The Fidelity of Tradition and the Validity of Revelation

Throughout the trilogy, the Rabbi attempts to show how the existence of a thin God (who is actually not so thin) is philosophically the most likely conclusion, and in a way that hardly (or perhaps not at all) leaves room for any other position that is not complete skepticism in all types of knowledge accumulation in reality. But with respect to the fidelity of tradition, it is clear to the Rabbi that the arguments do not leave one with a similar attitude in weighing up whether to believe or not (since even the very authenticity of the tradition of the Mount Sinai event and the Exodus from Egypt, regardless of what was in the event itself, is undermined by critical research, and it is certain that their claims cannot be considered completely unfounded even if they are not accepted). But from the perspective of a priori explanation, would we not expect revelation to be carried out in such a way that would leave one with little doubt as to the faithful nature of the transmission of tradition (or even that it would be renewed in each and every generation)? And if so, isn't this a consideration in itself against the fidelity of a tradition, since it can be historically challenged in several ways (a subject that I won't go into in depth), and therefore we wouldn't expect the revelation of God, which is the way in which man realizes his purpose, to be given in such a historically questionable way? And doesn't the fact that the claim of exposure to revelation was made only to a nation and not to humanity also reduce the a priori likelihood that this is the way in which God would decide to reveal himself?