The First Passover Seder

The biblical text itself is certainly not relevant as evidence here or here. The return to Zion is a well-documented historical event. Historical evidence of Jewish life as we would expect exists from the sixth century BCE. That evidence is certainly consistent with the traditional story. But this story, if I understand correctly, begins with the return to Zion.

The question is not what the text says. The question is what my (or your) personal connection is to the Mount Sinai situation. If I understand correctly, my father told me. And his father told him. And so on. But my father-my father-…-his father, he did not hear it from his father but from Ezra the scribe. And that is also what he passed down. “Hear, my son. Ezra the scribe told me that my grandfather's grandfather, his father told him, that his father told him… that his father was at the Mount Sinai situation”.

In other words, this is the story *itself*. The story that happened. This is the essence and essence of the historical narrative that is being told. No one has ever told or claimed that there is a direct tradition all the way back to Mount Sinai passed down from father to son.

Am I missing something in the factual understanding of history or the story?

I fail to understand the argument. The biblical text is certainly relevant. How is it different from any other text? What else is there that accompanies it? The fact that things were written down only in the Bible and in the Tosheva literature does not say much. What do you want to find? Another book, not the Bible? How would it be different from the Bible? You would also say that it says nothing about it. The fact that something was written during the time of Ezra the scribe does not change anything. The tradition began first and continues later. I do not see what the writing adds or subtracts.
And all this on the unreasonable assumption that everything was really written during the time of Ezra.

As you wrote in your book, what matters in the question of a miraculous event is not the content of the testimony, but the credibility of the narrators. The biblical text is the content of the testimony, and it is not important. The Jews who transmitted it are the witnesses, and their credibility is what is relevant.

I trust my father. He told me that his father told him a story that he believed to be true. I trust my father, and therefore I am convinced that his father did believe the story. Etc. etc. By a kind of mathematical pseudo-induction (complete induction! All at once, one assumes 1 to n-1), I accept the credibility of the story. Approximately.

But all of this is true only if the story itself claims to be true. Which is not clear to me whether such a story even exists in the first place.

Do you believe that there is a continuous connection between you and your ancestor who stood at Mount Sinai?

I see that I am having difficulty explaining myself. There is a recursive kernel here that I am trying to address. To avoid burdensome attempts to frame the discussion with P(n) claims, I will simplify the matter and assume that the discussion is whether the Mount Sinai event occurred three generations before me (and two before you, please forgive me). That is, your grandfather and my great-grandfather were both present at the Mount Sinai event.

Now the question is this. How do your father and my grandfather know this? If your grandfather told your father, and my great-grandfather told my grandfather, that is one thing. But maybe Ezra the scribe was the one who told your father and my grandfather what happened to their parents?

In such a situation, of course the reliability of the report varies greatly.

The historical, not philosophical, question now arises: what did your father tell you? If he told you, “My father told me that he was at the Mount Sinai event,” that is reliable, and the conclusion from this is that Mount Sinai is indeed likely to have happened. But if he tells you, “Ezra the scribe told me that my father was at Mount Sinai,” then you probably believe your father, he is still credible, but his testimony is not actually “p(n+1).” He is testifying about Ezra the scribe.

I am not claiming that there was a conspiracy. I am not claiming that the story may have been “planted” and therefore unreliable. For the sake of discussion, I accept the credibility of the historical testimony. But I ask, what does the testimony actually include? Do you believe that your father received the information from his father, or that he received the information from Ezra the scribe who claimed to him that his father had the information.

If a credible witness comes to court and claims that he saw the mother murder her sons, we might believe him and based on their testimony we will convict the mother. But if a reliable witness comes to court and testifies that his good friend Ezra told him that the mother murdered her sons, we will probably believe him – but our conclusion will not be to convict the mother, but first of all to summon this Ezra to court and take testimony from him himself. If our friend Ezra is not with us, we will ask the witness what made him believe Ezra.

Now I ask a historical question - do you believe that the testimony as it came to you, specifically, is directly from father to son up to the time of Mount Sinai, or do you believe that one of your ancestors heard about it from someone else. What does the story we are telling actually include?

That is, it seems to me that the state of affairs is not “…The Mount Sinai status could have been entered by a charismatic figure” – but with certainty, the Mount Sinai status did enter Jewish history by a charismatic figure! Ezra the writer. That is what tradition testifies to. No?
I am not claiming a conspiracy. I am not claiming that he lied. I am not claiming that there was no tradition before him. I am claiming, for the sake of discussion, that the source of my and your current knowledge about the Mount Sinai status – is indeed in a charismatic figure, and my claim is very credible, because that is exactly what Jewish tradition itself claims. We received it from Ezra the writer. And the Jewish tradition of the people of Israel is very credible.

Unless I am missing something in understanding the historical story.

I really can't understand the question. Let's assume that everything came from Ezra the scribe (although that's probably not true). So what? So the transmission went through him and not through my grandfather. What's the problem with that? And if Ezra the scribe was my grandfather, does that make any difference? Did Ezra make everything up? If so, then we're back to the question of the charismatic figure. But my grandfather could have made everything up too. I just can't understand what's bothering you.

Why is it probably not true that everything comes from Ezra the writer?

That's my question, actually. For the record. In a focused and specific way.

That wasn't your question. Your question was about the logic of tradition.
Regarding my comment about Ezra, before you ask me why I think it doesn't come from Ezra, ask why I say it does. The Bible speaks of the status of Mount Sinai, and so does tradition. Why invent that everything comes from Ezra?

That was my question. I wondered if the confusion was in logic or history. I think the answer is in history, so I focus on history.

If I understand correctly, the tradition does say that everything comes from Ezra. He told my ancestors about Mount Sinai. My ancestors did not know that their ancestors were at Mount Sinai until Ezra told them.

Am I wrong? Isn't that the tradition? I'm not talking about the Bible. I'm talking about the tradition of reports.

Well, let's not argue.
You are absolutely wrong. I don't understand where you got that from at all. The tradition is from Mount Sinai and on Mount Sinai. Who put Ezra there?