I know this is not your main point, but why do Christians go for it? They do have their scholars. I understand why the masses went for it (also because it fit well with pagan tradition, especially Catholicism with its many saints), but how did it catch on so completely.? Perhaps the answer, partly, is as Rambam (I think?) says, that even that is/was min hashamayim, so that the masses would be introduced to the idea of Mashiach. Of course, most of us could not be bothered with asking too many questions.
The Rambam doesn't explain why it became popular, only wonders that it seems to be a part of G-d's plan.
As for why they go for it, I don't know enough about the religion itself, nor the various denominations. But from an early stage, it did well to synthesise existing pagan beliefs with popular motifs from Judaism, such as focus on afterlife and resurrection (trinity, virgin birth, eucharist/eating flesh of god were all existing pagan tropes) - so all that played a role in its early popularity.
Quite frankly, two points: 1) the talmud was edited to make these arguments more consistent. Some mesechtos which were not edited will contain things like learning from gematria which was systemically removed from final texts. 2) how could one peer review and steelman tbsp? Would you be able to say, "no this vav means something else"? We don't even understand how drashot work, so I am not sure how consistent it is. In fact, it seems inconsistent, because sometimes ישראל will include women and sometimes exclude.
I am not sure what you mean to convey in your first point?
On the second - it is not an inductive argument (such as the mesorah claim, that we have a verified and trustworthy chain of transmission and which would be subject to steelman and peer review and other scientific methods of analysis), rather a deductive one (still subject to critiques, just not those), just like the original Kuzari one. I'll elaborate.
For the original Kuzari argument, R' Gottlieb proposes a few premises that we apriori presume are true:
1)There is a quantitative and qualitative difference between miracle claims that is not arbitrary.
2) The Revelation at Sinai uniquely meets the quantitative and qualitative difference criteria of (1)
3) Every religion should claim a (2) type miracle if they could, because it would strengthen their claims maximally.
From here, the conclusions come logically. Since (3) is true, it indicates that a claim of (2) cannot be manufactured synthetically, and that is why no other nation/religion claims a (2). Therefore, it came about organically, because it actually happened.
His book fleshes out the details and dives into the arguments and why we should accept the premises as axioms. But the upshot is that he is not claiming to provide evidence for the Revelation from first principles, but instead via a deductive method.
My argument is similar:
1)There is a quantitative and qualitative difference between exegetical and hermeneutical systems that is not arbitrary.
2) The 13 middos system uniquely meet the quantitative and qualitative difference criteria of (1)
3) Christianity should claim a (2) type system if they could, because it would strengthen their claims maximally.
4) The qualitative gulf between the Christian system and the Jewish system is far larger than than the qualitative gulf between the Revelation public miracle and other religious public miracle claims. This means this argument is stronger than Kuzari 1.0
I trust this made things clearer. Ultimately this argument won't convince skeptics because apriori they only accept inductive logic as proof, which is why they don't accept the cosmological, ontological or mind-body arguments for G-d's existence.
I know this is not your main point, but why do Christians go for it? They do have their scholars. I understand why the masses went for it (also because it fit well with pagan tradition, especially Catholicism with its many saints), but how did it catch on so completely.? Perhaps the answer, partly, is as Rambam (I think?) says, that even that is/was min hashamayim, so that the masses would be introduced to the idea of Mashiach. Of course, most of us could not be bothered with asking too many questions.
The Rambam doesn't explain why it became popular, only wonders that it seems to be a part of G-d's plan.
As for why they go for it, I don't know enough about the religion itself, nor the various denominations. But from an early stage, it did well to synthesise existing pagan beliefs with popular motifs from Judaism, such as focus on afterlife and resurrection (trinity, virgin birth, eucharist/eating flesh of god were all existing pagan tropes) - so all that played a role in its early popularity.
Sure. And of course, once you’re born into something, most of us don’t go much further.
Quite frankly, two points: 1) the talmud was edited to make these arguments more consistent. Some mesechtos which were not edited will contain things like learning from gematria which was systemically removed from final texts. 2) how could one peer review and steelman tbsp? Would you be able to say, "no this vav means something else"? We don't even understand how drashot work, so I am not sure how consistent it is. In fact, it seems inconsistent, because sometimes ישראל will include women and sometimes exclude.
I am not sure what you mean to convey in your first point?
On the second - it is not an inductive argument (such as the mesorah claim, that we have a verified and trustworthy chain of transmission and which would be subject to steelman and peer review and other scientific methods of analysis), rather a deductive one (still subject to critiques, just not those), just like the original Kuzari one. I'll elaborate.
For the original Kuzari argument, R' Gottlieb proposes a few premises that we apriori presume are true:
1)There is a quantitative and qualitative difference between miracle claims that is not arbitrary.
2) The Revelation at Sinai uniquely meets the quantitative and qualitative difference criteria of (1)
3) Every religion should claim a (2) type miracle if they could, because it would strengthen their claims maximally.
From here, the conclusions come logically. Since (3) is true, it indicates that a claim of (2) cannot be manufactured synthetically, and that is why no other nation/religion claims a (2). Therefore, it came about organically, because it actually happened.
His book fleshes out the details and dives into the arguments and why we should accept the premises as axioms. But the upshot is that he is not claiming to provide evidence for the Revelation from first principles, but instead via a deductive method.
My argument is similar:
1)There is a quantitative and qualitative difference between exegetical and hermeneutical systems that is not arbitrary.
2) The 13 middos system uniquely meet the quantitative and qualitative difference criteria of (1)
3) Christianity should claim a (2) type system if they could, because it would strengthen their claims maximally.
4) The qualitative gulf between the Christian system and the Jewish system is far larger than than the qualitative gulf between the Revelation public miracle and other religious public miracle claims. This means this argument is stronger than Kuzari 1.0
I trust this made things clearer. Ultimately this argument won't convince skeptics because apriori they only accept inductive logic as proof, which is why they don't accept the cosmological, ontological or mind-body arguments for G-d's existence.