Judaism Without Sinai? - TheTorah.

com 3/23/20, 11(46 AM

Judaism Without Sinai?

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.

Dr. Rabbi David Frankel

Mount Sinai. David Roberts 1839

Introduction

The Centrality of the Sinai Theophany

T he story of the revelation and lawgiving at Mount Sinai is one of the dramatic highpoints in the narrative of the
Torah. The centrality of this event for Israel’s faith is forcefully presented in Deuteronomy 4:9-10, where Moses
warns the Israelites that they dare not forget how the Lord spoke to them out of the fire that burned from the top of the
mountain into the heart of the heavens.

‫ת־ה ְדּ ָב ִ ֜רים‬
ַ ‫אד ֶפּן ִתּ ְשׁ ַ֨כּח ֶא‬
ֹ ֗ ‫מר נַ ְפ ְשׁ ֜; ְמ‬
ֹ ֨ ‫וּשׁ‬
ְ ֩;‫ט ַ ֡רק ִה ָ ֣שּׁ ֶמר ְל‬ 9 But take utmost care and watch yourselves scrupulously, so that
‫הוֹד ְﬠ ָ ֥תּם‬
ַ ְ‫יְמי ַח ֶיּ֑י; ו‬
֣ ֵ ‫וּרוּ ִמ ְלּ ָ ֣ב ְב ֔; ֖כֹּל‬
֙ ‫וּפן יָ ֙ס‬
ֶ ;‫ֲא ֶשׁר ָר ֣אוּ ֵﬠ ֶ֗יני‬ you do not forget the things that you saw with your own eyes and so
ֶ ‫הָֹו֣ה ֱא‬- ְ‫ י י֗ וֹם ֲא ֶ֨שׁר ָﬠ ַ֜מ ְד ָתּ ִל ְפ ֵ֨ני י‬:;‫ְל ָב ֶנ֖י; וְ ִל ְב ֵנ֥י ָב ֶנֽי‬
;‫ה ֘י‬T- that they do not fade from your mind as long as you live. And make
‫ה ָ ֹ֜וה ֵא ֗ ַלי ַה ְק ֶהל ִ ֙לי ֶאת ָה ֔ ָﬠם וְ ַא ְשׁ ִמ ֵ ֖ﬠם ֶאת‬- ְ‫מר י‬
ֹ ֨ ‫ְבּח ֵֹר ֒ב ֶבּ ֱא‬ them known to your children and to your children’s children: 10 The
‫ְדּ ָב ָ ֑רי ֲא ֶ֨שׁר יִ ְל ְמ ֜דוּן ְליִ ְר ָ ֣אה א ִֹ֗תי ָכּל ַהיָּ ִמ ֙ים ֲא ֶ֨שׁר ֵ ֤הם ַחיִּ ֙ים ַﬠל‬ Coronavirus:
day you stood before Yhwh your God at Horeb, when Yhwh said to What We Can
:‫יהם יְ ַל ֵמּ ֽדוּן‬
֖ ֶ ֵ‫ָ ֣ה ֲא ָד ָ֔מה וְ ֶאת ְבּנ‬ Learn
Me, “Gather the people to Me that I may let them hear My from
words, in the Bible and
order that they may learn to revere Me as long as they live on earth,
the ANE
and may so teach their children.”

The central, terrifying event, which establishes Moses as Israel’s lawgiver and God as the source of Mosaic law,[1] must be
Read Op-ed
https://www.thetorah.com/article/judaism-without-sinai Page 1 of 7
Judaism Without Sinai? - TheTorah.com 3/23/20, 11(46 AM

Read Op-ed
remembered and recounted to each new generation so that they may fear the Lord and observe the commandments that He
personally imposed upon them.

Part 1

The Absence of the Theophany in the Rest of the Bible

In light of the clear centrality and importance of the Sinai theophany in the book of Exodus, and in passages in
Deuteronomy such as the one just cited,[2] it is striking to note that, in the rest of the Tanach, this event is almost totally
ignored![3] Not once is the giving of Torah at Mt. Sinai explicitly referred to in the entire book of Psalms.[4] Mention can
even be made of the relatively less impressive divine act of leading Israel through the wilderness (Ps. 136: 16), but the
revelation and lawgiving at Sinai are nowhere to be found.

The revelation at Sinai is also absent in the prophetic literature as well as from other reviews of Israel’s history, such as
Deuteronomy 26:5-9; Josh. 24, and 1Samuel 12: 8. Nor do we find the lawgiving at Sinai anticipated at any point in the book
of Genesis , in contrast to the exodus which is anticipated in Gen. 15.

Strikingly, even the list of the encampments of the Israelites in the wilderness in Numbers 33 makes no mention of any
unusual event that occurred during the stop at the Sinai wildnerness (vv. 15-16,) though reference is made to the crossing
of the Sea (v. 7-8), the provision of wells and date trees at Elim (v.9), and other events that seem much more minor than
the Sinai revelation. The list doesn’t even mention Mount Sinai as a stop at all. It is not until the historical review in the late
book of Nehemiah that we find reference to the story of Mount Sinai in a historical summary (Neh. 9:13-16)!

Theophany is not an Act of Grace: Loewenstamm’s Approach

How are we to explain this glaring silence with reference to the Sinai event? Samuel E. Loewenstamm[5] attempted to
account for the di!culty by arguing that the Sinai event would simply be out of place in these historical resumés, which
focus on the gracious acts that the Lord performed for Israel. The imposition of law reflects a demand and an obligation
rather than a gracious provision. It is only in the period of the Second Temple that the lawgiving was seen as an expression
of divine favor and kindness rather than a mere assertion of authority.[6]

This explanation is wanting, since it cannot explain the total lack of mention of Sinai. In addition, it is unlikely that the
giving of the law was first understood as an act of divine favor only in such a late period. The bulk of the book of
Deuteronomy derives from late first Temple times and it continually refers to the giving of law as an act of divine concern
“to bestow good” upon Israel.[7] It is thus likely that Israel would have given thanks to the Lord for the giving of the law in
First Temple times as well.

Part 2

Most Ancient Israelites were Unaware of the Sinai Theophany

Account
It seems that we cannot avoid concluding that the bulk of Israel in First Temple times was unaware of the Sinai story or
tradition. This does not necessarily mean that the tradition of law and covenant at Sinai was “invented” in Second Temple
times. Rather, the Sinai tradition may simply not have achieved the popularity and circulation that the exodus tradition did
[8]
https://www.thetorah.com/article/judaism-without-sinai Page 2 of 7
Judaism Without Sinai? - TheTorah.com 3/23/20, 11(46 AM

until a relatively late date.[8]

While many Israelites knew and perpetuated the memory of the exodus from a relatively early period on, much fewer were
aware of the Sinai tradition. Only when the basic form of the Torah was canonized, presumably some time in the Second
Temple period, did the tradition of lawgiving at Sinai become common knowledge.

This explains why the Torah contains a festival commemorating the Exodus from Egypt, but none that commemorates the
giving of the Torah. Only in the Second Temple period was Shavuot transformed to commemorate the giving of the Torah.
[9]

Part 3

Origin of Law and Rituals without the Theophany

This raises an obvious question: How did these early Israelites understand the rituals that they observed and the
regulations that they lived by if not as given to Israel on Mount Sinai amidst thunder and lightning?

One conception seems to have been that the laws derived not from a one–time, public divine theophany in which all the
laws were given together, before entering the land, amidst fire and thunder, but from successive generations of individual
priests and/or prophets who communicated them to the people gradually and under less dramatic circumstances.

If the laws derived from multiple priests or prophets in successive generations, then a narrative about lawgiving at Sinai
within the context of the great national events of the exodus, the divine guidance in the wilderness, and the conquest,
would be superfluous.

Generations of Prophets as Israel’s Lawgivers – The No Sinai Model

The idea that laws and regulations were given to Israel via the prophets is hinted at in several passages.

Daniel

In Daniel 9—a very late text—we find the phrase (v. 10):

‫שׁר נָ ַ ֣תן‬ ֑ ֵ ‫הָֹו֣ה ֱא‬- ְ‫וְ ֣ל ֹא ָשׁ ַ֔מ ְﬠנוּ ְבּ ֖קוֹל י‬

֣ ֶ ‫הינוּ ָל ֶל ֶ֤כת ְבּ ֽתוֹר ָֹת ֙יו ֲא‬T- We have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to follow His
:‫יאים‬
ֽ ִ ‫ְל ָפ ֵ֔נינוּ ְבַּי֖ד ֲﬠ ָב ָ ֥דיו ַהנְּ ִב‬ teachings that He gave us at the hand of his servants the prophets.

This implies that Jewish/Israelite law comes from “the prophets” in plural, and not “the prophet” (=Moses).

Ezekiel

The most blatant example of a prophet who promulgates law is the exilic prophet-priest, Ezekiel. In chapters 40-48 of the
Book of Ezekiel, the prophet lists many laws, never making any reference to these laws coming from Moses or “the Torah.”
Strikingly, some of Ezekiel’s laws even contradict the laws of the Torah of Moses and, according to the Rabbis, the book
was nearly suppressed for that reason (b. Shabbat 13b). It is likely, however, that Ezekiel was not ignoring or polemicizing
against the Torah of Moses since that Torah, as we know it today, didn’t yet exist, and wasn’t yet canonical. He was simply
following the tradition of prophets quoting God and legislating directly.

Samuel and the Law of the King

https://www.thetorah.com/article/judaism-without-sinai Page 3 of 7
Judaism Without Sinai? - TheTorah.com 3/23/20, 11(46 AM

Another example of a prophet who taught and wrote law independent of the Mosaic Torah is Samuel who,

‫מוּאל ֶאל ָה ֗ ָﬠם ֵ ֚את ִמ ְשׁ ַ ֣פּט ַה ְמּ ֻל ָ֔כה‬

ֵ֜ ‫וַ יְ ַד ֵ֨בּר ְשׁ‬ ‫י‬:‫א שמואל י‬ 1 Sam. 10:25 told the people the regulation of kingship and wrote it in a
‫הָֹו֑ה‬- ְ‫תּב ַבּ ֵ֔סּ ֶפר וַ יַּ ַנּ֖ח ִל ְפ ֵנ֣י י‬
ֹ ֣ ‫וַ יִּ ְכ‬ book and placed it before the Lord (viz., in the Temple).”

It is most likely that 1 Sam 10:25 refers to the legal constitution of the rights and obligations of the king and is similar to
Deuteronomy 17:14-20. In this latter text, after limiting the amount of horses, wives, and silver and gold that the king may
gather, he is instructed to make his own personal copy of the Torah, and read from it continually, and follow its laws
strictly.

There is no reference to the Torah of Moses in Samuel, or any hint that Samuel is implementing the law of the Torah with
regard to Saul. Rather, the two biblical sections are parallel. Both are meant to restrict and regulate the authority of the
king in accordance with the demands of the prophet.

This placing of the book in the Temple of Mizpah is reminiscent of the placing of the tablets of the covenant within the ark
and of the preservation of the book of the Torah at the side of the ark (Deut. 31:26). This preservation of a sacred document
reflects a general practice; the storage in a holy site of parallel “Torahs”—that of Samuel and that of Deuteronomy—that
apparently do not know of each other’s existence.

Samuel and the Command about Amalek

We see this same phenomenon again with Samuel’s command to go to war with Amalek (1 Sam. 15:1-3).

֣;‫הֹוָ ֙ה ִל ְמ ָשׁ ֳח‬- ְ‫מוּאל֙ ֶאל ָשׁ ֔אוּל א ִֹ֨תי ָשׁ ַל֤ח י‬

ֵ ‫אמר ְשׁ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֤יּ‬ ‫א‬ 1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one Yhwh sent to anoint you king
‫ ס‬:‫הָ ֹֽוה‬- ְ‫ ַﬠל ַﬠ ֖מּוֹ ַﬠל יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל וְ ַﬠ ָ ֣תּה ְשׁ ַ֔מע ְל ֖קוֹל ִדּ ְב ֵ ֥רי י‬c‫ְל ֶ֔מ ֶל‬ over His people Israel. Therefore, listen to Yhwh’s command! 2

‫הָֹו֣ה ְצ ָב ֔אוֹת ָפּ ַ ֕ק ְד ִתּי ֵ ֛את ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָ ֥שׂה ֲﬠ ָמ ֵל֖ק‬- ְ‫֤כֹּה ָא ַמ ֙ר י‬ ‫ב‬ “Thus said Yhwh of Hosts: I am exacting the penalty for what
c‫ַﬠ ָתּ ֩ה ֨ ֵל‬ ‫ג‬ :‫תוֹ ִמ ִמּ ְצ ָ ֽריִ ם‬T
֖ ‫ ַבּ ֲﬠ‬c‫ְליִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל ֲא ֶשׁר ָ ֥שׂם ֙לוֹ ַבּ ֶ ֔דּ ֶר‬ Amalek did to Israel, for the assault he made upon them on the road,
‫מל‬
ֹ ֖ ‫יתה ֶאת ֲﬠ ָמ ֗ ֵלק וְ ַ ֽה ֲח ַר ְמ ֶתּ ֙ם ֶאת ָכּל ֲא ֶשׁר ֔לוֹ וְ ֥ל ֹא ַת ְח‬
ָ֜ ‫וְ ִה ִ ֽכּ‬ on their way up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack Amalek, and proscribe
‫יוֹנק ִמ ֣שּׁוֹר וְ ַﬠד ֶ֔שׂה‬
ֵ֔ ‫ָﬠ ָל֑יו וְ ֵה ַמ ָ֞תּה ֵמ ִ ֣אישׁ ַﬠד ִא ָ֗שּׁה ֵ ֽמע ֵֹלל֙ וְ ַﬠד‬ all that belongs to him. Spare no one, but kill alike men and women,
‫ ס‬:‫ִמגָּ ָ ֖מל וְ ַﬠד ֲח ֽמוֹר‬ infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses!”

Samuel quotes God directly and does not root the command in the law of Deuteronomy 25:17-19. The source of the
command to attack Amalek is the word of the Lord to Samuel, and not any word of the Lord to Moses.

Prophets have Authority with No Need of a Sinai-like Revelation

According to the Torah, God authenticates Moses’ divine legislation through the Sinai theophany, in the context of which
the people hear God’s pronouncement of laws. This experience of the entire Israelite people secures and guarantees that
Moses’ laws are the laws of God (Ex. 19:19; 20:19; 24:15—18; Deut. 5:19—30). No parallel event is referenced by any other
prophetic book to support the right of the respective prophet to legislate in God’s name. No special, dramatic event
authenticates the divine source of Samuel’s constitution or Ezekiel’s laws. Both are based solely upon the prophet’s
general authority and trustworthiness.[10]

Part 4

Sinai Theophany as a Limitation on the Authority of Prophets

This observation brings me to a another possible explanation for the failure to mention the giving of the Torah, particularly

https://www.thetorah.com/article/judaism-without-sinai Page 4 of 7
Judaism Without Sinai? - TheTorah.com 3/23/20, 11(46 AM

with regard to the later period, when the tradition of Sinai was already well known: the idea of a one-time revelation of
God’s teaching for Israel was inimical to priests and prophets, who composed much of biblical literature.

One of the underlying purposes of presenting a single, complete Torah that was accepted by all of Israel in a unique and
unequivocal theophany in the earliest period of the exodus is the suppression of the prophetic voice. If there is one clear
version of the will of God to which one “must not add to and from which one must not subtract” (Deut. 13:1 cf. 4:2) then
prophets and priests cannot promulgate laws of their own. If the Torah is a priori and absolute, rather than revealed
successively in response to the realities of each generation, then the role of the prophets and priests is reduced to that of
preaching and supporting the law of Moses to which all the prophets are now subordinated.

Biblical Hints to Conflict between Mosaic Torah and Prophets

We may well assume that not all priests and prophets looked favorably upon the claims that the Mosaic Torah from Sinai is
a necessary and su!cient source. These surely would have struggled to assert their power and authority and would not
have passively accepted their subordination to the Torah of Moses. This tension between the authoritative Torah of Moses
and the voice of the prophet is hinted at in several biblical passages.

Avoiding False Prophets

It is not by accident, for example, that the warning quoted above not to add or subtract from the Torah of Moses comes
right before the admonition not to listen to wayward prophets (Deut 13:2-6). The prophetic voice is unpredictably
dangerous, and one never can be sure that a respected prophet will not one day say things that are heterodox[11]. In many
ways the legislation in Deuteronomy concerning prophets is interested in curbing prophetic power in favor of the
(Deuteronomic) Torah, and it is easy to imagine a counter-group that favored the Torah over the prophets.

The King Reading the Torah

Deuteronomy has the king read from the book of the Torah all his days (Deut 17:18-20). In this way, Deuteronomy replaces
the role of the prophet as instructor to the king—a role seen e.g. with Nathan in reference to David (2 Sam. 12)—with the
role of the book.

Zechariah Ignoring Moses and Torah

This may explain why late prophet, like Zechariah, continues to refer to the laws of first temple times as “my words and
laws which I commanded to my servants the prophets” (1:6 and cf. 7:12). If Moses is at all thought of here, he is not
mentioned by name, and is considered as one in a long series of prophets through whom God reveals laws.

Zechariah’s conception of the law as given by prophets, which implicitly denies the finality of the Deuteronomic Torah,
allows Zechariah himself, as a later day prophet, to continue to play a formative role in relaying the divine law and
expanding the corpus of commandments (cf. 7:3 and 8:18-19). This may also explain why other late texts are equally silent
about the Sinai theophany, even if they knew the tradition.

Conclusion

The Social Significance of the Sinai versus Prophets Conflict

The struggle that we are depicting here is essential to the formation of any society. Societies desire stability and

https://www.thetorah.com/article/judaism-without-sinai Page 5 of 7
Judaism Without Sinai? - TheTorah.com 3/23/20, 11(46 AM

permanence, and the canonization of the story of the Sinai theophany reflects an attempt to stabilize and unify the
religion of Israel. Variant laws and traditions are either rejected or modified and absorbed into the framework of the
dominant tradition, and prophets are subordinated to the less creative role of supporting the canonized teachings.

On the other hand, no written law can possibly address all possible issues for all times. New issues that were never
addressed continually arise, and sanctified rulings on issues that were addressed often become obsolete. This tendency is
reflected in the continued attempt of the prophets to assert their creative authority and to diminish the centrality or
finality of the Sinaitic law[12].

The struggle between these two important tendencies was never resolved in a single formula in biblical times. The struggle
itself is probably the most important sign of vitality, and any attempt to di"use the tension would be inimical to any
healthy society. It is this same tension that is needed today as well in our own Jewish life.

TheTorah.com is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

We rely on the support of readers like you. Please support us.

Footnotes
Published February 5, 2015 | Last Updated March 16, 2020

1. Of course, the Torah does not present all of the laws as delivered to Moses on the mountaintop. He continues to receives laws at the foot of
the mountain, from the Mishkan/Ohel Moed, above the cherubs, that was set up at Sinai (see Lev. 1:1; 7:37–38; 26:46; 27:34). The laws at
the end of Numbers are given at the Plains of Moab, but also from the Ohel Moed (the Tent of Meeting). Since the very construction of
the Mishkan was carried out on the basis of laws of construction given at Sinai, and since the cloud that hovered above it was the cloud that
engulfed Mt. Sinai, the authority of the laws given at the Mishkan clearly derives from Sinai theophany even when the Mishkan moves.
Thus, from the perspective of the Torah as a whole, the concepts of “Sinai theophany” and “Moses the lawgiver” are intertwined, and form
the core of what would later be dubbed “Torah mi-Sinai.”

2. Deuteronomy speaks of “Horeb” rather than “Sinai” with reference to the same tradition of theophany and lawgiving in the wilderness.

3. For another perspective on this point, see Pamela Barmash’s TABS essay, “The Omission of the Sinai Theophany in the Bikkurim Ritual
Declaration.”

4. Horeb is mentioned in 106:19, and Sinai in 68:9, 18, but the giving of the Torah is absent from both contexts. Moreover, Psalms never
references Moses as lawgiver or mentions him giving a Torah or as uniquely above other prophets—all matters that the Sinai or Horeb
revelation is meant to establish. Most significant in this context is the exceptional reference to Moses together with Aaron and Samuel in
Psalm 99, 6—7:

“Moses and Aaron were among his priests, Samuel also was among those who called on his name. They cried to the Lord, and he
answered them. He spoke to them in the pillar of cloud; they kept his decrees, and the statutes that he gave them.”

All three figures are apparently thought of as priests. Again, no mention of Sinai or Horeb is found, but the text may reflect Moses, Aaron
and Samuel as givers of divine law. One may wonder if the reference to God as speaking to them from a cloud may not refer to the cloud
associated with the ark (see Lev. 16:2). In any event, this text may well reflect the conception of which I speak below: prophets or priests in
successive generations each o"ering their new contributions to the law. Since all of these prophets or priests are apparently thought of as
equal in status it seems possible that later ones could not only add do divine law but also subtract.

5. The Tradition of the Exodus in its Development, Jerusalem 1987, p. 12.

6. The idea that the giving of the Torah is an act of divine grace is also expressed in the Dayeinu hymn of the Pesach Haggadah.

7. See, e.g., Deut. 4:6, 8; 6:24—25;10:13; 27:18—19.

https://www.thetorah.com/article/judaism-without-sinai Page 6 of 7
Judaism Without Sinai? - TheTorah.com 3/23/20, 11(46 AM

8. While I think it is possible that the whole Sinai Torah giving story is late, I believe that we must be cautious. We certainly cannot reliably
date a story to the first explicit external reference to it. Perhaps earlier texts referred to it and we just don’t have those texts. And I don’t
see any clear signs of very late authorship in the contents of Exodus 19-24. For example, the fact that there is no stipulation for a human
king in the law material, only a Nasi (Exod. 22:27), and the fact that the theophany parts imply that God is the king, could fit well with the
early Israelite theology of the time of the Judges that rejected the legitimacy of human kingship. Also, even if the story is late that does not
necessarily mean that there wasn’t a tradition of lawgiving at Sinai that it is based upon.

9. For more on this, see Norman Solomon’s TABS essay, “Shavuot: How the Festival of Harvest Grew;” Evan Ho"man’s TABS essay,
“Ezekiel’s Failure to Mention Shavuot,” and David Steinberg’s TABS essay, “Why Doesn’t the Torah Celebrate the Revelation on Mt. Sinai?”

10. This is not to say that the biblical books are not concerned to underscore the divine authority of the prophet. See, for example, Joshua 3:7;
4:14 or 1 Sam. 12:17—18. This authorization, however, is accomplished by general signs or wonders that the prophet performs before the
people and not by a divine act of pronouncing laws in the people’s hearing. Furthermore, the wonders authenticate the prophet’s authority
in general and not specifically his authority to legislate divine laws. This is shown by the fact that the reports of prophetic wonders do not
appear within the context of the stories of their lawgiving.

11. This concern also stands behind the late editorial comment at the end of the book of Malachi, the last book of the corpus of Prophecy:
“ Remember the teaching of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel.” This late
addition comes to a!rm the authority of the Mosaic law specifically at the end of the prophetic writings, so that it be clear that prophecy
cannot dislodge Mosaic law.

12. Note, in particular, the late attempt to ground prophetic authority specifically in the Sinai event in Deut. 18:16—22.

Dr. Rabbi David Frankel did his Ph.D. at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem under the direction of Professor
Moshe Weinfeld. His publications include The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School (VTSupp. 89) and The
Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel (Eisenbrauns). He teaches Hebrew Bible to M.A. and Rabbinical
students at the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem.

https://www.thetorah.com/article/judaism-without-sinai Page 7 of 7