Can the Kuzari Argument be salvaged?
A response to Ash from Not Daas Torah
If I am understanding the post correctly, the Ash’s version of the Kuzari will look something like the following:
P1 - It is far likelier that a nation's history which was believed by the nation themselves is true rather than invented, provided the history reported has an a priori reasonableness.
P2 - The reported history of the Exodus, revelation and conquest is fairly reasonable given theism and the uniqueness of bible as a theological text.
Conclusion - It is far likelier that the reported history of the exodus, revelation and conquest is true rather than invented.
I strongly disagree with both elements of his argument. Firstly, his treatment of the premises related to the priors is grossly insufficient to establish the a priori probability he seeks. The reference to Hume’s objection to miracles only exacerbates the issue, and even the use of general theism doesn’t accomplish much by way of defending a specific event which violates the norms of every other observed event. Secondly, the kuzari argument suffers from far greater flaws than the supernatural claims involved. While those objections are important as well, when trying to reconstruct Israelite ethnogenesis their self-reported history of the Exodus and conquest does not reach any significant standard of historical reliability to be used in a historical analysis.
Since Ash explicitly notes that he does not wish to engage seriously in the philosophical objections related to the methodological issues at play I will refrain from elaborating on the first element. However, with regards to second element, I will attempt to analyze the underlying logic he uses for the kuzari argument and its application to early Israelite history.
Ash lays down the fundamental principle for the argument as follows:
The Kuzari argument, in my understanding, is that it is far, far likelier that a major event that a whole nation believed happened actually happened, especially when there is a claimed tradition, than the alternative, which was there was some sort of myth/lie/something else which led to the creation of this myth.
This is true by most events (lets say, a tradition of flood, war,, famine etc). If country had a tradition of a civil war or similar it most likely happened, even if there is no direct archeological evidence of such a war.
He makes it clear that this argument is not limited to the specific event of the Sinai revelation, rather applies to the miraculous nature of all the events from the exodus and the sojourn from Egypt (and I might add the conquest as well).
However, this formulation ignores the fundamentals of the historical-critical method. If our goal is to create the most likely reconstruction of past events, we must refine our approach towards dealing with self-reported or traditional histories. While traditional histories are a valuable resource and must not be ignored, they are subject to the five fundamental questions we ask about any primary source.
Who wrote it?
When was it written?
Where was it written?
What were the sources for information used?
What agendas did he1 have?
Obviously using any historical source is rooted in the reasonable assumption that the text represents the actual truth in some way. However, they do not constitute an independent reason to believe something, which is why we must first attempt to answer these five questions to the best of our ability. Once these questions are answered, we have a strong frame of reference with regards to the reliability of the source and the information contained within. Any historian who does not ask these questions before engaging in a source cannot consider his work scientific.
I would like to qualify that I understand the source in question here is not one specific text. It includes many texts which refer to the events of the Exodus, Sojourn and Conquest, and is also based on oral traditions or widespread beliefs. However, the same questions can be applied regarding the other sources or even the oral traditions or widespread belief.2 One important thing to note is that when engaging in these sources we must differentiate between primary sources and secondary sources. For example, when Rabbinic texts refers to the exodus as a historical account, this is not considered a primary source for the exodus, as they are simply recounting the account of the same primary source we have access to, and even if the account was false they would still recount it due to their use of that primary source. However, it is considered a primary source for the beliefs of Jews during the rabbinic era.3
Once we properly differentiate between primary and secondary sources, I believe the only primary sources we have are several biblical texts. The use of these sources should include their own credibility, and what they indicate with regard to widespread Israelite beliefs. Outside of the Bible I cannot think of any reference that should be considered a primary source.
The Biblical passages in question refers to the actual account throughout the Hexateuch4, plus many other references in other Biblical sources. Some major references to the Exodus include Judges 6:8, I Samuel 12:6, I Kings 8:51, Nehemiah 9:9, Psalms 78, 105, 106 and 136, Jeremiah 2:6, Amos 2:10 and Micah 6:4. The revelation at Sinai has much more limited references outside the accounts themselves, but includes Deut. 33:2, Nehemiah 9:13, Psalms 68:7 and 147:19. The conquest as well contains more limited references, but includes Judges 11:15, Amos 9:7, Psalms 44:1, 78:54, 136:10 and 136:17.
Some of these references are rather vague and don’t describe much about the events and some are fuller accounts. Some suggest smaller scale events and some describe larger, more impactful ones. They include many differences with regard to the details of the events, sometimes complementing each other and sometimes contradicting. My goal here is not to provide a comprehensive treatment of each passage and what it can teach us; although this is what is done by biblical scholars and historians. However, I do want to try to parse out the relevant sources so we can have a look at how it relates to the five questions above.
The earliest confirmed source for the Exodus is Amos 2:10, which was written at earliest in the mid-8th century BCE. The earliest confirmed source for the Revelation is the reference in Nehemiah 9:13, which was written in the mid-5th century BCE. However, the account in Deut. 4-5 probably dates to at least a century earlier. The earliest confirmed source for the conquest depends on how we define conquest, but would probably be the account in Joshua as part of the Deuteronomistic history almost certainly written no later than the late 6th century. (Ash’s referenced the Song of the Sea, I assume because it is written in Archaic Biblical Hebrew and probably predates Amos by a century or more. However, there is nothing in passage which clearly suggests an Exodus, so I haven’t included it as a source.)
Now, I understand that the traditional dating of many books, especially the Pentateuch, is much earlier. Nevertheless, since we are attempting to demonstrate the historicity of the events themselves and therefore the truth of Judaism, any argument based on tradition would render the entire argument circular. However, even without engaging in the full corpus of literature on Biblical scholarship, the references outside the Hexateuch clearly date to no earlier than the 8th century, and the Hexateuch itself has no strong reason to be dated to earlier than that date.
Therefore, let us approach the five questions with regards the biblical sources and the widespread beliefs suggested within.
Who wrote them? Israelite prophets, priests, and scribes.
When did they write them? From the 8th century onwards.
Where did they write them? Most of the sources were written in Judah/Judea, and some were written in Babylon.
What were their sources of information? Unlike for example the accounts of the Israelite and Judahite monarchies which arguably utilize court records, these accounts do not include any sources and either represent common tradition or the author’s own innovation.
What agendas did they have? Promoting monotheistic theology, political polemics on the Israelite claim to the land, or other such agendas.
(Although some of the sources suggest that this was a widespread tradition as well familiar to the audience, this suffers from the same limitations.)
Therefore, I would challenge Ash to provide me with any other examples of texts written 4-8 centuries after a purported event, by members of a specific tribe, with no clear usage of sources or external evidence, and with a clear agenda and ideology, that are considered reliable primary sources for an event. There is no reason to assume a later figure could not have invented these traditions for ideological or polemical purposes. If we accept Ash’s logic, we would have to accept the Sumerian account of the beginning of Kingship and their cities, the Achaemenid account for the beginning of their empire, the Roman account for the birth of Rome, and dozens of other national traditions which are far removed from the events and have a clear ideology involved.
It emerges that when applying these five basic historical criteria, we see that the biblical tradition does not meet the necessary standard for historical reliability. Unlike well-attested historical events, the biblical accounts emerge centuries after the fact, are written by ideological scribes, and lack independent sources or corroboration.
Furthermore, even if we accept the Exodus and conquest as a relatively reliable origin story, that itself in insufficient to prove divine intervention. That only arises from the details provided, which are surely less reliable than the core tradition. Any theological figure could have easily crafted the narrative in a manner to support a theological perspective.
The next step in historical research involves comparing the account of the primary sources to external historical sources or archaeological evidence. The exodus, revelation, and conquest fail spectacularly to garner any such support and face significant challenges. However, since this is not focus of the Kuzari Argument itself, I will not elaborate on this.
In conclusion, the ‘principle’ which Ash considers robust enough to establish any reasonable narrative is a figment of his own imagination and not considered a reliable historical methodology in any way. Each account must be approached with skepticism and analyzed on its own terms, and a failure to do so is naive and not reliable. Even within a purely historical framework, the biblical narratives fail to meet the criteria for reliable historical sources. Any source must answer these five questions in a satisfactory manner to be considered reliable (in addition to external corroboration and internal plausibility). If Ash wants to argue for the plausibility of the Kuzari argument, he must address these methodological issues rather than taking the mere existence of a tradition as prima facie evidence of its truth.
I refer to the author of the source as male for the simple reason that the vast majority of primary sources related to the ancient world were written by men.
E.g. Who believed this story, when did they believe it, where did they believe it, what were their sources/reasons for believing it, what agenda/ideology did they have
Although the belief of Jews at the time as well is not a primary source as they believed it based on the bible as well and they would believe it even if the account was false.
The first six books of the Bible, or the Torah and Joshua.
For further discussion about this, I would recommend following the comments on Ash's post.
https://open.substack.com/pub/daastorah/p/how-to-possibly-fix-the-kuzari/comments
I want to include an important clarification about one point. I'm just going to copy-paste an objection I recieved in a different forum and what I responded to that.
Commenter: "Therefore, I would challenge Ash to provide me with any other examples of texts written 4-8 centuries after a purported event, by members of a specific tribe, with no clear usage of sources or external evidence, and with a clear agenda and ideology, that are considered reliable primary sources for an event."
The Iliad is thought to have been written in the 8th century BCE about events in the 13th/12th centuries BCE. People thought the Trojan War was fictional, but it turns out it really happened.
The Aztecs migrated south and founded Tenochtitlan in the 12th century CE and the only surviving Aztec codices we have which write about that saga date to the 16th century CE.
I would suggest that the salvage of the Kuzari argument is that major consequential events in a nation's history that are committed to writing are likely rooted in fact rather than are fabricated from whole cloth.
My response: My intent was not that there cannot be a text several centuries later that preserves reliable traditions. Heck, I even lean to accepting that the exodus story has a historical core as argued by REF. My point was simply that it is not inherently reliable, and therefore demands separate evidence other than itself. My challenge to Ash was to find another such text that is considered reliable, while the texts you suggest are not reliable, but happen to include true events.
Indeed, most such texts include false information, from xenophon to the donation of constantine to the history of the kings of britain to the books of enoch, jubilees and daniel and definitiely mythological texts or official propoganda and even a ton of information in sources that are reliable for some areas such as herodotus and the gospels.