From: dah@tko.vtt.fi (David Harwood)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Out of context Zohar passage clarified
Date: 7 Oct 92 09:53:05 GMT
Organization: VTT

In article <1992Oct6.134032.16704@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dah@tko.vtt.fi (David Harwood) writes:
>In article <9210051246.AA11189@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
>>A friend of mine wishes to submit the following:
>>
>>----- BEGIN
>>
>>Carlson's citation of the Zohar (if indeed Carlson is its author) is a
>>gross mistranslation.  At best it shows a complete lack of
>>understanding of the passage's plain meaning, intention, and context.
>>The plain meaning is changed to the point of fabrication.  The context
>>is absolutely ignored -- the context being the manifestation of the
>>Unity into creation ...
>[...omitted ...]
>
>\\\\\\\\\\\\
>
>While I'm not enthusiastic about the Zohar, and while I agree that the
>commentary does not refer to the Trinity per se, the passage cited by
>Carlson is well-known among scholars, and no doubt a theological 
>embarrassment to Orthodox Jews. And the response offered above to BC's
>citation is phoney enough.
>
\\\\\\\\\\

To clarify: I mean that the response made by Rob L's "friend" is
anonymous, and is "phoney enough" to indicate that that person is
"theologically embarrassed" by the passage cited by BC. 

(See BC's more polite reply, which is no doubt reminds us of the patience
of Paul and of Jesus himself, in dealing with opponents ;-)

While we are at it - this passage of a well-known version of Zohar
(of which Rob's "friend" is surely aware) - is not miss-translated according
to scholars, as the other person said. And while I am at it - you frequently
hear from some religious Jews that the "translations" used by others are
all wrong. This this a "warning" signal to you - most of the time -
that someone is being deceptive. Most Jewish texts are translated by
expert, religious Jewish scholars, who are far more expert than most
rabbis. Moreover, with respect to modern Bible translations, it is not
true that rabbis of modern or early times know more about Biblical Hebrew
and relevant Biblical languages and ancient textual variants than do 
modern, even non-Jewish scholarly translators. On the contrary, they know 
far less (primarily) because they never study these subjects seriously.
They focus on a much more narrow literature. (I know that to get a PhD
in Biblical studies at some US Cathlic universities, you have to study
and be proficient in 3 ancient Biblical languages besides Biblical Hebrew,
and an additional two are strongly recommended; and addition it is
required that you master 2 modern European langauges besides English,
so that you can read the current scholarly literature on Biblical studies.
That is a minimum of 7 languages that are used all the time in their work.
(I know very competent Orthodox Jews, including a seminarian, medical
school professor (physician - and very nice guy, intersted in Jewish
mysticism), and very scholarly rabbi. They do not pretend to know this
vast literature. (They do know more about Jewish interpretative traditions,
generally, but not about special studies or about historical linguistics
and texts.) Besides this, you sometimes hear - even in this newsgroup -
that Christians mistranslated some of the Bible. This is true sometimes,
but rarely in modern times. Moreover, the criticisms offerred are often
deliberately ignorant - since they refer to translations made in the
New Testament (Greek, some from LXX rabbis) or from some of the best
rabbis (LXX) of pre-Christian times or from Aramaic, Syriac or other
Targums, or from Qumran or other pesher or ancient commentaries. Now
most rabbis have never study these things carefully. Moreover, these ancient
translations, however disputably interpretative (and non-literal as they
may be sometimes), are made by ancient and expert Jews who knew their
ancient traditions of Biblical interpretation far better than post-
Christian rabbinical tradition. Moreover, the post-Christian Masoretic
text is an edition, a very reasonable one, which is apparently different 
in hundreds of verses from ancient texts (even from those found at Qumran).
It is very largely the same. And so is there a largely same, and Jewish
origin for most Christian translations. Even the most influential Latin
Bible - of Jerome - was made, apparently, with continual consultation with
rabbis.


Ancient rabbinical tradition advises that Jews condescend to others
who pose difficult religious questions - by giving them deliberately
evasive answers, which are not truthfully forthcoming, and so send them
away. There are also principles of textual interpretation (which are
and conveniently (mis)applied, among themselves. We are duly advised of
some by Rob's "friend". The point is that his response is "phoney"
because it is condescending but not truthfully forthcoming about what
was posted. To use the principle of "plain sense" (to which he refers
Rob's anonymous "friend" was trying to pull the rabbinical wool over
our eyes. He is not trying to enlighten us, but to obscure.


Nevertheless, thus saith the Lord, " ... in the latter time He will
make glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond Jordan, Galilee of
the (Gentile) nations...The people who walked in darkness
			have seen a great light;
			those who lived in a land of deep darkness -
			on them light has shined."

And			"The Lord has bared His holy arm
			before the eyes of all the nations;
			and all the ends of the earth shall see
			the salvation of our God."

And			"The light (of Christ Jesus) shines in the darkness,
			and the darkness did not overcome it."
			
And			"Sleeper, awake! Rise from the dead,
			And Christ will shine on you."

			[I might note that in the only reference in the New
			Testament to the conversion of the Jews, Paul compares
			it to a "resurrection of the dead." (Like Ezekiel's
			vision of the dry bones of Israel refers to a spiritual
			resurrection of Israel.]

Elsewhere it is worth reminding ourselves of what the great apostle Paul
said:

			"For now we see in a mirror, dimly as an enigma,
			but then we will see face to face..."

And elsewhere,          "All of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory
			of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are
			being transformed into the same from one degree of
			glory into another...(that of Christ, who is the
			image of God)

			"And even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to
			those who are perishing. In their case, the god of
			this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers,
			to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel
			of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

			For we do not proclaim ourselves, we proclaim
			Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves
			for Jesus' sake.

			For it is the God who said, 'Let light shine out
			of darkness,' who has shone in our hearts, to give
			the light of the knowledge of the glory of God
			in the face of Jesus Christ. (ie as the 'face' of
			God - His manifest but supernatural appearance)

And			...Just as we have the same spirit of faith that
			is in accordance with scripture -- 'I believed,
			and so I spoke' -- we also believe, so we speak,
			because we know that the One who raised the Lord
			Jesus will raise us also with Jesus, and will bring
			us with you into his presence."


\\\\\\\\\

	We give thanks to the Lord
	- He is good -
	for His merciful love - shown to us in Christ Jesus,
	endures forever.


D.H.

(I *have to* retire from this, else I will never finish my *real* work
here ;-)