R.Nechemia Coopersmith, R.Moshe Zeldman:

Who did God give the Torah to at Mount Sinai? Most people reply, 'God gave the Torah to Moses.' And what were the Jewish people doing while Moses was receiving the Torah? 'Worshipping the Golden Calf.'

Correct - but NOT according to the Bible.
the above answers come from Cecil B. DeMille's classic film, 'The Ten Commandments.' Amazing the impact one movie can have on the Jewish education of generations of Jews. It's a great film, but DeMile should have read the original.
The Torah is quite different. The Torah's claim is that the entire people heard God speak at Mount Sinai, experiencing national revelation. God did not just appear to Moses in a private rendezvous; He appeared to everyone, some 3 million people. This claim is mentioned many times in the Torah.

Moses told the Israelites, 'Only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your soul, lest you forget the things that your eyes have beheld. Do not remove this memory from your heart all the days of your life. Teach your children and your children's children about the day that you stood before the Lord your God at Mount Sinai...
God spoke to you from the midst of the fire, you were hearing the sound of words, but you were not seeing a form, only a sound. He told you of His covenant, instructing you to keep the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets.' (Deut.4:9-13)

'You have been shown in order to know that God, He is the Supreme Being. There is none besides Him. From heaven he let you hear His voice in order to teach you, and on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words amid the fire.' (Deut. 4:32-36)
Moses called all of Israel and said to them: 'Hear, O Israel, the decrees and the ordinances that I speak in your ears today -- learn them, and be careful to perform them. The Lord your God sealed a covenant with us at Horev [Sinai]. Not with our forefathers did God seal this covenant, but with us - we who are here, all of us alive today. Face to face did God speak with you on the mountain from amid the fire.' (Deut. 5:1-4)

The Torah states that the entire Jewish nation heard God speak at Sinai, an assertion that has been accepted as part of their nation's history for over 3,000 years.
DeMille's mistake is such a big deal because the Jewish claim of national revelation, as opposed to individual revelation, is the central defining event that makes Judaism different than every other religion in the world.
How so?

HISTORY AND LEGENDS
Two types of stories are part of any national heritage.

The first kind is legends. Included in this category is George Washington's admission to chopping down the cherry tree, along with his statement, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Johnny Appleseed planting apple trees across America with his discarded apple cores is another legend.
then there is history. For example, George Washington was the first president of the United States. William the Conqueror led the Battle of Hastings in 1066 in which Harold, King of England, was killed. The Jews of Spain were expelled from their country in 1492, the year Christopher Columbus set sail.

What is the difference between legend and history?
A legend is an unverified story. By their very nature legends are unverifiable because they have very few eyewitnesses. Perhaps little George did chop down the cherry tree. We can't know if it happened. This does not mean that the legend is necessarily false, only that it is unverifiable. No one thinks legends are facts, therefore they are not accepted as reliable history.
History, however, is comprised of events we know actually happened. It is reliable because we can determine if the claimed event is true or false through a number of ways. One key to verification is the assertion that large numbers of eyewitnesses observed the specific event.
Why is the number of claimed original witnesses a principal determining factor in making historical accounts reliable? This can be understood through looking at the nature of the following series of claims and weighing their levels of credibility. The nature of the claim itself can often determine its degree of believability.

BELIEVABILITY
Gauge the level of credibility of the following scenarios.
Some claims are inherently unverifiable. For example, would you believe me if I told you the following:

Scenario 1
'Last week after dinner, I went for a walk through the forest near my house. Suddenly everything was awash in a tremendous light and God appeared to me, designating me as His prophet. He told me to announce this revelation to you at this time.'
Believable?
In theory this could have happened. It doesn't seem likely, but you don't know I'm lying. Would you choose to believe me?
Without any substantiating evidence, why choose to believe me? A foolish move, indeed.

Scenario 2
Would you believe me if I told you the following:
'Last night while I was eating dinner with my family, the room started to suddenly shake and God's booming voice was heard by all of us. He designated me as His prophet and commanded me to announce this revelation.'
Believable?
This could have happened too. If I were to bring in my family to confirm the story it would be more believable than the first story. You certainly don't know if I'm lying.
Would you believe me? Would you fork over $10,000 if I told you God commanded you to do so?
No way. There is still not enough evidence to trust my claim - because it is very possible that my family is lying.

Scenario 3
There is another type of claim that you can know is false. For example, would you believe me if I told you this:
'Do you remember what happened 10 minutes ago as you began reading this article? Remember how the room started shaking, then the ceiling opened up to the skies, and you and I together heard God's booming voice come and say 'Thou shalt hearken to the voice of Nechemia Cooper for he is my prophet!' And then the room went back to normal and you continued reading. You remember that, don't you?'

Is this believable?
This claim is completely different. The two previous scenarios at least had the possibility of being true. You chose not to accept them because they were unverifiable. However this third scenario is impossible to believe. I'm claiming something happened to you that you know did not happen. Since you didn't experience it, you know I'm lying. I cannot convince you of something that you yourself know didn't happen.
This first type of claim - that something happened to someone else - is unverifiable, because you do not know for certain that the claim is a lie. Therefore it is possible for a person to decide to accept the claim as true if he really wanted to and take that leap of faith.
However, the other type of claim - that something happened to you - you know if it is inherently false. People do not accept patently false assertions, especially those that carry significant consequences.

SINAI: IMPOSSIBLE HOAX
So far we have seen two types of claims - one is unverifiable and the other is inherently false.
Could the revelation at Sinai have been a brilliant hoax, duping millions of people into believing that God spoke to them?
Let's imagine the scene. Moses comes down the mountain and claims, 'We all today heard God speak, all of you heard the God's voice from the fire...'
Assuming Moses is making it up, how would the people respond to his story?
'Moses! What are you talking about?! Boy, you sure had us going there for awhile. We may have even believed you if you came down and claimed that God appeared to you personally. But now you blew it! Now we know you're lying because you're claiming an event happened to us that we know didn't happen! We did not hear God speak to us from any fire!'

If the revelation at Sinai did not occur, then Moses is claiming an event everyone immediately knows is an outright lie, since they know that they never heard God speak. It is preposterous to think Moses can get away with a claim that everyone knows is lie.

REVELATION CLAIMED LATER IN HISTORY
Perhaps a hoax such as this could have been attempted at a later period in history. Perhaps the claim of national revelation did not originate at Sinai, but began, for example, 1,000 years after the event was said to have occurred. Perhaps the leader Ezra, for example, appears on the scene, introducing a book purported to be written by God and given to a people who stood at Sinai a long time ago.
Could someone get away with this kind of hoax? For example, would you believe the following:

'I want to let you in on a very little-known, but true fact. In 1794, from May until August, the entire continent of North America mysteriously sank under the sea. For those four months, the whole continent was submerged and somehow all animal, plant and human life managed to adapt to these bizarre conditions. Then, on August 31, the entire continent suddenly floated up to the surface and life resumed to normal.'

Is there a possibility that I'm telling the truth? Do you know for a fact that it is a lie? After all, it happened so long ago, how do you know it didn't happen? Maybe you learned about in school and just forgot about it.

You know NA did not sink hundreds of years ago for one simple reason: If it did, you would have heard about it. An event so unique and amazing, witnessed by multitudes of people would have been known, discussed, and passed down, becoming a part of history. The fact that no one has heard of it up until now means you know the story is not true, making it impossible to accept.

An event of great significance with a large number of eyewitnesses can't be perpetuated as a hoax. If it didn't happen, everyone would realize it is false since no one ever heard about it before. If such an event is indeed accepted as part of history, the only way to understand its acceptance is that the event actually happened...