Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01574)

Alexis - further to our previous exchange, I referred to the proof copy
of your work for the relevant passage(s) and found the following, into
which I have interposed a number of remarks (indented for clarity):

------------

"In response to the obvious and completely natural need for such
philosophical roots, the Jews, slowly responding to those needs
over very long periods of time, eventually developed the Q'abbalah
in twelfth century Spain.....which superimposed a Jewish vocabulary
upon the metaphysics of Other cultures."

   In your book, you give no sources or citations to support
your arguments, so that your sources of information are unverifiable.  I
hope you will remedy this lack in the final version.

   Where, for example, did you get this curious spelling Q'abbalah from?
It *has* been misused in this way by one of the German O.T.O. writers,
but I would hope your information on the subject came from more reliable
and authentic sources.

   The word derives from a Hebrew root describing "reception" as in
"oral tradition."  The metaphysical activities in 12th century Spain are
well known to scholars, but the most well-known "kabalist" text (The
Zohar) from this period does not derive from Spain, although there
appear to have been Jewish schools in [esp.] Toledo around that time and
later.  The origins of Kabala are much earlier.

   The Kabbalist scholar G.G.Scholem ["Origins of the Kaballah,"
Princeton University Press, 1990, p.5] states:

   'Unfortunately, the most voluminous Kabbalistic work of the
thirteenth century, the ~Zohar~ ... must be entirely eliminated from
this discussion of the origin and early stages of the Kabbalah.' (He
goes on to give reasons at length).  (N.B. the different spelling in the
title of the book and that used by the author are as published).

"What were these cultures, what exactly inspired this pious nonsense?
Well, at first they were primarily the Persian, Mazdazdian and
Zoroastrian which the Jews first "picked up" during the Babylonian
captivity."

   This is a very sweeping generalization, unsupported by any material
dating from the stated periods.  I do not say you are entirely wrong,
but the use of the word "nonsense" requires backup to support the claim.

"Then, later on, after Alexander's conquests, and the Empires of his
Generals (particularly the Seleucid dynasty which encompassed Syria and
Palestine) there was the Greek influence of Zeno and the skeptics and
especially of Epictetis. Next, there came the Roman Empire. The Roman
Empire introduced the further developed stoicism of Marcus Aurelius and
others and the metaphysical speculations of Lucretius and Apulius. After
the Roman influence there were the Gnostic, Manichean, and Neo-Platonic
metaphysical philosophies. To this was added during the early middle
ages much numerological and semantical nonsense."

   An entire period from the Babylonian captivity of the *Hebrews* to
the middle ages seemingly dismissed in part of one paragraph!  Certainly
the numerological and word-play speculations of 16th and 17th century
writers invite incredulity, but how does that connect with Marcus
Aurelius?

"All in all, and especially so because it still tries to operate within
the paradigm of an omnipotent all seeing all knowing "God", the
Q'aballah is despite that devotional flavor, totally intellectual. The
Q'aballah is simply fascinating, but altogether too complicated,
nonsense. It is very like, and no more real than "Dungeons and
Dragons"."

   While this may bear some relation to the ramblings of some of the so-
called "magicians" [*some* of them], as a statement it demonstrates a
considerable misunderstanding of what Kabala really is, at the very
least!  Both the late G.G.Scholem, a Jewish scholar way outside my
league, and myself, have each spent over 40 years engaged in studying
Kabala and its origins.  From what you have written, it would seem you
have spent very little time at all with it, and I commend you to further
study.

"In a different, and much earlier response to the identical need,
the Pharisaical Rabbinate, in the persons of its leading scholars
and legalists met at Caesarea Phillippi to codify Judaism. Out of
this meeting, both the old testament as we know it, and the
Talmud.....evolved."

   Which leading scholars, and at what date(s)?  Which Talmud, the
Babylonian or the Jerusalem?

"In response to this same deeply felt need, many Jews had drifted,
and were drifting, away to other belief structures. Lastly, in a
further response to this same need, there evolved in the period of
which I am speaking, a group called the Essenes. The Essenes were
an outgrowth or extension of another group of metaphysical philoso-
phers and mystics. This "other group" was a group of an ascetic,
semi-monastic(non-celibate), communal persuasion, they were of non-
Jewish origins and they were called The Therapeutae."

   The Essenes, insofar as we have record of them, appear to have had no
connections outside the narrow confines of Palestine.  The Therapeutae,
whilst originating in Egyptian Jewish communities, were vegetarians,
whereas the sect(s) described as Essenes were not.  None of the ancient
authors (Philo, Josephus) support that notion that either group was an
'outgrowth' or 'extension' of the other.  It would seem very unlikely
that they were even acquainted with each other.

   As I have pointed out elsewhere ("The Nazarenes") it was perfectly
possible in Palestine for a Pharisee to be an Essene at the same time,
and the origin of the term "Essene" from the Greek word for a healer is
questionable.  The term "Therapeutic" with regard to healing has however
been long established.  The Therapeutae, contrary to your statement
above, *did* derive from Jewish origins, if our ancient authors,
especially Philo, are to relied upon.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html