Kuzari Principle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Kuzari Principle or National Revelation is a line of philosophic reasoning derived from the medieval work Kuzari. This principle claims to logically prove the historicity of major events recorded in the Bible from the nature of the belief in them. More specifically, it is argued that one can prove from the oral testimony of the story itself that some three million Israelites personally were led out of Egypt in an Exodus, and witnessed God's revelation to them at Mount Sinai, thus establishing the proof of the events discussed in the Torah.

Contents 1 Major formulation 2 Criticism 3 Replies to Criticism 4 Notes and references 5 External links

[edit] Major formulation

A modern statement of the Kuzari Principle is as follows: Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred. ^[1] Therefore, if people believe that E occurred, it is only because it actually did.

The argument continues by claiming that events such as the revelation at Sinai fit the requirements of the Kuzari Principle. The Jewish people could only have accepted the story of Sinai and the exodus if it was true. If someone had come to the Jews at a later point and claimed these events had happened to their ancestors, they would have rejected the story and said they had never heard of such a thing. Kuzari proponents also claim that other mass beliefs, such as those of other religions, do not fit the requirements.

Many people propose a slightly expanded version of the Kuzari principle: A person cannot come to a nation and falsely claim all their ancestors experienced a national revelation of great significance to their daily lives. Since the Torah repeatedly mentions the exodus and revelation, and contains many commandments remembering them, it would have been very difficult for it to have been made up. To disprove the Kuzari Principle, one would have to find a nation that keeps many practices remembering an event that supposedly happened to all their ancestors, and show that event to be false.

[edit] Criticism

There are both logical and historical counter-arguments to the Kuzari Principle, primarily:

• There are numerous examples of falsified myths that people take for granted. For example, the traditions of Shia Islam, maintain that on the day Husain ben Ali, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, was killed, the stones of the Temple Mount were drenched in blood for the whole day. This event should have left some commentary from other sources, such as Christians living in Jerusalem at the time. In Christianity, the miracle of feeding the multitude, whereby Jesus fed over 5,000 people in one town and over 4,000 in another, creating food from 5 and 7 loaves of bread (respectively) is another such example. ^[2] In summary, Kuzari proponents would be forced by symmetry to accept the public miracle claims of other religions, but they reject other miraculous stories.

• Joshua 10:13 contains a public miracle that says that the sun stood in the middle of the sky for the whole day. The whole world would have seen this, yet we see no evidence of this event in other ancient cultures or at least cultures that had a writing system and astronomical awareness. The Egyptians and Babylonians had writing systems, yet they left no trace of the event in their writings, so we are left with only one source for this miracle - the Bible. This casts doubt on the historical veracity of the lesser public miracles.^[2]

• The argument assumes that how the Torah is understood has always been the same. Perhaps over a period of many generations the story of 'strange events at a mountain' evolved very slowly to the current version. Or perhaps the original was a partial fiction which slowly began to be accepted as a factual. Maybe the text of the Torah itself changed over time.

• This argument assumes that when a text is first written, its precise text became widely known among nearly the entire community, and that most people would know if the text changed. However, this is often not the case. The assumption is that if they are given a new story, they will know that it is new. However, in many times and places people had little accurate knowledge of their history.

• The argument ignores numerous statements within Jewish tradition, in the Bible, the Talmud, and other texts, that precisely the event it denies did occur; that is, there were periods in Jewish history when tradition was forgotten (if it existed) by the masses, who were then taught it (or re-taught it) by the leadership. Such an incident occurs under King Josiah at the end of the Book of Kings, when a Torah Scroll is discovered in the Temple and no one outside of one prophetess knows what to make of it; another is described in the Book of Ezra, when Ezra reads the Torah to the returnees from Babylon, who are ignorant of the laws and traditions. Further, such events have occurred more recently in Jewish history, for example with the "discovery" of the mystical work the Zohar, never heard of by the masses before the Middle Ages and yet immediately accepted by them as authentic.

[edit] Replies to Criticism

• In response to other religions’ miraculous claims, Kuzari Proponents argue that such stories were told to people elsewhere by very few "witnesses" and any proof is only as strong as its weakest link. No one told a people that Jesus fed their fathers thousands of loaves, just that he fed some people in far-away Israel. This applies even more so for the story of the blood-drenched Temple Mount. To fit the criteria of the Kuzari principle, it has to be more than just a miraculous story. It has to be one of great significance that happened to all of a people’s ancestors. If the story is told to them, and no one they ask has ever heard of it, they will reject it. No religious group claims that a miracle took place that fulfills the Kuzari Principle criteria that Judaism does not believe took place as well. This demonstrates, according to Kuzari Proponents, the weakness in other religions. Especially, since the Kuzari's thrust is to demonstrate the veracity of the Jewish religion, and not others, weaknesses in other religions' viewpoints would, according to Kuzari Proponents demonstrate faults in their beliefs, not in the Jewish belief.

• In response to the counter-proof from Joshua, proponent give various answers. Some claim there actually is some hint of other records of the sun stopping, or we may not have complete records from that time. Others say it may not have been of such significance to ancient cultures because it did not demand any change in practice of their lives. Many, based on the commentary of the Ralbag, claim the “sun-stopping” was a local miracle not observed elsewhere in the world.

• To counter claims of the stories having developed over time, the proponents of the principle argue that the repeated statements in the Torah purportedly said directly to the first generation of Jews make it difficult for it to have evolved. Furthermore, the commandment of constant Torah study (see Joshua 1:8) and various verses in Torah itself claiming that at least certain parts (according to the Talmud no part) would never be forgotten (see Deuteronomy 31:21), would make it rather difficult for any individual to gradually add things into the text without someone noticing. Also the many commandments remembering the miraculous exodus would have been hard to start among people who had no such tradition. ^[3] To disprove the expanded version of the principle, one would have to explain how the Jews adopted all of their practices remembering the Exodus. Some examples: The commandments to "tell about the Exodus" to "tell it to your son" to "remember the day you left Egypt" etc. All the Jewish Holidays and the Sabbath recall the Exodus. Tefilin and Mezuzos both contain passages recalling the Exodus.

• In regards to the Josiah argument, Kuzari Proponents argue that even then the Jews surely remembered the exodus, or they never could have been convinced of it. Idolatry had only be rampant in Israel for a few decades. This argument seems quite tenable as Hezekiah (Josiah's great-grandfather) was a righteous individual by Biblical accounts and led a nation-wide campaign for Torah study (see Tractate Sanhedrin 94b for further demonstration of the level of Torah knowledge at this time). Also, Manasseh (Josiah's grandfather) who led the charge for idolatry was considered to be a well-versed scholar (see Tractate Sanhedrin 102b for further discussion on this topic). Therefore, it seems quite unlikely that the people were completely ignorant of the Torah. From the very fact that Josiah asked for a prophet to explain the scroll, it seems likely that he knew that one should be consulted, further demonstration of basic Torah knowledge. Furthermore, from the text there is only indication of a lack of knowledge from the aristocracy (as they are the only ones discussed in the text about the Torah-scroll discovery), which may demonstrate that such ignorance was only existent amongst them. When one actually reads the text of II Chronicles (chapter 34), it is clear that Josiah destroyed idolatry and was seeking out the Lord even before "finding" this Torah scroll. Also, the text itself makes no mention of Josiah's unfamiliarity with its existence, but merely how he shuddered at the destruction that would be wrought on the people for not keeping its dictates. The Talmud states that he was shocked at the punishment of exile the nation would receive, not the existence of the scroll. Never is it stated that he, nor anyone, did not know what the scroll was. Furthermore, in Kuzari 4:23, Rabbi Judah Halevi states clearly that Manasseh followed the Torah, but merely worshiped idols. Although not universally held by all medieval commentators, the text in Kings and Chronicles does not demonstrate one way or the other regarding Manasseh's views on Torah. As for the lack of knowledge by the Babylonian exiles, the Talmud in Tractate Kiddushin states that only the less-knowledgeable amongst the people returned. The greater bulk of Torah scholars (with the exception of Ezra and the like) remained behind in Babylonia. The discovery of the Zohar is not as relevant, since, while it was immediately accepted en masse without evidence, it always claimed to be a secret text not that relevant to the masses. It also does not claim any public miracle happened to the Jews' ancestors. The Torah was always read by all Jews and contains hundreds of commandments that they observed, many which recalled the exodus.

[edit] Notes and references

[edit] External links

• In Favor of the Argument
  • Dovid Gottlieb, Living up to the Truth
  • Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, The Kuzari Principle - A Rigorous Formulation (A Formal Proof of the Divine Origin of the Torah)
  • Nechemia Coopersmith, The Kuzari Principle (Formal explanation of how the Kuzari principle works)

• Against the Argument
  • Shlomi Tal, The Sinai Argument (a reply to Gottlieb), also see Gottlieb's rejoinder.
  • David Yust, The Kuzari - The Principle and the Formalism (detailed history and analysis).
  • Mark Perakh, Prohibition to Think (Criticism of the Kuzari Principle as formulated in Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen's book Permission to Receive, including discussion of whether revelation at Sinai was before entire nation according to traditional Jewish sources)