This week we'll look at the problems involved in the Torah's account of population. The topic was introduced in the past when we discussed Absence of Evidence and the Biblical Exodus. This week we'll look at this specific topic more closely. The first half we'll examine the actual problems involved with the literal account of how many people partook in the Exodus and the wandering in the desert. The second half we'll look at the very common idea in modern circles that the "correct" interpretation of the Torah yields a lower number. We'll come to the conclusion that this is not at all supported by the text, and is only an interpretation that attempts to salvage a "true" reading of the Torah in the light of the overwhelming evidence that the large numbers mentioned in the Torah cannot be true.
600,000 Men
There are a couple places in the biblical account where the size of the population is mentioned. The first occurs during the departure from Egypt. Exod. 12:37 puts the numbers at:
And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, beside children.In this week's parsha we get the account of the Israelites during the beginning of the desert sojourn. Num. 1:45-46 reports a number of 603,550:
45 And all those that were numbered of the children of Israel by their fathers' houses, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war in Israel; 46 even all those that were numbered were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty.Another census at the end of 40 years in the desert povides us with the number of 601,750 (Num. 26:51)
These are they that were numbered of the children of Israel, six hundred thousand and a thousand and seven hundred and thirty.Neither account includes the Levites who are counted separately. As a side note, it is somewhat humorous that in approximately 200 years in Egypt the size of the Israelites goes up from 70 to 600k, and in 40 years in the desert, it actually declines. Anyway, these are the numbers we are given. Why is this problematic?
The Large Number Problem
There are a great many reasons that this amount of people is incredibly problematic historically. First consider, the total size of a population involving 600,000 males of fighting age (typically between 20 and 60 years old). You can probably assume a roughly equal number of women, and probably an equivalent number of children and elderly that fall outside that age. All told, we're looking at somewhere between 1.5 million and 2 million people according to the Torah in the entire nation of Israel.
The first question to ask is what the population of Egypt during this time period was. This is actually really difficult to get an answer to. This site seems to provide the most comprehensive list of estimates I could find. From there we see that in period of time where the Exodus could have occurred, we are looking at a range of population from about 1 million to 5 million. Let's assume we are somewhere near the upper bound of that range. Depending on whether you include the Israelites in the Egyptian estimates or not, you are looking at something like 25-40% of the population as Israelite. The departure of the Israelites would then cause a tremendous dip in the population of the region. These large scale demographic changes are ones that would definitely leave their marks. Cities would have been abandoned, local economies would have collapsed, etc. We don't see anything of this magnitude at any time during the Egyptian history, and certainly not at any time period that aligns with possible exoduses.
The second question is to look for evidence of a large population in the desert. For the vast majority of the time in the desert, the Jews encamped at Kadesh Barnea. This is actually a fairly well known site, since it is referred in later times as an oasis stop on trade routes. It is the current site of Ein el Qudeirat or perhaps the smaller site nearby Ein Qadis. The Israelite encampment would make a city that was the largest in the world at that point. It was a city with a fairly large animal population, for the daily sacrifices. It would be a city where we'd expect somewhere over a million dead, since the entire generation is said to have died. Presumably they were buried, possibly with tombstone and other markers. Finkelstein and Silberman sum up the problem of the biblical narrative:
Yet repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area [of Ein el Qudeirat and Ein Qadis] have not provided the slightest evidence for activity in the Late Bronze Age, not even a single sherd left by a tiny fleeing band of frightened refugees [1].The problems of the population size in the desert narrative have forced literalist apologists to conclude that God purposefully erased all possible evidence from the areas in question. One wonders why God would try to trick people like that.
Last, we turn to the population of the Israelites as they cross into Canaan. First it should be noted that we do not see any large influx of population during this time period. Certainly nothing of the magnitude of one million plus. However, it's useful to try to get population estimates in Canaan, just as we tried for Egypt. Dever, who is somewhat sympathetic to the biblical narrative, and is trying to provide justification for a true united monarchy in the time of David says:
In oral communication Finkelstein says that he agrees with me that ca. 100 thousand is not too high a figure for all of "Israel" and "Judah" in the 10th century [2].Other estimates are considerably lower. Furthermore, as you go further back in time in the late Bronze Age, you see even lower population estimates. Oddly if you go even further back to the middle Bronze Age, in the era preceeding the Exodus, you start seeing higher numbers again. It turns out that the period in which 1 million Israelites were supposed to enter Canaan is precisely the time when the population appears to be at a a minimum. At this time, most settlements were small and local. In fact, it's not too different from the story portrayed in shoftim (Judges) which is partly Dever's point.
Hoffmeier, an Egyptologist and biblical maximalist in that he believes that the biblical story represents true knowledge of a 13th century Exodus sums up the numbers problem:
The evidence offered here, along with the thoughtful studies of the problem of the size of the Israelite exodus, leaves little doubt that the number of individuals would have been in the thousands, maybe a few tens of thousands, but certainly not hundreds of thousands, let alone millions [3].Hoffmeier favors an alternate reading of the text, which is in somewhat in vogue today among Modern Jews who wish to salvage the Torah's narrative. This will be the topic for the rest of the post.
Elef or "Elef"
The modern interpretation I hinted to above hinges on the interpretation of the word elef. The word appears in the first sentence quoted above in Exodus.
And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand (elef) men on foot, beside children.or in Hebrew:
וַיִּסְעוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵרַעְמְסֵס, סֻכֹּתָה, כְּשֵׁשׁ-מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף רַגְלִי הַגְּבָרִים, לְבַד מִטָּףA different definition of elef is proposed here. Namely the definition that appears in Gen. 36:40-43
36,40 And these are the names of the chiefs (alufei) that came of Esau, according to their families, after their places, by their names: the chief (aluf) of Timna, the chief of Alvah, the chief of Jetheth...The word aluf (אַלּוּף) has the same root as elef (אֶלֶף) mentioned above. The proposition is that this is the true meaning of the word, it means groups or families, not thousands. Exod 12:37 is actually referring to 600 families that left Egypt, which would certainly be believable historically, although it would contradict the story in part, like in Exod. 1:10 where the Pharaoh is concerned that the Israelites are too large and will join the Egyptian enemies
There are two motivations for this suggestion in meaning. The first is what we saw above by Hoffmeier. The archaeological evidence just cannot support an Exodus narrative of the size of millions. The second comes from the incredulity of a population burgeoning from 70 members to 2 million in 200 years. [4]
However, it is my opinion that this explanation of the numbers is completely unwarranted. For one thing, it cannot be applied to the two census accounts in Bamidbar (Numbers). The first census, in this week's parsha, uses the following format when discussing the numbers of each tribe (Num 1:22-23):
22 Of the children of Simeon, their generations, by their families, by their fathers' houses, those that were numbered thereof, according to the number of names, by their polls, every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war; 23 those that were numbered of them, of the tribe of Simeon, were fifty and nine thousand (elef) and three hundred.First of all, the format uses several subdivisions already present. It uses families (mishpechotehem) and generations (dorotam). So interpretation of elef as family here seems to make no sense. Second, if you do interpret elef as family and not thousand, what do you do with the number 300 that appears afterwards in this example? Furthermore, if you add up all the counts, assuming they're actual numbers, as every translator has done for 2000 years, you get the correct total for all the Israelites. The Torah doesn't always get arithmetic like this right. It is arithmetically correct in both censuses.
The other census in Bamidbar is hardly any better (Num 26:12-14):
12 The sons of Simeon after their families: of Nemuel, the family of the Nemuelites; of Jamin, the family of the Jaminites; of Jachin, the family of the Jachinites; 13 of Zerah, the family of the Zerahites; of Shaul, the family of the Shaulites. 14 These are the families of the Simeonites, twenty and two thousand and two hundred.
Again the word for family (mishpacha) is used, and the subdivisions are explicitly named.
Some apologists point to the approximate counts and the fact that some numbers appear more frequently than you would expect with a random sampling. They see this as evidence that this is not an actual census count, but that seems unlikely to me. First of all, it's not surprising that the numbers given are approximate, or that the numbers seem funny. Both are what you might expect from a human author writing much later. Regardless, the "hidden messages" in the number are somewhat unconvincing anyways. For an example of Jewish apologetics in this regard, see the following pdf. I'll let you judge for yourself if the argument is persuasive.
While it's true that if you sum up just the thousands columns you get 598 and 596 elef respectively, which is similar to the 600 elef mentioned in Exodus, you expect that based on simple addition. Furthermore, most tribes grow in elef between the two, except for Shimon (Simeon) who lost 2/3 of its population. One wouldn't expect so many new family clans to be formed in one generation, just the size of the clans to increase.
While I have never found a reasonable explanation for an interpretation of these census passages besides one where elef means thousand as you would expect, perhaps the account in Shmot (Exodus) is actually referring to a count of families, not thousands. There are some people who take this approach and who conclude that the census sections of Bamidbar is by a later author who misinterpreted what the earlier account in Shmot was saying. I don't find this satisfying either. For one, if you interpret elef as some family designation it is difficult to understand how to interpret, רַגְלִי הַגְּבָרִים לְבַד מִטָּף. The translation should read something like, "[six hundred elef] pilgrims [5], the adult males not including the children." It doesn't make sense to specify not including the children if you are talking about families and not people. It's not clear to me what those words even imply in that context. In my opinion, the simplest meaning is the most accurate. The author meant 600,000 adult males.
Changing the Torah to Say What You Want
Oftentimes when reading the Torah, you are stuck in unfortunate situations if you want to maintain that it represents absolute truth. One option is to flatly ignore all the contradictory evidence, which is what young earth creationists do, and people who argue that 1.5 million Israelite escapees is historical. The second option is to read all the offending narratives as metaphorical. While such an approach is common for the creation and flood stories, it's a lot harder for Jews to read stuff like the Exodus and wilderness narratives as metaphorical. These stories are so fundamental to the identity of Jews that a metaphorical reading would be disastrous to their hashkafa (loosely: theology). The third option is to find a clever way to read the story so that all the contradictions are resolved. This is what I mean by changing the Torah to say what you want. This is what people who argue that the Torah is really describing a smaller number of people in the census accounts are doing.
What actually happened is much simpler. All these accounts were written by people much later than the events they are describing. They were describing a former period, and in doing such, were romanticizing the past. People do this today with regard to previous eras, even ones they lived through themselves. It's certainly expected they'd do so before they had reliable historical records. The romanticization took the form of increasing the number of people greatly, and this is a standard trope in Ancient Near East documents, where the sizes of armies and populations seem often to be exaggerated. The authors of these censuses wanted to demonstrate that the Israelites were mighty and powerful. It's only today that we can look back and determine whether they had accurate ideas about the past, or if they were dead wrong.
(edit: 2021/4/21 fixed a few typos)
Great job Kefira! Researched and written like a true scientists. Although not an actual passuk, but Rash”i and most traditionalist accept that 4/5 of the israelite population refused to leave Egypt and died during the darkness plague (a drasha on the word 'vachamushim'). That would mean that there were 10 million israelites in Egypt and thus the absence of any archaeological trace left by the largest human casualty since the ice age.
ReplyDeleteWhaddya mean "Like" a true scientist? To be honest though, these posts are not researched to anywhere near the depth I would expect for a scientific publication.
DeleteAnyway, it's pretty standard that the midrashot, talmudic exegesis, and commentaries through the rishonim always tended to expand on the biblical miracles. They always made them more impressive. It's only post enlightenment that we start seeing the tendency to minimize the miracles in order to claim historicity.
The 'like' is a diyuk lerabos not le'miutei!
DeleteAnother good post and a topic I have wrestled with. The 600000 issue is a major challenge to the Orthodox Jewish narrative. To my knowledge, and please correct me if I am in error, there is not a single historical Jewish sage or tradition that there were not at least 600000 people in the Exodus. In fact, I think when studying Gemorah or Midrashim I am pretty sure it refers to 600000 people plus - this is based on my failing memory though. Of course, that number is impossible - imagine even a small city of 35000 treking about the desert for 40 years.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think there are any traditional sources (Rishonim and earlier) that reduce the 600k amount. This isn't terribly surprising, because these sorts of diminishments of divine miracles don't really start until the advent of Modern Orthodoxy and the "Torah u'maddah" idea. They trace the philosophical roots back to Rambam, though, and that's who they'll usually point to for a general justification.
DeleteThere are, of course, numerous other reasons why 600K males is untenable besides the lack of evidence (which God destroyed.) This is a city the size of Houston Texas. How long would it take 2 million people to march out of Egypt, how could they even go outside the camp to defecate (yeah, they didn't excrete the manna (!) but they did eat meat. Ignoring that, were they all peeing in their own tent??), how they could gather water even if there WAS a single rock with a stream for all 12 tribes!).
ReplyDeleteOne thing that "bothers" me are the numbers of each tribe, not necessarily the total (which, of course, is absurd.) Do you think that someone just made up the census numbers?
see also: http://frumheretic.blogspot.com/2008/06/myth-of-600000.html
and
http://frumheretic.blogspot.com/2008/07/myth-of-600000-argument-from-silence.html and
Thanks for the links. I think I've read them before, but it's always good to refresh the memory. Was there a third one? You ended with "and."
DeleteAs far as "how did the people choose the number values of the tribes?" There are lots of options.
These represent extrapolations from early census data, like the one that David took. There's no reason to doubt that this event was historical and it's certainly possible that the records were kept in the "chronicles of the kings of Judah/Israel." The same type of argument can be made for the heads of the tribes. 600k is far too high a number for that period, so they must have been extrapolated. There's also a problem that the 12 tribe breakdown was probably not present yet at that time, and already some of the tribes had seemingly completely vanished (Shimon and Reuven).
Another option is that the numbers are representative of something else. Oddly, this is an explanation offered by apologists who look for hidden meaning in the numbers. I don't buy too much into this because the evidence is week (It tends to rely on the fact that some numbers like 5 appear a lot more often than other numbers, like 9.)
If you take the split approach that the census are written by a later author that misunderstood the 600k comments. Or even if you just look at it from an author who had a 600k male tradition, then the censuses make sense as an attempt to provide a reasonable breakdown for how those tribes looked given the relative size in their conception of history (Judah/Ephraim = big.)
All in all though, the idea that someone "invented" these numbers isn't all that troubling to me. Similarly, it doesn't trouble me that the ancient Sumerian kings reigned for thousands of years in their kings lists, or that the ages of the generations from Adam to Noah were between 600 and 1000 years. These are details that might be based off of something real, but we don't know what that might be.
Sorry, that was an extraneous "and".
DeleteThere seems to me a significance difference between the numbers in the anti-diluvian stories and the census accountings; not just in their presumed mythic/historic balance but in the ways the numbers are.used. We know that most cultures for most of history ascribed mystical significance to numbers and combination of numbers. (The more modern use of gematrias seems to reflect that idea in spirit.) Yeah, we've had a couple thousand years to analyze & apologize, but I think that some of the classic commentators have uncovered interesting and intentional patterns, such as in the dimensions of the ark. Certainly that intentional patterns were used for the ages of the Bereshit characters is a common idea in the world of academic biblical scholarship as well.
But the census seems on the face of it (no real evidence, of course) to reflect SOME actual counting. I'm personally fond of the elef = troops" idea. I like that you're assuming a more reasonable 50,000 people. That the concept breaks down in places doesn't bother me, since multiple tellings, and later scribes, would have morphed these numbers and eventually attempted to reconcile assuming a literal counting,
But what the hell do I know?
Zdubb, like you, I would also like to preserve the sanctity and dignity of our ancestral writings. I'd also like there to be more logic and significance to the census numbers, the tabernacle and other traditions we were raised to believe we're special and holy. Unfortunately, less and less of the torah manages to stand up to scientific (read: Kefira of the week blog) and academic scrutiny. The irony is, that only after discovering that the torah wasn't written by Moses or a god, did I begin to truly enjoy discoveries that authenticate the biblical history. I'd like to believe that it wasn't all a big 'bubba maysa' but I conclude as you do: "what the hell do I know! "
DeleteI readily admit that firm conclusions are difficult regarding whether the census counts have a historical basis or not. We are in firm footing in saying that the literal 600k count cannot be historical, just like we can be confident that the ages of Adam's immediate descendents are not historical, and similarly the reigns of the kings in the Babylonian kings list.
DeleteI'm not sure the idea that the ages in Bereishit have meaningful patterns in them is mainstream. I've seen the idea here and there, but it's far from consensus. Personally, I've seen no explanation that I've found convincing.
I can agree that if any of these have a historical basis, the census numbers are the most likely to be based off of *something*. I'm not opposed to them being an extrapolation off of David's census or something similar. But I'm hesitant to say that it's likely. There are still lots of issues that need explaining, first of which being the hypothesis (which is well received in academia) that the "12" united tribes is mythical.
And as pointed out by some, the more successful in reducing the numbers to historical possibility, the less persuasive the Kuzari Principle becomes (for those who buy into it).
ReplyDeleteEither way, nicely recapped.
It is difficult to determine ancient population sizes. E.g., Tenochtitlan had between 35,000 and 500,000 aztecs; the Incas were between 2/3 million and 39 million in number.
ReplyDeleteFrom Wikipedia:
Historian David Henige has argued that many population figures are the result of arbitrary formulas selectively applied to numbers from unreliable historical sources. He believes this is a weakness unrecognized by several contributors to the field, and insists there is not sufficient evidence to produce population numbers that have any real meaning. He characterizes the modern trend of high estimates as "pseudo-scientific number-crunching." Henige does not advocate a low population estimate, but argues that the scanty and unreliable nature of the evidence renders broad estimates inevitably suspect, saying "high counters" (as he calls them) have been particularly flagrant in their misuse of sources. Many population studies acknowledge the inherent difficulties in producing reliable statistics, given the scarcity of hard data.
It is important to know why population estimates are difficult in each region. The reason why it's hard to estimate the population of the Inca empire (very spread out and rural) are different than the reasons for the Aztec (swampy land, and inconsistent determination of who is an Aztec) which are different from the difficulties in Egypt. This also explains why there is almost a 2 order of magnitude difference in the Incas while the Egyptian estimates tend to always align within 1 order of magnitude. Both are hard, but Egypt is harder.
DeleteWhen we compare that to Israel prior to the 10th century BCE we also realize that there is difficulty getting a population estimate. Although the range here tends to vary from 10k to around 100k. The largest reasonable size is still an order of magnitude off from the Biblical estimate. The reason for this relatively low maximum value is because Israel is a small region with relatively poor agricultural capabilities. In order to maintain a larger population it would need a very organized centralized government capable of feeding a population. The evidence is not so much that we don't see these cities in this time period (we don't anyway), but that we do have lots of sites that indicate the population was generally grouped around very small enclaves. It is more consistent with a rural population.
Yes there's a large uncertainty of the population size of both Egypt and early Israel, but even with that large uncertainty, the biblical claims are still hugely problematic.
Obviously, as you allude to later, Israel is capable of holding millions of people. But you need, you claim a strong central government.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that in the times of David, assuming you trust the census that David took, there were millions of Jews during his era (not counting the non-Jews that were still in his land).
Now, the point is that archaeology can say certain things definitely but there are times that there's a lot of guesswork, which is fine. But we don't have to abandon our national heritage because of their guesswork.
The census of David is not trustworthy. There were not a million people at that time period. The argument between Finkelstein and Dever is whether or not there are even enough people during David's time to justify a monarchy in the 10th century BCE. Dever thinks this is justifiable if you take the *upper limit* of 100k. This is too far off from one million.
DeleteThis isn't "guesswork" this is a estimation with a fairly large bounds. There's a problem when laymen see large error bars and think that the scientist is just "guessing" that's not true at all. Just because the Inca empire estimates range as you put it from 660k to 40 million (trusting these numbers for now) means that we can say that it probably wasn't 100k and it probably wasn't 100 million. This is important.
We don't know how many people lived in Israel in the late bronze and early iron age, but it was probably less than 100,000.
The reason I raised the census data of David's time, is because it was you who brought it up in an earlier comment, so I assumed you trusted it. "I'm not opposed to them being an extrapolation off of David's census or something similar."
ReplyDeleteI once saw some claim that there were only 2 million Inca. Subsequently, the lowest figure I saw was 3 million. So I wrote between 2/3 million and 39 million.
Yeah, I spoke quickly there and reading back I need to correct what I said.
DeleteI think it's reasonable to assume historicity of a census taken at about the time period of David. It's not a slam dunk, but it's also not obviously wrong. As in, this is the era where the Tanach starts becoming historical rather than mythical. However the final tallies themselves are problematic since an army of 1.3 million (800k in Israel and 500k in Judah) is far larger than would be expected. So there's some exaggeration here as well.
This exaggeration is not surprising. Nearly everyone exaggerated the size of their armies.
The point is that during this "historical" period we find a record of a census, which you suggested was actually the source of the biblical census.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that there is exaggeration with ancient accounts. But the Torah is provided three CENSUS accounts (not just a claim to the numbers, but a claim that they were counted, twice by Moses and once by David). Can you point to me to any other society which produced three CENSUSES, EVEN THE BELIEF REGARDING THREE CENSUSES, and yet the scholars totally reject all three censuses? And the evidence for the small numbers provided by scholars, at least to the layman, seem quite weak and speculative.
Nearly every army estimate from the ancient near east (which is what these censuses are) are thought to be large exaggerations. So yeah, I can point you to the Assyrians, the Egyptians, and the Babylonians, who all overestimated the size of their armies.
DeleteThe evidence isn't "small" it's literally the accumulation of hundreds of digs in the Canaan region. It's how we learn information about a great many peoples. If you have a problem with these estimates, then you have a problem with archaeology/anthropology in general.
I repeat, because you haven't read what I wrote: Can you point to any other society which produced three independent censuses - NOT CLAIMS REGARDING POPULATION SIZES - and scholars totally disregarded the census claims?
ReplyDeleteThe evidence is tiny. Yes, there are hundreds of digs. But those digs amount to a minuscule PERCENTAGE of the land. Thus, there is simply no way that they can claim that there is a MAXIMUM population size.
To be extra clear: Yes, kings will claim that their army was large. But these are just claims. Do these claims suggest that they went through the process of counting each and every person? If not, there's no reason to trust it. But if someone claims that they have firsthand knowledge of the size of their population -- and that the population was also aware of the census (which the Israelite's censuses were) there is more (though not absolute) reason to trust it. Thus, you haven't explained what leads scholars to completely disregard our evidence?
ReplyDeleteI will tell you then. A scientists needs to publish a conclusion. His paper can't conclude with, "After looking at all the evidence, I realize that I have no clue what their population size was, since we only dug a tiny percentage of the land, and most of ancient areas that were dense are now urban areas that can't be dug." Thus, he gives a guess, which is fine. But that needn't overwhelm us.
"I will tell you then. A scientists needs to publish a conclusion."
DeleteNull results are also a conclusion. As a scientist we reach them all the time. I wish they were published more often, but that's a different issue. The correct way to look at it is that the scientist only considers the research worth publishing if there's a conclusion to be reached. Not what you're suggesting, which is you decide on a conclusion even when there's no evidence supporting it.
At heart this is the fundamental difference between your worldview and mine. I accept the scientific methodology. You reject it (at least when it produces inconvenient results).
"Thus, he gives a guess, which is fine."
It is not a guess, anymore than an election prediction from a pollster aggregator is a "guess."
"You wished they were published more often..."
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly why there's a bias to reach a particular number. And, indeed, many are up in arms, specifically regarding determining ancient population sizes (what I pasted above from wikipedia isn't the example).
There's an obvious and critical distinction between what pollsters do when looking at a small sample and proving that a country was empty after looking at an infinitesimal sample. There's another distinction, namely, that we have POSITIVE evidence that the Jews were there. I am surprised that you haven't picked up on this. I expected more from you, honestly.
You are obviously just ignoring what I'm writing. What is the point of this then?
Delete"There's a problem when laymen see large error bars and think that the scientist is just "guessing" that's not true at all. Just because the Inca empire estimates range as you put it from 660k to 40 million (trusting these numbers for now) means that we can say that it probably wasn't 100k and it probably wasn't 100 million. This is important."
I meant to write "isn't the only example" in the first paragraph.
ReplyDeleteSince you seem to repeatedly compare pollsters and archeologists that look at a tiny percentage of the ground, I think it's important to refute it.
ReplyDeleteWhen a pollster telephones a thousand people, whose phone numbers end with the numbers 94568 (or any other phone number or numbers), he can reasonably argue that there is no reason to assume that people who have other numbers have different rates of opinion. No one could argue "the numbers 94568 make people like candidate X at a high rate," since there is no logical reason to differentiate between those who have one phone number over any other number.
However, let's apply this to determining whether ancient urban centers existed. Let's say archeologists look at a tiny percentage of Asia -- say Israel -- and determine that Israel was mostly empty 3,000 years ago. Does that imply that other areas of Asia were also empty? Does that evidence tell us whether China was empty as well? Of course not, since location is a relevant factor. It makes sense that one area of globe was occupied and another area is unoccupied. Differing locations, unlike differing phone numbers, can reasonably allow for the population-size to change. Indeed, we find, when looking at the globe, that some areas are vastly more populated than other areas, while we don't find certain phone numbers correlated to political beliefs.
Furthermore, as explained before, WE HAVE POSITIVE EVIDENCE for sinai, and for the large numbers that were in Israel. By looking at a thousandth of the land of Israel and guessing -- yes, guessing, as other archeologists have noted -- the population size, you haven't given us any reason to doubt the historicity of the Exodus.
It's kind of odd that you make the assumptions that archaeologists are incompetent. But let's actually set up the analogy so you're not actually refuting strawmen.
DeleteIf all you did was select people with telephone numbers that ended with a set number you would get a bad result. Why? Because not everyone will answer. If you call during the day, you miss people that are at work, or that work night shifts, or whatever. A big issue is whether you call cell phone numbers or not. This is why pollsters use demographic models to actually produce their result. They ask questions such as age, occupation, and other relevant factors. And then they apply weights to each group, so that underrepresented groups (with regard to the ability to get their responses) are weighted more heavily.
So the point is, that if you were just given the raw data of the polls, but had no expertise with regard to the demographic models, you would produce terrible results. In a sense our trust in a pollster is our trust in their ability to both gather data and have accurate models. The real tough work for a pollster is not the final tally, but the margin of error. Something that most people don't realize.
Now that we presumably understand how pollsters work, it's odd that when comparing them to archaeologists you give an example of incompetence archaeology. You say, "Let's say archeologists look at a tiny percentage of Asia -- say Israel -- and determine that Israel was mostly empty 3,000 years ago." This is analogous (with regard to our pollster) to someone going into one community and sampling results only from the people sitting in the local bar. You would rightly assume that a pollster who did that would be incompetent. Why do you assume that the archaeologists are incompetent.
No, when we talk about these archaeological survey results, we assume that they are both competent at getting as random a sample as possible, and that they are able to filter the results through the appropriate models (in this case Bayesian anthropological models). If you want to critique the archaeologist, you need to either show that they are completely missing a segment of the population, or that the anthropological models are flawed.
Furthermore, just as with the pollster, if all you or I, who are not trained as archaeologists, looked at was the raw data, we would be useless to actually determine what the actual results yield. Therefore, since you are arguing not with a single archaeologist but archaeological consensus, you need to do quite a lot of work to first convince anyone that you have the requisite knowledge to properly interpret the results, and that with this interpretation, the consensus results are flawed. All your basic objections are accounted for by even the most dim-witted archaeologist.
As I said before, your best bet would be to find a qualified champion. Someone with knowledge of ANE anthropology and archaeology who thinks that there could conceivably have been 1 million inhabitants in Israel at 1000 BCE. Minus that, I'm not sure you can even begin to raise objections that anyone should pay attention to.
"WE HAVE POSITIVE EVIDENCE for sinai"
Why don't you stop dancing around this and actually present this evidence.
My point is (and of course I was oversimplifying pollsters, but the point is still relevant), that pollsters and archaeologists aren't NECESSARILY analogous. For example, an archaeologists has no access to large areas of land (especially urban areas), and the COST of archaeological digs makes completely random searches prohibitive. Thus, an archaeologist can ONLY determine (possibly) the number of people that lived where he excavated, but he can say little about people who lived 100 miles away, or 3,000 miles away. The fact that pockets of population vary from place to place makes your analogy to pollsters utterly irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteNow, the best that you can offer is that no archaeologists are open to a million inhabitants. The reason for this, as Iv'e explained before, is that archaeologists, as all scientists, are biased to make a conclusion. An archaeologists can't finish his paper by saying,"We simply don't have enough information.": He can't say, "There was a minimum of 10,000 people in Canaan and a maximum of infinity." Thus, by looking at the small sample they given an educated guess.
But, despite this bias, some courageous archaeologists have spoken out, and are offended by how arbitrary coming to ancient population sizes is (Incan scholars and Mesopotamian researchers).
Furthermore, they aren't aware of the fact that we have powerful evidence for a large population. If they were open to our evidence, I have no reason to assume that they wouldn't change their findings. You ask me to present the evidence, which I will eventually. But my point is: ASSUMING that we do have evidence that millions of people lived in Canaan, the mere fact that they dug a millionth of the countryside an didn't find evidence of high numbers isn't a reason to abandon our evidence. .
They are analogous. Pollsters run into exactly the same problem. Segments of the population are hard to reach. Polls are expensive to conduct. etc.
Delete"Thus, an archaeologist can ONLY determine (possibly) the number of people that lived where he excavated, but he can say little about people who lived 100 miles away, or 3,000 miles away. "
3000 miles away is of course true. But 100 miles away is false (Israel is less than 100 miles across anyway). Archaeologist absolutely can make claims about nearby regions. This is the entire purpose of the anthropological models, just like the pollsters use demographic models.
"The reason for this, as Iv'e explained before, is that archaeologists, as all scientists, are biased to make a conclusion."
I rejected this explanation before, and I'll reject it again. You're main argument seems to be that archaeologists are incompetent as scientists, since a scientist NEVER will make a unsupported conclusion "just because they need one." If one did, it would get torn apart in peer review.
"and are offended by how arbitrary coming to ancient population sizes is (Incan scholars and Mesopotamian researchers)."
They are not "offended" they are just pointing out the large error bars of the measurement. Again, I've said this at least three times now, so I have no idea why you keep on referring to this. Yes there are large error bars on the population estimate in Israel around 1000 BCE. No, the estimates don't come anywhere near allowing for 1 million people.
"But my point is: ASSUMING that we do have evidence that millions of people lived in Canaan"
Any evidence changes the conclusions, as it should. How much it changes depends on the strength of the evidence. So for example, discovery of coins indicating a centralized Israelite currency around 1000 BCE would be strong evidence of at least a kingdom at that time period.
"the mere fact that they dug a millionth of the countryside an didn't find evidence of high numbers isn't a reason to abandon our evidence."
Only because you reject the science of archaeology and the consensus it reaches. That's what you're relying on. It's fine that you do this, but just be honest with it (and of course be consistent, don't ever use archaeological results to support the Torah either.)
1) The situations aren't analogous. By pollsters, you can at least try to MINIMIZE the factors that can skew the results. With "absence of evidence archaeology," the most important factor, one that can't be removed, is location. You simply can't determine that an area is empty by the mere fact that another area is empty. You claim that you can determine that a place is empty if another area nearby, less than 100 miles away, is also empty. Can you cite a singe archaeologist that makes this preposterous claim? Please do so, because this conversation is too important to just make guesses. In fact, it doesn't even makes sense. The entire concept of a city is a densely populated area. The emptiness that we find outside of a city doesn't imply that a city isn't there.
ReplyDelete2) I never claimed (or at least intended to claim) that scientists make unsupported conclusions. I said that they are biased to make a conclusion. Thus, even the slightest amount of evidence, or lack thereof, leads them to allow themselves to reach the flimsiest of conclusions. That might not be true in physics, but that is true in "absence of evidence" archaeology. Since the cost of making a properly supported conclusion is simply prohibitively expensive, the THE FIELD ITSELF is willing to guesstimate. Which is OK. There is nothing wrong with guesstimates, but we don't need to be intimidated by guesstimates. How do I know they are guesstimates? Other archaeologists, in other areas of the globe including, Mesopotamia, Greece, and the Incas agree that ancient population estimates aren't solid at all. Indeed, as pointed out in another comment I put up. even when we know that a city was in a certain area, those cities sometimes don't leave remains. Thus, Byblos, according to the omniscient Amarna letters, was occupied during the 13th century BC, yet archaeological studies turned up nothing from that era. So we need to point out as many archaeologists have: ancient population "determinations" are speculative.
3) Archaeology shouldn't be painted with a broad brush, just as science can't. When archaeology finds an artifact, I will trust it, though I am aware that archaeology isn't an exact science. That shouldn't require me to accept "absence of evidence" arguments ESPECIALLY WHEN RESPECTED ARCHAEOLOGISTS have themselves mocked "absence of evidence" arguments.
1) I highly recommend you actually read some of the archaeological survey results before continuing these claims. When you've read at least one, then maybe we can have a reasonable conversation. Because as of now, it's clear that you are attacking strawmen.
Delete2) "Thus, even the slightest amount of evidence, or lack thereof, leads them to allow themselves to reach the flimsiest of conclusions."
No it does not. Not only is this a personal affront (since I am a scientist) it is laughably false, if only you actually endeavored to read any scientific paper. If you conclude this, you do not trust science at all, based on your entirely false preconceptions of what science is. You might as well stop commenting in all honesty, because scientific analysis informs the majority of my conclusions (outside of textual matters, which I guess you should focus on).
A scientific model is not a "guess" or a "guesstimate." It is an informed estimate.
"Other archaeologists, in other areas of the globe including, Mesopotamia, Greece, and the Incas agree that ancient population estimates aren't solid at all."
It is remarkably frustrating that you repeatedly bring this up when I've answered it now 4 times. At least deal with my answer. I'm not going to answer anything you say from now on until you acknowledge that you actually comprehend what I've said on this matter, and either directly argue against it or drop it altogether.
3) Absence of evidence arguments are sometimes valid and sometimes invalid. Knowing the difference between the two is the difference between someone who actually understands the argument and someone that uses it as a canard.
I didn't use the word guesstimate. Archaeologists have. For examples, on page 438 in "Up to the Gates of Ekron," he refers to "guesstimates of the ancient population size of ancient cities." There are tens of sources that apply this term to determining ancient population sizes. And there are also many sources decrying how irresponsible such guesstimates are. The point is that not all science is created equal. Thus, you don't need to be offended, as a scientist, when other scientists confess that their determination of a RANGE of population size is a mere guesstimate. If you are genuinely offended, I suggest that you contact the authors of these books for using the term guesstimate.
ReplyDeleteThe point I was making regarding other areas wasn't merely that there's a wide range. My point is that they admit that there isn't any proper mechanism for determining ancient populations.
Absence of Evidence arguments don't work when you only look at a tiny percentage of the areas. Your claim is that the fact that one area is empty implies that another area is empty. Please, back up that claim. Why do I have to rummage through archaeological surveys when it's you who are making the claim?
The archaeological surveys are described by Finkelstein in brief in "The Bible Unearthed." He says (p. 107).
DeleteIn the years since 1967, the heartland of the Israelite settlement - the traditional territories of the tribes of Judah, Benain, Ephraim, and Manasseh - have been covered by intensive surveys. Teams of archaeologists and students have combed virtually every valley, ridge and slope, looking for traces of walls and scatters of pottery sherds...Information on any signs of occupation from the Stone Age to the Ottoman period was recorded, in order to study the highlands' long-term settlement history. Statistical methods were used to estimate the size of each settlement in each of its period of occupation."
A figure on page 116 indicates all the identified Iron Age sites. The population size estimations arise from there.
Now, if you're going to continue on claiming that it's just a guess, you need to either challenge this survey result directly or, much better, find at least one qualified individual that shares your view.
1) Kitchens, in his last chapter, points out many clear falsehoods and misrepresentations made by Finkelstein (e.g., he points out [after I realized it on my own] the 38-year claim regarding Kadesh). So whatever we read from Finkelstien must be taken with a grain of salt.
ReplyDelete2) Specifically, he claims that "archeologists have combed virtually every valley, ridge and slope." Here, Finkelstien is smart to add the word virtually, which is vague enough to allow him to escape been contradicted by a) the obvious impossibility of such a wide-scale digs, or b) by the fact that such efforts would alter the landscape of those areas to the point that had such efforts had taken place, they could be confirmed or contradicted by satellite photos. Thus, Finkelstein smarty inserts the word "virtually," covering himself to make any outlandish claim, because he never specified the percentage of the land that was dug.
3) As an atheist, I assume you hold to the claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I need to give you the scope of what Finkelstein is claiming. The LARGEST archeological excavation in Greece (measured by square miles) would need to be repeated LITERRALY OVER ONE MILLION TIMES (if I remember correctly) in order to cover the Sinai peninsula (I can provide you with the links and mathematics, but I assume you trust the basic point I am making). Indeed, the costs of excavating are so prohibitive that archeologists only attempt to dig a percentage of ancient cities (even cities that we know were occupied), so how can Finkelstein claim that archeologists dug all over, even areas that we how no reason to assume were populated?
4) Rather, it seems that Finkelstein is making an entirely different point, one that you very smartly (and, one could argue, misleadingly) omitted from your quote. He is merely claiming that archeologist and their students walked through some, or even most, of the hill country. Thus, his point is much less fantastical, but also less relevant (if at all relevant). This allowed them to cover a square mile in a day. The problem with his claim is that many cities didn't turn up until digging numerous times. When digging Gideon, they dug for THREE SEASONS (thus proving that Joshua was anachronistic), but when they dug for a fourth season they proved that Joshua wasn't anachronistic, and the remains of the city were found. AND THESE ARE CONFIRMED CITIES. So Finkelstein's methods is obviously inconclusive.
5) Finally, we know about many ancient cities that haven't left remains. For example, as "The Bible in Its World" points out in chapter one, the city of Dibon left no remains for a thousand-year period. But that doesn't make us conclude that the biblical references to the city are anachronistic, because Egyptian texts also refer to those cities. The city of Akkad, mentioned once in Genesis, and attested to HUNDREDS of times in ancient texts, hasn't been discovered (just to give you an idea, Elba [which is hardly attested to in other writings], a city of up to 250,000 was a minor city compared to Akkad). The list of examples goes on and on and on. (See the entire first chapter of "The Bible in Its World" where he also points out how difficult it is to determine ancient sites and how digging can't be done haphazardly or with mere walk-throughs.)
1) If Kitchen is your champion, then find out where he discusses the Iron Age surveys of Israel, and talk about that.
Delete2) The list of identified sites are shown in the next page. You can see them. Elsewhere he puts up numbers of sites at around 200 for late bronze, 250 for iron age one, and very few in the intervening period.
3) If you have trouble with the surveys and the methodology then find a qualified individual that holds your opinion. Because frankly, neither you nor I have the relevant expertise to decide whether the results are valid. I'm on more solid footing here because, despite your objections about Finkelstein, he is squarely in the consensus on this issue. The evidence is sufficient for me because I trust that the archaeological consensus knows what its talking about.
4) No they did exactly what I said they did. They searched the countryside looking for "traces of walls and pottery sherds." The most promising sites were excavated, and the results of those excavations are also discussed in the succeeding pages.
5) This isn't an ancient city that hasn't left remains. This is an archaeological survey of a large area fit to anthropological models to estimate population sizes. You don't trust either the survey or the model, and that's fine. But no one should have any reason to listen to you unless either you're qualified to offer an opinion, in which case you should lodge your objection in an appropriate journal, or you know of someone else who is qualified who has done just that. Until you're willing to do that, please drop this line, it's going nowhere.
Also, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is true, but neither the claim that the Torah exaggerated it's population size nor that the population size in Ancient Israel is exactly in line with the surrounding areas are extraordinary claims. Rather it's the Torah's claim of 1 million plus inhabitants in an agriculturally poor region with no major rivers that is extraordinary. Why don't you provide some archaeological evidence for that?
1) Kitchen probably doesn't have a personal opinion on the numbers, as (as you've said yourself) he's an expert on Ramsseside Egypt. My point was that if a man is caught being misleading (which is what Kitchen claims Finkelstein was), we have to take his claims with caution and suspicion.
ReplyDelete2) The point is that Finkelstein is indulging in guesstimates. Thus, even without digging, he rules out certain areas. Finkelstein can indulge in guesstimates, but even if our evidence for the bible was flimsy (which it isn't) we needn't be overwhelmed by guesswork. True, guesswork is all that we have. Archeology can't take us too far, at least contemporary archeology. So Finkelstein might not be wrong engaging in guesswork. But the point is that carefully reading their arguments (which is the point of this blog), rather than just accepting every conclusion that they put forth (despite knowing full-well that some scientific conclusions are much more speculative than others). Finkelstein DOES put forth an argument. If so, we have a right to engage it, and to criticize it, and to point out how other respected archeologists have claimed that archeology simply can't prove a negative. It can't prove that a city didn't exist at a certain site even after digging the site, and it surely can't prove -- via a mere "survey" -- how many people occupied a certain area.
3) The Torah's claim that a million people occupied "an agriculturally poor region with no major rivers is extraordinary," then how did that poor region allow for millions to occupy Israel during the Second Temple era. Tacitus, for example, attests that 600,000 Jews lived in Jerusalem during the war against Rome which led to the death of over one million Jews, according to Josephus. Are these historical accounts all exaggerations? (And if you argue they are, why does "absence of evidence" archeology always outweigh written reports?). These figures don't include the hundreds of other cities as well as the Samaritans (who we discuss in greater detail when talking about the Kuzari argument) according to Wikipedia had over a million people during the destruction of Jerusalem. The point is that Israel is capable of holding tens of millions of people. Thus, it shouldn't shock us if the Torah's census, and all the other censuses recorded in the Bible, point to millions of Israelites entering the land of Israel. Nor should the Torah's claim that Akkad existed, despite the fact that we can't find it, prove that the Torah's (and hundreds of other ancient inscriptions) claim of the existence of the city is incorrect. ARCHEOLOGY SIMPLY CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE, as many archeologists have stated.
1) Your argument is essentially that Kitchen distrusts Finkelstein on an unrelated topic. This argument isn't worth considering.
ReplyDelete2) Either engage with the argument or don't. Unless you have the qualifications to evaluate whether the survey results don't support Finkelstein's claim, or can identify someone with the qualifications that does, I have no reason to respect your opinion. Once you do either of those the conversation can actually begin.
The purpose of my blog is not to spend years looking at archaeological results and providing a full academic critique. I am not an archaeologist, I have no credentials in the area, my opinion on the matter is worth nothing. The purpose is merely to report the results of the people who have done that.
3) The 2nd temple period is very different from the 1st temple period. We see large scale engineering projects, aqueducts and the like. We see improvements in agriculture like terrace farming (although this one appeared at the end of the first temple period when the population ballooned) We see centralized governments, with coins. We see the large cities and trade. These things are missing from the early iron age.
It's clear that you have no idea how these estimates are made, and why archaeologists have come to these conclusions. Despite giving you a bunch of leads so you could learn as much as you want. I'm not going to reply any more to this thread, unless you are able to satisfy the conditions in 2. I'll repeat them here:
"Unless you have the qualifications to evaluate whether the survey results don't support Finkelstein's claim, or can identify someone with the qualifications that does, I have no reason to respect your opinion. Once you do either of those the conversation can actually begin."
I will respond in one sentence, because I don't want to continue the back and forth either: We are entitled to evaluate whether an archeologist's conclusion is mere speculative guesswork or stated rather as hard fact (or somewhere in between) as scientific conclusions (depending, perhaps, on the field of science) is vague enough to fit anywhere on that spectrum.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous is rejecting the conclusion of every archaeologist and historian who have studied the issues. Is it because he has counter evidence ? I dont think so. It is because their conclusions conflict with his mesora. Hoffmeier says something to the effect - if the numbers in the Torah are 600000 plus, they would not need to ask permission to leave Egypt. LOL. So Hoffmeier brings the figures way down based on the translation of aleph.
ReplyDeleteI might as well post with my email account. My response is directed to Alter Cocker (not Kefirah, because I don't think it's fair to perpetuate my argument against him, as he stated that he won't be responding to my points, as he explained above).
ReplyDelete1) I think that our mesora is evidence. And that is the main reason why I disagree with them. In fact, they never give a proper explanation why they don't take our mesora as evidence.
2) There is one archeologist who is very close to accepting our mesora. Kenneth Kitchen, an expert on Ramsseside Egypt, believes, if I remember correctly, that Moses wrote the Torah. Regarding the elef issue, he does mention the possibility that it refers to small clans but he doesn't ever firmly conclude that it couldn't have been millions who entered Israel. The reason why he mentions the possibility of elef as referring to clans, I suspect, is because that's the only way to avoid the miraculousnes of millions surviving in the desert.
3) Hoffemeier, in a personal email exchange, told me that 600,000 Jews couldn't have been stopped by the 30,000 soldiers in Egypt's army. However - although the argument of authority states that we need to trust his EVIDENCE that there were only 30,000 troops in Egypt's army - we don't need to trust his conclusion, which can be contradicted both by common sense and by other events in world history. When a population is enslaved for decades, they are not only enslaved by the army but also by the rest of the population. For example, in the American South, four million slaves were brutalized and trapped not merely by the Southern militias, but by their owners (there is scholarly debate why the medieval serfs didn't get the same treatment). Thus, there is no reason to reject the possibility that five million Egyptians couldn't have enslaved the Jewish people.
4) Although many historians and archeologists don't accept the historicity of the Torah, regarding the specific arguments offered by Finkelstein, they are very suspicious. Thus, for example, regarding Finkelstein's conclusion regarding the population of ancient Israel which are based largely on "unpublished material and oral information," and, according to at least one archeologist may be the product of "biases and/or methodological assumptions," we need to remain suspicious. Confronting the Past, pg. 358, 365.
Just a request for both of you. If you are replying to an individual, use the "reply" option that appears under the post you are commenting on rather than the "add comment" option. It creates a threaded post rather than a hodgepodge, and it's easier to track what's going on.
DeleteGot it
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ Are Roster
Delete1) “ I think that our mesora is evidence.”
If you want to know what archaeologist and historians accept as evidence, study their discipline. I will give my two cents.
Written and Oral traditions should be examined for clues, but they don’t count as evidence that the information found in them are accepted as true. For example, an Exodus of Biblical proportions including all sorts of miracles is not accepted without corroborating evidence. Nevertheless, a kernel of truth may lay in those written and oral traditions but historians need not accept the written material and oral traditions as reflecting all truth or even partial truth. Think of all the written and oral traditions amongst all sorts of peoples - should historians accept them based solely on written and oral traditions ? In general they do not , and seek to separate the chaff from the grain
2) “There is one archeologist who is very close to accepting our mesora. Kenneth Kitchen, an expert on Ramsseside Egypt, believes, if I remember correctly, that Moses wrote the Torah.”
Not sure if that is an accurate reflection of Kitchen. Per my recollection (I need to check) he may believe the Torah (or maybe only certain portions ?) Were written at his estimated time of Moshe. This is a far cry from accepting our mesora and the rest of the Torah as being true.
3) “Hoffemeier, in a personal email exchange, told me that 600,000 Jews couldn't have been stopped by the 30,000 soldiers in Egypt's army.”
I think he actually writes something like that in one of his books. But I think he also gave other reasons why 2-3 million Israelite slaves and their Exodus is unlikely - see his book..
No question that in more modern times with advanced technology, guns etc: EVEN a less numerous population can potentially enslave/control a more numerous people. However assuming the Israelites number 2-3 million in ancient times could the Egyptians do the same ? Could they do it for a long period ?
Also, don’t you think it odd Egypt left no records of such a large number of 2-3 million slaves ? That when all these slaves exit there is no evidence for 2-3 million any place ? That Egypt or the surrounding region experience no change that would occur as a result of such a demographic shift ?
4) Although many historians and archeologists don't accept the historicity of the Torah, regarding the specific arguments offered by Finkelstein, they are very suspicious.
Came you name any historian or archeologist that does accept the historicity of the Torah - starting from Genesis 1:1 and including an Exodus of Biblical Proportions ?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymous, like Kefira and myself, I can see you have struggled with the question of the torah's authenticity. I can also see that you have found sufficient answers to your satisfaction in this particular area of trouble, namely the census / population issue. I went through the same exercise to try and hold on to my 'mesorah', family tradition and lifelong passion for judaism and the belief of torah misinai. The problem is that once I found a fringe archaeologists to hang my hopes on for a particular problem, I would sadly discover that I've only managed to put to rest a specific problem with the authenticity of the torah. I was then left to scrounge around for defenses of the myriad of contradictions, doublets, language issues, historical and factual issues... eventually having to come to term with the reality that the torah is a man-made collection of documents, written and redacted in brilliant fashion (for its' time at least). I speak for myself, but I'll bet the same holds true for Kefira, kocker and the other former orthodox readers of this blog, I wished and hoped that I would find some way to continue to believe in my mesorah! As a talmid chochum and a teacher, I tried my best to cling to my beloved upbringing (maybe not the crazy OJ stuff, I admit) , but alas, it doesn't hold up! It just doesn't! So you may have managed to stave off the inevitable with the extensive reading you've done on this subject, but if you're intellectually honest (and you seem to be), you will eventually conclude what we all were forced to conclude.
ReplyDelete1) I don't hang my hopes on fringe archeologists, nor is he per se fringe (he is a minority opinion, yes, but he's respected as an expert as well). Personally, I am not going through an exercise. I am, rather, extremely confident that the Torah was written by God. However, even if I was extremely confident that the Torah wasn't written by God, I would maintain my religious observance because of Pascal's Wager (I don't want to debate Pascal's Wager now; I am merely saying that I FIND THE ARGUMENT TO BE CONVINCING). Thus, I, personally, don't have a "horse in this race." If the evidence would be stacked against me, I'd still maintain my lifestyle in every which way. Thus, although I admit that I am of course biased, my bias isn't absolute.
Delete2) In truth, I have done RELATIVELY-little reading on this subject, which I regret. I have a full time job, plus an evening job twice a week, and I am trying to become a talmud chacham (for whatever it's worth, I learn Daf Yomi, finish Tanach every year and I finish the entire Mishnah Berurah every year). With the little time I have to spare, I read up on emunah topics. I admit that I find it very frustrating that while christians have full-time professors who devote their entire lives to apologetics, I don't know of Jews who are fully devoted to apologetics, so I am trying the best I can with the little time I have.
3) I agree there are contradictions and doublets. There are many problems in the Torah. For example, as Alter Cocker pointed out, why didn't the Jews just pick up and leave? Why did they need Pharaoh's permission? This question, however, has been asked by the commentators (I know of three answers, although there are probably more than three). I DON'T CLAIM THAT THE ANSWERS ARE CONVINCING. My point, rather, is that we have always known there are serious questions on the Torah, and we have attempted to answer these questions. We never questioned the Torah text. For example, Rabbi Shimoen Bar Yocai stated that the verse that discusses the origin of the Philistines should be burned (since it appears to be pointless trivia). But then, he explained, that the verses are necessary in order to teach us that the Philistines of David aren't the same as those of Avraham, teaching us that although Avraham made a treaty with Avimelech, David wasn't required to adhere to it, as a new group had arrived. Despite his urge to burn the Torah, he refrained until a proper answer was provided.
4) I have written a lot on emunah topics (while I was still in school, so I had more time to spare). Here is one chapter of the book. When reading the chapter, ignore, for the moment ALL QUESTIONS THAT I AM SURE YOU HAVE. Just absorb the material. The questions and criticisms of what I write are either a) dealt with elsewhere in my writings or b) indeed egregious errors on my part. For the mean time, just absorb the content of the material. Turn off your brain for five minutes while reading through this stuff. I don't expect you to be convinced, because it is just a small part of the argument. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1hLl6wqz6VTSS0xYzdXSUdOc2s/view?usp=sharing
I wish more orthodox Jews were as intellectually honest as you! I appreciate that you can admit that no matter how strongly the logic and proof contradict your beliefs, you will continue to have emunah. What's interesting about you is that most people who adhere to 'emunah pshuta' don't bother researching logic and proof that contradict their beliefs. My question for you is, why do you engage in an exercise that will yield results that contradict your beliefs? Unlike you, I (and the rest of us here on this blog) cannot turn off our brains and have emunah. We are intelligent, scientific / logically driven people who have used our brains to discover that the torah isn't divine, and that judaism like every other religion was invented by man. I was actually a kiruv professional and a teacher / rebbi, so I'm happy to browse through your writings but I doubt anything you say is more convincing than the lies I told the many people I was mekarev to orthodox Judaism!
Delete@Are Roster
Delete1) “I am, rather, extremely confident that the Torah was written by God.”
Why ?
“...Pascal's Wager (I don't want to debate Pascal's Wager now; I am merely saying that I FIND THE ARGUMENT TO BE CONVINCING). “
I don’t.
3) “There are many problems in the Torah.”
Agreed
“We never questioned the Torah text.”
Sure we have. As far back as King Menashe at least and maybe others. Plus we now have so much more Science, Archaeology, Comparative Religion, Academic Bible Scholarship etc: that obliges us to question the traditional views.
4) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1hLl6wqz6VTSS0xYzdXSUdOc2s/view?usp=sharing”
I only skimmed the article, but noticed many of the same arguments for Orthodox Judaism that I discuss in my blog. Start here http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014_04_01_archive.html
To read my material it will help to keep your brain on.
@M Rose well put. It came to the point that accepting the traditional narrative was as like trying to swallow a large horse. Its not kosher.
Delete@Are Roster I can provide so many examples where the Chapter 4 material is not convincing at all. Here is one: I tend to concur that the concept of an afterlife is lacking in the Torah. All reward is here on Earth - i.e. rain in it's seasons, just like all the pagans desired from their god(s). Nor am I sure all pagans preached an afterlife. Anyway, my blog post gives explanation why no afterlife in Torah see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/07/origins-of-some-torahbible-laws-and.html
Delete@Are Roster your Shmitah discussion is empty (pardon the pun) See all three of my posts - here http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/11/proof-disproof-of-god-based-on-fallow.html I wrote them just before going to the hospital, so they are a bit rambling and there is some overlap betwixt them.
Delete@Are Roster OMG - there is so much wrong with chapter 4. Why did the Jews have risky/onerous rituals/laws ? One reason is as a way to obtain supernatural favor. As far as the Torah's are they worse than human sacrifice or torture rituals practiced by say native americans ? I can go on with so much more explaining to you why Chapter 4 is not convincing. But I dont want to clog up Kefirah's blog.
Delete@Are, I also skimmed your chapter and instead of turning my brain off, I think it may have completely short circuited the entire thing! I commend you on your efforts, but every point you make has been refuted and disproven countless times. In fact, most of them on this very blog and on Kocker. Again, I'm not sure why you engross yourself in these topics if you don't intend to arrive at aany conclusion that doesn't fit your existing world-view? It would be like studying the relationship between vaccination and autism, but going in knowing you won't vaccinate your children even if the correlation isn't there!
DeleteI am not responding to all of your points, just the ones that I think have misled you about what I believe:
Delete1) I don't believe that there are POWERFUL counterarguments against the divinity of the Torah or the historicity of the Sinai miracles (I am using very specific terms when referring to these two facts). Thus, while I mentioned that there may be some "problems" in the Torah, they aren't problems which so against those two facts. Thus, I see no reason why doublets and contradictions in a text lower the possibility that it was written by God any more than the fact that the Quran doesn't contain doublets and contradictions (or so Muslims apologists tell me) doesn't INCREASE the chances that it was written by God.
2) If there were (or are) powerful arguments against the two facts mentioned above, I believe that my evidence (not just Kuzari, there are other pieces of evidence) would outweigh their evidence. (I try to defend these arguments only for those who aren't convinced by our evidence.)
3) Even if I thought there were powerful arguments against the Torah, and there wasn't good arguments for the Torah, I would still be frum, not because of "emunah peshuta," but simply because of Pascal's Wager.
4) When sending you the chapter, I didn't expect you to be convinced. Indeed, it's only one out of sixteen chapters (four of which bolster the Kuzari argument). It was just a long shot, a full-court shot. Besides, it's almost impossible to change someone's mind about divinity unless armed with an "argument from authority." Philosophical argumentation usually doesn't change people's minds either way.
Philosophical and logical arguments would change my mind. I would be happy to hear these alleged defenses you say you have. Here's what I'd suggest: start with Kefira's bereishis blog and explain how you would defend each of the parshios from his attacks. By parsha 3-4 it will be obvious whether you are making sense and actually providing counter-arguments or merely 'draying a kup' and twisting the thumb with 'docheik' kvetches and illogical defenses. I don't know if Kefira would want us doing this here or you can start a blog called 'emunah of the week' and go through the parshios. If you are able to do as you claaim and defend torah misinai, you've got yourself a ba'al tshuvah!
Delete@ Are Roster
DeleteThe Torah has doublets, triplets, anachronisms, contradictions,and third person reports. Not what is expected from a book claimed to be written by God and given at a single specific location and time at Mount Sinai around 1200 B.C. (some may say around 1300 BC or earlier. The date is of no relevance to this discussion).
Orthodox Judaism attempts to explain the numerous Torah contradictions, doublets, third person reports and triplets through ad-hoc approaches. In addition, anachronisms may be interpreted as miracles of prophecy or Orthodoxy may argue against the existence of some of the anachronisms. Each 'problem' requires a separate explanation.
But the consensus of academic scholars is there are real anachronisms in the Bible. A comprehensive explanation for the doublets, triplets, anachronisms, contradictions,and third person reports is provided by modern bible scholars that rely on some version of the Documentary Hypothesis. { I use the the term Documentary Hypothesis broadly and to include scholars who advocate 'multiple oral traditions' and the like.}
The main point is based on history, archaeology, comparative religion, textural analysis, the actual words in the Torah - the DH is the more likely explanation for why the Torah appears to be an man made amalgamation.
Please hear these words: Linguistic analysis has established the relative chronology of portions of the Bible. Some portions of Torah are as far from each other as Modern English is to Shakespearean.
Kefirah wrote some post(s ?) for specific example(s?) where the DH is the more likely explanation for the 'problem'.
Some comments.
Delete@M Rose. I don't think it's fair to require Are to respond to each of my points. There's no reason he should feel the need to play defensively all the time. Furthermore, I readily admit that there are alternate explanations than the ones I offer, and state outright that some of what I say is reasoned speculation. The response to these are short. There are other posts that are more forthright in their claims, like this one, and Are did respond to it.
@Cocker: Surely we both can remember a time where we found support in many of these arguments. I know you've discussed many of them on your blog. But because of our experience, we shouldn't be surprised that they are held highly by members of the Jewish community. There are a great many people who hold, for example, the Modern Kuzari argument as proof of the claims of Judaism. We will never be able to alter (pun unintended) people's perceptions by browbeating them with our proofs and opinions. Rather the best we can do is provide the tools for individuals who are themselves open to the counter-arguments, and explain why the arguments in favor of Judaism aren't convincing to us (and how they could be made convincing!). Of course, we can defend ourselves when attacked, but that's different.
Also, regarding linguistic analysis. It's actually quite murky. The person who's dealt with it the most thoroughly is Hurvitz and he comes to a conclusion which is contrary to most scholarship (P is before Ezekiel). There isn't a writing style difference between sources in the Torah that fit your description of differing between Shakespeare and modern day, except for several of the "song" passages, which do have archaic grammar and morphology. There is also a difference between "Classical Biblical Hebrew" and "Late Biblical Hebrew" but this is to be expected just looking at the chronological differences. Nearly everything in the Torah and DH falls into Classical Biblical Hebrew.
@Are I applaud you for posting your thoughts on emunah here. It is not easy to put your thoughts on these topics out in public, especially not where critics abound! It is possible I may respond to several of the points that I find interesting, but I will of course need your permission before I do.
Thank you for your kind words. When you respond to my post, I request that you mention two points: 1) This isn't the entire argument, 2) This is a first draft. Both of these points are true. Many corrections need to be made, once I have the time.
Delete@Alter
DeleteI simply don't have the time to respond to all of your points. I will just nip at a couple of them.
You claim that the Torah - with all its contradictions, anachronisms, and triplets - isn't what you'd expect from God. But, at least from my vantage point, I don't presuppose what a book written by God is supposed to look like. Remember, He's the creator of the universe, so, in reality, if he writes a book that's on HIs level, it would be unintelligible to humans (just as our books are unintelligible to mice). So I don't really expect God's book to have any particular style, lack contradictions, lack doublets, etc. etc. Personally, however, even if I'd believe in Mosaic authorship (chas v'shalom), I wouldn't be overwhelmed by doublets and contradictions. We simply don't know how ancient authors composed books.
@Are Roster just note you are not responding to my actual comment, but are almost ignoring it. To repeat - The Torah has doublets, triplets, anachronisms, contradictions,and third person reports. Not what is expected from a book claimed to be written by God and given at a single specific location and time at Mount Sinai around 1200 B.C. (some may say around 1300 BC or earlier. The date is of no relevance to this discussion).
DeleteNOTE the important point: A single specific location and specific time.
Also it is not just the doublets, but also anachronisms, contradictions,and third person reports.
These are the kinds of issues you have to deal with.
@ Kefirah my statement "Linguistic analysis has established the relative chronology of portions of the Bible. Some portions of Torah are as far from each other as Modern English is to Shakespearean. " Is not based on my own independent analysis but I am pretty sure it is is a citation from Who Wrote the Bible by Friedman. I have seen similar statements by other scholars on the issue.
DeleteTo my recollection the issue is related to a few limited portions of the Torah, but nevertheless the issue exists and its a problem for the OJ narrative.
It is another piece of evidence suggesting that some material in the Torah is compiled from at least two different periods or sources.
@Kefirah - the individual posted a link to a chapter 4. I think in several places it insinuates the skeptics have no valid response to the issues raised. I gave the links to my posts that address at least some of the issues raised to provide my response. Being cocker I just had to respond with something.
Delete@Are Roster I do not hold Shtika Kahodah. You need not respond to anything I write. And visa versa. It does not mean you or I have no responses. Just so you know. Shalom
Delete@alter
DeleteAssuming that God wrote the book (which is the belief that you are trying to attack), why would contradictions and anachronisms point to the fact that it wasn't written in 1200BC at one point in time. E.g., let's assume that Philisteens are an anachronism (Iv'e argued elsewhere on this blog that I don't think that they are an anachronism, but even if they are...). Why would that prove that God didn't write the book?
@ Are Roster try this http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/993front.htm
DeleteImagine we find a book and it is claimed by someone the book is written 1 AD. The book writes and Joe drove a car to NYC and took the subway. But it is more likely: 1) the book was written at a much later date, after cars exits. 2) Joe did not drive a car to NYC, which did not exist and did not take the subway. 3) The Book was not written by God 1 AD. That would require God to put false information in the book. It would require ad-hoc invention of miracles, prophecy's, allegory etc:
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou are arguing that the fact that the Bible (you claim) contains false information increases the likelihood that God did not write the book. Why? (You stuck in your response an implied claim that there's no good evidence that God wrote the book -- similar to a book which is found and someone claims it was written in 1 AD -- but that is a distinct point.) First, let's focus on your initial claim: the fact that the Bible contains false information increases the likelihood that it wasn't written by the creator of the universe. Why?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Are Roster "First, let's focus on your initial claim: the fact that the Bible contains false information increases the likelihood that it wasn't written by the creator of the universe. Why?"
DeleteRegarding specifically false information in the book: It would imply G-d was intentionally deceiving us OR accidently deceiving us OR did not know facts (other options ? Book corruption ? False parts are not from G-d ?) . The last option G-d did not know facts is not consitent with G-d. The second option is not consitent with G-d - how could G-d have an accident or knowledge lapse ? The first option is not consistent with G-d. Deception is a negative trait associated humans. So it would be associating negative human trait with G-d. G-d would then seem more like a Devil. Is that the sort of G-d you want to worship ? And for what possible reason would G-d plant false information ?
So what is more likely ? That the false information is in the book because it was put in their by G-d or is it more likely that the errors are in there because humans wrote it ?
@Are Roster and if you want to argue G-d put false information in the Torah to test us please provide a source in our mesora that writes G-d did or would do this to us. Also remember the Gemorah teaches us that the Truth is G-d's Seal. How would that reconcile with G-d putting false information in the Torah ?
DeleteI'm not sure why God would put false information in the Torah (I don't claim that God put false information in the Torah, but even if he did...). But I don't have to know why. Why do you assume that he surely wouldn't have put false information in the Torah?
DeleteRegarding your second point, I agree that the Talmud assumes that God wouldn't lie. But we aren't arguing about Talmudic passages right now. We are arguing whether there's any evidence that God didn't write the Torah. How can you use the Talmud as a source that God didn't write the Torah?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAAre Roster "Regarding your second point, I agree that the Talmud assumes that God wouldn't lie. But we aren't arguing about Talmudic passages right now. We are arguing whether there's any evidence that God didn't write the Torah. How can you use the Talmud as a source that God didn't write the Torah?"
DeleteFor now - I am not using the Talmud as source that G-d did not write the Torah. I am using the Talmud a source teaching us that the Seal of G-d is truth. That untruth, deception is not consistent with G-d. Do you want to claim G-d deceives us ? If so see my prior discussion on this.
@ARE Roster Actually my example writes not written by God 1 AD. The date issue is important because it was addressing anachronism issue. So lets clear that up first if you wish to continue. Do you think it is reasonable to conclude the book was written 1AD by God ? What about my other two conclusions 1) the book was written at a much later date, after cars exits. 2) Joe did not drive a car to NYC, which did not exist and did not take the subway.
ReplyDelete@ARE Roster so using the anachronisms at least shows the likely dating of the book was after 1 AD. Agreed ?
ReplyDeleteAnachronisms are relevant only if we assume that the book is written by a human. If we assume that it was written by God, then an anachronism neither diminishes the likelihood that it was written by God, nor does it point to a particular date that the book was written. Why should it, in your opinion?
DeleteI find it humorous that Alter Cocker writes "G-d" and Are Roster writes "God" No matter, carry on.
Delete@Are Roster "Anachronisms are relevant only if we assume that the book is written by a human. If we assume that it was written by God, then an anachronism neither diminishes the likelihood that it was written by God, nor does it point to a particular date that the book was written. Why should it, in your opinion?"
DeleteLets assume no claim is made for G-d writing the Joe book, If I may put words in your mouth then you would agree evidence is very likely the book about Joe was written after 1 AD. If so, the fact that G-d may have written that book about Joe is not a serious objection to dating the book.
Because cars did not exist back then nor did NYC nor did subways. How could have Joe drove a car etc: etc: It is more likely that if G-d wrote the book, it was written way after 1 AD. If G-d wrote the book back in 1AD, he would have to perform all sorts of miracles just to make it happen. But there is no mention of such roads, car, NYC,subway miracles back in 1AD. No mention in 1AD records of roads etc:. There is even no mention in the book about Joe about these car miracles. It was narrated like it was no big deal.
And if the book was written in 1AD people reading the book in 1AD would not understand. Our friend Joe drove a car - whats that they would say ? (Side note - do you think G-d thru Moshe would give a Torah with an anachronism such as don’t eat T-Rex. The Israelites would say to Moshe get lost what are you on ? And the Torah in not Heaven or beyond the sea. Meaning it is not beyond your understanding. But telling us not to eat T-Rex would be. }
Now you may be able to claim all is possible because G-d was involved and he can do ANYTHING. But that is ad-hoc explanation requiring miracles galore. And it borders on deception and I have discussed this in a previous comment to you i.e about deception in a book claimed to be written by G-d. And it would not adequately address the other objections I raised in this comment. So even if somebody claims G-d wrote the book about Joe, do not the anachronisms found in the book point to the book being written way after 1AD ? At least can you see how a rational being would seriously question the assertion the book was written 1AD, even if by G-d.
So, if I understand you correctly, you claim that bible criticism's finding that there are anachronisms, contradictions and doublets proves that God didn't write the book, because if the book contained those features, the Jewish people would have said to Moses "get lost what are you on?"
DeleteIf that is your point (and I'm not sure if that is your point), I assume that Moses would have told them, as I have been telling you, "We don't know what type of book God would write. If God forbids us from eating T-rex's, then we just have to assume that God writes anachronistically."
Second, especially regarding anachronisms (which seems to be your main beef), we'd have to assume that the Jews knew that there were no longer any T-rex's. (Regarding your point that the Torah is not over the sea, there are many responses, but since I'm not sure if you meant that verse to be a serious point, so I will leave it for now for the sake of brevity.)
My point (it's not only my point, others have said the same), in summary: How, by looking at the contents of a book, can you conclude that it wasn't written by God? Rather, it seems, Biblical criticism is entirely based on the assumption that God didn't write the Torah.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Are Roster - T-Rex example does not get my point across fully and may not be the best example. A better example would be - the Torah writing that Avrahum Avinu traveled to the Beis Hamikdash in Kingdom of israel and met King Solomon and his wives. It that sort of anachronism I refer to. So change the T-Rex example to that for now.
Delete@ARE Roster the Avrahum example is extreme and of course not in the Torah. It is provided as a hypothetical example to demonstrate a point.
Delete@Are Roster - assume a book contains false information and the claim is made is made the book was written by G-d.
DeleteWhich of these options do you select ?
a) G-d did not know the information was false.
b) G-d intentionally wrote the false information.
c) G-d accidentally wrote the false information.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhy do you assume that God couldn't include false info in the Torah? I don't make any assumption. Please justify your point, and quoting Talmudic and even biblical sources doesn't suffice.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your question, since this a miraculous being with seemingly limitless power, I don't assume that he'd not know info, nor would make accidents.
@Are Roster - I don't ASSUME G-d could not include false info in the Torah. What I am arguing a Torah containing false information-.untruths - deceptions would not be consistent with G-d writing it. It would violate at least one of the traits associated with G-d. You yourself admitted "Regarding your second point, I agree that the Talmud assumes that God wouldn't lie." So again which choice(s) do you select from :
ReplyDeletea) G-d did not know the information was false
b) G-d intentionally wrote the false information.
c) G-d accidentally wrote the false information.
Why are you having a difficult time choosing one or more of the options ? If you have other options please present them as d), e), f) ...Otherwise please select one or more of the options. I think you mean to select b) is that right ?
@Are Roster just to clarify - choice b) would mean G-d knew the information was false and G-d intentionally put it in the Torah. Is that the option you select ? Yes or No.
Deletechoose option B, that God can, THEORETICALLY, put false information into the Torah. Of course, I believe the entire Torah is true, and I can justify this belief. What I want you to do is to justify your belief that God simply COULDN'T have the free will to insert false info regarding unimportant trivia into the Torah. Please justify this. This isn't a talent show, where you squeeze me into a corner in order to win a debate. Just explain your opinion.
DeleteBefore you do that, please point to the anachronism you are referring to. The VAST MAJORITY of anachronisms that you are referring to are merely God issuing commands that wouldn't be relevant until later. Thus, the entire tower of biblical criticism (EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT GOD DOESN'T HAVE FREE WILL TO LIE) is based on the fact that God didn't write the Torah. There may be a couple of other speculative "proofs" that the Torah wasn't written in 1200BC, but they aren't the basis for the hypothesis. They are after-the-fact speculative points. The main basis of the theory -- contradictions, doublets, God issuing commands that wouldn't apply until later -- aren't relevant to divine authorship.
I meant to say "I choose..." What do you mean by traits associated with God? How do we know God's traits? (I know how, but I want to see how you justify yourself....)
Delete@Are Roster writes “I choose option B, that God can, THEORETICALLY, put false information into the Torah. Of course, I believe the entire Torah is true, and I can justify this belief. What I want you to do is to justify your belief that God simply COULDN'T have the free will to insert false info regarding unimportant trivia into the Torah. Please justify this. This isn't a talent show, where you squeeze me into a corner in order to win a debate. Just explain your opinion.”
DeleteWe are trying to establish basic principles. The claim is made G-d wrote the Torah about 1200 BC or the date is not essential for this discussion. ASSUMING there are anachronisms and false information in the Torah is the claim still valid ? Or is it more likely the Torah was not written by G-d and not written 1200 B.C.
You have selected option b) G-d knew the information was false and intentionally put false information in the Torah.
(You initially asked about false information, yet now you redefining to false information about trivia. This is called moving goal posts. But I will respond.)
Who are you or I or anybody to decide what is unimportant trivia ?
You may not agree with the theology, but I am coming from an Orthodox Jewish perspective. Have you studied our great sages who write everything in the Torah is of great importance ?
Moving on, we have been taught everything in the Torah is true. That truth is G-d’s seal.
So option b) would directly conflict with our tradition about G-d.
Also option b) strongly implies G-d is a deceiver. Deception, a negative human trait that is not associated with G-d. (I will not get bogged down in metaphysical discussions of G-d’s traits. Honesty is one of those traits per Theologians, Religious Philosophers and their Interpretations of scripture and will be accepting their claims for now without trying to defend them. Do you disagree with them ? ) But it gets worse.
It would imply almost everything in the Torah can potentially be false. We have made a covenant with a dishonest partner, G-d forbid. And if just about anything in the Torah can be false why trust any of it at all ? And if potentially almost anything can be false, our great Talmudic scholars made deductions from potentially false passages of Torah putting our ‘Oral Tradition” into the trash.
It is said one fact inconsistent with an hypothesis put the hypothesis into severe jeopardy. The same is true for the hypothesis about claims about the Torah and G-d.
@Are Roster Would you now agree that if there is false information in the Torah it would strongly imply it was not written by G-d ?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) I don't believe that false info in the Torah would imply, even slightly, that it wasn't written by God.
ReplyDelete2) If there is false information in the Torah, then I agree Chazal are incorrect. But that doesn't allow us to conclude that the Torah wasn't written by God.
3) Of course I am coming, and I remain, in the same Orthodox tradition that you have abandon (for not good reason, in my opinion). But the point is that if your point is to prove that the Torah wasn't written by God, and all your arguments, YES , ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS, are based on Talmudic principles, then your arguments are completely irrelevant and vacuous.
4) What I meant by trivia is the following. There are two types of lies. One type hurts another individual (e.g., if God says, don't have marital relations for three days because I will be giving you the Torah in three days and then God says, "Just kidding" that would be a lie that is egregiously immoral). We never find God making these types of lies, chas v'shalom. On the other hand, according to science God lied (chas v'shalom) about the pre-historic information. So we are left to put God's words into categories. When God tells us information that is relevant to our lives, he won't lie. But when he tells us information that isn't related to our lives, he will lie (chas v'shalom). Now, of course, I don't believe that God lied AT ALL. I believe in every word of the Torah, including the parts that aren't directly related to our lives (BTW, halacha itself distinguishes between these two types of lies. Thus, Rabbi Y. S. Zonnenfeld said that a "white lie" which doesn't hurt another person is not forbidden by the Torah).
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
Delete@Are Roster your items 1-4 are now responded to:
1) I don't believe that false info in the Torah would imply, even slightly, that it wasn't written by God.
I think it does indicate the Torah was likely not written by G-d. I have explained why. Also think about this - do you want to worship a trickster ?
2) If there is false information in the Torah, then I agree Chazal are incorrect. But that doesn't allow us to conclude that the Torah wasn't written by God.
Not just Chazal. The overwhelming consensus of Religious Philosophers; Theologians, and their interpretations of Scripture is that G-d is honest, he does not lie. It does allow us to conclude that the Torah was likely not written by God. And if it was just Chazal who are you to say you know better than them ?
3) Of course I am coming, and I remain, in the same Orthodox tradition that you have abandon (for not good reason, in my opinion). But the point is that if your point is to prove that the Torah wasn't written by God, and all your arguments, YES , ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS, are based on Talmudic principles, then your arguments are completely irrelevant and vacuous.
It is just not Talmud. You are arguing against the overwhelming consensus of Religious Philosophers; Theologians and their interpretations of Scripture who teach us G-d is honest.
Since I am arguing based on Orthodox Judaism principles, arguments based on the Talmud are not vacuous and are very relevant.
@Are Roster your Item 4
Delete4) What I meant by trivia is the following. There are two types of lies. One type hurts another individual (e.g., if God says, don't have marital relations for three days because I will be giving you the Torah in three days and then God says, "Just kidding" that would be a lie that is egregiously immoral). We never find God making these types of lies, chas v'shalom. On the other hand, according to science God lied (chas v'shalom) about the pre-historic information. So we are left to put God's words into categories. When God tells us information that is relevant to our lives, he won't lie. But when he tells us information that isn't related to our lives, he will lie (chas v'shalom). Now, of course, I don't believe that God lied AT ALL. I believe in every word of the Torah, including the parts that aren't directly related to our lives (BTW, halacha itself distinguishes between these two types of lies. Thus, Rabbi Y. S. Zonnenfeld said that a "white lie" which doesn't hurt another person is not forbidden by the Torah).
You are engaging in moving goalposts. Also, to my knowledge, Theologians have not made the distinction you are making regarding G-d’s trait of honesty. That he would be honest only sometimes or for certain things.
Lets assume the Halacha is that HUMANS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES are permitted to lie. That does not mean that G-d can ever lie. It just that HUMANS were given permission under certain circumstances here on Earth to do so.
Just so you know - check you are halacha - “ Rabbi Y. S. Zonnenfeld said that a "white lie" which doesn't hurt another person is not forbidden by the Torah.” How does one ever know the lie will not lead to harm to another person? But maybe you hold by this principle, that it is Ok to engage in white lie. If so I will no longer have a discussion with you because that means you are dishonest and you can not have a discussion with someone like that.
And indeed, if it is OK per Halacha to lie under some circumstances then the Jewish people should not be trusted. They will engage in it as long as it is only white. And who defines what is white ? The Jew doing the lying.
Do you see how this is another argument against the Kuzari ? Would a Father lie to his Child ? Yes if it is only white. And more - How could the claim that G-d revealed himself at Mt Sinai come about ? Easy, because a certain tribe may have thought it was ok to white lie. In fact your Rabbi citation confirms this - even after the Torah was given. - it is ok to white lie.
And worse it will lead to Chillul Hashem. I have heard gentiles claim Jews lie. I argued with them - but heck you have just given them ammunition. Good Shabbas.
I won't respond to all your point, as shabbos is coming:
ReplyDelete1) You have yet to offer even a slight justification to your claim that God simply couldn't have lied about pre-historic events.
2) Who cares what theologians think? God, in the Torah, always told the Jews true facts, again and again, while in the desert, while, you claim that he lied about pre-historic events. Why doesn't that allow me to categorize the veracity of god's statements?
@Are Roster Regarding your 2 points 1) and 2)
Delete“1) You have yet to offer even a slight justification to your claim that God simply couldn't have lied about pre-historic events.”
2) Who cares what theologians think? God, in the Torah, always told the Jews true facts, again and again, while in the desert, while, you claim that he lied about pre-historic events. Why doesn't that allow me to categorize the veracity of god's statements?”
I think I have provided justification. Please reread what I have written previously, maybe you missed something. If not fine.
Something to think about - if the Torah contains lies do you still think it is a reliable book ? If G-d lies - is that the kind of G-d you want to worship ? Do you think lying is consistent with G-d and can you support your position based on Torah/ Religious Philosophy/ Talmud etc: ?
I am finished having further discussions with .you. Shalom.
1) I don't claim that God lied. I claim that the entire Torah. All I am saying is that if one believes that the Torah contains false info, that's no reason to assume that God couldn't write it. Quoting Talmudic sources doesn't justify your claim.
ReplyDelete2) If we catch God lying about events that aren't related directly to our lives, but always says the truth about facts that are relevant to our lives, then I don't see why I shouldn't follow Him.
3) A lying God doesn't have to be consistent with what I believe about God. The point, rather, is to display the fallacy of your argument that if the Bible contains false info IT SIMPLY COULD NOT BE WRITTEN by God. You haven't justified that belief, and all who read this blog can see that clearly.
I am truly appreciating the arguments and the time and effort both of you (Are and Kocker) are putting into this. I'd love to get involved more deeply but simply do not have the time. @Are; Kefira had a post recently where we each discussed what it would take for us to accept torah misinai and orthodox Judaism in general. My question for you (and I apologize if you already answered it) is: what would it take for you to conclude that God did not write the torah? (chumash)
ReplyDeleteYou can't prove that God didn't write the Torah, or any other book. But you might be able to prove that God would lie to us regarding important information, but I don't see any evidence of that. (We do have reason to suspect that God would lie regarding some things, See Rashi to Genesis 18:13, based on many sources in chazal)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete