From an account of a debate between Richard Dawkins and Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth in the U.K., Lord Jonathan Sacks:

The Jewish leader then asked Dawkins how many Judaic commentaries he read before writing about the Old Testament in his book, to which the atheist professor admitted that “enlightened Jewish commentators would repudiate these horrific stories,” referring to the slaughter of the Ammonites in the Bible.

The author insisted, however, that he was referring to the God of the Old Testament as he actually appears in the text. This prompted Lord Sachs to accuse Dawkins of reading the Bible “literally, as a fundamentalist.”

“How do you decide which bits are symbolic and which bits are not?” Dawkins later asked.

“Very simple,” the Chief Rabbi replied. “The rabbis in the 10th century laid down the following principle: if a biblical narrative is incompatible with established scientific fact, it is not to be read literally.”

Two comments on this:

First, I cannot speak for how religious texts are interpreted in Judaism, although I know there are a wide array of interpretations. There is likely to be an even wider array of interpretations in Christianity, mostly just because there are quite a few more Christians. Most Christians, I suspect, do not derive their religious beliefs from studious review of theological texts. I suppose it is possible that an intensive reading of Judaic commentaries informs the religious views of most of the world’s Jews, but for Christians, I very much doubt it. It is mostly based on what people learn from their families and communities, often delivered in easy-to-digest bites by ministers, pastors, etc. The argument that a person cannot argue against a foundational religious text without first reading an extensive array of supplemental materials is fallacious thinking at its finest. It even has a name: the Courtier’s Reply.

My main comment, though, is Lord Sachs’ assertion that the question of scriptural literalism is based on the extent of its overlap with established science. There’s a name for this, too: the God of the Gaps. Scientific knowledge keeps growing, you see, as we continue to explore, research, and learn. By the standard set forth by Lord Sachs, religion can only get smaller, as formerly-literal teachings become figurative. Sooner or later, if a teaching has to give way to science, how can any of them have literal meaning?

Just saying.

Photo credit: “The Creation of Adam” [Public domain], via RationalWiki.