Q&A: The Order of the First Passover
The Order of the First Passover
Question
It’s not entirely clear to me whether the source of the confusion I’m about to ask about is historical ignorance or a logical mistake.
I learned about the story of the Revelation at Mount Sinai and the Exodus from Egypt from my parents. They learned these stories from their parents, and so on. I assume that this is also how you first became acquainted with these stories.
The Sinai argument assumes that this chain continues fairly continuously for a very long time. But how long? If this continuity extends, more or less, and without getting into the content of the matter but only the general idea, from the Revelation at Mount Sinai itself (assuming it happened) — that strengthens the argument. But if we assume that both my ancestor and your ancestor heard about it not from their father, but from a thinker / prophet / charismatic and persuasive leader who told them, “Your forefathers passed down the tradition, and then it was forgotten, and now I am reminding you of your history” — then the argument is much weaker, and certainly not unique either (there are other examples of such cases. Many.)
Am I understanding correctly that Jewish tradition includes within it documentation of the rediscovery of the Torah in the days of the Return to Zion and Ezra the Scribe?
I read The First Available. You referred there briefly to these issues. If I understood correctly, you explain that although the Torah was indeed “rediscovered,” its very existence was known. In other words, everyone knew that there was knowledge they were supposed to have, but it was missing. The lack of knowledge was known.
But what is the evidence that the lack of knowledge was indeed known? A paragraph from a book is not very convincing to me. Slipping a few verses into a book that has just been written during a period of spiritual renewal and political upheaval sounds like a pretty easy trick to pull off. That is, you say: “What matters is the very fact that the Revelation at Mount Sinai took place, not whether the content of a specific verse in the Torah is more or less in doubt.” If so, relying on a few verses in the Book of Ezra and claiming that they are sufficient evidence that it was known that specific knowledge was missing — that doesn’t seem serious to me.
Is there stronger / supplementary evidence that it was indeed known and accepted among the Jewish people in the period before the Return to Zion and during it that there was knowledge that had been lost? Did they celebrate Passover? Are there historical sources for the existence of Jewish spiritual life / Jewish memory before the Return to Zion? Are there sources for engagement with Torah / the festival of Passover in the Babylonian exile before Ezra?
Or perhaps these historical questions are not relevant to the issue at all. If that is the case, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate more, and more precisely, on the specific evidence that logically convinces you that the Revelation at Mount Sinai really did occur.
Answer
In my book The First Available, I explained at great length that this argument (which is called the “witness argument”) does not stand on its own. The entire book is devoted to this, not a short paragraph.
You’re mixing in another argument here, namely that the Revelation at Mount Sinai could have been introduced by a charismatic figure. True, and therefore the argument does not stand on its own. But in the overall fabric, in my view, it is certainly strong enough.
You also mixed together statements that apparently refer to the finding of the Torah scroll and the forgetting of the Torah, and I explained there, based on the verses and on logic, why it is clear that they knew of the Torah’s existence. That is not an excuse but an interpretation that emerges from the text. Clearly one can insert verses into the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), but if you suspect that, then the verses about finding the Torah scroll could also have been inserted there (by heretics). The verses that describe the forgetting are no better than those that prove there was a continuous tradition. To decide selectively that these are reliable and those were inserted later is not serious.
The continuity of the tradition, including the Revelation at Mount Sinai, is mentioned more than once in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). I don’t know what additional evidence you want. Someone who insists on raising doubts about every claim certainly cannot accept any answer. You can always ask, “But maybe not?” I don’t know what “Jewish spiritual life” means. The Temple and sacrifices, festivals and Sabbath, new moons, and so on — isn’t that enough Jewish spiritual life? Or do you want to find in archaeological excavations in the Sinai desert Simchat Torah dancing and refraining from eating legumes on Passover?
Discussion on Answer
I’m unable to understand the claim. The biblical text is definitely relevant. How is it different from any other text? Especially since there is a tradition accompanying it. The fact that things were put in writing only in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and in the Oral Torah literature doesn’t mean much. What do you want to find? Another book, not the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)? How would it be different from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)? About that too you would say it proves nothing. The fact that something was written in the time of Ezra the Scribe changes nothing. The tradition began earlier and continues afterward. I don’t see what the writing adds or subtracts.
And all that is under the unreasonable assumption that everything really was written in the days of Ezra.
As you wrote so well in your book, what matters in examining the question of a miraculous event is not the content of the testimony, but the reliability of those transmitting it. The biblical text is the content of the testimony, and that is not what matters. The Jews who transmitted it are the witnesses, and their reliability is what is relevant.
I trust my father. He told me that his father told him a story that he believed was true. I trust my father, and so I am convinced that his father indeed believed the story. And so on and so on. In a kind of pseudo-mathematical induction (complete induction! all at once assuming it from 1 to n-1), I accept the reliability of the story. More or less.
But all of that is true only if the story itself claims that it is true. What is not clear to me is whether there even is such a story in the first place.
Do you believe there is an unbroken link between you and your ancestor who stood at Mount Sinai?
I can see that I’m having trouble explaining myself. There’s a recursive core here that I’m trying to get at. To avoid exhausting attempts to formalize the discussion with claims of P(n), let me simplify and assume that the discussion is whether the Revelation at Mount Sinai happened three generations ago (and two before you, if you’ll pardon me). That is, your grandfather and my great-grandfather were both present at the Revelation at Mount Sinai.
Now the question is this: how do your father and my grandfather know that? If your grandfather told your father, and my great-grandfather told my grandfather, that’s one thing. But maybe Ezra the Scribe is the one who told your father and also my grandfather what happened to their forefathers?
In that case, of course, the reliability of the report changes a lot.
So now the historical question arises, not the philosophical one: what did your father tell you? If he told you, “My father told me that he was at the Revelation at Mount Sinai,” that’s reliable, and the conclusion is that Sinai indeed probably happened. But if he tells you, “Ezra the Scribe told me that my father was at the Revelation at Mount Sinai” — then you probably believe your father, he is still reliable, but his testimony is actually not “p(n+1).” He is testifying about Ezra the Scribe.
I’m not claiming there was a conspiracy. I’m not claiming the story was perhaps “planted” and therefore isn’t reliable. For the sake of discussion I accept the reliability of the historical testimony. But I’m asking: what exactly does the testimony include? Do you believe that your father got the information from his father, or that he got the information from Ezra the Scribe, who claimed before him that his father possessed that information?
If a reliable witness comes to court and claims he saw a mother murder her children, we may believe him and on the basis of his testimony 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 children, we will probably believe him — but our conclusion will not be to convict the mother. First of all, we would summon this Ezra to court and take testimony from him directly. If the friend Ezra is not with us, we would ask the witness what caused him to believe Ezra.
So now I’m asking a historical question: do you think that the testimony as it came to you, specifically, is directly from father to son all the way back to the Revelation at Mount Sinai, or do you think that one of your forefathers heard about it from someone else? What exactly does the story we’re telling include?
That is, it seems to me that the situation is not “…the Revelation at Mount Sinai could have been introduced by a charismatic figure” — but rather that certainly, the Revelation at Mount Sinai actually did enter Jewish history through a charismatic figure! Ezra the Scribe. That is what the tradition testifies to, no?
I’m not claiming a conspiracy. I’m not claiming he lied. I’m not claiming there was no tradition before him. I’m claiming, for the sake of discussion, that the source of my present knowledge and yours about the Revelation at Mount Sinai really is a charismatic figure, and my claim is very reliable, because that is exactly what Jewish tradition itself claims. We received it from Ezra the Scribe. And the Jewish tradition of the Jewish people is very reliable.
Unless I’m missing something in understanding the historical story.
I really can’t understand the question. Suppose everything came from Ezra the Scribe (even though that is probably not true). So what? Then the transmission passed through him and not through my grandfather. What’s the problem with that? And if Ezra the Scribe were my grandfather, would that change anything? Did Ezra invent everything? If so, then we’re back to the question of the charismatic figure. But my grandfather could also have invented everything. I simply can’t understand what is bothering you.
Why is it probably not true that everything came from Ezra the Scribe?
That’s actually my question. For present purposes. In a focused and specific way.
That wasn’t your question. Your question was about the logic of the tradition.
As for my remark about Ezra, before you ask me why I think it didn’t come from Ezra, ask why one should say that it did come from him. The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) speaks about the Revelation at Mount Sinai, and so does the tradition. Why invent that everything came from Ezra?
That was my question. I wondered whether the confusion was in logic or in history. I think the answer is that it’s in history, and so history is what I’m focusing on.
If I understand correctly, the tradition really does say that everything comes from Ezra. He told my ancestors about Mount Sinai. My ancestors did not know that their forefathers had been at Mount Sinai until Ezra told them so.
Am I mistaken? Isn’t that the tradition? I’m not talking about the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). I’m talking about the tradition of the reports.
Fine, let’s not argue.
You are simply mistaken. I don’t understand where you got this from at all. The tradition is from Sinai and about Sinai. Who inserted Ezra into it?
The biblical text in itself is certainly not relevant as evidence either one way or the other. The Return to Zion is a well-documented historical event. Historical evidence for Jewish life as we would expect it exists starting from the sixth century BCE. That evidence certainly fits the traditional story. But that story, if I understand correctly, begins with the Return to Zion.
The question is not what the text says. The question is what my personal connection (or yours) is to the Revelation at Mount Sinai. If I understand correctly, my father told me. And his father told him. And so on. But my forefather’s forefather’s … father did not hear it from his own father, but from Ezra the Scribe. And that too is what he passed on. “Listen, my son. Ezra the Scribe told me that my great-great-grandfather’s father told him that his father told him… that his father was at the Revelation at Mount Sinai.”
In other words, this is the story itself. The story that was passed down. That is the core and essence of the historical narrative being told. No one ever told or claimed that there was a direct tradition all the way to Sinai passed from father to son.
Am I missing something in the factual understanding of the history or of the story?