Front Matter (PDF) - Stanford University Press

of the Zohar's teachings was indeed ancient and authentic. They probably
content
saw nothingwrongin the creation of a grand literary ®ction that provided
these ancient-yet-new teachings an elevated literary setting, one worthy of
for
profound truth. There were, however, skeptics and opponents of the
their
right from the beginning, who depicted the whole enterprise as one of
Zohar
forgery.
literary
of this early controversy is found in an account written
Fascinatingevidence
the kabbalist Isaac of Acre, a wanderingmystic who arrived in Castile in
by
A manuscript version of Isaac's account was known to the sixteenthcentury
1305.
chronicler Abraham Zacuto and was included in his Sefer Yuḥasin.
tells us that he had already heard of the Zohar, and came to Castile to
Isaac
more about it and speci®cally to investigate the question of the Zohar's
learn
He managed to meet De LeoÂn shortly before the latter's death. De
origins.
assured him that the ancient manuscript was real, and offered to show it
LeoÂn
him. By the time Isaac arrived at Avila, where De LeoÂn had lived in the last
to
of his life, he had a chance only to meet the kabbalist's widow. She
years
that the manuscript had ever existed, recountingthat her husband had
denied
her that he was claimingancient origins for his own work for pecuniary
told
Others, however, while agreeing that there was no ancient manuscript
advantage.
source, claimed that De LeoÂn hadwrittentheZohar ``through the power
the Holy Name.'' (This might refer either to some sort of trancelike ``automatic
of
writing'' or to a sense that he saw himself as a reincarnation of Rabbi
andÐthrough the NameÐhad access to his teachings.) Various other
Shim'on
then enter the account in a series of claims and counterclaims, and the
players
breaks off just before a disciple of De LeoÂn is able to present what seems
text
promisingtestimony in the Zohar's behalf.
like
account has been used by opponents of the Zohar and of Kabbalah in
This
in various attempts to dismiss the Zohar as a forgery and Moses de
general
as a charlatan. Most outspoken amongthese attempts is that of the
LeoÂn
historian Heinrich Graetz, for whom the Zohar was the
nineteenth-century
of the most lowly, superstitious element within medieval Judaism.
epitome
and others assumed that the wife was the one who spoke the truth, all
Graetz
explanations servingto cover or justify the obvious chicanery of the
other
Wantingto denigrate the ZoharÐwhich did not ®t the early modern
author.
idea of proper JudaismÐGraetz did not consider the possibility
Enlightenment
De LeoÂn might have told his wife such things for reasons other than their
that
simple truth. Sadly, her account may re¯ect the kabbalist's assumption
beingthe
of his wife's inability to appreciate his literary intentions. The claim that
did it for the sake of sellingbooks has about it the air of an explanation to a
he
offered in a dismissive context.
spouse,
Zohar scholarship begins with the young Gershom Scholem's attempts
Modern
to refute Graetz. He set out in the late 1920s to show that the picture
Introduction
li
was more complex and that indeed there might be earlier layers to the Zohar.