The Explanation of Judaism

I can offer the Michi-Bot’s response:

A brief clarification before we begin: The answers are given by a model that uses Rabbi Michael Avraham’s sources and tries to reconstruct what he would have answered. Therefore, the answers do not necessarily reflect the Rabbi’s opinion. In addition, the model is trained primarily on theoretical and philosophical materials and less on halakhic materials. Therefore, one should not make a halakhic ruling from the bot’s answers, and in the event that a halakhic answer is actually needed, one should contact a halakhic posek. The model is particularly suitable for philosophical-thought questions and questions of principle and meta-halakhic.

I suggest separating several layers:

What actually “should” come from a Sinai position

According to the Rabbi, Sinai does not come to “tell information” about what is good/bad (this can, in principle, be known even without him), but to establish a normative obligation: to transform a moral truth into a religious-halakhic “obligation.” So, the fact that the text appears to be written by humans is not a hindrance: the command and the obligation can pass through a cultural-human language without harming their normative content.

Updating probabilities and not “all or nothing”

You describe the process correctly: first philosophical reasons for God (and for the principled expectation of revelation), and then tradition serves as reinforcement. In such a model, the fact that the Bible appears human is not a “refutation,” but at most a slight downward revision—and in practice not even always: if divinity is revealed to humans, it is expected that the message will be embodied in human language and style, and sometimes also through layers and edits. Therefore, the criticism of the documents is not crushing either: in “thin” theology, multiple layers can sit nicely on the assumption of a common founding event in Genesis (revelation), from which the documents branched and were edited.

Why “a religion that developed purely humanly” does not explain better

There are two considerations here that the rabbi emphasizes:
• The binding element: If Sinai is merely a literary myth, there is no objective anchor for the obligation. Therefore, there is logic in the historical insistence on Sinai (rather than, for example, on biographical details of the patriarchs).
• Causal force and not just educational-narrative: The rabbi proposes an understanding of “working myth” — not just a story that educates psychologically, but a focus of long-term causal influence. It is difficult to understand how a myth in the modern-narrative sense could sustain generations of practical commitment and normative solidarity; it is much more likely that there was an actual founding event that served as an anchor.

“Human” does not contradict “Divine”

Even if significant parts of the whole—the language, the editing, the interpretation, and even the development of the halakhah—are human products, this does not contradict the fact that the initial binding stems from revelation. The history that the rabbi tells sees Sinai as a status that granted binding validity, and on which a legitimate human-halakhic process was built. For example, in the relationship between “the natural worship of God” versus laws that were initially added at Mount Sinai: there is an ancient natural-religious value, and Sinai formulates and levels it. The meaning: a human stamp on the sources is not a surprise—it is part of the way in which a divine command is assimilated into a human world.

The bottom line: In a probabilistic structure, after there are philosophical reasons for the existence of God and a fundamental expectation of revelation, a human appearance of the sources is not a weighty counter-argument; sometimes it is even expected. On the other hand, the ability of the Sinai tradition to serve as a binding source and causal-historical backbone over thousands of years actually points towards an actual fundamental event, and not just creeping human development.

Do you want me to elaborate on a particular point or present additional sources/follow-up questions?

Sources used in practice

“On the meaning of the giving of the Torah (column 220)” — https://mikyab.net/posts/62809/

That which is and that which is not — a discussion on myth, history, and Sinai (chapters on “active myth”). No reliable URL found.

No one rules the spirit — a conversation on biblical criticism and the doctrine of the documents in the context of “thin theology”. No reliable URL found.

“Explanation of the rule ‘In our year, the scripture must delay’” (post; in the context of the value of the natural worship of God versus halakhic practices after Sinai). No reliable URL found.

For a more in-depth and accurate picture, it is recommended to review the cited sources and also search the website that contains all of the rabbi’s articles: mikyab.net
On the website, you can also find the way to purchase the rabbi’s books.