reviewed, and abundantly refuted in Chap. VIII.: now, although this writer
had much authority among his contemporaries, he was deserted on this
question by almost all, and the majority went straight over to the
opinion of a certain R. Jehuda Alpakhar, who, in his anxiety to avoid the
error of Maimonides, fell into another, which was its exact contrary. (7) He
held that reason should be made subservient, and entirely give way to
Scripture. (8) He thought that a passage should not be interpreted
metaphorically, simply because it was repugnant to reason, but only in the
cases when it is inconsistent with Scripture itself - that is, with its
clear doctrines. (9) Therefore he laid down the universal rule, that
whatsoever Scripture teaches dogmatically, and affirms expressly, must on
its own sole authority be admitted as absolutely true: that there is no
doctrine in the Bible which directly contradicts the general tenour of
the whole: but only some which appear to involve a difference, for the
phrases of Scripture often seem to imply something contrary to what has been
expressly taught. (10) Such phrases, and such phrases only, we may interpret
metaphorically.

(11) For instance, Scripture clearly teaches the unity of God (see Deut.
vi:4), nor is there any text distinctly asserting a plurality of gods; but
in several passages God speaks of Himself, and the prophets speak of Him, in
the plural number; such phrases are simply a manner of speaking, and do not
mean that there actually are several gods: they are to be explained
metaphorically, not because a plurality of gods is repugnant to reason, but
because Scripture distinctly asserts that there is only one.

(12) So, again, as Scripture asserts (as Alpakhar thinks) in Deut. iv:15,
that God is incorporeal, we are bound, solely by the authority of this text,
and not by reason, to believe that God has no body: consequently we must
explain metaphorically, on the sole authority of Scripture, all those