Baruch Hashem
Clarification and Scholarly Input on Your Article
Dear Editorial Board of The American Journal of Psychiatry,
I am Rabbi Yosef Edery of the Sanhedrin Initiative, and I wish to contribute to the discussion initiated by Dr. Brian M. Trappler, MD, regarding the portrayal of Moses' prophetic experiences in your publication. In particular, I would like to expand upon and clarify certain theological and historical points raised in your article.
It is imperative to recognize that Moses’ encounters with the Divine were not products of imagination or mere subjective hallucinations. While the passage of time naturally poses challenges to empirical verification, Judaism’s unbroken historical tradition—meticulously preserved through both the written Torah and its accompanying oral teachings—provides an unparalleled foundation of theological continuity and authenticity.
This tradition, spanning approximately 4,000 years, has been rigorously transmitted through multiple modalities, including the Mishnah, Talmud, Midrash, as well as Kabbalistic and Chassidic teachings. These texts unequivocally affirm that Moses' experiences, including the revelation at Sinai and the miracles of the Exodus, were not isolated visions but rather nationally witnessed phenomena. The presence of 600,000 primary witnesses, as recorded in the Torah, lends a level of corroboration that far exceeds the standards of historical validation typically applied to ancient events. Moreover, the laws transmitted at Sinai were codified and safeguarded across generations, with King Solomon ensuring their preservation within the Sanctuary of the Holy Temple.
Given these considerations, it is crucial that discussions of religious experiences—particularly those forming the bedrock of major faith traditions—be approached with intellectual rigor and scholarly nuance. While clinical psychology and psychiatry must, by necessity, examine cases of delusions and hallucinations when they pose a risk to an individual's well-being, this diagnostic lens should not be indiscriminately applied to foundational religious experiences. A failure to differentiate between personal psychopathology and historically transmitted religious doctrines risks conflating faith with psychological dysfunction—a conflation that lacks both academic and ethical merit.
Furthermore, I urge your editorial team to carefully delineate between genuine religious belief and the distortion of faith beyond its intended framework. While psychological evaluation may be appropriate for individuals whose personal experiences are unmoored from external reality, it is unjustified to extend such scrutiny to religious communities whose beliefs are deeply rooted in historical continuity, textual scholarship, and intergenerational transmission. The vast intellectual and philosophical corpus of Judaism, along with its impact on world civilizations, reflects an enduring tradition that transcends simplistic classifications of psychological phenomena.
I would also like to extend my appreciation to my esteemed colleague, Mr. Shawn Lei, fellow Sanhedrin Initiative advisor, for bringing this matter to our attention. It is my hope that your team will consider incorporating this perspective into your discourse to ensure a more accurate and balanced representation of religious traditions in the academic sphere.
I look forward to your response and appreciate your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Rabbi Yosef Edery
Sanhedrin Initiative Advisor
Golan Heights, Israel
WhatsApp +972524971349
Bình luận