Posts
December 10 anonymous in the previous post asserted that all Slifkin said about the Rambam was that the six days of creation were not of historical chronological sequence. He denied that Slifkin was using this controversial understanding of the Rambam for support to accommodate modern science. This is a very easy misconception to clarify.
UPDATE: Some people in the comments still insist that there is no distortion of the Rambam by Slifkin. I am inserting the paragraphs of the Moreh Hanevuchim that Slifkin contradicts in his book with his non-existent version of the Rambam dug up for him by academics.)
Introduction-page 19:
"Incredibly, even Rambam's approach to the Genesis account of Creation, which is of unparalleled importance to anyone seeking to reconcile Genesis with science, is virtually unknown outside narrow academic circles."
Here Slifkin is properly circumspect:
Page 109:
"Rambam proceeds in a veiled manner, to state that the six days were not actually days or even time periods at all, and that various elements of the account of Adam in the Garden of Eden are allegorical, as we shall explore in detail later."
Now we inch a little closer towards distortion…
Page 187:
"As we shall see, Rambam was actually of the belief that the six days were not ordinary days or even periods of time. But we Shall adopt Rabbi Nadel's approach in modifying Rambam's view in light of the evidence that faces us today.
Conceptual and Chronological Sequences
Since the Torah's description of the order of creation does not concord with the scientific evidence, this means the sequence given is not a literal description of the physical reality but rather a conceptual order instead."
But this is false. The Torah, even acc. to this understanding of the Rambam admitted by Slifkin, DOES give a literal description of the physical reality but only out of its literal sequence. This is not an opening for the idea that the universe formed through naturalistic processes instead of meta-natural creation.
[UPDATE: Here is the Rambam in I:67 about the unnatural character of creation. The Torah's description of the divine acts of creation are literal and true enough according to the Rambam to warrant a very detailed analysis of the key words in the creation narrative. This is possible even if we will grant that the sequence of these acts of creation was not literal as Slifkin claims. No need to invoke any intentional contradiction theories that people like to use whenever they need to avoid reading the Moreh in a self-consistent fashion. It is Slifkin alone who is contradicting the Rambam with his distortions.
Note to reader: the online translation I am using for convenience (as Slifkin did in his book) has a sqare box wherever the letters "ch" should be.
Our Sages, and some of the Commentators, took, however, nuaḥ in its primary sense "to rest," but as a transitive form (hiphil), explaining the phrase thus: "and he gave rest to the world on the seventh day," i.e., no further act of creation took place on that day.
It is possible that the word va-yanaḥ is derived either from yanaḥ, a verb of the class pe-yod, or naḥah, a verb of the class lamed-he, and has this meaning: "he established" or "he governed" the Universe in accordance with the properties it possessed on the seventh day"; that is to say, while on each of the six days events took place contrary to the natural laws now in operation throughout the Universe, on the seventh day the Universe was merely upheld and left in the condition in which it continues to exist. Our explanation is not impaired by the fact that the form of the word deviates from the rules of verbs of these two classes: for there are frequent exceptions to the rules of conjugations, and especially of the weak verbs: and any interpretation which removes such a source of error must not be abandoned because of certain grammatical rules. We know that we are ignorant of the sacred language, and that grammatical rules only apply to the majority of cases]
Now watch the hands as they move the Rambam from allegorizing the strict chronology of Genesis to the entire account of all physical acts of creation…in the blink of an eye! .
Page 191:
"Clearly, Rambam's view does not square with contemporary science. Indeed, there is no reason why it should; Rambam was reconciling Genesis with Aristotelian philosophy, not twenty-first century science. But it is nevertheless of great significance for us. Rambam did not believe that the description of the six days in the Torah presents a chronological sequence-a scientific account of physical history. According to Rambam, Genesis does not even present a cosmogeny-an account of the origin and development of the universe. Instead, it presents a cosmology-a discussion of the structure of the universe."
So there you have it folks. Right before your very eyes the great zoorabbi has metamorphasized the Rambam from non-literal understanding of chronology to a full blown allegory with no account of physical creation whatsoever. Presto! Now Slifkin proceeds to cash in on this optical illusion again and again.
[UPDATE: To emphasisze how much the Rambam felt a correct understanding of meta-natural creation is fundamental to Judaism we have the following in Moreh II:31 (Hat tip- Dr. Ostroff):
IT is perhaps clear why the laws concerning Sabbath are so severe, that their transgression is visited with death by stoning, and that the greatest of the prophets put a person to death for breaking the Sabbath. The commandment of the Sabbath is the third from the commandment concerning the existence and the unity of God. For the commandment not to worship any other being is merely an explanation of the first. You know already from what I have said, that no opinions retain their vitality except those which are
p. 219
confirmed, published, and by certain actions constantly revived among the people. Therefore we are told in the Law to honour this day; in order to confirm thereby the principle of Creation which will spread in the world, when all peoples keep Sabbath on the same day. For when the question is asked, why this is done, the answer is given: "For in six days the Lord hath made," etc. (Exod. xx. 11). Two different reasons are given for this commandment, because of two different objects. In the Decalogue in Exodus, the following reason is given for distinguishing the Sabbath: "For in six days," etc. But in Deuteronomy (chap. v. 15) the reason is given: "And thou shalt remember that thou hast been a slave in the land of Egypt, etc., therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee," etc. This difference can easily be explained. In the former, the cause of the honour and distinction of the day is given; comp. "Therefore the Lord hath blessed the day of the Sabbath and sanctified it" (Exod. xx. 10), and the cause for this is, "For in six days," etc. But the fact that God has given us the law of the Sabbath and commanded us to keep it, is the consequence of our having been slaves; for then our work did not depend on our will, nor could we choose the time for it; and we could not rest. Thus God commanded us to abstain from work on the Sabbath, and to rest, for two purposes; namely, (1) That we might confirm the true theory, that of the Creation, which at once and clearly leads to the theory of the existence of God. (2) That we might remember how kind God has been in freeing us from the burden of the Egyptians.--The Sabbath is therefore a double blessing: it gives us correct notions, and also promotes the well-being of our bodies.]
Now here is what Slifkin writes in COC Page 273-275:
Common Ancestry and the Text of the Torah
How are we to reconcile common ancestry with the literal reading of the text of the Torah?...But our earlier discussion regarding literalism and the development of the universe is applicable here. As Rambam and others stated, Genesis is not a scientific account of the physical history of the universe. Instead, it is a conceptual presentation that teaches important theological truths, but presented in a simplified form that is also suitable for an unsophisticated audience…
In conclusion: The concept of common ancestry is well-supported by evidence; it is preferable from the perspective that God works within His laws of nature whenever possible; there is much conceptual support for it in classical Jewish thought; and one need not be concerned that the literal reading of Genesis indicates otherwise, since Rambam and others explained that Genesis is not a literal account of creation.
Page 333:
"The Torah, at its simplest level, states that man was created from the dust of the ground, not from and apelike creature. Yet this is far from an insurmountable difficulty. As we noted previously, contradictions with the literal reading of Genesis are not problematic. Rambam noted that many parts of the Creation story are metaphoric in intent; Rabbi Dessler explained that it is simply written in an easy way for man to grasp."
Where does the Rambam refer to any part of Man's creation in Bereishis 1 as metaphoric? Does Slifkin mean the chronology of the six days? What would chronology have to do with the factual description of Man's creation from dust?
[UPDATE: Here is what the Rambam has to say about the origins of man, AND ITS STATUS AS A FUNDAMENTAL OF JUDAISM:
It is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe has been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual being, Adam, was created. As the time which elapsed from Adam to Moses was not more than about two thousand five hundred years, people would have doubted the truth of that statement if no other information had been added, seeing that the human race was spread over all parts of the earth in different families and with different languages, very unlike the one to the other. In order to remove this doubt the Law gives the genealogy of the nations (Gen. v. and x.), and the manner how they branched off from a common root. It names those of them who were well known, and tells who their fathers were, how long and where they lived. It describes also the cause that led to the dispersion of men over all parts of the earth, and to the formation of their different languages, after they had lived for a long time in one place, and spoken one language (ibid. xi.), as would be natural for descendants of one person. The accounts of the flood (ibid. vi.-viii.) and of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (ibid. xix.), serve as an illustration of the doctrine that "Verily there is a reward for the righteous; verily He is a God that judgeth in the earth" (Ps. lviii. 12).]
This is just a sampling of the numerous cases of slippery logic and faulty deductions that Slifkin resorts to over and over to sustain his naturalistic theology. I could easily fill an entire book documenting all of them. Maybe I'll serialize it in the Yated Ne'eman's monthly English edition...
