Must Torah be Taken Literally?

Genesis begins with two of the most controversial narratives in history. It starts with a 6-day Creation story and has a universal Great Flood more than a thousand years later restarting mankind from scratch. If one traces back the genealogy as recorded in Torah, they’ll reach a 6,000-year-old world with a Great Flood some 4,500 years ago.

This conclusion is at odds with the accepted theory of Evolution which many accept as scientific fact. How can we deal with Genesis in light of the modern Evolution theory?

There are three general approaches to this: Genesis as accurate history, Early Genesis as a metaphor, or Early Genesis as a historical error. We shall go through the merits and faults of each of these models. But first we have one thing to address:

It seems reasonable to suggest that we should take the Torah literal, just as we would take the vast majority of writings as literal. Notable exceptions would be books of novels and books of proverbs, categories into which the Torah clearly doesn’t fall into. But how far do we take this principle? Just as far as logic would say we should. And there are indeed times that Torah cannot be taken in its literal meaning, since logic won’t allow for that. A classical example is brought by Rambam:

“Behold, it is clearly indicated in the Torah and in the Prophets that the Holy One, blessed is He is Incorporeal… If so, wherefore is it written in the Torah, “And there was under his feet” (Ex. 24,10), “Written with the finger of God” (Ex. 31,18), “The hand of the Lord” (Ex. 9,3), “The eyes of the Lord” (Deut. 11, 12), “The ears of the Lord” (Num. 11,18) and more like expressions? All such terminology is in accordance with the conception of sons of man who cannot recognize aught but corporeal things, and the words of the Torah is like human speech, but they are all attributes; for example, it is said: “If I whet My glittering sword,” (Deut. 32. 41.); Hath He a sword, or doth He slay with a sword? But it is a metaphor, so is all metaphorical.”

(Mishnah Torah Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah 1:8-9)

Similarly, Maimonides suggests the possibility of interpreting the Genesis Creation account metaphorically even just in order to reconcile a scientific observation:

“We do not reject the Eternity of the Universe (a prevailing theory at Maimonides’ times), because certain passages in Scripture confirm the Creation; for such passages are not more numerous than those in which God is represented as a corporeal being; nor is it impossible or difficult to find for them a suitable interpretation. We might have explained them in the same manner as we did in respect to the Incorporeality of God. We should perhaps have had an easier task in showing that the Scriptural passages referred to are in harmony with the theory of the Eternity of the Universe if we accepted the latter, than we had in explaining the anthropomorphisms in the Bible when we rejected the idea that God is corporeal. For two reasons, however, we have not done so, and have not accepted the Eternity of the Universe. First, the Incorporeality of God has been demonstrated by proof: those passages in the Bible, which in their literal sense contain statements that can be refuted by proof, must and can be interpreted otherwise. But the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved; a mere argument in favor of a certain theory is not sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a biblical text, and explaining it figuratively, when the opposite theory can be supported by an equally good argument.”

(Guide to the Perplexed, 2:25)

As seen in the text, Maimonides would theoretically have no issue interpreting the Genesis Creation account as metaphoric in order to reconcile it with the common belief at the time that the world existed for infinity. However, as Maimonides points out, there is simply insufficient evidence for that theory in order to interpret the Torah non-literally.

Maimonides seems to base his view on his predecessor and early rabbinic authority, Rav Saadyah Gaon:

“And I so declare, first of all, that it is a well-known fact that every statement in the Bible is to be understood in its literal sense except for those that cannot be so construed for one of the following four reasons: It may, for example, either be rejected by the observation of the senses… Or else the literal sense may be negated by reason… Again [the literal meaning of a Biblical statement may be rendered impossible] by an explicit text of a contradictory nature, in which case it would become necessary to interpret the first statement in a non-literal nature… Finally, any Biblical statement to the meaning of which rabbinical tradition has attached a certain reservation is to be interpreted by us in keeping with this authentic tradition.”

(Rav Saadiah Gaon, Emunos VeDeyos, Book VII)

I have yet to find a major rabbinic authority that argues on this position of Rambam and Saadiah Gaon. The Lubavitcher Rebbe, who was well-versed in the sciences, seems to take this approach in response to the challenge of Evolution. He writes that there is simply no need to take the Genesis account out of its literal meaning, since the theory of Evolution is rather weak.

“Of all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is one of the weakest, despite its popularity; it is full of loopholes and internal inconsistencies. Indeed, it has been recognized as such by the majority of leading scientists in the field… There is therefore no need to take the verses of Bereishis (Genesis) out of their context and do violence to their plain meaning”

(Letter of the Lubavitcher Rebbe to a rabbi of the Union of Orthodox Synagogues in Houston Texas, Rosh Chodesh Shevat, 5738)^[i]

The Lubavitcher Rebbe saw early Genesis as Accurate History. However, many Jewish thinkers have argued that the Evolution theory does indeed have sufficient evidence and can be deemed as enough evidence to interpret Early Genesis as a Metaphor.

“So, too, if God created life via the laws of evolution, these are details irrelevant to the Torah’s main message: the ethical teaching of a world formed and governed by an involved Creator…

The Torah concealed much with regard to the process of creation, speaking in parables and ciphers…

God limits revelations, even from the most brilliant and sublime prophets, according to the ability of that generation to absorb the information. For every idea and concept, there is significance to the hour of its disclosure…”

(Rav Kook in a letter he wrote in Jaffa 1905[ii])

For more on the subject of interpreting Torah non-literally and understanding Torah in its ancient context, see here and here.