Talk:Kuzari

I'm sorry, I don't know how to format this type of post properly, but nowhere on the page does it say when the Kuzari was actually written, although in the Influence of the Kuzari section it mentions, during that time period. Can someone find out when that was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.209.221 (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Zero, please note that there are two separate Kuzari principles, not just one. Only one argument is rejected as circular, the other is not circular. However the second argument is rejected as over-simplifed in so many ways as to make it unreliable (as described in the body of the article.) I did not mean to imply that both arguments were circular. RK 19:27, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Please read the three sources linked at the bottom of the page. You are quite mistaken about this. --Zero 03:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mistaken about which of the two different arguments mentioned? I am quite sure that the Reform & Conservative rabbis I spoke to view one of these arguments as circular. In fact, it is logically circular. The Orthodox view is that stories about the history of other people's revelations from their gods are falible and not perfect; Orthodox Jews hold that only other people have religious literature which is prone to embellishment and exaggeration. In contrast, Orthodox Jews hold that the entire Torah has been continuously accepted as fact by the Jewish community as far back as any historical record can carry us. They believe that this is a historical fact. The Kuzari accepts this as fact, and argues that this proves that the Torah is true; after all, the Torah states that three million Israelites witnessed the revelation at Mount Sinai, and their record of this revelation - the Torah itself - has never changed. Here is where it becomes circular: We cannot actually draw this conclusion, because in fact we do not know that three million Israelites saw any such thing. The only way that anyone can believe this is by assuming that it is true. But that is precisely what the Kuzari is trying to prove. This is circular by definition, and is recognized as such by many rabbis and laypeople I have spoken to. What about this specific argument do you not find circular? RK 01:33, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

What you say about orthodox belief is true, but it isn't the Kuzari Argument. The KA does not assume there was a continuous belief in (say) Torah miSinai; rather it claims to prove it by a logical argument. Roughly speaking, the argument is that there must have been continuous belief because otherwise the first generation in which the claim was made would know that it wasn't true. (People would ask "if that is so, why didn't our parents know of it?", etc..) It is precisely because the KA does not require the listener to accept basic orthodox assumptions in advance that it is popular amongst kiruv organizations who target Jews who aren't frum enough. The main problem with KA is not one of simple logic. The main problem is that it assumes a model of how popular beliefs arise that does not correspond to reality. --Zero 03:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think there should be a seperate article the Kuzari Proof I didn't delete the problems raised with the kuzari proof, but they are flawed. It suggests the that the events in the torah may not have been known about or may not have been understood literally by the Jews. That is ridiculous. There are many commandments in the Torah itself which the Jews practice adding to the Kuzari proof's strength. To refute the proof, you would also have to explain how all of these practices were adopted by the Jews. Some examples:

The commandments to "tell about the exodos" to "tell it to your son" to "remember the day you left egypt" etc.

All the Jewish Holidays and the Sabbath recall the exodus

Teffilin and Mezuzos both contain passages recalling the exodus.

etc.

This clearly refutes the first two objections.

The third argument shows a lack of knowlege about the proof. It doesn't claim any public miracle must be true, just one performed in front of all of the ansectors of a nation, in front of more than tens of thousands of people. No other nation claims all of their thousands of ansectors witnessed a miracle.

The fourth argument also couldn't explain ...

Seperation of articles

Any thoughts on seperating Kuzari into two articles - Kuzari and Kuzari Argument?

The former would incorporate discussion of BOOKS II-V of which the article is weak. It would also have links to the philosphic issues. While the latter on the Kuzari arguement can have a full discussion of these outreach arguments and their evaluation.--Jayrav 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I set up the seperate article - Kuzari Principle --Jayrav 00:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Date of book

When did Halevi write this book? This seems very important to include, especially since Halevi had a long and eventful life. 24.233.254.29 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I got the date of 1140 from another site and added it. 24.233.254.29 (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Most of this text is plagiarized from the Jewish Encyclopedia. [[1]] 24.233.254.29 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That isn't plagiarism since JE is out of copyright. However, the fact should be acknowledged in the article. Zero^talk 08:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Title of article

Isn't this book usually known in English by the title "Book of the Khazars"? 24.233.254.29 (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Historical Backround

There's been some editing and undoing regarding the historical backround section. I've expanded the section, now with a more neutral tone to reflect the controversy over the conversion. I hope this will satisfy everyone. Thank you. Tkttkt (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)