"The claim of the prophets could be verified, were we able to repeat and put their perceptions to a test. Yet, the prophets themselves could only relate, but not reproduce, what happened to them. They endeavored to vindicate their own reliability by forecast or persuasion; the act itself could not be displayed to others. However, the fact of our inability to share an experience does not deny its authenticity . Many of our own experiences, the most precious and singular, can hardly be shared by anybody else. Much of what a person goes through cannot be communicated, and what is not communicable is not sharable. All communication is an attempt to make something understandable to others by conveying it into universal and typical terms. But the spark of the singular is extinguished in the atmosphere of generalities. Particularly, the impact of the transcendent upon the human mind can be as little described in general terms as my perception of beauty can be told in terms of pounds and ounces. How could we expect it to be explainable?
Is it worthwhile, even if it were possible, to let our whisper try to imitate thunder? It is essential to revelation that it elude our inquiries. To explain, to make it intelligible, transparent, would be to ignore it; in proving it, it would be reduced to insignificance. There is a partner to revelation with whose ways the mind’s categories are incongruous. Revelation should not be rejected because of its being incomprehensible. It is not the only fact that is impervious to exploration, unverifiable by experience. That which is incomprehensible must not be considered unreal. Can we explain how being came into being? Can we describe exactly how the tense power of a spirit glides on the strings of a violin, creating a world of delicacy out of nothing? Is the cry and anguish of six million martyrs theoretically comprehensible?
Is it worthwhile, even if it were possible, to let our whisper try to imitate thunder? It is essential to revelation that it elude our inquiries. To explain, to make it intelligible, transparent, would be to ignore it; in proving it, it would be reduced to insignificance. There is a partner to revelation with whose ways the mind’s categories are incongruous. Revelation should not be rejected because of its being incomprehensible. It is not the only fact that is impervious to exploration, unverifiable by experience. That which is incomprehensible must not be considered unreal. Can we explain how being came into being? Can we describe exactly how the tense power of a spirit glides on the strings of a violin, creating a world of delicacy out of nothing? Is the cry and anguish of six million martyrs theoretically comprehensible?
There is, indeed, no way of explaining how thoughts of the infinite God move along the narrow path of a human mind. All explaining or proving operates by means of analogy. We explain something that is doubtful by comparing it with things that are possible or certain. The strength of a proof or an explanation depends upon how complete is the resemblance between those things. Yet, the au- thenticity of revelation is shown in its being different from all other events and experiences. Its truth is in its uniqueness. Only as something incomparable can it be trusted. This is perhaps why the book of Deuteronomy emphasizes that the event at Sinai was unprecedented (4:32-37). All we can do is to analyze our own reasons for accepting it and to eliminate the probability of having been subject to an illusion or the probability of our faith being nothing but a rationalization, namely the fabrication of rational arguments to justify something which deep in our hearts we do not consider to be correct.
For the sake of intellectual convenience we would like to be in possession of some spectacular evidence that the prophets were neither psychopaths nor liars. Yet, how odd and unworthy of God if, in giving man what is priceless, He were to secure man’s trivial testimonies to the authenticity of His gift! Must the sun be labeled with a mark of identification in order to be acknowledged? Our inability to prove that the record of the prophet contains an exact description of what he has actually experienced does not preclude the legitimacy of asserting the truthfulness of that record. In investigating historical documents man is never able to confront the record with the fact; he can inquire, however, whether a particular record is consistent with his knowledge and conception of the period to which it is ascribed. With what knowledge or with what facts is revelation to be in accord?"
