Biblical Influences in Chinese Literature

This is the second article in the series Is Judaism the yang of China's Yin? based on my book The Covenant and the Mandate of Heaven- an in-depth Comparative Cultural Study of Judaism and China (iUniverse 2008)

http://www.asianjewishlife.org/pages/articles/AJL_Issue_11_Jan2013/AJL_Viewpoint_Biblical-Influence-Chinese-Lit.html

Is Judaism the Yang of China's Yin?

This is the first in a series of articles articles that are base on on my book The Covenant and the Mandate of Heaven- an in-depth Comparative Cultural Study of Judaism and China (iUniverse 2008). This article was first published in Asian Jewish Life.

http://www.asianjewishlife.org/pages/articles/AJL_Issue_10_Sept2012/AJL_Feature_Jewish-Yang-Chinese-Yin.html

No Bread - No Degree

This is the fourth article in the series of Is Judaism the Yang of China's yin? based on my book The Coveant and the Mandate of Heaven- an in-depth Comparative Cultural Study of Judaism and China (iUniverse 2008). Available on Amazon
Published in Asian Jewish Life


http://www.asianjewishlife.org/pages/articles/AJL_Issue_15_Oct2014/AJL_Issue15_Feature_No-Bread-No-Torah.html

Book Review :(English text of Alina Patru Review of The Covenant...

Revista Teologica 1/2011
 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.

Reviewed by Dr. Alina Patru, University Lecturer .
Translated from Romanian.

Tiberiu Weisz is a Romanian born Jewish author and a trained Sinologue. His scientific orientation led him to the connection between Jews and China, a topic that was published in 2006, his work “The Kaifeng Stone Inscriptions” a reference work that established him as a specialist researcher. This work has similar orientation, continues to compare the principal tenets of Judaism and Chinese culture by not only juxtaposing primary sources of the sacred texts of both cultures but also by merging historical sources and critical data with more recent and updated material. There were studies that reflected on the similarities and differences of some cultures that had survived uninterrupted until today. But Tiberiu Weisz was the first to provide a comprehensive and fundamental comparison based on primary sources and on 10 years of difficult research of both cultures. The author is credited with knowing Judaism from the inside out and at the same time he is very familiar with the Chinese culture understanding its subtleties almost as a native. As he tells in the Introduction: “My goal is to treat readers to a unique way of looking at China and Judaism, from inside out as experienced by those within the culture” (pg. xviii). Moreover, Tiberiu Weisz went further to propose an idea that of the origin of these two cultures derived from one (theological) source “On a personal level, writing this book constantly challenged me with implied link between these two cultures. I could not look at Judaism from purely Jewish point of view, nor could I look at Chinese belief from a purely Chinese point of view. Somewhere and sometime in the distant past, these two cultures emanated from one source” (pg. xvii) The result of the comparative approach is a synthetic work that focuses on several central elements of the two religions and cultures. To attain this, he examines the sources in great depth, discovers the less obvious clues of evidence and establishes realistic connections at this level of understanding. Utilizing good skills of linguistic tools, Tiberiu Weisz retranslates, where necessary, the terms in English or he chooses the most appropriate interpretations in secondary literature that is most suitable to the [textual] meaning of the primary sources. The book follows an approximate timeline treating the topics in same order as the religion evolved. First, topics of general content are addressed: The formation of the Divinities, the Covenant and the Mandate of Heaven and the Divine connection. Then it is categorized according to topics in this order, external challenges posed by other religions, the golden age of rationalism, rise of mysticism, reformers and the reformation, the challenges of modern times and finally the establishment of Statehood [Israel and China]. Apart from the obvious parallels that could have been simply established by any researcher (Elohim- Shangdi; Covenant–Mandate of Heaven; Torah- Liji), Weisz launches a revolutionary theory such as, for example, that Laozi (604-531 BCE ), the founder of Daoism, on his journey to the West on the Silk Road, came in contact with biblical ideas, especially with tales about Israel in time of King Solomon. Weisz is the first who claims that certain ideas from Daodejing, the source of Daoism, attributed traditionally to Laozi and considered to be originated in China, were in fact borrowed from biblical stories in the Proverbs of Solomon: “a small country with few people, who lives in peace and prosperity” (Daodejing, # 80) that emulated the conditions during reign in the Kingdom of Solomon (pg. 13). DAO, the One, in the way in which it is described in Daodejing, is superimposed over Elohim, and overrides any other concepts especially when its attributes are divine features. Weisz strengthens his theory by pinpointing quotes in the Daodejing found in biblical literature. There are several, and identifying them is indeed amazing. It remains to be seen to what extent [his] theory wins followers and will be accepted by the international scientific world. We choose an example of Weisz interpretation from an unexpected topic in recent history, namely that of Hong Xiuquan (1814-1864), the charismatic leader of of the Taiping Rebellion (1851-1864) who self appointed his younger brother as Jesus Christ, and examined in the spirit of Jewish messianic movement. Hong fought to implement God’s plan in this world, which, as far as Chinese were concerned, was to overthrow the foreign Qing Dynasty and restore a native Chinese kingdom in the old capital city of Nanjing. Among the texts sacred that Hong used to legitimate his claims, was a very rudimentary translation of a Christian Bible into Chinese. Tiberiu Weisz, however, is of the opinion that the concepts that Hong actually promulgated -the Ten Commandments, monotheism, messianic - were closer to Judaism than to Christianity (pg. 148). The biblical texts quoted by Hong Xiuquan were from the prophecies of Isaiah in the Old Testament and Weisz wondered whether it could be possible that Hong has confused Isaiah with Jesus Christ. The Jewish messianic element of Hong is reinforced by a new argument that there is an undeniable connection between the two cultures. The comparative study of Weisz is an integral part of the entire process of the book. Based on the Chinese terminology, he suggests that Judaism could be considered the Yang to complement the Chinese Yin. Judaism is one of the essential pillars of Western civilization, able to adjust in the past and in the present to social changes while Chinese civilization, remains isolated, still misunderstood, preferring withdrawal, and integration with nature... “The interpretations of Weisz contain very interesting reflections and a high degree of originality and are aimed towards the intellectual world. We have to wait for the appearance of other specialists in these two fields [China and Judaism] with similar erudition for such a profound analysis. The precise academic value of Tiberiu Weisz’ works can be evaluated only after more interpreters with similar background will be available. The uncontested value of this works leads the way and I am convinced that it will take a long time to search for such a specialist from this milestone. A shortcoming of the book is the lack of conclusion or summaries at the end of each chapter as well as at the end of the book. This would have helped readers to digest the vast amount of information. For the Romanian public, this work presents a pleasant reading that not only enriches and opens new opportunities to understand these two of important cultures in the history of humanity, but also to know how one can to achieve better intercultural communication through comparative study.

Book Review- Kaifeng Haggadah

The Haggadah of the Kaifeng Jews of China by Fook-Kong Wong, Dalia Yasharpour Brill 2011, Hardcover 216 pages, EUR 99-/US $135

Reviewed by Tiberiu Weisz 
Published Sephardic Horizons Vol. 4 No 3. Summer 2014

 The Haggadah of the Kaifeng Jews of China (herein Haggadah) by Fook-Kong Wong, an Associate Professor at Hong Kong Theological Seminary and Dalia Yasharpour, an Instructor of Persian language and literature at Harvard is a scholarly study of the Hebrew Haggadah of the Kaifeng Jews. The book is divided into five chapters. In addition, the book contains a short introduction, the reproduction of the Haggadah Hebrew text with extensive annotations, the English translation and the Plates. The first five chapters would be of interest to the general reader and scholars alike, while the reproductions of the manuscripts would more likely be of interest to scholars and researchers. The methodology followed a logical pattern. The authors stated their objective “to analyze all the languages …and to gain an understanding of the Kaifeng Jews’ liturgy as represented in their Passover Haggada” (pg 5), followed by the body of the evidence. Often included were the authors’ own observations, and each chapter ended with a short conclusion. The authors scrutinized every page, every sentence and every letter of the Haggadah; they analyzed the handwriting pinpointing similarities and differences in styles. They went over the vocalization and showed “that they were produced locally rather than brought over from abroad” (pg 11). Another valuable inclusion was the side-by-side table of Hebrew words from the three manuscripts for comparison (pg. 13-16). There are some inconsistencies and assumptions that the authors left unexplained. For example, the authors quoted from Gabriel Brotier that the Chinese scribers wrote with “sharpened bamboo like quill pens…” (pg 8). Later on the authors quoted Israel Lehman, the Curator of manuscripts of the Klau Library, Hebrew Union College that “both [manuscripts] appear to have been written with Chinese ink brush” (pg18). The authors provided no explanation to this inconsistency. In another chapter the authors discussed at some length the “degree of Hebrew knowledge in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries” of the Kaifeng Jews (pg 25). The authors quoted a letter from Father Domenage who wrote in 1724 that “the Community had lost its tu-ching-pen” guide for studying the Bible. As a result no one applied himself to the study of the Hebrew Bible by this time” (pg 30), and in the conclusion of the chapter the authors wrote “ They had in possession a tu-ching-pen to assist them in reading the Bible” (pg 32). Again the inconsistency was not explained. The authors made the assumption that: “Apparently, they [Israelites] were traders because they mentioned that they came bearing western clothing” (pg 3). They paraphrased the original statement leaving out the word “tribute” without any further explanation. Scholars will also wonder why the latest research and literature of the religious practices (including the Haggadah) of the Kaifeng Jews, were not included in the bibliography? On the positive side, such inconsistencies and assumptions did not detract from the value of this work. The authors accomplished a monumental task: they reconstructed a fragmented Hebrew text, clarified the misspelled Hebrew words, and explained the Chinese side notes, translated the text into English, and finally they determined the origin of the liturgy of the Haggadah and the manuscripts. They concluded that the “archaic feature of the [Hebrew] language” pointed to a Passover liturgy of the Kaifeng community that originated in the Persian Passover rite (pg 63), and “the lack of additional songs in the Haggadah is once again consistent with the supposition that the source of the Haggadah is an early Babylonian tradition” (pg. 75). The authors achieved their goal. To their credit, Wong and Yasharpour showed that the Kaifeng Haggadah was an important primary source of Hebraic literature cherished by the Kaifeng Jews and the authors elevated an old Hebrew manuscript to an invaluable primary source for future studies. Tiberiu Weisz, has a Master Degree in Chinese and is a scholar of China and Judaism; He is the author of two books: The Kaifeng Stone Inscriptions (2006) and The Covenant and the Mandate of Heaven (2008). His articles are published in several countries. He taught Classical and Modern Chinese, and is translator from Chinese. http://www.sephardichorizons.org/Volume4/Issue4/Weisz

Israelite Migration to China/Han Dynasty

Borderland Administration

(This is an account of the migration and sinocization of the tribes in the Western Region including the Israelite community from Ferghana (Afghanistan today) to China in the Han Dynasty (206 BCE- 220 CE). I translated this section from the book:  Ma Dazheng, Chief Editor: A History of China Administration Of Borderland from the series of  A Complete History of China Borders. China 2000).

Translated from Chinese by Tiberiu Weisz

How and why did the Israelites move to China? First they lived in Ferghana peacefully for several generations, and they had little incentives to move. Only when the conditions in Central Asia became more difficult and China offered protection to the settlers, including the Israelites, that were unprecedented in history, they had good incentives to move.  China encouraged the various tribes to move closer to the Chinese borders to serve as a buffer zone between China and the barbarians. What was unprecedented was that the Chinese welcomed these settlers and offered them equal status to a Chinese. But before they could enjoy that status, there was a process of sinociztion that took place in the borderland areas.

Borderland administration of the Western Regions was a major accomplishment of successive Chinese emperors.  The Western Region as the Chinese called it, stretched from the Eastern edge of the Taklimakan Desert (Dunhuang today) to Fergana (Afghanistan today) an area roughly 800 miles long.  This region was famous for the Silk Route that connected the Roman Empire with China, where trade flowed from the earliest times until the decline of the land trade route in the second century CE.

The Chinese came in contact with the tribes in this region first because of military skirmishes. During the early Qin (280-221 BCE) and Han Dynasties (206BCE- 220 CE), the nomadic tribes descended upon the Chinese settlers and challenged the empire. To the Chinese all non- Chinese nomads were “barbarians” and the Chinese could hardly distinguish one barbarian from another. Occasionally, the Chinese mentioned differences in their physical appearances, customs and in rare cases differences in dialects.  But overall, the Chinese were most familiars with tribes that settled along the Silk Road that ended at Dunhuang or as the Chinese called if Yumen- Jade gate.  China rarely ventured beyond Dunhuang, except on punitive campaigns. One of those campaigns was set in motion in 104 BCE when a relatively minor Chinese Deputy Commander Li Guangli reached the outskirts of Ferghana.

Li Guangli established the local government of the Han Dynasty at Wulei, not far from Kucha (the Biblical Kueh/Kve in I Kings 10:28) [1] (Northern Afghanistan today) to `protect' the states in this area, which numbered about 50 at the time. At about the same period the city of Gaochang was built in the Turfan basin. This developed into the centre of the Huihe kingdom; these peoples later became the Uygur minority who now make up a large proportion of the local population. Many settlements were set up along the way, mostly in the oasis areas, and profited from the passing trade. They also absorbed a lot of the local customs, and adopted cultures from travelers that passed along the route.

Very few merchants traveled the full length of the [Silk] Road; most of them simply covered part of the journey, selling their wares not far from their homes, and then returned with the proceeds. Goods therefore tended to move slowly across Asia, changing hands many times. Local people no doubt acted as guides for the caravans over the most dangerous sections of the journey.

After the Western Han Dynasty, successive dynasties brought more states under Chinese control. Settlements came and went, as they changed hands or lost importance due to a change in the [trade] routes. The Chinese garrison town of Loulan, for example, on the edge of the Lop Nor Lake, was important in the third century A.D., but was abandoned when the Chinese lost control of the route. Many settlements were buried in the sands of the Taklimakan Desert; they were abandoned and could not be repopulated.

---

[1] For a connection between Kucha and the Biblical Kue/Kve, see my article:  Biblical Influence in Chinese Literature, Asian Jewish Life # 11 (2012)

Legalism in China

In ancient China, the legalists were pragmatic people for whom the rule of law was above everything else. They were called  “men of method” (fangshu zhishi) and they made the laws that subjected individual rights to the needs of the country. The ruler, namely the emperor made the laws, therefore the needs of the country were in essence the needs of the ruler. Practically what was good for the ruler was good for the country but what was good for the country was not necessarily good for the rulers. Therefore the laws were fixed and ordinary people were not permitted to question or even interpret the rules. To facilitate the spread of the laws, they were written in simple terms that everyone could understand.  No need for further explanation. It followed that the legalists were against reading any outside literature. Books like the Liji (equal to the Bible) were burned, public debates forbidden, and questioning the laws were severely punishable. The rules were so strict that they often bordered on the absurd.

“A man in the state of Zheng wanted to buy a pair of shoes. He carefully measured his foot with a ruler then placed the ruler on the chair. Next day he went to the market, and picked up a pair of shoes. Suddenly he remembered that he forgot to bring the ruler. He hurriedly returned home, got the ruler, and returned to the market. But by the time he got back, the market was closed. He did not get the shoes. Afterwards when people asked him “why did you not try the shoes on your feet?” he replied ‘I rather trust the ruler than my feet.’”  (Han Feizi)

While it is true that the legalist school of thought unified the country politically, economically and culturally, yet socially they alienated the people.  Politically they introduced the way of governing, headed by a strong ruler with unlimited and often unchecked powers. Economically, they standardized the units of measurements; introduced market oriented enterprises and demanded that each person should work for a living. That was a novel idea for the times. A farmer was a farmer, an artisan an artisan and a merchant a merchant, a scholar a scholar… Only people with education worked with their mind, others with their labor. Culturally, the writing system was standardized while artifacts and books were outlawed. Books of Confucius and the classic Liji were burned. Only books of “law” were allowed. Freedom of speech and expression, learning and freethinking were severely curtailed.

Socially, the legalist enforced a strict division of labor for those who worked with their mind ruled and those who labored. Each knew their places in society. Each followed an unwritten code of conduct. Even the emperor was advised to follow the legalist path. “A wise king never changes the law for his relatives, old acquaintances or the nobles.” Rulers, gentlemen and officials followed the li, or prescribed ceremonies, while the commoners followed the xing, the avocation of their title (like, farmer, artisan, merchant). The uneducated class was there to serve those who followed the li. “The li does not go down to the common people and the xing common people do not go up the social ladder. “

Only once in her long history, China practiced a government based on this strict legal philosophy. Between 280- 221 BCE the legalist ruled China, they united the country with the edge of the sword, but they lost the support of the people. That loss was permanent. Ever since 221 BCE China had rejected the legalism rule never to reinstitute a legal code that superseded the local customs. People found the laws so repulsive and regressive that they were turned off by legalism. Western style laws with loopholes and interpretations did not get a foothold in China. Even in modern times under the Chinese Communist regime, the fundamental of the Chinese constitution is deeply rooted in the legalist philosophy of Lord Shang Yang (d. 338 BE) and Hanfeizi (d.233 BCE) such as curtailing individual freedom of speech and expression, restricted social mobility and rejecting anything that would seem to threaten the ruling class.

The Chinese legalists used rewards and punishment to control the people and instill fear into transgressors.  They were not interested in the finer points of the law. Their goal was that every person should understand that good deeds were rewarded while bad deeds were punished. Rewards and punishment were the cornerstone to the Chinese legal philosophy and nowadays the basis of modern legal procedures. The legalists claimed that for centuries the Confucians taught that the golden age of man lied in the past. The present and future in China were always measured against past occurrences. But today circumstances were different, time had changed and so must the methods of the ruler, otherwise he would be like the farmer waiting for another hare at the stump in the middle of the field:  

“There was once a man in the state of Song who tilled his field. In the midst of the field there was a tree stump.  One day while plowing the field a hare run straight into the tree stump, broke his neck, and died. From that day on, the farmer quit tilling his field, and instead he sat by the tree stump in the hope that he would catch more hares.  But no hares came and the farmer became the laughing stock of the people of Song.“  (Han Feizi)
These ancient Chinese legalist concepts constitute the framework for the modern Chinese constitution and legal proceedings. 

Tiberiu Weisz