Religion and Theology

The relationship between Spinoza and Maimonides on the nature of prophecy

In his book entitled Maimonides A Guide for Todays Perplexed Kenneth Seeskin noted the thinking of Maimonides regarding prophecy. According to Seeskin  Maimonides thinks peoples views on prophecy mirror their views on creation. This view seemed right because prophecy is directly related to creation. That is, in the Old Testament, God was dealing with his creation through the prophets, in other words, the nature of prophecy is that it is a link between Gods plan for his creation and the understanding towards the divine plan. Maimonides assertion as to who can be prophets reflects a theological understanding that is based on the Old Testament, notably Gods appointment of Amos to be a prophet. According to Jewish history, he was actually a shepherd from the village of Tekoa. This view holds much relation with Spinozas view on prophecy and revelation. In his book A Theologico-Political Treatise Spinoza stated, A prophet is one who interprets the revelations of God to those who are unable to attain to sure knowledge of the matters revealed, and therefore can only apprehend by simple faith. This statement relates to Maimonides view on the nature of prophecy in the context of Amos as an ordinary man with ordinary understanding.

Spinoza does not seem to believe that a prophet is a man appointed by God to the works of prophecy. This is understandable because he apparently does not believe that prophecy is a special revelation from God. Rather what he was saying was that through prophecy, God connects his will to the people that has to simply be interpreted by the prophet using an ordinary language in order for ordinary people to understand it. For Spinoza, prophecy includes ordinary knowledgethat is common to all men as men, and rests on the foundations which all share. In reconciling the relationship between these two thinkers regarding their views on the nature of prophecy, one could draw an impression that they had different views though it was quite obvious that both were God believers. Spinoza seemed to treat the nature of prophecy simply as an interpretation of the revelation of God in the language of ordinary people. That is, the role of the prophet was not as a spokesman of God but as an interpreter of the divine revelation. This view reduced the function of the prophet from active instrument of God to foretell his will to a passive interpreter of the divine revelation.

Is Spinozas critique of prophecy undermines the account that Maimonides gives of the prophets how does it do this

Spinoza with all due respect, may really have the nerve to critic the Hebrew prophecy of the scripture. According to Adele Berlin et al. Spinoza received traditional Jewish education and was familiar with the Biblical commentaries which allowed him either to praise or reject the work of others. In this case, Berlin et.al, noted Spinoza rejection of Maimonides philosophical hermeneutics on the ground of his argument that the Bible could not be proven to be divinely revealed text, and even if the Bible was revealed by God, its meaning is accessible only through human interpretation. With this argument, Spinoza clearly laid down the foundation of his view particularly on the nature of prophecy. That is, for him, prophecy is merely a human prediction. For Spinoza, the Bible is merely a human document that must be studied like any other ancient text, a product of imagination of its human authors.

In the following citations however, Spinoza admit that prophecy is directly from God. Spinoza stated What ever may be said about it (Prophecy) must be sought from scripture, since we have no true knowledge of prophecy, nor can we explain it through its first causes. Prophetical revelation the Bible attributes either to a real voice  such as that which God spoke to Moses  or to one which was imaginary He contends that it is evident that God use some kind of real voice, since Moses found God ready to speak with him whenever he wished.  This statement demonstrates that since knowledge of prophecy is not available, one should sought knowledge from scripture. It means that what is needed is a simple understanding or knowledge about the written word of God. In effect, prophecy is not important so long as one can draw knowledge from scripture about the will of God and about spiritual things.

From this, it appears that Spinoza also believe that God is speaking to his creation to convey his will. While he clearly believes in prophecy, he argues that it requires higher knowledge. However, he implied that that prophecy is different from the actual voice of God which He has uttered to Moses. According to Spinoza we are not bound to believe the setting of the prophesies, but only their end and substance. He cited as example Micaiahs prophecy to Ahab in I Kings 22. According to this passage Micaiah declares he saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven round Him, and that a commission was given to deceive Ahab. While he believe that such kind of revelation was possible, he argued that all that the passage intended to reach was that God revealed to Micaiah the true issue of the battle between Ahab and Aram, and to this only are bound to give credit.  Thus, he believed that God may indeed reveal his plan and purpose through prophecy but the human ability or capability to comprehend such revelation is limited. Prophet can only interpret the circumstances and the revelation using his own simple language in order for the common man to understand such nature of revelation.

Seeskin pointed out that Maimonides view on the nature of prophecy was discussed in three positions, two representing extremes, and the other represents a compromise. Seeskin explained that the extreme positions correspond to supernatural account of prophetic illumination which treats prophecy as a miracle, while the other one is a compromise. In Seeskins discussion of Maimonides supernatural aspect of prophecy, Maimonides held that a prophet is a divinely appointed man regardless of sex, age, or the level of intelligence. Maimonides contends that any one cannot just be a prophet, as the identity of those destined to be prophets is known only to God. The implication of this view is that the task of a prophet is no ordinary and therefore the nature of prophecy is also not ordinary. This task reserved only to whom God has appointed for that purpose.

In his preparatory remarks in The Guide for the Perplex Moses Maimonides depicts the image of the prophets as being sacred and religious. Apparently, he has much respect on the prophetic work and regarded it as a sacred task performs by divinely appointed person. Maimonides seemed to also imply that the nature of prophecy designate a status of prophetic excellence. Citing two passages in two Old Testament Books of Exodus and Deuteronomy Maimonides stated, On some lightning flashes in rapid succession, and they seem to be in continuous light, and their night is as clear as the day. This was the degree of prophetic excellence attained by the greatest of prophets, to whom God said, But as for thee, stand thou here by me (Deut. v. 31), and whom it is written the skin of his face shone (Exodus 34 29. Maimonides affirms that understanding of prophecy gives light that illumines the darkness of men. He emphasized that this light varies as according to Maimonides, there are some to whom the flashes of lightning appear in varying intervals others are in the condition of men, whose darkness of is illumined not by lightning, but by some kind of crystal or similar stone, or other substances that posses the property of shining during the night and to them even the small amount of light is not continuous, but now it shines, and now it vanishes, as if it were the flame of the rotating sword      
Given Maimonides emphasis on the sacredness of scripture and the nature of prophecy, it clearly implies his deep respect and faith in God as well as his view on the nature of prophecy which considers as sacred and religious or spiritual.

Going back to the question earlier whether Spinozas critique of prophecy undermines the account that Maimonides gives of the prophets, the answer is yes, it does Spinozas view that prophets are mere individual who wished to be so prophets directly undermines Maimonides claim that prophets are appointed by God, and that God has specific standard that he alone knows, regarding the characteristic of those who would be prophets. Spinozas assertion that the scripture cannot be proven to be divinely revealed text undermines Maimonides teaching of the sacredness of the scripture as well as the religiosity and spirituality of prophecy. In this case, Spinoza was promoting humanism in the interpretation of the scripture which undermines the spirituality and sacredness of the scripture and the prophecy. In his evaluation of Spinozas critique of prophecy, Howard Kreisel stated,
When seen as a historical phenomenon depicted in the Bible, it is the experience of a divine communication consisting of images andor words attained by certain individuals possessing a superior imagination. These individuals sought what was just and good, but had a limited understanding of reality, including the very nature of their experience. Their visions were product of their imagination, shaped by their thoughts and the objects with which they were familiar. The content of the visions reflected both by the goodness of their desire and the defects of their knowledge. The common accepted their messages as being given by God, and the signs they produced as proof of this. The historical works depicting this phenomenon are regarded as the word, and as possessing absolute authority. In they are product of the faulty human understanding.
The statement above not only undermines the prophecy which Maimonides regarded as both sacred and divine, but it also undermines the sacredness of the scripture as the written word of God as for Spinoza, prophecy is a mere imagination. According to Howard, many of Spinozas view can be traced to medieval Jewish philosophical literature. Kreisel asserts that Spinoza rejects their claim that prophecy involves the imagination, which explains the nature of the visions and the forms they assume.  He also rejects their claim that prophecy requires a perfected intellect.  Clearly then, Spinoza undermines the account that Maimonides gives of the nature of prophecy.        

What is the relationship between the account Maimonides gives of prophecy and the account given by Spinoza.

Maimonides was way earlier of Spinoza. He was a Jewish scholar who has an extensive knowledge of the Old Testament much more on the nature of prophecy. By all implication, there was no relation between Spinoza and Maimonides except that his works undermines Maimonides especially on the nature of prophecy. Spinozas position on the issue of prophecy and the sacredness of scripture as the written word of God was understandable. There are a number of factor affecting his views on these issues. Among these factors was his background. Though born of Jewish parents, according to his biography, he has renounced his allegiance to Jewish ancestry at young age. This suggests that he does not adhere to the Jewish traditions and heritage which include the scriptures.

Perhaps, the relations between Spinoza and Maimonides were in the respective context of their writings. Spinozas work seemed to be merely grounded on Maimonides work on the basis of his critical examination of Maimonides. He seemed to have directed his ideas to challenge the existing Hebrew notion of prophecy. What ever his intension was, he provided an opposite way of looking at the biblical accounts. For Maimonides, reason is mutually compatible with revelation. But this is opposite with what Spinoza believed. Regarding Spinozas view on reason, Leo Strauss wrote, For the sake of that liberation the prejudice that reason must subject it self to the supra-rational or contra-rational revelation contained in scripture is eliminated. Spinozas theology, according to Strauss, does not subject reason to scripture, rather to reason. This grossly undermines Maimonides teachings, as the statement suggest that the scripture which is the source of life are subject to human scrutiny and reason. The account given by Maimonides speaks of his respect and conviction of scripture as the revelation of God and of prophecy as way of God to proclaim his warning and judgment as well as his blessings.  Referring to this, Strauss puts it, Maimonides does not merely assert that revelation and reason are mutually compatible, but above all, that revelation is necessary for salvation, or that reason is insufficient for such conduct of life as leads to beatitude

Conclusion
Given the views on the nature of prophecy and the scripture, it appears that Maimonides has a more convincing argument as his views were grounded on his understanding of the scripture. Spinozas view was concern on the practical aspect which emphasized on understanding of the scripture by using ordinary language in order to understand it. In general however, Spinoza discredited the authority of the scripture as well as the prophecy. However, regardless of how both Spinoza and Maimonides viewed the Bible, what is important is the fact that God is the creator and the author of creation and salvation. No matter how one interprets or treat the prophecy and the Bible, everyone one ought to pay respect and appreciation for Gods wonderful revelation to the world of him both through prophecy and revelation.