From: dah@tko.vtt.fi (David Harwood)
Subject: Re: Out Of Context Zohar Passage Clarified
Organization: VTT
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:41:59 GMT

In article <9210081342.AA03397@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:

[...]
>In this case it's easy to discover whom is deceiving whom.  Just see
>how many of the early manuscripts and published editions of the Zohar
>had the Christological references that Carlson cited -- you'll find
>none other than the one.  In case you missed it, Carlson already
>admitted that he quoted a non-standard edition.
>
>In the Middle Ages, Church scholars tampered with Jewish sacred texts
>(the Talmud, the Zohar, and prayer books among others), deleting
>negative references to Jesus and Christianity and inserting supportive
>Christological references when they could.  This was done as part of
>their unceasing (and unprincipled) missionary efforts to convert Jews
>to Christianity.  Luckily these deceptions can be discovered by
>comparing the modified texts to texts from both outside the sphere of
>Christian influence and from other geographical areas within the
>Christian sphere of influence.
>
>Mr. Carlson's and Mr. Harwood's posts are disingenuous continuations
>of these deceptive missionizing practices.  Plainly said, it is
>dishonest to cite references from editions that are non-standard or
>that have been modified without explicitly stating those facts.
>
\\\\\\\\\\
Once again you are wrong, because you don't listen:
(i) I denied that Bill was mistranslating his source, which is well-known.
(ii) I complained that your anonymous 'expert' friend doesn't do his
homework, in reponding Bill's citation. His reponse missed the mark,
and more so if he was aware of Bill's source.
(iii) I said myself thst Bill's quotation came from a version of Zohar.
(iv) I am not a Zohar enthusiast, and while there are some flashes of
insight in it, it is mostly fanciful and misleading; and I would not use
it to argue seriously about the Trinity. (It is more relevant as a late
reflection of earlier Jewish 'mystical' tradition, before and after Jesus.)
(v) The suggestion that the Shema refers to the Trinity predates the Zohar,
even in Christian polemic. I do not accept this rationalization, which is
perhaps more significant for a Jew (which I am not). It never is mentioned
in the NT, which says plenty about God, "the Father", His Son, and His Spirit,
who are persons of the Trinity.
(vi) I already know that Christians, and the Catholic Church in particular,
have seized Jewish religious manuscripts and censored them in the past. (There
have always been other uncensored copies, for example of the Talmud, although
censored copies were often used in Jewish schools. Frankly, from what I have
heard of comparisons, not much of interest or importance to us now was 
censored - mostly references considered offensive.) Tampering with text is
another matter. It is generally agreed that some Christians of the earliest
times alterred contemporary Jewish religious writings (esp. liturgical works
and hymns), for their own Christian purposes. But generally early Church
fathers did not alter the Bible, although they did interpret it from a
Christological perspective (they also consulted and argued with rabbis),
and they occasionally (not often) advanced a bad translation of some verse
for religious reasons (This does not mean they were dishonest.).
(vii) I suppose that some rabbis, and other Jews of some circles and sects
in history, have also alterred texts and promulgated falsehoods as well,
for religous reasons.
(viii) The Zohar may have popular among some Christian 'kabbalistic'
circles in the past centuries, so it is conceivable, to me, that there
are versions which may have been alterred for misguided religious reasons.
It could have been editted in or out. It is hard to tell sometimes, when
you consider the acrimonious relations of Jews and Christians, as well as
violent persecutions of Jews by Christians. (Example is the putative
reference to Jesus in Josephus, of late first century. It is no longer
clear that this is an 'interpolation' according to one of the most renown
Jewish academic scholars, G. Vermes, who has changed his mind about this
recently.)
(ix) But BC's version is well-known and so is his polemical quote, even if
it is unheard of by your friend, called for his expert testimony, albeit
anonymously.
(x) I agree with you that if he was aware, Bill should have said, as he did
afterward, that this quote was from a version. And perhaps both he and your
friend might have done some research on its authenticity, as assessed by
some real scholarship, not motivated by religious polemics.

I have already appealed to important members of the Catholic Church,
one a translator of two books of the Bible (of the OT period) for the
NAB and recent NRSV, that the Church should return to the Jews, say of
a library of Israel, any Jewish manuscripts which have been wrongfully
taken from their people at any time of history. (I do think digital 
facsimiles of these and all Vatican libary manuscripts should be made
in order to preserve them forever without corruption. I recently proposed
to digitize the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, and was about to enter
a negotiation about this, however this was prevented by an Israeli
scholar. Some people are jealous of their manunscripts.) On the other
hand, I donated my copy of volumes of Zohar to the UMd campus Hillel
years ago, along with a Rashi Chumash. (Rashi is better than Zohar, and
just as 'kabbalistic' in parts ;-) No - I did not buy them in a Christian
bookstore, but somewhere near your neighborhood, almost. Today I might
find them in a Messianic Jewish bookstore - who knows? Your 'expert'
friend will anonymously protest? ;-)

D.H.
Newsgroups: alt.messianic