I strongly disagree with this post, and I plan to publish a counterpost later today, but in the spirit of concilliation and colloboration I think I can create a syllogism to represent this post.
P1 - It is far likelier that a nation's history which was believed by the nation themselves is true rather than invented, provided the history reported has an a priori reasonableness.
P2 - The reported history of the Exodus, revelation and conquest is fairly reasonable given theism and the uniqueness of bible as a theological text.
Conclusion - It is far likelier that the reported history of the exodus, revelation and conquest is true rather than invented.
"Fourth, lets establish when the Torah was written. If it was written later, that gives it conceivably enough time for the origin story to have evolved. If it were written close to the claimed exodus time, that possibility drops to zero, and we need an incredible liar - making it almost impossible and raising the odds the story did happen as claimed.3"
I don't think you need this, although obviously the Bible critics are grievously wrong in almost every respect. As long as the story of Matan Torah and Yetzias Mitzrayim is relevant to the population, and it would be EXTREMELY relevant if they were religious Jews, they wouldn't forget it. And conversely, if somebody came to a population of religious Jews and told them about the Exodus and Matan Torah that they had never heard of, they would know it's false. We can easily test this hypothesis. If there is a group of religious Jews who follow the laws of the Torah but don't know of the Exodus or Matan Torah story, that would be a counterexample to the "Kuzari Proof".
I think the issue is that if there was some way that such a story could be sold (maybe using the Kuzari argument itself) it would have spread to all those Jews. Even if such a group did exist in the past.
The whole idea of the Kuzari argument is that it's unreasonable to suppose that such a story could be sold. If we want to invent unspecified hypotheses that nevertheless the story could be sold (purposely avoiding describing a possible scenario because whatever scenario we could think of sounds ridiculous), then of course we don't need counterexamples or counterarguments at all!
To me the only way to counter this powerful argument is to argue that the Yetzias Mitzrayim and Matan Torah are really not that important to Judaism on a fundamental level, but are random myths more akin to the Eliyahu and Elisha stories or various midrashim (I'm not saying that those are myths!)
Yes, if you think God writing a book is impossible/ unbelievably unlikely then there are no arguments that would sway you (including probably being at Matan Torah yourself) and no need for counterarguments, and this whole discussion is pointless.
We don't have any basis to assume that the reason for their religious practices was rooted in the exodus. At face value the religous practices of the bible could have easily arose organically as an ANE religion (although unique in several respects), and the story of the Exodus and revelation was introduced after these practices were in existence.
(Additionally proof by lack of counterexample is not valid evidence, although I would argue that there are endless counterexamples once it isn't perceived as the basis for the laws themselves.)
Excuse me? We don't have any *basis* to assume that the reason for their religious practices was rooted in the Exodus?? Besides for the fact that the Chumash, our earliest record of the religious code, is totally full of it? At *face value*??? You’re not being serious at all.
Regarding your point, we are discussing which of the following two possibilities are correct, either 1. The mitzvos were established to commemorate the exodus, or 2. The preexisting mitzvos were later connected to the exodus.
In the biblical rationales we clearly see that they commemorate the exodus, but it doesn't tell us which came first.
I would just like to point out that even from a religious perspective, the rationale are clearly not where the mitzvah arises from. For example shabbat is to commemerate the exodus in Deuteronomy but also creation in Genesis and exodus, plus there are many traditional sources which discuss shabbat being kept even before the exodus.
Gut voche to you as well! What are you doing staying up so late? Or is that not my business either? 😋
In the Torah that we have, the Exodus and Matan Torah are essential, fundamental, inseparable elements. This is the only Torah we know of, no other. You hypothesize that there was maybe once a different Torah, oral or written, which didn't contain these elements, and then somebody or somebodies promoted a myth of the Exodus and Matan Torah, and then they wrote this new Torah in which these myths are fundamental elements. The Kuzari argument argues that this is basically impossible.
To shoot down a possible counter-argument, if possible interlocutors were to take the stance that the Samaritan Chumash is a possible "alternate Torah" (and thus that more than one extant Torah exists), it also contains the Exodus and Matan Torah.
Why are you assuming that the event either happened exactly was described in the text, or was fabricated by a cynical charlatan who successfully “sold” it to the population? That’s not typically how myths develop.
Also, it could very well be the case that the laws of the Torah preceded the Sinai myth, which was used to retroactively explain the origin of the Israelite’s laws, customs and traditions.
It doesn't have to happen "exactly" as described in the text. The text itself doesn't necessarily give such a clear picture how it happened. The whole point of the Kuzari argument is that it's even more ridiculous if the laws of the Torah preceded the Sinai myth, as I explained.
Myths like the Exodus and Matan Torah don’t require a cynical charlatan to get going. They could’ve started with true stories that gradually and cumulatively developed into a much more dramatic story as it was embellished by storytellers over the generations. New details could’ve started as hyperbole or allegory or explanation/elaboration of an already well-known and accepted story (You see this even today with people like my uncle who informed me last week that all the aggadot are literal history). The iteration of the story heard by the 40th generation could’ve been only slightly different from the one heard by the 38th or 39th, so that the parents and grandparents could nod along, but dramatically different from original stories. Ash admitted that the population numbers are exaggerated; I see no reason why other details of the story can’t be embellished/exaggerated as well.
It's specifically the first few iterations of the story that are so amazing and the population knows could never have happened to their ancestors. Obviously, once you know about Yetzias Mitzrayim as described in the Torah, it's not a big deal if you claim every Makkah had five makkos like Rabbi Akiva says.
The first few iterations of the story could have been quite modest. For example, imagine clan of 50-100 runaway slaves from Egypt led by a charismatic leader named Moshe. Maybe their escape was “against all odds” and could be called “miraculous” in the same sense that beating the Arabs in ‘48 was miraculous. Maybe not. Maybe they even had some sort of mystical experience during their long slog through the desert before arriving in Canaan. Maybe not. In any case, they would’ve had immense gratitude to their god for liberating them from cruel, vicious slavery (and somehow they forgot to ask why their omnipotent god would put them there in the first place. It’s like if someone tied a damsel to the train tracks only to later swoop in and heroically rescue her. Is she supposed to say thank you?).
Such an event would have been a momentous event in the group’s history. Over centuries of oral storytelling, new details creep into the story. The story is exaggerated, the exaggerations are exaggerations, we get extrapolations from “known events”, and extrapolations from the extrapolations, what started as songs/folklore/fables/allegories become accepted as history over the generations, and so on, until we get the final official version of the story that was canonized in the Torah. The manna and other miraculous parts of the story were later innovations, just like the rabbinic legend that the children’s clothing miraculously grew with the children during the desert journey.
Geirim and baalei teshuvah accept that the Exodus and Matan Torah happened, even though they have no “unbroken family tradition”. After enough generations, people forget that their ancestors were ever geirim, and when we talk about how “we” were liberated from Egypt at the pesach seder, that includes people whose ancestors were never there. This is how the initial small group could’ve been retconned into a “whole nation”. As the size of the group grows exponentially through the natural processes of high birthrates and outsiders joining, the size of the initial group is retroactively inflated. Not just because they were intentionally exaggerating the numbers (although they were clearly doing that as well) but because the story was passed on orally and nobody remembered exactly how many people left Egypt centuries after the event, so they projected the nation’s then-current size into the distant past. (Under this interpretation, even a charlatan could’ve started the Sinai myth. Kuzari proponents admit that you can trick a small group of people, after all.)
I’ll admit that my story for how the myth developed is pure speculation, which makes it vulnerable to “just-so story” accusations, but it’s no more of a just-so story than the Kuzari argument itself. And a Kuzari skeptic isn’t committed to any particular explanation of how the Exodus and Sinai myths developed. The Kuzari skeptic’s only claim is that the myths are myths. A just-so story that fits the facts is good enough for our purposes. I outlined one of several plausible scenarios for how the Exodus and Sinai myths could have developed. My scenario is at least as plausible as Matan Torah actually happening. in fact, almost *any* other explanation is more plausible than Matan Torah actually happening, because of the extraordinary nature of such an event. Especially if you believe that the truth of Judaism commits you to the belief that the world is under 6000 years old and Noah’s flood literally happened. The evidence against those propositions is vastly greater than any evidence (or purported evidence) that Matan Torah happened.
I think your version of the Exodus bears so little resemblance to the real Exodus that the Kuzari argument applies. For example, you can't just say, (please excuse the rudeness of the analogy) one day Happy picked his nose, and a thousand years later it morphed into a legend about how he discovered billions of tons of gold in a mountain and became worlds richest man.
A good example of the incremental exaggerations and extrapolations you are talking about are the aggados, midrashim, and commentary on Megilas Esther. We have over 2500 years since it was written, with Maseches Megillah, Esther Rabbah, Targum Sheini, Yalkut, Meam Loez, the Gra, and countless other commentators. And yet the additions to the story are quite modest, not much more amazing than the Megillah itself, absolutely nothing compared to Yetzias Mitzrayim.
Why can’t other parts of the story be intentionally exaggerated for mythic effect? Imagine a mythic element is introduced to the story, it gets passed on, and eventually people forget that it’s mythical. For example, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s historically inaccurate 1860 poem “Paul Revere’s Ride” (where Revere famously says “The British are coming!”) wasn’t intended as literal, but people forgot where it came from, Longfellow's version of events was accepted as real history, recorded in history textbooks, and taught to generations of Americans schoolchildren. In a more myth-oriented Ancient Near Eastern society like that of the ancient Israelites, where the most common type of human being is a stupid superstitious illiterate peasant subsistence farmer, it would’ve been even for legends to slip into history.
The Torah itself makes no clear demarcation between “history” and “myth”. There is a direct genealogical line from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Levi to Moses. At what point did the Torah transition from pure myth to real history? How do we know which parts are mythic and which are historical? How was an illiterate Israelite listening to the story supposed to know the difference between history and myth? I don’t think ancient peoples had such a sharp line between history and myth.
I am not sure if you are trying to "fix" something that is written in the book known as the Kuzari, or a specific argument that people on the internet refer to as "the Kuzari proof." If the former, I'd love to hear your thoughts on my interpretation (based on the scholarship of Daniel Lasker, Diana Lobel, and Ehud Krinis) that I discuss in my podcast on the Kuzari. Sorry that it's two hours long, but Spotify does provide an automatically generated transcript. On the other hand, if you are trying to rescue the "proof" known as "the Kuzari proof" then I don't have much to say, except... yes, whether or not you find arguments to be convincing will depend upon your prior assumptions (obviously?) Also, regarding "40 years of miracles," Rav Saadya Gaon does explicitly write that he believes the best argument for Moshe's reliability was the consistent appearance of the Mann for 40 years. The Kuzari seems to also be really into that, and throws in the whole idea of "keeping Shabbos" as a more definitive proof to how God has Mann fall or cease at will. Ramban also hints to this
Since we're trying to discuss the sequence to establish if the kuzari has validity based on your argument, you can't revert back to the kuzari until you defend this premise.
The Torah includes a historical narrative about the origin of the Jewish people and includes many laws describing the religous elements of Israelite religion. Of course the document includes them together, but the question is about the reality on the ground- did the religous practices start from that history as the Torah portrays it, or is that a theological reconstruction. The idea of narratives being molded to fit existing religious practices and beliefs is observed in every single religion. So we have no reason to assume the the historical narrative was not reconned onto an existing religious framework (and an analysis of Israelite religion itself lends strong support to the idea that it could have simply been a product of the society at the time).
>The idea of narratives being molded to fit existing religious practices and beliefs is observed in every single religion. So we have no reason to assume the the historical narrative was not reconned onto an existing religious framework
For a philosopher, this is highly illogical. We may have less reason, but no reason? Don't be ridiculous. And it seems shifting the burden of proof.
Of course no reason. It is completely plausible when comparing to other religous or otherwise ideological frameworks, so I have no reason to say there must have been preexisting historical background.
Obviously if the history is accurate that could explain the religious practices themselves, but when discussing which came first, the fact that the Torah itslef presents it one way does not move the needle in that direction.
And what do you mean about shifting the burden of proof?
(I do want to mention that this entire discussion is very narrow. Which is fine, but it's important to note that. We are not engaging in the vast amount of literature about the evolution of the narratives themselves, and the nature and connectedness of Israelite religion given the cultural background. I believe that a demonstration of how Israelite religion can plausibly be understood as having risen organically in the ANE or even positively argued to be the case this whole discussion would be rendered moot.)
Is this addressed to me? The way substack behaves is confusing sometimes.
You are speaking in generalities like "The idea of narratives being molded to fit existing religious practices and beliefs is observed in every single religion" but I don't think you are addressing the Kuzari argument. This is not just any narrative, and this is not just any molding. The entire Torah is filled with the idea that the all the Laws are based on Yetzias Mitzrayim and the Bris at Sinai and Arvos Moav. I don't think your suggestion is reasonable for the Torah and I don't anything like it would be reasonable for any other religion.
Yes, it was addressed to you. Substack gotta fix their reply system 😭
I'm not clear what your response is. Is it that the sheer focus on the exodus in the Torah precludes recrafting as a possibility? Cuz it sounds like you agree that recrafting in general does take place all the time
I understood the conversation to be discussing whether or not we have reason to assume from the biblical texts that the historical narrative preceded the religious practices and not vice versa. You pointed out that the justification given is the historical narrative, to which I responded that this can be fully explained by reinterpretation of existing practices. This idea of giving existing practices a new meaning is something that exists in every society and ideological system. I find it hard to believe that you would disagree to that.
Your response here seem to be addressing whether large scale rewriting of historical narratives can take place. This is not what I was addressing earlier.
If that is what you intended, I think all that is necessary is a society which does not have a previous conflicting historical narrative, which usually does not exist where there are little written records.
We are probably going in circles at this point. I am saying that the Kuzari argument directly argues that such a reinterpretation as you propose is highly implausible to say the least. The society doesn't need a "previous conflicting historical narrative", it needs some narrative for why it is performing religious rituals, which every religion already has.
What do you mean it needs a narrative? Does there have to be some kind of story similar to the Exodus to be the basis of shabbat or other commandments? Why can't they just be religious practices on their own merit, or to commemorate something else, such Creation in the case of shabbat? Even pesach could be a spring festival. (I'm using the terms could be, but I think there is actually evidence that they are, and similarly virtually all the mitzvos are understandable in their own right and zecher liyetzias mitzraim is just an extra twist. E.g. bechor, tefillin, ahavas Hager, etc. don't need mitzraim and that's just a nice vort connecting it). Please provide any reason to say otherwise.
Thanks so much! Since this wasn’t the short summary that I asked for, I still don’t have clarity and need to follow up with questions. :)
From one point in the article, it seemed to me that your version doesn’t just use the Sinai Event as part of the argument, but rather “40 years of Miracles in the desert”
Do we have a national tradition of this? If yes, What’s your evidence that we have a national tradition of 40 years of miracles?
Yeah, this is why I feel like even a crude syllogism is needed because with this clarification I actually have no idea what the inferences here are.
“The more specific and detailed the miracles are the less likely it was made up over time”
Specified where? Usually the Kuzari argument says the beliefs are in the “national tradition” but you don’t require that for your argument, so where are you referring to?
The exodus tradition is quite old. ,זכר ליציאת מצרים. But it's irrelevant. The point is that the more specific and detailed the miracles are the less likely it was made up over time. The Kuzari argument is based off odds. There is the Mon, which is explicit in the Torah, and also unlikely to have been made up (for example, we have a tradition the Americans are buffalo whole going out west, and it's something largely accepted as fact.) There is also endless scientific explanation for what the Mon could be, which implies it requires an explanation.
Why do details suggest it was not made up over time? Just like you find a passuk that mentions something in passing, and a midrash might elaborate on this for pages, the same thing can apply to the biblical stories themselves. At some point there began a tradition of say Israelites being redeemed from slavery, and the author or the bible created the whole narrative and added all the details.
Even if I were to concede to you that the Torah is evidently unitary, that would not mean that all the material is the innovation of that one author. He would obviously represent some existing traditions, and in all likelihood the exodus would be one of them. (Plus I believe there is insurmountable evidence for multiple authorship itswlf but leaving that aside for the purposes of this argument.)
I strongly disagree with this post, and I plan to publish a counterpost later today, but in the spirit of concilliation and colloboration I think I can create a syllogism to represent this post.
P1 - It is far likelier that a nation's history which was believed by the nation themselves is true rather than invented, provided the history reported has an a priori reasonableness.
P2 - The reported history of the Exodus, revelation and conquest is fairly reasonable given theism and the uniqueness of bible as a theological text.
Conclusion - It is far likelier that the reported history of the exodus, revelation and conquest is true rather than invented.
Simon do you live in Israel? You're not going to G-d forbid post that on Shabbos will you?
That's none of your business but I hope to have the post up within the hour.
"Fourth, lets establish when the Torah was written. If it was written later, that gives it conceivably enough time for the origin story to have evolved. If it were written close to the claimed exodus time, that possibility drops to zero, and we need an incredible liar - making it almost impossible and raising the odds the story did happen as claimed.3"
I don't think you need this, although obviously the Bible critics are grievously wrong in almost every respect. As long as the story of Matan Torah and Yetzias Mitzrayim is relevant to the population, and it would be EXTREMELY relevant if they were religious Jews, they wouldn't forget it. And conversely, if somebody came to a population of religious Jews and told them about the Exodus and Matan Torah that they had never heard of, they would know it's false. We can easily test this hypothesis. If there is a group of religious Jews who follow the laws of the Torah but don't know of the Exodus or Matan Torah story, that would be a counterexample to the "Kuzari Proof".
I think the issue is that if there was some way that such a story could be sold (maybe using the Kuzari argument itself) it would have spread to all those Jews. Even if such a group did exist in the past.
The whole idea of the Kuzari argument is that it's unreasonable to suppose that such a story could be sold. If we want to invent unspecified hypotheses that nevertheless the story could be sold (purposely avoiding describing a possible scenario because whatever scenario we could think of sounds ridiculous), then of course we don't need counterexamples or counterarguments at all!
To me the only way to counter this powerful argument is to argue that the Yetzias Mitzrayim and Matan Torah are really not that important to Judaism on a fundamental level, but are random myths more akin to the Eliyahu and Elisha stories or various midrashim (I'm not saying that those are myths!)
>If we want to invent unspecified hypotheses that nevertheless the story could be sold
That may be fully justified if the alternative is God writing a book, which is also far-fetched.
Yes, if you think God writing a book is impossible/ unbelievably unlikely then there are no arguments that would sway you (including probably being at Matan Torah yourself) and no need for counterarguments, and this whole discussion is pointless.
I imagine that Hashem has the ability to prove to such a person that it was real if he were there.
And again, I think it depends on the content of the book and how it was written. That is the point of this post.
We don't have any basis to assume that the reason for their religious practices was rooted in the exodus. At face value the religous practices of the bible could have easily arose organically as an ANE religion (although unique in several respects), and the story of the Exodus and revelation was introduced after these practices were in existence.
(Additionally proof by lack of counterexample is not valid evidence, although I would argue that there are endless counterexamples once it isn't perceived as the basis for the laws themselves.)
Excuse me? We don't have any *basis* to assume that the reason for their religious practices was rooted in the Exodus?? Besides for the fact that the Chumash, our earliest record of the religious code, is totally full of it? At *face value*??? You’re not being serious at all.
First of all a gutte voch 😊!!
Regarding your point, we are discussing which of the following two possibilities are correct, either 1. The mitzvos were established to commemorate the exodus, or 2. The preexisting mitzvos were later connected to the exodus.
In the biblical rationales we clearly see that they commemorate the exodus, but it doesn't tell us which came first.
I would just like to point out that even from a religious perspective, the rationale are clearly not where the mitzvah arises from. For example shabbat is to commemerate the exodus in Deuteronomy but also creation in Genesis and exodus, plus there are many traditional sources which discuss shabbat being kept even before the exodus.
Gut voche to you as well! What are you doing staying up so late? Or is that not my business either? 😋
In the Torah that we have, the Exodus and Matan Torah are essential, fundamental, inseparable elements. This is the only Torah we know of, no other. You hypothesize that there was maybe once a different Torah, oral or written, which didn't contain these elements, and then somebody or somebodies promoted a myth of the Exodus and Matan Torah, and then they wrote this new Torah in which these myths are fundamental elements. The Kuzari argument argues that this is basically impossible.
To shoot down a possible counter-argument, if possible interlocutors were to take the stance that the Samaritan Chumash is a possible "alternate Torah" (and thus that more than one extant Torah exists), it also contains the Exodus and Matan Torah.
Why are you assuming that the event either happened exactly was described in the text, or was fabricated by a cynical charlatan who successfully “sold” it to the population? That’s not typically how myths develop.
Also, it could very well be the case that the laws of the Torah preceded the Sinai myth, which was used to retroactively explain the origin of the Israelite’s laws, customs and traditions.
It doesn't have to happen "exactly" as described in the text. The text itself doesn't necessarily give such a clear picture how it happened. The whole point of the Kuzari argument is that it's even more ridiculous if the laws of the Torah preceded the Sinai myth, as I explained.
Myths like the Exodus and Matan Torah don’t require a cynical charlatan to get going. They could’ve started with true stories that gradually and cumulatively developed into a much more dramatic story as it was embellished by storytellers over the generations. New details could’ve started as hyperbole or allegory or explanation/elaboration of an already well-known and accepted story (You see this even today with people like my uncle who informed me last week that all the aggadot are literal history). The iteration of the story heard by the 40th generation could’ve been only slightly different from the one heard by the 38th or 39th, so that the parents and grandparents could nod along, but dramatically different from original stories. Ash admitted that the population numbers are exaggerated; I see no reason why other details of the story can’t be embellished/exaggerated as well.
It's specifically the first few iterations of the story that are so amazing and the population knows could never have happened to their ancestors. Obviously, once you know about Yetzias Mitzrayim as described in the Torah, it's not a big deal if you claim every Makkah had five makkos like Rabbi Akiva says.
The first few iterations of the story could have been quite modest. For example, imagine clan of 50-100 runaway slaves from Egypt led by a charismatic leader named Moshe. Maybe their escape was “against all odds” and could be called “miraculous” in the same sense that beating the Arabs in ‘48 was miraculous. Maybe not. Maybe they even had some sort of mystical experience during their long slog through the desert before arriving in Canaan. Maybe not. In any case, they would’ve had immense gratitude to their god for liberating them from cruel, vicious slavery (and somehow they forgot to ask why their omnipotent god would put them there in the first place. It’s like if someone tied a damsel to the train tracks only to later swoop in and heroically rescue her. Is she supposed to say thank you?).
Such an event would have been a momentous event in the group’s history. Over centuries of oral storytelling, new details creep into the story. The story is exaggerated, the exaggerations are exaggerations, we get extrapolations from “known events”, and extrapolations from the extrapolations, what started as songs/folklore/fables/allegories become accepted as history over the generations, and so on, until we get the final official version of the story that was canonized in the Torah. The manna and other miraculous parts of the story were later innovations, just like the rabbinic legend that the children’s clothing miraculously grew with the children during the desert journey.
Geirim and baalei teshuvah accept that the Exodus and Matan Torah happened, even though they have no “unbroken family tradition”. After enough generations, people forget that their ancestors were ever geirim, and when we talk about how “we” were liberated from Egypt at the pesach seder, that includes people whose ancestors were never there. This is how the initial small group could’ve been retconned into a “whole nation”. As the size of the group grows exponentially through the natural processes of high birthrates and outsiders joining, the size of the initial group is retroactively inflated. Not just because they were intentionally exaggerating the numbers (although they were clearly doing that as well) but because the story was passed on orally and nobody remembered exactly how many people left Egypt centuries after the event, so they projected the nation’s then-current size into the distant past. (Under this interpretation, even a charlatan could’ve started the Sinai myth. Kuzari proponents admit that you can trick a small group of people, after all.)
I’ll admit that my story for how the myth developed is pure speculation, which makes it vulnerable to “just-so story” accusations, but it’s no more of a just-so story than the Kuzari argument itself. And a Kuzari skeptic isn’t committed to any particular explanation of how the Exodus and Sinai myths developed. The Kuzari skeptic’s only claim is that the myths are myths. A just-so story that fits the facts is good enough for our purposes. I outlined one of several plausible scenarios for how the Exodus and Sinai myths could have developed. My scenario is at least as plausible as Matan Torah actually happening. in fact, almost *any* other explanation is more plausible than Matan Torah actually happening, because of the extraordinary nature of such an event. Especially if you believe that the truth of Judaism commits you to the belief that the world is under 6000 years old and Noah’s flood literally happened. The evidence against those propositions is vastly greater than any evidence (or purported evidence) that Matan Torah happened.
I think your version of the Exodus bears so little resemblance to the real Exodus that the Kuzari argument applies. For example, you can't just say, (please excuse the rudeness of the analogy) one day Happy picked his nose, and a thousand years later it morphed into a legend about how he discovered billions of tons of gold in a mountain and became worlds richest man.
A good example of the incremental exaggerations and extrapolations you are talking about are the aggados, midrashim, and commentary on Megilas Esther. We have over 2500 years since it was written, with Maseches Megillah, Esther Rabbah, Targum Sheini, Yalkut, Meam Loez, the Gra, and countless other commentators. And yet the additions to the story are quite modest, not much more amazing than the Megillah itself, absolutely nothing compared to Yetzias Mitzrayim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
>Ash admitted that the population numbers are exaggerated
Not due to slow gradual myth formation but intentional exaggeration for mythic effect.
Why can’t other parts of the story be intentionally exaggerated for mythic effect? Imagine a mythic element is introduced to the story, it gets passed on, and eventually people forget that it’s mythical. For example, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s historically inaccurate 1860 poem “Paul Revere’s Ride” (where Revere famously says “The British are coming!”) wasn’t intended as literal, but people forgot where it came from, Longfellow's version of events was accepted as real history, recorded in history textbooks, and taught to generations of Americans schoolchildren. In a more myth-oriented Ancient Near Eastern society like that of the ancient Israelites, where the most common type of human being is a stupid superstitious illiterate peasant subsistence farmer, it would’ve been even for legends to slip into history.
The Torah itself makes no clear demarcation between “history” and “myth”. There is a direct genealogical line from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Levi to Moses. At what point did the Torah transition from pure myth to real history? How do we know which parts are mythic and which are historical? How was an illiterate Israelite listening to the story supposed to know the difference between history and myth? I don’t think ancient peoples had such a sharp line between history and myth.
"it could very well be"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
My response https://simonfurst.substack.com/p/can-the-kuzari-argument-be-salvaged
I am not sure if you are trying to "fix" something that is written in the book known as the Kuzari, or a specific argument that people on the internet refer to as "the Kuzari proof." If the former, I'd love to hear your thoughts on my interpretation (based on the scholarship of Daniel Lasker, Diana Lobel, and Ehud Krinis) that I discuss in my podcast on the Kuzari. Sorry that it's two hours long, but Spotify does provide an automatically generated transcript. On the other hand, if you are trying to rescue the "proof" known as "the Kuzari proof" then I don't have much to say, except... yes, whether or not you find arguments to be convincing will depend upon your prior assumptions (obviously?) Also, regarding "40 years of miracles," Rav Saadya Gaon does explicitly write that he believes the best argument for Moshe's reliability was the consistent appearance of the Mann for 40 years. The Kuzari seems to also be really into that, and throws in the whole idea of "keeping Shabbos" as a more definitive proof to how God has Mann fall or cease at will. Ramban also hints to this
Here is a related article
https://www.theapj.com/the-kuzari-principle-2/
Cool article! Thanks! A lot of what I wrote is based off Leben's book.
Do you feel your belief is "strong enough" that you would be willing to die על קידוש השם?
What about executing someone else who is chayav missah?
Since we're trying to discuss the sequence to establish if the kuzari has validity based on your argument, you can't revert back to the kuzari until you defend this premise.
The Torah includes a historical narrative about the origin of the Jewish people and includes many laws describing the religous elements of Israelite religion. Of course the document includes them together, but the question is about the reality on the ground- did the religous practices start from that history as the Torah portrays it, or is that a theological reconstruction. The idea of narratives being molded to fit existing religious practices and beliefs is observed in every single religion. So we have no reason to assume the the historical narrative was not reconned onto an existing religious framework (and an analysis of Israelite religion itself lends strong support to the idea that it could have simply been a product of the society at the time).
>The idea of narratives being molded to fit existing religious practices and beliefs is observed in every single religion. So we have no reason to assume the the historical narrative was not reconned onto an existing religious framework
For a philosopher, this is highly illogical. We may have less reason, but no reason? Don't be ridiculous. And it seems shifting the burden of proof.
Of course no reason. It is completely plausible when comparing to other religous or otherwise ideological frameworks, so I have no reason to say there must have been preexisting historical background.
Obviously if the history is accurate that could explain the religious practices themselves, but when discussing which came first, the fact that the Torah itslef presents it one way does not move the needle in that direction.
And what do you mean about shifting the burden of proof?
(I do want to mention that this entire discussion is very narrow. Which is fine, but it's important to note that. We are not engaging in the vast amount of literature about the evolution of the narratives themselves, and the nature and connectedness of Israelite religion given the cultural background. I believe that a demonstration of how Israelite religion can plausibly be understood as having risen organically in the ANE or even positively argued to be the case this whole discussion would be rendered moot.)
Is this addressed to me? The way substack behaves is confusing sometimes.
You are speaking in generalities like "The idea of narratives being molded to fit existing religious practices and beliefs is observed in every single religion" but I don't think you are addressing the Kuzari argument. This is not just any narrative, and this is not just any molding. The entire Torah is filled with the idea that the all the Laws are based on Yetzias Mitzrayim and the Bris at Sinai and Arvos Moav. I don't think your suggestion is reasonable for the Torah and I don't anything like it would be reasonable for any other religion.
Yes, it was addressed to you. Substack gotta fix their reply system 😭
I'm not clear what your response is. Is it that the sheer focus on the exodus in the Torah precludes recrafting as a possibility? Cuz it sounds like you agree that recrafting in general does take place all the time
I don't agree that it takes place all the time, certainly at the scale we are talking about here. You must have an example that you are thinking of.
I think we are talking past each other.
I understood the conversation to be discussing whether or not we have reason to assume from the biblical texts that the historical narrative preceded the religious practices and not vice versa. You pointed out that the justification given is the historical narrative, to which I responded that this can be fully explained by reinterpretation of existing practices. This idea of giving existing practices a new meaning is something that exists in every society and ideological system. I find it hard to believe that you would disagree to that.
Your response here seem to be addressing whether large scale rewriting of historical narratives can take place. This is not what I was addressing earlier.
If that is what you intended, I think all that is necessary is a society which does not have a previous conflicting historical narrative, which usually does not exist where there are little written records.
We are probably going in circles at this point. I am saying that the Kuzari argument directly argues that such a reinterpretation as you propose is highly implausible to say the least. The society doesn't need a "previous conflicting historical narrative", it needs some narrative for why it is performing religious rituals, which every religion already has.
What do you mean it needs a narrative? Does there have to be some kind of story similar to the Exodus to be the basis of shabbat or other commandments? Why can't they just be religious practices on their own merit, or to commemorate something else, such Creation in the case of shabbat? Even pesach could be a spring festival. (I'm using the terms could be, but I think there is actually evidence that they are, and similarly virtually all the mitzvos are understandable in their own right and zecher liyetzias mitzraim is just an extra twist. E.g. bechor, tefillin, ahavas Hager, etc. don't need mitzraim and that's just a nice vort connecting it). Please provide any reason to say otherwise.
Thanks so much! Since this wasn’t the short summary that I asked for, I still don’t have clarity and need to follow up with questions. :)
From one point in the article, it seemed to me that your version doesn’t just use the Sinai Event as part of the argument, but rather “40 years of Miracles in the desert”
Do we have a national tradition of this? If yes, What’s your evidence that we have a national tradition of 40 years of miracles?
In short, the national tradition makes it stronger, but even without it, it adds to the argument.
Yeah, this is why I feel like even a crude syllogism is needed because with this clarification I actually have no idea what the inferences here are.
“The more specific and detailed the miracles are the less likely it was made up over time”
Specified where? Usually the Kuzari argument says the beliefs are in the “national tradition” but you don’t require that for your argument, so where are you referring to?
The exodus tradition is quite old. ,זכר ליציאת מצרים. But it's irrelevant. The point is that the more specific and detailed the miracles are the less likely it was made up over time. The Kuzari argument is based off odds. There is the Mon, which is explicit in the Torah, and also unlikely to have been made up (for example, we have a tradition the Americans are buffalo whole going out west, and it's something largely accepted as fact.) There is also endless scientific explanation for what the Mon could be, which implies it requires an explanation.
Why do details suggest it was not made up over time? Just like you find a passuk that mentions something in passing, and a midrash might elaborate on this for pages, the same thing can apply to the biblical stories themselves. At some point there began a tradition of say Israelites being redeemed from slavery, and the author or the bible created the whole narrative and added all the details.
The internal unity implies against that. Obviously I need to argue for contemporaneous authorship. I think I will make a post for that.
Even if I were to concede to you that the Torah is evidently unitary, that would not mean that all the material is the innovation of that one author. He would obviously represent some existing traditions, and in all likelihood the exodus would be one of them. (Plus I believe there is insurmountable evidence for multiple authorship itswlf but leaving that aside for the purposes of this argument.)