The Ban On Kabbalah

[volgadon]

I confess a certain fondness for Lance Owen's article "Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection," even though I disagree with much of it. Owens attempted to fit Joseph Smith into the larger patterns of Western esotericism by utilising lesser-used sources. That in itself is an interesting, commendable venture, even when the degree of success is questionable. William Hamblin's rebuttal is, I think, ultimately succesful, but there are a few aspects I want to explore further. http://maxwellinstit...=8&num=2&id=229

Furthermore, according to traditional kabbalistic practice, initiates into the mysteries of Kabbalah were to be at least thirty years old and well versed in rabbinic literature.¹²⁹ So why would any kabbalist have taught Neibaur—a teenage yeshivah dropout who converted to Christianity at age twenty—the sacred mysteries of the Zohar, which were not to be taught to anyone younger than thirty?

The footnote leads to the first volume of Isaiah TIshby's "Wisdom of the Zohar," in turn leading to p. 126 of Meir Balaban's Hebrew work, "Letoldot Hatenuah HaFrankit." In 1756 the Kloyz of Brody issued a herem, a ban, against Jacob Frank and his followers. This Kloyz was a small, elite group of ascetic scholars who devoted their time to studying Kabbalah and were supported by some of the wealthy in the town of Brody. Unlike most other private institutions like that, it attained a very influential position in community affairs throught Lithuania-Poland and Ukraine. What prompted the ban against Jacob Frank and followers was a widely publicised case of an orgiastic ritual among the group, which apparently even included a rape incident. The Kloyz placed the Frankists under the ban, the Jewish equivalent of excommunication, forbidding them to serve as butchers, scribes, teachers, readers, or any other official, annuling all marriage contracts between them and other Jews and ruling that their sons were to be considered bastards and their daughters whores. They also forbade the studying of any works composed by or in the possesion of the Frankists, including all works of R. Isaac Luria (the Ari or Arizal), even if the text was authentic and accurate beyond all doubt. The ban on the works of the Ari applied to all under the age of forty. Studying printed versions of the Zohar, Shomer Emunim and R. Moshe Cordovero's Pardes Rimonim, were permitted to those of the age of thirty and above. This was contingent upon a study of the Mishnah, Talmud and halakhic authorities, in other words, the works of normative Jewish law. Hamblin already noted this in the article as well. This restriction not only was meant to deprive the Frankists of their legitimacy as interpreters of Jewish esotericism, but also established the supremacy of Jewish law. Everything else could be studied only in relation to it. When the Jewish Council of the Four Lands endorsed the ban, this made it official for all Polish Jews.

How closely was it really followed? Probably not too closely, as even many of the signatories to the ban were younger than the stipulated ages. There are examples of Kabbalah being taught to those younger than thirty. Schneur Zalman of Lyady followed Cordovero in considering twenty the right age for studying Kabbalah. The Vilna Gaon was said to have mainly studied exoteric teachings before the age of forty, after that age he mainly studied esoteric teachings. In other words, both were studied, but with different degrees of emphasis. Nothing is said of the age of thirty.

Pawel Maciejko wrote in his study of the Frankist movement that the ban formalised the limits of the permissible in Kabbalistic studies and granted rabbinic authorities full control over them. So while the age requirements weren't rigidly enforced, if you ran afoul of the rabbinic authorities the study of Kabbalah could be used against you. This led to a more selective attitude by masters towards students in kabbalistic studies.

I think that still means that the chances of Alexander Neibaur being taught Kabbalah were slim, but the age restrictions need to be understood in their fuller context.

Maciejko's book also has some interesting points which render any Frankist connection to Neibaur rather unlikely, but more on that later.

Edited February 28, 2012 by volgadon

[Robert F. Smith]

I confess a certain fondness for Lance Owen's article "Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection," even though I disagree with much of it. Owens attempted to fit Joseph Smith into the larger patterns of Western esotericism by utilising lesser-used sources. That in itself is an interesting, commendable venture, even when the degree of success is questionable. William Hamblin's rebuttal is, I think, ultimately succesful, but there are a few aspects I want to explore further. http://maxwellinstit...=8&num=2&id=229

The footnote leads to the first volume of Isaiah TIshby's "Wisdom of the Zohar," in turn leading to p. 126 of Meir Balaban's Hebrew work, "Letoldot Hatenuah HaFrankit." In 1756 the Kloyz of Brody issued a herem, a ban, against Jacob Frank and his followers. This Kloyz was a small, elite group of ascetic scholars who devoted their time to studying Kabbalah and were supported by some of the wealthy in the town of Brody. Unlike most other private institutions like that, it attained a very influential position in community affairs throught Lithuania-Poland and Ukraine. What prompted the ban against Jacob Frank and followers was a widely publicised case of an orgiastic ritual among the group, which apparently even included a rape incident. The Kloyz placed the Frankists under the ban, the Jewish equivalent of excommunication, forbidding them to serve as butchers, scribes, teachers, readers, or any other official, annuling all marriage contracts between them and other Jews and ruling that their sons were to be considered bastards and their daughters whores. They also forbade the studying of any works composed by or in the possesion of the Frankists, including all works of R. Isaac Luria (the Ari or Arizal), even if the text was authentic and accurate beyond all doubt. The ban on the works of the Ari applied to all under the age of forty. Studying printed versions of the Zohar, Shomer Emunim and R. Moshe Cordovero's Pardes Rimonim, were permitted to those of the age of thirty and above. This was contingent upon a study of the Mishnah, Talmud and halakhic authorities, in other words, the works of normative Jewish law. Hamblin already noted this in the article as well. This restriction not only was meant to deprive the Frankists of their legitimacy as interpreters of Jewish esotericism, but also established the supremacy of Jewish law. Everything else could be studied only in relation to it. When the Jewish Council of the Four Lands endorsed the ban, this made it official for all Polish Jews.

How closely was it really followed? Probably not too closely, as even many of the signatories to the ban were younger than the stipulated ages. There are examples of Kabbalah being taught to those younger than thirty. Schneur Zalman of Lyady followed Cordovero in considering twenty the right age for studying Kabbalah. The Vilna Gaon was said to have mainly studied exoteric teachings before the age of forty, after that age he mainly studied esoteric teachings. In other words, both were studied, but with different degrees of emphasis. Nothing is said of the age of thirty.

Pawel Maciejko wrote in his study of the Frankist movement that the ban formalised the limits of the permissible in Kabbalistic studies and granted rabbinic authorities full control over them. So while the age requirements weren't rigidly enforced, if you ran afoul of the rabbinic authorities the study of Kabbalah could be used against you. This led to a more selective attitude by masters towards students in kabbalistic studies.

I think that still means that the chances of Alexander Neibaur being taught Kabbalah were slim, but the age restrictions need to be understood in their fuller context.

Maciejko's book also has some interesting points which render any Frankist connection to Neibaur rather unlikely, but more on that later.

Thanks for the insights.

Still, one would really like to know just what Neibaur knew and whether he had actually read any Qabbalistic works back in Europe -- such as those he cited in his article "The Jews," in Times & Seasons, IV (June 1, 1844), 220-222, and (June 15, 1844), 233-234, citing the Zohar, Yalqut Ḥadaš, Midraš ha-Neʿelam, ʿEmek ha-Melek, ʿAbodat ha-Qodeš, Abravanel, Kimchi, Midrash Berešit Rabba, Sifre, Pesiqta Rabbati, TB Qetubot, Sanhedrin, among others. Ron Esplin had long before Owens suggested the possible link with Qabbala (through Neibaur) and Masonry (Esplin, Oct 22, 1983, Miller-Eccles Study Group lecture, Pasadena, Calif.), and discussed in other terms by Michael Homer in Dialogue, 27/3 (Fall 1994), 94, 108-110.

Did Neibaur, like his illustrious descendant Hugh Nibley, exhibit youthful genius and wide-ranging esoteric interests?

[volgadon]

Thanks for the insights.

You're welcome.

Still, one would really like to know just what Neibaur knew and whether he had actually read any Qabbalistic works back in Europe

I completely agree. Since we have no way of knowing for certain, the only thing to be done is to examine his background and see how it fits into general trends and possible exceptions. I'm hoping at some point to actually see the sources in the geneological library that Owens used as they would shed light on what to look for.

-- such as those he cited in his article "The Jews," in Times & Seasons, IV (June 1, 1844), 220-222, and (June 15, 1844), 233-234, citing the Zohar, Yalqut Ḥadaš, Midraš ha-Neʿelam, ʿEmek ha-Melek, ʿAbodat ha-Qodeš, Abravanel, Kimchi, Midrash Berešit Rabba, Sifre, Pesiqta Rabbati, TB Qetubot, Sanhedrin, among others.

Nishmath Hayyim is actually available online, so I'm going to pinpoint the quotations in the work as well as comparing the sequences.

Ron Esplin had long before Owens suggested the possible link with Qabbala (through Neibaur) and Masonry (Esplin, Oct 22, 1983, Miller-Eccles Study Group lecture, Pasadena, Calif.),

Do you know of any recordings?

and discussed in other terms by Michael Homer in Dialogue, 27/3 (Fall 1994), 94, 108-110.

Will take a look.

Did Neibaur, like his illustrious descendant Hugh Nibley, exhibit youthful genius and wide-ranging esoteric interests?

One wonders why he doesn't seem to have pursued those interests.

[Bill Hamblin]

I think the essence of the claim is that you must be learned in the Talmud before studying esotericism. When one is learned in the Talmud, can be disputed, and would vary from person to person. But the general policy was not to teach esotericism to younger men. Hence the probability of Neibaur having studied Kabbalah before his conversion to Christianity is low.

[volgadon]

I think the essence of the claim is that you must be learned in the Talmud before studying esotericism. When one is learned in the Talmud, can be disputed, and would vary from person to person. But the general policy was not to teach esotericism to younger men. Hence the probability of Neibaur having studied Kabbalah before his conversion to Christianity is low.

The age consideration wasn't tha big a deal. IF Neibaur were an orthodox Jew and IF he were a promising student, then chances are that he would have been taught Kabbalah at an early age. Not knowing the inner, esoteric core was thought to have a deletrious effect on exoteric rulings. The Brody ruling was meant to anchor any study of the esoteric doctrines (which tend to be more exciting than halakhic rulings) to a thorough grounding in traditional, normative aspects of Judaism. A promising young rabbinical student in an orthodox institute would have fit the bill nicely. I don't think that Neibaur meets those criteria.

[Bill Hamblin]

The age consideration wasn't tha big a deal. IF Neibaur were an orthodox Jew and IF he were a promising student, then chances are that he would have been taught Kabbalah at an early age. Not knowing the inner, esoteric core was thought to have a deletrious effect on exoteric rulings. The Brody ruling was meant to anchor any study of the esoteric doctrines (which tend to be more exciting than halakhic rulings) to a thorough grounding in traditional, normative aspects of Judaism. A promising young rabbinical student in an orthodox institute would have fit the bill nicely. I don't think that Neibaur meets those criteria.

I agree. As far as I can tell, he wasn't a rabbinic student at all--that is a rabbi in training.

[volgadon]

Bill Hamblin, on 29 February 2012 - 05:45 AM, said:

I agree. As far as I can tell, he wasn't a rabbinic student at all--that is a rabbi in training.

Well, there is that old tradition that he was meant to be a rabbi before he decided upon dentistry. I actually find it credible. Neibaur's history: the German milieu, his father's carreer as a doctor in Napoleon's army, the German names he gave his children- Alexander, Isidore, William, Tine, Bertha, Ernestine, Lessaly, Bianka- profficiency in German and Latin, these all point towards a proto-Reformist environment, like that of Wessely, Jacobson or Chorin.

[volgadon]

Well, there is that old tradition that he was meant to be a rabbi before he decided upon dentistry. I actually find it credible. Neibaur's history: the German milieu, his father's carreer as a doctor in Napoleon's army, the German names he gave his children- Alexander, Isidore, William, Tine, Bertha, Ernestine, Lessaly, Bianka- profficiency in German and Latin, these all point towards a proto-Reformist environment, like that of Wessely, Jacobson or Chorin.

Here is the source in question.

http://www.alexanderneibaur.org/files/histories/003960.pdf

[volgadon]

I was just considering a point bearing upon Neibaur's Jewish identity. In the list of languages he spoke there is a telling ommision. No Yiddish.

What I mean is that the mother tongue of most traditional, Orthodox Jews in Eastern Europe was Yiddish, not German. German was adapted by the progressive, liberal elements in Judaism.

Edited February 29, 2012 by volgadon

[wenglund]

I think that still means that the chances of Alexander Neibaur being taught Kabbalah were slim, but the age restrictions need to be understood in their fuller context.

Do scholars in more recent times still place a lot of importance on the Smith/Neibaur relationship when examining the possible connection between Joseph Smith and Kabbalah?

I ask because I get the impression that nowadays some of the scholars, particularly among the critics, lean more heavily towards Joseph's alleged familiarity with Free Masonry as the presumed primary source for the alleged connection. Even back in 1995, Owens is quotes by Hamblin as saying: "Through his associations with ceremonial magic as a young treasure seer, [Joseph] Smith contacted symbols and lore taken directly from Kabbalah. In his prophetic translation of sacred writ, his hermeneutic method was in nature Kabbalistic. With his initiation into Masonry, he entered a tradition born of the Hermetic-Kabbalistic tradition. These associations culminated in Nauvoo, the period of his most important doctrinal and ritual innovations." (Emphasis mine)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DubaDNura]

If you read One Eternal Round by Prof. Hugh Nibley, you'll see arguments in that book that the Pearl of Great price itself contains traces of Kabbalah (as well as Egyptian religion, Hermetic concepts - which ostensibly were first transcribed in Egypt, and then later brought to Greece, neo-Platonism, and even Mayan concepts, etc.) Some of Prof. Nibley's connections are a stretch, to be sure (and even his most ardent supporters would have to admit that). But it would be inaccurate to say that the idea does not exist. I have not read anything by Nibley about the Neibauer/JS connection. But he has written much more than I have read.

Prof. Hamblin, by contrast, in his response to the Owens piece, clearly supports the view that Neibauer likely had no training or initiation into Kabbalah. I said in the past, and I'll say it again: not being a Mormon, I really don't take a side in this debate - though I have done my homework. But I think that some of Prof. Hamblin's conclusions do not rest on as solid a ground as he thinks (even though the vast majority of his response is 100% accurate). Prof. Hamblin leans on the fact that the "ban" on Kabbalah would have prevented him from learning Kabbalah. Not so. It would have prevented him from learning Kabbalah in a traditional Eastern European yeshiva. But he did not live in Eastern Europe. Plus, even in Eastern Europe, (particularly Lithuania) Chassidic Yeshivot were teaching rudimentary Kabbalah through the Chassidic teachings themselves. (Hungarian Chassidism is quite different from Lithuanian Chassidism in this respect.) This is explicitly true in the case of Lubavitch (Lithuania) and Breslav (Ukraine), but was even the case in some of the larger Polish denominations of Chassidic Jews. Typically, "enlightened" or Reform Jews in Western Europe rejected Kabbalah as being irrational, or useless. But that is far from universally true. Either way, the "ban" probably made little impact in areas that were heavily "enlightened" in Western Europe.

Prof. Hamblin claims that Enlightenment Yeshvot did not teach Aramaic. That is not entirely true. The Talmud, written in Aramaic, is the backbone of the Jewish religion. Even Enlightenment Rabbis (like R' S. R. Hirsch) had a very impressive handle on the Talmud, even though they taught that Jews ought to engage in secular learning - including the learning of Latin, etc. The Talmud was likely taught in many Enlightenment Yeshivot, even if it was not taught in some Reform Yeshivot (Reform being a subset of the Enlightenment school). Prof. Hamblin does have a point, however, when he states that knowing how to read the Talmud does not translate seamlessly into knowing how to read the Zohar.

The bigger question for me was: how did he get copies of Kabbalistic books? Prof. Hamblin answered that question in his article very well: Nishmat Chaim actually quotes many of the sources contained in the Times and Seasons article.

Further, as Prof. Hamblin points out, but does not elaborate on, Neibauer quotes the Zohar (though he calls it the Sohar) and Midrash HaNeelam as if they were two separate books. They are not. The only place one can find the Midrash HaNeelam in print is in the Zohar. As I've said elsewhere, the Zohar actually contains a number of smaller books scattered about within its pages, and arranged based upon subject matter. Others include the Idra Raba, Idra Zuta, Raya Mehemna, Tosefta, etc. When a book written to an educated audience quotes one of the Zohar's other books, like Idra Zuta, it will often state "Idra Zuta" and then give the page within the Zohar where one can find that particular piece of Idra Zuta. This is because an educated audience will known that the Idra Zuta is found in the Zohar. In other places, the it would be quoted as Zohar, Idra Zuta, and then the page number. But Neibauer doesn't indicate in his article that the two are connected at all - leaving one to wonder whether he was reading an attribution to Midrash HaNeelam as an attribution to one book, and an attribution to the Zohar as an attribution to a different book. This stood out to me immediately as I read the Neibauer article.

On the other hand, nothing that Neibauer quotes is terribly complicated. The impressive bibliography does not necessary indicate complicated ideas. Many of the ideas he cites are commonly understood concepts within Jewish circles that place even slight emphasis on Kabbalistic ideas. That rudimentary knowledge of Kabbalah cannot possibly account for some of the eerie similarities between some Mormon teachings (that I am only familiar with from having read the Bushman book "Rough Stone Rolling"), and concepts that are well sourced in Lurianic Kabbalah. The particular similarities I noticed were between Lurianic ideas and the Endowment ceremonies (to the extent that they were discussed in Rough Stone Rolling - and I am sure that there was much he did not cover. Tractate Chagigah says that we "don't involve ourselves with secrets.") I kept a journal of that when I originally read RSR some years ago, and now I don't remember any of the specifics. The final note I made for myself (though I now don't remember exactly what I was talking about) was that though the Prof. Hamblin article's explanations of Kabbalah were frustrating, he was nonetheless correct about nearly everything.

Now Prof. Hamblin can find inner peace, knowing that an anonymous Jewish person from the internet enjoyed an article he wrote years ago.

[DubaDNura]

I'm going to clarify what I said, because its bothering me to leave it danging. When I said that Prof. Hamblin's explanation of Kabbalah was frustrating, I think that I was talking about his dismissal of Kabbalah as "NeoPlatonic." Our tradition is that Kabbalah precedes Plato, Socrates, Jesus (historically - no theological statement is intended), and even Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai (which would make sense, since he probably lived after Jesus, who is already listed), the author of the Zohar. We believe that Abraham himself wrote Sefer Yetzirah, and that Rabbi Shimon's teachings on the Zohar simply restatements in novel language of concepts that predate the existence of the world. According to our traditions, they weren't medieval attempts to blend Judaism with Christian NeoPlatonism.

[wenglund]

Hi DubaDNura,

I just wanted you to know that I am enjoying reading your posts. Very informative.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Benjamin McGuire]

I have only ever dealt with Owens and his discussion of the King Follett discourse. But it is clear that in that case, Owens is way off in left field. He makes several critical mistakes, most of which can be attributed to using Zucker (as opposed to looking as Seixas directly), and his use of the 1978 reamalgamated version of the KFD produced by Stan Larson - which loses some critical detail in this section. For example, the Times and Season account has Joseph referring to the -ith as a grammatical "termination" - the term used by Seixas to describe that part. The text read: "Baith, in, by through, in, and every thing else. Rosh, the head. Sheit, grammatical termination."

So, for example, from Seixas on page 85, where Seixas breaks down the first word of the Hebrew Bible (I am transliterating the Hebrew - indicated by bolding - Seixas just used the Hebrew):

be-ra-sheet in the beginning. For the prefix b see section 9, with the Note. For the termination eith see section 11. See Lexicon rosheith.

Joseph doesn't just sound the prefix b, he pronounces the named of the letter. The lexicon Joseph had is not the one that Seixas references in his book. Seixas references the full length 1824 Gibbs Lexicon. Joseph acquired the much shorter student edition published by Gibbs in 1828. The entry that Seixas refers to is on page 176. But just as interesting is the preceding definition for rosh: "a head; the best of its kind; a chief leader; a chief city, a metropolis; the highest place, the first rank; the top or highest part, as of a mountain pillar; the first in number; the beginning; the sum, the whole number; a company, multitude, host; a person, individual."

And thus we have the breakdown of Genesis 1:1 as developed by Joseph Smith using the Hebrew instruction he had received as well as the text books in his possession.

So, while Owens quotes the part of page 85 that Zucker quoted: [in the Seixas manual (p. 85), this Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 is given along with a "correct" word-for-word translation: "In the beginning, he created, God, the heavens, and the earth."], he doesn't seem to have actually had a look see at the Seixas manual, or if he did, had no idea what he was looking at. In the Seixas manual, each word is presented, with an interpretation, followed by a bit of discussion explaining what the word means and breaking it down. Zucker connected the English text to create the complete sentence, but in the process he cuts out all of the other material. The other material really kills Owens' argument. And it is this information that matches so well what Joseph says about the Hebrew - not some Kaballistic source of information.

Ben M.

[DubaDNura]

Right, a word for word translation would be | In the beginning | created | G-d | the heavens | and | the earth. (I did not translate the world Et, which has no meaning in English). The Zohar's comment on this odd syntax is essentially that there is an implied subject between the prepositional phrase B'Reishit (In the beginning) and "bara" (created). (This is contrary to those who want to render B'Reishit Bara as "In the beginning of G-d's creaton of etc." - making the opening line of Genesis into a heading that introduces the rest of the text.) That would make E-lohim / G-d into the direct object of the sentence. In the beginning ___ created G-d: the heavens and the earth. The ___ is the "unknowable, ineffable one" who is not named (No! Not Voldemort!). The actual line in the Zohar is:

With this beginning, theunknown concealed one created the palace. This palace is called (Elohim), God. The secret is: (Bereshit bara Elohim), With beginning, ________ created God.(Genesis 1:1)

At least, that's my best rendering of it. The palace, as I explained elsewhere, is the sefirah of Malchut - or the power of speech, through which G-d's desire became manifest in the form of our physical world, and in the spiritual worlds, that are filled with angels and whatnot. That speech governs the natural order, both spiritual (heaven) and physical (earth). The name E-lohim is associated with nature (in fact, it has the same Gematria, numerical value, as HeTava, which means nature).

So while Prof. Hamblin is probably correct that JS never learned the Zohar, Owens isn't crazy. He's just incorrect.

Edited March 2, 2012 by DubaDNura

[DubaDNura]

Hi DubaDNura,

I just wanted you to know that I am enjoying reading your posts. Very informative.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks!!

Edited March 1, 2012 by DubaDNura

[mfbukowski]

I was just considering a point bearing upon Neibaur's Jewish identity. In the list of languages he spoke there is a telling ommision. No Yiddish.

What I mean is that the mother tongue of most traditional, Orthodox Jews in Eastern Europe was Yiddish, not German. German was adapted by the progressive, liberal elements in Judaism.

Would you say that Yiddish is its own "language"? I used to be fairly proficient in German though I am now quite rusty at it and the main difference as far as I could tell at the time was a different accent and way of pronouncing words and also additional words and phrases, but all pretty much in a totally German grammatical structure.

I lived in NY city for a few years and found that many of my English speaking Jewish friends would just throw in Yiddish words and phrases into an English sentence much as it seemed was also the practice in German- was I wrong? Does it have a different grammar than German?

[DubaDNura]

Would you say that Yiddish is its own "language"? I used to be fairly proficient in German though I am now quite rusty at it and the main difference as far as I could tell at the time was a different accent and way of pronouncing words and also additional words and phrases, but all pretty much in a totally German grammatical structure.

I lived in NY city for a few years and found that many of my English speaking Jewish friends would just throw in Yiddish words and phrases into an English sentence much as it seemed was also the practice in German- was I wrong? Does it have a different grammar than German?

Yes. It is different enough from German to be its own language. I speak Yiddish and cannot understand German people for the life of me. The vocabulary has many words in common, but many other words come from Slavic languages (mostly Russian), Hebrew, and even Latin (The word Bentsh, which means "to bless," likely comes from the Latin root Benedictus, for example.) The syntax is different from German. The two languages were likely similar before Jews moved from Germany to Eastern Europe. Western European Jews (like Neibauer) probably had little exposure to Yiddish. The East-West divide is significant in Jewish history.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks!!

Yes- welcome! Fascinating stuff- it's great to have another voice to contribute to these topics! You may be the only non-LDS informed poster on Jewish topics we have, and so you can offer a different perspective.

Edited March 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

Yes. It is different enough from German to be its own language. I speak Yiddish and cannot understand German people for the life of me. The vocabulary has many words in common, but many other words come from Slavic languages (mostly Russian), Hebrew, and even Latin (The word Bentsh, which means "to bless," likely comes from the Latin root Benedictus, for example.) The syntax is different from German. The two languages were likely similar before Jews moved from Germany to Eastern Europe. Western European Jews (like Neibauer) probably had little exposure to Yiddish. The East-West divide is significant in Jewish history.

I agree. As you probably well know, one of the greatest religious authorities of Ashkenazic Jews in the 18th c., R. Yehezkel Landau, would not endorse Moses Mendelsohn's elegant German translation of the Bible. He didn't so much fear heretical teachings as he feared that people would use the Bible as a tool for learning German instead of studying God's laws for the sake of Heaven. Instead he endorsed an inferior German translation!

There was also the Austrian attempt to force Jews to learn German, which many of the Hasidim vehemently opposed.

There is not a Russian as much as Ukrainian and Polish influences on Yiddish. Ukrainian is similar to Russian, but still very different. There is also a hodgepodge of both, but my wife refuses to teach me it. Yiddish descends from an older German dialect in a Slavic area of Germany, and as Ashkenazic Jews moved east it replaced Canaanite, the Jewish Western Slavic dialect.

I don't speak German or Yiddish (though I hope to recitfy that lack), but I had a German speaking friend take a look at the text of some old Yiddish songs. He said that reading it reminded him of some of the older regional dialects of Southern Germany, but that if it were spoken it would probably sound very different. Yidish does have its own melodies and soul, far transcending grammar and syntax.

[volgadon]

Yes- welcome! Fascinating stuff- it's great to have another voice to contribute to these topics! You may be the only non-LDS informed poster on Jewish topics we have, and so you can offer a different perspective.

Absolutely agreed.

[DubaDNura]

Thanks. I'm having fun, too. Having something to respond to gives me an excuse to learn more. I shouldn't need an excuse, but it is what it is.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks also for the replies on Yiddish.

When I was pretty good at German, I remember trying to understand Swiss German, which theoretically is the same language.

At least the Swiss think it is....

Anyway, now I understand it much better- thanks!

[volgadon]

Do scholars in more recent times still place a lot of importance on the Smith/Neibaur relationship when examining the possible connection between Joseph Smith and Kabbalah?

I ask because I get the impression that nowadays some of the scholars, particularly among the critics, lean more heavily towards Joseph's alleged familiarity with Free Masonry as the presumed primary source for the alleged connection. Even back in 1995, Owens is quotes by Hamblin as saying: "Through his associations with ceremonial magic as a young treasure seer, [Joseph] Smith contacted symbols and lore taken directly from Kabbalah. In his prophetic translation of sacred writ, his hermeneutic method was in nature Kabbalistic. With his initiation into Masonry, he entered a tradition born of the Hermetic-Kabbalistic tradition. These associations culminated in Nauvoo, the period of his most important doctrinal and ritual innovations." (Emphasis mine)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Moshe Idel has toyed with the idea in recent years, but I agree that most scholars would point to Masonry as the main influence.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/51671-joseph-smith-and-kabbalah-the-occult-connection

[mfbukowski]

Moshe Idel has toyed with the idea in recent years, but I agree that most scholars would point to Masonry as the main influence.

http://www.mormondia...cult-connection

And yet it is presumed by the critics that Masonry sprang from nowhere in the 18th century, and could not possibly point to ancient understanding.

We see a lot of that on this board. That has never made sense to me. Then of course we also have Margaret Barker who I think has made a very convincing case for non-Masonic ancient parallels with our temple practices.