I~ZH;-:C:MOTH

contingent, and theIndependents, withCromwell emerging astheir leader.

Inthisstruggle, Londoners felt threatened bythearmy. Whilehedoes not
sympathize with the Presbyterians, Hobbes seems better disposed towards
Londoners, and he criticizes the army and the Independents (B, pp.
140-2).
To Hobbes, Cromwell' srisetopower wastheresult of hisownelaborate
and single-minded scheme. Even the appointment of Sir Thomas Fairfax
asgeneral of the entireparliamentary army isinterpreted byHobbes asin
fact benefiting primarily Cromwell (B, p. 142). Hobbes also accepts the
royalist view that Cromwell instigated Charles's escape from Hampton
Court. But he draws the line there. He does not accept the implausible
view,expressed byAndrew Marvell in"AnHoratian Ode Upon Cromwell's
Return from Ireland," that Cromwell had evenschemed to haveCharles
flee to the Isleof Wight, where he would be captured (B, p. 143).
Hobbes does not seemto think that there wasa second civil war. He
does not mention the Engagement that Charles made withthe Scots. The
uprising of the apprentices, the revolt in Wales, and the invasion of the
Scots under the duke of Hamilton, aredismissed asthe actions of people
using the name of the king without genuinely being royalists. The third
dialogue closes with the trial and execution of Charles. Hobbes's narra-
tion of these events contains no special rhetorical flourishes or highlights,
which strikes measstrange, givenhisroyalist leanings and thefact that he
probably wrote Behemoth to ingratiate himself withthe king, Charles's son
(B, pp. 153-4).
The fourth dialogue covers the years 1649-60, that is, the Cornmon-
wealth and Protectorate. It begins with adiscussion of the nature of the
Rump Parliament. It was, saysHobbes, an oligarchy (B, p. 156). Hobbes
continues to blame the Presbyterians, more than anyone else, for destroy-
ing the monarchy, even though they opposed the execution of Charles I
and often urged the restoration of the monarchy (B, p. 159). Hisanalysis
of their strategy is that they wanted a democratic government, because
onceitwasobtained, theycould then institute ademocratic church, which
he thinks was their primary goal all along. Thus, Hobbes isable to apply
his theoretical viewsabout the proper relationship between religion and
politics and the subversiveness of falsereligious beliefs to an actual situa-
tion. Roman Catholics arehardly mentioned, probably because, asHobbes
wasthen writing, they were in favor in the royal court. In the narrative,
Hobbes still represents Cromwell implausibly asstagedirecting everyevent
leading up to his assumption of the Protectorate. At the end of Behemoth,
Hobbes has afairly elaborate statement of the mythic understanding of
political revolutions asliterally circular actions. Hesees "inthisrevolution
acircular motion ... fromKing Charles I to the Long Parliament; from
46
BIBLE
thence to the Rump; from the Rump to Oliver Cromwell; and then back
again from Richard Cromwell to the Rump; thence to the Long Parlia-
ment; and thence to King Charles 11, where long it may rernain" (B, p.
204). Fairness perhaps requires that it be mentioned that the parliamen-
tarians interpreted the Civil War as the completion of arevolution from
apre-Stuart age. of representative government, to the Stuart tyranny, to
the Commonwealth.
benevolence Benevolence isadesire that the desires of another person
will be satisfied (L 6.22). (See DESIRE.)
Bible The Bible ismade up of twomain parts, according to Christians:
the Old Testament and the New. For Hobbes, the similarities between
them are more important than the differences, since he, as aChristian,
considers each to contain the revelation of God to human beings. The
principal difference between them is that, while the Old Testament was
written over averylong period of time and usuaIly long after the events
it reports, theNewTestament waswritten within thespan of acentury and
shortly after the events it reports. Hobbes points out that most of the Old
Testament wasnot accepted asrevelatory until after the Babylonian Cap-
tivityended in 538 Be.
Hobbes first discusses biblical criticisminDe Cive, but his discussion of
the topic there islimited and not essential to the argument of the book
(DC 16.12). Byfar his fullest and most important treatment of the accu-
racy, canonicity, and composition of the Bible occurs in part three of
Leviathan, aspart of his discussion of the nature of aChristian common-
wealth. The rest of this entry will be divided into three parts: (1) the
accuracy of the Bible; (2) the canonicity of the Bible; (3) the authorship
of the Bible.
(1) Thefirst topic canbedealt withrather briefly. Hobbes points out that
the text of the Biblewasunder the exclusivecontrol of clerics during the
earlypart of itsexistence. If the clerics had changed anything substantive,
they certainly would have changed those parts that are critical of them:
1ampersuaded they [the priests] did not therefore falsify the Scriptures,
though the copies of the Books of the NewTestament were in the hands
only of the ecclesiastics; because if they had had an intention to do so, they
would surely havemade them more favorable to their power over Christian
princes and civil sovereignty than they are. 1seenot therefore anyreason to
doubt but that the Old and NewTestament, aswehave them now, are the
true Registers of those things whichweredone and saidbythe prophets and
apostles. (L 33.20)
47
BIBLE
(2) Canonicity, that is, .the status of the Bible as law, is the defining
feature of theBible(L 33.1). The obviousquestion toaskis, "What makes
certain books lawand not others?" Indeed, this is the first question that
Hobbes asksabout theBible. His answer isthat the sovereign determines
it, because the sovereign isthe onlyperson whocan make laws(L 33.1) .
One might object that sinceGodistheonewhospeaksintheBibleand
sinceHe is"the Sovereign of al! sovereigns," He ought to decide which
books arecanonical and whicharenot (L 33.1). God ought tobeobeyed
no matter what an earthly sovereign maycommand. Consider howblas-
phemous it would be, the objection might continue, to havesome book
containing thewordof Godexduded fromtheBiblesimplybecausesome
earthly sovereign did not inc1udeit. Hobbes thinks the objection misses
the point. He does not doubt that everycommand of God ought to be
obeyed. It goeswithout sayingthat Godought tobeobeyed if there isany
conflict between divine commands and human ones. The relevant issue
then isnot the metaphysical or theological question of whether God or
man ought tobeobeyed. Rather, it istheepistemological issueof deter-
mining whichbooks are the ones that contain theword of God (L 33.1).
Hobbes's point here should becompared withhis treatment of PROPHETS,
MIRACLES, and REVElATION. In each case, Hobbes affirms that the phenom-
enon exists(that is, there aretrue prophets, miracles, and revelation) but
points out epistemological problems withdetermining which they arein
the midst of falsepretenders. And ineach case, his solution to the epis-
temological problemisthesame. Instead of tryingtofindsomeepistemo-
logical foundation toanswer theskeptical challenge, "Howdoweknow?",
Hobbes opts for apractical solution, intended to sidestep dissension. A
subject should relyupon thedecision of her sovereign. Inother words, an
epistemological problem isgivenapolitical solution.
One might ask arelated question, "What is the mechanism bywhich
one determines that the decision of thesovereign rather than something
elseis the right procedure to follow?"The answer isof the first impor-
tance. One uses one's natural reason (L 33.1). There is no other way.
Sincevirtuallyno one has the privilegeof direct supernatural revelation,
theonlywaypeople haveof determining what todo istoemploy natural
reason. What this means is that ultimately our belicf inwhat books con-
stitute the Bible, what revelation is, when mirades occur, and who is a
prophet rests on reason. Revelation cannot suggest the criterion without
begging thequestion, because it isrevelation that isal issue. Also, for any
criterion that revelation might suggest, onemight alwayslegitimately ask,
"Whyisthat theright criterion?" And toasksuchaquestion isloaskfor
areason. It isreason alone that evaluates the acceptability of criteria.
People sometimes ask, "HowdoweknowtheBibleisthewordof God?"
48
BIBLE
!~
1
and sometimes "Whydo webelievethe Bibleistheword of God?" Each
question incorporates aconfusion, though not thesameoneaccording to
Hobbes. The first question is defective because it presupposes that the
Bibleisknown to be the word of Godwhen infact knowledge does not
figure in the acceptance of it at all. The only person who could have
knownthat Godrevealedsomething istheperson whoreceivedtheimme-
diate revelation; and none of us belongs to that category. The second
question isdefectivebecause it presupposes that there isone explanation
for why people believe the Bible when in fact there are many. Some
believe it because they were taught it when they were children; some
because they trust their pastors or parents; some because they like the
stories. The proper question to askabout whythe Bibleisaccepted bya
community is"Bywhat authority isit madelaw?"(L 33.21). To this, there
are three answers. First, to the extent that the Bibleteaches the lawsof
nature, "they [theScriptures] arethelawof Godand carrythcir authority
withthem, legibletoall men that havetheuseof natural reason" (L 33.22).
Second, aslawswhichGod has giventosomespecificpeople, suchasthe
Jews, they depend upon being promulgated through His representatives
(L 33.23). Third, the only other authority that canmake anything lawis
the sovereign. So, if the Bible is a law, it is made a lawby one's own
sovereign (L 33.24).
To return to the issueof canonicity, Hobbes saysthat inparticular he
acknowledges as the Old Testament only the books that the Church of
England has commanded (L 33.1). (When he says"the Church of Eng-
land" hedoesnot mean the archbishop of Canterbury or all the bishops
of England. He means the sovereign of England.) Concerning the New
Testament, Hobbes, perhaps echoing theThirty-NineArticles, saysthat al!
Christians accept the samebooks (L 33.2).
(3) The authors of the Bibleare unknown and cannot bedetermined
either byhistorical evidence or byreason alone. Anyevidence about au-
thorship must come consequentIy frorn the books themselves (L 33.3).
This is usually called internal evidence. Such evidence never permits a
preciseidentification of theauthor; but it does indicate roughly when the
book waswritten.
Hobbes begins with the question of the authorship of the Pentateuch,
that is, thefirstfivebooks of theOldTestament. These arealsoknown as
the books of Moses, and traditionalIy people have thought that Moses
wrote them. Hobbes isthe first person to argue in asystematicwaythat
Mosescould not havewritten most of thismaterial. To begin with, there
isno reason to think that Moseswrote any of the Pentateuch if werely
merely on the titIe"books of Moses." A phrase of the form"books of y"
canmean "bookswritten about y"aseasilyasit canmean "bookswritten
I
I
1_
1 ;

49
BIRLE
by Y." Thus, the book of Joshua is abook written about Joshua, not by
him. The books of Judges, the book of Ruth, and the books of Kings are
other examples of books that everyone admits are written about the peo-
ple mentioned and not by them (L 33.4).
A reason for doubting that Moseswrote everything inthe Pentateuch is
the fact that the Pentateuch records events that happened after Moses
died. The last chapter of Deuteronomy contains the clause "noman knows
of his [Moses'] sepulcher to this day." It seems obvious that Mosesdid not
writethese words: "For it were astrange interpretation to sayMoses spoke
of his own sepulcher (though byprophecy)" (L 33.4). One might object
that these words occur at the veryend of the Pentateuch; sothat if Moses
wrote everything except the last seven verses of the work, Hobbes would
not havesucceeded in proving verymuchoThe point iswell taken but not
damaging to Hobbes's position because he in fact goes on to showthat
large portions of the Pentateuch cannot be Mosaic. His purpose in first
questioning the authorship of the last part of the Pentateuch istoget the
thin edge of the wedge into the wood. Once it isshown that part of the
Pentateuch has adoubtful authorship, it iseasier to showthat other parts
do also.
Further, Hobbes isnot especially concerned with who wrote about the
sepulcher; he ismore concerned with illustrating acertain kind of literary
criticismoHe focuses on the precise phrasing of the passage being consid-
ered, in particular, the phrase "to this day." This phrase would be used
only bysomeone who waswriting long after the death of Moses. Whoever
wrote these words would not have said that the location of Moses' burial
isunknown "to this day" if he were writing the day after or even the year
after Moses died. This literary analysis forestalls another objection that
might have been made. One cannot try to defend the Mosaic authorship
of the "sepulcher" passage bysuggesting that God could have revealed to
Moses before he died that his burial place would not be discovered; for,
if God had done this, Moses would havewritten something like, "Noman
will know of his sepulcher for centuries."
Hobbes deploys his sensitivity to the phrasing of the Bible to uncover
other passages with a problematic authorship. In the book of Genesis
(12:6), it isreported that, "Abraham passed through the land to the place
of Sichern, unto the plain of Moreh, and the Canaanite was then in the
land." It may seem that nothing very telling would be revealed if this
passage were shown to have been written long after the time of Abraham.
Since Moses lived centuries after Abraham, the passage would have to
have been written long after the death of Abraham. But all of this is
irrelevant to maintaining that Moses wrote the passage. What the passage
reveals is not only that it waswritten long after Abraham lived, but also
50
.;
1"
BIRLE
that it waswritten long after Moses lived. To explain this, I shall givealist
of dates. In order to sidestep issues about chronology, each is part of a
pair. The first in each pair will be the date assigned to the biblical events
by archbishop James Ussher, afamous seventeenth-century chronologist;
the second, placed inparentheses, will be the date widely accepted today.
AlI of thefollowingdates are of course Be. Hobbes's argument goes through
whichever set isused. Abraham livedin about 1900 (c.1850); Moses lived
in about 1500 (c.1300); Joshua destroyed the Canaanites in about 1450
(c.1250).
The crucial phrase of the biblical text is"the Canaanite wasthen in the
land." No author would have used this phrase when the Canaanites stiU
lived in Canaan. For example, Christopher Columbus would not have
written that, "the Indian was stiUin the land," because American Indians
were living there when he wrote. Someone writing in the nineteenth or
twentieth century however might write those words after the Indians had
been massacred or displaced. The phrase "the Canaanite was then in the
land" consequently would only have been used if the Canaanites had not
livedinCanaan for along time. When would this have been? It could not
havebeen any timefrom1900 (1850) to 1450 (1250), since the Canaanites
were stiUliving there. It would have to have been some time long after
1450 (c.1250), the time when Joshua reportedly exterminated them, and
thus long after Moses had died. So Moses could not have written that
passage and presumably none of the connected stories that seern to have
had the same author.
There are other problems with holding that Moses wrote most of the
Pentateuch. A passage in the book of Numbers (21:14) indicates that its
author relied upon another book, nowlost, called "The Book of the Wars
of theLord," inwhich someof Moses' exploits were reported. Since Moses
would not haverelied upon someone else's account ofwhat he had done,
he should not be considered the principal author of this part of the
Pentateuch. Hobbes's conclusion is, "It is therefore sufficiently evident,
that the fiveBooks of Moses were written after his time, though how long
after it be not so manifest" (L 33.4).
Given that Moses certainly did not write most of the Pentateuch, did he
write any of it, and if so what? Hobbes's answer is that Moses wrote just
those parts of the Pentateuch that the Bible sayshe wrote, for example,
Deuteronomy, chapters 11through 27. This isthe same material that the
high priest Hilkiah discovered inthe Temple inthe seventh century. (Con-
temporary scholars would deny that Moses isresponsible for this material.
But Hobbes wasgiving abest guess based upon the information available
to him.)
Hobbes uses reasoning similar to that discussed with regard to the
' u
11
1
1
~
l
~;
+
1
1.,
Ii"
1;.,
51
BlBLE
BODIES AND ACCIDENTS
Pentateuch inorder toconclude that virtuallyall of theother books of the
OldTestament werewritten longafter theevents theyreportoConcerning
the book of ]oshua, Hobbes analyzes the phrase "unto this day" in the
same wayas he had "to this day." Also, Hobbes points out that certain
names of places are used that only carne into existence long after the
eventsrecorded (L 33.6). In thebook ofJudges, which concerns events in
about 1200 (e. 1150), Jonathan and his sons are reported to have been
priests "until the day of the captivityof the land." Since the Babylonian
Captivitybegan in587/6, this passagewaswritten about 700yearsafter the
eventsof thebook ofJudges occurred (L33.7). Evidence inthe twobooks
of Samuel, the twobooks of Kingsand the twobooks of Chronicles, the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and others shows that they were written
after or during the Babylonian Captivity, since they refer to or discuss it
(L 33.8-11).
Hobbes thinks that Job was probably a real person, even though the
book about himisnot ahistory sinceno one suffering asJob does and no
one coming to comfort a person in great pain as his friends do would
speak in verse. The prose preface and epilogue were "added." Hobbes
does not sayexplicitly that theywereadded later, rather than added fram
independent and possiblyolder sources, but that isimplied (L33.12). The
book is aphilosophical treatise on the ancient prablem of evil. Hobbes
discusses this problem in several places and solvesit bysaying that God
can do whatever He wants, without injustice, in virtue of His overwhelrn-
ingpower (DC 15.6; L 31.6; IN, p. 249; Q!-NC, pp. 16, 114, 118, 133, 143).
FromHobbes's frequent useof and reference tothebook ofJob, one may
conjecture that it was his favorite. The epigraph on the illustrated title
page of Leviathan is aquotation fromit.
The book of Psalms wasput into itspresent formafter the Babylonian
Captivity. The oldest praphets areSophoniah,Jonas, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah,
and Michaiah, all of whomlived in the eighth century (L 33.13,33.16).
The Old Testament wasput into itspresent formbyEsdras (Ezra), if the
Apocrypha can be used as evidence (L 33.19).
In contrast with the Old Testament, Hobbes does not question the
dating or authorship of the NewTestament at all. He saysit waswritten
soon after the events reported occurred and all bypeople who had "seen
our Saviour or been hisdisciples, except St. Paul and StoLuke" (L 33.20).
But there's a difference between when a book is written and when ir
becomes canonical. The first enumeration of all thebooks of the Old and
New Testaments was supposedly done by Clement, the first bishop of
Romeafter Peter. But thisisdoubted bysome, and thecouncil of Laodicea
of about AD 364 is the first time that the Bible is recommended to the
Christian churches (L 33.20).
Spinoza carried on and greatly expanded thework that Hobbes started
in biblical criticismoHis analysis of the authorship of the Bibleis much
more detailed anddevastating, but itbuilds upon foundations that Hobbes
laido
bodies and accidents Hobbes defines a body as that which does not
depend for itsexistence upon human thought and which coincides with
some space (DCo 8.l). The first clause of the definition coincides with
Aristotle'sdefinition of substance. Thesecond clausedifferentiates Hobbes's
doctrine framAristotle's. For Hobbes all substances are material, that is,
bodies. The phrase "immaterial substance" is "contradictio in adiecto," a
contradiction interms. Asanalternative tosayingthat bodycoincides with
space, he sometimes saysthat it fillsit up (L 34.2; A W; p. 311).
Hobbes doesnot distinguish between theforro andmatter of asubstance
asAristotelians do. Rather, he distinguishes between body and accidents.
Aristotelians distinguish between substances and accidents, but the simi-
laritybetweenHobbes's distinction andtheAristotelian oneispurelyverbal.
An accident for Aristotelians isan objective, nonrelational part of asub-
stance. A red substance does not merely appear red when it isperceived,
it is red in itself. A central part of Hobbes's commitment to modern
science ishis denial of this Aristotelian doctrine. For Hobbes, accidents
are not inbodies in thewayAristotelians represent it: "Whenan accident
issaid tobeinabody, it isnot soto be understood, asif any thing were
contained in that body; as if, for example, redness werein blood, in the
same manner as blood isin abloody cloth" (DCo 8.3; A W,p. 312).
According toHobbes, it isdifficult tosaywhat an accident is. When he
explains the concept, he seems to give two different, though related,
explanations of it. First he saysthat accidents are not parts of the body,
but arerelativetoaperceiving subject. Anaccident isawayof conceiving
anobject. Thismakes anaccident apsychological reality (DCo 8.2). But he
then goes on to say that an accident is a power a body has to cause
sensations in animals, or alternatively, it is the wayabody is conceived
(DCo 8.2). The word "accident" etymologically refers to how a body is
"falling" or moving; sodifferences inaccidents are differences inhowthe
bodies aremoving (L 34.2; AW,pp. 313-14). Itwouldseemthat "accident"
is equivocal; it can mean either that structure of a body that causes a
certain perception or the qualitative perception itself.
As anti-Aristotelian as he is concerning the nature of body, Hobbes
nonetheless thinks that the idea of prime matter isuseful:
it signifiesaconception of body without the consideration of any formor
other accident except only magnitude or extension, and aptness to receive
52
53