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. 

Obama's Magic Marker Red Line

Well just what is the west going to do about Syria? After two years of dithering in the face of Bashar Assad’s assault on his own people, evidence is emerging of the one thing that was assured would result in western intervention. Is anyone surprised that this is now being downplayed quicker than you can say “Sarin nerve agent”?

The truth is that neither Obama nor any of his western allies want to invade Syria. The middle-east is awash with the type of weaponry that can seriously damage the health of your soldiers and most importantly (though not directly relevant in the case of Obama) your prospects of re-election. Add to this porous borders and a large number of unemployed young men with the motivation to fight against “the west” and it’s easy to see why western leaders prefer the option of hand-wringing coupled with heavy sighing.

Photo by creativedoxphoto courtesy: freedigitalphotos.net

The situation is further complicated by the fact that the western world is essentially broke. Regardless of the moral imperatives for action, trying to sell expensive western intervention to your electorate whilst slashing public services, spells out electoral suicide in any of the EU’s 23 official languages. The US is not much better off. Put simply intervention in Syria (as in Iran) has no predictable long-term outcome. All that’s guaranteed is that such a conflict will spark panic on the oil markets, further damaging a global economy that remains stagnant.

So long as intervention in Syrian remains a war of choice with no-one able to pick up the tab, the most favourable option for the political class is to continue with the current policy of condemnatory press releases and behind the scenes support to the rebels.

Then of course there’s the fact that a re-emergent Russia, which controls the supply of natural gas to mainland Europe and just happens to have a naval base in Tartus, is adamantly opposed to any western intervention. Russia’s steadfast objections have stymied any action in the UN Security Council over the last two years. Vladimir Putin, still slighted by the west’s actions in Libya, simply won’t let it happen again not least when the Syrian conflict represents both a danger to Russia’s strategic interests and an opportunity to damage those of the US.

Finally, the alternatives to Assad are just as unpalatable as the dentist himself. Despite what is publically admitted the lessons of Egypt and Libya are two-fold. Firstly, that only boots on the ground will secure a result that is preferable to western interests and secondly, that even in the most optimal circumstances, the Arab world is not going to move in the direction of genuine democracy any time soon.

The most recent attempt at state-building, in Iraq, turned out to be less than successful resulting in an unstable patchwork of simmering sectarian tensions. In Egypt and Libya, the results are no less encouraging. The tin-pot dictators; Mubarak and Gadhaffi have been replaced by Islamic theocrats whom neither endorse, nor sympathise with a liberal, democratic worldview and have no idea how to solve the problems their nations face.

In Syria itself, the Sunni insurgents who have flooded into the country whilst the west prevaricated, are heavily linked to al-Qaida and the west have no desire to directly place an Islamic Theocracy on Israel’s border to complement those now running Egypt and the Gaza Strip, not least for fear of unleashing a regional war.

In some ways this is a demonstration of how things can go wrong when you appease a dictator who kills his own people. Cowed by their electorate, western leaders have refused to endorse the only action that might have brought about a positive change; early intervention. Had the west intervened when Assad begun the slaughter of civilian demonstrators they would have been able to more effectively control both Syrian borders- restricting the involvement of al-Qaida- and the political process which follows the fall of Assad. Two years later and the Syrian state is weakened to the point that large-scale western intervention will probably make Iraq look like a picnic.

All of this shows why US/NATO intervention is unlikely so long as Assad remains confident enough that his chemical weapons need be used only on a limited scale. The conclusion seems to be that the best option is to do nothing so long as Assad and the insurgents continue killing each other (and innocent civilians caught up in the conflict) in roughly the current numbers.

There is just one complicating factor. The Iranians who are actively helping Assad to murder his own people are watching the West. As the Mullahs continue to play cat and mouse over their nuclear weapons programme, a failure by the US to intervene having declared a red line will only give credence to the already suspected notion that Obama is not serious about using military means to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb. As has often been stated only a credible threat of force will give the Iranians the incentive to back down, otherwise they can feasibly tough it out until they achieve their nuclear ambitions.

Whichever way this turns don’t expect decisive Western leadership. The past two years have shown that alongside their appalling understanding of events in the Middle-East, there is no appetite for further middle-eastern intervention, either from the politicians or those who vote for them. 

BDS: Bollocks, Distortion and Slanders

The acronym BDS officially stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, a campaign targeted at the State of Israel for its alleged violations of international law.

A common slogan refers to Israel’s “illegal occupation”. This and other outlandish claims made by proponents of BDS, such as the suggestion that Israel practices a form or apartheid, or that the modern State of Israel is a reincarnation of the third Reich may be short on factual or logical underpinnings but they appear to make for good political point scoring (something which incidentally should be thoroughly unimpressive to anyone who is genuinely interested in notions of justice or truth). 

However, much to the chagrin of the BDS crowd, a recent ruling by the French Court of Appeal has shown that propaganda is no substitute for law. A case brought by the PLO/PA against Veolia Transport, Alsthom Transport and Alsthom, was dismissed, with the justices in the process awarding costs against the PLO/PA to the tune of €90,000.

The crux of the Palestinian complaint was that in constructing the Jerusalem light rail project, which extends into the eastern suburbs of the city (areas claimed by the PLO/PA to be occupied Palestinian territory), Veolia and its partners were in breach of international law.

Accordingly, the PLO/PA sued in the French courts seeking damages, citing various clauses of the Geneva and Hague conventions, specifically article 49 of the 4^th Geneva Convention which states that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

The French court, setting aside propaganda and basing their judgement solely on what the law says told us that;

1)      The occupation by Israel does not of itself violate any international law. Rather, even under the terms of the laws of occupation, Israel is the lawful authority in civilian matters in East Jerusalem.

2)      The relevant international treaties place obligations and prohibitions on States, not on individuals or companies. In addition, the PLO/PA is not a state and so it has no basis for a claim under these conventions.

3)      Furthermore, the international treaties relate to high contracting parties, i.e. signatories of the conventions. As neither the PLO or PA has signed these conventions they have no basis for claiming under their respective terms.

Make no mistake, this is a severe blow to proponents of BDS and a victory for the State of Israel in the face of PA/PLO threats to bring Israel before international legal bodies. So the next time you hear the phrase “Israel’s illegal occupation", or that Israeli settlements are in breach of international law, just remember what BDS really stands for.

The original report (for French speakers) is here

1st Page of the New Testament Proves That Jesus Can't Possibly be the Jewish Messiah

In many places the Hebrew Bible prophecies a future situation where the world will be perfected. A central role in this theme is assigned to a future king of Israel, who amongst other things, will be a continuation of the Davidic monarchy. In addition to describing the achievements of this future king- whom we refer to as the messiah- the Bible is clear that this future king must be a descendent of King David.

Accordingly, in championing the candidacy of Jesus of Nazareth, the New Testament’s opening 17 verses describe the genealogy of Jesus. Leaving for one moment the 30+ internal contradictions between the genealogy found in the gospel of Matthew and that found in Luke’s gospel. It seems that rather than confirming Jesus as a suitable candidate for the post of Jewish messiah, one need read only the opening 17 verses of the New Testament to conclude that Jesus is simply ineligible as a candidate. Rather than proving the case that Jesus is the messiah, the New Testament begins by informing us that Jesus is not even eligible for the role. How does that work?

What's Wrong with Matthew's Genealogy?

Matthew begins his gospel by telling us “these are the genealogies of Jesus Christ”. Bear in mind that Christ is simply the Greek for messiah. The New Testament begins by explicitly laying out the case for Jesus being the Jewish messiah and does so by attempting to link Jesus back to King David by detailing the ancestry of Joseph, the husband of Mary.

Before we investigate the genealogy itself its worth noting that immediately following Matthew’s account of the genealogical record we are told quite plainly that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus, but rather that he was born of a virgin, impregnated by the holy spirit.

Clearly King David is not the great, great (and so on) grandfather of G-d and no Christian makes such a foolish claim but this in itself creates a problem; Jesus cannot be descended from King David regardless of the heritage of his adopted father. According to the Hebrew Bible, tribal affiliation is passed through the paternal line and according to the Hebrew Bible, all rightful kings of Israel must be from the tribe of Judah.

It would seem that if the New Testament is a truthful document then Jesus, having no human father, does not belong to the tribe of Judah (or any other). For this reason alone Jesus cannot be a king of Israel; a pre-requisite for candidacy as Jewish messiah. An argument given against this last point is that Joseph formally adopted Jesus, however, adoption does not in Judaism confer tribal affiliation and whatever else he may have been Jesus was a Jew. 

Unfortunately, even were adoption to allow for the passing of tribal affiliation, it gets slightly more complex when we return to the genealogy itself. To cut a long story short Matthew has Joseph descended from King David but lists one of his ancestors as Yechoyachin (Jaconius in Latin) whose wickedness led G-d to place a curse on him; none of his descendants would sit on the throne of Israel. Indeed when Yechoyachin died, the kingship passed to his brother and not one of his sons. If Jesus genuinely descended from Yechoyachin then he was ineligible to be king and therefore ineligible to be the messiah.

Is Luke's Genealogy Any Better?

What then of the genealogy handed down by Luke? Unfortunately for Christians this also leads to the conclusion that Jesus is ineligible for the role of messiah. Notwithstanding the 30+ contradictions between Luke’s genealogy and Matthew’s, or the standard attempt to reconcile these contradictions by claiming that Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, Luke’s genealogy also makes Jesus ineligible. 

First, if Luke’s genealogy is indeed documenting the maternal line (Mary is mentioned nowhere in the text), then in terms of tribal affiliation it is worthless. The Hebrew Bible is clear that the tribe you belong to is the preserve of the paternal line. Thus the problem of Jesus not having a human father and therefore not belonging to any tribe is unresolved. More importantly, the Hebrew Scriptures make it clear that the messiah must be descended from David, through his son Solomon and Luke’s genealogy has Jesus descended from David through Nathan. Which ever way you examine the question; Jesus is ineligible to be the Jewish messiah and consequently Jesus cannot possibly be who the various churches claim him to be.  

Those that claim the New Testament to be a reliable document insist that the New Testament lays out the evidence in favour of the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth was the Jewish messiah, rejected in his time and scheduled to return to complete the job. This claim is problematic for numerous reasons (in addition to those documented here), yet perhaps the most convincing of these is that to uphold any notion of Jesus as Jewish messiah; one must first discard the New Testament because according to the very text Jesus is simply ineligible to be the Jewish messiah.

Either the New Testament genealogies of Jesus are false (and at least one of them must be), in which case one wonders what they are doing in a book supposedly inspired by G-d, or one of them is correct and Jesus is not eligible to be the messiah. One cannot have cake and eat it too, a position seemingly not lost on the previous Pope who when pressed on this very subject was unable to come up with any answer.

Conclusive Proof That Jesus Cannot be the Jewish Messiah

Faced with the evidence; contradictory genealogies both of which exclude Jesus from candidacy, coupled with the problem of tribal affiliation, an honest person must conclude that Jesus cannot possibly be the Jewish messiah. Thus either the New Testament contains unreliable information about Jesus in which case we have no reason to accept any of the other claims about him or the information may all be true but regardless of the miracles, and so on, Jesus is simply not eligible to be the Jewish messiah and thus we have no reason to accept any of the other claims made about him.

In one of the greatest ironies of history, far from confirming that Jesus is the Jewish messiah- the starting point of Christian claims about the world- one need read only the first page of the New Testament to rule him out of contention altogether.

Is it really any wonder why Jews, those most intimately knowledgeable with the Hebrew Bible, have consistently rejected Christianity? Or why Christendom has spent the best part of its history trying to wipe the Jewish people from the face of the earth? 

גמר חטימה טובה

Why Jesus is not the promised Jewish Messiah (part 1)

In the dispute between Christians and Jews over whether Jesus ought be accorded some special status, its not uncommon to come across some fairly awful reasoning on the part of Christian apologists.

The over-riding objection with such reasoning might seem to be that they have already decided on the conclusion before beginning the argument but this in itself is not necessarily an objection so long as one argues cogently and coherently. However, one consequence of taking sides in advance is that the advocate often doesn't think critically enough about the arguments offered in defence of their pre-conceived notions.

Of course I may be subject to the same criticism so rather than begin with my conclusion, I point to my arguments. Rubbish those and I’ll have to admit that my conclusion doesn’t stand and in such circumstances I’ll be happy to do so…

In a recent discussion a Christian apologist presented the Jewish position as follows and attempts to show why the conclusion cannot be drawn from the premises;

1) The Messiah will fulfil prophecies x, y & z

2) Jesus did not fulfil prophecies x,y, & z

Conclusion: Jesus cannot be the messiah.

The critic attempts to show that premise 2 doesn’t stand because Jesus will come back and for the conclusion to stand the Jewish position must be amended to read “Jesus did not and will not fulfil prophecies x,y, & z. 

Essentially this is offering the notion of a second coming as refutation that Jesus is not the Jewish messiah. However the refutation of the objection is that it is not reasonable to believe that Jesus will return, because no evidence is presented to support such a notion. 

There are a number of problems with this reasoning.

1) The burden of proof is on the Christian’s shoulders, not that of the Jewish people. Since Judaism pre-dates Christianity, the burden of proof lies with those who are claiming new information, not with those who are saying nothing has changed. This is obvious. 

If you want to convince others that an apparently ordinary person who lived and died, actually has a special status, you need evidence to support this conclusion and yet none is offered that survives scrutiny.

2) Given that Jesus died prior to the fulfilment of the relevant prophecies and that this was 2000 odd years ago you would need a convincing explanation for why he will still be able to fulfil the prophecies. Mere possibility alone is foolish. After all its possible that tomorrow my dog will start talking or become a chess grand-master but no reasonable person expects either of these things to happen. If you are happy to base your decisions on probability then I am offering bets on my three-legged donkey winning the Grand National, any takers?

3) The “he’ll do it later” argument may convince those with a pre-existing belief that Jesus is a special person but it doesn’t provide any support to convince someone who doesn’t believe that Jesus is special.  If you’re not providing any evidence I have no obligation to accept your argument and you have no reason to accept it either. To the non-believer in Jesus this sounds like a classic case of cognitive dissonance.

4) Additionally, the notion of a second coming is entirely extra-textual to the Hebrew Bible, thus there is no basis for a believer in the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures to accept such a notion. Yet it gets worse, the text of the Hebrew Bible instructs believers to reject ideas which are not found in the text. Thus the only consistent position is to reject the notion of a second coming and claims made in respect of Jesus coming back to do x, y & z.  

5) A further related problem is that to uphold the “he’ll do it later” principle one also has to explain why you give preference to belief in Jesus over belief in other religious figures, such as, Muhammed, Joseph Smith or Reverend Moon. If the notion is not excusive to Jesus then it isn’t evidence that he’s special.

If possibility is sufficient, then believing in Muhammed, or Jospeh Smith is as reasonable as belief in Jesus but the Christian offers no grounds for choosing one over the other. Can’t these other figures also come back and do it later if G-d wills it such? If not you have to say why and have a reasoned argument that can not also be used to refute your own position. No such argument exists. 

For these reasons, an inconsistent position is taken somewhere along the line and a rational person (a category which ought to include Christians) has no reason to accept the conclusion that Jesus is special.

Blogging and Intellectual Honesty

I've recently had an online dispute with a blogger (The site and the writer isn't important), I'm sure my posts were polite, thorough and thoughtful responses to his arguments but they were simply not published. No form of refutation was offered. Discussion along with this blogger's mind is apparently closed.

Maybe its just my academic training (philosophy) but something seems odd about running a blog and not posting comments, or rather, not publishing comments that disagree with your article. The phrase "publish and be damned" really ought to be the guiding principle. Well at least is should be if you're honest.

Perhaps I've simply got the mucky end of the stick but I don't think so. In my mind the only reason for blogging is to share your opinions with a wider audience and the corollary to that is to have the integrity to publish all responses, even if it means putting material on your blog with which you fundamentally disagree. What won't do is to screen out the criticism which you are unable to answer and respond only to weak, easily refuted objections or the posts of those with whom you already agree.

Here's the nub of the matter; if you take a position on a certain subject you ought to be able to justify that stance, (not least for yourself). This is doubly so if the entire raison d'etre of your site is to convince others of the accuracy of your position vis a vis competing theories and explanations. Its less than honest to push your view of the world and then hide relevant responses from your readers because they undermine the position you're advocating for.

Isn't it simple? If the critique can be challenged then argue against it and demonstrate how the critic's argument is mistaken; highlight the flaws in their logic and show that your position emerges unscathed. After all, if the critique is so poor this ought to be a doddle. Alternatively admit that your original piece doesn't survive the critic's slings and arrows but at the very least publish critical comments and allow others to make their own judgement. Isn't that what thoughtful, honest people do?

In refusing to publish criticism which might undermine your conclusions, you are both insulting and deceiving your readers and revealing your own lack of conviction. In short, over and above refusing to publish hate speech, defamatory comments or such like) whatever the issue you ought also to allow your readers to make up their own minds by publishing contrary comments.

Reagrdless of the stance of others, this blog is and aims to remain a dialogue and as such, all comments are welcome. Refusing to publish counter arguments is simply intellectually dishonesty of the worst kind, isn't it?