On this past Monday, I was on 97.1 FM Talk Radio in St. Louis. On the Dave Glover show, he has a regular segment called The Priest and The Rabbi. On Monday I was invited to give the skeptic's viewpoint on the existence of God. As is the case with talk radio, you really don't have much time to make an argument. It is more limited to soundbites. You can listen to the podcast here. The date is Oct. 26th and the discussion begins on the middle segment of the three hour show and continues over to the last segment.
The priest really had little to say during the show. His major point was that he believed the death of Christ was not a payment for sins but rather a demonstration of the love of God. This is the theory proposed by Peter Abelard in the 12th century in reaction to Anselm's satisfaction theory. It is usually called the Moral Influence Theory.
While I could not go into detail on the program, I think this view is even more problematic than PST. First, because it still has to explain away all of the many passages in the NT which clearly teach that Christ died in our place as a substitute for the penalty we deserved as sinners. Those who hold this theory have to excise much of the NT on this subject. Second, how does Jesus being executed as a criminal show us that God loves us? I don't get it. God loves us so much that he allowed the wicked Romans to nail his Son to a cross and die in a most excruciating manner. If that shows love, then its not the kind of love I am interested in emulating. In addition, it certainly doesn't show much love for his only begotten Son. The priest said that God did not bring this about, the Romans did. But once again, you will have to explain away many passages of Scripture which say clearly that this death was planned "before the foundation of the world" by God himself.
If you say, well, it shows us how much Jesus loves us, I still don't get it. By placing himself in a position (he knew that going into Jerusalem at the time of the Passover was going to be very dangerous for him) whereby he would be executed shows love? I think it shows stupidity. How does Jesus placing himself in a situation where he gets tortured and killed show us God's love? That is a strange kind of love.
The rabbi, who was more conservative than I expected, takes the Torah as the divine revelation of God. I asked him, if it is a revelation from God, why does God order the killing of whole groups of people including women, children and even infants. You can listen to his response and my answers on the podcast but I think his position is extremely weak. Basically he said that if God did it, it must be right. But then he contradicts himself by saying that man only know morality because the Torah teaches it to him. Yet some of the things that the OT God does are clearly unjust and even immoral by the standards of western morality which is supposed to be based on Judeo-Christian principles. So, I guess its a case of do what I say not what I do?
In addition, the rabbi argued that he believes in the God of the Jews because of unbroken, person to person tradition dating from the time of the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai. I responed to him that if that is his reasoning, then he ought to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, because there were reports of eyewitnesses who saw a resurrected Jesus and who passed along those stories all the way down to us today.
He argued that the difference between what happened at Mt. Sinai and what happened on Easter morning is simply the number of people who were eye-witnesses. He maintained that 600,000 Jews (the whole nation)saw what happened at Mt. Sinai, whereas only a few supposedly saw a resurrected Jesus. My response was that if the Jews really did see what happened at Mt. Sinai as recorded in the Torah, its passing strange, that they immediately began to worship a golden calf as they waited for Moses to come back down from the mountain. I think if I had just seen indisuputable proof that God exists, the last thing I would do is make an idol and start worshipping it. I think this made him a little angry (he later sent me an email apologizing for calling me ignorant).
So all in all, it was an enjoyable discussion for me and if you are interested in hearing it, you can go to the website mentioned above.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteGreat post- with a clarification:
I would note a major difference between the claim of a revelation at Sinai and the claim of a resurrected Jesus is the verifiability available to the people who were hearing the claim.
The basic argument is that one cannot make up a lie that ALL of your anscestors had a national revelation of God. You could convince someone you had a private revelation, or a small group did, but to claim that somebody's anscestors did? And every single one of them? And that you've never heard about it? They SHOULD have heard about it. It's like me telling you that 300 years ago, every human being in the world grew a second head and had it for a year. That means you definitely should have heard SOMETHING about it, from parents/grandparents/neighbours, etc. But if I just came to you and told you it happened to ALL of your anscestors a few hundred years ago, and you've never heard anything at all about it, you'd be pretty darn suspicious.
But perhaps one could make the point that people in the past would believe anything. Fair enough, but...
If that were the case, we would see some group at some other time claim a national revelation. It sure sounds stronger to say "God spoke to all of us" rather than "God spoke to me." So why has no one ever claimed God had a national revelation? NO ONE?
The point is that no one CAN make up a claim like that unless something happened to the people. You just can't cook up a lie like that, and if you could, we would have seen it repeated in some other religion. But it's never happened. And of course, the Torah says it never will (Deut. 4:33, 5:23). But as I said, that's not a fancy prophecy. It's common sense. You can't make up this kind of a lie.
With the resurrection, conversely, there's a very low level of verifiability. Why? Because you're being told that a man rose from the dead. There are many miracle claims floating around 1st century Palestine, and as Christian scholar Robert L. Wilken writes: "For almost a century Christianity went unnoticed by most men and women in the Roman Empire. ... [Non-Christians] saw the Christian community as a tiny, peculiar, antisocial, irreligious sect, drawing its adherents from the lower strata of society."
In other words, nobody would care to refute the Christian claims because nobody took them seriously, and EVEN IF they wanted to, would be largely unable to find out anything anyway.
If you were in Rome, you would have to get to Palestine, speak their language, find the alleged witnesses (out of 2 million people). And that's assuming you actually cared to find out, which as Wilken says above, is unlikely.
For the people in Palestine, same thing. They had no interest in the claims of a small, irregular group of other people, and even if they did: Where would they find the tomb? Where could they meet the witnesses? Could they meet the risen Jesus? Where would they find him?
---
Final note: As for the golden calf, I would point out that in Exodus 32, the Israelites asked Aaron for a calf to replace Moses in his absense, but not because they stopped believing in God: "Make us gods that will go before us, ***because this man Moses, who brought us up from the land of Egypt we don't know what has become of him.***"
Robwalker you are using Circular Reasoning (basing your proofs on the very text; the Bible or the very text in question) and arguing from the negative (since we have no proofs today, it must be correct because the Bible says many saw it!).
ReplyDeletePlus, if we follower your line of reasoning, than why does anyone (Josephus, Philo, Talmud or any Greek or Roman writers) ever mention this section of Matthew below:
And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27: 50 -53)
Here is what the Gospel creator wanted to serve as proof positive that Jesus was the son of God: A. The veil of the Temple is torn in two as proof. B. A major earth quake in Palestine splitting rocks as proof. C. Tombs opened. D. Zombie saints walking throughout Jerusalem as proof. E. Zombie saints seen by many as proof. F. A major conversion of the Roman guards who now confess Jesus as the "Son of God" as proof (A truly odd term in that Jesus was crucified as a messiah / kings by the Romans and NOT some later theological reason as Matthew tries to insert here.
Finally, there a major difference between history and theology. Both the Gospels and the Hebrew Bible ARE THEOLOGY and not history!
Harry, I’m not assuming the Hebrew Bible is true! I’m assuming that the Hebrew Bible is a book that is CLAIMING that a national revelation happened.
ReplyDeleteSo since we have a book that CLAIMS a national revelation happened, my contention is that it is not possible to convince an entire people that ALL of their ancestors had a national revelation of God. In other words, unless there were some national event that happened to the Israelites in their history, this CLAIM in the Hebrew bible would never ever be accepted.
I’m saying this claim in the Hebrew Bible is so bold and outrageous, and open to verifiability, that it would be impossible to make up a claim like this, unless it was actually based on something real.
(Now, we can talk about whether this claim grew/evolved and morphed, etc., and that’s a whole other discussion), but my point remains the same.
Hope that helped clarify.
Rob: The basic argument is that one cannot make up a lie that ALL of your anscestors had a national revelation of God.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that in order to assume the Sinai story is true you also have to assume that the Bible was being written by contemporary observers. Jewish tradition, which is co-opted by Christianity for the most part, is that Moses wrote the Torah himself. This is simply untrue. There's plenty of reason in the text itself to believe it's not the case. Mostly it's the fact that for the tradition to be believed you also have to believe that Moses recorded his own death.
But there is plenty of other reason to doubt. For one thing there are many places where the Torah says, "The Jews did such-and-such and called the place by this name, a name by which it is known to this day." That's not a statement that makes any sense from the perspective of a contemporary. I wouldn't go out, build a company and call it Geds Inc, then say, "And that's the name of the company to this day." It'd be stupid.
The other issue is the book of Deuteronomy. Said book simply does not belong with the rest of the Torah. It is largely believed it was written by the same person who wrote Isaiah (or, possibly, Jeremiah. I get them confused). The story from the reign of Josiah goes that Josiah ordered the Temple be cleaned out and, while they were doing that a whole new book of Law was discovered. So they read the new book to all the people and, wonder of wonders, the nation repented.
This story, combined with the differences between Deuteronomy and the rest of the Torah, not to mention the similarities between Deuteronomy and Isaiah (or Jeremiah) leads to the conclusion that there was some funny business going on. Pile on top of that the vast body of evidence that indicates the Jews didn't have a complete written version of anything until the Babylonian Captivity and a completely different story emerges. The Sinai story ceases to be a contemporary account, but rather a foundational myth for the National Epic of the Jewish people.
And when it becomes myth the idea of all the host of Israel seeing and believing without that actually happening becomes much more realistic.
Especially since there's no way there were 600,000 adult male Israelites on the Exodus. That would have meant a total Israelite population of somewhere around three million. Egypt itself only had a population of 3-5 million at the time.
Oh, and Egyptian monuments were built by the actual Egyptians. There's no evidence of such a large body of slaves being used for anything.
So the story fails on pretty much every level. Sorry.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGeds, perhaps I have not made my argument clear. You raise other issues of biblical/historical criticism (valid perhaps for another discussion, but irrelevant to this issue). You did not address my points.
ReplyDeleteI’m NOT assuming the Hebrew Bible (or the Pentateuch, more specifically) is/was divine, or that it was written by one author, or even at one time! I’m NOT assuming the Sinai account is true, nor am I assuming the Exodus or enslavement in Egypt even happened!
I’m assuming nothing, except for the fact that this text was in existence at least by 200-300 BCE, and that this book makes the CLAIM that the entire Israelite nation experienced a national revelation of God. That is it. I don’t think anyone disputes those basic facts.
The point is this: This book, the Pentateuch, which we know was revered by the Jews at least as early as 200-300 BCE, makes the claim that ALL of their (the Jews') ancestors experienced a national revelation from God at Sinai. And these people, the Jews, believed that their ancestors did experience this.
The Jews believed in the revelation at Sinai. This belief came about one of 2 ways: either it happened, and its memory was preserved, or it didn’t happen, and someone established the story and convinced others to believe it.
The question is how does one convince an entire people (i.e. Israelites) that ALL of their ancestors experienced God in a national revelation? I contend that it is not possible to concoct such a lie out of thin air. This is called the Kuzari Principle, if you feel so inclined.
Now, you might suggest that the belief in a national revelation is a legend that grew and evolved. Fine. We can continue that discussion if you agree to my initial point. But that itself demonstrates that there was some formative national event that was the cause of this claim.
My point is this: that it is impossible to have an entire people accept a claim of a national event happening to ALL OF THEIR ancestors, unless there is some historical basis for it. It could not have been concocted out of thin air.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. I agree with your statement: "I’m assuming nothing, except for the fact that this text was in existence at least by 200-300 BCE, and that this book makes the CLAIM that the entire Israelite nation experienced a national revelation of God. That is it. I don’t think anyone disputes those basic facts."
I believe that there were some Jews who came out of Egypt into the Sinai peninsula sometime around 1450 BCE. I believe it was far less than 600,000. That incredible number demonstrates to me that there has been some tremendous embellishment taking place as this story has been retold. They probably had a leader named Moses who experienced something at Mt. Sinai that he interpeted as being the voice of Yahweh. This story was passed down by word of mouth for at least a thousand years before it was reduced to writing sometime during Second Temple Judaism. By the time it reached its final form that we read today, it included all sorts of miraculous events.
Are we in agreement? If so, I don't see how this strengthens the rabbi's case. His case would only be strengthened IF Moses actually wrote these events down during his lifetime and the book itself was passed down from generation to generation. I don't believe it happened that way.
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your input. We’re on the same page in that we recognize there was some formative national event which shaped this tradition. Now we just have to see what is the most likely cause of that tradition is.
This kuzari principle is an empirical principle- it can be defeated. We just need to find real cases of this- not theoretical examples, but real, historical parallels.
In other words, Ken, for the explanation of myth formation to defeat the argument, I think it has to be both plausible and there has to be real instances of parallel scenarios in history.
So there are a couple options to explain the formation of this myth:
1/ There was a natural event which the Israelites at Mt. Sinai interpreted as the voice of God speaking to them.
2/ Moses experienced something at Mt. Sinai which he interpreted as God, and which he then passed down to the Israelites.
Both examples suffer from the same problem. That is, they sound logical and plausible, but unfortunately neither have any historical parallels whatsoever. No other people in the world have ever claimed that God spoke to all of them. Why not? What a creative and strong claim to make if you’re starting a religion! It’s certainly logically much stronger than claiming one person heard God speak.
Just take a natural process in history and create this claim. Or create a mass hallucination so everyone thinks God spoke to all of them. Or take a story, and build on it, and it will eventually become this over time. If it could have been made up, it should have been. But it hasn’t.
Now, as religions in the Near East often borrowed beliefs and myths from each other, why did no one ever copy this idea? Not one ever emulated it, despite all the groups who came into contact with the Jews throughout their long history?
If it evolved as a myth, it’s a natural cause, a normal cause, fitting in with human psychology, natural human environment, and the formation of religions. But it only happened once in human history?
It’s a paradox. The more plausible the scenario somebody draws to ‘explain’ the Sinai revelation by way of myth formation, the more complicated the explanations become to explain why no religion has ever duplicated it, particularly since it would be such an undoubtedly strong claim to make. Something extraordinarily unique happened; if not at Mt. Sinai, then certainly in the formation of Jewish mythology.
Sidenote- (as for successive religious claims, ie. Christianity, their miracle claims take a hit because they also believe in a national revelation at Mt. Sinai, and yet their ‘new’ miracles from Jesus never appeared in front of the entire people, even though they accept that God already did that once to the Jewish people at Sinai). Christianity, claiming to be a ‘succession’ of Judaism, would certainly have benefitted from making a claim of national revelation. If God spoke to the nation when he established the covenant, it’s very strange that he didn’t do it again when he annulled/fulfilled it with Jesus. That’s one reason why the Christian belief in Mt. Sinai acts to preclude their very own miracle claims by Jesus.
Robwalker:
ReplyDeleteThe question is how does one convince an entire people (i.e. Israelites) that ALL of their ancestors experienced God in a national revelation? I contend that it is not possible to concoct such a lie out of thin air. This is called the Kuzari Principle, if you feel so inclined.
RE: By the same logic, the Virgin Mary was conceived without sin (Immaculate Conception) and she ascended bodily into Heaven. This has to be true and can not be made up since there are 1.147 billion Catholic people who believe this!
Plus, in my city there is a Greek Orthodox Church called St. George Greek Orthodox Church which get its name from the fact that Saint George slew an evil dragon. Now since 225 million Greek Orthodox believe this evil dragon (a creatue with a snake head and bat wings and snake like tail) it had to have existed.
Robwalker, can 1.147 billion Catholic be wrong about Mary and 225 million Greek Orthodox be wrong about evil dragons? Can this many people be mislead to believe a lie?
The balls in your court.
Harry, perhaps I have made my point unclear. The virgin mary's conception and ascension and the saint george/dragon stories are NOT claimed to have been witnessed by an entire nation, let alone the nation being 'sold' the story to.
ReplyDeleteThere could be 100 trillion people who believe it. That's not the point I'm making. The point is that how could you get away with claiming that AN ENTIRE NATION- ALL OF *YOUR* ANCESTORS- WITNESSED IT- if it were all based on a lie.
Does the New Testament claim that all of Palestine witnessed Mary's ascension? Or that all Crusaders or people in Libya saw St. George slay the dragon? Of course not. You could never make up a lie of such a grand scale.
NOBODY claimed that an entire nation witnessed the virgin mary's ascention, or st. george's slaying a dragon. In fact, st. george's story predates Christianity itself, and takes place in modern-day Libya. When the story was brought back with the crusaders to Europe, it certainly wasn't verifiable to anybody there.
Harry, a similar case would be if you could find me an example from any religion where the Holy Book claims that an entire nation had a revelation of God [and survived to tell the tale of course =)]. The Virgin mary/st. george examples are exactly the opposite.
If you want to defeat my argument, find an example of a CLAIM by any religion that God spoke to an entire nation. My contention is that there are NONE, and that is because a lie claimed to be on a national scale cannot be fabricated.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteCould it not have happened this way? Something happened at Mt. Sinai that the people interpreted as a theophany. Perhaps it was just a severe thunder storm with lightning strikes that caused a fire (Ex. 19:16ff.)and the people, as many ancients did, interpreted it as a divine appearance. They actually did not see God in any real sense as it is said that only Moses saw God "face to face."
The "whole nation" probably only constituted a few thousand. Why is there no direct parallel in history? I don't know but even though the "Kuzari principle" may sound impressive, I don't find what it says that convincing.
In addition, one could argue that in the case of Christianity, there was a similar event--Pentecost. There was a theophany and it was in front of virtually all the Christians of that time. So if you want an example, there it is.
I don't know enough about the history of all the various religions of the world, either extinct or extant, to really say if they have a similar legend in their tradition.
I also agree with Harry. Its obvious that a lot of people have believed and do believe some pretty incredible things in the name of their religion.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteAbout the golden calf, you said: "Final note: As for the golden calf, I would point out that in Exodus 32, the Israelites asked Aaron for a calf to replace Moses in his absense, but not because they stopped believing in God: "Make us gods that will go before us, ***because this man Moses, who brought us up from the land of Egypt we don't know what has become of him.***"
The text doesn't agree with you. First in 32:1, the people said to make us "gods" (elohim), same word used for God in Gen. 1:1, why they said to do this is immaterial. Second, Yahweh says in 32:8 about the people: "they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." Clearly Yahweh saw it as idolatry. The people "worshipped" the golden calf and they said that it actually delivered them from Egypt. Thus, they were substituting the golden calf for Yahweh. Third, in 32:10, Yahweh is so angry that he is ready to destroy the whole nation. I think only idolatry would make him that angry.
Again I make the point that if Yahweh really did appear to them at Mt. Sinai, why would they so quickly substitute worship of a golden calf
for worship of Yahweh?
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteThis will be my last post as I don’t want to monopolize the board, but I’ll leave off with this:
It is POSSIBLE that the event became a myth as you suggest. But then again, I’m looking for what’s plausible. If what you’re suggesting is plausible, then I am at a loss to explain why nobody has ever come up with even a remotely similar belief.
Do consider the lack of historical parallels and ask whether it is indeed more logical to believe that this event, if so plausible and naturalistic in nature, has never been duplicated, either by natural means or by other groups borrowing the Jewish idea.
As for Pentecost, it’s a valid example, however there a few considerations:
1/ Acts never claims it was a national revelation. In fact, Acts 1:15 says it was 120 people whom the Spirit came upon, and Acts 2:41 says 3,000 were baptized there. Certainly no CLAIM of a national revelation.
2/ Acts was written in Ephesus, and talking about people in Jerusalem. It was likely of little interest and unverifiable to people hearing/reading about it.
And yes, I agree with you and Harry that people believe lots of wacky things (religion or not!), but I’m trying to do is evaluate a claim and see whether anyone can make a claim like this that makes itself so open to verifiability. Miracle claims are one thing. It’s quite another to make a miracle claim which is wide open to verifiability and which SHOULD leave tons of people knowing about it.
But as we said, if people will accept just about anything, not sure why this kind of (seemingly impressive) lie has never been adopted in any way by any group.
That said, I believe it is more rational to believe that the Israelites really did experience God on Mt. Sinai, than to believe it all happened by remarkably unique coincidences.
In any case, if you feel inclined in reading further on this, visit www.dovidgottlieb.com (he’s a PhD in mathematical logic)- he elaborates further on kuzari.
It’s been a pleasure,
Rob
PS- About the golden calf. What the people said is what mattered. They said it was a replacement for Moses. And later in Exodus 32, they make a sacrifice to God! So they certainly didn't think God didn't exist- but it was idolatry, yes. We can talk about idolatry, and its purpose (ie. thinking that the idol could serve a certain role), but to think they didn't think God existed? I don't think the text suggests that.
Robwalker, just what external evidence can you provide that would support your Circular Reasoning (Robwalker knows the event MUST have happened in some form because the Bible claims something happened at Sinai and this must make some part of the event true because the Bible says that at least some part has to be true?
ReplyDeleteSo whether you accept all as ture, or just part (Something must have happened at Sinai that the Israelite witnessed, because the Bible says so), then you are subjectly picking and choosing an argument simply to dance around the hard facts not supported by years of archeological evidence in the Sinai desert (40 years wondering and nothing left!).
In short, you are not only using Circular Reasoning, but your entire line of logic Begs the Question.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteI just fail to follow the logic. First, I can't say for certain that other religions don't have similar stories. Second, the day of Pentecost you basically had the entire Christian nation, if you will, seeing a theophany. While it was a smaller number, the truth is we don't know how many Jews were in Sinai. It may have been a few thousand or it may have been much less. I think Harry's point is a good one--archeologists have not turned up any evidence of the exodus or of the Jews wondering around in the desert. If there had been 600,000, there most certainly would be some archeological evidence.
If the story was not written down until Second Temple Judaism, we cannot even be certain that the story has any historical basis at all. It may but how do you know--1000 years had passed. So I think any kind of argument for the truth of the event is suspect.
As for the golden calf, it sounds to me that they were replacing Yahweh with the golden calf. They said it was the calf that brought them up from Egypt. The feast to the Lord referred to in 32:5-8 seem to support my idea. I believe they offered their sacrifices to the golden calf whom they were now identifying as Yahweh. I don't know how you explain the extreme anger of Yahweh without reading it this way.
I agree with Ken and feel he makes some great points.
ReplyDeleteHebrew is a Northwest Semitic language written in a late alphabetic script. The earliest texts that suppor any of the wide claims the Hebrew Bible makes can only be found in what is generally called the Dead Sea Scrolls which only date from the Hellenistic period (not earlier than 200BCE).
If the god Yahweh was as old and well known as the Hebrew Bible claims, then one should find texts written in Akkadian, or at least this name of the god discussed in the so-called Canaanite alphabetic cuneiform text from Ugarit.
Yet, for all the mighty acts done by the Israelite god Yahweh, all we have is a inscription written in Paleo-Hebrew found at Kuntillat Ajrud which tells of Israel’s Yahweh having a wife just like all the other gods in the area.
Other than that, the earliest for external mention for Israel is its defeat by Egypt in the Merneptah Stele.
My point is that for all the mighty stories attributed to Israel and her god Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible, none can be correlated with any external text earlier than the Qumran scrolls written in the Hellenistic period.
Also, apart from the name Moses (which can be traced back into Egyptian), the language of the Israelites has almost no loan words to support their 400 year life in Egypt.
So if the Hebrew Bible is indeed as old as it claims, then just what evidence could you show in a court of law (if the Bible was on trial) that could prove to an objective jury that its claims of antiquity were true?
Harry,
ReplyDeleteExcellent points. I will acknowledge that Hebrew and Old Testament are not my specialty. The rabbi criticized me on the show for not being expert in the Talmud. I never claimed to be. My expertise is in Theology--Systematic and Historical.
Last point (I promise!)
ReplyDeleteOther evidence re: exodus is for another discussion. It’s like arguing the resurrection with an evangelical, and saying that there are no corroborating sources outside the NT that the event occurred. It doesn’t explain the “4 facts.” Let’s stick to one discussion at a time.
I’m trying to find a naturalistic, rational explanation for the development of the Sinai belief with real historical parallels.
Harry: I’m not assuming anything about the Bible! I’m saying the book claims a revelation at Sinai happened to a whole nation, and the Jews revered this book AT LEAST AS EARLY as 200-300 BCE, believing this event actually happened to ALL their ancestors.
So the question is: how did this legend of a NATIONAL revelation arise? You’ve 3 options:
1/ It really happened, and its memory was preserved.
2/ The story was totally concocted out of thin air by some charlatan at a later time.
3/ It was based on some event, which grew and became a myth as we know it today.
Option 2 is completely illogical. Nobody could ever convince a group of people that ALL their ancestors had such a huge event, and that NO ONE has heard of it. If it’s such a logical possibility, it begs the question as to why no other charlatan in history has gotten away with successfully making such a claim.
Sinai CLAIMS that an entire nation witnessed the event. No other group in history even deigns to make such a statement. Acts never CLAIMS that all of Palestine witnessed anything. It CLAIMS that a relatively small group did.
Acts says 120 people were touched by the Spirit, and 3,000 converted. If you heard this story (in Turkey, where Acts was written), or even in Palestine, it’s unverifiable. Who are the people? We don’t know, thus we can’t find them. You could search your entire life for these people, and even if you never met any of them, you could rationally reason “There are 3,000 people who saw this, and someday I may meet one of them!” But if you never did meet any, it wouldn’t eliminate the claim, because it’s unverifiable.
But, for example, if Acts says “EVERYONE in Palestine saw this miracle of the Spirit”, then it would be easy to confirm it if you were living there. You could ask your parents/grandparents/neighbours if anyone has ever heard of this. But if no one has, then the story would not last long. Miracle claims exist because they’re largely unverifiable. If Acts claimed everyone in Palestine saw this, how long would that legend last once people started to realize they, and everyone they knew, did not see this?
Acts could never get away with claiming that everyone in Jerusalem or Palestine had a revelation of God unless something really happened because the story would never fly! That’s why Acts doesn’t even make the claim!
Lots of miracle claims say one person or a group of people saw something. Sinai is the only example of anyone CLAIMING that every single member of a large, identifiable group of people (of which you're a part) all had a revelation of God. Ken, you say it’s most logical that the story evolved.
Sounds plausible. You’re saying there are perfectly normal, rational, naturalistic explanations for the development of such a myth.
But, if it’s so plausible that such a process occurred, why are there NO other examples in the world of it? The more logical and plausible the explanation becomes, the more difficult it becomes to explain why, if it’s so plausible (and is a much stronger way to start a religion), why has no other group in history tried to CLAIM such a national revelation with God? In all their wanderings, no one ever heard this Jewish claim and emulated it? No story could have become a myth this way? Ever?
Maybe it evolved, but considering there are zero parallels in history, it strikes me as much less rational to believe such a “possibility.” I’m interested in probability.
Again, I’m not a logistician/philosopher, so if you feel inclined, you're free to research the kuzari principle (Dr. Dovid Gottlieb is probably it’s best living defender).
Rob,
ReplyDeleteThanks again for making me think through this some more. And don't worry about "monopolizing" the board. It doesn't matter.
You say that you lean towards the idea that a real revelation occurred at Mt. Sinai because there are no other historical parallels.
First, I don't see why there has to be historical parallels.
Second, I think you answer the question yourself when you say: "Acts could never get away with claiming that everyone in Jerusalem or Palestine had a revelation of God unless something really happened because the story would never fly! That’s why Acts doesn’t even make the claim! "
Religions more recent than Judaism would have a hard time making such a claim because it could be so easily refuted. Judaism did not have to worry about this because it had been over a 1000 years since the event supposedly happened by the time it was written down. How did the story develop? Well as I suggested something may have happened that as it was told and re-told got embellished to the point that the whole nations saw a theophany. I think its obvious that the number (600,000 men) got embellished. Oral traditions like this grow and take on additional detail sometimes slowly.
3) How many other religions are so closely tied to the nation as Judaism? It makes sense that Judaism would want to say God appeared to the whole nation. This would not be deemed necessary by many other religions.
4) I do think there is some type of parallel with Pentecost. You have the entire Christian nation present there and they experience a theophany.
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteYou’re making me break my promise for the last post =)
I think the difference b/w Sinai and Pentecost are manifold, but particularly the following differences:
- Sinai CLAIMS that every single member of a large, identifiable group of people (of which the readers are a member of) witnessed God in a national Revelation. It claims every single Israelite was present at that moment in Sinai (an entire Nation).
- Pentecost CLAIMS a small, unidentifiable (they were believers, not a people/nation) group of early Christians had a miracle of the Spirit. It was such a small group that it fit inside a house.
You surely see the difference, no? The “entire Christian nation,” according to the very source in question, was only 120 people. Acts doesn’t even try to claim more people were there. For the person hearing the story of Pentecost, it’s not much more verifiable than you telling me an entire village in Angola saw 100 people come back to life. I would not only have a low level of interest (the history of a people of which I am not a part), but also because it’s such a small number of people claimed in another place (and another language), I would never be expected to track the people down even IF I’d be interested in doing so.
Acts is telling us “Even if you spend your life looking for these people, there are so few of them, you’ll really never find them.” Same with the 500 witnesses of the Resurrection. People who were hearing about Pentecost shouldn’t necessarily have heard of this event because Acts never claims an entire nation, a large, identifiable group (of which you are a part) were there. It claims this happened to a small, unidentifiable group of “others.”
Even if Pentecost were true, the person hearing about it wouldn’t be expected to have any evidence! So if there isn't any, it's no problem!
But if I told you every single one of YOUR ancestors heard God speak to them in the past (even 500 years), you darn well SHOULD have heard about it from somewhere. Such an event would be seared into the national consciousness.
But you contend that such a thing CAN in fact happen naturalistically.
About explaining this in a naturalistic way of myth formation, I don’t think we ought to be interested in imagining "possible" scenarios. The question is whether REAL people in the REAL world accept beliefs like this. That's why we need real historical parallels in order to give a myth formation scenario any credibility.
That is- we need real cases of communities that have come to believe events which, if they had happened, would have left behind enormous, easily accessible evidence of its occurrence, and did not happen, and therefore the evidence wasn’t present.
---
About other religions:
I can understand modern religions perhaps, but what about Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the thousands of small sects and groups around the world? Surely Christianity in particular would be interested in claiming that God spoke to all of Israel. After all, Christians believe God spoke to the Jews at Mt. Sinai when He established the covenant, so it would be natural and expected for God to similarly speak to the entire nation again once the covenant was annulled with Jesus.
Christianity would be so much more plausible if they claimed such an event. But I contend that you can’t claim such a large-scale, national event if it didn’t actually happen.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteI understand that Sinai and Pentecost are not exact parallels but it is very similar. 120 may not be many people but that is probably about all the Christians there were at that time. They reportedly saw a manifestation of God, a theophany, as the Israelites report at Sinai. This was in a sense the beginning of both religions.
The reason there was not a whole nation is because Christianity was not designed to be a religion of one country as Judaism was. I think the link between the Jewish religion and the Jewish state is somewhat unique and thus, I am not surprised that their holy book reports that the whole nation was involved. I believe this may answer why there are no exact historical parallels, there has not been a similar connection between a nation and a religion.
The other major point which you did not respond to is that the written record of what supposedly happened at Mt. Sinai was at least 1000 years after the event. Of course there are no eye witnesses around to verify. People can confirm that their parents told them abou it but there is no way to trace it all the way back a 1000 years. The story probably got enlarged and embellished along the way.
Acts couldn't do that because it was written too soon after the events. I could imagine that if Acts was not written until AD 1100 and the story had been passed down by word of mouth, Acts might say that all of Jerusalem saw the theophany.
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure many scholars accepts that the gap between the first and last writings of the Pentateuch is 1,000 years. I think even skeptical scholars (who accept Documentary Hypothesis) argue that it's at most 500 years.
In any case, it's still a valid point. However, my contention is not that it's possible for an entire nation to FORGET their (fairly recent) history, but rather that is not possible to create a falsified national event which should leave behind plenty of evidence if the event did not happen. That is my claim (kuzari).
As I said, to construct a plausible explanation, we really do need other examples of this. So far we're dealing in "possibilities." We need real cases of communities that have come to believe events which, if they had happened, would have left behind enormous, easily accessible evidence of its occurrence, and did not happen, and therefore the evidence wasn’t present. As it stands, there are none.
As for Christianity claiming a similar event, of course they would benefit from it! God (the same God) established His covenant with the Jewish people by national revelation (as Christians believe). However, when He changed his covenant and introduced the Jewish Messiah, the "king of the Jews," to the Jewish people, in Jewish Palestine, God decided to 'reveal' it by way of a handful of disciples? ESPECIALLY since the OT makes such a big deal about the national revelation (Deut 4:33, 5:23), and tells Israel only to worship the God who was revealed at Mt. Sinai. So if the OT is divine, certainly that being places a huge emphasis on national revelation, and that it is only on that basis that Israel is to know who to worship. So it stretches the mind to ask why, if God told Israel to worship Him and no other (at Sinai), he chose to introduce 2 extra partners in the Godhead by way of a handful of followers? Sounds very illogical.
Pentecost and Sinai are not in the same category. Pentecost is about as unverifiable as you can get! It's a written account of a small group of unidentifiable people in another place who are unrelated to you. Even if it DID happen, there would be no positive evidence to be expected- thus it is unverifiable. I think we can agree here.
It's no better than a claim that a space alien walked around rural Mongolia and 100 people saw him. You are unable to verify such a claim.
But Sinai's very claim opens itself up to verifiability in a way that Pentecost doesn't even attempt to do. I really want to hit home this point, Ken about possibilities. "I could imagine that if Acts was not written until AD 1100..." I could imagine that too. But I want to discuss what has happened in the real world, not what possibilities we can imagine.
You recognize that Acts could not get away with making such a claim of a large, identifiable group witnessing Pentecost, but you say it's b/c the time gap is too small. Fine. So we then do agree that Pentecost and Sinai are not appropriate parallel examples.
OK. So let's look at other long-developing claims, in Christianity or elsewhere. I'm looking for claims that actually parallel the Sinai one (not necessarily exactly, but some example of a myth forming that says the entire nation (in the last 300-500 years) saw something of this magnitude (ie. God speaking to everyone). There just aren't any.
So we can say it's possible such a myth formed. Granted, Ken. But I hope you understand why I cannot accept that possibility as probable unless there are actual examples of people actually accepting it.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteWhen do you believe the event at Mt. Sinai occurred? I was going with conservatives who say around 1450 BCE. I believe the Torah was not written until 530 BCE at the earliest and probably much later.
You say: "However, my contention is not that it's possible for an entire nation to FORGET their (fairly recent) history, but rather that is not possible to create a falsified national event which should leave behind plenty of evidence if the event did not happen."
First, to my knowledge archeologists have never discovered anything near Mt. Sinai that would indicate a huge number of people passing through. If 600,000 men (are you including women and children in this?) passed through, it seems there would be some evidence.
Second, I would agree that it would be impossible for the entire nation to forget, but thats not what I am saying. I am saying that a story developed about Moses and the people at Mt. Sinai and over a period of time got to be embellished to where the whole nation saw a theophany. The fact that Exodus does not say the whole nation saw a theophany, though, I think is significant too. If the whole nation saw it, why on earth doesn't Exodus tell us? Deuteronomy does but scholars ascribe a later date to Deut. Perhaps by the time it was written, the story had grown to include the whole nation. I think this is a plausible explanation for the story and frankly, other than the story (and commentary on the story), you have no other evidence.
My reason for bringing up Pentecost is NOT because I think it really happened as recorded in the book of Acts, anymore than I think Israel saw an appearance of God in the Sinai desert. I bring it up to suggest that perhaps because of the tradition in Judaism that God appeared to the whole nation at the beginning of their religion, that God needed to appear to the entirety of the Christians at the beginning of their religion. Granted, the numbers are smaller and the Christians were not a whole nation but the fact of a theophany at the start of the religion, I think is an interesting parallel.
I mention the hypothetical of Acts being written a thousand years after the event, like the Torah was, to illustrate what could have happened. The 120 could have grown to 600,000 gradually as the story was told and re-told. By the time it would have finally been written down in 1100 CE, it would say 600,000 people saw the theophany. No one would be around to verify it at that stage and the numbers would have increased so gradually that no one would have really noticed it from generation to generation. Why is that scenario not plausible in your opinion?
Ken, the difference between Pentecost & Sinai is not that they both claim a revelation happened. I think every religion claims that. It's that one (Pentecost) claims a miracle whereby the readers of Acts are incapable of verifying it. You're being told that a small group of people you don't know and have no interest in witnessed something. Great. But it's CLAIMED to be such a small number (120) that you will never find these people, and EVEN IF you search your whole life and never find anyone, it's to be expected.
ReplyDeleteMormons claim a Divine being spoke to JS, and Muslims, to Muhammad. Parallel is not that people claim divine revelation. The difference is that Sinai makes the claim so easy to refute- it says "hey guys, all of your ancestors- all of them- heard God." If you heard such a story, it would be very easy to confirm or disconfirm it. With pentecost, it would be impossible.
We both agree Acts could not have gotten away with claiming to people in Jerusalem that everyone there was present at Pentecost. We both agree it would just be way too verifiable and the story would not have survived.
Your scenario sounds plausible. It sounds logical. However, what does not sound logical is how, if such an event (such as a story becoming a myth) could have happened naturally to the Israelites, due to human psychology, hallucination, nature, etc., why it has never happened again that a group has claimed such a WIDESPREAD miracle/revelation claiming that every single member of a LARGE, identifiable group of people (of which you are a membr) witnessed. You bring up Pentecost, but we can see Pentecost clearly doesn't claim all of Jerusalem witnessed it. Only 120 did. You say- "maybe IF they had 1000 years." Maybe. But that means we agree Pentecost is not a valid parallel as it stands.
If myth formation such as this is plausible, why has no other similar myth EVER developed? Ever? No other group who came into contact with the wandering Jews ever borrowed this mythology? None of the 85,000 religions/sects ever developed such a story, even over time? That is really hard to believe, no? That is what I find irrational- the claim that all this is so plausible, even though it's never ever happened in recorded human history; only to the Israelites.
We can imagine many 'possibilities.' But I'm interested in seeing whether it's plausible in the real world- that is, whether real people in human history have actually accepted stories that every single member of their ancestors in the fairly recent past all witnessed such an event, if it didn't actually happen. The fact that we have no examples of this makes me think that while your theory makes theoretical sense, it just has not ever happened in reality. So I can only come to the conclusion that such myth formation is NOT in fact possible-perhaps theoretically, but not in the real world.
Re: archaeology- I think that's a bit of a side issue. Valid question, but it's not connected to national myth formation. If the Torah records what happened, then what would we expect to find? If manna really did fall from heaven and there were no permanent dwellings, then I don't know what evidence would be expected 3,300 years later. But again, a side issue I think
NB: Exodus mentions the revelation:
"God will descend on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.” (Exodus 19:11)
"There was thunder and lightning in the morning, with a heavy cloud on the mountain, and an extremely loud blast of a ram’s horn. The people in the camp trembled." Exodus 19:20
“To the Israelites, the appearance of G-d’s glory on the mountain top was like a devouring flame." Exodus 24:17
Deut. talks about the revelation more because it's the Pentateuch's magnus opus- Deut ch. 4 is probably the most concise 'summary' of the entire Torah. Exodus is the narrative of the event, but Deut. reminds Israel just why it's so significant.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteYou say: "Ken, the difference between Pentecost & Sinai is not that they both claim a revelation happened. "
I agree. What I find as somewhat parallel is that at the beginning of both Judaism and Christianity, a theophany was said to have appeared. Granted, the number of people in the Upper Room was smaller than the number at Mt. Sinai but that doesn't matter. At the beginning of both religions, it is reported that God himself appeared to the "charter members." Now I reject both stories as legend but I find them parallel in the sense mentioned above.
You say: "It's that one (Pentecost) claims a miracle whereby the readers of Acts are incapable of verifying it."
I agree but I think the first readers of Exodus or Deuteronomy would have been incapable of verifying the Mt. Sinai theophany as well. Yes there may be a tradition among their ancestors that this in fact happened, but unless you can trace the tradition to within a few years of the event at Mt. Sinai, what good is it? I think it got embellished and enlarged as time went on. What proof do you have that it didn't?
I can see the story growing as it is retold over the centuries until finally you have the entire nation (600,000--an unbelievable number) witnessing it.
As I pointed out, there is no archeological evidence that such a large number of people passed through the Sinai desert.
You say: "Your scenario sounds plausible. It sounds logical. However, what does not sound logical is how, if such an event (such as a story becoming a myth) could have happened naturally to the Israelites, due to human psychology, hallucination, nature, etc., why it has never happened again that a group has claimed such a WIDESPREAD miracle/revelation claiming that every single member of a LARGE, identifiable group of people (of which you are a membr) witnessed."
1. I don't know if it has happened in other religions. I am not expert on the history of every religion. Are you?
2. I don't know WHY it is necessary to see it duplicated in order to be able to reject it. Are there no unique events in history? Just because a medieveal rabbi says it really happened because no other religion copied it does not resonate with me. I fail to see why that is such a "slam-dunk" argument.
Rob, consider this. You are predisposed to believe it because of your faith, tradition, etc. So you are looking for any possible reason to hold on to it. Its hard sometimes when one is on the inside to see how things look from someone who is on the outside.
Here the problem with your Kuzari principle:
ReplyDeleteIf 3 million Jews left Egypt in the Exodus as a minority race living in the land of Goshen, the population of Egypt had to be at least twice that number. Yet for all the 6 million Egyptians witnessing and suffering the death of their first born in the Passover event, we have not one single recorded record in any Egyptian text to support the Bible’s claims. So based to external evidence, the Egyptians don’t have a clue what the Torah is talking about and your Kuzari theroy up holds a double standard!
Yet you totally ignore this fact and claim the Bible has recorded some type of actual event at Mt. Sinai. But with either 600,000 to 3,000,000 Jews witnessing a major event on Mt. Sinai, most are not sure just which mountain is really Sinai apart from legends, folklore and traditions. Plus, was it is called by different names in the Bible indicating different mountains.
You assume that because Jews believe an event in the Hebrew Bible, then the Hebrew Bible must be historical. But you have yet to provide any hard facts that this whole Sinai story was not a total fabrication.
Even you note it can not be traced back earlier that the Dead Sea Scrolls (200BCE) or the Hellenistic period; a period filled with hundreds fabricated Biblical texts we know as the Apocrypha and Pseudopigraphia and it is this same Hellenistic period that gave birth to Christianity. Hey, the Christian books of James and Peter thought these apocryphal tells were real and even quoted them in their works.
Again, in 2 Kings 19:35 the Bible states: It happened that night, that the angel of Yahweh went out, and struck one hundred eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians. When men arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies.
Yet, with this major supernatural event of one angle causing the slaughter of 185,000 Assyrian soldiers, we don’t have even one mention of this event in Akkadian literature. Yet you again totally ignore this event also to give credence to the Sinai event in Exodus.
Fact is, to support your Kuzari principle, you have to ignore the Biblical claims about hundred of thousands of Egyptian murdered in the Passover and the angle killing 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in a single night.
RobWalker, you have a strong will to believe a selected tradition (Sinai), but you have blinders on when it comes to millions of Egyptians not know anything about Passover!
You must remember that while God stated in the Torah that different foods and actions could be a sin with some punishable with death, not one time in all of the Bile is lying to get some one to accept an orthodox tradition condemned! In fact, unverifiable tells fill the Talmud.
Then you claim: “ Pentecost and Sinai are not in the same category. Pentecost is about as unverifiable as you can get! It's a written account of a small group of unidentifiable people in another place who are unrelated to you. Even if it DID happen, there would be no positive evidence to be expected- thus it is unverifiable.”
So you either reject or ignore the very fact there is NO EXTERNAL texts to support that millions of Egyptians (who the Hebrew Bible claims suffered greatly), plus the 185,000 Assyrians slaughtered by an angle to back up the Bible here, but totally accept the Sinai event along because Jews believe it in 200 BCE.
In short, Jews have nothing more than myths and legends just as the famous Jewish scholar T. H. Gaster pointed out in his famous text Myths and Legends of the Old Testament.
Finally, the Biblical claim that there were founding Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) as believed by scholars of the early twentieth century (such as the famous Semitic scholar W. F. Albright at Johns Hopkins University) is now totally debunked by the famous book based of his dissertation at Drew University by T.L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (Walter de Gruyter, 1974) which followed up by the famous American Hebrew scholar, John Van Seter’s Abraham in History and Tradition and latter, his award winning In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (Yale 1975).
ReplyDeleteThe whole early history of Israel has be strongly debunked by the leading American archeologist, William Dever in most all his books whci can be found on Amazon .
In the early days of the so-called Biblical Archeology period, the Bible was used as a template into to which all other ancient Near Eastern history was force to fit.
Today, objective modern scholars know the errors of using religion as a glass though which history is read. It is only Archeological facts that can give us a true picture of the past (with limitation) while the Bible can only be use to relay a mystic past for faith such as your Kuzari theory of Mt. Sinai.
Harry, your comments belie an unwillingness to address even the basic foundation of my argument. If you are interested, more work on this topic is available online. Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb, Lawrence Kelemen are contemporary defenders of it. Your invective is unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteKen,
A/ I was not predisposed to the Jewish faith. I chose it, in part because of this reasoning. (Also I considered that since the world's Christians/Muslims believe God first established a covenant with Israel, if any of the Abrahmic faiths hold the truth, Judaism is the place to start).
I tried to explain the development of the sinai myth, and the explanations I came up with (and which skeptics present) sound very nice in my mind, but if such things don't actually happen in reality, then the explanation falls flat. If Sinai is a lie, whoever wrote the Torah somehow had the foresight to know that such a thing would never be repeated (Deut 4:33, 5:23).
It was not just a medieval rabbi who came up with this argument. This argument is in the Torah itself- it repeatedly makes the claim that this claim of a national revelation stands alone and will never happen again.
I'm not an expert in comparative religion. But I've read a fair share on this from people who are, and I've read work on comparative religion, and I am yet to see a single example of such a thing. The logicicians and historians who argue the kuzari have done their homework too, and any willing skeptics are free to bring a defeating example of a claim of an entire large nation witnessing such a thing.
You say the Israelites would be unable to verify the claim. Not at all. If I told you every person in the world 500 years ago grew 2 heads, you could find out pretty quickly if the story were true or not.
If they were told every single one of their ancestors saw an event of this magnitude, it would be very possible to find out if there were any truth to it. If none of their parents/grandparents/neighbours has heard anything about it, the story falls.
But you recognize that's implausible, so you argue it must have been by myth formation.
EVERY religion claims a theophany. That is NOT the issue. The issue is that pentecost (and every other miracle claim) is unverifiable. It was alleged to have been seen by a small group of people who you don't know. Pentecost never claims it was a large group of people. Sinai does. So if you wish to present a parallel example, it needs to be a similar claim. Pentecost doesn't even try to make Sinai's claim.
Sinai makes a bold claim that every single member of a large, identifiable nation (of which you are a part) saw this- so it leaves the door wide open to look into it.
The reason it is absolutely important to see some parallel (of a CLAIM that every single member of a large, identifiable group of which you are a member having a theophany) is because the claim that myth formation is 'plausible' can't stand when one can't produce a SINGLE example in human history of such a thing actually happening.
A: Myth formation is a logical explanation!
B: What makes it logical?
A: It makes sense in my mind.
B: But no human being has actually ever done that in recorded history.
A: But it still sounds logical in my mind!
Do you see there's a gap between what possibilities we can 'imagine' and what has actually happened in the real world?
You're presenting a theory that the story got embellished over time. Fine. I need some proof of that if you're going to present it as a probability. Not just a "possibility."
So either way we agree that something extremely unique happened: either at the foot of Mt. Sinai, or else in the development of Jewish history.
RobWalker:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have the same medieval mind set as the rabbi who thought up the Kuzari theory. Since it is not taught at The University of Chicago, Yale, Princeton, nor at Harvard Divinity Schools (who do have leading Jewish scholars), I would place you in the same group as the Flat Earth Society.
You want to argue from this Kuzari theory only and totally ignore modern facts and scholarship. In light of that fact, I feel I’d be wasting my time on either your or your other two rabbis unless your can show me where they have reviewed William H.C. Propp (Is a professor of history and Judaic studies at the University of California, San Diego. He has written on the Hebrew Bible for such respected scholarly journals as the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vetus Testamentum, and Bible Review. He lives in La Jolla, California.) two volumes on Exodus in the Yale Anchor Bible Commentary Series.
Until either you or they have done such a review of Propp’s Commentaries on Exodus and published it in a major Biblical journal for pier review, any further reasoning with you would be similar to Christian Fundamentalists who claim the King James Bible is God’s only true Bible.
I have addressed your arguments. Yet you have provided NO MAJOR COMMENTARTIES which use this Kuzari theory to prove the Mt Sinai revelation as historical fact.
The Kuzari theory is outdated and only used by people like you and your two rabbi friends who think and live in a medieval past!
Rob,
ReplyDeleteI just don't see the strength of the Kuzari argument.
Let me try once more. You say: "If they were told every single one of their ancestors saw an event of this magnitude, it would be very possible to find out if there were any truth to it. If none of their parents/grandparents/neighbours has heard anything about it, the story falls. "
That assumes that the story took its final form from the beginning. (no growth, no embellishment, etc). I have put forth the idea that the number of people who supposedly saw the theophany grew slowly over time as the story was retold. So it was not just a sudden embellishment of a few to the whole nation. I think this is clear by the unbelievable number of 600,000 being the final edition. If you could show that within a few years of the event, rabbis were saying 600,000 you might have a case. What is the earliest record outside of the Torah of this event?
In addition, as I have pointed out and Harry has as well--the huge number just doesn't work. There would have to be some external record (archeology, Egyptian documentation, something showing such a huge number of Jews passing through Sinai).
I also maintain that a theory doesn't have to be repeated twice in order for it to have happened once. I just don't see the logic in that.
I think we have reached an impasse here. You are not going to convince me and I apparently will not convince you. So lets just agree to disagree and move on.
Ken, I don't think the impasse is that great (although our dialogue is a bit repetitive). We understand each other. We both agree such a story cannot have been concocted out of thin air, so you maintain it must have been developed over time.
ReplyDeleteI contend that while it sounds good, without a single parallel example (or even similar) in recorded human history, your suggestion of a myth development is not probable.
To ask me to accept a 'possible' theory that has zero known examples in human history is to ask me to ignore all probabilities. If there are tens of thousands of religious groups in the world, and myth formation is very common across the board, it would seem very logical to see it repeated somewhere.
We can come up with endless mental possibilities, but I want to see is whether your myth formation example is actually possible in the REAL world. The point of this exercise is not to test our mental capacities- it's to see whether this type of myth formation is actually possible in human history.
But if we can't find even one example, it makes me realize that it is not logical to accept that this type of myth formation occurred only in this particular tradition, but nowhere else.
And about archaeology: Before we try to look for archaeological evidence, I think we need to first ask what evidence exactly you expect to find. Only then can you measure whether it's there or not. Ancient history scholars tell us nations did not record their own defeats, so we wouldn't expect Egypt to record anything, would we? The Torah says manna fell from heaven, and there were no permanent dwellings, and it was 3,300 years ago in the desert, so I'm not sure why we would even expect to find chariot wheels or pottery.
In arguing the resurrection with evangelicals, it's not relevant that the only source of the resurrection is the NT. Zero contemporary records of the claimed event, but you still need to explain the '4 facts.' Ken, I realize your expertise is Christianity, so I hope that helps to explain. Archaeology is irrelevant in this discussion. I need to explain the development of the myth, not to discuss a different topic.
Harry: I presume you've read the kuzari, yes, and that you've formulated inductive logical rebuttals to it? Otherwise, I think you ought to be a little more modest.
One of the 'rabbi friends' (Gottlieb) is a PhD in logic and teaches at Johns Hopkins, so before you dismiss it entirely, I might suggest you actually read up on it first. And again, this logical argument existed long before the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vetus Testamentum, and Bible Review even existed.
Complex and brilliant biblical commentary and exegesis existed in Jewish tradition back when the vatican was burning heretics at the stake, Europeans thought the world was flat and there was 1% literacy in the Christian world. So do not try to impress me with intellectualism.
If you do want commentary, check out Dr. Shiffman of NYU, Dr. Tabor of UNC, Or Dr. Orlian of Yeshiva University. We can both compare scholars if you feel inclined.
I'm asking you to actually address the content of the argument. So far you have not attempted to.
I think if I had just seen indisuputable proof that God exists, the last thing I would do is make an idol and start worshipping it. I think this made him a little angry (he later sent me an email apologizing for calling me ignorant).
ReplyDeleteKen,
You hit close to home. Rabbi Greenwald works for Aish, an ultra-Orthodox organization that proselytizes and seeks to convert liberal Jews to its rigid form of Orthodoxy. They don't brook criticism well, and are famous for their dismissive attitude toward differences of opinion. They represent the fundamentalist element within Judaism. It was a poor choice on Glover's part, unless he was seeking to mix things up (very possible, given that this is a station that carries Glenn Beck).
I'm sure he still sees you as "ignorant"; it's how they rationalize disagreement. Also, in his worldview, no gentile could possibly understand the Torah as well as a Jew does. His apology was merely in keeping with the Talmudic injunction against shaming someone in public.
Cipher,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments. Yes I was caught off guard by the fact that he was so conservative. I have not encountered very many orthodox Jews before. I found it interesting that he was not aware of the passage in Deuteronomy where the Jews were told to kill everyone EXCEPT the virgins which they could keep for themselves. I think he may be very knowledgable on what the Talmud says but not so much on the actual text of the Torah. I freely admit I don't know much about the Talmud but that is not my area of expertise. Again, I make the point that if the Bible is a diviine revelation from God, why are there so many interpretations and why do we need men to tell us what it REALLY means? God couldn't express himself more clearly?
BTW, there is a better link to the show now on ExChristian.net.
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2009/11/ken-pulliam-on-dave-glover-show.html
I found it interesting that he was not aware of the passage in Deuteronomy where the Jews were told to kill everyone EXCEPT the virgins which they could keep for themselves.
ReplyDeleteThey do focus more on Talmud, but I'm surprised he didn't know about that. It may be that he's in denial, or that he feels it's a matter of translation, context, etc. I have a nephew who became Hasidic; he knows the passages are there, but when I confront him, he simply says nothing.
Again, I make the point that if the Bible is a diviine revelation from God, why are there so many interpretations and why do we need men to tell us what it REALLY means? God couldn't express himself more clearly?
The Orthodox take is this - the Torah gives overall rules, and the Oral Law covers the details, e.g., precisely how one slaughters an animal in a manner that makes the meat kosher, etc. The idea is that God told Moses, Moses transmitted his authority to Joshua, Joshua to the men of the Great Assembly, then to the Sanhedrin - and the rabbis of today are the heirs to that authority.
I came here from Ex-Christian, actually. I've been here a few times since your first post there a couple of weeks ago, but I haven't said anything until now because I can't stand Christian trolls, you've unfortunately attracted a particularly stupid one, and I didn't want to deal with him.
Cipher,
ReplyDeleteGlad to have you here. I gathered that idea from the rabbi as well. He said something to the effect that the Torah are "just notes" and the Talmud is the explanation.
Since you seem knowledgable about this sect of Judaism, may I ask you a couple of questions:
1) Do they believe the Talmud has the same authority as the Torah?
2) I am sure there must be disagreements and contradictions in the Talmud, how do they reply to those?
3) Do this sect want to see the temple re-built and the sacrifices re-instituted?
Thanks
Ken
1. Functionally, yes. The Talmud, as you probably know, is a record of rabbinic opinion and debate composed over approx. 1,500 years. It serves as the foundation of Jewish law. They tend to believe that God has safeguarded the process of rabbinic discourse, and that the rabbis have been and continue to operate a a "higher" spiritual and cognitive level than do ordinary people. Many of the Modern Orthodox take a more liberal view, but not as much as they used to; their entire movement has shifted sharply to the right since World War II under the influence of the ultra-Orthodox, whose numbers have been increasing.
ReplyDelete2. There were differences of rabbinic opinion. One generally abides by the opinion by which one's teacher or sect abides.
3. Yes, and as is the case with the evangelicals, most expect it to happen in the near future (again, the Modern Orthodox tend to be less literal). Some of them work with evangelicals toward that end; for example, there is a breeding program, funded by evangelicals, to produce red heifers to be used in temple sacrifices. You may be interested in The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount, by Gershom Gorenberg.
They conveniently ignore the fact that the evangelicals are content to use them to trigger Armageddon, then expect them to burn in hell for eternity. They care only that the evangelicals provide them with monetary and political support now. A lot of theologically liberal, but politically conservative, Jews feel similarly. It's a huge hot-button issue for me.
Part 1
ReplyDeleteHarry: I presume you've read the kuzari, yes, and that you've formulated inductive logical rebuttals to it? Otherwise, I think you ought to be a little more modest.
RE: RobWalker, yes, I have read the theory behind the kuzari and feel is comes up short.
Since I'm an Secular Humanist (who is also an atheist so when it comes to the Bible), I have options you don‘t. You MUST work in the field of the supernatural…that that there is a God who (like all ancient Near Eastern Gods) lived on some holy mountain or in a Tabernacle / tent or carried in the Arch or the Covenant (God in a Box), or as one scholar put it: “A homeless people, the Israelites, were adopted by a homeless god called Yahweh.”
Now you want to have your conservative religious cake and eat it too by claiming only thousands of Jews saw the beginnings of their religion (that is, if your reject the Covenant with Abraham), plus you have to deny that the personal name of God does not occur in Genesis 4:26b “At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD (Yahweh).” by using the kuzari theory in claiming that Judaism was stated at Mt Sinai. But, As we southerners say: “That dog won’t hunt!”
Fact is, Jesus does a similar feat in feeding the 5000 in The Gospel of Mark 6:44, “Those who ate the loaves were five thousand men.” and in The Gospel of Matthew 15:38, “Those who ate were four thousand men, besides women and children.”.
Thus if we accept the orthodox / Fundamentalist Christian stance, there were 9,000 people total were fed and wittnessed God's hand in Jesus (Plus,they did not worship a Golden Calf as the Jews did at Mt. Sinai either!)
One of the 'rabbi friends' (Gottlieb) is a PhD in logic and teaches at Johns Hopkins, so before you dismiss it entirely, I might suggest you actually read up on it first. And again, this logical argument existed long before the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vetus Testamentum, and Bible Review even existed.
RE: For every one orthodox Jewish scholar who believes in the kuzari theory, I can name you five scholars who don’t.
The famous late Talmudic scholar Solomon Zeitlin (who held two doctoral degrees) never accepted the Qumran Scrolls a authentic, but claimed they were fakes. So one rabbi (Gottlieb) with a PhD in logic may just be another Solomon Zeitlin.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteComplex and brilliant biblical commentary and exegesis existed in Jewish tradition back when the vatican was burning heretics at the stake, Europeans thought the world was flat and there was 1% literacy in the Christian world. So do not try to impress me with intellectualism.
RE: So were the Arabic scholars who built grand mosques and wrote major text on philosophy.
And about archaeology: Before we try to look for archaeological evidence, I think we need to first ask what evidence exactly you expect to find. Only then can you measure whether it's there or not. Ancient history scholars tell us nations did not record their own defeats, so we wouldn't expect Egypt to record anything, would we?
RE: Not true. See Samuel Noah Kramer, Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur (Assyriological Study no. 12, University of Chicago Press and in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relation to the Old Testament, Princeton university Press, 1969).
If you do want commentary, check out Dr. Shiffman of NYU, Dr. Tabor of UNC, Or Dr. Orlian of Yeshiva University. We can both compare scholars if you feel inclined.
RE: Lawrence H. Schiffman's specialty are the Dead sea Scrolls, plus Amazon list NO commentaries for him.
James Tabor like wise has NO commentaries either and only two books listed on Amazon one being: The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity now closed out at a bargin price of $6.00.
His scholarship is listed on Amonzon as: Tabor, chair of religious studies at UNC-Charlotte, offers a bold and sometimes speculative interpretation of the historical Jesus and his family, beginning with his paternity.
As for Orlian, I can find no books on Amazon for him, but the fact he is at Yeshiva University, I would expect the same views from him as from any Christian Fundamentalist on Sinai and Exodus.
I'm asking you to actually address the content of the argument. So far you have not attempted to.
RE: I’m looking for content, but I honestly see none.
Dr. Pulliam, cipher,
ReplyDeleteAre you talking about the Israelites battle against Midian in Numbers 31? I don’t see anything in Deuteronomy about going to war and keeping only the virgins.
Emet,
ReplyDeleteYes Numbers 31 is the passage. Deut. 21 also makes provision for taking a female virgin for yourself.
A few comments:
ReplyDeleteFirst as a historical note the Kuzari actually uses a much weaker form of the argument. In the context of the Kuzari, the argument is used once everyone in the dialogue agrees that God has some intended set of instructions for humans and are trying to understand what they are. So the original section at least doesn't make as sweeping a claim as modern forms of the argument.
That said, the argument in any form is really, really bad. Aside from the reasons given above the texts own descriptions in Daniel, Ezrah and Nehemiah make it clear that the vast majority of Jews forgot all or almost all of the Torah. So the notion that there is this strong national tradition is not even supported by the texts.
So the notion that there is this strong national tradition is not even supported by the texts.
ReplyDeleteGood point - in fact, a friend of mine brought this up on his blog just the other day.
It really is a bad argument all around. My Hasidic nephew, however, thinks it makes perfect sense. As with all forms of apologetics, it doesn't convince; it really serves only to validate the already convinced.
Dear Dr. Pulliam,
ReplyDeleteI think I understand why the Rabbi didn’t know about your reference to Deuteronomy 21 and taking a virgin for yourself as the spoils of war. The word for virgin does not appear in the text of the Torah for this story. It is more likely that it is talking about women who are prositutes since it translates as a woman of beautiful form. The Almighty takes into account that men away at war will be attracted to women who they might only lust after. So, if a man sees "a woman of beautiful form", he can take her back to his homeland. She has to shave her head (men are attracted to beautiful hair since our economy spends billions on hair care products) cut her nails, and wear modest clothing. She is allowed to mourn for her family for one month. If he is still attracted to her, he can then marry her. If not he must let her go home. He can’t sell her nor enslave her.
One of the many tragedies of war are the women who have been used as prostitutes and conceive children that are ostracized by their own people. These rules of war allow a man to take a woman home, have a cooling off period, and then he can do the right thing and marry her. Not only that, but if he changes his mind, he can’t sell her or enslave her. I’d say that is quite an advanced directive considering it was written several thousand years ago.