Is the Torah True? - Part 4

Prove It

Recap

Until now, we have spoken about shifting our perspective on the purpose of the Story and the Law in Torah. We spoke about how the Law in the Torah is not viewed without much tradition and wisdom, guided by the Spirit of the text. This necessarily creates a broader arena of our lives for the Law to canopy - because each Law has many parameters to it. While the Law in the Torah is a literal Law, it is not to be taken at face value only - limiting literalism is a ubiquitous attitude in this regard in virtually all denominations of Judaism. The Story of the Torah, using the same principle, need not be taken literally at all times. We have no need for a tradition of literalism applicable to all of the Torah’s Stories. The original audience of the Torah was unaware of history as we know it today. Maimonides allows for inferences of non-literalism in cases such as the one he brings down with Balaam’s donkey (which he explicitly claims was a prophetic vision - not a historical moment). The extent to which the Story of the Torah need not be taken literally is still, has been, and will for a long time, be a matter of dispute.

Prove It

Narrowing Down my Position

Many of us are comfortable with the Law of the Torah being guided by millennia of tradition and we have demonstrated that it is indeed heretical to view the Law of the Torah at face value. We may feel more hesitant to apply this principle to the Story. After all, we associate that story with our history. This is no trivial matter. Allow me to at first narrow the scope of my claim - I am not claiming that Moshe Rabbeinu did not exist as modern Biblical scholars do. I am not claiming there was no Exodus. I think everything from Avraham in the Torah, while some parts may be hyperbolic, did happen in some way. The Stories to which I am referring and with which I feel less attached to historically, are basically everything prior (Adam and Eve / Noach / Creation). To make such a claim, authoritative traditional sources must be provided. This is a reasonable request. Let us keep in mind however that much of the archeological and scientific cases against the Torah’s historicity are very recent, so not much is available in ways of adoption of these ideas prior to the modern era. In lieu of presenting Sages who claimed Adam and Eve could have been fictional characters (of which Maimonides is one), I will point to an attitude prevalent in Jewish thought which allows for an interpretation of Jewish text guided by reason in light of new evidence.

Chazal (Jewish Sages) and Torah Stories

Undoubtedly most Jews are familiar with the Story of Avraham being the “Smasher of Idols.” We were taught that Avraham was chosen by God because of his keen observations that the world must have had One Creator - Avraham was the original self-taught Monotheist. I have a challenge to present you - where in the Torah is any of this even intimated? The Torah introduces Avraham as part of a lineage, and Avraham is mysteriously told by God to begin a journey. There are no accolades in the Torah of Avraham prior to this, no reason given for God choosing Avraham. In fact, Avraham had two brothers who disappear from the Torah altogether. This - I presume, is something we may view as part of our history - and it is not even in the Torah! It is located in Midrash Bereishit Rabba 38. If one does not believe that this introductory story to Avraham actually occurred, is one a heretic¹? Keep in mind I have no trouble believing this account on some level, but it is certainly not incumbent as an article of Jewish faith to believe this account. But what this portrays is that the Story in the Torah is subject to much tradition as well. We speak of 50 miracles at the splitting of the sea of which the Torah makes no mention. Yet the Jewish Sages expound on certain poetic verses to magnify the miracle. I recall reading a book once which attempted to list around 250 miracles of the Exodus - far more than the Torah makes room for. Indeed, if the Torah were to write everything that occurred historically, it would be a far less impactful and far lengthier book. But that is not - and was never - the goal of the Torah. As Rabbi Avraham Isaac Kook writes (Nevuchei HaDor 5:4):

“The Torah only relates that which is relevant to our planet, and even then, only those matters that would be understood as having an ethical aspect, that touch on straightening the ways of man, in his outward behavior and his inner emotions. [emphasis my own]”

A Short Preamble to Historicity

Before I attempt to bring more sources that address historicity in the Torah - it is important to realize why this methodology is so vital for Jews in the modern era. Many of us live our lives supposedly unperturbed by Biblical Criticism. But unfortunately, we act out our Judaic lives by rote. In the words of Abraham Joshua Heschel, we have become “inverse Marranos².” We act Jewish on the outside but do not realize the damage to our Spirit that secularity has done. There is a remedy for this - becoming formidable in our understanding and embracing of the Torah, guided by reason (as faulty as it may sometimes be). We can look at the Torah and its recounting of some of our history - ahistorically - as having a Divine purpose of guiding the moral Zeitgeist of our lives and each generation. This is a tool always readily available in the Jewish tradition, as put forth by Chazal. Just as Chazal did not take a Geocentric model of the earth to be Divinely incumbent upon us to believe (despite the clear allusions in the Torah to this³ and its potential ramifications on Halakhic times of performing Mitzvot), we can apply these principles elsewhere.

Directly Addressing Historicity in the Torah

To demonstrate Chazal’s use of these principles, allow me to direct your attention to the following statements from Jewish Sages:

A General Rule

“Rabbi Ami says: In some instances, the Torah spoke using exaggerated language, the Prophets spoke employing exaggerated language, and the Sages spoke employing exaggerated language [emphasis and exposition original].” Rav Ami - Babylonian Talmud Chullin 90a. (3rd Century)⁴

“Rabbi Yehuda says: One who translates a verse (from Scripture) literally is a liar.” Rabbi Yehuda - Babylonian Talmud Kiddushin 49a. (2nd Century)

Regarding Creation

“It is what our Rabbis of blessed memory have said: ‘He hath declared to His people the power of His works’. To declare the power of the process of creation to a mortal being is impossible. Therefore, Scripture closed the matter: In the beginning G-d created.’ [emphasis mine]” - Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman AKA Ramban z”l (13th Century) on the 1st verse in Bereishit / Genesis

Regarding any mention of a “Book of God” in Tanakh/ Scripture

“All these are analogies - not that God has a book to write in or erase, as the vulgar suppose, missing the imagery [emphasis mine].” Maimonides z”l- Goodman’s Guide for the Perplexed Part II Ch. 47. (12th Century)

The Flood

“The Mabul (flood) did not cover the entire planet, but only the ‘world’ of the Torah [emphasis mine].” - Rabbi Dovid Tzvi Hoffman AKA Radatz z”l - as summarized by Rabbi Slifkin here. (20th Century)

Creation

“To correlate the [Torah’s] narrative of Creation with recent research is a worthy matter. There is no proscription against interpreting the passage of “these are the generations of heaven and earth” (Genesis 2:4) as enfolding phases of millions of years, until man attained some awareness that he is different from all animals [emphasis mine].” - Rabbi Avraham Isaac HaKohen Kook z”l - Shmonah Kevatzim 1:594 (20th Century)

Interpretation in Jewish Tradition

“The Pentateuchal Text is only one part of the Torah. That which is fixed is the words, not their interpretation. God also endorsed, at Sinai, the process of evolving traditions and interpretations that the people of Israel would develop over time, including their relationship with other books of the Bible… guided by ruach hakodesh (the holy spirit of God), the general trajectory is such that the unfolding content of the revelation, through the religiously observant communities of the Jewish people, brings the content of the Earthly Torah ever closer to the content of the Heavenly Torah [original emphasis - not my own].” - Rabbi Samuel Lebens⁵. (Current)

These are just a small sample size, but I believe they more than prove that we can at least make room for non-literalism regarding these accounts. This idea of the ahistoricity of Adam and Eve / Noach / Creation, are not meant to detract from the Torah’s Divine origins. Quite the opposite - I believe that the attitude of God allowing for interpretation to such an extent as guided by evolving reason is a testament to the attitude a Noble Divine Being would employ out of care and understanding for Its creation. We have this unreasonable expectation that God could - at any point in history - have given a prima facie Unmalleable Perfect text to a flawed people. That is a flaw in our expectations, not in the Text of the Torah. The Text of the Torah is Perfect - but that does not entail reading it only in face value. It is Perfect, in my estimation, precisely because it was given to a people familiar with terrible “religious” material. The Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh are not imbued with the same Moral Spirit the Torah instilled long ago. God did not scrap the consciousness of His creation at Sinai to teach them the scientific method. God allowed for the paradigm shift of morality to take place by utilizing the systems of Law and Story that the people were familiar with back then. They are still applicable now. We have very rocky terrain to overcome these next few generations. The question we must ask is whether we will allow secularism to completely envelop any interpretation of the text outside of tradition or if we will allow ourselves to use traditional means to address new concerns. Will we teach future generations that there is no room for new thought and all that has been said has been said? Or will we teach them that if they do attempt to create novel interpretations, that it need be done with due diligence - with the respect for Torah that previous generations exhibited? I would prefer the latter. The Torah is the book of the Jewish people, and it is high time we stopped apologizing for it. Reason is God’s gift to all of humanity, and it is high time we start employing it. Using Torah and Reason together will drive humanity farther toward Truth than separating the two ever could. As Rabbi Chaim Eisen has said, “Truth is not an on/off switch, it’s a dimmer dial”.

1. See Sefer HaiIkkarim by Rabbi Yosef Albo, who narrows down what 3 beliefs one must have in Judaism to NOT BE a heretic. Note he disagrees with HaRambam’s 13. I will tell you right away that not believing the Story of Avraham and the idol smashing happening does not make you a heretic.

2. Marranos are a Christianized Jew or Moor, especially one who merely professed conversion in order to avoid persecution.

3. See Joshua - his request to have the sun “stand sill” clearly points to this Geocentric model. Special thanks to Rabbi Slifkin for this comparison / observation.

4. I am aware that the Talmud is a myriad of voices and that this one voice is not representative of all, but we must recognize its validity coming from a recognized Jewish Sage, since it pertains to a question of Theological significance.

5. See Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology - The Principles of Judaism by Samuel Lebens page 220.