| |
Part II: Arguments of the Skeptics
Among the academics, Professors Gershom Scholem and Isaiah
Tishby both dismiss the testimony of Rabbi Moshe's widow and daughter as unreliable
third-hand evidence. Scholem (Major Trends p. 192) also dismisses Graetz's
conclusions, based on the above, that Moshe de Leon was "a base and
despicable swindler who tried to parade a fake profundity of thought..." as
"pure fantasy" on the part of Graetz. Scholem continues: "There
is nothing in the character of the Zohar and of Moshe de Leon's Hebrew
writings which justifies this view... Nor is there anything in them that might
predispose one to regard the alleged cynical remark to his wife as authentic; on
the contrary, the manner in which this remark is related rather suggests that
it owes its origin to the spite of persons ill-disposed towards the
author." (Major Trends, ibid.) (Scholem and Tishby, however, both
attribute the authorship of the Zohar to Moshe de Leon for other reasons that
will be discussed below).
The bulk of the arguments against Rashbi as the author of
the Zohar focus on the following areas:
1)
Topographical deceptions and errors: According to Profs.
Gershom Scholem (ad loc) and Isaiah Tishby (Mishnat HaZohar (English)
p. 63 ff.), an analysis of the names of places mentioned in the Zohar reveals
that its author used spurious place names, since several of the places
mentioned "are not mentioned in the Mishna or the Beraita or any
other place known to me!" (Scholem, ad loc) From this he concludes
that "the author had never so much as set foot in Palestine and that his
knowledge of the country was derived entirely from literary sources. Localities
which owe their existence in literature to the misreading of mediaeval Talmudic
manuscripts are selected as the stage of mystical revelations. Whole villages
are set up on the authority of some Talmudic passage the meaning of which has
eluded the author." Scholem brings as his prime proof a place called in
the Zohar "Kapotkia, which for the author is not the province of
Kappadocia in Asia Minor, but a village, apparently in the Lower Galilee,
frequently visited by the adepts on their journeys." (Major Themes,
ibid.) We will examine this claim
and show Kapotkia is mentioned numerous times in Targum Onkelos, Targum
Yonatan, Mishna, Beraita, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and Midrashim.
We will also look at the other places Scholem finds questionable.
2)
Language and
Grammar: "The Aramaic of the Zohar is a purely artificial affair, a
literary language employed by a writer who obviously knew no other Aramaic than
that of certain Jewish literary documents and who fashioned his own style in
accordance with definite subjective criteria.... Throughout these writings the
spirit of mediaeval Hebrew, specifically the Hebrew of the thirteenth century,
is transparent.... "
Although I am not a scholar of early Aramaic grammar, I will show that many of
the same word forms are also used in Targum Onkelos, Targum Yonatan, Mishna,
Beraita, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and Midrashim, and
are not exclusive to the Zohar.
3)
Vocabulary and phraseology: "One frequently encounters
mediaeval Hebrew expression, particularly from the language of the
philosophers, in Aramaic disguise." (Major Themes p. 165) According to the
academics the author also misunderstood certain expressions that he found in
his literary sources, and "stretches the meaning of ancient words in an
entirely arbitrary fashion and frequently employs them for the purpose of
paraphrasing termini technici." (Major Themes p. 165.) We will
again examine the list of words with which Scholem and Tzvi Kedari provide us
and compare them with words used in Targum Onkelos, Targum Yonatan, Mishna,
Beraita, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and Midrashim.
4)
Medieval concepts found in the Zohar: We will again
examine whether these concepts are exclusive to the Zohar, or whether
they are also found in other ancient sources.
5)
Biographical and
chronological errors: "The contradictions and the chronological
inexactitudes which appear in connection with the rabbis mentioned in the Zohar
are the most obvious indications of its pseudo-epigraphic character... The
earliest Tannaim and the latest Amoriam are put together, even as members of
the same band of scholars...." (Mishnat HaZohar p. 58-9) There
are also "chronological contradictions and mistakes in nomenclature..."
(Mishnat HaZohar, ibid) We will deal with this criticism by making a
general observation regarding the format of Talmudic literature.
Finally, we will examine writings of kabbalists and other
sources preceding Moshe de Leon who have clearly used concepts found in the Zohar
in their writings, proving that they had access to these documents long before
Moshe de Leon came on the scene. We will also present some modern academic
views ideas as to the authorship of the Zohar.
To return to the previous article in this series on the Authenticity of the Zohar,
The Zohar's Mysterious Origins, click here
To continue on to the next article in this series on the Authenticity of the Zohar,
Responses to the Claims of the Skeptics, click here
(See Part III)
Footnotes:[1] Major Themes p. 163. See also Isaiah Tishby's Mishnat HaZohar p. 54 (English
version).
|
