Sinai Theophany

“When the ram’s horn sounds a long blast, they shall go up on the mountain” (Exodus 19:13). The original intention was for all Israelites to be like priests, and experience YHWH’s revelation on the mountain top. But when YHWH descends and the horn sounds, the people recoil and remain below.

The Bible describes YHWH as glowing (kabod), and YHWH’s heat as melting mountains, imagery connected with volcano gods, the divine patrons of metalworkers such as the Kenites, who lived in the Negev region. Indeed, the description of Israel’s encounter with YHWH at Sinai portrays a volcanic eruption, with smoke “as if from a furnace” (Exodus 19:18).

“Who controls the past controls the future.” – George Orwell, 1984

In several midrashim, God lovingly lifts Mount Sinai over the Israelites to protect them from the dangers of the revelation. One midrash, however, has God threatening to bury the Israelites with the mountain if they don’t accept the Torah. The difference is the intertext.

This fundamental question lies at the heart of two stories: God suspending Mount Sinai over the Israelites to compel them to accept the Torah, and Joshua, with the Jordan River suspended over the Israelites, compelling them to accept mutual responsibility for each other's private sins.

In the Priestly Torah and the Holiness School

Finding gender equality in the Song of Songs without compromising God and meaning.

Tracing the tannaitic and biblical sources for the famous claim that God held Mount Sinai over the Israelites and threatened to bury them if they did not accept the Torah.

The late British anthropologist Mary Douglas proposed that Leviticus was designed to reflect the structure of the Tabernacle, which in turn reflects the division of space during the revelation at Mount Sinai. In this reading, the two screens or curtains that divide the Tabernacle are represented by Leviticus’ only two narratives.

The Decalogue texts in Exodus and Deuteronomy have significant differences, a problem grappled with by the Talmudic sages and Medieval exegetes.

Four accounts of revelation and laws, but one religion

Inaugurating TheTorah.com

Sommer asks, “Can observant Judaism and modern biblical scholarship happily and honestly co-exist?” I’m concerned only with honesty, and will argue that Sommer’s theology fails to give an account of authoritativeness consistent with a commitment to biblical scholarship.

The Revelation of the Divine Voice Within 

Deuteronomy has Moses receiving a revelation at Horeb, but only teaching the Israelites its contents decades later in the Land of Moab. This two-step revelatory process, which is presented as two covenants (Deuteronomy 28:69), masks an earlier form of Deuteronomy that had no record of a Horeb revelation.

The Sinai theophany is virtually absent from the Bible outside of the Torah and the very late book of Nehemiah. This absence reflects an alternative tradition that sees Israel’s laws as deriving from multiple small revelations from prophets throughout history. 

The opening of the wilderness-wandering story in Exodus uses the Leitwort נ-ס-ה to underline the process of reciprocal testing between Israel and God as preparation for the Sinai event. This testing parallels that of the wilderness-wandering story in Numbers, which uses the Leitworter נ-ס-ע and נ-ש-א to underline the process of preparation Israel goes through before entering the land.

“God has not given you a mind to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear until this very day.”—Deuteronomy 29:3

Contemporary Jewish polemics use the term “Torah mi-Sinai” to mean a doctrinal belief in the Mosaic authorship of the Torah. The Sages, however, use the term differently, to claim that all of Torah, written and oral, including their very own words, come from Sinai. But is this claim meant to be taken literally?  

Four Answers to One Question

YHWH commissions Isaiah to distract the people of Judah so that they continue to sin and then YHWH can punish them harshly. In contrast to other biblical figures such as Abraham and Moses, Isaiah is silent at this injustice.

Illustrating four aspects of Shavuot from critical and traditional perspectives.

Traditional commentators endued certain Torah references with midrashic or esoteric purport in an effort to counteract those who mocked them. But in so doing, they were conceding the mockers’ evaluation of these texts as being, prima facie, inconsequential. Fortunately, source criticism helps us accept these texts without discomfort, obviating the compulsion to interpret them away.