As will be shown, persuading them of that necessitates persuading them that their apparent confidence about the power of thought to yield certainty derives from a view of reality that is antithetical to their own, and that obscures, rather than illuminates, their understanding of the Pentateuch, and therefore of the view of reality the Pentateuch defines.
In the introduction below, to underscore the fact central to the present study, a brief analysis shows that language is sometimes used to preclude understanding of the sacred history narrated in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Chapters of the Book of Exodus. Then the study shows that language is similarly used in significant, perhaps even in pervasive, degree, throughout the Pentateuch, in the sacred history it narrates, and in the law it expounds. The study thus demonstrates that mysterium is a significant, perhaps even a pervasive, motif in the Pentateuch, and argues that in consequence traditionalism must be grounded, as a practical as well as a theoretical matter, not in a conviction, essentially antithetical to it, that the human mind intelligent enough and well enough disciplined can understand all of reality, but in the contrary conviction that, to a significant, perhaps even to a pervasive, degree, reality cannot be understood.
The Nineteenth and Twentieth Chapters of the Book of Exodus appear to begin recounting the seminal event of sacred history—the experience by the Jews of Revelation at Mount Sinai—in a straightforward, unambiguous narrative. In fact, however, so many difficulties are embedded in the narrative that the more closely it is looked at, the more, to at least a significant degree, perhaps even typically, it precludes understanding.
The first two verses, for example, 19:1-2, seem to contain too many words. In Kaplan’s translation they read as follows:
[1] In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt, on the first of the month, they came to the desert of Sinai. [2] They had departed from Rephidim and had arrived in the Sinai Desert, camping in the wilderness. Israel camped opposite the mountain.
Recast more succinctly, the two verses would read as follows:
[1] In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt, on the first of the month, they came to the Sinai Desert. [2] They camped there, in the wilderness, opposite the mountain.
There seems no need to repeat in 19:2 the assertion in 19:1 that the Jews came to the Sinai Desert. (Kaplan’s substitutions—of “arrived” for “came,” of “Sinai Desert” for “the desert of Sinai,” and of “wilderness” for “desert”—are misleading. In none of the three instances do the Hebrew words change. And Kaplan does not translate “there,” the Hebrew sham.) There seems no need either to state that the Jews had come from Rephidim, because that was stated in Exodus 17:1. And the reference to “the mountain” is not clear, because the definite article presumes an antecedent, but none exists. An unusually retentive reader may recall that when Moses spoke with God at the burning bush, on “God’s Mountain, in the Horeb area,” (3:1) he was told that after the Exodus the Jews would “become God’s servants on this mountain,” (3:12) and that later Moses was visited by his father-in-law in “the desert . . . near God’s mountain.” (18:5) But most readers will recall neither reference; in any case, neither can be called an antecedent; and it is by no means clear that “God’s mountain” is “the mountain” mentioned in 19:2.
In 19:3, God’s instruction to Moses—“This is what you must say to the family of Jacob and tell the Israelites”—seems to contain too many words. Either “the family of Jacob” or “the Israelites” would seem sufficient.
In 19:5, Moses is instructed to tell the Jews:
“Now if you obey Me and keep My covenant, you shall be My special treasure among all nations, even though all the world is Mine.”
This verse contains two difficulties. First, it is not clear what the difference, if any, is between “obey Me” and “keep My covenant,” because obedience would appear to consist solely in keeping God’s covenant, and therefore it is not clear what God intends by “obey Me.” This difficulty would be eliminated by translating the Hebrew as, “Now if you obey Me by keeping My covenant.” But that translation would not be faithful to the Hebrew. Moreover, it is not clear what covenant God is referring to, because He has never mentioned to the Jews a covenant with them. Second, a lacuna seems to exist in 19:5. Moses is instructed to tell the Jews that, if they keep God’s covenant, they will be His “special treasure among all nations, even though all the world is Mine.” Kaplan follows Ibn Ezra in rendering the Hebrew ki as “even though.” Even that unusual rendering indicates that, at the minimum, words are missing that are necessary to connect “all the world is mine” to the rest of God’s statement. The more usual rendering of ki, “because,” underscores the disconnect.
The closing instruction in 19:6—“These are the words that you [Moses] must relate to the Israelites”—seems unnecessary. It seems simply to repeat 19:3—“This is what you must say to the family of Jacob and tell the Israelites.” And by omitting “the family of Jacob” it underscores that the appearance of those words in 19:3 seems unnecessary.
Because God has instructed Moses to convey His message “to the Israelites”—that is to say, to the entire nation—it is not clear why, in 19:7, Moses summons only “the elders of the people,” or why, in 19:8, not they but “all the people answered as one.”
The difficulty, in 19:9, in God’s assertion that the spoken Revelation will be addressed only to Moses cannot be immediately recognized. God tells him:
“I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that all the people will hear when I speak to you.”[emphasis added]
The spoken Revelation begins, in 20:1, with an assertion—“God spoke all these words”—that does not specify who is being addressed. The Ten Pronouncements (not “Commandments,” a different Hebrew word) are expressed in the singular, and therefore may be addressed only to Moses, not to all of the Jews. At some unspecified moment—whether before, during, or after the spoken Revelation is not clear—the Jews, terrified, beg Moses, in 20:16, “You speak to us, and we will listen. But let God not speak with us any more, for we will die if He does.” (The words “any more” in Kaplan’s translation do not appear in the Hebrew text. Ramban, in his commentary on 20:15, says they should not be inserted.) But after the Pronouncements are made, God reminds the Jews, through Moses, in 20:19, that “I spoke to you from heaven,” “you” being emachem, the plural in Hebrew. (It is used again in Deuteronomy 5:4, when Moses reminds the Jews that at the Revelation “God spoke to you, face to face.”) Thus, it may not be not possible to know to whom God addresses the Ten Pronouncements.
Nor may it be possible to know whether the Jews even hear the Pronouncements. God asserts that “all the people will hear when I speak to you.” But it is not clear from 20:15-16 whether they hear (and see) anything more than the turmoil on Mount Sinai:
[15] All the people saw the sounds, the flames, the blast of the ram’s horn, and the mountain smoking. The people trembled when they saw it, keeping their distance. [16] They said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will listen. But let God not speak to us any more, for we will die if He does.”
The Jews are terrified enough by the sounds, the flames, the blast of the ram’s horn and the smoking of the mountain to tremble, and to keep their distance; they sense they will not be able to bear the additional terror of hearing God speak; and therefore they beg Moses to listen in their behalf. That is the plain meaning of the text, unless the turmoil persists while God speaks. If it does, the Jews may be terrified by the combination of the turmoil and hearing God speak. That, it seems, must be the case, because God says the Jews will hear Him speaking to Moses. But whether or not they do is not clear. Neither is it clear whether the turmoil of the mountain terrifies them before, while, or after the Pronouncements are spoken.
The assertion, in 19:9, that “Moses told God the people’s response” to the offer made by Him in 19:4-6 seems unnecessary, because it seems to repeat the assertion