Customer Reviews

Permission to Receive

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This volume is, I think, much more thorough and solid than the same author's earlier work, _Permission To Believe_, which was a bit more limited in scope and a bit weaker in its arguments (though still recommended).

In this volume, something of a sequel to the other one, R. Lawrence Kelemen develops four basic approaches to the rationality of the belief that the Torah was divinely given.

The first is straightforward enough. R. Kelemen argues that an omnipotent and benevolent God can reasonably be expected to have provided some sort of revelation and ensured its faithful preservation; he then fishes around to see where in the world this revelation might be. There are a number of monotheistic faiths, so how do we choose? Well, every one of these faiths credits the Torah to God, though each also claims to have superseded it. This latter claim undermines itself, since the Torah itself says it will never be superseded. So . . .

The second argument is pretty good too. R. Kelemen's burden in this chapter is to show that the origins of Judaism are well attested by witnesses, whereas the origins of several competing faiths are not. He manages the job well, arguing fairly convincingly that if "all Israel" had _not_ heard God speak at Sinai, there really wouldn't have been any convenient time at which this claim could have been slipped into the Tradition unnoticed and unopposed.

R. Kelemen then defends the status of the Torah as divine revelation against two opposing views: secular biblical criticism, and the (possible) claim that Jews are no more ethical than anyone else even though they possess this supposed revelation.

In the first case, he wonders why secular Bible critics have ignored the mass of commentary in the Talmud expressly devoted to explaining all the apparent textual contradictions that secular critics seem to think nobody ever noticed before. Then he marshals a host of recent archeological evidence indicating that the Torah's history is sound.

In the second case, he sets forth an array of demographic data indicating that not only _are_ Jews unusually ethical, but this unusually ethical behavior is also correlated with Torah-observance.

All in all, the volume is very successful. There may be occasional gaps in the argument and various points over which we might quibble, but R. Kelemen himself notes that he isn't trying to provide rock-solid proof; besides, you can't accomplish everything under the sun in a single book. And the evidence he _does_ present will probably leave the reader thinking that it would take an act of faith _not_ to regard the Torah as God-given.

I believe in G-d and I consider Torah to be holy but, I am not convinced that it was literally revealed by G-d at Sinai. I have read Kelemen's earlier book entitled "Permission to Believe." In that book, he argues for the existence of G-d and I agree with his conclusion, in that book, that G-d is real. This book, howver, did not convince me that the nature of G-d is such that He literally revealed Himself. Nonetheless, Kelemen makes a well reasoned argument.

Of four arguments that he makes, the most compelling is that if Torah was not revealed and if the Torah states within it that there were over 600,000 adult males who witnessed it, then later generations would ask previous generations about the event. If the revelation did not take place, when the Torah was "foisted" on us by those claiming it was revealed, those receiving it would ask why they had not heard about it from earlier generations. In other words, Kelemen argues that the divine revelation must have taken place because the Torah states that everyone gathered at the foot of Mt. Sinai and if this were untrue, then later descendents of those who were there would have asked, "if the description of the revelation was untrue, wouldn't Grandpa have told us?" Kelemen is stating that if the Torah was later foisted upon us, earlier generations would have revealed its falsity by stating that they were not aware of Torah being revealed and if it had been, they would have been told by their fathers and grandfathers who were there. Kelemen's argument would be compleing except for the fact that the Torah sets forth events taking place subsequent to Sinai, therefore, the finished document could not have been revealed. Rather, it makes more sense that first, the commandments were revealed and the historical account later became part of the finished product. If Torah evolved, then it was not, in fact foisted suddenly. It is easy to see how this evolving legend became accepted because earlier generations were versed in the growing traditions of law. Only, many generations later did the finished document state that it was revealed in front of all the people. Since there was already an eveolving Torah, no one would question events described therein since it was not suddenly written from scrtach.

Kelemen also argues that scientific evidence proves the divine revelation of the Torah. I don't agree. The fact that archeological evidence indicates that there may have been a flood, for example, merely indicates that there was a historic basis for what was written in the Torah, not that the story of Noah and the Ark is true. I certainly agree that there is a fair amount of history in the Torah but this history is general and does not prove the truth of the specific events set forth. Another example given by Keleman is the theory that there was an original ancestor known by scientists as "Eve." However, there was an evolution resulting in this ancestor. Of course we have a common ancestor but, this common ancestor was not created from dust with "Eve" being created from Adam's rib. General truisms do not point to divine revelation.

Another argument of Kelemen's is that we are a very ethical people, more so than any other people. If this is true, it does not prove the divine revelation. Rather, it proves that, as a people, we did very well in our efforts to discover G-d.

I believe in G-d, and I am a practicing Jew. I believe, as does Rabbi Neil Gilman (in several of his books) that G-d is very real and that He is discovered, not revealed. Torah is a very holy record of our discovery of G-d. G-d is unfathomable but, concrete religious wrtings, such as Torah make G-d into an image that we can fathom. That's why Torah is holy, because it has lead us to discover G-d. Again, the book is well written and interesting but, it did not convince me of a literal divine revelation.

An exceptionally clear, tightly reasoned, thoroughly well researched argument for the Pentateuch's divine origin. Kelemen has launched the most destructive attack on secular biblical criticism of the century, and he does it with eloquence and intellectual muscle. A must read for readers on either side of the debate. This is the standard text.

The book is not bad. If you are already sure or pretty sure that the bible is of totally divine origin, than this sure helps to solidy that view and provides a couple of logical/rational arguments to counter opposing viewpoints. But, for someone who is questioning, they are not convinced and also feel somewhat patronized because the author tries to pull idea over on you as if you were an idiot. One of the chapters too, the one that argues that the Jewish people and particularly the state of Israel is objectively superior in basically all ways to other nations of world is also basically a lie of a chapter. The statistics are lifted out of context and unfortunately ignore the many, many problems, economic and otherwise that literally plague the Jewish community, particularly in Israel.

But, its short, an easy read, and worth a glance.

I would have wrote this book differently and left certain points out. That said, this book sets Judaism apart from every other religion by unveiling the fundamental principal that Orthodox Judaism is essentially the most logical way to live your life. Notice how people who have issues with it never state what their issues actually are....and even when some do their problems with the book are usually side points that can swiftly be dismissed.

In his first book, "Permission to Believe", though far from being convincing in any way, Kelemen puts forth several arguments that have a vague semblance of coherence, an appearance of some degree of reasonableness. But "Permission to Receive" is just plain silly. Don't be fooled by the quotes and many references. Those are there to mask the degree of incoherence in his arguments.

Listing all his mistakes and illogical arguments would fill a book, so allow me to briefly describe a few.

*

A basic part of Kelemen's "Deductive Argument" goes like this (p. 22ff):
1. God is good.
therefore,
2. God wants to bestow good upon us.
3. The greatest gift is the opportunity to earn reward and avoid charity.
4. One cannot earn a reward unless he has been first assigned a job.
therefore,
5. A good God would provide mankind with an assignment.
6. An omnipotent God would ensure that the assignment survived eternally intact.
Therefore,
If you posit the existence of a good, omnipotent God, you must also posit the existence of an extant, divine assignment.

Let's analyze this premise by premise, and we'll see that Kelemen is basing his argument on a list of baseless assumptions. There's no reason to think ANY of these assumptions are true, but it's enough to show that at least ONE isn't, and his entire edifice collapses like a house of cards blown by the wind.

PREMISE 1. God is good.
OBJECTION: Who's to say that God is good? There's equal evidence to suggest that God is evil or at least neither good nor evil. The notion that God is good doesn't even follow from Kelemen's own arguments in "Permission to Believe". One can posit the existence of God (and Kelemen doesn't even define what that term MEANS), and not accept the notion that God is good.

PREMISE 2. God wants to bestow good upon us.
OBJECTION: Who's to say that a good God must want to bestow good upon us? Perhaps his goodness manifests in ways we do not know or can comprehend, or, say, in the very fact He created us and nothing more? On what basis does Kelemen think we must anthropomorphize God and posit that He thinks like us? What evidence is there for that?

PREMISE 3. The greatest gift is the opportunity to earn reward and avoid charity.
OBJECTION: It is not always true that earning is always better than receiving charity. One can easily imagine countless scenarios where charity would be better for the recipient than earning. Besides, God could have created us in a way that we would gain even greater good through receiving charity, and not feel any shame in receiving it. Thus God would bestow good upon us AND avoid having us work so hard for the reward. Couldn't an omnipotent God do that? On what basis are we to think that God must have created us in such a way that we will feel shame in receiving charity, thereby compelling us work so hard?

PREMISES 4 & 5. One cannot earn a reward unless he has been first assigned a job.
therefore, a good God would provide mankind with an assignment.
OBJECTION: Perhaps in human terms one cannot earn unless first assigned a job (although one can earn without being assigned a job - e.g., a street performer earns money without anyone assigning that job to him), but surely an omnipotent God would be able to do that. Is Kelemen suggesting that God cannot do that? If God can do that, who's to say that He didn't?

PREMISE 6. An omnipotent God would ensure that the assignment survived eternally intact.
OBJECTION: Who's to say? Perhaps the assignment gets fulfilled after a certain time, and thereafter mankind can rest on its laurels? Keleman relies on passages within the Torah that state the Torah is eternal, but he cannot prove the validity of the document from the document itself. We would need external evidence, and none exists.

So you see, Kelemen uses so many shaky premises, that it's enough to shatter one and the entire edifice collapses. Since each and every one of this arguments is shaky, we can safely say that the entire argument is illogical from top to bottom.

The entire book is full of similar nonsensical arguments.

*
On page 36, Kelemen argues that the Torah is ethical, and cites a laundry list of areas where the Torah seems to have ethical decrees. Fair enough. One can plausibly argue that SOME decrees in the Torah are ethical.

However, in contrast with Kelemen declaration (in the Introduction) that he's writing the book for those who possess "intellectual integrity", he himself apparently lacks it, as he blithely ignores anything that contradicts him. The reality is that the Torah is filled with countless abhorrent decrees, that no one today would consider ethical by any stretch of the imagination. The Torah not only condones genocide, it actually REQUIRES the extermination of several nations, including their men, women, children, and all livestock. The Torah condones slavery, the sale of girls for marriage, sentences to death rape victims, condones the rape of female captives, imposes a death sentence for a huge number of innocent activities, such as lighting a fire on the Sabbath, witchcraft, homosexuality, cursing a parent, worshiping idols, and many other acts. All in all, the Torah is filled with HUNDREDS of immoral laws, stories, and lessons. If being ethical is proof that God is the Torah's author, then we ought to conclude that the Torah isn't Divine, since it contains much that is outright unethical. Cherry-picking only the ethical and ignoring the unethical, is intellectually dishonest.

*
In the chapter "The Empirical Issue", Kelemen lists a host of Biblical items that archeologists believe are consistent with archeological findings. However, just as he has done many times throughout the book, Kelemen omits anything that contradicts his claims.

We know that the Bible is consistent with SOME archeological findings, but it is INCONSISTENT with others. For example, in Genesis 2 we learn that a river flowed out of Eden and split into 4 rivers: the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. Alas to Kelemen, there is no place on the face of the earth where these four rivers meet. There is also no archeological evidence for Solomon's Temple, and Joshua's conquest of Canaan is inconsistent with the archaeological evidence as well (cities supposedly conquered by Joshua in the 14th century BCE were destroyed long before he came on the scene; some, such as Ai and Arad, had been ruins for a 1000 years!). There are many other examples where the Torah is contradicted by archeological findings. Just because SOME descriptions in the Bible are consistent with archeological findings, does not mean it's of divine origin. Even if EVERYTHING in the Bible were consistent with archeological findings, it would not prove a Divine source, but the fact that some parts of the Bible are INCONSISTENT with archeological findings, proves that it's not of Divine origin.

*

Kelemen doesn't deal with the HUNDREDS of contradictions throughout the Bible, but levels that charge against the New Testament. If God wrote or dictated the Old Testament, how can it possibly contain ANY contradictions, let alone HUNDREDS?

He doesn't deal with other evidence that the Bible is man-written, such as the changes in the Hebrew script (the one currently used could not have been used to write the Torah around the date God allegedly dictated the Torah), linguistic and other direct connections to the Ugarit literature that served as a basis for writing the Bible, many customs, laws, stories and words that were taken from other cultures and incorporated into the Bible, and much more.

*

Kelemen argues that the Torah states that over 600,000 adult males witnessed the revelation on Mt Sinai, and if that did not actually take place, any future generation would not have accepted that story. Therefore, it must be true.

I can't believe that any reasonable adult would find this convincing, so allow me to show why this is ridiculous.

1. The Torah itself states that the Israelites did NOT witness the revelation. They only saw the "thunderings and the lightnings and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking" but were too afraid to witness the actual revelation, and thus "they stood afar off and said to Moses, 'You speak to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die'" and this is what in fact happened according to Exodus 20. The Jews did not witness God speaking to Moses. Moses spoke with God alone, and then passed on His word to the people. This is repeated in Deuteronomy 5: "I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to declare unto you the word of the Lord; for you were afraid because of the fire, and went not up into the mount".

2. If it is true that the entire Jewish nation witnessed God giving the Torah, why have the Jews, according to the Biblical story (Exodus 32), turned to worship the Golden Calf the moment they thought Moses was dead? Is it conceivable that a nation that just witnessed God Himself, would turn to worship idols a moment later?

3. No extant Jew can provide us with any details about this event not already found in the textbooks. If it's true that 2-3 million people witnessed this event and passed the information on to the following generations, why can't anyone add any additional details to the event? Surely millions of people who witnessed such a momentous event would have their own versions of their testimonies - but none are found. The only existing account is the account found in the Torah, and that is the one passed on. Sure seems like all those who tell that tale, took it from the Torah itself, and have no independent, eye-witness information to relay.

4. There are countless questions regarding the Exodus and the event on Mount Sinai. For example: Where is Mount Sinai? Which path did the Israelite take from Egypt to Israel (there are two or possibly three distinct versions within the text)? When was the Torah given (there are several possibilities, all of which are full of questions and contradictions)? If millions of people witnessed these events, and faithfully past on the information generation after generation, how come there isn't a single Jew today that can shed light on those questions?

Furthermore, the Talmudic Sages themselves were split on many issues regarding the Giving of the Torah. For instance: which day of the month was the Torah given? Which Hebrew scrip did God use to write the Torah? In what language was the Torah given? How were the tablets written - 5 Commandments on each, 10 Commandments on each, 20 Commandments on each, or 40 Commandments on each. And more. In the Talmud and Medrash, we learn that the Sages tried to settle those questions by interpreting Torah passages. If it is true that there's a faithful eye-witness account of those events, why didn't the Sages simply survey the Jews of their time for their accounts? Surely, if millions of Jews witnessed the event, and passed the information on, some of their descendants would know the answers to those questions. But, of course, the Rabbis didn't do that, because there really ISN'T any such eye-witness account.

5. There are TWO versions of the Ten Commandments. Which version did God give? No one knows the answer, even though millions allegedly witnessed that and have faithfully passed on the information.

6. If there ever was such a testimonial chain, it must have been broken. We find much evidence to that even within the Jewish texts. First, in 2 Kings 22-23 we learn that Hilkiah, the high priest, found a Torah scroll in the temple, it was brought to King Josiah, and based on it he enacted various reforms. Among the reforms was keeping Passover, "as it is written in this book of the covenant. For there was not kept such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah." This proves that the Bible itself acknowledges that there was a break in the chain of tradition. Likewise, we find in Nehemiah 8, that Ezra read to the people the Torah and they learned how to celebrate Sukkot. They rejoiced as they have not observed the holiday since the days of Joshua.

7. Even in modern times we find reports of huge crowds allegedly witnessing impossible things, and there isn't the slightest indication to think these are true accounts. For example, on October 1, 1917 in Portugal, a crowd of 30,000 to 100,000 allegedly witnessed the sun careening towards the earth in a zigzag pattern. The event was attributed by believers to an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to three young shepherd children in 1917. Another event occurred in 1968, in the Zeitoun district of Cairo, Egypt. According to witnesses, the Virgin Mary appeared in different forms over the Church of Saint Mary at Zeitoun for a period of 2-3 years. This was allegedly witnessed by many thousands of people. If such foolishness can be reported in the 20th century, without the slightest shred of evidence, why can't it be reported thousands of years ago, particularly that 3000 years ago people weren't as scientific in their thinking processes and prone to attributing supernatural causes to natural events?

8. The premise of this argument is wrong. One can easily conceive a plausible scenario as to how this myth was born and perpetuated into Jewish folklore, just as ALL myths are incorporated into all people's folklore. We need not assume that every parent told the identical story to their children, and thus, if it did not happen, it would have immediately raised a question. Instead, we can imagine a scattered, illiterate people, who formed collective, oral myths, some of which were eventually written down. At some point in history (possibly under Ezra) those myths and laws were codified into one book. This book was passed on, and as the population learned how to read, more and more people told the story that they've read in the book. At some point reading the book became a requirement during the Sabbath services, and thus all participants in the prayers would have heard those stories, and passed them on. Nothing suggests that merely because something is written, and then told on, it must be true.

9. There isn't a shred of evidence for the entire story of the Jews' exile in Egypt, their escape, and their wanderings in the desert. If in fact 2-3 million people wandered a relatively small desert for 40 years, we should have found SOME evidence of that, if not archeological evidence, at the very least some written reference in the writings of the time. But none exist. As a comparison, a mere 30,000 Roman soldiers have surrounded Mesada for several months, and we find a plethora of evidence for that. Yet not a shred of evidence was found of a huge nation of millions traveling 40 years in a small desert. Without such evidence, the Exodus story and the Revelation on Mount Sinai, must be considered nothing more than myth and folklore.

There are also a number of proofs from within the Bible itself that contradict the claim that 2-3 million Israelites fled Egypt, but those would take too long to rely here.

*

Due to constraints of time and space I will not delve into the many other absurd arguments that Kelemen makes (such as: Jews are more ethical than the Goyim, therefore the Torah has a Divine origin, as if one fact has anything to do with the other, even assuming the former is true). In short, in my opinion, only an Orthodox Jew, who already believes in the Divine origin of the Torah, would be persuaded by Kelemen's logic. Anyone else, would find it laughable.

Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen's "Permission to Receive" follows his book "Permission to Believe". In the latter Kelemen argues for the existence of God; in this book he argues for the central claim of Orthodox Judaism, that the Torah is God's immutable word. "Permission to Receive" is superior to "Permission to Believe", in my opinion, and can be read independently. It also seems to me that some of the evidence that God revealed the Torah is also evidence that God exists.
Kelemen presents two arguments for the divine origin of the Torah. First, he explains why God is likely to have revealed himself, and why the Torah is the best candidate for this revelation. He eliminates religions that accept the Torah's divine origin but then ignore its frequent assertions of immutability.
Secondly, he argues that the Torah's unique account of national revelation makes it very improbable that it is a man-made fabrication. Kelemen also briefly responds to the claims of the documentary hypothesis about the origins of the Torah; for a more extensive and stunning rebuttal of the documentary hypothesis, I recommend Umberto Cassuto's "The Documentary Hypothesis".
Kelemen subsequently responds to two arguments against the divine origin of the Torah. First, he responds to the claim that the Torah isn't historically accurate by drawing extensively from the archaeological record. For a more detailed and up-to-date defence of the historical accuracy of the Hebrew Bible generally, I recommend Kenneth Kitchen's "On the Reliability of the Old Testament".
Kitchen shows how the archaeological and textual evidence places the authorship of the Torah in the late second millennium BCE, close to the time of the events described. I think that this means that human authors would have had an even more difficult time convincing Israel to accept the Torah than Kelemen suggests in his second argument, because the national memory of the events would have been strong. While Kelemen shows how the evidence here is consistent with the Torah, he does not emphasise how the evidence confirms the Torah's account.
He also responds to an argument against the divine origin of the Torah from the claim that the Torah does not improve people ethically by showing how its adherents and their descendants have been significantly more successful in marriage, education and charity and suffer significantly less from alcoholism, drugs and criminality than other groups, with religious Jews significantly outperforming non-religious Jews in many respects. The ethical influence of the Torah further confirms its divine origin.
Kelemen argues clearly and with impeccable scholarship. His arguments are individually powerful and cumulatively compelling. I recommend this book both for Jews who don't believe in the divine origin of the Torah and for those who do, for Kelemen emphasises the importance of the subject and his conclusion for all. I also recommend Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb's book "Living Up to the Truth", which covers some similar arguments for the divine origin of the Torah along with other arguments, and can be read online.

I find this book to be well-written,the arguments are clear and logical;both the arguments and the evidence presented compelling one to consider the question of Torah's Divine origin seriously.This book is excellent for someone who is open to honestly consider this question.

This is the best book on the subject that I have ever read. However, here are two additional proofs the author neglected to mention.

1) Although the author convincingly proves that the Torah could not have been written sometime later in history (the Missing Hero argument), he does not do a good job proving that Moses did not write it or transmit it. However, this is implausible because the Torah states about a half dozen places such statements as "You approached and stood at the foot of the mountain. The mountain was burning with a fire reaching the heart of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and mist. Then God spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sounds of words, but saw no image, there was only a voice. And he said to you his covenant that he commanded you to do" (Deuteronomy 4:11-13).

Note the constant use of the word "you". Had Moses made up the events, written them down, and distributed them to the people, upon reading it they would have said to him something to the effect of: "These events that you are describing never occurred! You are a fraud!" And they would have proceeded to burn the Torah. Moreover, they would have never related the event to their children as diligently as they have, since millions of parents could not be expected to collectively lie to their children about an event they had supposedly witnessed (there is no precedent of such a thing ever happening).

2) One proof against other religions, such as Christianity and Islam that the author neglects, is that they, unlike Judaism, acknowledge that one of their adherents can cease to be a member of their religion and to become a member of another religion by converting to it. Presumably if they believe this to be the case then it follows that in their conception G-d acknowledges this to be the case as well, since the beliefs of religions embody God's beliefs. Otherwise G-d has failed in ensuring that his faith has been disseminated accurately. An unlikely scenario.

However, if there is only one correct religion then all other religions are false, and therefore not acknowledged by God as religions at all. If this is so, how could God or his adherents acknowledge conversion to a religion that does not exist in their framework? God might be able to acknowledge that someone has stopped practicing God's religion or even that he has left the religion to practice no religion at all. But to convert to a nonexistent religion is impossible. Furthermore, considering that God is kind and good, would he allow one of his adherents to leave to practice a religion that God himself knows to be false? In Judaism, however, once someone is born a Jew he is never acknowledged to be "not Jewish" no matter how many religions he converts to.

I think Scott Ryan's review covered the core of Kellemen's arguments, and I don't have that much to add (although I do think Kellemen does gloss over some difficult issues--e.g. would a reasonable God want to give us every concievable scrap of information about how to live, a detailed code that nevertheless allows for some interpretation, a less detailed code, or just the reason we were born with?). One weakness I saw that Ryan didn't: a very weak understanding of Christianity (and I say this as someone who is pretty ignorant on the subject myself). Kellemen notices numerous inconsistencies in the New Testament, and resolves to ask some Christians to explain them away. So far, so good. But he asks Catholics to explain those inconsistencies, and the Catholics are only too happy to agree with him that yes, the New Testament as written is wrong on some details. What's wrong with this? What's wrong is that if you want a defense of Biblical inerrancy, you don't ask Catholics (any more than you would ask Reform Jews to defend the proposition that the Torah is literally the word of God). Instead, you ask the Christians who really do believe that the New Testament is inerrant: fundamentalists and Baptists (the Christian equivalent of Orthodox Jews, in the sense that they take the Biblical text more seriously than other Christians). If Kellemen had gotten such people to agree that, yes, the New Testament is wrong on a few points, I would have been more impressed.