This is a continuation of the Kuzari Argument begun here, I would suggest skimming all my prior Kuzari posts.
Here is one version of the Kuzari argument, but similar sentiments permeate many versions of the Kuzari argument.
“Where the ‘Exodus-Sinai story’ false, it wouldn’t have gotten beyond the innumerable other people - like us but who came before us - who heard it.” Moreover, so many people can not be wrong.
It may surprise where this version of Kuzari argument (the portion in bold face) came from. It is a direct quote and readings from page 103 of the book Rumors by Jean-Noel Kapferer 1990 I simply replaced the book’s word ‘rumor’ with ‘Exodus-Sinai story’ !
[Rumor, myth, legend, urban legend, national tradition, collective memory, group think overlap sharing much in common and are not a reliable source for truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. ]
Beginning on page 103 from Kapferer and in regard to the previously cited bolded 'proof' he has this to say: “ The group is thus assumed to have filtered the rumor before it reaches us.” This is one reason rumors can spread even amongst intelligent and educated people. In addition: “To believe in a rumor is to manifest one’s allegiance to the group voice, i.e. to collective opinion.” Rumors contribute to social cohesion. [ Tribal allegiance would be very important in ancient times, and provides ample motivation for beliefs even in the absence of evidence. Survival of the tribe may depend on widespread beliefs.]
[Kapferer's book is based on social psychology, crowd psychology and behavior, marketing, individual psychology and other academic disciplines. It is rooted in empirical evidence, in empirical studies of numerous rumors, some in real time as they are evolving. It is rooted in actual human behavior. It behooves people who give credence to the Kuzari arguments/principles to spend some time reading such books.]
Page 139 Often rumors have no original truth. Rumors may result from a constructive process by a group faced with an ambiguous event. [Could a major Volcano eruption be conflated with God(s) by ancient people ? Yes. My prior Kuzari posts documented this amongst several different cultures. Somehow some escaped Israelite slaves manage to survive in the desert. This could be ascribed to divine intervention. There were probably other ambiguous events that could lead to the the construction of the Exodus-Sinai stories by a cadre with certain interests.]
Page 178 The book explains regarding rumors of movie stars “We prefer a story that does us good to a truth that gives nothing.” [And there is no reason why the same should not apply to some rumors, legends, myths and the Exodus - Sinai stories.]
Page 243 “The resistance of certain rumors to facts sometimes surprises observers. For a rumor to spread, it must survive the legitimate objections inevitably raised by the first people who hear it. Reality must thus at least not have been an obstacle to the rumor.” The book goes on to explain - "But the proliferation of absurd rumors prove rumor is able to surf on the surface of reality and absorb counter-arguments that people put forward. Proofs and counter arguments are turned around allowing the rumor to persist.” [ This is true today, but how much more so in ancient times with widespread belief in supernatural beings interacting with people and other motivations to accept rumors.]
Page 264 “And what we find is that altogether unfounded information can circulate in society as founded information and has the same mobilizing effects” ;
“Social knowledge is based on faith not proof.”
Page 82 The most important reason we believe rumors is the rumors convey information we want to believe. It may overturn our usual criteria of realism, plausibility, the latter being governed by our desire to believe, not the other way around.
Page 84 Rumors we hear often find an echo in us - this due to belonging to a social group whose opinions, values, and attitude we share. The psychological benefits reaped in adopting and participating in rumors clearly justifies our not being punctilious about their plausibility. However, rumors must include a certain dose of realism - meaning given the state of knowledge of the public the rumor was not improbable.
Page 81 A rumor being narrated may have crucial fallacies, but the audience is not in a critical set, but in a participatory set. The story need only recount events that seem possible while we hear the story. In a social setting the unconvinced generally remain silent and no counter-argument put up.
Page 77 “It is the structural ambiguity of most events which makes them a screen upon which we project previously existing images, hypotheses and opinions: the perception of events is self-validating.”
Then there is the pleasure of grand explanations to win us over - to provide a framed order. [And what a grand tale the Exodus- Sinai stories are. No wonder they become smashing films.]
Page 79 “ A rumor is an explanatory system, i.e a hypothesis that gives order to observations. In general, when a rumor is far fetched or sophisticated, people like it.”
Page 80 “ As a rumor spreads it becomes more convincing.” Meaning to say - If people are saying the same thing it must be true right ? [One way a rumor gains a wider number of believers. A small group may start a story pass it along until it becomes widely heard.]
Page 76 Rumors are often accompanied by ‘proofs’ to endow undeniable credibility. It provide explanatory power for facts around us and satisfies a need for order in the world around us.
[ And is that not what large portions of the Bible are about ? How the world came to be. From whence the diversity of the various tribes and nations in the Ancient Near East. The Israelite's origins and role on Earth. How to maintain the good relations with G-d...]
Page 65 Rumor credibility is related to specific characteristics of the person we hear it from and the message transmitted to us. [ Would my Father lie to me ? Would Rabbi XYX lie to me ? ...] [ The Jews are the chosen people protected by the warrior god Yahweh who reveals himself at a mountain has a nice ring to it, especially if you are from that tribe.]
Page 70 What is plausible keeps getting broader and broader. [Consider Hammurabi’s claim of a code given to him by god. This can become a whole tribe got the law from god. Or consider some of the extra miracles and fanciful tales added by the midrashim to Exodus story.]
Page 36 The proverb 'where there is smoke there is fire' is ABSURD. Rumors can be 100% false. They may start in the fertile imagination of witnesses, message receivers, people who deliberately start and spread rumors. Also page 45 one reason people spread rumors are to convince. [Think propaganda for example. Could the Exodus - Sinai stories serve as propaganda ? Sure.]
Page 36 Rumors may begin in a newspaper article that though written with good intention was false. People read it and then begin to believe it. [So the Exodus story was written in a holy text with good intention, yet it was false. It could then become widely believed. The scrolls written up by the Kings and Priests was the press. Many people who found such scrolls or who read them would treat them as truth.]
Page 34 Manipulation and disinformation can spread rumors. [ Could anyone of ancient Israel’s heroes, leaders, scribes desire to manipulate and spread disinformation ? It is not beyond plausibility.]
Page 32 Rumors may start due to faulty interpretations of messages. The hearers add to or modify the message. Example: WWI the Germans newspaper reports the fall of Anvers into German hands, bells were rung. This eventually is written up in the paper Le Matin as: It has been confirmed Anvers barbaric conquerors punished priests for heroically refusing to ring church bells by hanging them upside down in the bells. [Certain anti German biases provided a fertile ground for such evolution and belief in the story. FYI Le Matin was wrong about Anvers.] “Error in fact consists in constructing information according to a plausible scenario, and rumors reflect images and stereotypes that have gained currency.” [ Biases and prior beliefs may determine what is plausible.]
Page 27 “ Sometimes there are no incident or fact or thing seen to spark a rumor." “The rumors created the fact.” [Portions or potentially all of the Exodus - Sinai story's may have no basis in reality.]
Page 24 “A troubling event/fact may give rise to a rumor. The most ‘satisfactory interpretation’ to the group [this can depend on the sort of people in the group. Ancient or Modern. Superstitions or Not. Etc: etc: ] circulates and in general is PASSED DOWN TO POSTERITY. IT IS THE ONLY INTERPRETATION THAT IS REMEMBERED." [ My caps. For example the Sinai revelation reads like a short official scripted version of the event rather than a report of all of what actually occurred. It is that version of events that get passed down. No dissenting voices are recorded. No alternative views are presented.]
Page 23 Rumors arise when info is scarce. Information has value. [ So rumors about one’s history would be welcome in ancient times. Stories about the Israelite's a grand Exodus would be welcome. ]
Page 21 Rumors can be started by Authority figures such as Pastors. [ The Scribes could thus spread rumors about a people’s history as in the Exodus. Why should people reject it ? Because the people did not hear such history from their parents ? That presumes the parent would know their own history better than the Authority figure presenting the history. It also presumes knowledge of one’s history was widely known. Such was not the case thousands of years ago. It also presumes people are skeptical. And if we have learned anything from studying rumors it is that people today and yesteryear are often not skeptical enough. It also presumes that people will reject an Authority figure presentation over a parents. Maybe, but if covered with enough sugar and application of stick the Authority figure’s presentation can gain traction. Authorities also have the means to perpetuate a story.]
Page 27 Testimony can be a source of rumors. Witnesses provide false information with the same self assurance, with same good intention as they provide true information. What we sustain sometimes reflects more our mental stereotypes that what we have really seen. Other considerations are the extent of biases, physical state of the witnesses, and their stress level. [Did the ancient Israelites have biases ? High stress levels ? Mental stereotypes ? Yes, Yes and Yes]
I will now switch to another text- Rumor Mills by Fine, Heath Editors 2005.
Page 141 “Collective memory is thus related to rumor in at least two ways. First Collective memories create fertile ground for the reception of rumor, within the structures of collective memory, certain claims ‘make sense’, are linked to a set of beliefs and attitudes about the nature of the social order, and thus appear plausible to the audience of the rumor.”
“Second, Collective memories, including memories of past rumors, can actually contribute to the production of new rumors; speaker may draw upon or refer to past events in their creation of rumor narratives.”
[Recall, Judaism really starts with Avrahum Avinu (Abraham our Father), not at Mount Sinai. God makes a covenant with Abraham. This could be part of the ancient Israelites collective memory providing fertile ground for new stories such as a new covenant with God at Mount Sinai. In addition, in developing the Exodus- Sinai stories the author(s) could draw on past memories of a law giver such as Moses, the slavery, escape and survival of some of the Israelites in the desert. These provide pieces of a story to build the grand story of Exodus-Sinai.]
I will now switch to another text- Rumors That Changed The World E. Chirovici 2015.
Beginning Page IX - In ancient times people, ( in part because of their geographical constraints) people did not distinguish between rumor and information. Recent research has revealed that our brains are not designed to make so clear a distinction, using the same cerebral region for the cognitive integration of both.
Page X - The human psychical world includes 'magical thinking' and this type of thought is the perfect ecosystem in which rumors can evolve and multiply - and this is still true today.
Page XII - Rumor can be used to manipulate, dis-inform and propagandize.
I have cited only some of the numerous facts regarding rumor formation, rumor spread, rumor acceptance, rumor use. (There is so much more if you read the literature regarding national tradition, collective memory, rumor, myth formation and marketing.) Much of what I have posted can be applied to the many potential and plausible natural ways the Exodus and Sinai mythology began, spread and eventually allegedly became to be accepted as true stories by many Jews. At times I have provided some hints as well.
We need only provide a single natural explanation consistent with ancient near east beliefs, rumor theory and human beings how a story such as Exodus - Sinai could have gained traction. In pasts posts I have already done this. Yet we can provide other scenarios. Given a choice between a natural explanations over a supernatural explanations we choose the former, even if we can not prove exactly which scenario or combinations therof actually occurred.
The Exodus - Sinai stories could have been sparked by some real historical events, a maximalist approach if you like. Or the stories could have been made up but with some plausible elements to lend credibility, a minimalist approach. Even some works of fiction have factual elements. Also, it is possible the story began amongst a small tribe of people, and the story was passed down generation after generation until it was codified by the scribes and Priests. By then the small tribe had grown in size lets say with 600000 males. That figure gets codified into the scribal story. Even Kuzari proponents don’t deny a small group of people can be mistaken. Overtime the small population grows it becomes a larger population.
Continued Kuzari Part 12
Showing posts with label Kuzari argument. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kuzari argument. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Monday, December 28, 2015
Kuzari Argument Part 10
Rabbi Gottlieb (RG) Kuzari Principle: Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.
Some of my previous Kuzari posts (begun here ) have specifically discussed this version of the Kuzari argument. In addition, some information in my prior Kuzari posts directly or indirectly apply to the RG version as well.
This post will now argue the principle is flawed for reasons I may not already have discussed (I can’t remember, as you get older you become more forgetful) and by a new example.
We find the following in the book Rumour in Orleans by Edgar Morin 1971.
“A rumour of vanishing women that shook an entire town, though not one disappearance was actually reported to the police, the near certain belief, held by thousands of Orlean’s citizens, that a white slave trade was being run from the very heart of town, in the fitting rooms six of dress shops - all Jewish though neither press, radio, nor television had one word say in support of it; a kind of medieval panic that for several days held a modern town in it’s grip, in the age of mass media; a fantastical sexual threat that suddenly conjured up the grim spectre of anti-Semitism here was story that fascinated me when I first read the account of it in Le Monde, L’Express and Le Nouvel Observateur.” Edgar Morin had studied this rumor in depth and wrote a book about it. How it starts, spreads etc:
What is important is the false story came to be believed by thousands including numerous educated people in the 1960's. The story consisted of numerous vanishing women, at one point the count was over 60. At this point I am not sure of the final tally nor if the story began to spread to other regions in France.
(Fortunately the government, police, press, media, and other groups mount a counter offensive to repudiate the story and though the story trickled away, there were still some believers. It is my understanding that even about 20-30 years later (or is it even more ?) there are French (and others ?) who think the story was true. Some claiming it was 'even written up in the news.' )
Imagine the believers in the story telling the story to their children. Potentially thousands and thousands of their descendants could potentially be believers. Would my Father lie to me ? How could so many of my relatives, and community believe it ? Such a story could not gain traction and come to believed by so many people unless there was evidence, right ?
Lets apply the RG principle to the initial recipients of the story.
Event = numerous women have been kidnapped.
Is this an event of type E ? Should there be ‘enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence” ? Yes. A large number of women disappearing in 1960's Orleans would result in hundreds if not thousands of complaints to officials, the police, the press, the radio, TV, neighbors etc: etc Such a story would be all over the newspapers, radio, TV, police bulletins. Friends and families of the kidnapped women would be coming forward with pleas. All sorts of warnings would be issued by the authorities, churches etc:. Nonetheless, the story becomes believed by thousands and it took a concerted effort to bring the rumor to a halt.
One reason the RG principle is problematic is what ‘left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence’ consists of. How do we evaluate when evidence qualifies as such or does not ?
Easily available to whom ? Who are the people that are determining the evidence ? Who are the people looking for it ? How would different people interpret the evidence ? Etc: Etc: Arguably very few if any events 'leave behind enormous, easily available evidence' that unambiguously suggest a specific event. This relates to the issue what events qualify as type E.
Another reason the principle is problematic is that people (even large groups of people) do not behave the way RG principle thinks they should. There are many who are not cool, rational, unbiased and skeptical enough. Especially when it comes to group behavior. Thus such a group may come to believe in a story of an event regardless of the sufficiency of the evidence. Once the story has traction it is passed down to the group’s progeny and even becomes accepted by people outside the group until we may have thousands and thousands who come to believe the story is true.
Maybe the Exodus - Sinai story became accepted by a small group even without sufficient evidence, (just like the Orleans story began with a small group of people). Eventually the story becomes accepted by thousands.
Would the Exodus - Sinai stories even qualify as an event of type E ? What sort of evidence was available to the Israelites ? Would that evidence suggest supernatural interventions ? As discussed in Part 9 miracles in the Torah point to natural causes. Even the revelation does so, and I would suggest reading Part 9 regarding Spinoza's commentary regarding miracles in the Bible, what was reported, how they were reported, why they were reported and how the ancient Israelites perceived events and more.
The RG principle depends on a link between event and evidence. But this only makes sense for events for which we are familiar with. For events that we know leave behind certain sorts of evidence or for evidence that we know points to certain sorts of events. Events such as say a fire burned down a house. But we have no experience with supernatural events. What sort of evidence points to supernatural event(s) ? What sort of event(s) points to evidence of supernatural ? Because that crucial link between event and evidence is broken for something involving supernatural, a case can be made supernatural is outside the scope of the RG.
What would 'enormous, easily available evidence' for supernatural event(s) such as Exodus-Sinai consist of in ancient times ? Since the ancient Israelites had no experience (I am speaking prior to the Exodus-Sinai stories) with supernatural events they would not know what such evidence would consist of. How would anybody be able to determine if the evidence they had corresponds to supernatural or perhaps something else ? The ancient Israelites could also confound natural events with supernatural causes. This is not far fetched since ancient people would ascribe supernatural involvement for all sorts of natural events.
Continued Kuzari Argument Part 11
Some of my previous Kuzari posts (begun here ) have specifically discussed this version of the Kuzari argument. In addition, some information in my prior Kuzari posts directly or indirectly apply to the RG version as well.
This post will now argue the principle is flawed for reasons I may not already have discussed (I can’t remember, as you get older you become more forgetful) and by a new example.
We find the following in the book Rumour in Orleans by Edgar Morin 1971.
“A rumour of vanishing women that shook an entire town, though not one disappearance was actually reported to the police, the near certain belief, held by thousands of Orlean’s citizens, that a white slave trade was being run from the very heart of town, in the fitting rooms six of dress shops - all Jewish though neither press, radio, nor television had one word say in support of it; a kind of medieval panic that for several days held a modern town in it’s grip, in the age of mass media; a fantastical sexual threat that suddenly conjured up the grim spectre of anti-Semitism here was story that fascinated me when I first read the account of it in Le Monde, L’Express and Le Nouvel Observateur.” Edgar Morin had studied this rumor in depth and wrote a book about it. How it starts, spreads etc:
What is important is the false story came to be believed by thousands including numerous educated people in the 1960's. The story consisted of numerous vanishing women, at one point the count was over 60. At this point I am not sure of the final tally nor if the story began to spread to other regions in France.
(Fortunately the government, police, press, media, and other groups mount a counter offensive to repudiate the story and though the story trickled away, there were still some believers. It is my understanding that even about 20-30 years later (or is it even more ?) there are French (and others ?) who think the story was true. Some claiming it was 'even written up in the news.' )
Imagine the believers in the story telling the story to their children. Potentially thousands and thousands of their descendants could potentially be believers. Would my Father lie to me ? How could so many of my relatives, and community believe it ? Such a story could not gain traction and come to believed by so many people unless there was evidence, right ?
Lets apply the RG principle to the initial recipients of the story.
Event = numerous women have been kidnapped.
Is this an event of type E ? Should there be ‘enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence” ? Yes. A large number of women disappearing in 1960's Orleans would result in hundreds if not thousands of complaints to officials, the police, the press, the radio, TV, neighbors etc: etc Such a story would be all over the newspapers, radio, TV, police bulletins. Friends and families of the kidnapped women would be coming forward with pleas. All sorts of warnings would be issued by the authorities, churches etc:. Nonetheless, the story becomes believed by thousands and it took a concerted effort to bring the rumor to a halt.
One reason the RG principle is problematic is what ‘left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence’ consists of. How do we evaluate when evidence qualifies as such or does not ?
Easily available to whom ? Who are the people that are determining the evidence ? Who are the people looking for it ? How would different people interpret the evidence ? Etc: Etc: Arguably very few if any events 'leave behind enormous, easily available evidence' that unambiguously suggest a specific event. This relates to the issue what events qualify as type E.
Another reason the principle is problematic is that people (even large groups of people) do not behave the way RG principle thinks they should. There are many who are not cool, rational, unbiased and skeptical enough. Especially when it comes to group behavior. Thus such a group may come to believe in a story of an event regardless of the sufficiency of the evidence. Once the story has traction it is passed down to the group’s progeny and even becomes accepted by people outside the group until we may have thousands and thousands who come to believe the story is true.
Maybe the Exodus - Sinai story became accepted by a small group even without sufficient evidence, (just like the Orleans story began with a small group of people). Eventually the story becomes accepted by thousands.
Would the Exodus - Sinai stories even qualify as an event of type E ? What sort of evidence was available to the Israelites ? Would that evidence suggest supernatural interventions ? As discussed in Part 9 miracles in the Torah point to natural causes. Even the revelation does so, and I would suggest reading Part 9 regarding Spinoza's commentary regarding miracles in the Bible, what was reported, how they were reported, why they were reported and how the ancient Israelites perceived events and more.
The RG principle depends on a link between event and evidence. But this only makes sense for events for which we are familiar with. For events that we know leave behind certain sorts of evidence or for evidence that we know points to certain sorts of events. Events such as say a fire burned down a house. But we have no experience with supernatural events. What sort of evidence points to supernatural event(s) ? What sort of event(s) points to evidence of supernatural ? Because that crucial link between event and evidence is broken for something involving supernatural, a case can be made supernatural is outside the scope of the RG.
What would 'enormous, easily available evidence' for supernatural event(s) such as Exodus-Sinai consist of in ancient times ? Since the ancient Israelites had no experience (I am speaking prior to the Exodus-Sinai stories) with supernatural events they would not know what such evidence would consist of. How would anybody be able to determine if the evidence they had corresponds to supernatural or perhaps something else ? The ancient Israelites could also confound natural events with supernatural causes. This is not far fetched since ancient people would ascribe supernatural involvement for all sorts of natural events.
Continued Kuzari Argument Part 11
Saturday, December 26, 2015
Proof of God from Miracles (Part 1) or Kuzari Argument Part 9
Update thru 8/6/2018 3/19/2020
When writing this post I was not sure to label it Kuzari Part 9 or Proof of God from Miracles because there is overlap. Hence the combined title of the post.
It may be helpful to skim my Kuzari posts first begun here
When very young in Yeshiva learning the Bible about all the open miracles G-d allegedly wrought on behalf of his chosen people it was almost like a proof of G-d. We had a tradition of those miracles occurring, so they must of happened right ? Plus, G-d he could do anything right ?
But even when quite young there was this nagging doubt - why did all these open miracles only happen in ancient times ?
Some religious people argue - but there are miracles still to be observed - like the birth of a child. But those sort of examples are not what a miracle is supposed to represent, something unnatural. Nor do they alleviate my doubt why no open miracles in more recent times. {ETA 3/19/2020 - If there are no supernatural agents active in our sphere, then we would not observe miracles. If there were supernatural agents active in our sphere we should be able to detect their involvement, but we have not been able to do so. The lack of observation of supernatural involvement in our sphere supports the notion that there are no supernatural agents active in our sphere.}
Some religious people then argue but G-d does do miracles for the Jews - events such as see my posts Proof of God From Gaza rockets or the Proof of God From of Israel also Proof of God from Prophecy (includes some Israel discussion) . My previous posts explain why such events are not convincing and in addition they are not open miracles. Related discussion is also found in my post Proof of God from Miraculous Recoveries...
Religious people then resort to apologetics why G-d does not perform miracles anymore. I do not find the excuses convincing.
If an open miracle could be established to have occurred beyond a shadow of a doubt I would be open to something beyond known nature exists. For example, if under scientifically controlled conditions a ‘man’ can successfully walk on water whenever we request it. That would mean the ‘man’ is a person with ‘supernatural powers’ or person able have the supernatural demonstrated thru him or an alien with powers we have no knowledge of.
So in a way even a bonafide miracle would only prove something beyond our known experience and knowledge is occurring. It may not be supernatural being(s). It may be super technological sophisticated alien beings - a better explanation than supernatural beings. But to many people the aliens would appear as ‘gods’.
Later in this post, Hume provides an example of a type of a miracle that needs to be discussed in relation to the Exodus stories. This post will also be citing some of Spinoza on Miracles. As Spinoza will demonstrate we must be careful when reading the Bible stories, that they should not be taken at face value. Also, ancient documents like Bible, were not meant to be ‘history’ as we understand the term today. They had theological, economical, local and international political purposes. Many Ancient Near East cultures would ascribe events, including natural events to the will of the God(s) - the ancient Jews being no different.
Based on Hume’s discussion of Miracles
Our everyday experience shows nature operates according to certain ‘laws’ of nature with a very high probability ( arguably 100%, since we are aware of no violation of the ‘laws’ of nature as science now understands those laws). We read about miracles in ancient texts and sometimes from reports of living witnesses or stories relayed to us by people. Yet we know there is a probability of error, a high probability of error within those ancient texts, living witnesses and stories relayed to us.
We may compare the probability of the ‘laws’ of nature of being violated versus the probability of the testimony of miracles being in error. We find the probability of the former being much less than the probability of the latter, so we reject the testimony of miracles.
Does this mean Hume intends we never accept testimony of ‘miracles’ ? Does not Hume himself propose we accept miracles under certain circumstances ? Later I will propose an answer.
I will not be citing all of Hume’s reasons and arguments to reject miracles, the interested may read his books - for example An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, from which the following is extracted from Section X - Of Miracles. All the following are quotes from Hume. I urge the reader to read every word of Hume carefully.
“...That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish...”
[We hear a story of a Priest turning a stick into a snake.
Could the story be false ? Would it be miraculous if the story was false ? What would be more miraculous the stick turning into a snake or the story being false ? ]
“For first, there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good-sense, education, and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time, attesting facts, performed in such a public manner, and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the
detection unavoidable: All which circumstances are requisite to give us a full assurance in the testimony of men.”
[ Lets begin to apply Hume’s criteria to the Bible miracles. Do we know there a sufficient number of men witnessing the miracles ? No. We only have a story in a book alleging a certain number of men. Were they unbiased ? No. Educated enough ? No. Anything to gain by the stories ? Yes. Was it public enough ? No. It was in a desert hidden from view from everybody except the very people making the claim they are chosen by God. More can be written, but enough has been said.]
[And here comes Hume’s alleged loophole to accept a miracle.]
“I [Hume] beg the limitations here made may be remarked, when I say, that a miracle can never be proved, so as to be the foundation of a system of religion. For I own, that otherwise, there may possibly be miracles, or violations of the usual course of nature, of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony; though, perhaps, it will be impossible to find any such in all the records of history. Thus, suppose, all authors, in all languages, agree, that, from the first of January 1600, there was a total darkness over the whole earth for eight days: Suppose that the tradition of this extraordinary event is still strong and lively among the people: That all travellers, who return from foreign countries, bring us accounts of the same tradition, without the least variation or contradiction: It is evident, that our present philosophers, instead of doubting the fact, ought to receive it as certain, and ought to search for the causes whence it might be derived. The decay, corruption, and dissolution of nature, is an event rendered probable by so many analogies, that any phaenomenon, which seems to have a tendency towards that catastrophe, comes within the reach of human testimony, if that testimony be very extensive and uniform.”
[Does this mean Hume would accept the ‘dark’ event as a miracle ? He seems to hedge by writing we may accept the event has having happened, but the cause needs to be researched. Anyway, would the Exodus stories qualify for an ‘acceptable’ miracle(s) ala Hume ? NO. He goes on to explain.]
“Here then we are first to consider a book [Bible], presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant people, written in an age when they were still more barbarous, and in all probability long after the facts which it relates, corroborated by no concurring testimony, and resembling those fabulous accounts, which every nation gives of its origin. Upon reading this book, we find it full of prodigies and miracles. It gives an account of a state of the world and of human nature entirely different from the present: Of our fall from that state: Of the age of man, extended to near a thousand years: Of the destruction of the world by a deluge: Of the arbitrary choice of one people, as the favourites of heaven; and that people the countrymen of the author: Of their deliverance from bondage by prodigies the most astonishing imaginable: I desire any one to lay his hand upon his heart, and after a serious consideration declare, whether he thinks that the falsehood of such a book, supported by such a testimony, would be more extraordinary and miraculous than all the miracles it relates; which is, however, necessary to make it be received, according to the measures of probability above established.”
[Hume was aware of the Exodus stories and rejects them. And for good reason. Those Kuzari proponents who think they have an ally in Hume are grossly in error.]
[ To paraphrase some other reasons Hume rejects miracles include: people’s propensity for wonder, surprise and the love of the tale. Also, the unreliability of the witnesses of the miracles who are ignorant and not skeptical enough. Also, the numerous miracles found amongst Hindus, Muslims, pagans etc: etc: opposes the miracles in a single other religion say Christianity. The Christian will probably argue all those other miracles from religions and pagans are all false for one reason or another, unreliable for one reason or another or perhaps some were real but done by Satan or even done by God for them. But our Christian miracles are reliable. Can you hear the Hindus or Muslims responding in kind ? Convinced ? ]
[ How should people react to the initial Atom Bomb dropping on Hiroshima during WWII ? Should the event been rejected using Hume ? First, I think this event would more or less qualify under Hume's hedge - and thus using Hume we should let the experts research. Second, Einstein and other scientists already thought an Atom Bomb was consistent with science, so there would be no good reason for people to reject the Atom Bomb story even if nothing like it ever occurred, even according to Hume. Third, there is nothing in Hume's argument that prevents us from accepting further discovery of 'new' "laws of nature" or the clarification of 'known' "laws of nature".]
[Does Hume apriori assume miracles are impossible ? I do not think so. Rather, the core of his argument is probabilistic. Today we do not observe 'miracles' and we have 'laws of nature' say like gravity. We have a story of a man walking on water. What is more likely a true miracle has occurred or the 'law of gravity' has been not violated ?
If you assume a supernatural being exists then you may argue that being can violate the 'law of gravity', and so walking on water is not unlikely. This is an admission that stories of miracles can not be used to 'prove' a supernatural being. In other words, you have to assume or otherwise prove that (1) a supernatural being exists and (2) it can violate the 'law of gravity'. Then it can be argued a story of a miracle is not so improbable as the Hume style argument claims.]
Based on Spinoza’s discussion of Miracles
I have mentioned Spinoza several times on my blog; he was perhaps the first Bible Philosopher to help break the bondage of my mind. We will consider Spinoza's discussion on Miracles http://sacred-texts.com/phi/spinoza/treat/tpt10.htm as found in A Theologico-Political Treatise, by Benedict de Spinoza
[We have good reason to believe the ancient Israelites were predisposed to believe in the supernatural. Confounding the situation is even natural occurrences amongst ancient peoples, including the ancient Israelites are attributed to the supernatural. So for example, if the ancient Israelites are wandering in the desert and a flock of quail happen to come their way (Exodus 16:13) they would attribute it to supernatural. Or if water issues from a rock (Exodus 17:6) that could be ascribed to supernatural. Even today many Jews attribute everyday events and the most mundane coincidences to the working of G-d.]
Here are some relevant highlights but see Spinoza for more support and examples for his contentions. I urge the reader to read every word of Spinoza carefully:
(5) In fact, the common people can only adore God, and refer all things to His power by removing natural causes, and conceiving things happening out of their due course, and only admires the power of God when the power of nature is conceived of as in subjection to it.
(6) This idea seems to have taken its rise among the early Jews who saw the Gentiles round them worshipping visible gods such as the sun, the moon, the earth, water, air, &c., and in order to inspire the conviction that such divinities were weak and inconstant, or changeable, told how they themselves were under the sway of an invisible God, and narrated their miracles, trying further to show that the God whom they worshipped arranged the whole of nature for their sole benefit: this idea was so pleasing to humanity that men go on to this day imagining miracles, so that they may believe themselves God's favourites, and the final cause for which God created and directs all things.
(7) What pretension will not people in their folly advance!....
(68) In Psalm cv. 24 it is said that God changed the hearts of the Egyptians, so that they hated the Israelites. (69) This was evidently a natural change, as appears from Exodus, chap.i., where we find no slight reason for the Egyptians reducing the Israelites to slavery....
(74) If, therefore, events are found in the Bible which we cannot refer to their causes, nay, which seem entirely to contradict the order of nature, we must not come to a stand, but assuredly believe that whatever did really happen happened naturally. (75) This view is confirmed by the fact that in the case of every miracle there were many attendant circumstances, though these were not always related, especially where the narrative was of a poetic character....
The circumstances of the miracles clearly show, I maintain, that natural causes were needed. (77) For instance, in order to infect the Egyptians with blains, it was necessary that Moses should scatter ashes in the air (Exod. ix: 10); the locusts also came upon the land of Egypt by a command of God in accordance with nature, namely, by an east wind blowing for a whole day and night; and they departed by a very strong west wind (Exod. x:14, 19). (78) By a similar Divine mandate the sea opened a way for the Jews (Exo. xiv:21), namely, by an east wind which blew very strongly all night...
(81) Wherefore we may believe that, although the circumstances attending miracles are not related always or in full detail, yet a miracle was never performed without them....
(82) This is confirmed by Exodus xiv:27, where it is simply stated that "Moses stretched forth his hand, and the waters of the sea returned to their strength in the morning," no mention being made of a wind; but in the song of Moses (Exod. xv:10) we read, "Thou didst blow with Thy wind (i.e. with a very strong wind), and the sea covered them." (83) Thus the attendant circumstance is omitted in the history, and the miracle is thereby enhanced...
I have shown that Scripture does not explain things by their secondary causes, but only narrates them in the order and the style which has most power to move men, and especially uneducated men, to devotion; and therefore it speaks inaccurately of God and of events, seeing that its object is not to convince the reason, but to attract and lay hold of the imagination....
Lastly, in order to understand, in the case of miracles, what actually took place, we ought to be familiar with Jewish phrases and metaphors; anyone who did not make sufficient allowance for these, would be continually seeing miracles in Scripture where nothing of the kind is intended by the writer; he would thus miss the knowledge not only of what actually happened, but also of the mind of the writers of the sacred text. (106) For instance, Zechariah speaking of some future war says (chap. xiv;7): "It shall be one day which shall be known to the Lord, not day, nor night; but at even time it shall be light." In these words he seems to predict a great miracle, yet he only means that the battle will be doubtful the whole day, that the issue will be known only to God, but that in the evening they will gain the victory: the prophets frequently used to predict victories and defeats of the nations in similar phrases...
In this way many occurrences in the Bible are to be regarded merely as Jewish expressions. (112) There is no need for me to go through them in detail; but I will call attention generally to the fact that the Jews employed such phrases not only rhetorically, but also, and indeed chiefly, from devotional motives. (113) Such is the reason for the substitution of "bless God" for "curse God" in 1 Kings xxi:10, and Job ii:9, and for all things being referred to God, whence it appears that the Bible seems to relate nothing but miracles, even when speaking of the most ordinary occurrences, as in the examples given above."
[It has been a long time since I studied Spinoza who wrote in the 1600's. His words still ring so true and are a breathe of fresh air.]
[There have been some scholars who have assumed some kernel of truth in the Bible stories and have used the Bible to provide clues of natural causes and thus derive some natural explanation of what may have occurred. For example - explanations of manna have ranged from various sorts of mushroom, insect, insect secretion, plant, plant secretions. So did actual miracles actually happen in the Exodus, or were natural occurring events attributed to G-d ? Even the Sinai revelation could refer a storm/ earthquake/volcano or some combination thereof.
Some may object that a natural explanation can not account for all the miraculous details of manna such as a double quantity falling the day before the Sabbath. However, those details may be later embellishments to stress Sabbath observance.
From the book The Bible As History by Werner Keller second revised edition 1995 Barnes and Noble beginning on page 124 the Egyptian Plagues still occur:
1) Bloody Nile - could be deposits from Absssinian lake which color flood waters making it look like blood.
2) At flood times - frogs, fleas can become plagues. Lice attack in swarms.
3) Nile Heat/Nile Itch the rash often develops into spreading ulcers,
4) Hail storms - rare in Nile, but can occur.
5) Locust swarms are typical.
6) Darkness - hot wind whirls up sand and block sun. Called the Simoon/Khamsin
7) Death of children ?
Page 128 Exodus 16 discusses Quails - same thing happens today - bird migration route from Africa to Europe across the Red Sea. Exhausted they land on it's shores. Even today Bedouins in the area catch quails there.]]
{ETA In the same book Werner Keller discusses the "miracle" in Exodus 17 and Numbers 20 - Moses strikes a rock and water flows. Werner provides an actual example from the 30's. Major Jarvis witnessed the Sinai Camel Corps striking a rock and getting water to flow ! Werner believes that Moses learned the method from the Midianites.}
{ETA 1/2/2018 Part two of the proof from miracles is here }
Continued Kuzari Argument Part 10
When writing this post I was not sure to label it Kuzari Part 9 or Proof of God from Miracles because there is overlap. Hence the combined title of the post.
It may be helpful to skim my Kuzari posts first begun here
When very young in Yeshiva learning the Bible about all the open miracles G-d allegedly wrought on behalf of his chosen people it was almost like a proof of G-d. We had a tradition of those miracles occurring, so they must of happened right ? Plus, G-d he could do anything right ?
But even when quite young there was this nagging doubt - why did all these open miracles only happen in ancient times ?
Some religious people argue - but there are miracles still to be observed - like the birth of a child. But those sort of examples are not what a miracle is supposed to represent, something unnatural. Nor do they alleviate my doubt why no open miracles in more recent times. {ETA 3/19/2020 - If there are no supernatural agents active in our sphere, then we would not observe miracles. If there were supernatural agents active in our sphere we should be able to detect their involvement, but we have not been able to do so. The lack of observation of supernatural involvement in our sphere supports the notion that there are no supernatural agents active in our sphere.}
Some religious people then argue but G-d does do miracles for the Jews - events such as see my posts Proof of God From Gaza rockets or the Proof of God From of Israel also Proof of God from Prophecy (includes some Israel discussion) . My previous posts explain why such events are not convincing and in addition they are not open miracles. Related discussion is also found in my post Proof of God from Miraculous Recoveries...
Religious people then resort to apologetics why G-d does not perform miracles anymore. I do not find the excuses convincing.
If an open miracle could be established to have occurred beyond a shadow of a doubt I would be open to something beyond known nature exists. For example, if under scientifically controlled conditions a ‘man’ can successfully walk on water whenever we request it. That would mean the ‘man’ is a person with ‘supernatural powers’ or person able have the supernatural demonstrated thru him or an alien with powers we have no knowledge of.
So in a way even a bonafide miracle would only prove something beyond our known experience and knowledge is occurring. It may not be supernatural being(s). It may be super technological sophisticated alien beings - a better explanation than supernatural beings. But to many people the aliens would appear as ‘gods’.
Later in this post, Hume provides an example of a type of a miracle that needs to be discussed in relation to the Exodus stories. This post will also be citing some of Spinoza on Miracles. As Spinoza will demonstrate we must be careful when reading the Bible stories, that they should not be taken at face value. Also, ancient documents like Bible, were not meant to be ‘history’ as we understand the term today. They had theological, economical, local and international political purposes. Many Ancient Near East cultures would ascribe events, including natural events to the will of the God(s) - the ancient Jews being no different.
Based on Hume’s discussion of Miracles
Our everyday experience shows nature operates according to certain ‘laws’ of nature with a very high probability ( arguably 100%, since we are aware of no violation of the ‘laws’ of nature as science now understands those laws). We read about miracles in ancient texts and sometimes from reports of living witnesses or stories relayed to us by people. Yet we know there is a probability of error, a high probability of error within those ancient texts, living witnesses and stories relayed to us.
We may compare the probability of the ‘laws’ of nature of being violated versus the probability of the testimony of miracles being in error. We find the probability of the former being much less than the probability of the latter, so we reject the testimony of miracles.
Does this mean Hume intends we never accept testimony of ‘miracles’ ? Does not Hume himself propose we accept miracles under certain circumstances ? Later I will propose an answer.
I will not be citing all of Hume’s reasons and arguments to reject miracles, the interested may read his books - for example An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, from which the following is extracted from Section X - Of Miracles. All the following are quotes from Hume. I urge the reader to read every word of Hume carefully.
“...That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish...”
[We hear a story of a Priest turning a stick into a snake.
Could the story be false ? Would it be miraculous if the story was false ? What would be more miraculous the stick turning into a snake or the story being false ? ]
“For first, there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good-sense, education, and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time, attesting facts, performed in such a public manner, and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the
detection unavoidable: All which circumstances are requisite to give us a full assurance in the testimony of men.”
[ Lets begin to apply Hume’s criteria to the Bible miracles. Do we know there a sufficient number of men witnessing the miracles ? No. We only have a story in a book alleging a certain number of men. Were they unbiased ? No. Educated enough ? No. Anything to gain by the stories ? Yes. Was it public enough ? No. It was in a desert hidden from view from everybody except the very people making the claim they are chosen by God. More can be written, but enough has been said.]
[And here comes Hume’s alleged loophole to accept a miracle.]
“I [Hume] beg the limitations here made may be remarked, when I say, that a miracle can never be proved, so as to be the foundation of a system of religion. For I own, that otherwise, there may possibly be miracles, or violations of the usual course of nature, of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony; though, perhaps, it will be impossible to find any such in all the records of history. Thus, suppose, all authors, in all languages, agree, that, from the first of January 1600, there was a total darkness over the whole earth for eight days: Suppose that the tradition of this extraordinary event is still strong and lively among the people: That all travellers, who return from foreign countries, bring us accounts of the same tradition, without the least variation or contradiction: It is evident, that our present philosophers, instead of doubting the fact, ought to receive it as certain, and ought to search for the causes whence it might be derived. The decay, corruption, and dissolution of nature, is an event rendered probable by so many analogies, that any phaenomenon, which seems to have a tendency towards that catastrophe, comes within the reach of human testimony, if that testimony be very extensive and uniform.”
[Does this mean Hume would accept the ‘dark’ event as a miracle ? He seems to hedge by writing we may accept the event has having happened, but the cause needs to be researched. Anyway, would the Exodus stories qualify for an ‘acceptable’ miracle(s) ala Hume ? NO. He goes on to explain.]
“Here then we are first to consider a book [Bible], presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant people, written in an age when they were still more barbarous, and in all probability long after the facts which it relates, corroborated by no concurring testimony, and resembling those fabulous accounts, which every nation gives of its origin. Upon reading this book, we find it full of prodigies and miracles. It gives an account of a state of the world and of human nature entirely different from the present: Of our fall from that state: Of the age of man, extended to near a thousand years: Of the destruction of the world by a deluge: Of the arbitrary choice of one people, as the favourites of heaven; and that people the countrymen of the author: Of their deliverance from bondage by prodigies the most astonishing imaginable: I desire any one to lay his hand upon his heart, and after a serious consideration declare, whether he thinks that the falsehood of such a book, supported by such a testimony, would be more extraordinary and miraculous than all the miracles it relates; which is, however, necessary to make it be received, according to the measures of probability above established.”
[Hume was aware of the Exodus stories and rejects them. And for good reason. Those Kuzari proponents who think they have an ally in Hume are grossly in error.]
[ To paraphrase some other reasons Hume rejects miracles include: people’s propensity for wonder, surprise and the love of the tale. Also, the unreliability of the witnesses of the miracles who are ignorant and not skeptical enough. Also, the numerous miracles found amongst Hindus, Muslims, pagans etc: etc: opposes the miracles in a single other religion say Christianity. The Christian will probably argue all those other miracles from religions and pagans are all false for one reason or another, unreliable for one reason or another or perhaps some were real but done by Satan or even done by God for them. But our Christian miracles are reliable. Can you hear the Hindus or Muslims responding in kind ? Convinced ? ]
[ How should people react to the initial Atom Bomb dropping on Hiroshima during WWII ? Should the event been rejected using Hume ? First, I think this event would more or less qualify under Hume's hedge - and thus using Hume we should let the experts research. Second, Einstein and other scientists already thought an Atom Bomb was consistent with science, so there would be no good reason for people to reject the Atom Bomb story even if nothing like it ever occurred, even according to Hume. Third, there is nothing in Hume's argument that prevents us from accepting further discovery of 'new' "laws of nature" or the clarification of 'known' "laws of nature".]
[Does Hume apriori assume miracles are impossible ? I do not think so. Rather, the core of his argument is probabilistic. Today we do not observe 'miracles' and we have 'laws of nature' say like gravity. We have a story of a man walking on water. What is more likely a true miracle has occurred or the 'law of gravity' has been not violated ?
If you assume a supernatural being exists then you may argue that being can violate the 'law of gravity', and so walking on water is not unlikely. This is an admission that stories of miracles can not be used to 'prove' a supernatural being. In other words, you have to assume or otherwise prove that (1) a supernatural being exists and (2) it can violate the 'law of gravity'. Then it can be argued a story of a miracle is not so improbable as the Hume style argument claims.]
Based on Spinoza’s discussion of Miracles
I have mentioned Spinoza several times on my blog; he was perhaps the first Bible Philosopher to help break the bondage of my mind. We will consider Spinoza's discussion on Miracles http://sacred-texts.com/phi/spinoza/treat/tpt10.htm as found in A Theologico-Political Treatise, by Benedict de Spinoza
[We have good reason to believe the ancient Israelites were predisposed to believe in the supernatural. Confounding the situation is even natural occurrences amongst ancient peoples, including the ancient Israelites are attributed to the supernatural. So for example, if the ancient Israelites are wandering in the desert and a flock of quail happen to come their way (Exodus 16:13) they would attribute it to supernatural. Or if water issues from a rock (Exodus 17:6) that could be ascribed to supernatural. Even today many Jews attribute everyday events and the most mundane coincidences to the working of G-d.]
Here are some relevant highlights but see Spinoza for more support and examples for his contentions. I urge the reader to read every word of Spinoza carefully:
(5) In fact, the common people can only adore God, and refer all things to His power by removing natural causes, and conceiving things happening out of their due course, and only admires the power of God when the power of nature is conceived of as in subjection to it.
(6) This idea seems to have taken its rise among the early Jews who saw the Gentiles round them worshipping visible gods such as the sun, the moon, the earth, water, air, &c., and in order to inspire the conviction that such divinities were weak and inconstant, or changeable, told how they themselves were under the sway of an invisible God, and narrated their miracles, trying further to show that the God whom they worshipped arranged the whole of nature for their sole benefit: this idea was so pleasing to humanity that men go on to this day imagining miracles, so that they may believe themselves God's favourites, and the final cause for which God created and directs all things.
(7) What pretension will not people in their folly advance!....
(68) In Psalm cv. 24 it is said that God changed the hearts of the Egyptians, so that they hated the Israelites. (69) This was evidently a natural change, as appears from Exodus, chap.i., where we find no slight reason for the Egyptians reducing the Israelites to slavery....
(74) If, therefore, events are found in the Bible which we cannot refer to their causes, nay, which seem entirely to contradict the order of nature, we must not come to a stand, but assuredly believe that whatever did really happen happened naturally. (75) This view is confirmed by the fact that in the case of every miracle there were many attendant circumstances, though these were not always related, especially where the narrative was of a poetic character....
The circumstances of the miracles clearly show, I maintain, that natural causes were needed. (77) For instance, in order to infect the Egyptians with blains, it was necessary that Moses should scatter ashes in the air (Exod. ix: 10); the locusts also came upon the land of Egypt by a command of God in accordance with nature, namely, by an east wind blowing for a whole day and night; and they departed by a very strong west wind (Exod. x:14, 19). (78) By a similar Divine mandate the sea opened a way for the Jews (Exo. xiv:21), namely, by an east wind which blew very strongly all night...
(81) Wherefore we may believe that, although the circumstances attending miracles are not related always or in full detail, yet a miracle was never performed without them....
(82) This is confirmed by Exodus xiv:27, where it is simply stated that "Moses stretched forth his hand, and the waters of the sea returned to their strength in the morning," no mention being made of a wind; but in the song of Moses (Exod. xv:10) we read, "Thou didst blow with Thy wind (i.e. with a very strong wind), and the sea covered them." (83) Thus the attendant circumstance is omitted in the history, and the miracle is thereby enhanced...
I have shown that Scripture does not explain things by their secondary causes, but only narrates them in the order and the style which has most power to move men, and especially uneducated men, to devotion; and therefore it speaks inaccurately of God and of events, seeing that its object is not to convince the reason, but to attract and lay hold of the imagination....
Lastly, in order to understand, in the case of miracles, what actually took place, we ought to be familiar with Jewish phrases and metaphors; anyone who did not make sufficient allowance for these, would be continually seeing miracles in Scripture where nothing of the kind is intended by the writer; he would thus miss the knowledge not only of what actually happened, but also of the mind of the writers of the sacred text. (106) For instance, Zechariah speaking of some future war says (chap. xiv;7): "It shall be one day which shall be known to the Lord, not day, nor night; but at even time it shall be light." In these words he seems to predict a great miracle, yet he only means that the battle will be doubtful the whole day, that the issue will be known only to God, but that in the evening they will gain the victory: the prophets frequently used to predict victories and defeats of the nations in similar phrases...
In this way many occurrences in the Bible are to be regarded merely as Jewish expressions. (112) There is no need for me to go through them in detail; but I will call attention generally to the fact that the Jews employed such phrases not only rhetorically, but also, and indeed chiefly, from devotional motives. (113) Such is the reason for the substitution of "bless God" for "curse God" in 1 Kings xxi:10, and Job ii:9, and for all things being referred to God, whence it appears that the Bible seems to relate nothing but miracles, even when speaking of the most ordinary occurrences, as in the examples given above."
[It has been a long time since I studied Spinoza who wrote in the 1600's. His words still ring so true and are a breathe of fresh air.]
[There have been some scholars who have assumed some kernel of truth in the Bible stories and have used the Bible to provide clues of natural causes and thus derive some natural explanation of what may have occurred. For example - explanations of manna have ranged from various sorts of mushroom, insect, insect secretion, plant, plant secretions. So did actual miracles actually happen in the Exodus, or were natural occurring events attributed to G-d ? Even the Sinai revelation could refer a storm/ earthquake/volcano or some combination thereof.
Some may object that a natural explanation can not account for all the miraculous details of manna such as a double quantity falling the day before the Sabbath. However, those details may be later embellishments to stress Sabbath observance.
From the book The Bible As History by Werner Keller second revised edition 1995 Barnes and Noble beginning on page 124 the Egyptian Plagues still occur:
1) Bloody Nile - could be deposits from Absssinian lake which color flood waters making it look like blood.
2) At flood times - frogs, fleas can become plagues. Lice attack in swarms.
3) Nile Heat/Nile Itch the rash often develops into spreading ulcers,
4) Hail storms - rare in Nile, but can occur.
5) Locust swarms are typical.
6) Darkness - hot wind whirls up sand and block sun. Called the Simoon/Khamsin
7) Death of children ?
Page 128 Exodus 16 discusses Quails - same thing happens today - bird migration route from Africa to Europe across the Red Sea. Exhausted they land on it's shores. Even today Bedouins in the area catch quails there.]]
{ETA In the same book Werner Keller discusses the "miracle" in Exodus 17 and Numbers 20 - Moses strikes a rock and water flows. Werner provides an actual example from the 30's. Major Jarvis witnessed the Sinai Camel Corps striking a rock and getting water to flow ! Werner believes that Moses learned the method from the Midianites.}
{ETA 1/2/2018 Part two of the proof from miracles is here }
Continued Kuzari Argument Part 10
Monday, November 30, 2015
Kuzari Argument Part 8
It would be helpful to skim my prior Kuzari posts begun in Part One
Lets examine one version of the Kuzari 'proof' that the Exodus with all the miracles and the Sinai revelation really occurred.
Rabbi Gottlieb (RG) Principle: Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.
This can be briefly restated as: If people believe an event {eta 3/19/2019 of type E} occurred, then evidence must exist for the event's occurrence.
Lets try to apply this principle to the ‘Event’ = Miracles of Exodus and Sinai Revelation.
If the ancient Israelites believed the Miracles of Exodus and Sinai Revelation occurred, then evidence must have existed for the Miracles of Exodus and Sinai Revelation occurrence.
My Kuzari Post 7 post mentions the Hindu Milk Miracle and Kamikaze are examples showing people can misinterpret Events. In ancient times people would ascribe natural occurrences to supernatural. So something similar could well have occurred to the ancient Israelites - the first generation.
Lets assume it was not possible those ancient Israelites could have mis-categorized the Miracles of Exodus and Sinai Revelation. Then I raise this issue. How do we know the Ancient Israelites actually believed in the stories ? We cant go back in time and ask them about their beliefs. Just after the revelation they claimed the Golden Calf took them out of Egypt. How could they claim such a thing ? In any event we just don’t know if the ancient Israelites actually believed in the Exodus miracles and Sinai Revelation. Thus the RG principle is inapplicable.
The Kuzari proponent may argue that at some later point in time many Jews believed the Miracles of Exodus and Sinai Revelation occurred. Lets assume that is true. However, it does not imply the original ancient Israelites believed the events to have actually occurred. So still RG principle does not apply.
The Kuzari proponent may then argue it was impossible for the later generation of Jews to ever come to the belief in the story unless there is an unbroken chain back to the original witnesses.
But this is a different argument - it is not the RG principle.
We know national traditions are not reliable. Also, there is something called myth formation. Over time for numerous different reasons a national foundation myth could have evolved and may have been built around some kernels of historical memory. Some ancient Israelites may have been escaped Egyptians slaves. They may have found food and water in their wanderings. Maybe a leader called Moshe gave them laws at a mountain during a storm and or volcanic eruption and or earthquake. Even while all that was occurring some it could have been attributed to the divine, such was the nature of some ancient near east cultures.
As the story is told and retold embellishments are added for various reasons. Our ancestors did not just find food it was miraculous food etc: etc:
To summarize: the RG principle can not be used to ‘prove’ the Exodus etc: because we have no convincing evidence that the first generation of Israelites believed it. Rather, RG's real argument is that myth formation is not a reasonable explanation of the alleged acceptance by many Jews of the Exodus stories. Given that we know myths (even when false) can evolve and become accepted and given that we know national tradition, collective memories, social memory are not reliable - RG’s Kuzari argument is very weak. This is not to say the entire Exodus story is all a fabrication, just that we need not accept the story as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Continued Proof of God from Miracles or Kuzari Argument Part 9
Lets examine one version of the Kuzari 'proof' that the Exodus with all the miracles and the Sinai revelation really occurred.
Rabbi Gottlieb (RG) Principle: Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.
This can be briefly restated as: If people believe an event {eta 3/19/2019 of type E} occurred, then evidence must exist for the event's occurrence.
Lets try to apply this principle to the ‘Event’ = Miracles of Exodus and Sinai Revelation.
If the ancient Israelites believed the Miracles of Exodus and Sinai Revelation occurred, then evidence must have existed for the Miracles of Exodus and Sinai Revelation occurrence.
My Kuzari Post 7 post mentions the Hindu Milk Miracle and Kamikaze are examples showing people can misinterpret Events. In ancient times people would ascribe natural occurrences to supernatural. So something similar could well have occurred to the ancient Israelites - the first generation.
Lets assume it was not possible those ancient Israelites could have mis-categorized the Miracles of Exodus and Sinai Revelation. Then I raise this issue. How do we know the Ancient Israelites actually believed in the stories ? We cant go back in time and ask them about their beliefs. Just after the revelation they claimed the Golden Calf took them out of Egypt. How could they claim such a thing ? In any event we just don’t know if the ancient Israelites actually believed in the Exodus miracles and Sinai Revelation. Thus the RG principle is inapplicable.
The Kuzari proponent may argue that at some later point in time many Jews believed the Miracles of Exodus and Sinai Revelation occurred. Lets assume that is true. However, it does not imply the original ancient Israelites believed the events to have actually occurred. So still RG principle does not apply.
The Kuzari proponent may then argue it was impossible for the later generation of Jews to ever come to the belief in the story unless there is an unbroken chain back to the original witnesses.
But this is a different argument - it is not the RG principle.
We know national traditions are not reliable. Also, there is something called myth formation. Over time for numerous different reasons a national foundation myth could have evolved and may have been built around some kernels of historical memory. Some ancient Israelites may have been escaped Egyptians slaves. They may have found food and water in their wanderings. Maybe a leader called Moshe gave them laws at a mountain during a storm and or volcanic eruption and or earthquake. Even while all that was occurring some it could have been attributed to the divine, such was the nature of some ancient near east cultures.
As the story is told and retold embellishments are added for various reasons. Our ancestors did not just find food it was miraculous food etc: etc:
To summarize: the RG principle can not be used to ‘prove’ the Exodus etc: because we have no convincing evidence that the first generation of Israelites believed it. Rather, RG's real argument is that myth formation is not a reasonable explanation of the alleged acceptance by many Jews of the Exodus stories. Given that we know myths (even when false) can evolve and become accepted and given that we know national tradition, collective memories, social memory are not reliable - RG’s Kuzari argument is very weak. This is not to say the entire Exodus story is all a fabrication, just that we need not accept the story as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Continued Proof of God from Miracles or Kuzari Argument Part 9
Monday, November 16, 2015
Kuzari Argument Part 7
Updated thru 11/16/2015
This post continues the Kuzari Argument discussion begun in Part One and will provide some salient points from Propp; provide an example of invented tradition; and Kamikaze attacks a Kuzari argument.
It would probably help to first skim all my prior Kuzari posts.
Propp
William Propp’s Anchor Bible Exodus Chapter 19-40 published in 2006 provides a version of the Kuzari argument: Surely the Exodus was common knowledge in Ancient Israel. Who would make up the Exodus ?
Propp responds:
1) The story conforms to rags to riches stories popular worldwide and conforms to Vladimiar Proppian Archetype.
2) Who would falsely claim ancestors are slaves ? Propp answers this with a counter question - Who would falsely claim their ancestors came to the USA with only a shirts on their back ?
3) It is not a fact that the average Israelite believed in the Exodus. It is merely a reasonable assumption.
4) Orally transmitted tales often DO NOT reflect actual events. Moreover, historic events may assume mythic guise and visa versa. Stories can move back and forth between the written and oral. Propp writes: “I would always treat oral tradition with the most extreme caution.”
5) The Exodus story does not map well against the historical and archaeological record. In fact, it hardly maps at all.
6) Regarding the routes of Exodus - Propp mentions the possibility it never happened.
7) Mytho-historical narratives may be entirely factual or entirely fictional or something in between.
Invention of Tradition
From the book The Invention of Tradition Hobsbawm and Ranger (editors)1983
Page 1 “Traditions which appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented.”
Page 15 “Today whenever Scotchmen gather together to celebrate their national identity, they assert openly by certain distinctive national apparatus.” “This apparatus, to which they ascribe great antiquity is in fact largely modern.” “Indeed the whole concept of a distinct Highland culture and tradition is a retrospective invention.”
This example of inventing tradition occurred in 3 stages.
Stage 1: A culture revolt against Ireland; Usurpation of Irish culture; rewriting early Scottish history.
Stage 2: Creation of a New Highland tradition presented as ancient, original and distinctive,
Stage 3: The new tradition were offered to and adopted by historic lowland Scotland, Eastern Scotland of the Picts, Saxons and Norman.
The book provides other examples of how national traditions can be created and then accepted. Sometimes a kernel of historical accuracy may provide a seed for the national tradition.
[In short, legends, myths, national traditions, collective memories, social memory may not be reliable.]
Kamikaze Attack on a Kuzari Argument
Here is one version of the Kuzari argument:
Rabbi Gottlieb (RG) : Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.
This can be briefly restated as: If people believe an event {eta 3/19/2019 of type E} occurred, then evidence must exist for the event's occurrence.
Les explore how evidence and belief may interact.
1) The Hindu milk miracle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_milk_miracle is example how evidence can be misinterpreted (even in modern times) and lead to false beliefs. And this is occurring in the first generation of the occurrence of the event ! Overtime as the story is told and retold all sorts of embellishments may overlaid.
Using RG:
If people believe the Hindu statues drank milk offerings, then evidence must exist for the statues drinking milk offerings.
Indeed RG’s principle works here. People witnessed the statues imbibing milk offerings. However, it led them to a false belief.
2) Lets be clear. There is no evidence that Exodus miracles and Sinai revelation occurred. So what ‘evidence’ is RG claiming to exist for it ? Social memory (or collective memory or national tradition.)
So lets rephrase RG
Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind a collective memory of its occurrence. If the collective memory does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.
Said directly this gives: If people believe an event {ETA 10/29/2019 of type E} occurred then there exists a collective memory of the event.
Yet a collective memory of an event does not at all imply the event actually occurred as described by the collective memory.
Consider the Kamikaze belief. It’s Japanese origins are that divine winds(s) dispersed the Mongolian invasion fleets around the late 1200's. I think there were major typhoons that were involved. But the evidence - typhoons was misunderstood as being divine.
{Literally meaning “divine wind,” the term kamikaze was coined in honour of the 1281 typhoon, as it was perceived to be a gift from the gods, supposedly granted after a retired emperor went on a pilgrimage and prayed for divine intervention. http://www.britannica.com/event/kamikaze-of-1274-and-1281 }
Again, superstitious unscientific people can misunderstand the ‘evidence’ thus giving rise to a widely held false belief. It is also an example of people ascribing naturally occurring events (Typhoons) to the God(s).
Indeed RG’s principle works here. People witnessed the typhoon's destruction. However, it led them to a false belief.
Once a false belief gains traction, it can become embellished over time.
The RG principle may perhaps have validity to distinguish whether a real world event occurred or not. For example whether a Volcano erupted - we can study the geology etc: But the RG principle can not reliably distinguish between people's beliefs that are true and people's beliefs that are false.
Continued Kuzari Part 8
This post continues the Kuzari Argument discussion begun in Part One and will provide some salient points from Propp; provide an example of invented tradition; and Kamikaze attacks a Kuzari argument.
It would probably help to first skim all my prior Kuzari posts.
Propp
William Propp’s Anchor Bible Exodus Chapter 19-40 published in 2006 provides a version of the Kuzari argument: Surely the Exodus was common knowledge in Ancient Israel. Who would make up the Exodus ?
Propp responds:
1) The story conforms to rags to riches stories popular worldwide and conforms to Vladimiar Proppian Archetype.
2) Who would falsely claim ancestors are slaves ? Propp answers this with a counter question - Who would falsely claim their ancestors came to the USA with only a shirts on their back ?
3) It is not a fact that the average Israelite believed in the Exodus. It is merely a reasonable assumption.
4) Orally transmitted tales often DO NOT reflect actual events. Moreover, historic events may assume mythic guise and visa versa. Stories can move back and forth between the written and oral. Propp writes: “I would always treat oral tradition with the most extreme caution.”
5) The Exodus story does not map well against the historical and archaeological record. In fact, it hardly maps at all.
6) Regarding the routes of Exodus - Propp mentions the possibility it never happened.
7) Mytho-historical narratives may be entirely factual or entirely fictional or something in between.
Invention of Tradition
From the book The Invention of Tradition Hobsbawm and Ranger (editors)1983
Page 1 “Traditions which appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented.”
Page 15 “Today whenever Scotchmen gather together to celebrate their national identity, they assert openly by certain distinctive national apparatus.” “This apparatus, to which they ascribe great antiquity is in fact largely modern.” “Indeed the whole concept of a distinct Highland culture and tradition is a retrospective invention.”
This example of inventing tradition occurred in 3 stages.
Stage 1: A culture revolt against Ireland; Usurpation of Irish culture; rewriting early Scottish history.
Stage 2: Creation of a New Highland tradition presented as ancient, original and distinctive,
Stage 3: The new tradition were offered to and adopted by historic lowland Scotland, Eastern Scotland of the Picts, Saxons and Norman.
The book provides other examples of how national traditions can be created and then accepted. Sometimes a kernel of historical accuracy may provide a seed for the national tradition.
[In short, legends, myths, national traditions, collective memories, social memory may not be reliable.]
Kamikaze Attack on a Kuzari Argument
Here is one version of the Kuzari argument:
Rabbi Gottlieb (RG) : Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.
This can be briefly restated as: If people believe an event {eta 3/19/2019 of type E} occurred, then evidence must exist for the event's occurrence.
Les explore how evidence and belief may interact.
1) The Hindu milk miracle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_milk_miracle is example how evidence can be misinterpreted (even in modern times) and lead to false beliefs. And this is occurring in the first generation of the occurrence of the event ! Overtime as the story is told and retold all sorts of embellishments may overlaid.
Using RG:
If people believe the Hindu statues drank milk offerings, then evidence must exist for the statues drinking milk offerings.
Indeed RG’s principle works here. People witnessed the statues imbibing milk offerings. However, it led them to a false belief.
2) Lets be clear. There is no evidence that Exodus miracles and Sinai revelation occurred. So what ‘evidence’ is RG claiming to exist for it ? Social memory (or collective memory or national tradition.)
So lets rephrase RG
Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind a collective memory of its occurrence. If the collective memory does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.
Said directly this gives: If people believe an event {ETA 10/29/2019 of type E} occurred then there exists a collective memory of the event.
Yet a collective memory of an event does not at all imply the event actually occurred as described by the collective memory.
Consider the Kamikaze belief. It’s Japanese origins are that divine winds(s) dispersed the Mongolian invasion fleets around the late 1200's. I think there were major typhoons that were involved. But the evidence - typhoons was misunderstood as being divine.
{Literally meaning “divine wind,” the term kamikaze was coined in honour of the 1281 typhoon, as it was perceived to be a gift from the gods, supposedly granted after a retired emperor went on a pilgrimage and prayed for divine intervention. http://www.britannica.com/event/kamikaze-of-1274-and-1281 }
Again, superstitious unscientific people can misunderstand the ‘evidence’ thus giving rise to a widely held false belief. It is also an example of people ascribing naturally occurring events (Typhoons) to the God(s).
Indeed RG’s principle works here. People witnessed the typhoon's destruction. However, it led them to a false belief.
Once a false belief gains traction, it can become embellished over time.
The RG principle may perhaps have validity to distinguish whether a real world event occurred or not. For example whether a Volcano erupted - we can study the geology etc: But the RG principle can not reliably distinguish between people's beliefs that are true and people's beliefs that are false.
Continued Kuzari Part 8
Friday, September 4, 2015
Kuzari Argument Part 6
Updated thru 11/5/2015
This is a continuation of my Kuzari argument posts begun at Kuzari Argument Part One , but I think may be read as a stand alone.
The Kuzari argument sometimes takes the ‘uniqueness’ path that the Sinai story is unique and therefore it must have happened. This has been addressed in my prior Kuzari posts explaining that there are parallels to the Sinai story and moreover uniqueness does not remotely imply the Sinai story actually happened.
{ETA 11/5/2015 We find amongst many people claims of Supernatural and mountains, Supernatural speaking, Supernatural giving laws, seeing Supernatural, miracles, masses of people being misled or mistaken to believe inaccurate information, myths or stories becoming embellished over time and nation boasting-propaganda. There is the Pygmy claims, the WBCW story, and other claimed supernatural events etc: etc: most of which has been documented in my prior Kuzari posts and others.
Hence, many if not all the pieces of the Sinai 'puzzle' have known empirical parallels. So, under certain conditions the Exodus - Sinai Nation Foundation Myth could have developed or evolved over time. Maybe it is was not EASY and the Tenach hints at that - all the Idolatry and rebellions.
To refute the Kuzari - it is not required to show a counter story that has a combination of pieces just like found in the Sinai story. It is sufficient to show that most if not all the pieces of the Sinai story occur among other peoples.}
Sometimes the Kuzari takes the ‘generalist’ path which has been discussed a bit in my prior posts and will be fleshed out a little in this post.
Premise 1 - All national traditions involving an event that occurred to that nation are empirically known to be true or likely to be true and therefore they should not be doubted. Said another way, there are no known such national traditions that are known to be false, hence we should not doubt such national traditions.
Premise 2 - The story of the Sinai revelation is such a national tradition
Conclusion - The Sinai revelation being such a national tradition should not be doubted.
Premise 1
The terms ‘national’, ‘tradition’, ‘event’, 'occurred to' would have to be more clearly defined, but lets ignore that for now. Also, how many people of the 'nation' are required to make it a 'national tradition' ? How do we determine if the tradition is a national one ? Even ‘known to be true or likely be true’ is not clear. For example, perhaps some parts of the national tradition have truth but other parts do not. In short, we need to refine and qualify Premise 1 much more to determine under what circumstances Premise 1 is valid. For example a particular Native American Indian tribe may have a tradition that a genocidal war was waged against them by the USA. But many in the USA will say that is not at all how it happened. So we have conflicting views, conflicting evidences etc:
In addition, historians do not accept such national traditions as having actually occurred, just because they are national traditions.
Moreover, we don't accept such national traditions as being true or likely true just because we have not found any such national traditions that are false. Maybe if we look harder we may find one. Said another way, we don't accept a premise just because there are no counter examples to the premise. For example: We should not accept the premise every Gorilla has blackish hair because we know of no non blackish haired Gorillas. (Turns out there has been found at least one Gorilla that is white haired.)
But for now lets accept Premise 1 as valid. {ETA 10/28/2015 What I mean is disregard the objections to Premise 1 outlined above. }
What are some examples of such national traditions that would probably qualify ? The assassination of the United States of America’s President Kennedy. The bombing of Pear Harbor by the Japanese in the 1930's. The New York Mets won the 1969 Baseball World Series.
Premise 2
I argue that every national tradition that we know is true or likely to be true, never involved a divine revelation. (Maybe some would disagree, {eta 11/5/2015 and argue} that the NY Mets example would be a miracle and indicative of supernatural intervention. Just a little humor. ) Said another way, Premise 1 at best would only be valid for events not involving supernatural things. {ETA 11/5/2015 For two ways to support Premise 1, and my response see below. }
Therefore Premise 2 is wrong. The Sinai story involving supernatural events would not qualify for the type of national traditions that we know are true or likely to be true. So the logic of the argument collapses.
{ETA 10/28/2015 Alternately, for the reasons outlined initially one may argue Premise 1 is invalid or weak even for events not involving supernatural things. Hence the Kuzari argument collapses.}
{ETA 10/29/2015 There is an important consideration regarding Premise 1 that must be mentioned. If there are good reasons to question the historicity of a specific national tradition, we must not use Premise 1 for those traditions. In other words Premise 1 would not be valid for certain national traditions. If there are good reasons to question the historicity of the Exodus as described in the Torah, Premise 1 would not apply. Academic literature provides good reasons to question the historicity of an Exodus of biblical proportions. } {ETA 11/5/2015 If there is false information in the Exodus - Sinai story, the Kuzari would lose plenty of force. For example - it is claimed there were 600000 plus people involved and we know that is very improbable. Given that the story most likely has an important error, then maybe there are additional important errors. It would imply the story tellers were inaccurate. If a story is presented to prove a supernatural being the story needs be supportable. It must not have incorrect information.}
{ETA 11/5/2015
I provided one version of Premise 1 used by some Kuzari arguments. Here is another.
Premise 1 - All national traditions involving nation changing events are true or likely to be true.
How can somebody support this Premise ? Because we examine many of examples of such traditions from actual history and they all turn out to be true or likely true. Yet, every one of those examples did not involve supernatural. Hence Premise 1 is limited to traditions not involving supernatural. In short, one can not extrapolate beyond the sample experiences that support Premise 1.
If one tries to support Premise 1 based on ‘logic’ how people ‘should’ behave, it becomes a very weak premise. People or even masses of people do not behave based on alleged logic or how people ‘should’ behave. For example, if an important Authority tells a nation a good story about it’s people how many people are going to use ‘logic’ and argue, especially if the story is encouraged or is helpful to achieve something for it's people ? This is true today even with widespread information, and would be truer in ancient times when people were not as skeptical and would welcome such stories.}
{ETA 11/5/2015
I provided two versions of Premise 1 used by some Kuzari arguments. Here is a third.
Premise 1 - All national traditions of a nation changing event, which claim there were a very large number of people in the event and the tradition provides onerous ritual/commands and are from a literate society are true or likely to be true.
How can somebody support this Premise ? Because we examine many of examples of such traditions from actual history and they all turn out to be true or likely true. But the problem we run into there are no such national traditions to be found in the records. And even if we could find several, the sample space is to small to draw firm conclusions. It may also be the case only one tradition, the Sinai story would even qualify for the premise. So we can not verify the premise based on empirical grounds.
Yet, even if we could find several traditions that did satisfy Premise 1 every one of those examples did not involve supernatural. Hence Premise 1 is limited to traditions not involving supernatural. In short, one can not extrapolate beyond the sample experiences that support Premise 1.
If one tries to support Premise 1 based on ‘logic’ how people ‘should’ behave, it becomes a very weak premise. People or even masses of people do not behave based on alleged logic or how people ‘should’ behave. For example, if an important Authority tells a nation a good story about it’s people how many people are going to use ‘logic’ and argue, especially if the story is encouraged or is helpful to achieve something for it's people ? This is true today even with widespread information, and would be truer in ancient times when people were not as skeptical and would welcome such stories.}
{ETA 9/16/2015 - my first post on the Kuzari argument/principle has been updated to provide strong evidence that the story of White Buffalo Calf Woman giving the Sacred Pipe to the Lakota was part of the traditional Lakota religion and believed by many Chiefs, Holy Men and common people to have actually occurred.}
Continued Kuzari Argument Part 7
This is a continuation of my Kuzari argument posts begun at Kuzari Argument Part One , but I think may be read as a stand alone.
The Kuzari argument sometimes takes the ‘uniqueness’ path that the Sinai story is unique and therefore it must have happened. This has been addressed in my prior Kuzari posts explaining that there are parallels to the Sinai story and moreover uniqueness does not remotely imply the Sinai story actually happened.
{ETA 11/5/2015 We find amongst many people claims of Supernatural and mountains, Supernatural speaking, Supernatural giving laws, seeing Supernatural, miracles, masses of people being misled or mistaken to believe inaccurate information, myths or stories becoming embellished over time and nation boasting-propaganda. There is the Pygmy claims, the WBCW story, and other claimed supernatural events etc: etc: most of which has been documented in my prior Kuzari posts and others.
Hence, many if not all the pieces of the Sinai 'puzzle' have known empirical parallels. So, under certain conditions the Exodus - Sinai Nation Foundation Myth could have developed or evolved over time. Maybe it is was not EASY and the Tenach hints at that - all the Idolatry and rebellions.
To refute the Kuzari - it is not required to show a counter story that has a combination of pieces just like found in the Sinai story. It is sufficient to show that most if not all the pieces of the Sinai story occur among other peoples.}
Sometimes the Kuzari takes the ‘generalist’ path which has been discussed a bit in my prior posts and will be fleshed out a little in this post.
Premise 1 - All national traditions involving an event that occurred to that nation are empirically known to be true or likely to be true and therefore they should not be doubted. Said another way, there are no known such national traditions that are known to be false, hence we should not doubt such national traditions.
Premise 2 - The story of the Sinai revelation is such a national tradition
Conclusion - The Sinai revelation being such a national tradition should not be doubted.
Premise 1
The terms ‘national’, ‘tradition’, ‘event’, 'occurred to' would have to be more clearly defined, but lets ignore that for now. Also, how many people of the 'nation' are required to make it a 'national tradition' ? How do we determine if the tradition is a national one ? Even ‘known to be true or likely be true’ is not clear. For example, perhaps some parts of the national tradition have truth but other parts do not. In short, we need to refine and qualify Premise 1 much more to determine under what circumstances Premise 1 is valid. For example a particular Native American Indian tribe may have a tradition that a genocidal war was waged against them by the USA. But many in the USA will say that is not at all how it happened. So we have conflicting views, conflicting evidences etc:
In addition, historians do not accept such national traditions as having actually occurred, just because they are national traditions.
Moreover, we don't accept such national traditions as being true or likely true just because we have not found any such national traditions that are false. Maybe if we look harder we may find one. Said another way, we don't accept a premise just because there are no counter examples to the premise. For example: We should not accept the premise every Gorilla has blackish hair because we know of no non blackish haired Gorillas. (Turns out there has been found at least one Gorilla that is white haired.)
But for now lets accept Premise 1 as valid. {ETA 10/28/2015 What I mean is disregard the objections to Premise 1 outlined above. }
What are some examples of such national traditions that would probably qualify ? The assassination of the United States of America’s President Kennedy. The bombing of Pear Harbor by the Japanese in the 1930's. The New York Mets won the 1969 Baseball World Series.
Premise 2
I argue that every national tradition that we know is true or likely to be true, never involved a divine revelation. (Maybe some would disagree, {eta 11/5/2015 and argue} that the NY Mets example would be a miracle and indicative of supernatural intervention. Just a little humor. ) Said another way, Premise 1 at best would only be valid for events not involving supernatural things. {ETA 11/5/2015 For two ways to support Premise 1, and my response see below. }
Therefore Premise 2 is wrong. The Sinai story involving supernatural events would not qualify for the type of national traditions that we know are true or likely to be true. So the logic of the argument collapses.
{ETA 10/28/2015 Alternately, for the reasons outlined initially one may argue Premise 1 is invalid or weak even for events not involving supernatural things. Hence the Kuzari argument collapses.}
{ETA 10/29/2015 There is an important consideration regarding Premise 1 that must be mentioned. If there are good reasons to question the historicity of a specific national tradition, we must not use Premise 1 for those traditions. In other words Premise 1 would not be valid for certain national traditions. If there are good reasons to question the historicity of the Exodus as described in the Torah, Premise 1 would not apply. Academic literature provides good reasons to question the historicity of an Exodus of biblical proportions. } {ETA 11/5/2015 If there is false information in the Exodus - Sinai story, the Kuzari would lose plenty of force. For example - it is claimed there were 600000 plus people involved and we know that is very improbable. Given that the story most likely has an important error, then maybe there are additional important errors. It would imply the story tellers were inaccurate. If a story is presented to prove a supernatural being the story needs be supportable. It must not have incorrect information.}
{ETA 11/5/2015
I provided one version of Premise 1 used by some Kuzari arguments. Here is another.
Premise 1 - All national traditions involving nation changing events are true or likely to be true.
How can somebody support this Premise ? Because we examine many of examples of such traditions from actual history and they all turn out to be true or likely true. Yet, every one of those examples did not involve supernatural. Hence Premise 1 is limited to traditions not involving supernatural. In short, one can not extrapolate beyond the sample experiences that support Premise 1.
If one tries to support Premise 1 based on ‘logic’ how people ‘should’ behave, it becomes a very weak premise. People or even masses of people do not behave based on alleged logic or how people ‘should’ behave. For example, if an important Authority tells a nation a good story about it’s people how many people are going to use ‘logic’ and argue, especially if the story is encouraged or is helpful to achieve something for it's people ? This is true today even with widespread information, and would be truer in ancient times when people were not as skeptical and would welcome such stories.}
{ETA 11/5/2015
I provided two versions of Premise 1 used by some Kuzari arguments. Here is a third.
Premise 1 - All national traditions of a nation changing event, which claim there were a very large number of people in the event and the tradition provides onerous ritual/commands and are from a literate society are true or likely to be true.
How can somebody support this Premise ? Because we examine many of examples of such traditions from actual history and they all turn out to be true or likely true. But the problem we run into there are no such national traditions to be found in the records. And even if we could find several, the sample space is to small to draw firm conclusions. It may also be the case only one tradition, the Sinai story would even qualify for the premise. So we can not verify the premise based on empirical grounds.
Yet, even if we could find several traditions that did satisfy Premise 1 every one of those examples did not involve supernatural. Hence Premise 1 is limited to traditions not involving supernatural. In short, one can not extrapolate beyond the sample experiences that support Premise 1.
If one tries to support Premise 1 based on ‘logic’ how people ‘should’ behave, it becomes a very weak premise. People or even masses of people do not behave based on alleged logic or how people ‘should’ behave. For example, if an important Authority tells a nation a good story about it’s people how many people are going to use ‘logic’ and argue, especially if the story is encouraged or is helpful to achieve something for it's people ? This is true today even with widespread information, and would be truer in ancient times when people were not as skeptical and would welcome such stories.}
{ETA 9/16/2015 - my first post on the Kuzari argument/principle has been updated to provide strong evidence that the story of White Buffalo Calf Woman giving the Sacred Pipe to the Lakota was part of the traditional Lakota religion and believed by many Chiefs, Holy Men and common people to have actually occurred.}
Continued Kuzari Argument Part 7
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Kuzari Part 5
This post is a continuation of the Kuzari ‘proof/argument of Judaism’ begun here. I would recommend at least skimming the prior four posts.
Kuzari proponents often ask if there are any parallels to the Sinai story. Are there examples of a group of people claiming that god reveals himself to them ? My prior posts have described stories having parallels to the Sinai story. I have come across another that would qualify.
In the book Pygmy Kitabu by Jean-Pierre Hallet and Alex Palle 1973, it is documented many customs, laws, myths, philosophies, and stories of the Pygmies of Africa. Hallet had lived with them for many years and thus had first hand experience and knowledge of the Pygmies.
Page 53 "The Western Pygmy men informed Anthropologist Trilles that the deity dwelled with them during the first ages of man."
Page 106-107 The Pygmies say “In the beginning, God lived with men and gave them his commandments.” Some of Pygmy 'laws' are similar to the 10 commandments. [Probably to account for the fact that God is no longer seen among them, they also claim he ascended to heaven.]
Page 111 - “The Pygmies say in ancient times their Lawgiving Father-God-King reigned near Ruwenzori; the mountains of the moon.” “In this neighborhood, according to the Pygmies they received the deity’s laws and commandments.” [And in the Tenach, Yahweh is associated with certain mountain ranges and God gives the commandments at Mount Sinai. At least the Pygmies know the location of the mountain of God where God provides the laws, something the Jews do not know.]
Page 117 Interestingly, that African area has experienced a major volcano eruption from which dusts, ashes, rocks were spewed up and poisoned life and also killed fish. [This sounds somewhat similar to some of the 10 plagues in Exodus.]
How could such stories gain traction amongst the Pygmies ?
It may be argued that when the Christian and Muslim invaded their country the Pygmies came in contact with Biblical stories and adopted/adapted them. But that is irrelevant, because using the Kuzari argument the stories should have never gained traction at all. In addition, the book argues it is unlikely the Pygmies learned the stories from the Christians or Muslims. Regardless if we accept the book’s argument, according to the Kuzari argument we should accept the Pygmy's claim of divine commandments given at the mountain and having dwelled amongst them in the past.
It is known the Ancient Egyptians had contact with the Pygmies and were fond of them (at least for certain periods) even bringing some to their country. This raises the possibility, that the Pygmy myths were heard by some Israelites that where in Egypt or had been trading with Egypt. [Also recall Moshe marries a Cushite women who also may have come in contact with Pygmy myths.] The book argues for this sort possibility to explain why some Pygmy myths resemble those in the Bible.
I also recommend reading the blog by Kefirah http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/ and he has at least one on the Kuzari argument see http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-modern-kuzari-argument.html and the comment section is very informative.
The pygmies are threatened with extinction and humanity is in danger of losing one of it's oldest living branches. Surely the World's powers can and must do much more to help them survive.
Next up is Kuzari Part 6
Kuzari proponents often ask if there are any parallels to the Sinai story. Are there examples of a group of people claiming that god reveals himself to them ? My prior posts have described stories having parallels to the Sinai story. I have come across another that would qualify.
In the book Pygmy Kitabu by Jean-Pierre Hallet and Alex Palle 1973, it is documented many customs, laws, myths, philosophies, and stories of the Pygmies of Africa. Hallet had lived with them for many years and thus had first hand experience and knowledge of the Pygmies.
Page 53 "The Western Pygmy men informed Anthropologist Trilles that the deity dwelled with them during the first ages of man."
Page 106-107 The Pygmies say “In the beginning, God lived with men and gave them his commandments.” Some of Pygmy 'laws' are similar to the 10 commandments. [Probably to account for the fact that God is no longer seen among them, they also claim he ascended to heaven.]
Page 111 - “The Pygmies say in ancient times their Lawgiving Father-God-King reigned near Ruwenzori; the mountains of the moon.” “In this neighborhood, according to the Pygmies they received the deity’s laws and commandments.” [And in the Tenach, Yahweh is associated with certain mountain ranges and God gives the commandments at Mount Sinai. At least the Pygmies know the location of the mountain of God where God provides the laws, something the Jews do not know.]
Page 117 Interestingly, that African area has experienced a major volcano eruption from which dusts, ashes, rocks were spewed up and poisoned life and also killed fish. [This sounds somewhat similar to some of the 10 plagues in Exodus.]
How could such stories gain traction amongst the Pygmies ?
It may be argued that when the Christian and Muslim invaded their country the Pygmies came in contact with Biblical stories and adopted/adapted them. But that is irrelevant, because using the Kuzari argument the stories should have never gained traction at all. In addition, the book argues it is unlikely the Pygmies learned the stories from the Christians or Muslims. Regardless if we accept the book’s argument, according to the Kuzari argument we should accept the Pygmy's claim of divine commandments given at the mountain and having dwelled amongst them in the past.
It is known the Ancient Egyptians had contact with the Pygmies and were fond of them (at least for certain periods) even bringing some to their country. This raises the possibility, that the Pygmy myths were heard by some Israelites that where in Egypt or had been trading with Egypt. [Also recall Moshe marries a Cushite women who also may have come in contact with Pygmy myths.] The book argues for this sort possibility to explain why some Pygmy myths resemble those in the Bible.
I also recommend reading the blog by Kefirah http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/ and he has at least one on the Kuzari argument see http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-modern-kuzari-argument.html and the comment section is very informative.
The pygmies are threatened with extinction and humanity is in danger of losing one of it's oldest living branches. Surely the World's powers can and must do much more to help them survive.
Next up is Kuzari Part 6
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Kuzari Argument Part 4
Updated thru 10/28/2015
Another Plausible Natural Explanation for the Eventual Acceptance by Some Jews of the Exodus-Sinai Story
This is a continuation of my discussion of the Kuzari argument begun at Kuzari principle or argument part 1.
This post is going to assume you have read Kuzari Part 3 , and is inspired by Theodore Reik’s book Mystery on the Mountain 1959. (Sources are at end of post or within it). Reik was a Jewish Psychiatrist who was a student of Sigmund Freud who Reik called his master, his teacher. Freud also wrote a book called Moses and Monotheism which is also worth reading. Both of these eminent psychiatrists provide psychological, historical and academic based explanations of the origins of Judaism and both are worth reading, even though they are a bit dated. (Side Note: Freud's theories have been unjustly criticized as William Propp explains in The Anchor Bible Exodus.)
Background Information
1) In ancient times Gods were associated with fire. Consider Prometheus. And not just Prometheus there are numerous associations of Yahweh with fire thru out the Tenach. Here are a several examples. Leviticus 10 and Numbers 11 attributes a fire from Yahweh that kills.
Levit 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. 2 And there came forth fire from before the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
Exodus 3:1 Now Moses was keeping the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the farthest end of the wilderness, and came to the mountain of God, unto Horeb. 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3 And Moses said: 'I will turn aside now, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.' 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said: 'Moses, Moses.' And he said: 'Here am I.
Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Exodus 9:23 And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven; and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and fire ran down unto the earth;
Numbers 11:1 And the people were as murmurers, speaking evil in the ears of the LORD; and when the LORD heard it, His anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and devoured in the uttermost part of the camp. 2 And the people cried unto Moses; and Moses prayed unto the LORD, and the fire abated.
{Propp Page 36 “Fire is the medium in which Yahweh appears on the terrestrial plane: in the burning bush (3:2), in the cloud pillar (13:21-22, 14:24), atop Mount Sinai (19:18, 24:17) and upon the tabernacle (40:38).” “It is possible epitomize the entire story Exodus as the movement of the fiery manifestation of the divine presence (greenberg 1969:16-17)” } [Propp’s verse numbering may vary from other sources]
2) Many scholars give credence to Kenite/Midianite Hypothesis for the Origins of Yahwism. (That hypothesis is not essential to the development of my post though). Those scholars have established a relationship between Yahweh, the Kenites-Midianites and Moshe. The Kenites-Midianites were smiths and this suggests they would {ETA 10/28/2015 or potentially had reason to }associate a deity with smoke and fire. There are gods associated with smithing for example the Greek Hephaestus or the Celtic Gofannon and others as well.
Page 37 in Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan by William Albright 1968 - metal working was a specialty of the Midianite group among whom Moses settled.
3) My prior Kuzari posts have repudiated the “uniqueness” argument as a proof that the Sinai revelation is true. Moreover, Reik suggests the Exodus narrative and Sinai revelation has general similarity to A) Puberty rites and festivals of ancient peoples B) Initiation rites of secret societies and mystery religions. [I will note circumcision plays an important role in Passover and among some cultures was associated with puberty rites.]
Interested readers may read his book for the many similarities.
Here are just a couple.
Reik Page 157 At Sinai covenant there are "very primitive ceremonies and symbolisms... the rites of the sacrificial meal and of the sprinkling of blood on the altar and the people thus uniting
God and his worshippers... The origin of the blood covenant is to be found in the initiation into the secret societies of brotherhoods between members of different tribes. This means that the covenant presents a form developed from the primitive groups united by certain laws and customs and introduced into the cult of gods. We learned that the secret societies are intertribal and comprise members of different dans and people and that a god is regarded as the third participant to the covenant."
Reik Page 91 "The idea of a covenant
between a god or in totemistic tribes, an animal guardian and
individuals is not alien to primitive tribes. In the puberty rites of the
American Indians the young men who obtain such an animal guardian,
or manito, often draw blood from different parts of their bodies
to seal their compact with the totem. The Indians of Honduras
offered their blood to their nagual, ‘whereupon such friendship was
contracted between them that, when one of them died, the other did
not survive.' We have here a primitive kind of blood union with
the deity. Blood plays a special role in sealing the compact with Yahweh."
4) Reik Page 126 “I remind the reader of the explanation
of B. D. Eerdmans who pointed out the activity of the Kenites, those desert smiths who "stage-managed" the theophany on the Sacred Mountain. They provided the sound and fury of Yahweh's appearance by striking the iron while it was hot.”
5) Reik Page 69 “Pedersen concludes that the [Sinai] story
has an artificial character also, from the ease ‘with which the narrator lets Moses pass up and down the mountain again and again, sometimes quite superfluously, about a matter that has already been arranged.’ There are at least two points that cannot be explained as effects of Yahweh's power upon nature. They have to be considered as produced by human beings: the blasts of trumpets and the torches.”
Reik Page 70 "Our conclusion is dear: the descent of the Lord on Mount Sinai appears in the description of Exodus as a series of human actions."
A Plausible Scenario
Recall, after the Exodus Moses and the people were in a severe physical and psychological stressed desperate state. They were also predisposed to believe in supernatural beings.
They needed a guarantee, a contract that a God would abide with them, save them and provide a home land. I am not assuming the ancient Israelites had accepted Yahweh as their god yet. It is possible the intent behind the ‘revelation’ was to convert the Israelites and the mixed multitude to Yahwism.
Moses, (perhaps with the Levites and or the Elders) together with the Kenites- Midianites (smiths) were going to invoke Yahweh/make him manifest/ bring him down to the Mountain by: having the Israelites prepare for the event (by purifying themselves), making pillars of smoke, making fires, blowing the Shofar, banging gongs, and hammering molten metal plates on the mountain; all on a very large scale. By these actions it was believed Yahweh would become manifest, and in the ruckus of smoke, fire, divine sounds and in desperation it could be believed Yahweh (associated with fire) had ‘revealed’ himself.
On the one hand I am not advocating pious fraud by Moses and his cohorts. Rather, they sincerely believed in Yahweh and the possibility of invoking Yahweh in a revelation to the people. They even may have believed they accomplished it. They even could have convinced many of the ancient Israelites it was accomplished. On the other hand it could have involved pious fraud- for the sake of giving hope and uniting a rebellious infighting group of people. Leaders have been known to mislead in the public interest.
Having the Israelites prepare for the event by purifying themselves would allow Yahweh to come down amongst them and psychologically primes them to anticipate and accept a revelation.
One is reminded of the sort of mass hypnosis that Adolf Hitler used to sway many Germans at the impressive Nazi rallies and spectacles. Interestingly many Nazi marches, spectacles and crimes utilized fire ! The Reichstag Fire, Nazi book burnings, and the Holocaust to name a few. Many Germans already had latent antisemitism, many were desperate (lost WWI, hyperinflation, economic depression) and were predisposed to Hitler’s rantings.
And Exodus supplies us many clues that human agents are involved in staging the ‘revelation’. The event was pre-planned with a three day notice. The people could not approach the mountain on the threat of death by stoning. This would shield the ‘stage hands’, but also protect the people from the pyrotechnics and other special effects. Torches are seen thru the smoke. There was a chorus of voices. Banging gongs, Hammering molten metal plates. Blowing Shofers (special horns). Smoke ascending as if from furnace(s). For important information and support of these comments see the commentary on Exodus 19-21 below.
In short, this post has provided another plausible scenario fairly close to Torah text that results in a small group of people coming to accept the belief in a ‘revelation’ with some divine laws. {ETA 10/28/2015 Actually, many thousands could been involved in witnessing the demonstration and coming to accept a revelation.}There is nothing in the ‘revelation’ that seems un-natural or miraculous. Reik’s (and other academic scholars ) hypothesis of a human staged event is very plausible especially compared to supernatural explanations. How the story could have spread is explained in Kuzari part 3.
Important Additional Information and Supporting Comments on Exodus 19-21
Exodus 19: 10 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments, 11 and be ready against the third day; for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
Psychologically primes the people for the upcoming event. Also, the people must be ritually clean because Yahweh will not come down to a contaminated people. A staged event would have a planned date.
12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying: Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it; whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death; 13 no hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live; when the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.'
Primes the people but also creates a shield so that the ‘stage hands’ will not be seen. Simultaneously protects spectators from pyrotechnics and special effects.
14 And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their garments. 15 And he said unto the people: 'Be ready against the third day; come not near a woman.'
Psychologically primes the people. In addition, Yahweh will not come down to a ritually unclean people, so Moshe does his best to have the people purified.
16 And it came to pass on the third day, when it was morning, that there were quoloth [see comments below] and lightnings and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of a horn [see comments below] exceeding loud; and all the people that were in the camp trembled.
17 And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount. 18 Now mount Sinai was altogether on smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire; and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.
{Propp: Page 164 translates quoloth as sounds, but then suggests thunder. He also writes “The noun qol may denote human voice, the sound of an instrument or any noise at all.” Horns sound - “Perhaps there were many.” }
Cassuto page 231 - regarding quoloth - literally Voices. But he translates it to thunders.
{Reik Page 70 “The sounds that are heard are called "quoloth," a word meaning sounds caused by men, animals, wind, and so on. The translation ‘thunders’ is arbitrary since no thunderstorm is described. “}
19 And when the voice of the horn waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice.
Shofer (horn) or certain other noise making instruments are associated with the gods. A voice or a chorus (from the Kenites-Midianites and or the Levites and or the Elders) may have answered Moses. Veiled by mountain outcroppings and a smokey fiery blaze: perhaps a chorus in a trance shouted; gongs were banged and molten metal plates hammered; Shofers blown. All or some are interpreted as Yahweh’s voice. In a seance it is claimed the person’s spirit is speaking. Some Christian sects speak in tongues.
Reik Page 83 “The great philosopher Maimonides (1125-1204) argues that the Lord spoke to Moses, not to the people who heard only a mighty sound, "a great voice" and not distinct words. The Israelites perceived only the first two commandments in the same manner as Moses.”
Reik Page 84 “Another commentator, the Jewish theologian, Samuel David Luzzatto (1800-1865) is not satisfied with Maimonides' explanation: if people heard only sounds, they did not hear the first commandments either. “
{Reik Page 76 “..the curved horn of the ram called
shofar plays a role in Judaism quite similar to that of the bull-roarer
in the ceremonies of the Australian natives. It is a sacred instrument, which women and children were originally forbidden to hear. Thisvery primitive wind instrument sounded terrifying on Sinai before law was given to the Children of Israel.”
“It does not need much sagacity to conclude that the voice the people heard out of the fire is the very sound of the ram's horn. It will not
contradict, but rather confirm this conclusion when other biblical
passages state: ‘And the Lord God shall blow the trumpet’(Zech.
9:14). The sound of the shofar is the sound of the God Yahweh
of the Hebrews just as the sound of the bull-roarer is the voice' of
Daramulum or Balum of the Australian aborigines.”
“We shall not follow here the track leading back to the comparison
of the totemistic god of the Australian primitives with the prehistoric
belief of the Hebrews in a horned deity, a bull or a ram. It is,
however, God's voice that sounds through the shofar, the ram's horn.
‘Yahweh roars,’ says the prophet Amos.
The Kenites blew the trumpets on Mount Sinai as later the rabbis
.were to blow the shofar on festival days, thus unconsciously imitating
Yahweh who is calling all Children of Israel. “
“The god of the Kenites with whom the Hebrew tribes fused was Yahweh, the fire-god of
Sinai. But the Kenites traced their origin back to Cain and to Cain's
descendant who was Jubal, the first musician (Gen. 4:21 ). His name
has the same root as jobel which signifies ram's horn or trumpet.” }
Reik Page 70 “The trumpets, the
torches, the fire, lead to the suggestion of the human origin of those sounds by hammering on metal plates [recall - Kenites as smiths] or gongs.”
20 And the LORD came down upon mount Sinai, to the top of the mount; and the LORD called Moses to the top of the mount; and Moses went up. 21 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the LORD to gaze, and many of them perish.
Indeed get burned - from the smoke and fire of the staged event.
22 And let the priests also, that come near to the LORD, sanctify themselves, lest the LORD break forth upon them.' 23 And Moses said unto the LORD: 'The people cannot come up to mount Sinai; for thou didst charge us, saying: Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.' 24 And the LORD said unto him: 'Go, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee; but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the LORD, lest He break forth upon them.' 25 So Moses went down unto the people, and told them.
‘...lest He break forth...” as fire emanating from Yahweh as in Levit 10, Numbers 11?
Exodus Chapter 20
1 And God spoke all these words, saying: 2 I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. 3 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;...13 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
14 And all the people perceived the quoloth [see comments above], and the lappidim [plural of lappid -see comments below], and the voice of the horn [see comments above], and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off.
Chabad translates lappidim as Torches.
{Propp Page 184 Lappidim - torches. Deities may bear torches, or are themselves flambeaux (Akkadian parallels). Rabin supports the derivation from Hittite Lappiya - shining object, torch and also Greek Lampas - torch. Propp explains “The description of Sinai -Horeb as swathed in furnace smoke (19:18) and lit by torches (20:18) recalls Genesis 15:17, where the conventing divine presence is represented by a smoking oven and a fiery torch.” Alternatively Lappidim here connotes lightning. }
{Cassuto page 253 translates Lappidim as flames, but goes on to say lightnings. }
Reik - Page 69 “Through the heavy smoke the people saw the glimmering of torches.” Reik explains ‘lappid’ which, in all passages where it occurs, means ‘torch’. “The translation ‘lightnings’ is not correct. The flickering of torches points to the presence of men. So does the thick cloud on the mountain described as smoke caused by a great fire. It was, of course, not a cloud descending from the sky, but a cloud of smoke ascending into the sky like the smoke cloud of a furnace.” Reik cites from Leiden's books: ‘This suggests one or more ordinary fires.’
15 And they said unto Moses: 'Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.' 16 And Moses said unto the people: 'Fear not; for God is come to prove you, and that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not.' 17 And the people stood afar off; but Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was. 18 And the LORD said unto Moses: Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel: Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. 19 Ye shall not make with Me--gods of silver, or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you. ...22 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar, that thy nakedness be not uncovered thereon.}
Reik references as further support of the staged event hypothesis and Yahweh’s association with fire:
Exodus 34:29 . And it came to pass When Moses descended from Mount Sinai, and the two tablets of the testimony were in Moses' hand When he descended from the mountain and Moses did not know That the skin of His face had become radiant while He had spoken with him '
30th . That Aaron and all the Children of Israel saw Moses and behold! the skin of his face had become radiant, and they were afraid to come near him.And it came to pass When Moses descended: When he brought the Latter [second] tablets on Yom Kippur.
{Reik page 80 “The shine on Moses face is to be understood
rather as the hardening of the skin that is exposed to fire for a long
time. Moses was together with the fire-god and his skin wears the
reflection of that prolonged stay with the Lord. Eerdmans' interpretations
seem to me to be a great extent
plausible. His emphasis on the nature of Yahweh as of an original
fire-god of the Kenites is, however, less important than his reference
to one source of the tradition in which Moses appears as a "demigod."
Other passages of the Scripture present a similar portrayal of the
"man of God." Eerdmans could have added to the biblical passages
supporting his hypothesis a psychoanalytic interpretation that leads
the concept of "shining" or hardening of Moses' face to its logical
conclusion. The changed face is the replica of Yahweh's face. In
other words, it is a mask of the tribal god. It frightened the Children
of Israel, who were in awe of the Lord and who had asked Moses
that God should rather speak to him than to them directly because
they were frightened by the sight of Yahweh. Already Gressmann
interpreted the veil of Moses as a mask which is the countenance of
God. The veil is, so to speak, the second phase of the disguise,
following the first form of the shining countenance. According to
the concept of antiquity, in taking over Yahweh's attributes Moses
becomes the dazzling, frightening God Himself.}
And there is further support for Reik in
{A God of Volcanoes: Did Yahwism Take Root in Volcanic Ashes? Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2014 38: 387 by Jacob E. Dunn
“William Propp argues that the usual translation of [kuf-reish-nun] (Exod. 34.30) should not be ‘horns (of light)’ or ‘radiance’, but rather ‘to blister’ or to become ‘calloused’, resulting in the following translation: ‘the skin of his face was burnt to the hardness of horn’. Thus, according to Propp, ‘[this] story honors Moses as the human most intimate with Yahweh, but it also species the price he paid’." <[William H. Propp, ‘The Skin of Moses’ Face––Disfigured or Transfigured?’, CBQ 49 (1987), pp. 375-86 >”
"If indeed Sinai is understood as an active volcano, Moses’
facial disfigurement no longer remains a mystery. In other words, the scorching heat from the volcanic vent near the summit likely caused his facial skin to melt, or to blister.”
[I will clarify - Yahweh was associated with fire whether from a volcano or otherwise hence Moses face would blister from being with Yahweh .]
Continued Kuzari Part 5
Sources and Additional Sources Cited
Cassuto - A Commentary on the Book of Exodus by U. Cassuto (Translated by Israel Abraham ) 1967
Chabad - from Chabad’s website “15. And all the people saw the voices and the torches, the sound of the shofar, and the smoking mountain, and the people saw and trembled; so they stood from afar.” retrieved on 7/13/2014 from http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9881
Propp - unless otherwise stated refers to The Anchor Bible Exodus 2006 by William Propp
Reik - Mystery on the Mountain by Theodore Reik 1959.
Another Plausible Natural Explanation for the Eventual Acceptance by Some Jews of the Exodus-Sinai Story
This is a continuation of my discussion of the Kuzari argument begun at Kuzari principle or argument part 1.
This post is going to assume you have read Kuzari Part 3 , and is inspired by Theodore Reik’s book Mystery on the Mountain 1959. (Sources are at end of post or within it). Reik was a Jewish Psychiatrist who was a student of Sigmund Freud who Reik called his master, his teacher. Freud also wrote a book called Moses and Monotheism which is also worth reading. Both of these eminent psychiatrists provide psychological, historical and academic based explanations of the origins of Judaism and both are worth reading, even though they are a bit dated. (Side Note: Freud's theories have been unjustly criticized as William Propp explains in The Anchor Bible Exodus.)
Background Information
1) In ancient times Gods were associated with fire. Consider Prometheus. And not just Prometheus there are numerous associations of Yahweh with fire thru out the Tenach. Here are a several examples. Leviticus 10 and Numbers 11 attributes a fire from Yahweh that kills.
Levit 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. 2 And there came forth fire from before the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
Exodus 3:1 Now Moses was keeping the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the farthest end of the wilderness, and came to the mountain of God, unto Horeb. 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3 And Moses said: 'I will turn aside now, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.' 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said: 'Moses, Moses.' And he said: 'Here am I.
Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Exodus 9:23 And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven; and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and fire ran down unto the earth;
Numbers 11:1 And the people were as murmurers, speaking evil in the ears of the LORD; and when the LORD heard it, His anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and devoured in the uttermost part of the camp. 2 And the people cried unto Moses; and Moses prayed unto the LORD, and the fire abated.
{Propp Page 36 “Fire is the medium in which Yahweh appears on the terrestrial plane: in the burning bush (3:2), in the cloud pillar (13:21-22, 14:24), atop Mount Sinai (19:18, 24:17) and upon the tabernacle (40:38).” “It is possible epitomize the entire story Exodus as the movement of the fiery manifestation of the divine presence (greenberg 1969:16-17)” } [Propp’s verse numbering may vary from other sources]
2) Many scholars give credence to Kenite/Midianite Hypothesis for the Origins of Yahwism. (That hypothesis is not essential to the development of my post though). Those scholars have established a relationship between Yahweh, the Kenites-Midianites and Moshe. The Kenites-Midianites were smiths and this suggests they would {ETA 10/28/2015 or potentially had reason to }associate a deity with smoke and fire. There are gods associated with smithing for example the Greek Hephaestus or the Celtic Gofannon and others as well.
Page 37 in Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan by William Albright 1968 - metal working was a specialty of the Midianite group among whom Moses settled.
3) My prior Kuzari posts have repudiated the “uniqueness” argument as a proof that the Sinai revelation is true. Moreover, Reik suggests the Exodus narrative and Sinai revelation has general similarity to A) Puberty rites and festivals of ancient peoples B) Initiation rites of secret societies and mystery religions. [I will note circumcision plays an important role in Passover and among some cultures was associated with puberty rites.]
Interested readers may read his book for the many similarities.
Here are just a couple.
Reik Page 157 At Sinai covenant there are "very primitive ceremonies and symbolisms... the rites of the sacrificial meal and of the sprinkling of blood on the altar and the people thus uniting
God and his worshippers... The origin of the blood covenant is to be found in the initiation into the secret societies of brotherhoods between members of different tribes. This means that the covenant presents a form developed from the primitive groups united by certain laws and customs and introduced into the cult of gods. We learned that the secret societies are intertribal and comprise members of different dans and people and that a god is regarded as the third participant to the covenant."
Reik Page 91 "The idea of a covenant
between a god or in totemistic tribes, an animal guardian and
individuals is not alien to primitive tribes. In the puberty rites of the
American Indians the young men who obtain such an animal guardian,
or manito, often draw blood from different parts of their bodies
to seal their compact with the totem. The Indians of Honduras
offered their blood to their nagual, ‘whereupon such friendship was
contracted between them that, when one of them died, the other did
not survive.' We have here a primitive kind of blood union with
the deity. Blood plays a special role in sealing the compact with Yahweh."
4) Reik Page 126 “I remind the reader of the explanation
of B. D. Eerdmans who pointed out the activity of the Kenites, those desert smiths who "stage-managed" the theophany on the Sacred Mountain. They provided the sound and fury of Yahweh's appearance by striking the iron while it was hot.”
5) Reik Page 69 “Pedersen concludes that the [Sinai] story
has an artificial character also, from the ease ‘with which the narrator lets Moses pass up and down the mountain again and again, sometimes quite superfluously, about a matter that has already been arranged.’ There are at least two points that cannot be explained as effects of Yahweh's power upon nature. They have to be considered as produced by human beings: the blasts of trumpets and the torches.”
Reik Page 70 "Our conclusion is dear: the descent of the Lord on Mount Sinai appears in the description of Exodus as a series of human actions."
A Plausible Scenario
Recall, after the Exodus Moses and the people were in a severe physical and psychological stressed desperate state. They were also predisposed to believe in supernatural beings.
They needed a guarantee, a contract that a God would abide with them, save them and provide a home land. I am not assuming the ancient Israelites had accepted Yahweh as their god yet. It is possible the intent behind the ‘revelation’ was to convert the Israelites and the mixed multitude to Yahwism.
Moses, (perhaps with the Levites and or the Elders) together with the Kenites- Midianites (smiths) were going to invoke Yahweh/make him manifest/ bring him down to the Mountain by: having the Israelites prepare for the event (by purifying themselves), making pillars of smoke, making fires, blowing the Shofar, banging gongs, and hammering molten metal plates on the mountain; all on a very large scale. By these actions it was believed Yahweh would become manifest, and in the ruckus of smoke, fire, divine sounds and in desperation it could be believed Yahweh (associated with fire) had ‘revealed’ himself.
On the one hand I am not advocating pious fraud by Moses and his cohorts. Rather, they sincerely believed in Yahweh and the possibility of invoking Yahweh in a revelation to the people. They even may have believed they accomplished it. They even could have convinced many of the ancient Israelites it was accomplished. On the other hand it could have involved pious fraud- for the sake of giving hope and uniting a rebellious infighting group of people. Leaders have been known to mislead in the public interest.
Having the Israelites prepare for the event by purifying themselves would allow Yahweh to come down amongst them and psychologically primes them to anticipate and accept a revelation.
One is reminded of the sort of mass hypnosis that Adolf Hitler used to sway many Germans at the impressive Nazi rallies and spectacles. Interestingly many Nazi marches, spectacles and crimes utilized fire ! The Reichstag Fire, Nazi book burnings, and the Holocaust to name a few. Many Germans already had latent antisemitism, many were desperate (lost WWI, hyperinflation, economic depression) and were predisposed to Hitler’s rantings.
And Exodus supplies us many clues that human agents are involved in staging the ‘revelation’. The event was pre-planned with a three day notice. The people could not approach the mountain on the threat of death by stoning. This would shield the ‘stage hands’, but also protect the people from the pyrotechnics and other special effects. Torches are seen thru the smoke. There was a chorus of voices. Banging gongs, Hammering molten metal plates. Blowing Shofers (special horns). Smoke ascending as if from furnace(s). For important information and support of these comments see the commentary on Exodus 19-21 below.
In short, this post has provided another plausible scenario fairly close to Torah text that results in a small group of people coming to accept the belief in a ‘revelation’ with some divine laws. {ETA 10/28/2015 Actually, many thousands could been involved in witnessing the demonstration and coming to accept a revelation.}There is nothing in the ‘revelation’ that seems un-natural or miraculous. Reik’s (and other academic scholars ) hypothesis of a human staged event is very plausible especially compared to supernatural explanations. How the story could have spread is explained in Kuzari part 3.
Important Additional Information and Supporting Comments on Exodus 19-21
Exodus 19: 10 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments, 11 and be ready against the third day; for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
Psychologically primes the people for the upcoming event. Also, the people must be ritually clean because Yahweh will not come down to a contaminated people. A staged event would have a planned date.
12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying: Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it; whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death; 13 no hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live; when the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.'
Primes the people but also creates a shield so that the ‘stage hands’ will not be seen. Simultaneously protects spectators from pyrotechnics and special effects.
14 And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their garments. 15 And he said unto the people: 'Be ready against the third day; come not near a woman.'
Psychologically primes the people. In addition, Yahweh will not come down to a ritually unclean people, so Moshe does his best to have the people purified.
16 And it came to pass on the third day, when it was morning, that there were quoloth [see comments below] and lightnings and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of a horn [see comments below] exceeding loud; and all the people that were in the camp trembled.
17 And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount. 18 Now mount Sinai was altogether on smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire; and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.
{Propp: Page 164 translates quoloth as sounds, but then suggests thunder. He also writes “The noun qol may denote human voice, the sound of an instrument or any noise at all.” Horns sound - “Perhaps there were many.” }
Cassuto page 231 - regarding quoloth - literally Voices. But he translates it to thunders.
{Reik Page 70 “The sounds that are heard are called "quoloth," a word meaning sounds caused by men, animals, wind, and so on. The translation ‘thunders’ is arbitrary since no thunderstorm is described. “}
19 And when the voice of the horn waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice.
Shofer (horn) or certain other noise making instruments are associated with the gods. A voice or a chorus (from the Kenites-Midianites and or the Levites and or the Elders) may have answered Moses. Veiled by mountain outcroppings and a smokey fiery blaze: perhaps a chorus in a trance shouted; gongs were banged and molten metal plates hammered; Shofers blown. All or some are interpreted as Yahweh’s voice. In a seance it is claimed the person’s spirit is speaking. Some Christian sects speak in tongues.
Reik Page 83 “The great philosopher Maimonides (1125-1204) argues that the Lord spoke to Moses, not to the people who heard only a mighty sound, "a great voice" and not distinct words. The Israelites perceived only the first two commandments in the same manner as Moses.”
Reik Page 84 “Another commentator, the Jewish theologian, Samuel David Luzzatto (1800-1865) is not satisfied with Maimonides' explanation: if people heard only sounds, they did not hear the first commandments either. “
{Reik Page 76 “..the curved horn of the ram called
shofar plays a role in Judaism quite similar to that of the bull-roarer
in the ceremonies of the Australian natives. It is a sacred instrument, which women and children were originally forbidden to hear. Thisvery primitive wind instrument sounded terrifying on Sinai before law was given to the Children of Israel.”
“It does not need much sagacity to conclude that the voice the people heard out of the fire is the very sound of the ram's horn. It will not
contradict, but rather confirm this conclusion when other biblical
passages state: ‘And the Lord God shall blow the trumpet’(Zech.
9:14). The sound of the shofar is the sound of the God Yahweh
of the Hebrews just as the sound of the bull-roarer is the voice' of
Daramulum or Balum of the Australian aborigines.”
“We shall not follow here the track leading back to the comparison
of the totemistic god of the Australian primitives with the prehistoric
belief of the Hebrews in a horned deity, a bull or a ram. It is,
however, God's voice that sounds through the shofar, the ram's horn.
‘Yahweh roars,’ says the prophet Amos.
The Kenites blew the trumpets on Mount Sinai as later the rabbis
.were to blow the shofar on festival days, thus unconsciously imitating
Yahweh who is calling all Children of Israel. “
“The god of the Kenites with whom the Hebrew tribes fused was Yahweh, the fire-god of
Sinai. But the Kenites traced their origin back to Cain and to Cain's
descendant who was Jubal, the first musician (Gen. 4:21 ). His name
has the same root as jobel which signifies ram's horn or trumpet.” }
Reik Page 70 “The trumpets, the
torches, the fire, lead to the suggestion of the human origin of those sounds by hammering on metal plates [recall - Kenites as smiths] or gongs.”
20 And the LORD came down upon mount Sinai, to the top of the mount; and the LORD called Moses to the top of the mount; and Moses went up. 21 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the LORD to gaze, and many of them perish.
Indeed get burned - from the smoke and fire of the staged event.
22 And let the priests also, that come near to the LORD, sanctify themselves, lest the LORD break forth upon them.' 23 And Moses said unto the LORD: 'The people cannot come up to mount Sinai; for thou didst charge us, saying: Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.' 24 And the LORD said unto him: 'Go, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee; but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the LORD, lest He break forth upon them.' 25 So Moses went down unto the people, and told them.
‘...lest He break forth...” as fire emanating from Yahweh as in Levit 10, Numbers 11?
Exodus Chapter 20
1 And God spoke all these words, saying: 2 I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. 3 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;...13 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
14 And all the people perceived the quoloth [see comments above], and the lappidim [plural of lappid -see comments below], and the voice of the horn [see comments above], and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off.
Chabad translates lappidim as Torches.
{Propp Page 184 Lappidim - torches. Deities may bear torches, or are themselves flambeaux (Akkadian parallels). Rabin supports the derivation from Hittite Lappiya - shining object, torch and also Greek Lampas - torch. Propp explains “The description of Sinai -Horeb as swathed in furnace smoke (19:18) and lit by torches (20:18) recalls Genesis 15:17, where the conventing divine presence is represented by a smoking oven and a fiery torch.” Alternatively Lappidim here connotes lightning. }
{Cassuto page 253 translates Lappidim as flames, but goes on to say lightnings. }
Reik - Page 69 “Through the heavy smoke the people saw the glimmering of torches.” Reik explains ‘lappid’ which, in all passages where it occurs, means ‘torch’. “The translation ‘lightnings’ is not correct. The flickering of torches points to the presence of men. So does the thick cloud on the mountain described as smoke caused by a great fire. It was, of course, not a cloud descending from the sky, but a cloud of smoke ascending into the sky like the smoke cloud of a furnace.” Reik cites from Leiden's books: ‘This suggests one or more ordinary fires.’
15 And they said unto Moses: 'Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.' 16 And Moses said unto the people: 'Fear not; for God is come to prove you, and that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not.' 17 And the people stood afar off; but Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was. 18 And the LORD said unto Moses: Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel: Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. 19 Ye shall not make with Me--gods of silver, or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you. ...22 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar, that thy nakedness be not uncovered thereon.}
Reik references as further support of the staged event hypothesis and Yahweh’s association with fire:
Exodus 34:29 . And it came to pass When Moses descended from Mount Sinai, and the two tablets of the testimony were in Moses' hand When he descended from the mountain and Moses did not know That the skin of His face had become radiant while He had spoken with him '
30th . That Aaron and all the Children of Israel saw Moses and behold! the skin of his face had become radiant, and they were afraid to come near him.And it came to pass When Moses descended: When he brought the Latter [second] tablets on Yom Kippur.
{Reik page 80 “The shine on Moses face is to be understood
rather as the hardening of the skin that is exposed to fire for a long
time. Moses was together with the fire-god and his skin wears the
reflection of that prolonged stay with the Lord. Eerdmans' interpretations
seem to me to be a great extent
plausible. His emphasis on the nature of Yahweh as of an original
fire-god of the Kenites is, however, less important than his reference
to one source of the tradition in which Moses appears as a "demigod."
Other passages of the Scripture present a similar portrayal of the
"man of God." Eerdmans could have added to the biblical passages
supporting his hypothesis a psychoanalytic interpretation that leads
the concept of "shining" or hardening of Moses' face to its logical
conclusion. The changed face is the replica of Yahweh's face. In
other words, it is a mask of the tribal god. It frightened the Children
of Israel, who were in awe of the Lord and who had asked Moses
that God should rather speak to him than to them directly because
they were frightened by the sight of Yahweh. Already Gressmann
interpreted the veil of Moses as a mask which is the countenance of
God. The veil is, so to speak, the second phase of the disguise,
following the first form of the shining countenance. According to
the concept of antiquity, in taking over Yahweh's attributes Moses
becomes the dazzling, frightening God Himself.}
And there is further support for Reik in
{A God of Volcanoes: Did Yahwism Take Root in Volcanic Ashes? Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2014 38: 387 by Jacob E. Dunn
“William Propp argues that the usual translation of [kuf-reish-nun] (Exod. 34.30) should not be ‘horns (of light)’ or ‘radiance’, but rather ‘to blister’ or to become ‘calloused’, resulting in the following translation: ‘the skin of his face was burnt to the hardness of horn’. Thus, according to Propp, ‘[this] story honors Moses as the human most intimate with Yahweh, but it also species the price he paid’." <[William H. Propp, ‘The Skin of Moses’ Face––Disfigured or Transfigured?’, CBQ 49 (1987), pp. 375-86 >”
"If indeed Sinai is understood as an active volcano, Moses’
facial disfigurement no longer remains a mystery. In other words, the scorching heat from the volcanic vent near the summit likely caused his facial skin to melt, or to blister.”
[I will clarify - Yahweh was associated with fire whether from a volcano or otherwise hence Moses face would blister from being with Yahweh .]
Continued Kuzari Part 5
Sources and Additional Sources Cited
Cassuto - A Commentary on the Book of Exodus by U. Cassuto (Translated by Israel Abraham ) 1967
Chabad - from Chabad’s website “15. And all the people saw the voices and the torches, the sound of the shofar, and the smoking mountain, and the people saw and trembled; so they stood from afar.” retrieved on 7/13/2014 from http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9881
Propp - unless otherwise stated refers to The Anchor Bible Exodus 2006 by William Propp
Reik - Mystery on the Mountain by Theodore Reik 1959.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)