The 600,000 Hoax « Rejewvenate!

The 600,000 Hoax

July 17, 2008 at 4:54 pm | In beliefs, tanach, torah | 11 Comments

One of the ‘proofs’ that has gained much currency in the Orthodox world for the historicity of the Torah and its reliability as a document produced by a single author at the time the events it describes were unfolding goes something like this:

The Torah describes that 600,000 men (and their families, so maybe 2-3 million people) took part in the Exodus and received the Torah at Sinai. If the Torah was in fact written later, how could such a claim be made? Wouldn’t people reject the claim because they had never heard this from their ancestors? The Torah would nver have been accepted! It must be that the only way such a claim could exist in the Torah was if it were true. Judaism is unique in that no other religion claims this type of mass revelation.

There are a few underlying assumptions to this argument. First, there is the assumption of literacy and familiarity with the text of the Torah on the part of laypeople. It’s as though the above argument assumes some kind of vetting process, something like a referendum, on the text of the Torah. The second assumption is that people, even if they did know the text, would take these numbers literally. Aside from our own biases, there’s no reason to believe that this would be the case. The third assumption is that all mythic origins stories need to have some basis in truth to become acceptable. This too is a weak claim – did Romans reject descent from Romulus as their origin story because men are not raised by wolves? Myth is myth. Some of it has roots in actual events, some of it does not.

Fundamentally, however, it’s the fourth assumption that really tears down the whole argument. And that’s the assumption that if the Torah was not given all at once, from God at Sinai to Moses and Children of Israel, then it must be a fraudulent text foisted upon a people at some discrete moment in history. Of course, no credible historian or Biblical scholar suggests that this is the case.

The Israelites were themselves composed of many different groups, despite the Torah’s insistence that they were all descendants of one family. This is an indisputable point. How else could you explain, for example, the different accents of the tribe of Benjamin, who could not pronounce the word Shibboleth? Each of these different groups had different traditions.

We can see echoes of ancient traditions from particular groups in the text of the Torah. Consult Joshua 24. Joshua is speaking to the people of Israel and recounting their history. In his detailed retelling of history from the time of Abraham’s father through to the present day, he makes an astonishing omission. He leaves out the revelation at Sinai! Stunning! Moreover, at the end of the chapter (verse 26), Joshua sets up a witness-stone (Even Matzevah) under the oak that was in the Sanctuary of God in Shechem. Deuteronomy 16, of course, forbids precisely those practices. And besides, what Sanctuary of God was in Shechem? The Tabernacle? Perhaps… except the Tabernacle itself is mentioned only once in the entire book of Joshua.

The Israelites had different origins. Ancient traditions from groups based around Shechem, Beit-El, and Hebron within the land of Canann, and Egypt, Aram, Haran, and Ur from outside of the land Canaan all survive to some extent in the Torah. Not all of the Israelites were at Mount Sinai, but they did all embrace the tradition of revelation at Sinai. That evolving, coalescing sense of peoplehood is finally captured in the Torah and its story of mass revelation. Just as Americans today speak of their ancestors landing at Plymouth Rock, even though this is not strictly genealogically true, Israelites from different backgrounds all embraced this story.

The story of the writing and development of the Torah is not a hoax. It is the true story of how a disparate group of peoples became one by embracing a God, one history, and one homeland.

11 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

“The second assumption is that people, even if they did know the text, would take these numbers literally. -”

There is no assumption that the people took the numbers literally.

There is an assumption that each person who read the chumash, would have allready have heard this story from thier parents during pesach. That is, each Jew would have heard from thier own family about this great national event. Even if there were only 50 Jews to begin with, by the time the story was written down (to take the secular approach) each Jew would have had to have heard the story from their family. The story therefore, could not have been invented.

The story is not “Some guy” once heard G-d speak, the story is “WE” heard g-d speak.

Thats the correct assumption. The rest of your post is nullified by that assumption.

Comment by Daganev — July 20, 2008 #

Reply
The story could have been invented, as many myths are, but I don’t suggest we need to go that far. I believe that there were Israelites who left Egypt, and who worshiped at Har Sinai and experienced a revelation there (just as other Jews did at Har HaMoriah, Har Grizim & Eval, etc.) The experience of revelation is a relatively common one!

Only those Jews who had a tradition of Exodus and revelation at Sinai had that as part of their Pesach celebration. Other groups of proto-Israelites were celebrating the barley harvest or the lambing of the sheep.

Nobody was inventing any story, but over time, more people adopted the story as their own, even if it was not the direct experience of their ancestors, just as many Jews today convert in and take all of the stories of the Jewish people and embrace them as their own.

Comment by rejewvenator — July 20, 2008 #

Reply
One must remember that much of the tradition was kept in oral form. Unlike today when anyone could open up an encyclopedia to learn history, back then you had to consult with the experts. Which means that if people were scattered and exiled, it would be very easy for this oral tradition to be completely forgotten.
After going through the gemara and the commentaries of the Netziv and Rav SR Hirsch, one must conclude one of two things:
1) that this is such a complicated, carefully worded and incredibly structured text that only God could have dictated it
2) or someone really, really smart who was inspired by God. Either way, God’s a part of it which makes it authoritative.

Comment by Garnel Ironheart — July 20, 2008 #

Reply
You are asserting that what was recorded in the Gemara was the same traditions that you assert were kept up until then in oral form, and that were themselves created at Sinai. Even traditional sources don’t agree with that – the Rambam is a prime counterexample. He states that nothing over which there is any argument about was part of the Mesorah given to Moshe at Sinai.

Comment by rejewvenator — July 20, 2008 #

Reply
“Moreover, at the end of the chapter (verse 26), Joshua sets up a witness-stone (Even Matzevah) under the oak that was in the Sanctuary of God in Shechem.”

Unless I didn’t look carefully enough, I couldn’t find the word Matzevah in those verses.

Comment by Phil — July 21, 2008 #

Reply
Matzevah isn’t in the verses there, only Even. However, this practice of setting up a memorial stone is well-known in Tanach, and is frequently referred to as Matzevah or Even Matzevah. Sorry if I was unclear.

Comment by rejewvenator — July 21, 2008 #

Reply
To suggest a resemblance between the Roman origin story and the Station at Sinai is very misleading. While the Romulus myth purportedly occurred before there was even a Roman nation, the Sinai event occurred after the formation of the Israelite nation, recognizable as such by the Egyptians.

I challenge you to refute my view, reflected in my post, “Sinai – Historical or Ahistorical?”.

Comment by Rahumai — May 20, 2009 #

Reply
- I found your post, but I did not understand it, so I cannot refute your argument. Can you restate it here more clearly?
  
  Comment by rejewvenator — May 20, 2009 #
  
  Reply
  - There are two principles being used. Which one did you not understand?
    
    Comment by Rahumai — May 20, 2009 #
    
    Reply
  - 1. Every story of a key event of a national identity is true, under the condition that it is related to the era in which the nation was a historical fact.
    2. Every story which is unimaginable is unavoidably true.
    
    Those are yours.
    
    I don’t understand either. #1 I just don’t get at all – what do you mean by a story being related to the era in which the nation was a historical fact? What relationship are you talking about? What do you mean the era in which it was a historical fact?
    
    As for number 2, I dispute that their exists a category of unimaginable stories. The proposition that a story is unimaginable is non-falsifiable, for one. Can you show what makes a story unimaginable?
    
    Comment by rejewvenator — May 21, 2009 #
    
    Reply
  - #1: Every nation has a sense of common identity. Correct? This identity is not eternal. It was formed at a certain point in time (i.e., history). Members of a nation are distinguished by a shared origin. Agreed? Thus, when I say ’story’ I am specifically referring to an origin story of that identity. Such stories contain events with which all members of a nation identify. Now, at times, such stories take place before the nation was formed. That is, before the individuals consolidated and identified themselves as members of that group, called ‘the nation’. Hopefully all is clear up to this point.
    
    Ultimately, if a story relating to key events that pertain to a nation is dated to after the nation was already formed – that story must be true. No nation has ever fabricated such a story.
    
    #2: “The proposition that a story is unimaginable is non-falsifiable” – that is exactly the point. For example: Zelig returns to his home in Meah Shearim (hopefully you know where that is), goes to his parents and says: Ogenki desu ka (”how are you” in Japanese). The worried parents reply: ‘Schtump! Whence you know such words?’, and Zelig answers that he saw a man with slanted eyes who passed by the neighborhood, and that man said this phrase to him. Is Zelgin possibly lying?
    
    The answer is that Zelig indubitably is telling the truth, because the description he gave to his parents is nonexistent in his world of association. He could not possibly have imagined it. Therefore, it must have occurred.
    
    Is it all clear up to this point? (I suggest re-reading the post)
    
    Comment by Rahumai — May 21, 2009 #
    
    Reply