Assyriology and Tanakh - Parallel and Complementary Study
RAV KOOKS LETTERS
By Rav
Shiur #25b:
Assyriology and Tanakh Parallel and
Complementary Study
In order to understand the broader significance of what Rav Kook is saying, let
us consider an excerpt from his Eder Ha-yakar, in which he addresses
biblical criticism in general, including the realm of Assyriology an extremely
well-developed branch of archaeology of Ancient Mesopotamia, with important
discoveries about the Mesopotamian culture and its beliefs and legal systems.
The findings relevant to our discussion that presented the greatest challenge
were those indicating that at least some of the laws of the Torah, as well as
its moral and religious principles, had parallels in the culture into which
Avraham was born and from which he distanced himself, according to the Torah. If
this ancient literature contains parallels to the biblical account of Creation
or the Flood; if some of the laws in Parashat Mishpatim are replicated,
whether in their formulation or their order, in the Hammurabi Code and in the
Laws of Eshnunna from Mesopotamia in the period prior to the giving of the Torah
that is, if at least in some areas, the Torah and its laws have clear
parallels in the cultural treasures of other ancient peoples does this not
seriously undermine the exclusive status of the Torah as a superhuman, one-time
revelation?
It should be remarked that in our times, the research in this field is far
advanced, and academic biblical study devotes extensive efforts to presenting
comparisons and finding parallels between Tanakh and ancient Mesopotamian
literature.[1] It often turns out
that the parallel is not perfect, and although there is similarity, the texts
are not identical. Moreover, in some instances, the similarity in formulation
serves to highlight fundamental discrepancies in content. Nevertheless, there is
no doubt that the knowledge that in some cases there are significant
similarities does arouse questions and erodes faith in the uniqueness of Jewish
belief and the Torah.
While Rav Kook was not familiar with all the research findings we have at our
disposal today, enough knowledge was available to him at the beginning of the 20th
century to indicate the essence of the problem (as indeed we discover in his
words), since important findings had been discovered already by the end of the
19th century. The spirit of his remarks in this regard may therefore
be extended to address later findings. (Paragraph division and numbering are my
own T.G.]:
And similarly, when Assyriology appeared, striking doubts into people's hearts
with the similarities that it found, according to its ethereal conjectures,
between our holy Torah and the contents of cuneiform inscriptions, in terms of
moral principles and practices.
1.
Do these doubts have
even the slightest rational basis? Is it not well known that among the ancients
there were people who recognized God, prophets, and spiritual giants, such as
Metushelach, Chanokh, Shem and Ever, and the like? Is it possible that they had
no influence on their generations? Even if their achievements do not compare
with those of Avraham Avinu, how could their influence possibly have left no
impression whatsoever upon their generations? Surely [their teachings] must have
resembled those of the Torah.
2.
As for the similarity
in practices, already in the days of the Rambam and even earlier, in the words
of Chazal, it was well-known that prophecy operates in tandem with man's
nature. Man's natural inclinations must be raised through Divine guidance, for
the mitzvot were given solely for the purpose of refining mankind.
Therefore, those elements of education that preceded the giving of the Torah
which had found a place in the nation and the world, so long as they had a moral
foundation and could be elevated to an eternal moral height, were left intact in
the Divinely-given Torah.
3.
Looking at the matter
more broadly, this is the basis of the positive cultural consciousness that is
found in the deepest recesses of human nature, such that "This is the book of
the generations of man" embraces the entire Torah. It is a principle even
greater than the principle of "And you shall love your neighbor as yourself," as
stated by R. Akiva.
All of this should be taken into consideration by every discerning individual.
Then there would be no room whatsoever for fraudulent heresy to spread in the
world and to be reinforced through such events. (Eder Ha-yakar, p. 42-43)
Rav Kook's response comprises four elements: one is an implied criticism
of archaeology and the academic study of history, while the other three argue
that even if there is some truth in the findings of Assyriology, that in no way
justifies denial of the Divine origin of the Torah or the obligation to observe
its commandments.
As noted, Rav Kook begins as in Letter 91 with a skeptical comment
concerning the speculative nature of archaeology and history. Unquestionably,
there is reason for this criticim, but we know and, as we see from the
continuation, Rav Kook himself was also aware that even if we put the
speculative and unfounded aspect aside, there is enough literary material and
enough serious arguments to raise some question in our minds concerning the
similarities between some of the Mesopotamian sources and the Torah. How, then,
are we to respond to the Assyriologists?
Rav Kook notes (1) that the Torah itself mentions great spiritual figures who
were predecessors and contemporaries of Avraham and who had knowledge of God and
morality. It is entirely possible that they, and others who are not mentioned,
are the same leaders who influenced the beliefs, morality, and laws of the
Mesopotamian nations as attested to in the archaeological findings. Who were
Shem and Ever, concerning whom we are told that our patriarchs studied under
their tutelage? They were not part of the Jewish nation.
In other words, nowhere does the Torah indicate that Avraham invented morality
or faith. The difference between him and his predecessors may be summed up in
two points: first, his historical influence was much greater; and second, he was
personally superior to them, such that God chose him. Moreover, as discussed in
Rav Kook's previous letters, there are certainly great people among the nations
of the world but they are individuals, whereas Avraham set the groundwork for
an entire nation that would continue his path and his teachings for all
generations. This is the great difference between him and them.
In any event, it is clear that there were also other outstanding individuals who
illuminated the world with their teachings. Since they taught and practiced
morality and faith, their works bear some resemblance to the complete truth of
the Torah.
In his second argument (2.), Rav Kook argues that modern archaeological findings
only confirm the Rambam's assertion (which we quoted in the first shiur
on letter 90) that many mitzvot especially those pertaining to ritual
worship are in fact an element in the Torah's battle against idolatry. The
Torah established these statutes in accordance with man's nature and prevailing
culture, but at the same time elevating them, reorienting their context, and
adapting them to the framework of Divine service. Rav Kook goes even further,
using the same principle to explain laws that concern not ritual worship, but
rather morality and social interaction, such as the Hammurabi Code. To his view,
the connection between such legal codes and the Torah should likewise be viewed
in terms of the deliberate attitude towards the normative systems of the time.
The similarity between them arises from the desire on the part of the Torah to
frame itself in common, prevailing terms and concepts of which we are becoming
increasingly aware, with scientific development while the differences arise
from the desire on the part of the Torah to elevate and uplift, to repair and
enhance that which already exists, and thereby to refine mankind.
Rav Kooks third point (3) is formulated somewhat enigmatically. Rav Kook
refers to a famous beraita that records a difference of opinion: "R.
Akiva said: You shall love your neighbor as yourself' (Vayikra 19:18)
[this] is a great principle in the Torah. Ben Azzai said, 'This is the book of
the generations of man' (Bereishit 5:1) is an even greater principle" (Yerushalmi
Nedarim 9:4). He explains that according to Ben Azzai, the Torah itself
is teaching us to study the Book of the Generations of Man that is, man's
actions and undertakings in history and learn from them. If so, then this is a
great principle in the Torah; perhaps it even includes all of the Torah, since
the elevation of human culture is the essence of the aim of Torah, and wherever
in history that we can detect such an upliftment, it represents a real part of
Torah.[2]
It would seem that despite the difference between the questions addressed
in the letter and in
The Synthetic Approach
We have mentioned three main approaches to the challenge posed to
religious faith by modern science: negation, separation, and exegesis. Rav Kook
offers a fourth approach, which may be referred to as the "synthetic"[3]
approach, for two reasons:
First, as we have seen, his approach includes the previous approaches.
The negative approach is important for recognizing the relative and historical
nature of the scientific discovery. The separatist approach is appropriate in
addressing the literal text for example, Parashat Mishpatim, whose
literal, halakhic study involves no reference to any external source. Exegesis
allows us to discover new insights within our own sources, and these are
dynamic, representing a constantly renewed revelation.
Second, Rav Kook's approach is synthetic in the sense of the
exegetical-philosophical methodology which he employs. The Torah is the thesis,
the scientific discovery appears as the antithesis, and the insight or new
meaning arising from this study is a supreme edifice that includes both the
material discovery and the Torah meaning in a synthesis that is now posed as a
new thesis the new "peshat," or literal sense, of today's Torah.
"Top-Down" or "Bottom-Up": The Story of the Garden of Eden and the Theory of
Evolution
Rav Kook's approach finds beautiful expression in Letter 134, likewise
addressed to R. Moshe Seidel and similarly related to his study of history and
Bible. Seemingly, R. Seidel questioned Rav Kook about the contradiction between
the description of Creation in the Torah according to which at the beginning
of Creation man lived an ideal, joyful life before God in the Garden of Eden,
and his situation degenerated only because of his sins and the theory of
evolution, which describes the beginnings of human existence as lowly and
inferior, both practically and culturally, gradually improving over time and
with the development of the world. In short, according to the theory of
evolution, the Torah's ideal description of man's life at the beginning of
Creation cannot be true.
We quote here the crux of Rav Kook's response, omitting those sections not
directly related to our discussion:
In general, I feel that it is
my responsibility to arouse your pure spirit regarding the knowledge attained
through the new research, which, on the large, contradict the simple meaning of
the Torahs words.
My opinion on this matter is
that anyone who thinks properly should know that although these new ideas are
certainly not conclusively proven true, we nevertheless are not obligated to
deny and oppose them, for the Torahs intention has nothing to do with
recounting simple facts and previous deeds. The main point is the inner part,
the inner explanation of matters, and this is only elevated when there is a
contravening power which we are compelled to overcome through it. This point was
made by the Rishonim, and primarily the Moreh Nevukhim, and today
we are able to expand on these matters to an even greater degree.
There is no practical
difference whether the world began with paradise, in which man enjoyed the
pinnacle of physical and spiritual goodness, or whether reality began in
practice from the lowest to the highest, from the lowest level of existence to
its apex, and that it continues to develop in that direction. We must only know
that there is a distinct possibility that man, even if he rises to great
heights, can lose everything that he has if he corrupts his ways; he can do evil
to himself and his descendants for many generations. This is the lesson that we
learn from the facts of Adam in the Garden of Eden, his sin, and his expulsion.
The Master of all souls knows how deep it must be impressed on the souls of all
people that they must be vigilant to abstain from sin, and according to that
depth, the twenty-two letters of the alphabet are composed into the Torah of
truth.
When we accept this view, we
no longer have any particular need to fight against the descriptions that have
gained fame among the new researchers. Having become unbiased in the matter, we
will be able to judge fairly, and now we will be able to refute peacefully their
conclusions as much as truth will show us its way.
The main glory of our lives is
the truth of the inseparability of the Unity in its highest exaltation and
eternal magnificence, on the one hand, and eternal righteousness, on the other
hand. It is only through this, the soul of the Torah, that we can glimpse her
essence and garments
The idea of gradual
development is itself in the beginning stages of its development, and there is
no doubt that it will change in form; they will conceive of visions that also
see periods of skipping, thus completing the vision of reality and then the
light of
The matter is the very
opposite of what the gentile scholars, and the Jews who follow them, maintain,
for they understand Tanakh according to the Christian explanation,
according to which this world is nothing but a prison. However, the pure
understanding of the joy of life and its light is found in the Torah, which
maintains that in the past, man was in fact very happy; it was only an incident
of sin that distanced him from that destiny.
It is readily understandable
that the stumbling block will be repaired, and that man will once again return
to his previous stature forever. The concept of development without help from
the past, in contrast, scares the world, for what if the process stops in the
middle or regresses entirely? For in that case, we have not confident reason to
say that man has a permanent nature, and all the mores so physical man, who is
made up of both body and soul. Thus, only the fact that man was once in the
Garden of Eden sustains our belief that the world is one of light, and it should
therefore be a practical and historical truth for us, even if it is not an
essential belief.
We see here the same principles that molded Rav Kook's approach above: First the
introduction of some measure of doubt, followed by an exegetical and
philosophical construction that includes the new knowledge and sheds new light
on it, whether historical or religious.
The importance of the story of the Garden of Eden lies in the fact that it
depicts a utopian existence before God and specifically, as Rav Kook
emphasizes, the perfection of both spiritual and material existence. The natural
completeness arises from the spiritual ideal, and these are interdependent.
Spiritual perfection is not only reserved for the World to Come; it is a
completely real situation of perfected nature, which stands at the disposal of
man who fulfills God's commandments and serves Him.
Moreover, it is specifically the evolutionary perception that emphasizes the
importance of the Garden of Eden ideal. The world, which modern science and
philosophy view as following a path of development, does not know its own
purpose and is not confident in its continued development. Placing the
beginnings of mankind in the Garden of Eden gives us confidence that we will
return to it, and that all of history is a movement of progress and return to
that point.
Moreover, man's creation in the Garden of Eden teaches that this depiction is
essential to him, while the reality of alienation between man and his material
nature and nature in general is incidental and transient, the result of sin.
The message of the Garden of Eden is the unity of man and nature, and this is
the banner that is raised over human culture.
Is the conclusion of this discussion a denial of the reality of the Garden of
Eden? Not necessarily. However, as Rav Kook states, the important point is the
inner dimension of the question, which we come to approach specifically from the
perspective of the modern views, and thus their importance is made even clearer.
Summary
Towards the end of the letter, Rav Kook formulates what we have referred to as
his "synthetic" approach to the relationship between Torah and science in the
following clear and beautiful way:
In general, this is an important principle
in the war of views: that for every view that comes to contradict some matter in
the Torah, we must not start out by negating it, but rather by building the
palace of Torah over it. We are thus elevated by it, and it is for the purpose
of this elevation that these views are revealed. Thereafter, when we are not
pressed by anything, we may, with full confidence, fight
against it, too. There are proven examples of this, but it is difficult for me
to elaborate, and for someone as wise as yourself brevity will suffice, in order
to know how to uphold Gods name above all the prevailing winds, and to use
everything for our true good, which is also the good of all.
Translated by Kaeren Fish
[1]
Countless examples are to be found in the work of M.D. Cassuto, in many
entries in the Encyclopedia Mikra'it (Mossad Bialik), the popular "Olam
Ha-Tanakh" series, and the myriad articles and dissertations on various
topics relating to biblical law and narrative.
[2]
See, for example, in Letter 681, where Rav Kook writes to his son, R.
Tzvi Yehuda, that the nationalist zealousness which he spoke about with a
certain Austrian is a universal characteristic that comes naturally to man; it
may be learned from any person and in all nations, in keeping with the
principle, "This is the Book of the Generations of Man."
[3]
See Prof. Rosenberg's Torah u-Madda.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!