On the reliability of the Mount Sinai status

This is the weak point. Where do you get this from? And our ancestors would have known about the status from a book that was given to them – would you have a way today to distinguish whether the tradition in your hand was given by your ancestors or from the book?? In other words, you assume that there was a status that was passed down in tradition to your ancestors, and the book in your hand is only an accompaniment to it. Anyone who assumes otherwise will argue that there was no status but a story in a book about a status, and it was passed down to your ancestors who told you what is also (coincidentally) written in the book. I see no way out of this.

What can be argued, rightly, is that it is difficult to plant a book that describes a public revelation if there really was one. But that is not the discussion here

I don't see any weakness here. There are also history books that tell all kinds of stories and we learn all kinds of things from them. Maybe they are fake? There is a tradition that says that Thucydides, or Flavius, wrote this. What's the problem with that?

In the Book of Revelation 7:8, we were commanded to pass on the tradition of the revelation in the wilderness orally from generation to generation, as the Torah commanded: “Be careful not to forget the things that your eyes have seen and to make them known to your children and to your children’s children on the day you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb.”

However, the people of Israel did not pass on their faith only orally; the text of the Torah was preserved in tens of thousands of copies throughout the Diaspora of Israel, which they read and meditated on. This is not some book found in the library of libraries, but a book that existed in the hands of every community and settlement. Even the Samaritans, who differed from the rest of the Israelites by sanctifying Mount Gerizim instead of Jerusalem, hold to the same text of the Torah with minor changes.

Is there clear evidence from the testimony of millions scattered and separated, without political unity except for brief periods, yet they hold the same Torah and testify to its holiness and truth?

With greetings, Sh”ts Lvingari

I'll try to understand. You're making two claims here: A. There are history books from which we learn about events that happened and assume that the events actually happened. And there's no reason to assume that they're fake. .B. There's (sometimes) a tradition about the books being written by some personality (Flavius). And there's no reason to assume that it's false.

Now let's compare this to the story of the giving of the Torah. First First: A. This is a history book that teaches about an event that happened and there's no reason to assume that it's fake. Well, it's not accurate, because there is reason to assume that it's fake: just as you accept Flavius, but as soon as he starts singing about the numbers of the dead, it's clear that he's exaggerating or falsifying (or for example when he brings legends as if they were reality, such as his words in the chapter on the drunkard's grave: "When in the valley that blocks the city from the north is a place called Berah, and there grows a root, which is also called by that name. The color of this root is like fire, and towards evening it emits a glow, and when a man approaches it and wants to grab it with his hand, it will not be easy for him, because the root will drop from his hand and will not stand in its place, until someone brings the water of a woman's feet or the blood of a prostitute and sprinkles it on it." Just to illustrate). How much more so when the book contains an unacceptable description of a Creator who reveals himself to his creatures and conducts covenantal dealings with them - there is good enough reason to assume that it is a fake, if not in general terms, then certainly in details. Even if we accept that there was something at Sinai that passed into tradition – then it is like accepting that there was a war between the Jews and the Romans and a lot of people died – but not that there were millions of dead (because there were no such numbers then). And even at Sinai – we accept that there was an event of the establishment of a constitution, or a covenant that was perceived by the ancestors of the recipients of the story as if it were between them and God. Perhaps there was some kind of volcanic event as well. Here is an example of accepting the historicity of the story, without suspecting forgery but exaggeration.

And now for the second claim: ”There is a tradition that says that Thucydides, or Flavius, wrote this. What is the problem with that?” You assume that such a tradition exists that Moses wrote his book – Well, even if that were true, it does not prove the event described in it – As I compared above between the descriptions of Flavius of the time and the descriptions of the exaggeration about Sinai. But more than that, the problem of the attribution of the writing of the book by Moses itself is about to provide all sorts of aspects, negative and positive: the negative ones - there is philological and historical support for the lateness of the book of Deuteronomy. Positive ones - there is no reason to assume that he wrote it since the book itself claims that he wrote it, and in any case there is no such tradition about the book - but, again, it was born only because it was written in the book that Moses wrote it. If there is a tradition, it is precisely about the other documents (such as Genesis and its documents), but even about them you do not necessarily accept the credibility that claims Moses wrote them. At most, he conceived their roots orally and those were written down during the First Temple period, etc.

In conclusion, there is no tradition about an event and there is no tradition about the identity of the writer of the event. All that is there is a story that describes an event and describes the identity of the writer - and this story has created a tradition. And even if there were such a tradition, we would only accept it to the point where it begins to contradict reason. This is done in every historical analysis, and there is no reason to stop it in the Torah.

All this, of course, is to magnify and exalt the Torah, etc. And the truth of the Torah depends only on the opinion of a supreme God, and it is clear that if the sky is a Galilean that was revealed at Sinai, then all the arguments to try and doubt this event, etc., will be useless. And Doc, Dal, and Akmal

So your basic premise is that reason rules out the possibility that God reveals himself to his creatures and makes a covenant with them, and after such a basic premise you will deny the testimony of an entire people with their own opinions and criticisms, which every father passed on to his sons and grandsons who heard the voice of God speaking to them. In short, the desired premise…

The Israelites who stood at Sinai did not have such a basic premise. After all, they had a tradition that their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were prophets. The miracles that occurred in Egypt had already shown them clearly that there is a leader for the capital who intervenes in the laws of nature in order to redeem the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and fulfill the covenant that He made with them. The revelation at Sinai was only an addition of certainty and internalization.

And really, what is the logic that He who created a world built and perfected with wisdom would not leave His world without guidance on questions of good and evil. He who provides a perfect machine would not include operating instructions?

Best regards, Sh”z Levinger…

Gil, I don't understand. So how do you know if there is truth in Jewish tradition?
I think this is the main argument on the subject of Jewish truth.
And regarding the Law, I don't understand. How do you even know that the people of Israel passed on the testimony of Sinai? From the Torah?
From what is written?
Based on what indication do you claim this?
This reminds me of Amnon Yitzhak.

In the 7th century, Av Ach

To Kehat – Shalom Rav,

As I explained in my response above, the Torah is not a book that was discovered in an archive. When an entire people whose entire history was scattered and divided without a single central government (apart from a few decades of the reigns of David and Solomon). And here, a people who were divided into tribes and later scattered to all corners of the world, and yet all hold to one Torah and hold to it with devotion despite decrees and persecutions – a sign that this book is considered trustworthy in their eyes. After all, it is impossible to ‘sell’ all history denied by their ancestors.

With greetings, Shࢭts Levinger

. We never find a competing tradition to this story in the people of Israel. Can anyone imagine that in another 400 years a national tradition will develop that tells a completely different story about the establishment of the state, while completely erasing forever any competing tradition (that tells the truth!) in the national historical memory?

2. I think it was Kent Kitchen who said that those who want to deny it should explain why it is necessary to fabricate such an embarrassing story about a shameful origin as slaves contrary to the natural national tendency, and how such a fiction penetrates the mental consciousness of the people so successfully (and, as has been said, to the point of the complete absence of any tradition and historical memory to the contrary)?

3. If we can prove that the Torah in our hands was written at least in the time of David and Solomon or earlier, then the previous two arguments are joined by the implausibility of a fabricated national memory about the status of the adoption of the national constitution only about 300-200 years earlier. But there is some good linguistic evidence for the claim: An especially unusual and strange fact is that throughout the entire Pentateuch the phrase “God of hosts” is nowhere to be found, one of the most trendy expressions from the time of David onwards. In addition, on two different occasions the Torah mocks the institution of the kingdom. It is impossible that such things were written when David (or even Saul) ruled as the Messiah of God.

R’ Gilly, I am surprised at you. It is clear that even according to research, the tradition of the Exodus from Egypt preceded the writing of the books.

How can scholars claim that the tradition of the Exodus preceded the writing of the books? After all, we can only transmit what was published in a ’judgmental publication”, and it is inconceivable that traditions were transmitted without being published in a &#8216academic committee’ that approved them?

And perhaps what the scholars mean is that initially the story of the Exodus was written in a scientifically written text with a full apparatus of footnotes, and after it was approved it was transmitted orally, and then the story was retold in a vulgar manner without footnotes.

With best regards, Shimshon of &#8217ajudgmental”Jivka

In the case of the righteous, and their judgment is just,

A person usually tends to believe his parents who raised him. For example, he trusts the ’tradition’ that they tell him that they are truly his parents and does not demand a ‘tissue test’ 🙂 All the more so when it comes to people of value, who are more likely to tell things that are not true

The Torah demands from a person very high ethical norms: gratitude not only for G-d bringing them out of Egypt, but also respect and reverence for one's parents. Not only not to harm others in action, but also not to covet in the heart what belongs to others.

Beyond honesty towards others, the Torah also demands that one love others as one loves oneself, and to do kindness to them. And not only for his fellow man but also for the Canaanite slave, the Torah takes care that every Sabbath ‘the son of your maidservant and the stranger’ shall live, and forbids handing over a slave who has run away to his master.

A whole series of commandments take care of the poor and the needy. Even the commandment of the Sabbath is reasoned ‘so that the poor of your people may eat’ a person is required to abandon his field once every seven years and to forgo what is owed to him, in order to make it clear to him that his property is not his own, but ‘for all the land is mine’ ‘for you are strangers and residents with me’.

Even the leaders bear responsibility and are held accountable for their failures, and on the contrary, the Almighty God is meticulous with them ‘like a hair’, and moreover, they bear the sins of their generation, as Moses said: ‘Even with me the Lord was angry for your sake’. And because of a small mistake, that he struck the rock instead of speaking, or that he spoke angrily to the people, it was decreed that the giver of the Torah, who gave his life for the people, would not enter the land.

And in the moral atmosphere that the Torah is full of, it is no wonder that the values of ‘shy, merciful, and reciprocating kindness’ were created, with justice and kindness embedded in its DNA, to the point that even during the difficult exile it went through, there was no community in the world that did not have a ‘law of compulsory education’ And charity and benevolence funds, which ensured that not a single child would be left without an education, and not a single needy person would be left without a supporter.

So, with such a people of values, we come to address the grave accusation of falsifying its Torah?

With greetings, Sh”ts Levinger:

And in conclusion:

The credibility of the testimony of the people of Israel about their Torah is strengthened both because the things the people testify about happened before the eyes of hundreds of thousands who told them about them to their children and generation after generation expressed it; both because the events they transmit are partly embarrassing to the people – being slaves and their sins – and there is no way they would spoil such an embarrassing history; both because the transmitters are numerous and independent – a people that was divided politically for most of the time and later dispersed to all corners of the world, yet held on to the same devotion to the Torah; and because of the high value of the transmissions of the Torah and its morals, a level of value that makes the suspicion of forgery clearly unreasonable!

With best wishes, Sh”z Levinger

Hello Sh”tz Levinger
The Torah demands many things from man:
So what?
I didn't understand what you were trying to convey..
And the fact that Israel returned with the same Torah scroll after the exile.. So what?
Why does that mean that the Torah is true?
Why does that mean that the act of Genesis, the Exodus, Abraham, and all of these are real events?

And regarding the witnesses who were at Mount Sinai
We know that there were witnesses because it is written that they were witnesses, and we know that there was a presence because it is written that there was a presence.
We have no other source that shows us a widespread exodus from Egypt, a record of the peoples who live around us about the miracles that the Almighty performed for us, in short, we have one source that by all indications is late and dates back to a late period and contains many contradictions.

On the contrary: by all indications it absolutely cannot be late. See Kent Kitchen

https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962