Q&A: The Difficulty of Distinguishing Between Allegory and Facts in the Torah
The Difficulty of Distinguishing Between Allegory and Facts in the Torah
Question
Hello Michael, from what I understood, you don’t see a need to deal with contradictions between factual claims in the Torah and the chronological-scientific knowledge we have. That is because the messages of the Torah are normative and educational, not scientific claims about the world.
On the other hand, you also do not accept a complete emptying-out of the factual foundation, because that would undermine religious commitment.
So for example, the story of the Flood, which destroyed most of humanity, apparently contradicts continuous cultural documentation found in different regions of the world during the period to which it is dated according to the portion of Noah. But in your view this is not difficult, because it is possible that this is a myth with an educational purpose. In contrast, the revelation at Mount Sinai and the Exodus from Egypt must be treated as real in order for us to be obligated in the commandments that rest on these events.
The problem is that from reading the verses it seems that, aside from the account of the creation of the world, which in my opinion can be interpreted allegorically, it is hard to ignore the fact that the rest of the events in the Torah are presented as factual-historical truth:
A. From the opening chapters of Genesis, the Torah presents a continuous genealogy of human history, with details of exact names and ages from the first man up to Moses our teacher. Why would the Torah bother connecting legendary myths with binding historical claims?
B. From the way the events are presented, it is hard to explain that this is allegory. What “educational” value is there in lists of names and ages?
C. How can one divide things up and cast doubt on the historical reliability of some of the events, if everything is presented as one uniform chronological narrative? If, for example, the stories about Abraham our forefather did not really happen, why not also say that the command to keep the Sabbath did not happen?
It seems that the claim of allegory is trying to evade certain problems but
only replaces them by forcing the text into this kind of reading, which does not solve the difficulty regarding the Torah’s reliability.
Answer
A list of names really is something that looks historical. But the events that happened to the people with those names are not necessarily so. So Noah may indeed have existed, but the flood he experienced could have been a local event or something else. Abraham our forefather existed, but that doesn’t mean he was thrown into the fiery furnace by Nimrod (that is, of course, aggadic literature, but the idea is still correct). Clearly, allegorical interpretation is a last resort when there are difficulties. I would not casually say that something is allegorical, and certainly not when it appears historical and factual.
Discussion on Answer
Why do you think it sounds more factual?
I don’t actually think it sounds more factual, but it seems to me that in order to accept the truth of the Torah, you need at the very least to accept the revelation at Mount Sinai.
Why does the revelation at Mount Sinai sound more like a factual description than the Exodus from Egypt?