[Avodah] R' Keller's JO article on evolution

[Jonathan Baker]

From: Zev Sero <zev at sero.name>
> Jonathan Baker wrote:
 
> > R' Alan Brill notes that until the mid-19th century, nobody took the
> > Creation narrative literally.  On his first tape from the Revelation
> > course he gave at YU last year (available on www.yutorah.org), he gives
> > a catalogue of rishonim & acharonim and how they each viewed the Creation
> > narrative as a metaphor: for spiritual realm, for morality, etc.
 
> On the contrary, until the mid-19th century nobody questioned the
> literal meaning of the narrative.  They looked for deeper meanings,
> beyond the obvious, but not for a moment did they accept or even
> consider that the physical events didn't happen exactly as described.

I think we're getting into something analogous to "lo rainu eino raayah".
Also tying back into lots of old Avodah arguments.

What was it that our ancestors accepted: a literal reading of Genesis 1-2,
or the best understandings of current science, which, in the absence of
stratigraphy and radioisotope dating, was based on a literal reading of
Genesis?  I submit it's the latter, supported such lines as "whoever says
there is wisdom among non-Jews, believe them" (as contrasted with Torah);
who is wise, one who learns from all persons (adam, not yehudi or achicha);
and "the theory of the non-Jews (relative motion of sun & earth) seems
better".

Then there's Guide II:25, about which RYGB and RMShinnar have argued
ad infinitum: that if there is clear proof that an idea is wrong, it is
wrong, and even if we have always treated pesukim literally to support
that idea, we have to now find allegorical meanings for those pesukim.
(and, in the context of that chapter, thank God we don't have to do this
since there is no proof of the Aristotelian eternity of the universe).

Since there was no raayah against a literal reading, there was no need
to consider the question.  Once the raayah came up, then it became 
necessary to either continue in the old way (follow current scientific
knowledge) or to create a new forced literalism (become an obscurantist).

What's particularly strange is that only today is this becoming such 
an issue, after 150 years of modern biology, and 250 years of modern
geology made it a challenge.

In other words, did they take the literal meaning literally because 
taking it literally was commanded by God, or did they take it literally
because there was nothing better?  Esp. since, as I noted, even Rashi
takes it not completely literally.

Look in the archives for arguments about the limits of allegorization.
I keep coming back to the Meiri on Avos, on "derashot shel dofi", who
tells us that it's OK to treat as allegorical, narrative passages that
are clearly unbelievable on a literal level.

Next year, new verse: Vechol maaminim, shehu bara haolam, besheshet yamim 
b'diyukam.

Beniyyah ukeniyyah tovah.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker at panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com