That is the weak point. How do you know that? And if our ancestors knew about the event from a book that was given to them—would you today have any way to tell whether the tradition in your hands came from your ancestors or from the book? In other words, you assume there was an event that was passed down in tradition to your ancestors, and the book you have merely accompanied that. Someone who assumes otherwise will argue that there was no event, only a story in a book about an event, and that passed to your ancestors, who told you what also (coincidentally) appears in the book. I don’t see a way out of that.

What can be argued, rightly, is that it is hard to plant a book describing a public revelation unless something like that really did happen. But that isn’t the discussion here.

I don’t see any weak point here. There are history books too that tell all kinds of stories, and we learn all kinds of things from them. Maybe they are forged? There is a tradition saying that Thucydides wrote this, or Josephus. What’s the problem with that?

With God’s help, 7 Av 5778

We were commanded to pass on the tradition of the revelation at Sinai orally from generation to generation, as the Torah commanded: “Take heed to yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes saw, and make them known to your children and your children’s children—the day you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb…”

But the Jewish people did not pass on their faith only orally. The text of the Torah was preserved in tens of thousands of copies throughout the Jewish diaspora, where it was read and studied. This is not some book found in the archives of a library, but a book that existed in the hands of every community and settlement. Even the Samaritans, who separated from the rest of Israel by sanctifying Mount Gerizim instead of Jerusalem, hold the same text of the Torah, with minor variations.

Is there any clearer testimony than that of millions, scattered and divided, without political unity except for brief periods, and nevertheless they all hold the same Torah and testify to its holiness and truth?

Regards,
Shatz Levinger

Let me try to understand. You’re making two claims here: A. There are history books from which we learn about events that happened, and we assume the events really occurred. And there is no reason to assume they are forged. B. About those books there is (sometimes) a tradition that they were written by some figure or other (Josephus). And there is no reason to assume that is false.

Now let’s compare that to the story of the giving of the Torah. First things first: A. This is a history book that teaches about an event that happened, and there is no reason to assume it is forged. Well, that’s not quite accurate, because there actually is reason to assume forgery: just as Josephus is accepted, but the moment he starts singing about casualty figures it is clear he is exaggerating or forging (or for example when he brings legends as though they were reality, such as his words in the chapter about Baaras: “Now in the valley that surrounds the city on the north there is a certain place called Baaras, where a root of the same name grows. The color of this root is like fire, and toward evening it gives off a gleam; and when a man approaches and wishes to seize it by hand, the thing will not come easily, for the root slips away from his hand and will not stay in place until someone pours over it a woman’s urine or menstrual blood.” Just for illustration). All the more so when a book contains an implausible description of the Creator revealing Himself to His creatures and entering into a covenantal relationship with them—there is good enough reason to assume forgery, if not in general then certainly in the details. Even if we accept that there was something at Sinai that passed through tradition—this would be like accepting that there was a Jewish war against the Romans and many people died, but not that there were millions of dead (because there were no such numbers then). So too at Sinai—we might accept that there was an event of establishing a law code, or a covenant that the ancestors of those receiving the story perceived as being between them and God. Maybe there was some volcanic event as well. There: an example of accepting the historicity of the story without suspecting forgery, only exaggeration.

And now for the second claim: “There is a tradition saying that Thucydides wrote this, or Josephus. What’s the problem with that?” You assume there is such a tradition that Moses wrote his book—well, even if that were true, it would not prove the event described in it—as I compared above between Josephus’s descriptions as a contemporary and the exaggerated descriptions of Sinai. But more than that—the problem of attributing the writing of the book to Moses is itself open to doubt from various angles, negative and positive. Negative: there is philological and historical support for dating Deuteronomy later. Positive: there is no reason to assume he wrote it, since the book itself claims he wrote it, and therefore there is no such tradition about the book—rather, once again, it was born only because it was written in the book that Moses wrote it. If there is a tradition, it is rather about the other documents (like Genesis, Exodus, their documents), except that even you do not necessarily accept the reliability of the claim that Moses wrote them. At most, he conceived their roots orally, and they were rewritten during the First Temple period, etc.

To sum up, there is no tradition about an event and no tradition about the identity of the writer of the event. All there is is a story that describes an event and describes the identity of the writer—and that story created a tradition. And even if there were such a tradition, we would accept it only up to the point where it begins to contradict reason. That is how all historical analysis works, and there is no reason to stop applying it when it comes to the Torah.

All this, of course, is only to magnify Torah and make it glorious, etc.; and the truth of the Torah depends only on the knowledge of the Most High, and obviously if before Heaven it is known that He revealed Himself at Sinai, then all the arguments attempting to cast doubt on this event will be of no avail, etc. Understand this, and enough said.

Well then, your basic assumption is that reason rules out the possibility that God reveals Himself to His creatures and makes a covenant with them, and after such an assumption you will deny the testimony of an entire people—opinionated and critical—where every father passed on to his sons and grandsons that they heard the voice of God speaking to them. In short: begging the question…

The Israelites who stood at Sinai did not have such a prior assumption. They had a tradition that their forefathers—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—were prophets. The miracles they experienced in Egypt had already shown them clearly that there is a Master of the universe who intervenes in the laws of nature in order to redeem the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and fulfill the covenant He made with them. The revelation at Sinai was only an added certainty and internalization.

And really, what logic is there in saying that the One who created a world built and perfected with wisdom would leave His world without guidance in questions of good and evil? Does someone who supplies a sophisticated machine not attach operating instructions?

Regards,
Shatz Levinger…

Gil, I didn’t understand. So how do you know whether there is truth in Jewish tradition?
It seems to me this is the main argument in the issue of Jewish truth.
And regarding Shatz, I didn’t understand. How do you know at all that the Jewish people passed on the testimony of Sinai? From the Torah?
From what is written?
Based on what indication are you claiming that?
It reminds me of Amnon Yitzhak.

With God’s help, 7 Av 5778

Kehat—many greetings,

As I explained in my response above, the Torah is not a book discovered in an archive. When an entire people, throughout its history, was scattered and divided without one central government (except for a few decades of the kingdom of David and Solomon), and here is a people that was split into tribes and later dispersed to all ends of the earth, and nevertheless they all hold one Torah and uphold it with self-sacrifice despite decrees and persecutions—that is a sign that this book was considered reliable in their eyes. After all, you can’t “sell” everyone a history contradicted by their own ancestors.

Regards,
Shatz Levinger

1. We have never found a competing tradition to this story within the Jewish people. Can anyone imagine that another 400 years from now a national tradition would develop telling a completely different story about the establishment of the State, while totally erasing forever every competing tradition (the one telling the truth!) from the historical national memory?

2. I think it was Kenneth Kitchen who said that anyone who wants to deny it has to explain what need there would be to invent such an embarrassing story of a disgraceful origin as slaves, contrary to the natural national tendency, and how such a fiction could penetrate the psychological consciousness of the people so successfully (and, as stated, to the point of the total absence of any opposing tradition and historical memory).

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 to the previous two reasons we can add the improbability of a fabricated national memory about the receiving of the national constitution only some 200–300 years earlier. And there is some pretty decent linguistic evidence for the claim: a particularly unusual and strange fact is that throughout the Five Books, the expression “the Lord of Hosts” does not appear anywhere, though it is one of the trendiest expressions from the time of David onward. In addition, in two different places the Torah mocks the institution of kingship. It is impossible that such things were written when David (or even Saul) had already been crowned as the Lord’s anointed.

Rabbi Gili, I’m surprised at you. It’s obvious that even according to scholarship, the tradition of the Exodus preceded the writing of the books.

How can the scholars claim that the tradition of the Exodus preceded the writing of the books? After all, nothing can be transmitted except what was published in a “peer-reviewed publication,” and it is inconceivable that traditions were transmitted without being published on a reviewable platform and passing an “academic committee” that approved them!

Or perhaps the scholars mean that first the story of the Exodus was written down in scientific written form with a full scholarly apparatus of footnotes, and after it was approved it was transmitted orally, and only afterward was the story drafted in a vulgar form without footnotes.

Regards,
Samson of “Peer-Reviewka”

With God’s help, eve of the holy Sabbath, “Judge righteously,” 5778

A person generally tends to believe his parents, who raised him. For example, he relies on the “tradition” they pass on to him that they really are his parents, and does not demand a DNA test 🙂 All the more so when we are dealing with people of values, for whom the likelihood that they would pass on things that are not true is low.

The Torah demands very high ethical standards from a person: gratitude not only to God who brought them out of Egypt, but also honor and reverence toward parents. Not only not to harm another person through action, but not even to covet in one’s heart what belongs to someone else.

Beyond honesty toward others, the Torah also demands loving another as a person loves himself, and doing kindness with him. And not only toward one’s fellow—the Torah even takes care regarding the Canaanite slave that every Sabbath “the son of your maidservant and the stranger may be refreshed,” and it forbids turning over a slave who fled back to his master.

A whole series of commandments care for the poor and needy. Even the commandment of the Sabbatical year is explained as “so that the poor of your people may eat.” A person is required to make his field ownerless once every seven years and to release what is owed to him, in order to make clear to him that his property is not really his, but rather “for the whole land is Mine” and “for you are strangers and sojourners with Me.”

Even the leaders bear responsibility and are held accountable for their failures, and indeed the Holy One, blessed be He, is exacting with them “to a hair’s breadth,” and more than that they bear the sins of their generation, as Moses said: “The Lord was also angry with me for your sakes.” And because of a small mistake—striking the rock instead of speaking to it, or speaking 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 ethical atmosphere with which the Torah is filled, it is no wonder that an ethical people was formed—one of “the bashful, the merciful, and those who do acts of kindness,” a people in whose DNA justice and kindness are ingrained, to the point that even in the hard exile they underwent there was no community in the world that did not have a “compulsory education law” and charity and kindness funds, making sure not one child remained without education and not one needy person remained without support.

So on such an ethical people, are we now going to pin the grave accusation of forging its Torah?

Regards,
Shatz Levinger:

And to sum up:

The reliability of the testimony of the Jewish people about its Torah is strengthened both because the things the people testify to happened before the eyes of hundreds of thousands who told them to their children and generation after generation kept speaking of them; and because the events being transmitted are in part embarrassing to the people—their having been slaves and their sins—and there is no way they would invent such an embarrassing history; and because the transmitters are many and independent—a people that for most of the time was politically fragmented and later dispersed to all corners of the earth, and yet held with self-sacrifice to the same Torah; and also because of the high ethical quality of the Torah’s messages and of its transmitters, a level of ethical quality that makes suspicion of forgery patently unreasonable!

Regards,
Shatz Levinger

Hello Shatz Levinger,
The fact that the Torah demands many things of a person:
So what?
I didn’t understand what you’re trying to say..
And the fact that Israel returned with the same Torah scroll after the exile… so what?
Why does that mean the Torah is true?
Why does that mean the creation story, the Exodus from Egypt, Abraham, and all those things are real events?

And regarding the witnesses who were at Mount Sinai:
We know there were witnesses because it says there were witnesses, and we know there was an event because it says there was an event.
We have no other source showing us a mass exodus from Egypt, documentation from the peoples around us about the miracles the Holy One, blessed be He, did for us; in short, we have one source which by all indications is late, was composed in a late period, and contains many contradictions.

On the contrary: by all indications it quite clearly cannot be late. See Kenneth Kitchen.