The Kuzari Principle
Saul G. Behr
Judaism, and condemning it offhand. I understand this pretty well - I'm a
ba'al teshuva of about six months, and I also used to deny Judaism. I'm a
rationalist, a pragmatist, and I see some extremely good reasons why we
should accept Judaism as TRUTH and not just as a nice way of life or an
outdated set of concepts.
First of all, let me establish what I mean by TRUTH (and I need to do this
because there are many people who have argued a profoundly irrational
existentialist argument that truth is relative). Truth is NOT relative.
Mount Everest IS the highest mountain in the world, and this FACT cannot be
rationally disputed. You can disbelieve it, but you'd be wrong. Not
morally or relatively wrong, but absolutely wrong.
Furthermore, let me also establish that we run our lives on the basis of
highest probability of truth. I say that Mt Everest is the highest mountain
in the world, not because I know it 100% to be true, but because there is an
extremely high PROBABILITY that all the people who've told me this, and all
the articles I've seen corroborating it, are telling the truth. So I can
make the assertion that Mt Everest IS the highest mountain in the world with
a very large degree of confidence.
Now we come to the main question in debate: the authenticity of Torah.
There are many, many ways that it can be established that Torah could not
have been written by humans (eg. hidden codes, predictions), but for the
purposes of this article, I shall rely mainly on the Kuzari Principle, as
expounded by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb of Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem (originally
from Rambam).
The Kuzari Principle (henceforth KP) states the following:
If there is an event E, which, had it occurred, would have left large
amounts of easily-available evidence, people will not believe that E
occurred if that evidence does not exist.
For example: imagine going to Romania and telling a crowd of people there
that 200 years ago, there were forests in Romania whose trees grew golden
fruit. Now imagine some very suspicious stares. Surely, they will say, if
this had really occurred, we'd have heard about it before? Our parents
would have told us. There would be vast stores of gold harvested from those
trees. There would be scientific/biological projects investigating how to
duplicate their DNA. And they will not believe the story, because if your
story had been true, there would have been vast amounts of evidence to
corroborate it. That evidence does not exist, and your story may be
dismissed.
Now imagine going to a little tribe of San (bushmen) in the Kalahari
desert. Try telling them that every one of their ancestors was present at a
Divine Revelation (assuming they have the concept of a Divine Revelation),
and see how they respond. "Why didn't our parents tell us this? This is
quite significant, a Divine Revelation - surely our entire culture would
have been built around it if this were true?" And you cannot get them to
believe such a story. Again, had it been true, there would have been an
enormous amount of evidence in terms of a social memory; there is no such
evidence - therefore the story will not be believed.
Now we take the Jews. Every (orthodox) religious Jew in the world believes
that three million of his ancestors - his entire nation - were present at a
Divine Revelation. Who got them to believe this? By the KP, there would
have to be vast amounts of easily available evidence in order for them to
have STARTED believing it. From this we may deduce that the evidence DID
exist, and there WAS a Revelation at Sinai before the entire Jewish people.
Further evidence that the KP is accurate, is the fact that no other major
religion has any story comparable to the Sinaitic Revelation. Think about
it - it's a pretty convincing argument for the truth of your religion if you
can claim that your entire nation witnessed a Divine Revelation. The
Muslims and the Xtians, both of whom (grudgingly) concede that the
Revelation did take place, have no similar story to justify their own
religions. They each have one man who claims to have had a vision of G-d,
and rely on that for their justification. No evidence presented; none CAN
be presented, for a revelation to a single individual would not leave any
evidence. If they could have duplicated our claims, surely they would have
done?
This is by no means the end of the argument. By itself it is somewhat
convincing, but when taken along with the rest of the proofs of the validity
of Torah, it becomes an extremely powerful argument.
For those of you who wallow in complacent atheism / agnosticism, consider
just how much you have to lose if Judaism is true. It is something you need
to worry about, because we're not just giving you boogey-man stories, we
offer verifiable, objective evidence of the truth of our assertions. You at
least owe it to yourselves to cover your asses (if you'll pardon the
expression), and just make sure that you're not actually causing yourselves
serious long-term spiritual damage.
___________________________________________________________________________
| __ |
| / / |
| _______ _______ \_\_____ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| \_____ \ \_____ \ \_____ \ \_\ \ \ \_| \_\ \_\ \_\ |
| || || / / || /\ \__/ \ \ || / / |
| || ______||_ / / || || \ \ \ \||/ / |
| \| \________\ \| \| |_\ \_| \____/ |
| |
|_________________________________________________________________________|
Saul G. Behr
(Wits Electrical Engineering, Johannesburg)
Bernard Greenberg
>If there is an event E, which, had it occurred, would have left large
>amounts of easily-available evidence, people will not believe that E
>occurred if that evidence does not exist.
>Now we take the Jews. Every (orthodox) religious Jew in the world believes
>that three million of his ancestors - his entire nation - were present at a
>Divine Revelation. Who got them to believe this? By the KP, there would
>have to be vast amounts of easily available evidence in order for them to
>have STARTED believing it. From this we may deduce that the evidence DID
>exist, and there WAS a Revelation at Sinai before the entire Jewish people.
>Further evidence that the KP is accurate, is the fact that no other major
>religion has any story comparable to the Sinaitic Revelation. Think about
>it - it's a pretty convincing argument for the truth of your religion if you
>can claim that your entire nation witnessed a Divine Revelation. The
>Muslims and the Xtians, both of whom (grudgingly) concede that the
>Revelation did take place, have no similar story to justify their own
>religions.
Xtians claim there were hundreds of people who saw Jesus after the
Crucifixion. And millions and millions of people believe it today.
And they cite the millions of people who believed it before them.
Their evidence is the same "Why else would millions of people believe
it?" Why don't you believe it, or any other myth or rumor of any of
the other nations of the world?
Have you never heard of "myth", or is that only for other people?
The fact that a large number of people believe something (e.g., the
earth is flat) has not the least weight as evidence as proof.
>For those of you who wallow in complacent atheism / agnosticism, consider
>just how much you have to lose if Judaism is true.
Same is true of Xtianity, Islam, etc....
> It is something you need
>to worry about, because we're not just giving you boogey-man stories, we
>offer verifiable, objective evidence of the truth of our assertions. You at
>least owe it to yourselves to cover your asses (if you'll pardon the
>expression), and just make sure that you're not actually causing yourselves
>serious long-term spiritual damage.
Wow. Verifiable, objective evidence of the Revelation at Sinai, not
just hearsay. Present it, please?
Bernard S. Greenberg (b...@world.std.com)
Jim Eggert x6127
> The Kuzari Principle (henceforth KP) states the following:
> If there is an event E, which, had it occurred, would have left large
> amounts of easily-available evidence, people will not believe that E
> occurred if that evidence does not exist. ...
Basically the Kuzari Principle (KP) says that if enough people believe
something is true, then it _must_ be true, even if there is absolutely
no evidence for it. This principle is blatantly incorrect.
> Now we take the Jews. Every (orthodox) religious Jew in the world believes
> that three million of his ancestors - his entire nation - were present at a
> Divine Revelation. Who got them to believe this? By the KP, there would
> have to be vast amounts of easily available evidence in order for them to
> have STARTED believing it. From this we may deduce that the evidence DID
> exist, and there WAS a Revelation at Sinai before the entire Jewish people.
But what evidence do you have that there were three million Israelites
at Mt. Sinai, and that they believed that there was a revelation
there? Only the evidence that is presented in the biblical account,
and no more. No archaeological evidence, no traditions from other
sources, no logistical calculation has produced any evidence for the
veracity of a revelation to three million people at Mt. Sinai. Thus
the Kuzari Principle (KP) gains you nothing that you don't already
have in the biblical account itself.
Simply said, if you don't believe the biblical account, then the KP
will not convince you. If you do believe the biblical account (as I
do), then you don't need the KP.
> Further evidence that the KP is accurate, is the fact that no other major
> religion has any story comparable to the Sinaitic Revelation.
How could this possibly argue for the KP?
> Think about
> it - it's a pretty convincing argument for the truth of your religion if you
> can claim that your entire nation witnessed a Divine Revelation. The
> Muslims and the Xtians, both of whom (grudgingly) concede that the
> Revelation did take place, have no similar story to justify their own
> religions. They each have one man who claims to have had a vision of G-d,
> and rely on that for their justification. No evidence presented; none CAN
> be presented, for a revelation to a single individual would not leave any
> evidence. If they could have duplicated our claims, surely they would have
> done?
Hogwash. Both the Moslems and the Christians have stories of mass
revelations, miracles, and the like.
--
=Jim egg...@ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Simon Streltsov
: In article <behr.13....@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za> be...@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (Saul G. Behr) writes:
: > The Kuzari Principle (henceforth KP) states the following:
: > If there is an event E, which, had it occurred, would have left large
: > amounts of easily-available evidence, people will not believe that E
: > occurred if that evidence does not exist. ...
: Basically the Kuzari Principle (KP) says that if enough people believe
: something is true, then it _must_ be true, even if there is absolutely
: no evidence for it. This principle is blatantly incorrect.
You did not parse KP correctly.
Imagine you want to convince a n-th generation of Jews:
if n=0 (Sinai) they have to see Sinai miracles to be convinced.
if n>0 they have to see the previous generation of Jews who were
following Torah. You can not come and claim "O, somebody told me...".
QED.
No when you understand the KP you can argue about Ezra, etc.
Simcha Streltsov, Adar Rabbi of S.C.Soviet
-------------------------
please, no _MORE_ homentashen
Simon Streltsov
Bernard Greenberg (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
: The fact that a large number of people believe something (e.g., the
: earth is flat) has not the least weight as evidence as proof.
It has nothing to do with KP,
as the fact that many people saw UFO
to the NASA problems (although who knows...)
I tried to explain why in my previous reply.
My mathematical upbringing revolts when the empirical argument
(KP) is answered by ideological.
Bernard Greenberg
>QED.
See you in Church Sunday morning, for that "proves" the Resurrection
of Jesus, too. Or does it work only for Jews?
>Simcha Streltsov, Adar Rabbi of S.C.Soviet
>-------------------------
>please, no _MORE_ homentashen
I promise to stop sending you homentashen if you take this out of your .sig.
Seth Gordon
>Judaism, and condemning it offhand.
After you deduct the bris flamewar, which was crossposted between many
groups and attracted many people who don't normally read s.c.j, a few
individuals have posted ignorant flames about Judaism. Others *have*
investigated halakhic Judaism (the kind of Judaism you're arguing for)
and have posted critiques based on what they've learned.
I think Bernie Greenberg's knowledge of Judaism seems incomplete, and
both he and Daniel Faigin(sp?) base their comments on philosophical
assumptions that I don't entirely share, but I wouldn't accuse them
of condemning Judaism offhand.
>I understand this pretty well - I'm a
>ba'al teshuva of about six months, and I also used to deny Judaism. I'm a
>rationalist, a pragmatist, and I see some extremely good reasons why we
>should accept Judaism as TRUTH and not just as a nice way of life or an
>outdated set of concepts.
What a delightful coincidence! I, too, am a rationalist and a
pragmatist, and I have become more observant over the past six months
or so. Yet I see extremely large holes in various writers' claims
that all rational people should accept Judaism as TRUTH.
>Now we come to the main question in debate: the authenticity of Torah.
>There are many, many ways that it can be established that Torah could not
>have been written by humans (eg. hidden codes, predictions),
These do not establish that the Torah could not have been written by
humans. They establish that there are correlations between certain
patterns in the text of the Torah and certain patterns in events of
Jewish history. Since there are many, many, many ways to permute the
text of the Torah, and many, many, many events in Jewish history to
which we can attach significance, it is unclear to me whether these
alleged correlations are due to G-d's work or due to human selection.
>The Kuzari Principle (henceforth KP) states the following:
>
>If there is an event E, which, had it occurred, would have left large
>amounts of easily-available evidence, people will not believe that E
>occurred if that evidence does not exist.
Historians are aware that Shakespeare's historical plays do not
present an accurate record of the history of the British monarchy. If
all other records were lost, and these were the only records
remaining, the large number of people performing Shakespeare's plays
would not serve as conclusive proof that, for instance, Macbeth's
murder of Duncan was an actual historical event.
>Now we take the Jews. Every (orthodox) religious Jew in the world believes
>that three million of his ancestors - his entire nation - were present at a
>Divine Revelation. Who got them to believe this? By the KP, there would
>have to be vast amounts of easily available evidence in order for them to
>have STARTED believing it. From this we may deduce that the evidence DID
>exist, and there WAS a Revelation at Sinai before the entire Jewish people.
We may also deduce that a story of the Revelation at Sinai, whenever
it was first propounded, was very important to the Jewish people that
first heard it, just like (l'havdil) the plays of Shakespeare,
regardless of their historical accuracy, are very important to the
audiences that see them, regardless of the plays' historical accuracy.
>Further evidence that the KP is accurate, is the fact that no other major
>religion has any story comparable to the Sinaitic Revelation.
Every religion can claim some unique feature not shared by any other
religion, and then the theologians of that religion can treat that
feature as something of paramount importance. Big deal.
>They each have one man who claims to have had a vision of G-d,
>and rely on that for their justification.
But Christians will claim that there were apostles that saw evidence
of Jesus' divinity; some will claim that miracles still occur which
attest to the truth of Christianity. I am less familiar with Islam,
but I know that Islam's defenders claim that associates of the Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh) was a man of such integrity that it would be absurd to
claim that he made up the revelation he claims to have received.
>For those of you who wallow in complacent atheism / agnosticism, consider
>just how much you have to lose if Judaism is true.
By this kind of logic, you should convert to Christianity, since according
to some Christians, if Christianity is true and you don't get baptized,
you will burn in eternal hellfire, while if Judaism is true and you become
Christian, your sufferings will be slightly more palatable.
I recommend that you read David Hume's _Dialogues Concerning Natural
Religion_; it's short, it's clearly written, and many of the religious
apologetics he refuted there, over two centuries ago, are still being
used.
--
seth gordon // se...@gnu.ai.mit.edu // standard disclaimer // pgp2-compatible
"The idea is like grass. It craves light, likes crowds, thrives on
Amos Wittenberg
In article <behr.13....@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za>
be...@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za "Saul G. Behr" writes:
[an interesting article on the Kuzari principle]
Saul, I may not be a ba`al t'shuva but I come from at least as far from
Torah Judaism as you do. I can understand the attraction of the KP for
you, but it also has weaknesses that have been pointed out by others. I
basically share those opinions. There is no limit to the nonsense that
humans in great numbers and/or for considerable stretches of time are
capable of believing. Some of the crankier forms of sectarian religion
easily come to mind, not to speak of forms of political mass delusions
such as Nazism.
The KP in the form you worded it can easily be attacked and severely
weakened if not virtually emasculated by simply equating Torah Judaism
to such delusions.
However, there is one element that strengthens the KP and that is the
remarkable fact of Jewish survival. One of the greatest minds that
Torah Judaism has ever lost, Baruch d'Espinoza [Benedictus Spinoza] said
about bris mila [circumcision] something to the effect: "If the Jews
will hold on to this rite, I am convinced that they will never disappear
as a people" [Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, if I'm not mistaken].
Another thought in the same vein: "More than the Jews having kept the
Shabbos, the Shabbos has kept the Jews."
If an entire people has managed to stay alive *centered around Torah*,
when most of the time adopting another religion offered so many
incentives (conversions to Xianity and Islam virtually guaranteed a
seamless and highly advantageous integration in Gentile society, apart
from exceptions like Inquisition Spain and Nazi Germany) that we must
have been nuts not to buy the special offering that they were displaying
in their shop windows, then this phenomenon demands an explanation.
We did not, as a people, accept their offers. We kept calling ourselves
`am Yisro'el, the nation of Israel. The weirdest and flimsiest of
nations, to be sure: no political entity, no common vernicular most of
the time, widely differing customs, diverging halachic interpretations,
and yet, and yet, one people.
The present newsgroup is almost a demonstration of what I am referring
to. What other people can have members like Bernie who passionately
vents his anger against the G-d in Whom he refuses to believe and who
argues intelligently and passionately that he demands to be counted out
from our people but at the same time is driven to join scj to argue his
case, Albert whose pain prevents him from reasoning coherently but whose
passion, scatological as it may express itself, is as deeply felt as
Bernie's, Renee who will defend her G-d against the endictments with all
the power she can muster, Eliot who tries to keep levelheaded so that
his articles are not blistered by flames but will echo his Torah,
Matthew who is a lion roaring away when his most precious possession is
attacked, all the other people in scj who are each a different part of
the mosaic [pun gratefully noted] and I myself, once a stranger among
all of you, not sharing your pains, questions, pride, the G-d you love
and fear or deny or even abhor, and now sharing in my own particular way
all that what makes all of us into Jews [Bernie alert: religious
intolerance at work!].
What other people is there that claims to have been *born* without a
land, has lived in their own land only for very short periods of its
long history and nevertheless has never forgotten that hotly contested
piece of real estate (I am not a Zionist but not a nineteenth century
German Reform Jew either <gr>)?
What other people is there that has kept to a law without law
enforcement, just because they believed that G-d has given them the
statute of Sinai on which this law is based? What other people is
there that has devoted its keenest minds, its most talented people to a
passionate probing into all the consequences of a Divine statute that
has not prevented them from suffering this long exile that has not ended
yet?
When we say that HKB"H [the Holy One, Blessed be He] guards His people,
we do not mean that He makes our exile any easier. We do not mean that
we are Divinely protected against Nazism and its murderous genocidal
hatred. What we mean is that He has shaped a people right from the word
"go" that can survive all this and, dare I say, worse: internecine
conflict, maybe, G-d forbid, internecine war... What we mean is that
He, blessed be He, continues to give us the passion for Him that will
keep Judaism alive, even after a destruction as we have suffered in this
century.
In the final analysis, Bernie will not leave us here. He will argue
with us, because he is a Jew.
All this, I am convinced, cannot have happened and cannot be happening,
if we are simply suffering from a delusion, whatever tightly reasoned
arguments Bernie will bring. It is thus that the KP gets its true
interpretation: there is something greater than mere tradition at work
and you and I call it Sinai because Jews have *always* called it Sinai.
The fact that in the last two hundred years we have suffered losses when
hundreds of thousands of German, Austrian and Hungarian Jews have opted
for baptism, the "entry ticket for society" as Heinrich Heine called it,
or "less painful than a visit to the dentist" as Gustav Mahler called
it, nor the fact that we are in the process of losing equal or greater
numbers to American and Israeli secularism in addition to the losses,
firstly physically by genocide but also to total assimilation, in
Europe, is capable of invalidating or falsifying the "extended KP" as I
propose it here.
We have had such episodes before: in Roman times we witnessed losses to
paganism. Alexander Tiberius of Alexandria, a relative of Philo of
Alexandria, became an apostate to paganism and gained a high position
already under the emperor Tiberius whose name he adopted. He lived long
enough to serve as Titus' advisor in his campaign against the Jewish
rebellion that led to the destruction of the Temple. Anybody who thinks
we have not lost Jews to Christianity is kidding himself. Same goes for
Islam. But most importantly, we have had deviations from Torah Judaism
such as Sadducaism and Qumranism. It can be argued that they were not
deviations as that word presupposes that Pharisaism was "mainstream" but
that's not what I mean; I mean the simple fact that Pharisaism led to
Tannaitic Judaism and thus provided survival while the other two streams
turned out to be incapable of providing for a future and have remained
sterile. Likewise Karaism, a sort of Sadducaism revisited, has not been
able to have a lasting impact. Of course all these deviations called
themselves "the true Judaism" (rings a bell, readers of alt.messianic?)
and it was at the time of the conflict not at all clear that the
Essenes, the Sadducees or the Karaites were "wrong." We know they were
wrong as much as the Pharaos are nothing but mummies today and the
Assyrians a name in a history book.
We are here. That's your ultimate "proof". And anybody who has
experienced the profound feeling of being at home that a Jew has who
finds true Torah Judaism, is convinced. Sure, Judaism does not become
more easily understood by this conviction and it *certainly* does not
provide the theodicy that Bernie is demanding but it is, err, enough for
many many intelligent coherent warm-feeling humane obnoxious stubborn
pain-in-the-asses to perpetuate our people. It is a Torah Jew's belief
that not the people themselves have pulled off this stunt but the Creator
of the Universe.
Some faith. Some people.
--
Amos W
... am...@metallia.demon.co.uk ...
Bernard Greenberg
>In article <behr.13....@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za>
> be...@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (Saul G. Behr) writes:
>>There seems to be a syndrome on this channel of refusal to investigate
>>Judaism, and condemning it offhand.
>I think Bernie Greenberg's knowledge of Judaism seems incomplete, and
I'll be the first to admit it. I'll also be the first to admit that that
is exactly why I am posting my ideas here, and reading what people say, so
that this will be increasingly -less- the case. I wish to be informed, as
people have been doing without hesitation, of factual errors about
normative Judaism in any part of my presentations.
>both he and Daniel Faigin(sp?) base their comments on philosophical
>assumptions that I don't entirely share, but I wouldn't accuse them
>of condemning Judaism offhand.
You are generous. As a philosophical system, I do condemn it, on points
being reasonably debated and contended but I don't know what "offhand"
means. I don't condemn anyone for believing it, and I certainly don't
"hate Jews".
>These do not establish that the Torah could not have been written by
...........
>By this kind of logic, you should convert to Christianity, since according
>to some Christians, if Christianity is true and you don't get baptized,
and accept Christ as your Saviour,
>you will burn in eternal hellfire, while if Judaism is true and you become
>Christian, your sufferings will be slightly more palatable.
That's called "Pascal's wager", if anybody didn't know that.
>But Christians will claim that there were apostles that saw evidence
>of Jesus' divinity; some will claim that miracles still occur which
>attest to the truth of Christianity. I am less familiar with Islam,
>but I know that Islam's defenders claim that associates of the Prophet
>Muhammad (pbuh) was a man of such integrity that it would be absurd to
>claim that he made up the revelation he claims to have received.
Same claim is made of Mormon founder Joseph Smith, in spite of
substantial historical evidence to the contrary.
I guess I agree with everything in this letter wholeheartedly, including
the part that says that my knowledge is incomplete!
Bernard S. Greenberg
Simon Streltsov
: >Imagine you want to convince a n-th generation of Jews:
: >if n=0 (Sinai) they have to see Sinai miracles to be convinced.
: >if n>0 they have to see the previous generation of Jews who were
: >following Torah. You can not come and claim "O, somebody told me...".
: See you in Church Sunday morning, for that "proves" the Resurrection
: of Jesus, too. Or does it work only for Jews?
If you can show me the nation that claims that saw Jesus resurrection
in one generation, and then was passing it thru generations...
(well, even resurrection is not a big deal,
Xianity does not claim a _revelation_ of _God_ for more than 1 man
at a time) than see you in Church.
If you have no better arguments, see you tomorrow at Chabad, 491 Comm Av.
If you refuse, I'll subject you to [scj] bet-din.
Simcha
Jim Eggert x6127
> You did not parse KP correctly.
> Imagine you want to convince a n-th generation of Jews:
> if n=0 (Sinai) they have to see Sinai miracles to be convinced.
>
> if n>0 they have to see the previous generation of Jews who were
> following Torah. You can not come and claim "O, somebody told me...".
>
> QED.
I see two problems in this recursive formulation of KP.
The first one is that even the Jews at Sinai were not convinced. They
were the ones worshipping golden calves, remember? The unbelieving
Jews were not convinced by Moses, they were killed by the Levites.
The other problem is, of course, that not only does the initial
condition of your recursion not apply, but the recursion itself is
fantasy. There are many periods chronicled in the Bible where the
rulers and people of Israel fell away from God, pursued foreign idols,
practiced human sacrifice, and the like.
So you see, neither the nonrecursive nor your recursive form of the
Kuzari Principle is very convincing.
Saul G. Behr
>From: egg...@moses.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 )
>Subject: Re: The Kuzari Principle
>Date: 10 Mar 1994 15:19:45 GMT
>> The Kuzari Principle (henceforth KP) states the following:
>> If there is an event E, which, had it occurred, would have left large
>> amounts of easily-available evidence, people will not believe that E
>> occurred if that evidence does not exist. ...
>Basically the Kuzari Principle (KP) says that if enough people believe
>something is true, then it _must_ be true, even if there is absolutely
>no evidence for it. This principle is blatantly incorrect.
Okay, I'll rewrite using BIG letters. *** E V I D E N C E ***
The KP requires that the event under dispute, if it were true, would have
left large amounts of easily-available *** EVIDENCE ***
Large numbers of people believing something means nothing, unless that
something fits the KP.
>Both the Moslems and the Christians have stories of mass
>revelations, miracles, and the like.
Really? Why did only Jesus get to hear G-d speaking? Why don't Xtians
claim to have had a mass revelation directly from G-d? And Muslims? Why
did only Mohammed get to have the vision? Please find me one instance of
something that fits the KP: namely, that:
HAD IT HAPPENED, IT WOULD HAVE LEFT EVIDENCE OF ITS HAPPENING.
Please try and understand the principles in question before you come up with
such a knee-jerk response. Obviously I'm not so bone-headed as to suggest
that mere belief in something is enough to establish its truth.
Saul
Simon Streltsov
: > if n=0 (Sinai) they have to see Sinai miracles to be convinced.
: > if n>0 they have to see the previous generation of Jews who were
: > following Torah. You can not come and claim "O, somebody told me...".
: > QED.
: I see two problems in this recursive formulation of KP.
Of course, these are problems,
and they need to be addressed,
my lofty goal was to address a definition of KP,
on which we seem to agree now.
I am not going to discuss it in depth -
after all - the principle of free choice proves that
KP can not be proved ? (-:
: The first one is that even the Jews at Sinai were not convinced. They
This is probably easy to address, Golden Calf does not say they did not know
about Har Sinai. If Levites would kill a majority of Jews - it would surely
invalidate KP
: fantasy. There are many periods chronicled in the Bible where the
: rulers and people of Israel fell away from God, pursued foreign idols,
Ya, although we do not seem to have anybody doubting that Jews have God.
If looking to disporve KP, maybe times of Shoftim or Ezra would be the best
ones.
On the other hand, the flaw of your logic is that you suggest idol worship
is a proof that Jews had no info about Hashem at that time -
because it is hard for us to imagine - how a person who knows about Hashem
(kal ve'homer - "obervant") - can do such a thing.
It seems, that avoda zorah was a much more seducive thing at that time -
as there are un-Godly things we do - that were clear to other generations.
It is easy to see, if looking at modern group of Jews (by place of
origin - Israel/US/Russia, or other categories) - each of the
groups has it's own shtuyot - unimaginable for the other -
and this is in the days of telephones and USENET.
Simcha
William R. Stewart
>In article <CMG98...@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com Bernie writes:
>>From: b...@world.std.com (Bernard Greenberg)
>>Xtians claim there were hundreds of people who saw Jesus after the
????????
>>Crucifixion. And millions and millions of people believe it today.
>>And they cite the millions of people who believed it before them.
>>Their evidence is the same "Why else would millions of people believe
>>it?" Why don't you believe it, or any other myth or rumor of any of
>>the other nations of the world?
>Because they don't fit the Kuzari Principle. These myths and legends that
>you're talking about, had they been true, would have left no evidence,
>anyway. Xtianity was spread by the sword (as was Islam). People didn't
>believe it because it was true, but because it was forced on them.
Before Constantine, how many Christians were out chopping off heads?
None. And yet it was spreading at an atonishing rate. Through
Northern Africa, Asia, and Southern Europe, even the British Isles.
During this time, there were several "pogroms" of Christians, with the
horrors of death by mutilation using animals, and other extended
tortures, including molten lead poured over private parts.
Christianity forced on these people? Afraid not. These were people
who went before a high Roman Official and were given three
opportunities to recant. There is no doubt they believed. Of course,
once it became the One religion of the Roman Empire, and an
authoritarian hierarchy was installed, then tortures and force were
used on peoples of other religions. To be fair, if you bring up the
subject the subject of forced conversions, don't leave out the
Idumeans.
Regards,
Will Stewart -- My own thoughts....
asia z lerner
>
>Okay, I'll rewrite using BIG letters. *** E V I D E N C E ***
>The KP requires that the event under dispute, if it were true, would have
>left large amounts of easily-available *** EVIDENCE ***
>Large numbers of people believing something means nothing, unless that
>something fits the KP.
>
Err... just what evidence the revelation at Sinai presumes, precisely?
>>Both the Moslems and the Christians have stories of mass
>>revelations, miracles, and the like.
>
>Really? Why did only Jesus get to hear G-d speaking? Why don't Xtians
>claim to have had a mass revelation directly from G-d? And Muslims? Why
>did only Mohammed get to have the vision?
But wasn't it only Moses who got to go up that mountain?
Asia
--
*******************************************************************************
...Sure I speak for the University * i work....
of Chicago - they just don't know * in misterious ways....
about it. Shhhhhhhhh!!! * Anonymous
Bernard Greenberg
>In article <CMG98...@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com (Bernard Greenberg) writes:
>>From: b...@world.std.com (Bernard Greenberg)
>>Subject: Re: The Kuzari Principle
>>Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 12:55:19 GMT
Folks, he is right, we didn't read it carefully enough. But don't fear...
>>be...@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (Saul G. Behr) writes:
Assuming this to be an accurate statement of KP:
>>>If there is an event E, which, had it occurred, would have left large
>>>amounts of easily-available evidence, people will not believe that E
>>>occurred if that evidence does not exist.
Do you really mean "left", or "for which there was at that time?"
The two are different. I don't understand or see what kind of
"evidence" a revelation by a God would have "left".
It sounds like the proposition above does not even deal with that case.
Am I not correct?
>>>that three million of his ancestors - his entire nation - were present at a
>>>Divine Revelation. Who got them to believe this?
>>>By the KP, there would
>>>have to be vast amounts of easily available evidence in order for them to
>>>have STARTED believing it.
I'm sorry, the proposition quoted above does NOT say that.
A Revelation by a God given to one man, or an appearance in terms
of a voice, would -not- have left a large amount of evidence.
>>> From this we may deduce that the evidence DID
>>>exist, and there WAS a Revelation at Sinai before the entire Jewish people.
nope.
>>>Further evidence that the KP is accurate, is the fact that no other major
>>>religion has any story comparable to the Sinaitic Revelation.
KP not applicable.
>>> Think about
>>>it - it's a pretty convincing argument for the truth of your religion if you
>>>can claim that your entire nation witnessed a Divine Revelation.
Nope, only if the claim were true.
>>> The
>>>Muslims and the Xtians, both of whom (grudgingly) concede that the
>>>Revelation did take place, have no similar story to justify their own
>>>religions.
>>Xtians claim there were hundreds of people who saw Jesus after the
>>Crucifixion. And millions and millions of people believe it today.
>>And they cite the millions of people who believed it before them.
>>Their evidence is the same "Why else would millions of people believe
>>it?" Why don't you believe it, or any other myth or rumor of any of
>>the other nations of the world?
>Because they don't fit the Kuzari Principle. These myths and legends that
>you're talking about, had they been true, would have left no evidence,
Same is true about a personal appearance of God in the sky. What kind
of evidence do you suppose it would have left?
>anyway. Xtianity was spread by the sword (as was Islam). People didn't
>believe it because it was true, but because it was forced on them.
>>Have you never heard of "myth", or is that only for other people?
>>The fact that a large number of people believe something (e.g., the
>>earth is flat) has not the least weight as evidence as proof.
>OK, people believe that knights fought dragons. But you try selling a story
>that a dragon came and destroyed London 1000 years ago. THAT fits the KP.
>Would have left LOTS of evidence. So people won't believe it.
What kind of evidence would an appearance by a God leave?
>>> It is something you need
>>>to worry about, because we're not just giving you boogey-man stories, we
>>>offer verifiable, objective evidence of the truth of our assertions. You at
>>>least owe it to yourselves to cover your asses (if you'll pardon the
>>>expression), and just make sure that you're not actually causing yourselves
>>>serious long-term spiritual damage.
>>Wow. Verifiable, objective evidence of the Revelation at Sinai, not
>>just hearsay. Present it, please?
>Think a little harder about the argument. And trust me, there's more to
>come...
I found a Yarmulke. I'm all ready. Present the evidence, please.
>>Bernard S. Greenberg (b...@world.std.com)
>Judaism is the only religion in the world whose basic tenets (i.e. public
>miracles and having a entire nation present at a Div. Rev.) fit the Kuzari
>Principle.
Sorry, but it doesn't fit your own principle.
> It is the only religion that offers any proof of its validity (
>and there is plenty more).
The Qur`an spends some time trying to prove the existence of God,
or at least argue for it. Judaism does no such thing.
Bernie Greenberg
Bernard Greenberg
>Now imagine going to a little tribe of San (bushmen) in the Kalahari
>desert. Try telling them that every one of their ancestors was present at a
>Divine Revelation (assuming they have the concept of a Divine Revelation),
>and see how they respond. "Why didn't our parents tell us this? This is
>quite significant, a Divine Revelation - surely our entire culture would
>have been built around it if this were true?" And you cannot get them to
>believe such a story. Again, had it been true, there would have been an
>enormous amount of evidence in terms of a social memory; there is no such
>evidence - therefore the story will not be believed.
This is just utter, undiluted nonsense. This says that "social memory"
alone is prima facie evidence for the truth of a proposition, i.e.,
that hearsay evidence is acceptable if there is enough of it. As long
as everyone heard it from someone else, it must have happened. This
provides no grounds at all for differentiating between false things
that everyone believes and true things. This says that if enough
people say something (e.g., "The Jews killed Christ"), it must
be true.
What's more, your example is baloney. Spanish Missionaries in fact
-did- come to preColumbian America, and spread the idea that everybody
was stained with evil by someone no one ever heard of and the torture-death
of someone else they never heard of was going to save them from going to
some horrible place they never heard of if they but believe it, and
by and large succeeded in getting people to pass it down for generations,
without anybody asking "why didn't our parents tell us about this?"
Please find some new line of argument. No email, please.
Bernard S. Greenberg (b...@world.std.com)
Seth Gordon
>>Xtians claim there were hundreds of people who saw Jesus after the
>>Crucifixion. And millions and millions of people believe it today.
>>And they cite the millions of people who believed it before them.
>>Their evidence is the same "Why else would millions of people believe
>>it?" Why don't you believe it, or any other myth or rumor of any of
>>the other nations of the world?
>
>you're talking about, had they been true, would have left no evidence,
>believe it because it was true, but because it was forced on them.
The only physical (if we can call it that) evidence for the divinity
of Jesus is that people (Christians) have chosen to believe in his
(alleged) divinity.
The only physical (if we can call it that) evidence for the Revelation at
Sinai is that people have chosen to follow the mitzvot that were (allegedly)
revealed there.
Right? What *other* evidence for the Revelation is there?
--
seth gordon // se...@gnu.ai.mit.edu // standard disclaimer // pgp2-compatible
"Hi, ho! Kermit the Borg here, with an assimilation news flash!"
--Aaron E. Belenky
Seth Gordon
>claim to have had a mass revelation directly from G-d?
According to Xian theology, Jesus *is* G-d. Therefore, the apostles who
heard Jesus speak to them had a revelation from G-d, according to Xian
theology.
--
seth gordon // se...@gnu.ai.mit.edu // standard disclaimer // pgp2-compatible
"The US Tourist Season is now open. Get your licenses while they last."
--Daniel A. Hartung
Amos Wittenberg
In article <EGGERTJ.94...@moses.ll.mit.edu>
egg...@ll.mit.edu "Jim Eggert x6127 " writes:
>You are right. The golden calf does not say that the Israelites
>didn't know about the revelation at Sinai. It just demonstrates
that >they weren't convinced that it was real and important.
Jim, if you have read my reaction to the original KP article, you'll
know that I think it's flawed when taken in a very narrow mechanical
way.
The Calf episode immediately following the Sinaitic revelation is an
extremely important issue that must be properly understood if the story
is to make any sense at all. How on *earth* is it possible that a
people who heard the Alm-ghty Himself speak on Sinai, would almost
instantly forget such an experience and go off to worship a vile idol
such as the calf?
It's only when one has a wrong mental picture of what happened at Sinai
that the sequence is problematic. We are given the two events in
sequence *in order that* we would grasp better what both Sinai and the
Calf really were.
Note please:
1. If Sinai would have been an event of G-d's revelation to humankind in
such an unequivocal way that there would be no room for doubt in
anyway whatsoever, *all* the nations in the entire world would have
been instantly convinced, the messianic age would have started and
finita la commedia. This, however, did not happen. Chazal [our
Sages of blessed memory] knew this very well. They stressed that
*all* nations heard the Sinaitic revelation but only Israel accepted
it.
2. If indeed Sinai was not unequivocal, why wasn't it? Answer: it's
outright *impossible* that a humankind that grew up falling away from
G-d more and more would be able to grasp the enormity of G-d's
revelation "in one go". G-d carefully prepared His revelation: He
picked out one single man, Avraham, to start a family which grew into
a tribe and a caste of slaves. He somehow molded them into a people
and took them out of Egypt. *Then* He forged them into a people with
a Torah at Sinai. Our Sages say: "He held the mountain over their
heads and threatened them: if you accept My Torah, fine, otherwise
your graves will be there."
Even this people, well prepared for Sinai through the Avos
[Patriarchs], could only grasp so much. But after the left Sinai,
the world has never been the same again.
3. When they despaired of seeing Moshe Rabbeinu [pour teacher Moses]
ever again, they relapsed into the idolatrous mode of the surrounding
world. The Sages again make their observations. They tell us that
the b'nei Yisro'el [children of Israel] really did not want to serve
an idol but needed some material object to concentrate their devotion
on. The message: don't think that Sinai had been totally forgotten.
They still realised that they had experienced a true revelation at
Sinai. They just failed miserably to give this revelation the
appropriate expression in their own practice. Adoption of idolatrous
forms cannot be the proper "vessel" for the Sinaitic content.
Remarkably, through keen textual analysis the Jewish commentators
observe that it was not primarily the b'nei Yisro'el [members of the
slave caste who descended of the Patriachs] who initiated the
calf-making, but the `erev rav [mixed multitude] that went out of
Egypt with them. Anyone who only superficially knows our Sages will
realise that this observation is not simply chauvinism of, worse,
racism, but comes to tell us how important it is how one raises one's
children. People raised in an idolatrous environment will tend to
idolatrous forms so much more easily than people raised in Avraham's
house, Yitzchaq's house and Ya'aqov's house, even after the Patriachs
had died.
4. Moshe Rabbeinu reiterated so many times to the Jews in the
wilderness: don't forget what you saw at Sinai. He did not say: don't
forget what I have told you. The message of Moshe is: do not doubt
that this Torah that we are trying to implement is really G-d's
revelation. You were there. You *know* that G-d has brought this
about. What the Sinai experience was, we do not know (this would be
tantamount of actually experiencing it!), but we know its result: the
existence and survival of the Torah and a Jewish people kept alive by
the Torah. That's the "proof" that Sinai has in the world. That this
"proof" resides in the existence of a collective entity (the Jewish
people) and not in some charismatic individual, is the real content
of our Sages' insistence that "All of Israel received the Torah at
Sinai". If that would not be the case, Sinai could not have created
that collectivity. It would not have led to the consequence we can
see with our own eyes. Of course, there will always be people who
have eyes and do not see. For them, G-d has prepared the Messiah who
will drive the message home in an unequivocal manner. But then it's
no big deal anymore.
Y'shayahu [Isaiah] has put it in words that are infinitely better
than mine:
And now, thus speaks HaShem, your Creator, Ya`aqov, and your Former,
Yisro'el: do not be afraid for I have redeemed you. I have called you
by name. You are Mine.
When you go through water I am with you and in the streams, they will
not drown you. When you go through fire, it will not burn you and a
flame will not scorch you. For I am HaShem you G-d, the Holy One of
Yisro'el, your Rescuer. I have made Mitzrayim your atonement, Kush and
Sava in exchange for you. Since you are precious in My eyes, you are
honoured and I have loved you and I have given a man in exchange for you
and nations for your soul.
Do not be afraid for I am with you. From East I bring your
descendants and from West I will gather you. I will say to North: give!
and to South: do not hold back! Bring My sons from afar and My
daughters from the end of the earth! All that is called by My Name! And
for My honour I have created him, formed him, yes, made him. Bring out
a blind people (and yet eyes are there), deaf ones (and yet they have
ears). All the Gentiles are gathered together and nations are
assembled: Who among them shall tell this and let us hear the first
things? Let them give their witnesses and show their right, that they
heard and spoke truth!
You are My witnesses (thus speaks HaShem) and My servant whom I have
chosen that you will know and rely on Me and understand that I am He,
before Me no god [or: power] was formed and after Me there will not be.
I, I am HaShem and besides Me no rescuer. (Y'shaya 43,1ff)
Etc., all the way through the book.
Isaiah's message, totally consonant with the message of the Torah, is
that G-d has formed the Jewish people, has singled them out to be His
witnesses, and there is NOTHING we can do about it.
Torah Judaism is simply the human response to knowing oneself and all
other Jews to be part of G-d's special creation Yisro'el. As a human
response it is as imperfect as anything human. As *part of G-d's
creation of what we are* it is eternal and indestructible.
Jim Eggert x6127
> The Calf episode immediately following the Sinaitic revelation is an
> extremely important issue that must be properly understood if the story
> is to make any sense at all. How on *earth* is it possible that a
> people who heard the Alm-ghty Himself speak on Sinai, would almost
> instantly forget such an experience and go off to worship a vile idol
> such as the calf?
My suspicion is that it is not to be blamed on the other nations, as
your long explanation attempts to do, but on the Israelites
themselves. In fact blaming the Calf episode on the other nations
contradicts pretty much all of the biblical account. It was Aaron the
Levite, brother of Moses, who fashioned the golden calf, to the shame
of the Israelites among their enemies.
My suspicion is that the real explanation lies in the incomplete
understanding of the Israelites of what was really going on. I think
that they thought it was not God who sent the plagues to the
Egyptians, who parted the sea, who delivered them from Pharaoh's
armies. I think they thought it was Moses who did these things. And
when Moses was gone, they did not rest in the assurance of an eternal
God, but absent one god sought another to pursue their immediate needs.
Perhaps that is why Moses was buried in a secret place, so that no
cult of reverence could surround his grave site, no demigod religion
could spring up in the Promised Land.
> ...Chazal [our
> Sages of blessed memory] knew this very well. They stressed that
> *all* nations heard the Sinaitic revelation but only Israel accepted
> it.
I don't see how the Australian aborigines heard the Sinaitic revelation.
> 2. If indeed Sinai was not unequivocal, why wasn't it? Answer: it's
> outright *impossible* that a humankind that grew up falling away from
> G-d more and more would be able to grasp the enormity of G-d's
> revelation "in one go".
This is in the direction of my musings above.
> G-d carefully prepared His revelation: He
> picked out one single man, Avraham, to start a family which grew into
> a tribe and a caste of slaves. He somehow molded them into a people
> and took them out of Egypt. *Then* He forged them into a people with
> a Torah at Sinai. Our Sages say: "He held the mountain over their
> heads and threatened them: if you accept My Torah, fine, otherwise
> your graves will be there."
Conversion by the sword? Accept or die?
> ... Remarkably, through keen textual analysis the Jewish commentators
> observe that it was not primarily the b'nei Yisro'el [members of the
> slave caste who descended of the Patriachs] who initiated the
> calf-making, but the `erev rav [mixed multitude] that went out of
> Egypt with them.
Fill me in on this "keen textual analysis" please. Wasn't it Aaron
who fashioned the calf using tools? How was that analyzed away?
Jeff Tucker
>be...@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (Saul G. Behr) writes:
>
>>Now imagine going to a little tribe of San (bushmen) in the Kalahari
>>desert. Try telling them that every one of their ancestors was present at a
>>Divine Revelation (assuming they have the concept of a Divine Revelation),
>>and see how they respond. "Why didn't our parents tell us this? This is
>>quite significant, a Divine Revelation - surely our entire culture would
>>have been built around it if this were true?" And you cannot get them to
>>believe such a story. Again, had it been true, there would have been an
>>enormous amount of evidence in terms of a social memory; there is no such
>>evidence - therefore the story will not be believed.
>
>This is just utter, undiluted nonsense. This says that "social memory"
>alone is prima facie evidence for the truth of a proposition, i.e.,
>that hearsay evidence is acceptable if there is enough of it. As long
>as everyone heard it from someone else, it must have happened. This
>provides no grounds at all for differentiating between false things
>that everyone believes and true things. This says that if enough
>people say something (e.g., "The Jews killed Christ"), it must
>be true.
You are misunderstanding the argument completely. What he's
saying is that 3 million eyewitnesses is hard to fake.
>What's more, your example is baloney. Spanish Missionaries in fact
>-did- come to preColumbian America, and spread the idea that everybody
>was stained with evil by someone no one ever heard of and the torture-death
>of someone else they never heard of was going to save them from going to
>some horrible place they never heard of if they but believe it, and
>by and large succeeded in getting people to pass it down for generations,
>without anybody asking "why didn't our parents tell us about this?"
This is so feeble, it's really beneath you, Bernie. The Spanish
missionaries did not claim that the Indians' ancestors had witnessed
anything special, so there was nothing for their parents to tell
them.
>Please find some new line of argument. No email, please.
Refute the old one properly first!
--
Jeff Tucker je...@netcom.com
Jim Eggert x6127
> Caesar's EXISTENCE is something that fits the KP. He had such an enormous
> effect on the world at large that it would be impossible for his claim to
> existence to have been faked. There is no evidence NOW that he existed; we
> base our belief in his existence on faith in the Kuzari Principle, whether
> you want to admit that or not.
In this case, your assertion that there is no evidence that Julius
Caesar existed is nonsense. There exist contemporary inscriptions
with his name on them. (BTW, recently someone discovered a
near-contemporaneous inscription giving King David's name!)
Even when you dig up a good example, however, a successful application
of an incorrect method does not prove the method. Consider division.
Suppose I make the supposition that I can reduce fractions by crossing
out matching digits. Look, 16/64 = 1/4, just cross out the matching
6's. You see, the method works. That is the quality of demonstration
that you will be able to give the KP.
The real question is why does the KP apply in some cases, but not in
others? Apparently it is not a general principle, and thus cannot be
used to prove anything. Even so, you can learn something in how the
KP is violated left and right. Something simple, like history and
myth are not simple.
> >Please read Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22, John 1:33 to see that
> >not only Jesus heard God talking.
> OK, I'm ignorant, and I don't own a `New' Testament. Please quote for me.
This is the first place in the NT where God speaks directly from
heaven. It is during the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. An
audience of two named and unnumbered unnamed people. This may not
classify as a "mass" revelation in your book, but it was certainly not
a private revelation, as you claimed all Christian revelations are.
And of course, this is only the first one mentioned in the NT.
So applying the KP, if numbers of people were eyewitnesses to an
event, that if it had not happened would have been falsified by them,
then even if we don't have an evidence now, then it must have
happened. Do you conclude that God spoke to Jesus and John and the
others?
Saul G. Behr
>In article <behr.21....@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za> be...@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (Saul G. Behr) writes:
>> In article <EGGERTJ.94...@moses.ll.mit.edu> egg...@moses.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 ) writes:
>> >I am having difficulty understanding what you might understand as
>> >evidence. Anecdotal evidence ("Yes, I saw the risen Christ walking on
>> >the road to Emmaus."), physical evidence (an empty tomb), documentary
>> >evidence (the letters of Paul concerning his revelation)? What sort
>> >of evidence did the Sinaitic revelation leave that Christian or Muslim
>> >revelations could not have left?
>> Eyewitnesses, dude. Three million of them.
>Are you saying that there could not have been any eyewitnesses to
>Christian or Muslim revelations? Why not?
Well if there are eyewitnesses in such enormous proportions, please tell
me - where are the accounts?!
>> Using a document which you claim is a lie (because you imply it is not of
>> Divine authorship) to disprove something that that document claims is true?
>I never made such a claim. I don't think that the Bible is a lie.
Then you must believe that G-d wrote the Torah - after all, the Torah says
so...
>> Logically unsound. There's a lot more depth to this story that you're
>> obviously unaware of - but suffice it to say that it was not unbelievers who
>> were killed, but those who instigated others to idolatery.
>These idolaters were believers? Fly that one by me again, please.
>And where does it say, by the way, that only the idolaters were
>killed? For that matter, where does it say that only unbelievers were
>killed? Hmmm...
Look, you obviously have absolutely no understanding of this matter beyond
the banal and superficial. I'm not even prepared to get into this debate.
>> And this
>> idolatery was not even worshipping another god - it was making a molten
>> image *through which* to serve G-d, the same G-d that brought them out of
>> Egypt. (Shades of Xtianity, no?)
>The golden calf was a way of worshipping God? That's a new one, too.
>I think you need to reread the account in Exodus. They were not
>worshipping God through the calf, they were worshipping the calf
>itself, offering it sacrifices, saying it was their god.
Blimey. You've even said it. They made a bleedin' graven image of G-d.
They did NOT think they were worshipping a calf; it was an image of G-d (or
so they thought). Correspondence closed; no further ground can be broken on
this issue.
>=Jim egg...@ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Regards,
Saul
Saul G. Behr
>From: wste...@milner.mitre.org (William R. Stewart)
>Subject: Re: The Kuzari Principle
>In article <behr.23....@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za>,
>Saul G. Behr <be...@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za> wrote:
>>You know, there's this chap who lives two houses away from me, and
>>he says he's also G-d.
>Sounds like its time to move...
>>If I've had a conversation with him, does this constitute a
>>Divine Revelation?
>Has he done anything miraculous?
Irrelevant. See Deuteronomy 13: Basically, miracles, wonders and signs do
not form a basis for calling the worker of these miracles G-d.
>>You'd know a Divine Revelation if you saw one...
>I would agree there, except for those who died at the foot of Mt. Sinai.
Argument based on complete contortion of the text. This golden calf thing
has nothing to do with people not believing in a Div Rev. As far as
explanations of the golden calf go, I defer to the authority of Amos
Wittenberg or other more knowledgeable sources than myself.
>Will Stewart -- My own thoughts....
Regards,
Saul
Amos Wittenberg
>This is the first place in the NT where God speaks directly from
>heaven. It is during the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. An
>audience of two named and unnumbered unnamed people. This may not
>classify as a "mass" revelation in your book, but it was certainly not
>a private revelation, as you claimed all Christian revelations are.
>And of course, this is only the first one mentioned in the NT.
As you will know, provided you have seen the relevant artcile, I do not
agree with the KP as formulated by Saul. However, I think that the
*inverse* KP *does* work: if claims are made that a certain large group
of people have experienced something and the experience has left hardly
any trace in history that can show that the experience has had an impact
on those people, the experience itself is suspect and is likely not to
have happened at all.
A case in point is your baptism story: the people watching were *Jews*,
according to the story. Christianity has had a singular lack of success
convincing Jews of the truth of its central story: the extraordinary
(and blasphemous) claims it makes for Jesus of Nazareth. This story has
failed to convince those who are supposed to have been eye witnesses in
such a way that their direct descendants show the impact of the story.
In fact, Christian thinkers, starting with Paul, have been cognizant of
this difficulty and have introduced divinely ordained "blindness in
part" to explain away the incredible fact of Jewish disbelief of Jesus'
divinity, his saviourship, his vicarious death, his supernatural powers,
his co-equality with the Master of the Universe (heaven forfeit!), his
fulfilment of the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures etc.
Of course, in due time this doctrine of divinely ordained blindness
which in Paul's epistles is still relatively mild, has evolved in a
demonisation of "the Jews" which is already well under way in the
Johannine gospel and comes to full blosoming in the writings of the
patres ecclesiae [church fathers]. From there to Auschwitz was a matter
of time, admixture of paganism, resentment against "Jewish" Christianity
and the other elements of the evil mix called Nazism.
Whilst no one blames "Christianity" for "Auschwitz", many *Christian*
thinkers *do* recognise that without the "teachings of contempt" of
Christianity, ordinary university graduates from traditional Christian
homes could not have been induced to view fellow human beings as vermin
that must be exterminated, and thus transgress on a scale more massive
than the world has ever witnessed before, the most basic message that
both Judaism and Christianity have in common: the sanctity of *all*
human life.
OTOH the Jewish claims about the election, the special place of the
Jewish people in G-d's plan for His creation, based on the Sinaitic
event, are enormously strengthened by the strange phenomenon that two
universalistic world religions, Christianity and (to a lesser extent)
Islam, have recognised these claims to be based on an actual historic
event: Sinai.
There are numerous ethnic groups in the world that cherish notions of
their chosenness, their uniqueness in the scheme of things, their
centricity on a cosmic scale. The word "Inuit" [as the
Esquimaux|Eskimos call themselves] simply means "man", "human being".
To be an Inuit seems to be the be-all-and-end-all for an Inuit.
Similarly, the Australian aborigines have their myths about their own
uniqueness. It's a long time ago since I did religious anthopology in
university and all the details have escaped me but the phenomenon is
known well enough to be considered uncontested. A quick glance in the
writings of Hellenist authors shows that they, too, considered being a
Greek as a special calling to accomplish some special mission in the
world. Whilst the Hellenists managed to convince whole cultures to
become absorbed in the great Hellenist family of civilised humankind, no
one today but the most committed Classicist will still pay any attention
to the ideals of Hellenism.
The impact of the mere existence of the Jewish people is totally out of
proportion with their numerical present among the nations of the world.
Their most outlandish claim, i.e. that the Creator of the Universe has
brought about their very existence as a people for a certain specific
reason, has been swallowed by millions of Christians around the globe.
That surely is a remarkable fact-of-life that deserves analysis.
[followups set to alt.messianic, maybe you post your original to
alt.messianic as well]
Jim Eggert x6127
> >The golden calf was a way of worshipping God? That's a new one, too.
> >I think you need to reread the account in Exodus. They were not
> >worshipping God through the calf, they were worshipping the calf
> >itself, offering it sacrifices, saying it was their god.
> Blimey. You've even said it. They made a bleedin' graven image of G-d.
> They did NOT think they were worshipping a calf; it was an image of G-d (or
> so they thought). Correspondence closed; no further ground can be broken on
> this issue.
Perhaps someone can fill me in on this concept. I didn't know that
any branch of Judaism held that worshipping a graven image could ever
be interpreted as worshipping God.
Renee
>The first one is that even the Jews at Sinai were not convinced. They
>were the ones worshipping golden calves, remember? The unbelieving
>Jews were not convinced by Moses, they were killed by the Levites.
This seems to be a favorite subject of yours ;-)
Let me ask you a question. What percentage of the Israelites worshipped the
calf?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Renee
Ice cream is finger-food, you fool!
Renee
>The first one is that even the Jews at Sinai were not convinced. They
>were the ones worshipping golden calves, remember? The unbelieving
>Jews were not convinced by Moses, they were killed by the Levites.
And one more question. Who was the calf meant to represent?
Jim Eggert x6127
> In article <EGGERTJ.94...@moses.ll.mit.edu> egg...@moses.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 ) writes:
> >The first one is that even the Jews at Sinai were not convinced. They
> >were the ones worshipping golden calves, remember? The unbelieving
> >Jews were not convinced by Moses, they were killed by the Levites.
> This seems to be a favorite subject of yours ;-)
It is a very interesting story in Exodus, one that we should be able
to learn a lot from.
> Let me ask you a question. What percentage of the Israelites worshipped the
> calf?
The biblical account doesn't say explicitly, it refers only to "the
people" and "your people". The simplest interpretation is that this
represents the majority. We can certainly exclude Moses and Joshua,
and include Aaron in their number. My guess is that the Levites with
the swords were not among the calf worshippers, but that is only a
guess.
and in article <rme1.68....@cornell.edu> Renee continues:
> And one more question. Who was the calf meant to represent?
The gods of Israel. Except my reading is that the calf didn't
represent these gods, but was considered to _be_ these gods.
Amos Wittenberg
>Perhaps someone can fill me in on this concept. I didn't know that
>any branch of Judaism held that worshipping a graven image could ever
>be interpreted as worshipping God.
Having tried to "fill you in" many times in the past without much
success, I nevertheless will give this one a try.
Jews are forbidden to make "graven images" of anything at all, including
G-d. The prohibition is argumented in the Torah (please use a good
concordance, _not_ Strong's, to find the verse; I don't have a chumash
handy here) with "for you saw no image when Hashem spoke to you on
Chorev" or words of similar meaning.
If something is forbidden (i.e. making "graven images" of G-d), it
follows logically that the act itself is possible and holds a certain
attraction, otherwise the prohibition would be nonsensical or
superfluous. It also follows that the *punishment* if the act is done
despite the prohibition, is going to be for *that* transgression.
The Torah *also* forbids other things: to worship any entity other than
G-d alone (e.g. Moses, Jesus, the Lubavitcher Rebbe shlit"a, the Rev.
Moon, a piece of stone, a tree, one's new Mercedes). This transgression
is committed when one does one of four things: bring a libation, bow
down, burn incense or bring a sacrifice before something representing
this other entity or before the entity itself or with the intention that
the act is done in worship of this entity. It is *also* committed if
the Jew performs an act which in the worship of that particular entity
is considered an act of worship: e.g. acting as a temple prostitutes,
swallowing a consecrated host, speaking in tongues and praising Jesus in
an Evangelical gathering etc.
The Torah *also* forbids to worship G-d in ways He has not commanded us:
bringing a sacrifice which He has not commanded us, bringing fire into
the tabernacle at a time or in a manner He has not commanded us (Nadav
and Avihu!), etc.
Now read the story carefully (from Ex.32 on):
1. The text does not refer to "Israel", the "children of Israel" but to
"the people".
2. Aharon made the calf but nowhere it is said that he made it to
represent another god.
3. After he made the calf, "they" (i.e. "the people") proclaimed,
speaking to *Israel*: "These are your gods, Israel, who brought you
up from the land of Egypt". Remarably, there was just *one* calf and
nevertheless "the people" referred to a plural, "these are your
gods". Apparently they were accustomed to polytheistic ideas.
4. When Aharon saw this, he quickly tried to keep the whole thing within
certain bounds by building an altar and announcing "Tomorrow will be
a feast for Hashem". This was, of course, a transgression (see
above) for which Aharon was punished severely but it was not
idol-worship on his part. He managed to turn the tide and get "the
people" to participate in the feast for Hashem, but this very feast
corrupted into an abomination of immorality and loose behaviour.
5. When G-d announced to Moshe what had happened, He referred to "your
people whom you have brought up from the land of Egypt." This is
puzzling since not Moshe but G-d is responsible for the Exodus and
G-d does not lie, as you know. The conclusion is that this *must*
refer to some category of people that G-d never brought out of Egypt,
but who went nevertheless, because Moshe permitted it: the "mixed
multitude".
6. Verse 7 is usually translated "they have corrupted themselves" or
other reflexive verbs. The Hebrew does not imply this reflexive
translation. It simply says "ki shichet `amkha" [for your people
have corrupted, or destroyed]. The mixed multitude is identified as
a corrupting force. They, by virtue of their having accepted the
Torah at Sinai, have taken it on themselves to follow the way that
Hashem had commanded them and now it turns out that this commitment
was only skin-deep.
7. When Moshe answers G-d with a plea, he refers to "Your people whom
You have brought up from the land of Egypt" and he says "why are You
angry?" If the whole of the Jewish people was indeed guilty of
idolatry, Moshe's question "why" would be the height of silliness.
Moshe knew very well that G-d has every right to be angry with His
people when they serve false gods (as they have done many times, and
received punishment for it!). What is Moshe saying, then? He is
asking Hashem to give him, Moshe, a chance to cleanse the Jewish
people from idol-worshipping elements as his subsequent actions show.
The virus had infected the Jewish people, as the abominable scenes of
Aharon's "feast for Hashem" showed. Idol worship it was not. It
never says "and the children of Israel bowed down to strange gods".
But they did regard this calf as a legitimate religious symbol,
worthy of being the centre of a "feast for Hashem" under Aharon's
leadership. This was a grave sin and would have warranted the end of
the Jewish people right then and there, if not for G-d's election of
the Patriarchs which Moshe threw in as his trump card.
If the whole of the Jewish people would have been serving strange gods
in the episode of the calf, the Torah would have told us so very
explicitly. The Hebrew Scriptures are not known for equivocal
statements of our sins; they would rather overstate our sin than
understate it: "I will sanctify Myself in those to whom I am near."
The episode of the calf was an enormous tumble down from a spiritual
high, the Sinai event. It represents a true fall and our Sages ob"m
have a lot to say about that. It also was an episode of profound
learning, part of the steep learning curve that this brand-new people,
yesterday still a caste of slaves, today a people under a law, had to go
through in order to start its mission in the world.
The Jewish people have always been open to "mixed multitudes" and has
welcomed them in their midst. Nevertheless, it also recognised that
they have to learn a lot before they have shed the idolatry that
surrounded them in their former life. Fall is so much easier for them.
BTW, Moshe, too, was punished for this episode, according to some
opinions in our commentators. WHy? He wasn't even there! The answer:
he failed as an educator of the "mixed multitude". If he took them on
board, he was responsible for them.
Are you filled in?
Seth Gordon
>considered quite a lot more convincing than circumstantial evidence....
Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable. The McMartin
pre-school child-abuse case, the most expensive criminal trial in the
history of the US, ended in acquittal, because the alleged victims'
accusations of extreme and violent abuse had no supporting physical
evidence. In many psychological experiments, interviewers have made
their subjects "remember" nonexistent events simply by asking a
leading question.
--
seth gordon // se...@gnu.ai.mit.edu // standard disclaimer // pgp2-compatible
ASCII to ASCII, DOS to DOS.
Seth Gordon
>Julius Caesar existed? He wrote books, you say? How do you know he wrote
>them? Maybe somebody else wrote them, and all those stories are just
>fabrications.
This sounds almost exactly like arguments that Xian evangelists use to
"prove" the accuracy of the Greek scriptures regarding the alleged divinity
of Jesus.
Julius Caesar's existence is attested to by numerous independent sources
(perhaps a specialist in ancient history can go into detail about them),
and the apparent authors of these sources had a variety of different
relationships with Caesar; some supported him, some hated him, some didn't
care, etc. Note that if a few people who idolized Caesar wrote texts
describing miracles that he performed, while nobody else refers to those
acts, a historian has a right to be suspicious of the claim that Caesar
worked miracles.
The only (to my knowledge) document that we have about the theophany
at Sinai is the Tanach, which was obviously written by, er, entities
with a vested interest in making us believe that there was a theophany
at Sinai.
--
seth gordon // se...@gnu.ai.mit.edu // standard disclaimer // pgp2-compatible
"Death before dishonour. Drugs before lunch."
--Motto of the Aspen Drug and Gun Club
Seth Gordon
>>heard Jesus speak to them had a revelation from G-d, according to Xian
>>theology.
>
>he says he's also G-d. If I've had a conversation with him, does this
>constitute a Divine Revelation?
>
>You'd know a Divine Revelation if you saw one...
Indeed. And the apostles (according to the Greek scriptures) knew that
Jesus was divine, and after seeing him returned to life, they were
convinced that he was divine, etc. etc.
What's sauce for the lox is sauce for the shrimp, so to speak.
--
seth gordon // se...@gnu.ai.mit.edu // standard disclaimer // pgp2-compatible
"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
--A.J. Liebling, "Do You Belong in Journalism?", _The New Yorker,_ 5/14/60
Jim Eggert x6127
> As you will know, provided you have seen the relevant artcile, I do not
> agree with the KP as formulated by Saul. However, I think that the
> *inverse* KP *does* work: if claims are made that a certain large group
> of people have experienced something and the experience has left hardly
> any trace in history that can show that the experience has had an impact
> on those people, the experience itself is suspect and is likely not to
> have happened at all.
This is utter nonsense. One could prove thereby any number of things.
For example, the great supernova of, what was it, 1054? The one that
caused the formation of what is now the Crab Nebula. Certainly a
large group saw this, but it hardly made a historical impact. Only in
certain Chinese records is it discussed. Your logic would say that it
is likely not to have happened at all.
You have swung from one extreme of nonsense to another. One says that
myths must be true if they are believed and if they would have been
seen by lots of people, the other extreme is that stories must be
false if hardly any historical record indicates an impact on the
eyewitnesses. Both extremes attempt to prove truth or falsehood
in the absence of evidence. It just can't be done.
William R. Stewart
>In article <EGGERTJ.94...@moses.ll.mit.edu> egg...@moses.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 ) writes:
>>In article <2lnihu$k...@news.bu.edu> sim...@bu.edu (Simon Streltsov) writes:
>>The first one is that even the Jews at Sinai were not convinced. They
>>were the ones worshipping golden calves, remember? The unbelieving
>>Jews were not convinced by Moses, they were killed by the Levites.
>This seems to be a favorite subject of yours ;-)
>Let me ask you a question. What percentage of the Israelites worshipped the
>calf?
OK, I try it from memory. As I remember, 3000 were killed. If one
uses the number 3 million for the entire group, you would have .001%
killed.
Now how many of the people who worshipped the calf decided not to get
skewered and went over to the side of Moses? How can we tell? At
least one (Aaron). This is a question without an answer.
--
Will Stewart -- My own thoughts, questions, requests, ....
Jim Eggert x6127
> Jews are forbidden to make "graven images" of anything at all, including
> G-d. The prohibition is argumented in the Torah (please use a good
> concordance, _not_ Strong's, to find the verse; I don't have a chumash
> handy here) with "for you saw no image when Hashem spoke to you on
> Chorev" or words of similar meaning.
> ...Now read the story carefully (from Ex.32 on):
>
> 1. The text does not refer to "Israel", the "children of Israel" but to
> "the people".
I disagree with you already. Ex 32:4 and 8 both explicitly name
Israel. God talks about "your [i.e. Moses'] people" in verse 7.
Moses talks about "thy [i.e. God's] people" in verse 11, and refers to
the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel in verse 13. I conclude
that the text is clearly talking about the Israelites and no one else.
> 2. Aharon made the calf but nowhere it is said that he made it to
> represent another god.
Correct but misleading. The people said "These are your gods, O Israel,
who brought you up out of the land of Egypt." (Ex 32:4,8). The
people asked Aaron to "make us gods" (Ex 32:23). Thus the calf did
not "represent" a god, but it _was_ a god to the people.
> 3. ... Remarably, there was just *one* calf and
> nevertheless "the people" referred to a plural, "these are your
> gods". Apparently they were accustomed to polytheistic ideas.
And these polytheistic gods represented Yahweh? I don't understand you.
> 4. When Aharon saw this, he ... managed to turn the tide and get "the
> people" to participate in the feast for Hashem, but this very feast
> corrupted into an abomination of immorality and loose behaviour.
You forgot to mention that Aaron fashioned the golden calf himself.
(Ex 32:3-4) He was not trying to turn the tide, he _was_ the tide.
> 5. When G-d announced to Moshe what had happened, He referred to "your
> people whom you have brought up from the land of Egypt." This is
> puzzling since not Moshe but G-d is responsible for the Exodus and
> G-d does not lie, as you know. The conclusion is that this *must*
> refer to some category of people that G-d never brought out of Egypt,
> but who went nevertheless, because Moshe permitted it: the "mixed
> multitude".
But Moses said it was God who brought them out of Egypt (verse 11).
It is clear that Moses was the immediate agent and God the ultimate
agent in the exodus. You don't have to posit another comigrating
tribe to understand this story. In fact, the description of the
massacre at the hands of the Levites indicates that it was Israelites
who were against the covenant, not some strangers. "Slay every man
his brother ... companion ... neighbor." (Ex 32:27)
> 7. When Moshe answers G-d with a plea, he refers to "Your people whom
> You have brought up from the land of Egypt" and he says "why are You
> angry?" ...
I always interpreted this "why" teleologically. Not for what cause,
but to what end was God full of wrath? To destroy His own people?
The rest of Moses' comments support this interpretation.
> If the whole of the Jewish people would have been serving strange gods
> in the episode of the calf, the Torah would have told us so very
> explicitly. The Hebrew Scriptures are not known for equivocal
> statements of our sins; they would rather overstate our sin than
> understate it: "I will sanctify Myself in those ton
> understate it: "I will sanctify Myself in those to whom I am near."
I didn't say that the whole of the Jewish people worshipped the golden
calf. Moses and Joshua didn't, that is sure. No one knows how many
did, but the narrative reads like it was a goodly fraction of Israel
that did.
Renee
>In article <rme1.67....@cornell.edu> rm...@cornell.edu (Renee) writes:
>> In article <EGGERTJ.94...@moses.ll.mit.edu>
>egg...@moses.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 ) writes:
>> >The first one is that even the Jews at Sinai were not convinced. They
>> >were the ones worshipping golden calves, remember? The unbelieving
>> >Jews were not convinced by Moses, they were killed by the Levites.
>> This seems to be a favorite subject of yours ;-)
>It is a very interesting story in Exodus, one that we should be able
>to learn a lot from.
>> Let me ask you a question. What percentage of the Israelites worshipped
>the
>> calf?
>The biblical account doesn't say explicitly, it refers only to "the
>people" and "your people". The simplest interpretation is that this
>represents the majority. We can certainly exclude Moses and Joshua,
>and include Aaron in their number. My guess is that the Levites with
>the swords were not among the calf worshippers, but that is only a
>guess.
Wait a minute. You said in your previous post "the unbelieving Jews were
not convinced by Moses, they were killed by the Levites." The account does
mention how many were killed by the Levites -- 3000. Well 3000 out of 3,000,
000 is hardly a majority.
>and in article <rme1.68....@cornell.edu> Renee continues:
>> And one more question. Who was the calf meant to represent?
>The gods of Israel. Except my reading is that the calf didn't
>represent these gods, but was considered to _be_ these gods.
I will refer you to Amos's most excellent article for my answer to this
because I couldn't have said it better.
James Kahn
>In article <behr.19....@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za>
> be...@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (Saul G. Behr) writes:
>>
>>Bernie, perhaps you've heard of EYEWITNESS evidence? It's generally
>>considered quite a lot more convincing than circumstantial evidence....
>Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable. The McMartin
>pre-school child-abuse case, the most expensive criminal trial in the
>history of the US, ended in acquittal, because the alleged victims'
>accusations of extreme and violent abuse had no supporting physical
>evidence.
Oh, come now. You might have mentioned that these eyewitnesses were
all pre-schoolers. If the Torah had said that 3 million 3-year-olds
had witnessed the revelation, this example would have some relevance.
Neither physical evidence nor eyewitness evidence nor circumstantial
evidence is perfect. But there's nothing inherently unreliable
about eyewitness evidence, nor inherently reliable about physical
evidence. Both can be faked. The more evidence the better.
--Jim
--
ka...@troi.cc.rochester.edu |The government is perfectly capable of deciding to
ka...@weiss1.wharton.upenn.edu|drop mass quantities of beavers on urban areas,
(215) 898-4254 |especially if an economist suggests that this
|might create jobs. --Dave Barry
Jim Eggert x6127
> In article <EGGERTJ.94...@moses.ll.mit.edu> egg...@moses.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 ) writes:
> >The biblical account doesn't say explicitly, it refers only to "the
> >people" and "your people". The simplest interpretation is that this
> >represents the majority. We can certainly exclude Moses and Joshua,
> >and include Aaron in their number. My guess is that the Levites with
> >the swords were not among the calf worshippers, but that is only a
> >guess.
> Wait a minute. You said in your previous post "the unbelieving Jews were
> not convinced by Moses, they were killed by the Levites." The account does
> mention how many were killed by the Levites -- 3000. Well 3000 out of 3,000,
> 000 is hardly a majority.
You are quite right, I made a mistake. I should have said "The
unbelieving Jews were not convinced by Moses [this is a tautology],
_some of them_ were killed by the Levites." We don't know how many of
the unbelievers were not killed. From the description of the massacre
by the Levites, it is not even clear that only unbelievers were
killed. The account reads more like random killings, but it is really
hard to say. In any case, the story does not let us calculate how
many of the Israelites worshipped the golden calf, but it sounds like
the majority did.
sim...@bu-pub.bu.edu
in English in Brandeis library and was amased how many
things are translated (many of them recently):
here are some books that attracted my eye:
Simcha Streltsov
Bori, Pier Cesare. The golden calf, and the origins of the
anti-Jewish controversy. South Florida studies in the history
of Judaism; 16. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, c1990.
Jacob, Benno, 1862-1945. The second book of the Bible, Exodus.
Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1992.
. Bible. O.T. Exodus. Aramaic. 1989. Targum Onkelos to Exodus: an
English translation of the text with analysis and commentary
(based on the A. Sperber and A. Berliner editions). Hoboken,
NJ: Ktav; Denver: Center for Judaic Studies, University of
Denver, c1989.
Eisen, Robert J. The exodus of the Jews from Egypt in Gersonides'
Commentary on the Torah: a study in medieval philosophical
exegesis. 1990
Cassuto, Umberto, 1883-1951. A commentary on the book of Exodus.
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University 1983, [c1967].
Leibowitz, Nehama. Studies in Shemot: the Book of Exodus.
Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, Dept. for Torah
Education and Culture in the Diaspora, c1976.
Ashkenazi, Yaakov ben Yitzchak, 1550-1628. Tzeenah u-reenah; a
Jewish commentary on the Book of Exodus. [1st ed.]. New
York, Vantage Press [1965].
Nahmanides, ca. 1195-ca. 1270. Commentary on the Torah. New York,
Shilo Pub. House [1971-76].
Sforno, Obadiah ben Jacob, ca. 1470-ca. 1550. Sforno: commentary
on the Torah = Be'ur `al ha-Torah le-rabi `Ovadyah Sforno.
1st ed. ArtScroll mesorah series. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Mesorah,
1987.
Sorotzkin, Zalman. Insights in the Torah = [Oznayim la-Torah] :
the Chumash with translation and the complete classic
commentary of the master rav and maggid Rabbi Zalman
Sorotzkin [zatsal]. 1st ed. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Mesorah
Publications, c1991.
Feinstein, David, Rabbi. Kol dodi on the Torah = [Kol dodi `al
ha-Torah] : comments, insights and ideas on the weekly
sidrah, adapted from the shiurim of Rabbi David Feinstein.
1st ed. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Mesorah Publications, in conjunction
with Mesivtha Tifereth Jerusalem, c1992.
Nahshoni, Yehudah. Studies in the weekly Parashah = [Hagut
be-farshiyot ha-Torah] : the classical interpretations of
major topics and themes in the Torah. 1st ed. Brooklyn, N.Y.:
Mesorah Publications; Jerusalem: ArtScroll Jerusalem, 1988.
Gifter, Mordekhai, 1916. Torah perspectives: an eminent Rosh
Yeshivah expounds on such timely and timeless topics as
education, the Holocaust, and the Jew's role in creation. 1st
ed. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Mesorah, 1986.
Jim Eggert x6127
works may also be interesting:
AUTHOR: Hahn, Joachim, 1954-
TITLE: Das "Goldene Kalb" : die Jahwe-Verehrung bei Stierbildern in der
Geschichte Israels / Joachim Hahn.
PUB. INFO: Frankfurt am Main ; Bern : Lang, 1981.
DESCRIPTION: 395 p. ; 21 cm.
SERIES: Europaische Hochschulschriften. Reihe 23, Theologie ; Bd. 154 =
Publications universitaires europeennes. Serie 23, Theologie ;
v. 154
_________________________________________________________________________
AUTHOR: Hellbardt, Hans.
TITLE: Das Bild Gottes : eine Auslegung von II Mose 32 / Hans Hellardt.
PUB. INFO: Munchen : Kaiser, 1939.
DESCRIPTION: 95 p. ; 23 cm.
SERIES: Theologische Existenz heute ; heft. 64
_________________________________________________________________________
and another English one:
AUTHOR: Moberly, R. W. L.
TITLE: At the mountain of God : story and theology in Exodus 32-34 /
R.W.L. Moberly.
PUB. INFO: Sheffield [Eng.] : JSOT Press, c1983.
DESCRIPTION: 258 p. ; 22 cm.
SERIES: Journal for the study of the Old Testament. Supplement series,,
ISSN 0309-0787 ; 22
_________________________________________________________________________
Bernard Greenberg
>about eyewitness evidence, nor inherently reliable about physical
>evidence. Both can be faked. The more evidence the better.
This is in contradiction to the Kuzari principle, which says the -less-
evidence the better. That is, as I said to Saul, the more outrageous the
thing is, the more physical evidence would seem to be needed, the more
weight can be given to hearsay. It is a technique for systematically
evading the need for physical evidence. Nicht wahr?
Bernie (b...@world.std.com)
Hayim Hendeles
Seth Gordon <se...@silver.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <behr.19....@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za>
> be...@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (Saul G. Behr) writes:
>>
>>Bernie, perhaps you've heard of EYEWITNESS evidence? It's generally
>>considered quite a lot more convincing than circumstantial evidence....
>
>Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable. The McMartin
The Kuzari's argument, as is typically presented, is incomplete. The
real argument is infinitely more powerful then "people believe and
therefore ..." or "there are eyewitnesses and therefore ...".
There is a fascinating tape on this subject, from Rabbi Dr. Gottleib,
former professor of philosophy at John Hopkins, where he carries
through the argument in painstaking detail - which makes all the
difference in the world.
He discusses all the common arguments from people believing in dragons,
to the alleged resurrection of Jesus, and to people who believe the
holocaust never happened. He analyzes each of those cases in detail,
and shows why they have no bearing on our case of the belief in the
Revelation at Sinai. His arguments are extremely powerful, and well
worth listening to.
(The lectures also discuss conflicting histories from other ancient
documents, archaelological evidence, linguistic analysis, etc. etc. etc.
All of this is simply fascinating)
The tape is available from Ohr Sameach, and is entitled
"Historical Verification of the Torah". I have heard this tape
in 2 varieties: One version consists of a series of 3 tapes, the
other is 4 tapes. Personally, I felt the 3-tape version was
superior, although he expands on some points in the longer series.
Sincerely,
Hayim Hendeles
Bernard Greenberg
>In article <2mand8$j...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu>,
>Seth Gordon <se...@silver.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>>In article <behr.19....@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za>
>> be...@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (Saul G. Behr) writes:
>>>
>>>Bernie, perhaps you've heard of EYEWITNESS evidence? It's generally
>>>considered quite a lot more convincing than circumstantial evidence....
>>
>>Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable. The McMartin
>>seth gordon // se...@gnu.ai.mit.edu // standard disclaimer // pgp2-compatible
>The Kuzari's argument, as is typically presented, is incomplete. The
>real argument is infinitely more powerful then "people believe and
>therefore ..." or "there are eyewitnesses and therefore ...".
>There is a fascinating tape on this subject, from Rabbi Dr. Gottleib,
>former professor of philosophy at John Hopkins, where he carries
>through the argument in painstaking detail - which makes all the
>difference in the world.
All right, I'm not gonna send for it, but you've got me interested.
Can you state his argument, or how the "real thing" differs from
what Saul has presented in various forms, and how it applies to
dragons, alleged Christian miracles, and other seemingly-damning
test cases presented here?
BTW, who was [the?] Kuzari?
Bernie (b...@world.std.com)
James Kahn
>ka...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (James Kahn) writes:
That's your wild-eyed completely illogical interpretation. The KP
is directed toward events that did not leave enduring physical evidence.
To conclude that it "says" the less evidence the better is as dumb
as concluding that someone who uses an umbrella prefers rain to sunshine.
In any case, the KP is hardly a pillar of Jewish doctrine, so don't
waste your breath trying to blow it down.
Bernard Greenberg
ka...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (James Kahn) writes:
>In <CMvor...@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com (Bernard Greenberg) writes:
>>ka...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (James Kahn) writes:
>>>about eyewitness evidence, nor inherently reliable about physical
>>>evidence. Both can be faked. The more evidence the better.
>>This is in contradiction to the Kuzari principle, which says the -less-
>>evidence the better. That is, as I said to Saul, the more outrageous the
>>thing is, the more physical evidence would seem to be needed, the more
>>weight can be given to hearsay. It is a technique for systematically
>>evading the need for physical evidence. Nicht wahr?
>That's your wild-eyed completely illogical interpretation. The KP
>is directed toward events that did not leave enduring physical evidence.
>To conclude that it "says" the less evidence the better is as dumb
>as concluding that someone who uses an umbrella prefers rain to sunshine.
All right, "the less evidence, the more the Kuzari principle is
applicable." Can we close a deal on that? Hardly surprising my
interpretation of a pillar of illogic should sound "wild-eyed"
and "completely illogical"! The illogic, dear James, is not in
my interpretation...
>In any case, the KP is hardly a pillar of Jewish doctrine, so don't
>waste your breath trying to blow it down.
Quite.
Bernie (b...@world.std.com)
Ilya Vinarsky
If one is to believe the Jewish religion, there was a great Flood
a few thousand years ago; the entire planet was covered with water for a few
weeks. This would have left plenty of geological evidence. Lack of such
evidence implies that the story is untrue.
Also, when comparing beliefs of our contemporaries to those of our ancestors,
it helps to remember that widespread literacy and universal schooling do not
go very far back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ilya Vinarsky
Vsie predrassudki proch' otbrosiv, Discarding all the superstitions,
No chtob ot Boga po sekretu, But keeping in secret from God,
Svininu yest mudrets Iosif, Wise Joseph eats pork
I gromko khvalit rybu etu. And loudly praises this fish.
Igor Guberman
Seth Gordon
ka...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (James Kahn) writes:
>
>Oh, come now. You might have mentioned that these eyewitnesses were
Pre-schoolers are not the only people with flexible memories. The
psychology experiments I mentioned in the other part of my message
were carried out on adults.
[slight subthread change, from unreliability of eyewitnesses to
unreliability of oral history]
An example, involving adults, of the unreliability of oral history:
there's a warning circulating by word of mouth/xerox/fax about a
"lights-out" gang initiation ceremony. Allegedly, a car full of
gangsters drives around at night with its lights out, and then when a
passing motorist flashes his/her car's own lights to remind the
gangsters to turn on their headlights, the gangsters shoot the
motorist. People who have taken the trouble to trace this rumor to
the police department that allegedly issued the warning discovered
that there is no record of any such initiation. This case has been
discussed ad nauseam on alt.folklore.urban.
--
seth gordon // se...@gnu.ai.mit.edu // standard disclaimer // pgp2-compatible
"Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise
anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear
and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." --Plato, _Phaedrus_
Ilya Vinarsky
>
>You did not parse KP correctly.
>
>Imagine you want to convince a n-th generation of Jews:
>if n=0 (Sinai) they have to see Sinai miracles to be convinced.
>
>if n>0 they have to see the previous generation of Jews who were
>following Torah. You can not come and claim "O, somebody told me...".
>
>QED.
>
>No when you understand the KP you can argue about Ezra, etc.
>
>Simcha Streltsov, Adar Rabbi of S.C.Soviet
>-------------------------
>please, no _MORE_ homentashen
Mr. Streltsov apparently refers to the Well-Ordering principle: every subset
of the set of nonnegative integers has a smallest member. In a set of
generations of Jews that worship Torah (starting somewhere), one generation
has to be first.
The fallacy of this argument is that this set is in fact quite fuzzy.
What it meant to my great-grandfather to believe in God was different from
what it meant for Jews 1000, 2000, 3000 years ago. If you go sufficiently
far back, the Jews' religion was hardly different from that of the neighboring
Middle Eastern peoples (the story about the Book of Law found in the Temple).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ilya Vinarsky
Vsie predrassudki proch' otbrosiv,
No chtob ot Boga po sekretu,
Svininu yest mudrets Iosif,
I gromko khvalit rybu etu.
Igor Guberman
James Kahn
>E...@world.std.com> <1994Mar20....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
>ka...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (James Kahn) writes:
>>In <CMvor...@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com (Bernard Greenberg) writes:
>>>. . . The Kuzari principle . . . says the -less-
>>>evidence the better. That is, as I said to Saul, the more outrageous the
>>>thing is, the more physical evidence would seem to be needed, the more
>>>weight can be given to hearsay. It is a technique for systematically
>>>evading the need for physical evidence. Nicht wahr?
>>That's your wild-eyed completely illogical interpretation. The KP
>>is directed toward events that did not leave enduring physical evidence.
>>To conclude that it "says" the less evidence the better is as dumb
>>as concluding that someone who uses an umbrella prefers rain to sunshine.
>All right, "the less evidence, the more the Kuzari principle is
>applicable." Can we close a deal on that?
That's a bit better, but you still seem to have this idea that the KP
somehow _precludes_ looking at [other] evidence. That's where
you got wild-eyed and illogical and went off an a tirade against Saul.
Illogical because there is nothing in the KP that says "ignore all
physical evidence."
Suppose, G-d forbid, that all physical evidence of the Holocaust
disappeared over the next 100 years. [You will say that this is
a poor example because your point is that major events do leave
physical evidence. But that was not so true 3,000 years ago
(no movie cameras, no microfilm, etc.) So bear with me.] Jews
gather to figure out a strategy for making sure that the memory
of the event is not forgotten. They commit to teaching their children,
writing down everything they know of the event, etc. But five
hundred years from now the only "evidence" we have is the knowledge
of the event passed down from generation to generation.
Cut to the year 2494 C.E. There's a conference on 20th century history.
One theory is presented that the Holocaust story was invented by some
nut, and spread from generation to generation. Another is that yes,
it did occur, that something *of that magnitude* could not have been
made up out of thin air, and have been accepted, believed, and passed
through the generations with such conviction by so many people.
Where will Bernie Greenberg XVII stand on this question? Will he
shrug his shoulders and say that one theory is just as good as the
other?
Now cut to the year 1310(?) B.C.E. The Jews have just left
Mitzrayim, they've witnessed the revelation at Sinai, and they are
want to ensure that even 3,000 years later the memory of this event
is still alive. They know there won't be physical evidence, so
they adopt basically the same strategy that the 21st century Jews adopt
(well, they're told how to do it, actually, but you get the idea)
to keep alive the memory of the Holocaust, notwithstanding
the possibility that some Jew named Bernie Greenberg 3406 years
from then will sneer and say "where's the evidence?"
Bernard Greenberg
>In <CMz8s...@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com (Bernard Greenberg) writes:
>>E...@world.std.com> <1994Mar20....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
>>ka...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (James Kahn) writes:
>>>In <CMvor...@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com (Bernard Greenberg) writes:
>>>>. . . The Kuzari principle . . . says the -less-
>>>>evidence the better. That is, as I said to Saul, the more outrageous the
>>>>thing is, the more physical evidence would seem to be needed, the more
>>>>weight can be given to hearsay. It is a technique for systematically
>>>>evading the need for physical evidence. Nicht wahr?
>>>That's your wild-eyed completely illogical interpretation. The KP
>>>is directed toward events that did not leave enduring physical evidence.
>>>To conclude that it "says" the less evidence the better is as dumb
>>>as concluding that someone who uses an umbrella prefers rain to sunshine.
>>All right, "the less evidence, the more the Kuzari principle is
>>applicable." Can we close a deal on that?
>That's a bit better, but you still seem to have this idea that the KP
>somehow _precludes_ looking at [other] evidence.
No it doesn't. If there's evidence, you don't need the KP. You don't
need to KP to prove that the sun rises in the East, or that dinosaurs once
lived. The KP is only useful for "proving" events where there is no
surviving evidence. It is only called in when legitimate evidential means
have failed.
> That's where
>you got wild-eyed and illogical and went off an a tirade against Saul.
My eyes may be wild, but not illogical. This tirade convinced Saul
to throw in the towel.
>Illogical because there is nothing in the KP that says "ignore all
>physical evidence."
No. KP only applies when there is no physical evidence to be ignored.
>Suppose, G-d forbid, that all physical evidence of the Holocaust
>disappeared over the next 100 years. [You will say that this is
>a poor example because your point is that major events do leave
>physical evidence. But that was not so true 3,000 years ago
>(no movie cameras, no microfilm, etc.)
False. There are ample physical artifacts from Caesar's time
to prove that Caesar existed. Coins with his image that can be dated, etc.
I can't imagine what it would mean for all physical evidence of the
Holocaust to disappear. It is our duty to make it -not- disappear.
And if it all did disappear, the case, as you suggest, would indeed
be lost.
> So bear with me.
Ursus mecum yourself!:)
> Jews
>gather to figure out a strategy for making sure that the memory
>of the event is not forgotten. They commit to teaching their children,
>writing down everything they know of the event, etc. But five
>hundred years from now the only "evidence" we have is the knowledge
>of the event passed down from generation to generation.
At that point, it won't make a difference any more. If there is no
evidence, and it is a matter of "some believe in it and some don't",
others would be right in not believing in it.
>Cut to the year 2494 C.E. There's a conference on 20th century history.
>One theory is presented that the Holocaust story was invented by some
>nut, and spread from generation to generation. Another is that yes,
>it did occur, that something *of that magnitude* could not have been
>made up out of thin air, and have been accepted, believed, and passed
>through the generations with such conviction by so many people.
Ever visit a Church? How can something of that magnitude be made up of
thin air, and been accepted, believed, and passed through the generations
with such conviction by so many people? That God was born of a Virgin,
walked among us for 33 years, carried the heavy burden of our sins all the
way to the Cross and rose triumphant from death and ascended to Heaven!
Something of *that* *magnitude*???? There are a thousand Christians for
each Jew. That makes the evidence 1000 times as strong.
>Where will Bernie Greenberg XVII stand on this question? Will he
>shrug his shoulders and say that one theory is just as good as the
>other?
No reputable historian bases his or her conclusion solely on the
hearsay and stories of one tribe. If there was no physical evidence,
and no people other than one tribe believed that it happened, I would
be forced to conclude that it did not happen. It would not be a case
of "one theory is just as good as another." I do not shrug my shoulders
now. Sinai did not happen, the holocaust did.
The little preconditions that "no one else remembers it" and "there is
no surviving physical evidence" are not minor. Yes, it is possible to
rewrite history with a sword. It is the responsibility of decent
people not to let Gannon and his ilk succeed, or the physical evidence
be destroyed. Real history leaves evidence. Imagined history leaves
no evidence. History is not a game of "which tribe's story do you
like the best?" History is a methodical study of evidence, reports,
consistency, insight, etc. It is a science, not a religion.
>Now cut to the year 1310(?) B.C.E. The Jews have just left
>Mitzrayim, they've witnessed the revelation at Sinai, and they are
>want to ensure that even 3,000 years later the memory of this event
>is still alive. They know there won't be physical evidence, so
>they adopt basically the same strategy that the 21st century Jews adopt
>(well, they're told how to do it, actually, but you get the idea)
>to keep alive the memory of the Holocaust, notwithstanding
>the possibility that some Jew named Bernie Greenberg 3406 years
Categorize me involuntarily by my race as a 'Jew' and I'll
categorize you involuntarily by your beliefs as a racist. Fair?
>from then will sneer and say "where's the evidence?"
It absolutely is possible. That the story is true is certainly one
consistent explanation. No one has argued that faulty logic
implied the possibility that it might be true; the faulty logic
asserts that the story -must- be true. There are many more likely
explanations for tribal myths of supernatural events than that the
supernatural events actually happened. Every tribe has them,
and they all contradict each other about the origins of humanity or
the universe, and none of them are true. Countless examples have
been posted of the genesis of myths.
Bernard S. Greenberg (b...@world.std.com)
Ken Arromdee
James Kahn <ka...@troi.cc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>Cut to the year 2494 C.E. There's a conference on 20th century history.
>One theory is presented that the Holocaust story was invented by some
>nut, and spread from generation to generation. Another is that yes,
>it did occur, that something *of that magnitude* could not have been
>made up out of thin air, and have been accepted, believed, and passed
>through the generations with such conviction by so many people.
>Where will Bernie Greenberg XVII stand on this question? Will he
>shrug his shoulders and say that one theory is just as good as the
>other?
No. People other than descendants of the Holocaust victims would _also_ have
had the story passed down to them.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
ObYouKnowWho Bait: Stuffed Turkey with Gravy and Mashed Potatoes
"You, a Decider?" --Romana "I decided not to." --The Doctor
James Kahn
>ka...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (James Kahn) writes:
>>Suppose, G-d forbid, that all physical evidence of the Holocaust
>>disappeared over the next 100 years. [You will say that this is
>>a poor example because your point is that major events do leave
>>physical evidence. But that was not so true 3,000 years ago
>>(no movie cameras, no microfilm, etc.)
>False. There are ample physical artifacts from Caesar's time
>to prove that Caesar existed. Coins with his image that can be dated, etc.
>I can't imagine what it would mean for all physical evidence of the
>Holocaust to disappear. It is our duty to make it -not- disappear.
1. Caesar lived 2,000 years ago. 2. I said not "so" true, meaning
that events of a given importance would have left less physical
evidence then than now. Surely you don't disagree with that.
>And if it all did disappear, the case, as you suggest, would indeed
>be lost.
I don't suggest that. You are the one who only accepts physical evidence.
>>Jews gather to figure out a strategy for making sure that the memory
>>of the event is not forgotten. They commit to teaching their children,
>>writing down everything they know of the event, etc. But five
>>hundred years from now the only "evidence" we have is the knowledge
>>of the event passed down from generation to generation.
>At that point, it won't make a difference any more. If there is no
>evidence, and it is a matter of "some believe in it and some don't",
>others would be right in not believing in it.
>>Cut to the year 2494 C.E. There's a conference on 20th century history.
>>One theory is presented that the Holocaust story was invented by some
>>nut, and spread from generation to generation. Another is that yes,
>>it did occur, that something *of that magnitude* could not have been
>>made up out of thin air, and have been accepted, believed, and passed
>>through the generations with such conviction by so many people.
>Ever visit a Church? How can something of that magnitude be made up of
>thin air, and been accepted, believed, and passed through the generations
>with such conviction by so many people? That God was born of a Virgin,
>walked among us for 33 years, carried the heavy burden of our sins all the
>way to the Cross and rose triumphant from death and ascended to Heaven!
>Something of *that* *magnitude*???? There are a thousand Christians for
>each Jew. That makes the evidence 1000 times as strong.
You still don't seem to get it. The existence of one guy who thought
he was G-d was not an event of the same order of magnitude as the
killing of 6 million Jews. The KP does not say belief implies
reality. It does not say that the more who believe in something
the more likely it is to be true. Why do you insist on relying
on straw man arguments?
>>Where will Bernie Greenberg XVII stand on this question? Will he
>>shrug his shoulders and say that one theory is just as good as the
>>other?
>No reputable historian bases his or her conclusion solely on the
>hearsay and stories of one tribe. If there was no physical evidence,
>and no people other than one tribe believed that it happened, I would
>be forced to conclude that it did not happen. It would not be a case
>of "one theory is just as good as another." I do not shrug my shoulders
>now. Sinai did not happen, the holocaust did.
You're not even withholding an opinion. You have an opinion on something
about which by your own statement there is no evidence. Very curious.
>. . . History is not a game of "which tribe's story do you
>like the best?" History is a methodical study of evidence, reports,
>consistency, insight, etc. It is a science, not a religion.
At some point we have to make decisions about what to believe in
the face of evidence, or lack thereof. By your own standards
you have no more basis for saying "Sinai did not happen" then I have
for saying it did.
>It absolutely is possible. That the story is true is certainly one
>consistent explanation. No one has argued that faulty logic
>implied the possibility that it might be true; the faulty logic
>asserts that the story -must- be true.
I can agree that the KP is not a proof. You, however, are going to
the opposite extreme and saying that the argument carries _zero_
(or negative?) weight.
Earl Goldberg
>
> First of all, let me establish what I mean by TRUTH (and I need to do this
> because there are many people who have argued a profoundly irrational
> existentialist argument that truth is relative). Truth is NOT relative.
> Mount Everest IS the highest mountain in the world, and this FACT cannot be
> rationally disputed. You can disbelieve it, but you'd be wrong. Not
> morally or relatively wrong, but absolutely wrong.
>
Uh, Mr. Truth... I believe that current scientific evidence points to K2 as the
"tallest mountain in the world".
The only 'absolute truth' is that which you choose to arbitrarily define as
such.
Keep seeking...
-----------------------
Earl Goldberg
egol...@vax1.umkc.edu
yehuda silver
: be...@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (Saul G. Behr) writes:
: >If there is an event E, which, had it occurred, would have left large
: >amounts of easily-available evidence, people will not believe that E
: >occurred if that evidence does not exist.
: >Now we take the Jews. Every (orthodox) religious Jew in the world believes
: >that three million of his ancestors - his entire nation - were present at a
: >Divine Revelation. Who got them to believe this? By the KP, there would
: >have to be vast amounts of easily available evidence in order for them to
: >have STARTED believing it. From this we may deduce that the evidence DID
: >exist, and there WAS a Revelation at Sinai before the entire Jewish people.
: >Further evidence that the KP is accurate, is the fact that no other major
: >religion has any story comparable to the Sinaitic Revelation. Think about
: >it - it's a pretty convincing argument for the truth of your religion if you
: >can claim that your entire nation witnessed a Divine Revelation. The
: >Muslims and the Xtians, both of whom (grudgingly) concede that the
: >Revelation did take place, have no similar story to justify their own
: >religions.
: Xtians claim there were hundreds of people who saw Jesus after the
: Crucifixion. And millions and millions of people believe it today.
: And they cite the millions of people who believed it before them.
: Their evidence is the same "Why else would millions of people believe
: it?" Why don't you believe it, or any other myth or rumor of any of
: the other nations of the world?
You missed the WHOLE point, of the Kuzari.
The Kuzari points out that only the Bible claims that a "revalation" or
"miracle" happened to an ENTIE NATION. It's not a question of "hundreds'
(actually the xtians claim dozens, the muslims claim One-mohammed) vx.
millions.
the Kuzaris point was that lets say a someone wanted to fabricate such a
claim.
If the claim was "it happened to humdreds or " when asked "why don't we
know about it, or 'why didn't our parents, grandparents etc.. tell us
about it, the answer would be "they weren't among the hundreds it happened
to, but I was"..
But to fabricate a claim of "the entire nation" the response would be 'so
why don't we all know about it"?
...
...
One of the other things that convinced the king of the Khazars, on his own
BEFORE even meeting the rabbi, were his discussions with the priest, and
mustlim imam.
when he asked them to prove the 'truth" of their religion, they both
responded by quoting scripture from the Jewish bible, that alledgedly
"predicted" their guy. (not miracles)
So he asked them "how do you know the Jewish bible is correct" and they
responded by a) the revalation at Mount sinai, b) moses's taking the Jews
out of Egypt, and c) "the entire civilized world recognizes the Jewsih
bible as true, all xtains , all mustlim etc..
it is an "unquestioned fact"!......
It was only more than three thousand
years later that anyone seriouly questioned it, and even today the
overwhelming majority of the world and the US accepts the obvious!
: Wow. Verifiable, objective evidence of the Revelation at Sinai, not
: just hearsay. Present it, please?
: Bernard S. Greenberg (b...@world.std.com)
Seth Gordon
ka...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (James Kahn) writes:
>
>Suppose, G-d forbid, that all physical evidence of the Holocaust
>gather to figure out a strategy for making sure that the memory
>of the event is not forgotten. They commit to teaching their children,
>writing down everything they know of the event, etc. But five
>hundred years from now the only "evidence" we have is the knowledge
>of the event passed down from generation to generation.
>
I would say that the transmitted oral evidence suggests that
*something* *similar* *to* the Holocaust described in those documents
occurred, but it did not necessarily occur in exactly the way
described in those documents.
--
seth gordon // se...@gnu.ai.mit.edu // standard disclaimer // pgp2-compatible
"Don't play stupid with me; I'm better at it than you are."
--Andrew Ross <ar...@oregon.uoregon.edu>