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.

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.