The Piety of a Heretic: Spinoza's Interpretation of Judaism

The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, 2002, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 117–134

The Piety of a Heretic: Spinoza’s Interpretation of Judaism1

Steven Frankel Department of Philosophy and European Cultural Studies, American University of Paris, 31, avenue Bosquet, Paris 75007, France

Students of Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (TTP)2 are often struck by Spinoza’s peculiar attitude towards Judaism. On the one hand, the theological and political teachings of Spinoza’s TTP aim at cultivating a ‘‘universal religion of tolerance’’ by establishing a biblical hermeneutic and set of religious dogmas which not only aim at the practice of caritas but also support the foundation of liberal democ- racy.3 On the other hand, the work directs a sustained attack exclusively against the Jewish tradition, which Spinoza describes in polemical and often hostile terms. Spinoza reserves particular vitriol for the leaders and teachers of the Jewish tradition whom he describes alternatively as ‘‘insane Rabbis,’’ ‘‘kabalistic triflers,’’ ‘‘malevolent Sadducees,’’ and ‘‘stubborn Pharisees.’’4 More problematic is the fact that the work does not even pretend to be evenhanded in its comparisons of Judaism and Christianity. Spinoza explicitly contrasts Jesus and the Apostles with Moses and the Hebrew prophets in order to suggest the superiority of the Apostles in terms of their rationality, cosmopolitanism, and dignified comport- ment. In addition, he suggests that the Gospels teach an eternal law while the Hebrew Bible presents only an antiquated political code for a primitive people. To make matters worse, Spinoza appears to further his argument by manipulating Christian antipathy towards representatives of the Rabbinic tradition or, as he calls them throughout the TTP, ‘‘Pharisees.’’ In the Gospels, the Pharisees are portrayed as small-minded ‘‘hypocrites’’ and ‘‘the offspring of vipers.’’5 Appealing to such

1The author wishes to thank Daniel Garber, Warren Zev Harvey, Ralph Lerner, Daniel Northrop, Nathan Tarcov, and Elhanan Yakira for their many useful comments and suggestions. 2Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (henceforth designated by the letters TTP) in Carl Gebhardt, ed., Spinoza Opera (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Verlag, 1925), vol. 3, pp. 1–267. TTPreferences are given according to chap- ter number, Latin page. I have also used a draft of Edwin Curley’s excellent forthcoming translation. 3Steven Smith argues that Spinoza’s positive presentation of Christianity ‘‘was dictated not by the methods of historical philology but by the need to gain genuine support for his universal religion of tolerance...’’ in Spinoza, Liberalism, and the Question of Jewish Identity (Yale University Press, 1997), p. 105. For more on the religious characteristics of Spinoza’s intended audience, see my ‘‘Politics and Rhetoric: Spinoza’s Intended Audience in the TTP,’’ Review of Metaphysics, 52 ( June 1999): 897–924. 4See IX, 134, 136, X, 146, note#32. 5Cf. Matt.3:7, Luke 18:9ff., etc.

ISSN 1053-699X print; ISSN 1477-285X online/02/020117-18 ß 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/1053699022000038741 118 S. Frankel hostility, Spinoza describes how the Rabbis embraced chauvinism and divisiveness to the point of interpreting Scripture to assert the superiority of the Jews over other nations (cf. III, 53). Jesus was so repulsed by these teachings of the Pharisees, according to Spinoza, that his ‘‘sole care’’ was to refute their identification of the Mosaic Law with true blessedness (cf. V, 71). Such claims have had an unfortunate, if not unexpected consequence on the portrayal of Judaism. As Steven Smith has pointed out, ‘‘Spinoza’s stereotyping helped to lay the basis for Kant’s later depiction of Judaism as a ‘statutory’ religion, Hegel’s conception of it as a ‘positive’ religion, and Marx’s invidious attacks on Jewish ‘egoism’ and ‘materialism.’ ’’6 Spinoza’s presentation of Christianity at the expense of Judaism has led many thoughtful readers to conclude that Spinoza cared little about Judaism – except in so far as he could exploit it. For Hermann Cohen, Spinoza’s treatment of Judaism in the TTP offers clear evidence of treachery and betrayal.7 Cohen enthusiastically defends the wisdom of Spinoza’s excommunication by the Rabbis and Jewish leaders of Amsterdam. In a similar vein, Immanuel Levinas argues that ‘‘Spinoza was guilty of betrayal... he subordinated the truth of Judaism to the revelation of the New Testament.’’8 Indeed, rather than defend or identify with the Jewish tradition, Spinoza appears to distance himself from it. As Steven Nadler points out, ‘‘the Jews are always referred to in the third person [in the TTP]: it is ‘they’ who have nothing to boast about in terms of God’s elections over and above other peoples.’’9 In response to such charges, some scholars have argued that Spinoza’s unfair treatment of Judaism reflects his desire to appeal to a largely Christian audience, for whom an explicit critique of the New Testament would hardly have been welcome.10 One well known variant of this argument was developed by Leo Strauss who argued that Spinoza favored Christianity in the TTP because, paradoxically, he thought that it would lead ultimately to the advent of a liberal society and therewith toleration of the Jews: ‘‘Spinoza may have hated Judaism; he did not hate the Jewish people. However bad a Jew he may have been in all other respects, he thought of the libera- tion of the Jews in the only way in which he could think of it... the manner in which he sets forth his proposal – to say nothing of the proposal itself – is Machiavellian: the humanitarian end seems to justify every means...’’11 Though persuasive, Strauss’

6See Steven B. Smith, ‘‘Spinoza’s Paradox: Judaism and the Construction of Liberal Identity in the Theologico- Political Treatise,’’ in The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, vol.4, p. 219. See also Smith, Spinoza, Liberalism, and the Question of Jewish Identity (Yale University Press, 1997), p. 109. 7See Hermann Cohen’s essay ‘‘Spinoza u¨ber Staat und Religion, Judentum und Christentum’’ in Ju¨dische Schriften, ed. Bruno Strauss (Berlin: Schwetschke, 1924), vol. 3, pp. 290–372. 8See ‘‘The Spinoza Case’’ in Difficult Freedom: Essays on Judaism (London: The Athlone Press, 1990), trans. Sea´n Hand p. 108. See also ‘‘Have you Reread Baruch?’’ pp. 111–118. Levinas claims that Spinoza’s account of Judaism as an ‘‘inevitable stage on the road to truth...’’ encouraged Western Jewish Intellectuals to view Judaism merely as a primitive stage in the human search for truth. 9See Steven Nadler, Spinoza: A Life (Cambridge University Press 1999), p. 292. 10Frederick Pollock, for instance, claims that the TTPis a ‘‘work of conciliation’’ which attempts to appeal to Christians despite its heterodoxy in Spinoza: His Life and Philosophy (London: C. Kegan Paul & Co., 1880), p. 336ff. 11See the preface to Spinoza’s Critique of Religion (New York: Schocken Books, 1965), p. 21. Such judg- ments have been based largely on internal evidence from the TTP itself; however, J. Samuel Preus has attempted in a series of articles to show that Spinoza’s TTP must be understood as part of the larger 17th century theological debate among Christians. See ‘‘Part III: The Hidden Dialogue in Spinoza’s Tractatus’’ in Religion (1998) 28:111–124 and ‘‘A Hidden Opponent in Spinoza’s Tractatus’’ in Harvard Theological Review (July,1995) 88:3, pp. 361–388. Even scholars who deny that Spinoza’s presentation of Christianity is more favorable than his presentation of Judaism admit that Spinoza hoped to establish a novel theology among Christians in the TTP. See, for instance, Alan Donagan, Spinoza (University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 13–32, 180–183, and Errol Harris, Is There an Esoteric Doctrine in the T T P? (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978).