Judasim and China: personal perspective

Judaism and China is a topic that is close to me both personally and professionally: personally because I was raised as an orthodox Jew, and professionally because I have studied Chinese and China for most of my adult life. I have a very close affinity to China and an almost native insight. Having said that, I feel that I made a unique contribution to this field by writing three insightful books about the relationship between these two cultures. There is little doubt in my mind that these two cultures are closely related, and witness to it is the large amount of literature published lately. Unfortunately this literature seems to me lopsided, the authors know one culture in depth and the other one only superficially.
Western writers, including many  Jewish ones, compare the two culture with heavy emphasis on the Jewish point of view. Undoubtedly, they are familiar with Judaism, but their knowledge of China is quite superficial. Chinese writers publish papers on Judaism, mostly Western works translated into Chinese. Content wise the articles are tightly regulated and heavily censored.  Quite often the articles are published under the name of the Chinese "writer", leaving out the author of the original western work.  Plagiarizing is common in China and there is no legal remedy. Most of these articles are distributed in China only, rarely, if ever, seen by Westerners. Accidentally I came across my own work  published under the name of one of my "Chinese colleagues". I remember that instance since we discussed the issue of plagiarism and I was assured that "we (Chinese) do not plagiarize".

But I have seen and read some of these publications and I am here to relay my own observations.  I used to collaborate with several Chinese writers and scholars on translating articles into English and I also used to read their articles in Chinese for historical accuracy, meaning and context. Unaware at the time, I was actually helping the Chinese to plagiarize my works! I have never received credit for my input, because the general Chinese policy is to forbid Westerners to publish in China.
I used to travel to China on business and sometimes attend seminars.  A word about the seminars that I attended. They are usually packaged with an organized tour. From the Chinese perspective the emphasis is on the tour while the seminar is secondary.  Officially, the tour organizers arrange for tourist visas. In between tours, time is allotted for seminars. It quickly became  apparent to me that that the entire event was staged for the benefit of the foreign guests. As long as the Chinese did not realize that I am fluent in Chinese, everything was nice and clean. Gradually as they realized that my fluency afforded me unlimited access to the Chinese "invited guests", the situation took a dramatic turn. I was not allowed to interact freely with the Chinese audience without an "official translator". But it was too late. I had already found out what was behind the so called "seminars on Judaism" and the Jewish studies in China.
These seminars were part of "group tours" to attract Jewish tourists to visit China (and spend money), and while there talk about the Chinese Jews.
To fill these events with a live audience, the Chinese organizers have invited many Chinese scholars, students or fellows from throughout China to attend. The minimum qualification to be invited was to know where Israel is, or knows the word "shalom"or knows the Chinese word of yotairen (Jew).  Preference was given to those Chinese who knew some in English.
I had the privilege of mingling with the Chinese students and audiences. Initially I spoke freely with them in Chinese. It was a pleasure to converse with them since they did not have enough command of the English language to carry on a conversation, let alone for a more in depth exchange of ideas. That pleasure did not last long. The organizers, lead by Prof. Xuxin, Director of the Nanjing Jewish Project, realized that my ability to converse freely in Chinese with guests  probably worried the Chinese officials. It did not take long before I found out that I was given one or two escorts or rather "interpreters" and my contact with the audience was completely cut.
I was also scheduled to give a talk on my then forthcoming book "The Kaifeng Stone Inscriptions" and my findings of biblical relevance. Before I even had a chance to talk, I was told in no uncertain terms that I was to speak in English, and not allowed to address the audience in Chinese. Of course I immediately protested, pointing out that very few in the audience would understand. That was not important to them and I was sternly warned to talk in English.
I did. But I cut my speech short, to about five minutes from the allotted twenty minutes. I also made an impromptu change: instead of talking about my research I talked about the mistake that I saw on a map in the Kaifeng Jewish Museum. The Caspian Sea bordered Romania on the Chinese map!  The Chinese did not care, the audience had no idea what I talked about and that was the end of the story.
For them but not for me.
I kept in touch with several scholars through e-mail and I did some translations and for them, edited articles, exchanged ideas. In exchange I wanted to get copies of their studies in Chinese about Judaism, which the scholars were more than happy to share. I obtained quite a few articles and books published in China in Chinese. I read all of them and a picture emerged in my mind that there is a duplicity of what the Chinese say to us Westners and what they say to the local audiences. In short, the Jewish studies programs were a tightly controlled subject, and in my mind, is nothing more than a sham.
One day when I was collaborating with a Chinese scholar on an article, I asked to get a copy of the Chinese version. The Chinese scholar called Prof. Xuxin to ask pemission and all hell broke lose.  Apparently  Xuxin was very upset and he immediately forbade any contact between Chinese scholars and me. Suddenly, the Chinese tour guide, expert in Judaism and "friend of" the Jews, former Red Guard "teacher" member of the Communist Party revealed his true identity. He was but an agent who was  permitted to attract Jewish tourists and business to China. In the process he befriended many Jews, spent months in the US talking in synagogues about Judaism and China, was a welcome guest among Jewish communities who did not realized that he was just a good cadre following the party line. 

Alina Patru: The Covenat (Review in Romanian)

REVISTA TEOLOGICĂ 1 / 2011

Rezumat >> Articol intreg >> PDF >> Despre Autor

Navigheaza la sfarsit

Tiberiu Weisz, The Covenant and the Mandate of Heaven. An In-Depth Comparative Cultural Study of Judaism and China [Legământul şi Mandatul cerului. O analiză comparativă de profunzimi a iudaismului şi a Chinei], Ed. iUniverse, New York, 2008, 243 p., ISBN 978-0-595-44450-2.

Tiberiu Weisz este un autor evreu de origine română, de formaţie sinolog. Preocupările sale ştiinţifice s-au îndreptat spre legăturile istorice dintre evrei şi China, domeniu în care volumul său „The Kaifeng Stone Inscriptions. The Legacy of the Jewish Community in Ancient China” [Inscripţiile pe piatră de la Kaifeng. Moştenirea Comunităţii evreieşti în China străveche], apărut în 2006, s-a impus ca o lucrare de referinţă în cercetarea de specialitate. În spectrul aceloraşi preocupări se înscrie şi opera sa prezentă, o analiză de conţinut a reperelor principale ale iudaismului şi ale culturii chineze, realizată pe baza juxtapunerii surselor primare, a textelor sacre din cele două spaţii culturale, dar şi a materialelor istorice şi critice de dată mai recentă, mergând pe filonul istoriei până în ziua de azi.

Reflecţii asupra similitudinilor şi a diferenţelor celor două culturi ale omenirii cu cea mai veche existenţă neîntreruptă până astăzi s-au mai produs. Tiberiu Weisz este însă primul care realizează o comparaţie amplă, fundamentată pe surse şi bazată pe o muncă asiduă de peste 10 ani de zile şi pe o vastă erudiţie în domeniul ambelor culturi. Autorul are meritul de a cunoaşte iudaismul din interior, însă în acelaşi timp de a fi şi foarte bine familiarizat cu cultura chineză, înţelegându-i subtilităţile aproape ca un nativ. „Scopul meu este de a invita cititorii către un mod unic de a privi atât China, cât şi iudaismul, şi anume din interior, aşa cum sunt ele văzute de cei care trăiesc în culturile respective”, mărturiseşte el în „Introducere” (p. XVIII, trad. n.). Mai mult decât atât: Tiberiu Weisz cutează să propună ideea (de tip teologic) a unei unice surse din care ar proveni cele două culturi: „La nivel personal, scrierea acestei cărţi m-a provocat constant prin legătura implicită dintre cele două culturi. Nu am mai putut privi iudaismul dintr-o perspectivă pur evreiască, nici credinţele chineze dintr-una strict chinezească. Undeva şi cândva în trecutul îndepărtat, cele două culturi au izvorât dintr-o unică sursă”. (p. XVII, trad. n.)

Rezultatul demersului comparativ este o lucrare sintetică ce se opreşte asupra câtorva elemente centrale ale celor două religii şi culturi. Pe acestea însă le scrutează până în mari adâncimi, descoperindu-le intenţionalitatea mai puţin evidentă şi stabilind conexiuni la acest nivel al înţelegerii realităţii. Bun mânuitor al instrumentelor lingvistice, Tiberiu Weisz îşi retraduce, acolo unde este necesar, termenii în engleză sau alege dintre mai multe variante recurente în traduceri şi literatura secundară pe cea mai aptă să redea sensul primar.

Cartea urmează o cronologie aproximativă, tratând aspectele vizate în ordinea în care ele au apărut ca problematică religioasă. Primele sunt temele de conţinut cu caracter general: morfologia sacrului, legământul sau mandatul, mijloacele prin care se realizează acesta. Sunt tematizate apoi, în ordine, provocările exterioare generate de întâlnirea cu alte religii, epoca de aur a raţiunii, formele de mistică, reformele şi reformatorii, provocările timpurilor moderne, iar în final statalitatea.

Dincolo de paralelismele obişnuite pe care le-ar putea stabili cu uşurinţă orice cercetător (Elohim – Shangdi; Legământul lui Dumnezeu cu poporul Său – Mandatul pe care Shangdi îl încredinţează Fiului Cerului, împăratul, şi prin el poporului; Tora – cărţile Liji; shekhina – ta), Weisz lansează nişte ipoteze revoluţionare, cum ar fi, de exemplu, aceea că Laozi (604-531 î.Hr.), înţeleptul daoismului, în călătoria sa spre Vest, ar fi intrat în contact, pe Drumul mătăsii, cu ideile biblice şi mai ales cu istorisiri despre Israelul din vremea lui Solomon. Weisz este primul care susţine că anumite idei din „Daodejing”, lucrarea fundamentală a daoismului, atribuită în mod tradiţional lui Laozi, idei care sunt considerate originale în lumea chineză, ar fi de fapt de provenienţă veterotestamentară, că mica ţară cu o populaţie redusă, dar care trăieşte în prosperitate şi pace (Daodejing, par. 80) ar fi de fapt Regatul lui Solomon, ba chiar că stilul sentenţial al cărţii ar fi împrumutat de la „Proverbele lui Solomon” (p. 13 ş.u.). Dao, Unul, cel dincolo de orice conceptualizare, se suprapune în maniera în care este descris în Daodejing peste Elohim Unul, mai ales atunci când Acestuia I se atribuie caracteristici apofatice. Weisz îşi susţine teoria indicând locurile biblice ale căror formulări se regăsesc întocmai în Daodejing. Ele nu sunt puţine, iar identitatea de expresie e, într-adevăr, frapantă. Rămâne de văzut în ce măsură iopteza sa va câştiga adepţi şi va reuşi să se impună în lumea ştiinţifică internaţională.

Vom alege spre exemplificare şi o interpretare inedită a lui Weisz din spaţiul istoriei mai recente, şi anume aceea în care Hong Xiuquan (1814-1864), liderul militar şi harismatic al Rebeliunii de la Taiping (1851-1864), autodeclarat fratele mai mic al lui Iisus Hristos, este înţeles în spiritul mesianismului ebraic. Hong luptă pentru realizarea planului lui Dumnezeu în interiorul acestei lumi, ceea ce pentru chinezi s-ar traduce prin înlăturarea dinastiei de origine străină Qing şi refacerea regalităţii chineze cu centrul în vechea capitală Nanjing. Printre textele sacre cu ajutorul cărora Hong se legitimează se numără şi o traducere rudimentară a unor părţi din Biblia creştină în limba chineză. Tiberiu Weisz este însă de părere că valorile pe care şi le însuşeşte de aici Hong – cele zece porunci, monoteismul, misiunea mesianică – sunt mult mai apropiate de iudaism decât de creştinism (p. 148 ş.u.). Însuşi mesianismul său intramundan îl înscrie pe Hong cu uşurinţă pe linia personalităţilor mesianice evreieşti, în ceea ce priveşte atât expresia sa personală, cât şi urmările pe care apariţia unui asemenea fenomen le lasă asupra propriei culturi. Textele biblice la care face apel Hong Xiuquan sunt veterotestamentare, cu precădere cele ale profeţiei lui Isaia, motiv pentru Weisz se întreabă dacă nu cumva Hong face o confuzie între Isaia şi Iisus.

Mesianismul de factură iudaică al lui Hong este valorizat ca un nou argument pentru legătura inefabilă dintre cele două culturi. În acelaşi registru se înscrie întregul proces comparativ al lui Weisz. Adoptând o terminologie chineză, el sugerează că iudaismul ar putea fi considerat complementarul de tip yang pentru cultura de tip yin a Chinei. Iudaismul, unul dintre pilonii esenţiali ai civilizaţiei occidentale, capabil şi astăzi să îşi dinamizeze adepţii spre o solidă implicare în social, ar avea drept pandant civilizaţia chineză, rămasă izolată şi neînţeleasă vreme de milenii, favorizând retragerea, contemplaţia şi integrarea în ritmurile naturii…

Interpretările lui Weisz se propun lumii intelectuale ca nişte reflexii deosebit de interesante şi cu un grad ridicat de originalitate. Trebuie aşteptată apariţia altor specialişti cu un nivel similar de erudiţie în cele două domenii şi preocupare pentru analiza lor profundă. Doar atunci când va exista o pluralitate a interpretărilor va putea fi evaluat cu mai multă precizie aportul academic al lui Tiberiu Weisz. Meritul incontestabil al lucrării e aceea de a fi deschizătoare de drumuri, şi avem convingerea că va rămâne mult timp de acum încolo o piatră de hotar în cercetarea de specialitate.

Ca un minus al cărţii poate fi semnalată lipsa concluziilor sau a notiţelor rezumative, atât la încheierea fiecărui capitol, cât şi la final. Acestea ar fi facilitat cititorului procesul de ordonare a vastului spaţiu informaţional.

Pentru publicul român, lucrarea se prezintă ca o lectură plăcută şi care îmbogăţeşte, deschizând noi orizonturi nu doar spre înţelegerea a două spaţii şi culturi de o deosebită importanţă în istoria umanităţii, ci şi spre cunoaşterea modalităţilor prin care se poate realiza un demers comparativ fecund, capabil să contribuie la comunicarea interculturală a zilelor noastre.

Lect. Univ. Dr. Alina Pătru

Prof. Vera Schwarcz Reviews: The Covenant and the Mandate of Heaven

 The Covenant and the Mandate of Heaven: 
An In-depth Comparative Cultural Study of Judaism and China (iUniverse 2008)

By Tiberiu Weisz

Reviewed by : Prof. Vera Schwarcz,
 Director/Chair, Freeman Center for East Asian Studies, Wesleyan University, CT.

Reprinted in: Points East, A Publication of the Sino-Judaic Institute, Vol. 23 No. 2, July 2008

This is, simply put, a bold visionary book. It invites readers to contemplate distant and disparate events and thinkers in a way that weaves a common tapestry. The author is generous minded, erudite and provides readers with all the information needed for this cross-cultural journey. The challenge of this adventure remains daunting nonetheless. Kang Youwei’s words to Guangxu emperor in 1898 (quoted by Weisz on p 177) apply to reading this book as well: It is indeed like “climbing a tree to seek fish”- tough, but not foolish. In the end, the reward in understanding both Chin and Judaism is immense.

Tiberiu Weisz is not a newcomer to cross cultural dialogues.  With origins stretching back to Transylvania (like myself), he is familiar with the mixtures of languages and religions from back “home.” A long time scholar of the Kaifeng stones inscriptions and of the Jewish communities of ancient China, he was well prepared for a more wide ranging inquiry into the similarities between Chinese and Jews. To his great credit, Tiberiu Weisz took a full decade to assemble and re-translate key original documents from each of these different traditions in order to show a compelling complementarity between them. In the preface to The Covenant and The Mandate, he confesses “trepidation” at the scope of his inquiry.  This is understandable since Weisz’ book ranges from the ancient Liji and Tanach to the Cultural Revolution and the Holocaust. Even if one does not fully agree with author’s conclusion that Judaism is the “yang” to China’s “yin”-there is much in this important work to challenge, and to enrich, a wide variety of readers.

The focus throughout this carefully constructed book is upon similarities that never quite devolve into a forced identity between Chinese and Jewish cultural values. Starting with ideas of holiness embodied in Elohim and Shangdi, Weisz invites readers to follow the travels of Lao Zi “beyond the pass.”  Whether the Chinese and Jewish commitment to the one force underlying all natural phenomena or shared understanding of benevolent kingship can be traced to news of Solomon’s rule spreading through Central Asia is not, in my view, the central question. Rather what is most startling in this book is a symmetry of historical experiences that does indeed lead Chinese and Jews to become experts in cultural survival.  Weisz’ study goes beyond our current understanding of Chinese and Jewish traditions as the two oldest, uninterrupted cultures in the world. Many previous works (including my own Bridges Across Broken Times: Chinese and Jewish Cultural Memory) have circled this theme. What is fresh, and important in The Covenant and The Mandate, is the detailed, textual proof of exactly how Chinese and Jews confronted historical catastrophe and survived with renewed vigor.

Three key moments, Weisz argues, defined and shaped Jewish and Chinese worldviews. For Jews, the exile to Babylon in 586-516 BCE, the expulsion from Spain in 1492 and the 20^th century Holocaust provided fiery moments for self-definition and renewal. For Chinese, it was the imperial unification in 221 BCE, the Mongol conquest (1279-1368) and the more recent Cultural Revolution that challenged Confucianism and led to a new nationalist consciousness.  Each of these events (as well as many others) is discussed at length and documented in terms of the thought-legacy that it provided for two civilizations growing more and more skilful in adaptation and survival. Weisz’ analytical paradigm is most effective when he creatively juxtaposes important thinkers who are rarely considered side by side.  For me, reading about the Han Dynasty poet-statesmen Han Yu alongside the French biblical commentator Rashi provided new insight into both. In a later chapter, comparing the great rationalist synthesis of the Rambam with that of the Song dynasty philosopher Zhu Xi, I found that Weisz book provides both depth and an overview utterly unique.  This chapter is true eye-opening in terms of how two great traditions met the challenges of alien religions (Buddhism, Christianity and Islam) in a way that left each stronger and more compelling of the best minds of their days.

Subsequent comparisons between the maskilim of the Jewish enlightenment movement and the zhishi fenzi of China’s new culture movement in the 20^th century also shaped greatly my understanding of the dilemmas of modernization in a cross cultural context.  Large themes that we broach with our students about the global implications of cultural adaptation and social change are here put in a textual, philosophical and religious context that should gain for this book the attention of many readers.  Even where I disagree with Weisz parallelism between China’s communist revolution and Israel Zionist revival, I could not but acknowledge the boldness- and the utility- of thinking through such well-anchored comparative framework.  How Jewish and Confucian orthodoxies became challenged, and revived in the 19^th and 20^th century is hardly parochial question. Understanding the literary renewals as well as the political revolutions enacted (at great cost) by Jews and Chinese alike will help us grasp much better what lies ahead for humanity I future cultural adaptations.

The final value of Weisz study, I believe lies not in the majestic sweep of the arguments and conclusions. It does not really depend upon his tables, aligning Jewish and Confucian text or, even, upon the answer to his concluding question: “Will China succeed where Judaism “failed?” (a phrasing with which I disagree profoundly).  This is not what matters most.  Rather, the significance of this work lies in the possibility that it may- and I hope will! - be read by many Chinese and Jews seeking new insights into other cultures, as well as their own.  Imagine, Chinese students of Judaism learning for the first time the complex meaning of Shechina (God’s presence in the world below) in a way that few Jews are able to explain it even to themselves. Imagine Jewish readers being led along the path of familiar usage of mentsch to much deeper Chinese views of what it means to be fully human, wai ren.  By inviting us to think fresh about such key notions as teshuva (repentance in Hebrew) and fu gu (return to the ancients in Chinese), Weisz has raised the bar for substantial cross-cultural dialogue.

By bringing alive key moments such as Kang Youwei’s 1908 visit to the Wailing Wall, this book reveals to a broad reading public the prolonged, complex struggle of Chinese and Jews to hold on deeply humanistic civilization that cherish scholarly learning over military might.  As we stand on the verge of a bellicose 21^st century, books such as The Covenant and The Mandate may become our best hope for rescuing the sparks of human wisdom that Weisz shows to have been so plentiful in Jewish and Chinese tradition. Difficult as it may be to imagine, it is possible to climb trees in search of fish. In fact, as crises between nations and religions worsen all around us, there may be no way out other that to risk the deepest, most difficult inquiry into culture far apart.  This Weisz had done with courage, and success.

Book review

Jewish Religious Observances by the Jews of Kaifeng China

By Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons

Reviewed by Tiberiu Weisz

Kiriyat Arba, Israel,  June 2010

This book Jewish Religious  Observances by the Jews of Kaifeng China by Chaim Simons (Observances) is an alternative story of the customs of the Kaifeng Jews in China.  It explores the theory of how the Jews of Kaifeng would have observed the Jewish customs had the physical evidence survived. Very little hard evidence had been preserved from the Kaifeng Jewish community and Simons took on the daunting task of trying to prove that ““there is a source in the rabbinical literature for almost all the activities which the Jews of Kaifeng considered to be Jewish practice (Pg 7). “   

Simons’ assumption is that the religious practices of the Jews in Biblical times (pre - 586 BCE) were the same as in later times during the Rabbinic period (from c.a. 300 BCE ). He treats the hallacha (rabbinic code/Oral Law) in Observances as being the source of Judaism rather than making it clear that the Oral Law emerged as an interpretation to the Torah (Bible). Thus he neglects to differentiate between Judaism in biblical times, centered on the Temple and the services/ceremonies performed by Levite and Cohanim (priests) and Judaism in the rabbinic period centered on individual communities lead by Rabbis. This important transition in Jewish history is disregarded.  Instead the author has attributed Jewish religious practices of the Kaifeng Jews to rabbinic roots ignoring the evidence that pointed to biblical roots.

To substantiate his theory, Simons applied very loose interpretations to a rather large bibliographical material. Included are a few scholarly works, eyewitness accounts, observations, rumors and opinions. Though the bibliography is extensive, the Observances often emphasize opinions and unsubstantiated rumors by placing them in the realm of possibility. For example, Simons ponders whether or not the two ponds on the side of the old synagogue “could possibly be a mikva?” (ritual bath). He chose to believe that they served as mikva, one for men and one for women, which was in compliance with the rabbinic code. He dismissed the eyewitness’s accounts that stated clearly they did not see a mikva in Kaifeng. 

In another example, the author tried to show that the Jews of Kaifeng wore Tallith [prayer shawl], or Tsitsit (an everyday undergarment with fringe) or tefilin,  etc… in compliance with the rabbinical code. He detailed the hallacha of these garments and rejected the eyewitness accounts that: [they/eyewitnesses] “might have missed them”.  Or, in the case of the amida prayer, Simons had detailed the hallacha, but neglected to mention that the Chinese version was inscribed in the 1512 inscriptions and that the two versions were quite different. The Chinese version derived from biblical source, while Simons version was composed by the rabbis in exile. Similarly, many of Jewish concepts, prayers, and customs are detailed in the Observances according to the hallacha but with little relevancy to the Kaifeng Jews.

Dubious were also his sources for the mezuza. The Observances quotes a paper by Dr. Leslie Malkin from California entitled The Jews of China: “Ai [presumably the Ai who met with Ricci at the beginning of the 17th century] mentioned Hebrew character (sic) on the door frames of the homes, perhaps confirming that the Jewish families had a representation of the mezuzah on the doorpost. Though Malkin did not give his source of this information”, Simons treated Malkin’s opinion as fundamentally solid evidence. Furthermore, in the next paragraph, the author quoted from   “a book on mezuzot written by Dr. Belle Rosenbaum…” who “…does not state whether or not it (mezuza in Kaifeng) has been examined.” Yet, Simons assumed that: “Possibly this is the parchment inside the mezuzah” and proceeded as though it was evidence.

Even more questionable is Simons choice of translations. He chose to accept Bishop White’s translation despite the warning that “the Chinese scholar Wang Yisha claimed that he had found 123 errors or misleading statements in White’s book on China.” (pg. 13). One of the errors is the translation of the Chinese character for Liehwei (Levites). Bishop White translated it as a surname “Levi”, therefore by extension Rabbi Levi. But Leslie, an Australian scholar quoted extensively in the Observances, had his doubts and put a question mark after the world  “Levi?” Simons failed to include Leslie’s doubts. Another questionable choice of the translation was the strange interpretation offered by another Chinese scholar, Chen Changqi. Chen, a scholar of Buddhism with a very superficial knowledge of Judaism, wrote that: “since the Levi clan traditionally had always served as High Priests and Chief Rabbis, he too must have been a "Rabbi Levi" (pg.48 fn. 433). Apparently, Levites, priests and rabbis were the same to Chen, but what is troubling that Simon chose to ignore this obvious misinterpretation and use it as supporting evidence. Needless to say that Chen’s explanation was omitted in the Observances.

Historically, the book is inconsistent with the timelines. Although Simons mentioned in the introduction that the Kaifeng community preceded the rabbinic period (pre 300 BCE), he still proceeded with the “possibility” that the Kaifeng Jews observed the codes of Rambam (12^th century CE) and the Shulchan Aruch (16^th century CE).  He assumed that the Jews of Kaifeng observed these codes and then proceeded as though that might be true. Then he outlined the essence of Rambam and the Shulachan Aruch but neglected to frame in the historical context of the Kaifeng Jews He also failed to explain how these works had reached the isolated community in Kaifeng, or to tie them to the Chinese Jews.

These are just a few of the many examples that I found to be the norm in the Observances.  Primary sources are often paraphrased to comply with the author’s theory, and by and large out of context. If they do not support his theory they are ignored or dismissed. Secondary sources, opinions and general articles are given more weight as “possibilities” that, according to Simons, should have been taken into account. Other “possibilities” that, for instance, the Kaifeng Jews were Levites and Cohanim, or that they followed the tenets of the Torah were rejected offhand.

Simons displays a great knowledge of Judaism in the Observances, particularly in the area of rabbinic Judaism, and at the same time, he reveals a very rudimentary knowledge and understanding of China in general and the Chinese Jews in particular. His explanations of the hallacha are comprehensive, yet the corresponding explanations of the Chinese observances fall short.  In summation, the Observances contains very little unbiased information to advance our knowledge of the observances of the Jews of Kaifeng.