Lost in Translation - 1512 Stela

 The 1512 Kaifeng Stone Inscriptions- Explained

Little understood and long time ignored was the 1512 inscriptions of the Kaifeng Jews.

Why was it misunderstood? At the outset, Bishop White translated the stela out of historical context looking for traces of Christianity in the text.  Failing that, he translated the text as is, without checking for Chinese historical context.   Compounding this ignorance, was the “Survival of the Chinese Jews” a comprehensive work of Donald Leslie an Australian scholar who commented: “it is not clear why it was written.”  Chinese scholars were of no help either. They did not have to translate the text but they did not necessarily understanding its content.

So why was this inscription so hard to decipher? The simple answer is that this particular text must be read in a historical context of an Israelite with faint memory of some Jewish prayers and at the same time a neo Confucian scholar.

What is Neo Confucianism and how does this text differ from a regular Confucian text?

The Neo Confucian movement started in the late 8^th Century CE  as a protest against the penetration of Buddhism into China and influenced China until the late 19^th century CE.  During the Tang Dynasty (618-960) Buddhism swept over China like a sandstorm and many Chinese followed the path of Buddhism along the rites of Confucianism. Gradually, Buddhism became more dominant and the rituals of Confucianism became weakened. Confucianism was on the verge of extinction.  

To counteract the simple messages of Buddhism, the neo Confucians used li rational thinking to lure back the Chinese masses. Li was the Neo Confucians word for “rational thinking” or, to explain the Chinese Classics by the way of reasoning.  The difference between the Confucius and the Neo Confucians was the that former rarely if ever explained the reasons behind ceremonies and rites; it fell on Neo Confucians to use reasoning and logic to explain the Classics. They reasoned that once they expunged the Buddhist influence from the Confucian principles, the Confucian Way was far superior to the mindless Buddhism practices.  It was just a matter of explaining the Confucian way in a reasonable manner.

That was how Zuo Tang, the author of the 1512 inscriptions treated this inscription.  He reasoned that the success of the Israelites in the ancient city of Kaifeng was attributed to their steadfast religious beliefs that were compatible with Dao of the neo- Confucians.  According to him the word Dao carried similar connotation for the Israelite as that for the Neo Confucians. The former referred to Elohim while the latter to the Mind of the Neo Confucian:

“What is Dao, [it] is Mind. The people try to find Dao everywhere;

But to seek elsewhere is to seek outside; Why not seek it where it is, in your Mind” .

Thus wrote Yang Qian (1141-1227) one of the most important thinkers of the Lu School of Neo-Confucian thought. Apparently, Zuo Tang was impressed by the poems of Yang Qian and if we juxtapose this poem with the 1512 inscriptions we can see the similarities in composition and style:

“It is often said that the scriptures are full with Dao. But how about the followers of Dao?  They use it everyday. People in antiquity and today gathered together to follow its principles (li).”  (1512 Inscriptions)

 In addition, Zuo Tang showed that the Israelites adapted to life in China at the time without sacrificing their religious beliefs.  Large segments of the 1512 inscriptions depicted the daily life of the Israelites in Kaifeng as if it were an unfolding Chinese scroll. He also showed that the Chinese Way and Judaism had many similarities and neither Judaism nor the Chinese would have survived without their respective Dao.  Such a claim should have been quite revealing, since not many Chinese had enough knowledge of Judaism to realize that Judaism would not exist without the Torah.

Furthermore, Zuo Tang had skillfully weaved fragmentary parts of Biblical prayers that he might have still remembered with the Chinese classics in such a way as they became almost indistinguishable. For the Jews : “The Dao [Elohim] without the scriptures cannot exist, the Scriptures without Dao cannot be implemented, makes it a non-Scripture.” For the Chinese:“ [if] Dao [mind] is without fulfillment, people will be reckless will not know what to do, they will suddenly talk non-sense.”  

The 1512 inscription indicated that Zuo Tang was a follower, perhaps a disciple of the Lu School of neo Confucianism, yet he did not abandon his Jewish roots. He inscribed in stone some of the Jewish prayer that he remembered for future generations.  As far as his Chinese background, he seemed to be associated more with the Southern Song Dynasty (1126-1279) as the Lu School of neo Confucianism was more prevalent in Zhejiang Province. Unfortunately, this little fact went unnoticed by Westerners and lead to minimizing the importance of the 1512 inscription.  But it did not go unnoticed by Chinese scholars. They claim that details provided by Zuo Tang matched some of their finding about Jewish personalities and their occupation in ancient Kaifeng.  

(For a full translation and annotation of the inscription see: The Kaifeng Stone Inscriptions: the Legacy of the Jewish Community in Ancient China.) Available on Amazon.