Q&A: The Age of Religion
The Age of Religion
Question
Hello Rabbi. I have read quite a few of your articles and responsa and still can’t understand how to resolve the contradiction between the historical facts and traditional belief. I’ve heard various different resolutions regarding the date that Jews mark every year and the scientific contradictions to it (which the Rabbi often writes about himself in various responses), and the problem with them is that there is no way to verify whether they are correct, which does nothing to advance understanding. By the way, there is another answer I’ve heard several times from rabbis in Religious Zionism: that indeed all the dates and theories used by archaeology are correct, but our counting of the years is from the creation of the first man; that is, prehistoric humans really did exist, but the human being with whom God established contact is the one called the first man. But here too it doesn’t seem plausible, since there is evidence that religion and connection to the spiritual began long before 5778 years ago, so it is hard to understand what this date means. And the very claim that there is no absolute commitment to the historical facts is also unclear to me. Why observe laws (some of which no longer relate to our world today) when their historical basis has disappeared? If the events written in the Torah did not happen, then the Torah has no value, since God is not connected to it but rather it was written by human beings, and I have no reason to obey it… In my opinion this is like playing a game with certain rules (the religious myths and their truth are what determine the religious obligation) and cheating. So why play at all (remain religious)? Therefore I would ask, if possible, to clarify once again the proper way for a believer to relate to the various findings that contradict the Torah. (By the way, I heard yet another answer: if indeed nothing happened and the whole tradition is false, its source is still divine, since God guides history and the development of the laws and commandments—and their interpretations—and therefore I must observe them. But here too there is no source for the whole process, and by that logic every law is divine…) In short, the more I write and think about it, the more confused I become, and I can’t understand what is true and what is not, and whether the truth of the Torah is what obligates us or not. I would be happy to receive an answer, thank you.
Answer
It is possible that there were later additions to the Torah that was given at Sinai, and in any case there is no connection between the historical reliability of the text and commitment to it. If there are errors in it, that raises suspicion about its divine origin, but if you accept the arguments for the giving of the Torah at Sinai (in some form), then various explanations of the text can be accepted that preserve its reliability. As stated, the additions could contain errors. Interpretations are of course human. Sometimes the text is describing something allegorically, as myth, or as aggadic literature, and not as a historical account. And so on. In general, I have written here several times that obligation does not depend on authenticity (that Jewish law was indeed transmitted at Sinai) and not even on truth (that this is indeed the true Jewish law). The Torah was given to us as it was given, and presumably its Giver took into account that we would interpret it, and on that basis gave it to us. He does not guide history; rather, we do, and it is certainly reasonable that some interpretations are mistaken. But even if the sages erred, there is still an obligation to observe their words (within the framework of “do not deviate”). There is much more to say here about someone who errs in the commandment to heed the words of the sages, but this is not the place.
Discussion on Answer
First, it’s a bit difficult to discuss such spans of time.
Maimonides in The Guide for the Perplexed discusses contradictions with the scientific-philosophical knowledge of his time (regarding the eternity of the world and regarding attributing physicality to the Holy One, blessed be He), and says that he could have interpreted the verses allegorically and metaphorically in order to fit them to the facts.
Ultimately, if you have reached the conclusion that the Torah was given at Sinai and the whole problem is only that there are contradictions or later additions, then the obligation exists and the paths of interpretation have not been closed off. If you reject the revelation at Mount Sinai, then of course there is nothing to discuss in any case.
I’ll just add that the general examples you brought above do not seem problematic to me at all.
“So various explanations of the text can be accepted that preserve its reliability”
Like what? I’d be happy for a link or some elaboration, please. I’m also very confused about this topic.
How can a person commit himself when there may be so many holes that undermine it? (More precisely, why should I commit myself at all?)