Did G-d Really Speak to the Jews at Mount Sinai

As the Jewish holiday of Shavuot approaches, I find myself thinking of one curious aspect of Judaism. One that I find impossible to reject. Intuition tells me it must be mistaken but the Kuzari Principle has a stubborn logic to it and I find myself asking: Did G-d really speak to the Jews?

Anyone can start a religion with the claim ‘G-d spoke to me and this is what he said…’. In this case you’ll never know whether they were telling the truth or not. Its easy to imagine how the claim of a charismatic cult leader might convince vulnerable individuals as a result of emotional need rather than intellectual conviction.

Indeed, when we look at how different religions begin we find a pattern common to almost all; one or two people claim that G-d has spoken to or appeared before them, they convince a few followers that they’re telling the truth and the religion (or cult) gets off the ground.

However, Judaism has a unique claim about its origin; at Mount Sinai G-d spoke to the whole Jewish nation, some three million people. Orthodox Jews claim that their faith is actually faithfulness; staying loyal to the message they received at Mount Sinai.

Okay, we know that Jews invented chutzpah but come now, all religions begin with one or two people and the Jews think they can claim that G-d spoke to all of them? How could the founder of Judaism possibly pull this off? Clearly this claim of mass revelation had to be fabricated but how did it originate? How was it possible for Moses to hoodwink a group of people into accepting that G-d had just spoken?

Even the sceptic must agree that whilst Moses as a charismatic leader might have been able to convince people that he had personally heard G-d speak, convincing others that they’d heard G-d when they hadn’t is stretching credibility. We know that people are gullible or stupid but surely not to the extent of accepting such an obvious fabrication? Had Moses claimed that G-d spoke when He hadn’t then Moses would have immediately revealed himself to be a charlatan. It seems impossible that Moses just convinced people if nothing at all happened.

Perhaps then, something happened which was understood by everyone present as G-d speaking? After all, people were much more primitive in Biblical times, when things occurred that they didn’t understand they simply put this down to G-d. Perhaps a public event such as the wind whistling through the mountain ridges, a volcanic eruption or a thunderstorm was interpreted by the people present as G-d speaking? Moses said something like “Did you just hear what G-d just said?” and Judaism was up and running.

AT first glance this seems a feasible explanation; primitive people with a primitive understanding of the world share a public experience and perceive it as G-d communicating with them. Yet there remains one over-riding problem. Whistling wind, volcanic eruption and thunderstorms are not rare events in human history; but claims of mass revelation are.

A fundamental idea is that natural events repeat themselves. If its natural for a group of people to hear whistling wind, a volcanic eruption or a thunderstorm and mistakenly believe they’ve experienced G-d speaking we should expect to have heard dozens if not hundreds of similar claims throughout history; yet, only the Jews claim G-d spoke to them as a nation.

Maybe it’s possible that there was no Moses, no exodus from Egypt and no Sinai event; the whole story was simply inserted into Judaism at a later time? Someone, lets say Ezra the Scribe comes along and tells existing Jews that “1,000 years ago our ancestors stood at the foot of a mountain, G-d spoke to them and this is what He said…”. This is the theory which most academics subscribe to, but is it any more reasonable?

If the story is a later invention, these claims must be made to an existing group of people, with their existing customs, traditions and national history. The first question they are likely to ask is “How come we don’t know about this?”. After all, the claim is not about some foreign nation but about these people’s own ancestors. So, explains Ezra, “it was forgotten over the course of history, 1,000 years is a long time…”. Yet is an event such as this is likely to be forgotten? G-d speaking in public could be described as the greatest event in history. In his essay ‘The Kuzari Principle” Rabbi Dovid Gottleib expresses it in the following way;

“This story describes an event that has never happened to anyone else, anywhere. No other nation even claims that its religion started with a public revelation. This story describes an event that would be absolutely unique in all human history. The fire, the shaking earth, and hearing the voice of G-d together are sure to make a deep impression. And the story says that the rules commanded by the voice became the foundation of a new religion. Such an event would radically change the life of the whole nation - its values, attitudes, perceptions, national organization and priorities. It would profoundly transform daily life. Surely there would be many records and memories of such an event. This is the story of a national unforgettable

Since it is a national unforgettable, it is not a story that can be made up. A deceiver will not succeed with a story like this. He will not succeed because the people whom he is trying to deceive will say: “If our ancestors really witnessed an event like that, our whole national life would show it. There would be holidays to celebrate the event, records of what the voice said, and a history of national decisions implementing the new rules. This is not the sort of event which a whole nation would forget.”

We’re left with only one option; maybe it did happen after all?

Why BDS is the Wrong Option (part 2)

BDS is morally unjustified. This may seem a touch bold given that campaigners in favour of BDS claim that their action is in pursuit of justice for Palestinians. I don’t know which theory of justice they are appealing to but two fairly obvious objections to BDS is that it is racist, and an unjustified form of collective punishment. Clearly this is not about Justice.

A third and perhaps understated objection to BDS is that it is the wrong policy. By that I mean that unless its aim is merely to exclude Jews and Israelis from the life and community of nations, it is certain to fail to achieve its aims. Yet when we start to examine the aims of the BDS movement we realise that these are far from clear.

In South Africa, it was clear what the boycotters wanted; an end to Apartheid legislation and the enactment of universal suffrage. Contrast this to the case of Israel; campaigners for BDS are a broad church; some are in favour of a one-state solution, others are in favour of two states for two nations. Thus the call to boycott is not accompanied by any clear standards which would guarantee the ending of the boycott. This is itself an objection to the argument in favour of BDS. After all, even if a boycott were justified (which it isn’t), it isn’t justified to boycott a nation without telling that nation what they must do in order to end the boycott.

This reality has been enunciated by none other than Norman Finkelstein. In a Frank exchange posted on YouTube, Finkelstein states unambiguously that the campaign for BDS is disingenuous. This is because BDS does not seek to create a Palestinian state, rather the aim of the boycott is to punish Israel until it agrees to national suicide; accepting the non-existent right of return for Arabs to sovereign Israeli territory or other demands which amount to the end of Jewish sovereignty. The campaign for BDS cloaks itself in the language of human rights but even Norman Finkelstein recognises that its unstated aim is to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination of nations in their ancient homeland. It goes without saying that this is an unreasonable demand, which has no justification in either law or morality.

It’s natural to say that of the aim of BDS is to reverse the outcome of the 1948-49 war then this is a non-starter. Yet, even in the best case scenario that BDS is a tactic to secure a Palestinian state in the territories east of the Green line and bring peace to the region, it is still the wrong tactic.

Source: freedigitalphotos.net. Photo by digitalart 

Only the Israeli people can agree to withdraw back to the Green Line and so any measure taken must convince the Israeli people. There is a long history of boycotts of Jews. Even if there were no anti-Semitism; BDS would still be interpreted by the overwhelming majority of Israelis as an attack not on their government but as an attack on them as Jews. If the aim is to pressure the general population, it would backfire spectacularly. Jews in Israel would not reconsider Israeli policy but rather lurch to the right in the face of what they would understand as a racist attack.

So if you still support BDS then you support something that is unjustified (because it is racist and strips Jews of human rights). Much worse BDS is ultimately futile. If you really want to help the Palestinian Arabs, then encourage co-existence projects and support moderate voices on both sides. Silencing and excluding Israelis won’t achieve anything.