The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 3 of 4: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and PhilosophyBlavatsky, H. P. (Helena Petrovna)
Religion
The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 3 of 4: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy
Blavatsky, H. P. (Helena Petrovna)
Theosophy
Again, the _Sepher Jetzirah_ (_Book of Creation_)—though attributed to
Abraham and though very archaic as to its contents—is first mentioned in
the eleventh century by Jehuda Ho Levi (Chazari). And these two, the
_Zohar_ and _Jetzirah_, are the storehouse of all the subsequent
Kabalistic works. Now let us see how far the Hebrew sacred canon itself is
to be trusted.
The word “Kabalah” comes from the root “to receive,” and has a meaning
identical with the Sanskrit “Smriti” (“received by tradition”)—a system of
oral teaching, passing from one generation of priests to another, as was
the case with the Brâhmanical books before they were embodied in
manuscript. The Kabalistic tenets came to the Jews from the Chaldæans; and
if Moses knew the primitive and universal language of the Initiates, as
did every Egyptian priest, and was thus acquainted with the numerical
system on which it was based, he may have—and we say he has—written
_Genesis_ and other “scrolls.” The five books that now pass current under
his name, the _Pentateuch_, are _not_ withal the original Mosaic
Records.(317) Nor were they written in the old Hebrew square letters, nor
even in the Samaritan characters, for both alphabets belong to a date
later than that of Moses, and Hebrew—as it is now known—did not exist in
the days of the great lawgiver, either as a language or as an alphabet.
As no statements contained in the records of the Secret Doctrine of the
East are regarded as of any value by the world in general, and since to be
understood by and convince the reader one has to quote names familiar to
him, and use arguments and proofs out of documents which are accessible to
all, the following facts may perhaps demonstrate that our assertions are
not merely based on the teachings of Occult Records:
(1) The great Orientalist and scholar, Klaproth, denied positively the
antiquity of the so‐called Hebrew alphabet, on the ground that the square
Hebrew characters in which the Biblical manuscripts are written, and which
we use in printing, were probably derived from the Palmyrene writing, or
some other Semitic alphabet, so that the Hebrew _Bible_ is written merely
in the Chaldaic phonographs of Hebrew words.
The late Dr. Kenealy pertinently remarked that the Jews and Christians
rely on
A phonograph of a dead and almost unknown language, as abstruse as
the cuneiform letters on the mountains of Assyria.(318)
(2) The attempts made to carry back the square Hebrew character to the
time of Esdras (B.C. 458) have all failed.
(3) It is asserted that the Jews took their alphabet from the Babylonians
during their captivity. But there are scholars who do not carry the now‐
known Hebrew square letters beyond the late period of the fourth century,
A.D.(319)
The Hebrew Bible is precisely as if Homer were printed, not in
Greek, but in English letters; or as if Shakespeare’s works were
phonographed in Burmese.(320)
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account