National Testimony: Introduction to The Kuzari Principle
National Testimony: Introduction to The Kuzari Principle
Fact – something that can be proven to be true.
Legend – a story that lacks authenticity.
To claim a fact to be true, what do you need? We need a large quantity of information that has authenticity. Witnesses, that can properly testify for a claim, allows us to prove a story to be considered history.
The entire Nation of Israel heard Hashem Himself say the first two commandments of the Torah. They all heard it. They all knew what Moshe Rabbeinu was being told. On the other hand, as ll other faiths are based on the sole testimony of a man who is believed to be special, by his followers, even though their claim can not be proven true.
The world’s biggest organized religion can not prove itself to be true because it wasn’t given via an irrefutable testimony of a myriad of people who could make such a claim. In fact, there was not even a tribal testimony to confirm its authenticity. All of the Dharmic religions are based on the sole testimony of the individual founders of those religions who instead had an individual, spiritual experience but not a valid claim, yet millions of people follow their teachings.
The quantity and quality of the claim is what makes Judaism a better claim than any other faith because the others lack both. The Nation of Israel has many claims of truth including things in national history including the Roman colonization of Israel, the persecution by the Umawīyah, and those barbaric societies in Northern Europe. The persecution of the Nation of Israel actually happened as carefully documented by historians. If so, then why is Mattan Torah (Giving of The Torah) any different?
Mattan Torah was an event which they all experienced. The transmission of the Nationally Experienced Event is highly improbable to have been falsified especially when it was passed down from generation to generation by the same people.
According to Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb, “we have a great deal of evidence against myth formation as the explanation of the belief in Sinai.”
The formation of a myth wouldn’t make sense if an entire nation that knew that it was false because how could they have they all falsified it consistently? It has to be that the National Testimony of Mattan Torah was passed down by the descendants of the same Jewish people who experienced it.
Dovid Gottlieb answers: “The condition of Sinai is this: it is a national tradition concerning a national experience that would change the life of the nation. Let’s call this NET [National Experiential Tradition] for short. Now I say that all the evidence for myth formation applies to beliefs that are not NET. And I say that we have strong evidence against myth formation applying to beliefs that are NET. The product is false beliefs. If myth formation applies to a belief, then of course the belief is not true. Myth formation shows how false beliefs arise. Now THERE ARE NO KNOWN FALSE NET BELIEFS. If myth formation worked in the NET category there should be many NET beliefs that are known false, but there are none. So the evidence that we have of myth formation working is limited to cases that are not NET. The evidence we have is against myth formation applying to NET beliefs since if it did there should be many known false NET beliefs.”
I am genuinely quite surprised that this is considered a good argument for the Jewish faith. There are significant methodological arguments and ignorance at counter-arguments that cannot be ignored. This will be analysed case by case.
“To claim a fact to be true, what do you need? We need a large quantity of information that has authenticity. Witnesses, that can properly testify for a claim, allows us to prove a story to be considered history.”
Yeah, that’s agreeable and a basic but correct view of establishing history. You then cite the issues with Christianity (presumably) and the other large religions based on a lack of reliable witnesses and testimony. That’s fair and accurate to modern scholarship. You then veer completely off the methodology presented and into apologetic.
“The quantity and quality of the claim is what makes Judaism a better claim than any other faith because the others lack both.”
Alright, cool. Based on your previous comments I expect a presentation of multiple, irrefutable, witness statements that present your case for the national revelation at Sinai. But…
“Mattan Torah was an event which they all experienced.”
OK, how do we know that? There are no witness statements that can corroborate this event beyond Genesis-Exodus within the Bible. You have just presented the same logic that the Christian faith presents for the resurrection; that Mary and others witnessed Jesus as a man, as did the apostles (Luke 24, Acts 1). This is of course unsubstantiated and an assertion. But you, equally, have provided no evidence and only assertions that a) this event really happened, b) that there were multiple witnesses that can corroborate (one account is not corroboration) this event to be certified as an actual history.
“The transmission of the Nationally Experienced Event is highly improbable to have been falsified especially when it was passed down from generation to generation by the same people.”
Again, where is the evidence? You’ve presented an argument that is removed from your original premise. You are arguing based on witness corroboration at first and are now shifting the goal-post of evidence to be around chains of narration of an event; not the witnesses. We have no other documents or witnesses of this event (your original premise).
Your comment is equally ignoring the comments of myth generation as detailed by biblical and historical scholarship; of which I will address elsewhere.
“According to Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb, “we have a great deal of evidence against myth formation as the explanation of the belief in Sinai.” ”
This citation and your comments on myth creation are weak, at best. What is the justification /against/ it being a myth? You’ve only presented assertions and not evidence otherwise. In fact, this event meets the criteria presented to qualify as myth (defined by Carrier, citing Radcliffe Edmonds, in On the Historicity of Jesus, p.423-424). Myth is defined by (1) a seemingly straightforward account of something occurred with a structure that appears carefully constructed to present deeper meaning; (2) the usage of symbols familiar to the audience (keywords, allusions, religious facts, cultural etc.); (3) if the event/myth presented is highly allusive to previous myths and alerts certain facts of such. Unless you can present, citing yourself, “…We need a large quantity of information that has authenticity. Witnesses, that can properly testify for a claim…” to prove that this is history. Unless you can provide multiple witness reports then we have little reason to accept this as anything but national-myth.
Gottieb’s defence of the purported revelation is nothing but asserting something is true without evidence and then defending it. You have obfuscated, as has Gottieb, the original methodology used to discredit other religions whilst ignoring it for your own. The fact that you thought this was worth enough to post as a form of apologetic is embarrassing. I suggest you significantly re-evaluate the argument presented here lest it be disregarded as nonsense.
You have an interesting perspective. The Torah was passed down from generation to generation via oral Torah. And this is how it was moved through out time. Thus, as a tradition, the multitudes of Jewish communities, that passed down the holy Torah, are connecting the chain of tradition. This is why the arguments of R” Dovid Gottlieb are more credible sources for providing evidence that the Nation of Israel has a valid tradition.