Kuzari Principle: The Mass Revelation Argument Deconstructed

Overview: The classical argument explained, but then deconstructed with an understanding of myth-formation in the ancient world.

While I do believe there is evidence that can support the idea of a divinely-inspired Torah (see here), I think the Kuzari principle, or the Mass Revelation argument, is not in the category of evidence for Judaism. It is an interesting argument, perhaps compelling at first, but serious flaws are exposed once we get into the details. We will first briefly go through the argument and then proceed with its critical flaws.

The general argument

The Mass Revelation argument is the idea that we should trust the collective whole as opposed to an individual. All religions around the world begin with a single individual, or a select few individuals, who claim to have received revelation from the divine. A unique exception is Judaism which begins with a claimed revelation to a large mass of people – the entire nation – at Mt. Sinai.^[i] No other nation can be said to have that unique experience.

The significance of this phenomenon is that no longer must we rely on the word of an individual or group of priests, but we can rely on the powerful testimony of an entire nation to whom there was a divine revelation – called a Mass Revelation. The argument continues that the claim of a mass revelation story recorded in Torah can only come about with the actual experience of a mass revelation. It couldn’t have been made-up by later Jewish leaders. Therefore, we must conclude that God has indeed revealed Himself to the Jewish people and gave them the Torah. These Israelites would have passed down the Sinai story in tradition to their children, and their children to their children, until it reaches us some 3,000 years later.

The impossible scenarios

We have a story in Torah about the entire Jewish nation receiving divine revelation at Sinai. The question is when this story came about. The Mass Revelation argument seeks to rule out all options besides for the option that the Mt. Sinai event is actual history. It therefore concludes the veracity of the Mt. Sinai story recorded in Torah. There are essentially three options for where the story may have come from. (1) Moses convinced the people that they saw a divine revelation. (2) A later Jewish leader convinces the people that they saw a divine revelation. (3) The story happened as recorded. We will rule out the first two options leaving us with the third.

1. Moses convinces the people:

It is understood that Moses would not be able to convince the nation that they saw something that they did not in fact see.

It’s understood as well that even if Moses were admired by all the Jews, he would not be able to convince them to tell their very own beloved children a myth that they themselves know not to be true, to tell them that they had a divine revelation at Sinai.

And even if we are to assume, theoretically, that they all did lie to their children, it’s impossible for millions to keep a secret without spilling the beans at some point [for the same reason you won’t tell your secrets to more than just a few people].

It’s also quite impossible to imagine Moses intoxicating, drugging up, or hypnotizing the nation, and thereafter performing some minor miracles which they imagined to be a Revelation from God. For, first of all, it’s quite practically impossible to do so to an entire nation. And second of all, they would realize what has happened when they return to their sober state. Besides, we generally look at the present to understand the past. No such events of mass-intoxicating, drugging-up, or hypnosis—especially to thousands of people—take place these days.

2. Introduced by a later Jewish leader:

This theory would argue that a later figure in Jewish history would “return” the lost religion to the Israelites. He would tell them that their ancestors have received divine revelation and the religion was lost and he’s now here to return it.

But there is a fundamental problem with this hypothesis. If we were to assume that the Israelites would accept his myth—wouldn’t this scholar or leader be remembered as the national hero?! After all, religion-founders are all remembered as heroes in their history. Particularly Jewish history which is rich in information and details of all sorts wouldn’t forget this miniature-Moses who revived the lost religion. Yet throughout our hundreds of pages of history in Tanach, there’s not a trace of such a heroic individual and his achievements in returning the lost religion.^{[1] [2]}

Having ruled out the other options, only one option remains: the story as actual history in which the Jewish nation receives divine revelation at Mt. Sinai, some 3,000 years ago. This is the Mass Revelation argument. It is the unique unparalleled national experience of the Jews, seeing and hearing God with their own senses, not needing to rely on anyone else who claims to have seen/heard the divine.^[3]

But is this argument truly tenable?

The possible scenarios

The Mass Revelation argument is contingent on the claim that no other model better explains the Sinai story we now have in Torah than the model that says the story actually transpired. It goes on to rule out other models leaving this one alone. But there are serious cracks in the logic once we realize that there are other models that can account for the Sinai story we now have in Torah. Before going into the three alternative models, one point must be prefaced.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone claims to have seen an alien, we should – logically – be skeptical and assume that he saw something else or was hallucinating. This is not because it is impossible for him to have seen an alien – after all, there is a chance that aliens exist – but because we opt for the more reasonable explanation over the novel explanation. Aliens appearing on this Earth is a novel idea and therefore we will assume that the person saw something else or was hallucinating. Similarly, in our case, when we are faced with two options regarding the historicity of the Sinai story, we should opt for the more reasonable model over the more novel one. The idea of a divine revelation is essentially a novel idea (since it is, at the very least, an extremely rare occurrence – if at all occurring). Therefore, we should logically assume naturalistic explanations for the Sinai story, if there are naturalistic explanations. And indeed there are:

(4) Before the invention of the printing-press, information wasn’t as readily available as it is nowadays. Only the cultural elite had libraries and troves of information. Going back further in time, even the cultural elite wouldn’t have had hand-written books. Only the King’s Court and the elite priests would have had the stone-carved books of information.

As a direct consequence, information was easily distorted over time. Stories, told over as legends from generation to generation orally, would slowly change, taking on new features and alterations over a period of many generations of “broken telephone.”

The Sinai story may have had some historical truths to it, but the story would have changed drastically over time, becoming more and more dramatic and miracle-like. The original story may have been of Moses rising to Mt. Sinai. A few generations later, the story was told over with the changed detail that not only Moses went atop Mt. Sinai, but also the priests joined him. Many generations later, the story would have been that the nation saw a cloud and fire hover over the priests and Moses. Fast-forward many more generations and you have a story of a mass revelation in which the entire nation sees the divine atop the mountain and God speaks to the nation directly.

Yet another option is that the Israelites did not hear the God’s Voice but rather some strange physical sounds. This may have come from certain weather effects or thunder thrusting off the mountains in echo. The people present would recount to their children about the thundering sounds they heard before Moses ascended the mountain. Their grandchildren would tell over the story about the thundering voices the Israelites heard at Sinai. Fast-forward many generations, and they are telling over the story about the divine voices they heard.

This is what we call myth-formation. It is the process of stories developing over time until they are drastically different than their original form. There was a period of almost a thousand years (from the emergence of the Israelites in Canaan circa 13^th-century BCE until the time that bible scholars believe the Torah was written) for the Sinai story to have developed until it reached its current form as written in the Torah. This process was a natural occurrence in the ancient world where legends were easily believed and very little was questioned by the gullible populace. For example, we have the myth of Romulus and Remus and the foundation of Rome.^[4] These figures may have been historical, and over time their story turned into the magical tale that it now is. This model is far more plausible than the divine revelation and thus the Mass Revelation argument is rebutted on account of this possible model.

(5) This next model is similar to the previous myth-formation. Except over here, instead of the original Sinai story having historical truth, it would have been intended as metaphor. In ancient times, not at all “history” was intended to be history. Metaphor was a powerful means of inspiration and provided meaning to much of religious and cultural life. It is clear that many ancient works, although appearing historical at first glance, were intended as metaphor or embellishment. Metaphor and embellishment are similar; metaphor is depicting an entirely new story whereas embellishment is where the details of a true story are intentionally embellished in order to use the story as a source of inspiration. Both of them appear to be “history,” to the modern reader, although it actually was intended to be taken as metaphor.

The Midrash genre in rabbinic literature is full of this metaphoric preaching and regularly embellishes the biblical narratives. To bring out the spiritual stature of Moses, it describes him as being 10 cubits tall (about 15 feet). To bring out Pharaoh’s low spiritual stature, it describes him as 1 cubit high (1.5 feet). There are other magical, unrealistic embellishments to the biblical story found in Midrash, such as the description of 1 billion Hebrews being enslaved in Egypt (at a time when the world had less than a quarter billion humans).^[ii] There’s even a rabbinic opinion that the entire biblical book of Job was metaphor rather than history.^[iii] This kind of embellishment and metaphor was commonplace in ancient literature.

If we apply this concept to the Sinai story, we can suggest that the narrative was originally intended as metaphor and over time it came to be taken as history. [This is perhaps similar to the phenomenon of many, if not most, Orthodox Jews wrongly interpreting much of Midrash as literal history.] Or, the story originally had a grain of truth but over time the story was embellished so much that it no longer reflects the historical reality.^[5] In either case, the point is, the story recorded in Torah cannot be taken for granted as literal history and thus the Mass Revelation argument falls apart.^[6]

(6) Yet another possible model is that national myths can and have developed in the past. One very relevant example is the self-proclaimed Black Hebrews. Their movement originated in the 19^th-century when their leaders proclaimed that they had a vision that they were the real descendants of the Israelites. They opened Churches and the movement grew to very sizable communities throughout America.

Similarly, the Samaritans are another example of myth formation. Their exact origins is unclear. They claim to be the descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes (except they weren’t the lost ones – rather the ones who remained in Israel). Yet their Ten Commandments is different than ours! The same alleged Revelation event, two groups, yet each with their own versions of what the Revelation entailed. This would debunk the idea that myths cannot develop on such foundational national events.

One might counter that they are not actually the descendants of the Ten Tribes (indeed this is standard Orthodox belief). Yet, that claim itself is another example against the Kuzari argument. These non-Jews were able to develop the myth that their ancestors stood at Sinai!

These are just two examples, although other examples add to the point (see here for many widespread myths believed across Orthodox circles, some of vital religious importance).