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.
A profound message in the week's Torah reading,
Eikev, reminds us there is really no middle ground between adhering to God and adhering to idolatry. On the verse, "Beware for yourselves, lest your heart be seduced and you will turn astray and you will serve other gods and prostrate yourselves to them" (Deuteronomy 11:16), Rashi explains that there is a basic dichotomy between serving God and serving idols: "Once a person parts from the Torah" -- that is, from divine teaching -- "he goes and attaches himself to idolatry." Those are the two choices every persons chooses between, and there are
only two.
I was just listening to some joker called
David Eagleman on Coast to Coast AM. Eagleman calls himself a "possibillian." That means there are a multitude of "possible" spiritual perspectives that are neither secular materialist atheism nor Bible-based theism.
No, there aren't. All the alternatives boil down to the same thing.
It's hard for a religious believer not to appreciate, at least in part, the spirit in which Robert Wright presents his new book The Evolution of God. On one hand, he regards the history of religion as the history of...
I've been mulling the fact that some of the leading figures in the New Atheist movement are born-Jews, at least according to their own accounts. Christopher Hitchens is Jewish through his mother's mother (and proud of it, which I find...
"Poor-mouthing" means talking about yourself as if you were poor, or poorer than you are, in order to engage other people's sympathy. I won't hide from you that our family continuously and increasingly faces issues of insolvency -- yet the...
Regarding Elie Wiesel's new biography Rashi, on the great medieval French commentator on the Torah, the Hebrew Bible, and the Talmud, I mentioned that he's important not just for Jews but for Christians. His name is an acronym for Rabbi Shlomo...
Today is the Yahrtzeit (death anniversary) of Rashi, whose massive commentary on most of the Hebrew Bible and Talmud defines much of the meaning of those documents not only for Jews but for Christians too. I've been reading Elie Wiesel's sweet...
What group, movement, or country is it that Jews really have to worry about and devote energy to combatting? Is it Iran? Palestinian anti-Semites? Terrorists generally? Neo-Nazis? If you go on the ADL website, you'll see a big tribute to...
A final thought on hate and the condition to which traditional religious believers are subjected in this world. Judaism encourages us to look closely at the name of the Torah reading each week, always drawn from a word, sometimes a seeming...
Everyone thinks they know what idolatry is. Do they? Something I came across in the Talmud this morning prompts me to ask.As my friend Rabbi Daniel Lapin puts it, the Talmud is best understood as a spiritual-intellectual laboratory where instead...
Chuck Colson's formulation, "worldview-induced blindness," that I noted yesterday helps explain a lot of things. It explains, for example, why believers in Darwinism can't open their eyes and see when presented with scientific evidence of design in nature. (Note to...
A helpful psychological and political insight emerges from this week's Torah reading, Korach (Numbers 16:1-18:32): Always be skeptical of someone's politics when you see that it increases his prestige in the eyes of high-prestige society. Liberté, égalité, vanité.Pictured above by Botticelli, Korach...
In a really interesting if slightly bizarre exchange between Robert Wright (The Evolution of God) and economist Tyler Cowen, Cowen, not a conventional religious believer and not Jewish, goes on about the Hebrew Bible and how it stands out from...
Over at Crunchy Con, Rod points us to a fascinating Christianity Today review of a new Bible version with a commentary promoting American patriotism on Biblical grounds. Rod is unimpressed by the concept behind The American Patriot's Bible: "To the extent that this...
In responding to Christianity, Jews historically have objected that the other faith gives too human a picture of God. Needless to say, as a Jew I'd have to agree. Yet nowadays from many Jews I find much less strenuous objection...
A number of readers asked for it. My source is a midrash (that is, a work of Biblical interpolation) called Sifra that elaborates on Leviticus. The reference to same-sex marriage is unmistakable. Coincidentally, this particular note on the text comes in...
It always breaks my heart to see how simplemindedly the Hebrew Bible is discussed in the media. David Plotz, editor of Slate, has a new book out about the experience of trying to read the Bible straight through -- apparently...
Today and tomorrow are Rosh Chodesh, inaugurating a new month in the Hebrew calendar -- the lunar month of Iyar. In Jewish liturgy, there are various additions special to the day but my favorite is the conclusion of the morning prayer...
The great psychologist writes wonderfully in "The Will to Believe" (1897):We feel, too, as if the appeal of religion to us were made to our own active good-will, as if evidence might be forever withheld from us unless we met...
A couple of times I've come across the Rev. Billy Graham's syndicated newspaper columns -- yes, they are still being published -- and on both occasions he was answering a letter from a reader who was perplexed upon trying to...
Jews read the Torah in a yearly cycle, one portion per Sabbath. Now that Passover is past, we're back to the regular schedule. This week's reading is Tazria-Metzora (Leviticus 12:1-15:33), and it's not an easy read. Not only because the...
The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; Lilith also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest (Isaiah 34:14).Somehow it...
Tonight (i.e., Thursday) Jews counted the 8th day of the Omer, a commandment touched upon in Leviticus 23:15-16:And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the day of rest, from the day that ye brought the omer of...
A reader, Joyce, comments poignantly on my post about Newsweek's rabbis list, which is topped by liberal activist Rabbi David Saperstein. I had noted that the organization Saperstein heads up, the Religious Action Center, takes a firm stance against tobacco....
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
