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.
I owe you a response to this. My main point would be that the Bibles accounts can be dated to the times of Joshua.
Question: if we can agree the pentateuch can be dated to Joshua, would that raise your odds of the Torah being divine? Would you admit the Kuzari works in some fashion?
Short answer, yes. If (and this is a big if) the Torah can be shown to have been written by someone with close ties to the events, that would constitute strong evidence for the reliability of the general model presented in the Penteteuch. However, that claim is a seperate major claim, and must be strongly defended on its right. I believe that there is almost no evidence to suggest such an early date, and a significant amount of counterevidence to that.
However, I would like to qualify that it would need a seperate analysis which aspects of the narrative should be considered reliable. It would definitely include the exodus and conquest model of Israelite ethnogenesis. Would it support the theological interpretation? Obviously not. But what about the details? What would be considered reliable, and what can be embellishment or agenda driven? I'm not convinced that it would clearly indicate a clearly divine revelation, and I'm certainly not convinced it would include a miraculous exodus and conquest.
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.
That was fast! I’m excited to see where this conversation will go! Glad I sparked this.
That was a fast comment 😄
I owe you a response to this. My main point would be that the Bibles accounts can be dated to the times of Joshua.
Question: if we can agree the pentateuch can be dated to Joshua, would that raise your odds of the Torah being divine? Would you admit the Kuzari works in some fashion?
Short answer, yes. If (and this is a big if) the Torah can be shown to have been written by someone with close ties to the events, that would constitute strong evidence for the reliability of the general model presented in the Penteteuch. However, that claim is a seperate major claim, and must be strongly defended on its right. I believe that there is almost no evidence to suggest such an early date, and a significant amount of counterevidence to that.
However, I would like to qualify that it would need a seperate analysis which aspects of the narrative should be considered reliable. It would definitely include the exodus and conquest model of Israelite ethnogenesis. Would it support the theological interpretation? Obviously not. But what about the details? What would be considered reliable, and what can be embellishment or agenda driven? I'm not convinced that it would clearly indicate a clearly divine revelation, and I'm certainly not convinced it would include a miraculous exodus and conquest.
Fair enough. I'll make an effort to do this. I cannot promise redaction though.