Science and Religion (2)

Creation and the Age of the World

 

            In this and the following lecture, I will attempt to illustrate the principles that we discussed last week through a concrete discussion of creation according to Rav Kook.  As we have seen so far, the comparison between the Torah and the findings of geology can be divided into two levels:

A.        the differences between the traditional pronouncement of the age of the world as against the radically different measurements of time that are found in cosmology and geology;

B.         the meaning of the concept of creation as opposed to the theory of the development of species.

 

            Until now we have discussed the second point, and we will soon return to Rav Kook's opinion on this issue.  However, we must first deal with the first point.  As we shall see, Jewish thought is divided on this question.  One position maintains that the traditional stance must be accepted literally.  The other approach claims that we are not obligated to take the traditional figure literally; instead, we may interpret the scriptures in a manner which allows us to assume that the world is much older than the approximate six thousand years claimed by the tradition.  To my mind, this difference of opinion is legitimate.  I feel that those who do not accept the ordinary interpretation have not gone beyond the pale of traditional Judaism.  We will soon read Rav Kook's approach to this question. 

 

            On the surface, it seems that the interpretation that does not follow the simple meaning of the scriptures conflicts with Rihal's position.  The Chaver is trying to boost the integrity of the Jewish tradition on the basis of the fact that the Torah has a continuous and encompassing tradition regarding the age of the world, and on the basis of the Hebrew language [1:44-52].  We will return to the issue of the language later.  However, with regard to the age of the world, it seems to me that we must not unequivocally state that Rihal explicitly opposed any interpretation that was not in strict accordance with the simple meaning of the text.  In fact, a closer look will hint that opposite seems true, and as we shall soon see, Rihal himself states that there is no necessity to compute the age of the world according to the simple interpretation of the text.  This is one of the issues in which Rihal's thought allows us to explore new options while his overall position remains consistent.

 

            This leads us to a broader issue.  This difference of opinion is actually contingent upon another conflict.  A close reading of our text will reveal that two possible positions are hidden in Rabbi Yehuda Halevi's words: the first is that the number of years stems from tradition, and the second is that it stems from prophecy.  The Chaver says [1:43]:

 

            He described the creation of the world, and how the   people before the flood related to man, and the flood ...  and how the languages were divided. 

 

If the number of years is written as a historical tradition, then we must accept it literally.  However, if it is written in prophetic language, then we must be more careful.  We must always remember that prophetic description must undergo prophetic interpretation.  It must be approached as we approach prophetic texts in general, according to the rules of allegorical interpretation, which distance the scriptures from their literal meaning. 

 

            However, Rihal also suggests the second possibility, meaning that in addition to the prophetic description, a living tradition existed within the nation [1:47].  Rihal presents a theory that is worthy of our serious attention.  He claims that the Torah had to encounter and withstand the idolatrous traditions:

 

            For it is impossible that the wise men of Egypt did not  disagree with Moses ... for have we not seen that [even]  ... his own nation challenged him?  How much more so   [would we expect it of ] people who are not of his   nation! [1:51]

 

Rihal insists that we are in possession of a tradition which has been kept by humanity itself, about its own beginning.  This issue is of course connected to the picture of the history of humanity which historians, and actually all of us, try to build, and to our perception of the prehistoric era.  There is no doubt that, regarding this issue, Rihal opposes the accepted modern theories, which base themselves on the claim that mankind's beginnings were in mere animalistic primitivity.  Rihal's central claim is that man began his course in life with a divine spark, "the image of God," which finds expression in the act of his creation.

 

The Beginning:

 

            There are two approaches to human history.  The first accepts the general structure of history that is recognized today.  It claims that the Torah is not a history book but a book of prophecy, and it must be understood according to its own rules and dimensions.  Another approach exists, which remains loyal to Rihal's approach, and defends the literal interpretation of the Genesis stories regarding the beginning of humanity, opposing theories that seem to them to be based on the assumption of an arbitrary and variable historical development.  This approach objects to the assumption that man must have been an animal in his early stages of development, and that only after slow painstaking development did he achieve his current state. 

 

            The two descriptions of the beginning of history are also relevant to the question of early religion and the origins of monotheism.  Did primitive man believe in one God, or did he possess idolatrous beliefs?  Between the two approaches various intermediate positions can be found.  One such intermediate position approaches Rihal's opinion as expressed in the sections before us, and to a certain extent coincides with the Rambam's opinion as well.  This approach asserts the existence of an ancient tradition, which was lost at some stage and was in need of renewal.  Man's initial spiritual state was not idolatrous; it was monotheistic, while idolatry actually appears at a later stage as a deterioration.  This tradition is expressed through the concept of the generation of Enosh, in which, Scripture tells us, people had "begun to call God's name." 

 

            We must mention that a number of twentieth century anthropologists agreed with such a historical description, and attempted to display indications of primitive monotheism in very primitive tribes.  This was true regarding the Indians of South America, which they believed to be proof of the claim that the most primitive tribes did not uphold the wild pagan polytheism of the later period, but rather espoused a simple monotheism.  Clearly, any discussion of these issues becomes mere conjecture and hypothetical reconstruction.  However, we must be cognizant of the fact that there are stories in distant cultures which bear a striking resemblance to the stories of the Bible.  One could see in this a sort of common cultural background for all humanity, the ancient tradition of Adam, Noah, etc.  Of course this was understood by early researchers as proof of the ancient roots of the pagan tradition, and the fact that Judaism drew its ideas from the pagan tradition.  However, when we discover such a tradition in the writings of the Mayan people, the Native American tribes who resided in Central America before the continent was discovered by the West, this explanation is not reasonable.  It is astounding to discover descriptions of the biblical flood in Mayan writings.

 

            The only possible explanation for this strange fact, if we do not want to assume the existence of an ancient tradition, is that these stories express psychological mechanisms shared by all of humankind.  The descriptions that appear in so many varied cultures, and bear witness to the human memory of a flood, are explained by various zealous psychologists as symbolical descriptions of birth, which is accompanied by something like a flood, and which was later expressed in various myths.  In truth, these psychologist also depart from the literal interpretation of the text. 

 

            Probably Rihal would have disputed this approach, however it seems to me that that his approach is built on an appraisal of history, and not of the prehistoric era.  In other words: no matter what we say about man's beginnings, the truth of the Torah is neither strengthened nor weakened by it.  The Torah is beyond any specific scientific theory.  We do not have adopt particular scientific theories in order to prove the truth of the Torah.  However, we must not bow our heads before every theory.  Our discussion plants us face to face with riddles that science has not solved, and perhaps never will.  One of the outstanding examples of such a riddle is the origins of language.  We will discuss this issue in next week's lecture. 

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

 

Copyright (c)1997 Prof.  Shalom Rosenberg, Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.