The Kuzari Argument: A central claim in Ultra-Orthodox Apologetics
Part of a series on contemporary Ultra -Orthodox Jewish apologetics. Compare also the Hebrew Wikipedia entry, which focuses on the traditional formulation of the argument, and traditional critiques, based on internal literary evidence from Tanakh: טיעון העד (יהדות) – ויקיפדיה . See the previous installment in the series here:
Ultra-Orthodox Apologetics: Some Notes on R’ Ahron Lopianski’s Lecture Series “Da Ma Shetashiv”
Based on a draft of notes written in 2012. Naftali Zeligman in TalkReason website: “A List of Some Problematic Issues” (Mar 16, 2003) “Letter to My Rabbi” (Jun 20, 2005) R’ Ahron Lopianski's lecture series, “Da Ma Shetashiv,” is one of the most systematic works of Chareidi apologetics that I’ve seen. It tries to give over the Chareidi ideology, along the wa…
The ‘Testimony Argument’, also known as the ‘Kuzari Argument’ or the ‘Argument from the Sinai event’, is an argument from miracles for the truth of the Torah from God, and therefore for the existence of God. This argument utilizes the claim that, according to the Bible and Jewish tradition, there were millions of witnesses to divine revelation.
The story of the revelation at Mount Sinai during the giving of the Torah, which included God's speech to the Children of Israel, is referred to, as are other stories of miracles performed by God during the Exodus from Egypt, such as the Ten Plagues and the parting of the Red Sea. The basis of this argument is the assumption that it is not possible to convince an entire nation to believe that certain events happened in the presence of the whole people unless these events actually occurred.
Critique of the Kuzari Argument
Based on: Avi Norowitz, “Critique of the Kuzari Argument”, at the Talk Reason website (January 29, 2003), archived here.
Overall, the Kuzari Argument simplifies the complex process of religious and mythological development and doesn't account for the unreliability of oral traditions and the possibility of gradual acceptance of mythological narratives.
Development of Religion
The Kuzari Argument assumes that religions generally begin with individuals claiming divine revelation, followed by the formulation of religious precepts and garnering of followers.
Critics point out that many religions, like Hinduism or Shintoism, evolved gradually over time without distinct founders, which challenges the argument's foundational assumption.
Development of Myth
Adherents to the Kuzari Argument say that even if Judaism did develop gradually, a false history would have to have been accepted at some point in the development of the religion. Adherents posit that this is highly unlikely, because people would reject a miraculous history they hadn't heard about from prior generations.
Critics counter this by pointing out the strong possibility of myths developing gradually and being accepted by increasing numbers of people over generations, despite inaccuracies and embellishments.
Oral Traditions and Memory
Critics point out that oral traditions are often distorted and unreliable, undermining the Kuzari Argument's reliance on accurate transmission of historical events through generations.
The Temporal Gap
Critics highlight the significant gap of about 500 years between the time of the supposed miracles described in the Torah and when the Torah was written, according to secular scholars. This gap allows for a gradual development and acceptance of the story, in contrast to the Kuzari Argument's assumption of immediate acceptance of miraculous events.
"Critics highlight the significant gap of about 500 years between the time of the supposed miracles described in the Torah and when the Torah was written, according to secular scholars. " This is the crux of the issue. The Kuzari's argument doesn't rely on secular scholars. It relies on trust in an unbroken chain of transmission. Considering the incredible scholarship of the those trusted with the transmission, the cross-checking between different communities, and the general suspicion of all novelty, the burden of proof is on the late-comers and outsiders. And as we've seen in recent history, that scholarship is subject to continued revision, generally in favor of the insiders' tradition. So I'll take this article's points with a grain of salt and declare myself unpersuaded.