.  EL:[64]:xxxi. 


E4:(Prf:27):189Good and Evil 


From Runes's Book XXV:iii - viii—Spinoza Dictionary
Spinoza: By Way of Introduction
with Forward by Albert Einstein.