Reading the Bible with Gentle Skepticism: An Interview with Rabbi Tzemah Yoreh

Before my enlightening and delightful interview with Rabbi Dr. Tzemah Yoreh, there were at least two things I was not aware of, one, that in the first version of the Bible, Abraham went through with the deed and killed his son Isaac, and secondly, that it is possible to read and interpret the Bible with gentle skepticism.

But before we delve and explore these thought-provoking and controversial ideas of biblical proportions, let me briefly introduce the Rabbi behind those fascinating thoughts and viewpoints. This academic scholar, who playfully calls himself an “academic brat”, grew up in a text-filled environment with both of his parents curious and excited about the written word/world.

This fascination with books, knowledge, and ideas led him to obtain not only one but two (!) PhDs, one of them in biblical criticism at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and the other in Ancient Wisdom Literature at the University of Toronto. He is a proponent of what is known as Humanist Judaism and he is the Leader of The City Congregation, a cultural Jewish congregation based in New York City. He is indeed a multicultural wanderer and nomad being in close and continuous contact with different traditions and between three countries, Canada, Israel, and the United States.

He also loves writing and he has written various books, including Why Abraham murdered Isaac: The first Stories of the Bible revealed, which came to my attention. The title itself was intriguing, but even more so, its contents as well as its main subject of focus: the biblical famous/infamous Abraham. I have been in equal measure, fascinated by and troubled with Abraham’s so-called test of faith. I had previously written about Kierkegaard’s views on the matter, which was detailed in his seminal Fear and Trembling, but it remained one of those biblical stories that kept haunting me alongside the story of Adam and Eve. Why would God even ask Abraham to commit such an insane deed?

Yet as Dr. Yoreh explained to me, it was much worse initially, as in the original version of the Bible, Abraham indeed murdered his son Isaac; the Rabbi specifically chose the term murdered over killed to stress and highlight its atrocious aspects. This was the ultimate sacrifice asked of any person to offer his own son as a sacrificial lamb to a higher power. In a certain way, this would presage the Passion by equating Isaac with Jesus, who would also be offered as a sacrifice to his father and who refused to lift a finger to save him even though he was allegedly almighty and all-powerful.     

Yet in the case of Jesus, the Son of Man was aware of the sacrifice asked of him, and he acquiesced and accepted the consequences. But the same cannot be said of Isaac who is caught off guard and unaware that he himself was intended to be the sacrifice to God. This would make both God’s decision and Abraham’s action an unjustifiable, immoral, and criminal act of madness. As Dr. Yoreh explains, in the modern equivalent this would be a person hearing voices and murdering their child; there cannot be any justification whatsoever for such a heinous act. Neither would he even attempt to give one.

However, he could provide a potential explanation. The attempted or actual murder of Isaac was serving as a catalyst of the biblical story. In fact, Isaac was not fleshed out and his character can be considered deficient and lacking in detail. Even his age at the time of the incident remains a mystery. In the current version of the Bible, he is depicted as a child, but other sources put him anywhere between a teenager to a 37-year-old man.

To further complicate matters, it is one thing for Abraham to subdue and tie up his young son, another one to have this old man do so to his son in his mid-thirties. This only demonstrates the lack of clarity and details about the character of Isaac who lacks free will and is merely obedient for its own sake and who serves as a means towards an end, which would support Dr. Yoreh’s proposition of Isaac merely serving as a literary device.

Yet, the original murderous deed, much more shocking than the act of original sin in the garden of Eden, was hard to swallow for people, philosophers, and thinkers back then as it is now. Hence, other editorial arrangements led to the suppression of the deed and supplanted it with a divine test of faith. Editors in those times worked differently than they would today. Instead of changing, arranging, and editing the written text, they would mostly and respectfully keep the original and merely add new details, information, explanations, and commentary to the previous passage.

What about the spiritual message of the biblical story? This is where this intellectually minded humanist-inspired Rabbi significantly diverges from the mainstream religious interpretations. He is, as he himself puts it, standing on the nexus between secularity and religiosity. Although his view is not exactly atheistic - he espouses a more pantheistic vision of life – he approaches the Bible as a curious and invested reader who is interested in outstanding literature and cultural artifacts.

This is where his gentle skepticism comes into play alongside a playfulness, which is rarely seen in academia and in the world of religion. As he himself puts it, his playful tone is because of his personality and he wants to have fun with ideas but with the interest of a skeptic. This eloquent and erudite Rabbi is neither on the hard, radically skeptic end of atheism nor the sharp, dogmatically bent orthodox side, but he fills in an open gap and space in-between. I had never thought that one could combine gentleness with skepticism, but I found Dr. Yoreh’s views quite intriguing and certainly refreshing.

Yet if the Bible is merely literature, why not opt for Tolstoy and Dostoevsky instead? What would be the difference between this seminal work as opposed to great masterpieces of world literature? The main difference lies in scale and magnitude. No other work has been significant and influential for the Western world, culture, and mindset than the “book” – the Bible.  

Although he does not see it as the Word of God and does not necessarily subscribe to spiritual messages, it is nonetheless one of the most read works in the world, and you could not understand nor appreciate writers and authors like Shakespeare and Dostoevsky without the Bible. In my view, the latter would not and could not conceivably exist without the Scriptures.

But if it is not in its spiritual predominance, what else would make the Bible appealing to gentle skeptics like him? First off, it is inspiring and inspirational. Certainly, Abraham’s story and his murderous act would not be considered inspirational by any standards, but there are other passages that are inspiring, and they put one on the path of wonder and reveal and unearth the rich experiences of life and of humanity.

And there are indeed many interesting bits, ranging from murder, death, incest, betrayal to love, hope, marriage, and transformations. The Bible captures not only the richness of individual, social and cultural experiences but it traces the whole gamut of the human experience. Notwithstanding the occasional asides with details in genealogy and the explicit and detailed rituals and laws, the Bible is, in essence, a collection of intriguing, inspiring, and inspirational stories well told, and it is an amazing work of literature that has informed and ingrained culture in a profound way.

We are, in fact, re-reading these texts and stories, and it should not be about what they originally said or meant. As such, as we are looking at the broader picture, we can appreciate the Bible from a number of angles and we can engage and interact with the text on different levels, be it from a literary, ethical, philosophical, or spiritual viewpoint.

For the full-length video of the Interview with Rabbi Dr. Tzemah Yoreh on YouTube, please click here.

If you prefer to listen to the interview, here is the link to my podcast: Arash's World Podcast