More objections from adherents of Biblical literalist creationism to my
recent posts on
the subject have been coming in. Some are thoughtful and raise subtle distinctions. As a Facebook friend writes:
I just wanted to register the fact, without rancor, that I am a "naive Biblical literalist" myself. As a matter of fact, it sort of sounds like a lot of Jews are too. And there's a difference between "Biblical literalism" and "sola scriptura" or "soul compentency" or Scottish common sense philosophy (or "any milkmaid could understand it perfectly").
Did not the Lubavitcher Rebbe insist on the "literalness" of the creation account in Genesis? In fact, didn't he insist that the sun moves around the earth?
Others are poignant and (in a gentle way) make me feel guilty. An email correspondent asks:
As a Gentile who has had a long interest in the Jewish Scriptures, who has visited Israel, and loves the Jewish people and supports Israel in whatever small capacity I am able, I found your article very interesting.
I've always assumed that Genesis is recording real history from the time I was first taught the stories as a young boy. I always accepted that G-d is real, that He speaks to people, has a plan for this world and made a promise to Abraham that is irrevocable. I guess that is why I also support the creationist position but I notice that you say that is a naïve position. So, I am very interested to understand how the Jewish rabbis interpret Genesis and what I should be thinking about this issue. If Genesis is not literal, does that mean that we should no longer consider Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Joseph as historic figures (forgive me if I spelt them wrong)? Does that mean that G-d's promise to Abraham never happened and the Jewish people never entered Egypt? I'm interested to understand.
If we're willing to entertain the idea that Noah's flood (the subject of this week's Torah reading,
Noach) did not occur as plain historical fact exactly the way it's described in Genesis, why not put Abraham between similar brackets? What about Moses?
Regarding Moses, his historical existence and the giving of the Torah on Mt. Sinai would seem to be nonnegotiable. They are the subject of No. 7 and No. 8 among
Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith. But is Noah, just as the literal Scriptural account of his flood experience expresses things, similarly nonnegotiable? I don't see grounds for thinking so.
For Moses and for Abraham, furthermore, you could point to many authenticating details in the historical record -- not proof, of course, but confirmation that the narratives are historically plausible. I wrote a whole book on Abraham from that angle:
The Discovery of God.
The question is whether thinking of the flood, or the Garden of Eden for that matter, as figurative is damaging to the integrity of your faith, or not. Accepting the Darwinian account of evolution -- life emerging through blind, purposeless churning of matter -- would sure seem to
do radical violence to that integrity. But as for narratives where the historicity is not so clearly essential to theological coherence, a saying of the Talmud that I often think of recommends itself:
"Teach your tongue to say 'I do not know'" (Berachot 4a).
I got some emails from self-described Biblical literalist creationists objecting to
my calling such literalism "naive." I've been pondering whether there's a better word for it but so far I'm stumped. I guess you could characterize creationism simply as "Biblical literalism" applied to the Genesis creation account and leave out the disparaging adjective "naive." Certainly I meant no offense to anyone and I regret it if offense was taken.
The reason I hesitate to retract, however, is that there's a kind of literalism that I find very attractive and that isn't naive though it can be maddeningly hard to pin down. In Jewish tradition, the Biblical text is regarded as only the briefest, most cryptic distillation or crystalization of the infinitely vaster body of oral Torah -- the orally transmitted tradition held to go back in some of its streams to the revelation to Moses at Mt. Sinai or even earlier -- to Adam or Abraham. Much in that tradition consists of narrative threads or fragments much wilder than anything in the Bible itself.
For example? I was talking last night with my wife about the legend or myth or tradition (whatever you want to call it) that in the end of days, the righteous will enjoy a festive meal in a sukkah (tabernacle) constructed from the skin of the sea monster Leviathan. They will dine on the meat of the Leviathan.
At this image, cynics will snicker. Religious rationalists will harrumph, "Well, it's only a symbol!" I find these two responses depressing, dispiriting, empty. They're not my way.
In the Jewish Orthodox world, such traditions are contemplated in a charming but strange way, without asking if they're meant to be understood literally. Jews who are simple in their faith -- which is not a bad thing! though it's not me either -- have no problem assuming that the story is a true forecast of things to come in as literal a sense as the weather forecast that predicts autumn rain in Seattle, but even more certain.
This Shabbat, starting here in Seattle at 6:02 p.m. tonight, we begin again the yearly cycle of Torah readings, starting with Genesis 1. With that in mind, I was thinking about this teasing retort from a reader, Sondra, responding to my post on
men and angels:
Oh Dear David, why must Jews be such intellectual snobs :) and continue to read into scripture what they want it to say and refuse to accept just what it says period?
I can only speak for myself, but having been a magazine editor by profession, I know careful writing when I see it and I know careless writing. With careful writing, every word counts. It's there for a reason and reveals something about the writer's intention. I can't help but believe that God chooses His words with infinite care and that, as a consequence, paying attention to nuances and clues in Scriptural language must bring us closer to Him. That is one of the main things the rabbis did in their teaching on the Hebrew Bible, whether recorded in the Talmud, Midrash, or the classical commentaries.
It's also why, as a friend of mine once incisively pointed out (I'm not sure if he'd want it said in his name in public), Christians are confronted in the Gospels with a tragic loss. Jesus did not teach in Greek, the language of the Gospel writers. His original words are all lost forever. We literally do not know what Jesus said, in his own words. Not one sentence.
The Torah is very different. Not everyone believes it was written in Moses' own hand, at God's dictation. But one can at least hope so, and the careful scrutiny of the text that's called for in Jewish study, revealing layer upon layer of meaning, tends to confirm the supposition. No other book so rewards such minute attention. Human beings don't write like that.
...on comments, in case you hadn't noticed already, is to unpublish not only sock puppets but anything and everything written -- past, present, and future -- by any guest whose comments tend to be moronic, anti-Semitic, etc., even if he chances to say something innocuous. Any such idiot who tries getting on another computer with another IP address, using a new pseudonym, and then complains about censorship, will be deleted.
No, no don't thank me. It's no trouble. It's my pleasure.
Rod Dreher has a strong and important post up about sexual abuse in the Haredi community. My only reservation, and I've thought about this for a long time, concerns Jewish and other blogs like the ones mentioned in the New...
A couple of weeks ago I got an email from an editor at a Jewish publication soliciting from me an article "related to creationism." He asked that it be pegged to the coming Sabbath when Jews across the spectrum of...
Jews who want to embrace Darwinism must at the very least tie themselves up into one very tight kosher pretzel if they don't also want to jettison their allegiance to Judaism, or to intellectual and spiritual coherence, in the process.A...
When I was a kid with a big imagination and a taste for mystery, a defining experience was seeing the classic speculative documentary Chariots of the Gods, based on Erich von Daniken's spooky book of the same name claiming to...
I review Norman Podhoretz provocative and engaging new book, Why Are Jews Liberals?, in the current issue of National Review. (By subscription only for the moment but you can read the review on the Discovery Institute website.) In a nutshell, my answer...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
