Bible Review Book of Judges

The biblical criticism of the Book of Judges claims that “and a new generation arose who did not know the Lord” – meaning knowledge of facts, and therefore they claim that the people did not receive tradition – that is, that the Torah is an invention (is this the intention of the biblical criticism??)
The rabbi argued against this, that if the people did not know and the meaning is that they factually forgot, then why is it described as “they departed from the path that their fathers walked” and from which path did they depart? (After all, there was no tradition before that)

What I want to say is that the rabbi’s claim is technical, and it can be arranged in verses.
In my opinion, the bigger question is: How can a people claim that they forgot a factual tradition while claiming that they received a commandment at Mount Sinai?

A technical answer can be given in the name of biblical criticism:
The fathers in the verse “turned from the way in which their fathers walked” and the fathers in the verse “and it shall come to pass at the death of the judge that they shall return and corrupt themselves like their fathers”; these are the same fathers, only at different times, before the first judge and during the time of the first judge. And the reference is not to the fathers who were at the time of the entry into the land.
Then it is clear from which path they (the future generations) turned away – from the path that the aforementioned fathers invented and maintained during the time of the first judge.

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand the bigger question, nor the answer.

Thank you very much anyway. I'll try one last time, and if you didn't understand-I understood the message.
At the time of the first judge who saved them, they kept the way of the Lord for 40 years.
In the verse “They quickly turned away from the way in which their fathers walked” how does the Rabbi know that ”their fathers” are not the generation mentioned here-at the time of the first judge, who kept the way of the Lord? Then that means that the following generations did not keep the way of the “fathers” that I mentioned.

There is no message here. I really didn't understand. You need to be more specific if you want them to take your words into consideration.
If I understand correctly, you are asking why we shouldn't interpret that the "fathers" in question are the previous generation and not Moses and the generation of the desert? Maybe so. What does that mean? Let's assume that they kept the way of their ancestors, who are the previous generation. Does that mean that there was no generation of the desert or the Mount Sinai establishment? What's the connection? The Torah says that there was an establishment, and if you don't believe it, don't believe the verses in the Book of Judges either. In short, why is it even interesting? Assuming I understood the question…

Thank you very much for the answer, the rabbi understood the question.
Regarding the rabbi's last claim that if the Torah is not true, then neither is the Book of Judges, I understand, thanks again.
I would be happy if the rabbi could show me where my mistake is:
If from the verse in the Book of Judges “And a new generation arose after them who did not know the Lord” let's say that the people of Israel did not accept the tradition - then it can be argued that they invented the Torah, a way to worship the Creator. Therefore, it can be said that in the verse “They departed from the way” - it is about the invented way, and the situation at Mount Sinai and the generation of the wilderness are inventions.
And to this we can answer, that if the Torah is not true, then the Book of Judges is not true either.

You can argue. So what? You can also argue that when the verse says there was a Mount Sinai stand, it wasn't. You can argue anything, and certainly in interpreting the Bible (see my posts on the Bible). Christians also make claims that prove Christianity and the messiahship of Jesus from the Bible. The gates of interpretation have not been closed. As mentioned, I don't really understand why this discussion is important. If you build your faith on trust in the authenticity of what is written in the Bible, meaning that if you interpret the Bible differently, there is no basis for your faith, you won't get far.

I consider the discussion because I asked myself - why did the rabbi bother to answer in the fifth notebook the claim of the Karaite criticism (that there was no tradition, because "they did not know"). Because apparently it seems that if there are counter-answers in the name of the biblical criticism to what the rabbi answered in the notebook - then does that mean that the biblical criticism is right?

For some reason you moved to another thread, and there is not much innovation in what you said. I do not understand what the discussion is about and what is not answered. I bring here the question you sent there and will answer it one last time:

Greetings, Honorable Rabbi.
First of all, I assume that the Torah is true, a significant part due to the Rabbi’s claims in the fifth book. Nevertheless, I wanted to ask the Rabbi about the biblical criticism:
In the Book of Judges, Chapter 2: “And another generation arose after them who did not know the Lord or the work that He had done for Israel.” The biblical criticism claims from the verse that the Torah did not receive tradition, and therefore the intention is that the Torah we have today was invented by this generation. The rabbi refuted the claim by asking, "If the people of Israel intelligently forgot, then why would there be anger?" I wanted to ask: Why did the rabbi ask this question? After all, the rabbi assumes that the Torah is true, and the biblical criticism does not. Their understanding is that the people of Israel invented the Torah, based on the assumption that an entire generation (40 years) of the "other generation" forgot God - and this assumption contradicts all traditional Torah up to that point, so why did the rabbi ask this? Why does it matter whether the God they invented is angry or not, after all, it is just an invention in their opinion.
I personally understand the rabbi's second claim that this knowledge means a connection. But I still don't understand how to refute the claim I mentioned here. Thank you very much.

Your question is about tradition, and therefore tradition is supposed to answer it according to its own method. If you want to offer an alternative, it is a question, not a question. But if you don't believe in tradition, then there is no point in discussing it. You assume that there is no God and interpret the verses according to this assumption. And if you do believe her, then you can only make it difficult for her by assuming that she is true. That's why I answered according to the traditional assumption.
That's all. I'm done, and I ask not to open any more threads on the subject and not to repeat the same things here again and again.

To M, regarding the book that compares the survival of nations - what is it called and where can it be obtained?