Summary of the May 25 Special Lecture
"Eight Centuries in the Chinese Diaspora: The Jews of Kaifeng",
by Dr. Erik Zurcher
(This summary contains some Japanese characters which will only be readable
if one's browsing software is set to read Japanese.)
We were happy to have as our venue for this special meeting the Jewish Community
Center in Hiroo, which served a lavish buffet dinner before the meeting
for those who wished, which was the majority of those attending. Our President
was unavoidably detained on this day, so the meeting was chaired by Senior
Vice-President Dr. Suleski, who first called on Mr. Ernest Salomon, President
of the Jewish Community, to give a word of welcome. In the 123 years of
our history, said Dr. Suleski, we had met at embassies, universities, and,
in recent times, at OAG House, but this was a historic occasion in that
we were meeting for the first time at the Jewish Community Center.
He then introduced our speaker, whose subject was well suited to the venue.
Dr. Erik Zurcher, Professor Emeritus of Leiden University and former Head
of the Chinese Department, was in this country as guest lecturer at the
Toho Gakkai convention.
Around the year 1100, said Dr. Zurcher, a Jewish community settled in Kaifeng,
on the Yellow River in Henan, which was then the capital of the Song (Sung)
dynasty, and managed to keep its identity for about seven centuries. There
is only a passing reference to it in Chinese records, but we have a rich
store of information from other sources, firstly the original documents
belonging to the synagogue, and secondly reports by Western visitors, and
these have excited so much interest that over 400 publications have been
devoted to the subject.
In 1605 Matteo Ricci, the founder of the Jesuit mission in China, had been
living in Peking for four years, establishing firm contacts with the local
elite, when he had an unusual visitor, a scholar from Kaifeng called Ai
Tian. Ai surprised Ricci by saying that they both worshipped the same God.
Ricci took it that he was a descendant of one of the ancient Christian communities
known to have existed in China, and hastened to show him his chapel. But
Ricci became uneasy when Ai identified a painting of Mary with the infant
Jesus and John the Baptist as Rebecca with Jacob and Esau, and the truth
gradually dawned on him; he showed Ai the "Polyglot Bible", and
when Ai saw the Hebrew text he said "Yes, that is our language,"
and told Ricci about their community. Ricci reported the incident to Rome,
and also wrote about it in a book that became a bestseller, so that the
story of the Jews of Kaifeng became known all over Europe.
Why were the Europeans so eager to learn more about this community? Firstly,
the Jesuits, knowing that Christianity had first spread to the Jewish communities
in the Roman Empire, were hopeful that the Kaifeng Jews would make easy
converts. The second motive was based on the theory of the "Rabbinical
forgeries". This started out from the idea that the Messianic prophecies
taken to predict the coming of Jesus were neither precise nor concrete,
so that it was concluded that explicit references had been excised by Jewish
scribes during the first centuries of the common era. Perhaps the Kaifeng
Jews had migrated before this time and possessed the unexpurgated scriptures.
The third motive concerned the Jesuit strategy, which had pursued a policy
of tolerance towards, and adaptation to, Chinese culture, and had been attacked
by other orders as intolerable compromise with heathen beliefs and practices.
One example was the use of Confucian terms like Tian (ìV) and Shangdi
(è"íÈ) to refer to God. Secondly the Jesuits allowed
converts to continue to perform the cult of their ancestors, which they
said was an expression of respect, not worship. Thirdly they tolerated the
cult of Confucius as being a "civil rite", not a form of idolatry.
This Rites Controversy caused a commotion all over Europe, and in the end,
soon after 1700, the Pope officially condemned the Jesuit standpoint, thus
ruining their mission. This action convinced the Chinese that Christianity
was a dangerous sect, and it was officially proscribed in 1724.
From this we can see that the Jesuits were eager to know how the Kaifeng
Jews approached these points. How did they refer to God? What was their
attitude towards the cults? They might find support here for their own approach.
Accordingly they sent one "fact-finding mission" after another
to Kaifeng. They were well received, and shown the synagogue and Torah scrolls
and other texts (which were rich sources of accurate information), but no
Jew showed any desire to be converted and all attempts to obtain a copy
of the scriptures failed. Early observers had almost no knowledge of Hebrew,
but Jean Domenge, who spent ten months there in 1720-21 and made clear pen-and-ink
drawings, knew Hebrew well, and was able to verify that the Kaifeng Torah
texts were essentially the same as the ones in Europe; there was no support
for the "Rabbinical forgeries" theory. But even he failed to obtain
a copy of the Torah, though he sent to Europe for a deluxe edition of the
Pentateuch in the hopes of being able to barter it.
Domenge's predecessor, Giampolo Gozani, had already copied all the inscriptions
in the synagogue, and these confirmed that the Kaifeng Jews practised the
same "accommodation" with Chinese practices as that advocated
by the Jesuits. They used the words Tian and Shangdi to refer to God; they
offered sacrifices to the patriarchs as in a Chinese ancestral temple; the
steles in the courtyard stated expressly that the Judaic doctrine was fully
compatible with Confucianism, and the Ten Commandments were in harmony with
the basic rules of Confucian morality. This was welcome news, but it had
come too late; Rome had already spoken, and Peking was to respond with the
ban on Christianity.
Six of the original Torah scrolls are now in Western collections. They have
not yet been studied in detail, but it seems that they belong to a scriptural
version that was current in the region of Bukhara and Samarkand; another
pointer in the direction is the fact that some of the other manuscripts
contain colophons in Judaeo-Persian, Persian written in Hebrew script. From
these documents and Jesuit reports we can roughly reconstruct the history
of the community. Their ancestors had arrived around 1100, in 17 clans amounting
to some 2,500 individuals, perhaps to trade, and had been given permission
to settle. In 1163 the first synagogue was built under the guidance of "Ustad
Levi" and "Andula"; "Ustad" is the Persian for
"Rabbi", and "Andula" looks like the Islamic "Abdullah"
(also the word "manla" appears in inscriptions indicating a kind
of acolyte, and this may be the Arabic "mullah"). The synagogue
was rebuilt in 1279.
By the early 15th century they also had Chinese names for external use;
this was a sign not only of acculturation but also of social upgrading,
some of them having official Chinese ranks and titles. By the early 16th
century the community numbered some 1,000 to 1,500 souls, in seven clans;
in face and dress they were now indistinguishable from other Chinese, except
for a small blue cap, hence their popular name "Muslims with blue caps".
Their synagogue, in Earth Market Street, was known as the "Hall of
Israel" or the "Temple of Purity and Truth" (ê¥ê^éõ-
the standard name for a mosque), or the "Temple of Those who Remove
the Sinew" (íßãÿéõ- see Genesis
32:32). It was oriented towards Jerusalem, but was built in the Chinese
style, except that there were no living beings portrayed in the decorations;
however there were two stone lions at the entrance. The first courtyard
was open to the public, and contained steles with inscriptions in the Chinese
style. Inside, the altar had the regular Chinese incense-burner, candlesticks
and vases, and in the centre was a tablet with the prescribed inscription
to the Emperor. By contrast, the Jewish "Hear, O Israel,..." appeared
in Hebrew above the inscription to the Emperor, and behind the altar was
the "Chair of Moses", on which the Torah was placed during recitation;
at the back was the Ark with the Torah scrolls hidden behind curtains. The
Sabbath, and festivals like Yom Kippur and Passover were observed regularly.
During worship the rabbi was barefooted, perhaps because he was standing
on "holy ground". By 1700, those few who knew Hebrew pronounced
it abominably, according to Domenge, and no longer knew the correct method
of chanting. At this time the community was still well integrated and functioning
actively, but the signs of decay were there: the defective knowledge of
the sacred language, the exteriorization of rituals, and, above all, a certain
lack of interest.
After the edict of 1724 the Jesuits could no longer visit Kaifeng, and when
the curtain was raised again after 1850 the situation had changed markedly.
After the Opium War the treaty ports had been opened; Protestant missionaries
from England and America had come. One of them sent a letter to Kaifeng
in 1850, but only received an answer twenty years later, which he published
in a book "The Orphan Colony of Jews in China". It reported on
an impoverished community, falling apart, with its synagogue little more
than a ruin. Other reports told of poor Jewish households living in straw
huts in the synagogue's courtyard; they were still conscious of their identity,
but the last rabbi to know Hebrew had died in 1810, and the festivals they
celebrated were adulterated with heathen practices. A clearer sign of decay
was the fact that they were now willing to sell six of their Torah scrolls
and other texts.
After 1860 foreigners were allowed to travel inland, and one missionary
reported that the synagogue site was now just a muddy plain with pools of
stagnant water; the only remaining edifice was one stele, and the community
was reduced to 300-400. In 1867 an American Jew visited the site and was
deeply moved. Various rescue operations were planned, but came to nothing,
as this was the time of massive Jewish emigrations to America following
the pogroms in eastern Europe, and all available funds were needed for their
support. In 1902, E.M. Perlman met eight Kaifeng Jews who had come to Shanghai.
His guests were simple and barely literate people. They told him the community
of about 1,000 still worshipped one God, did not eat pork, removed the sinew
from slaughtered animals, and were buried in a shroud in a special type
of coffin; no other Jewish customs were observed, not even circumcision,
which had still been practised in 1851.
From 1909 to 1933 the Canadian William C. White was Anglican bishop in Kaifeng,
and during that time he tried to save what was left of the Jewish community.
He set up the remaining stele near his church, collected some relics, and
bought the synagogue site and turned it into a playground; above all he
tried to reactivate the remaining 180 individuals, but all in vain. In 1940
the Japanese made a survey of the community, suspecting them of being enemy
sympathizers. Then in 1949 the communist regime confiscated all properties
owned by foreigners, and the site of the synagogue is now covered by apartment
buildings. The last trace of their tradition appeared in a melancholy incident.
An American Jew living in Shanghai wanted to buy a bowl in the market place;
the merchant turned bowl over to find the price, and "25 cents".
The American also turned the bowl over, and found the Hebrew letters "kaph-he",
standing for "25". The merchant did not know the language, only
that these symbols had been handed down through the generations as numerals.
How was it that this community survived for so long? The existence of minority
ethnic groups in the Chinese Empire was not exceptional, but, with the exception
of the Muslims, they had all disappeared through assimilation. The Jewish
community could not be said to have held on to its identity because of oppression
or persecution, as elsewhere; on the contrary, Perlman has suggested that
it was eventually assimilated because of Chinese toleration. But this theory
can only be valid for the last phase of disintegration and assimilation;
it does not explain how the Jewish community could flourish for so many
centuries before that time. The explanation may lie in the fact that the
Kaifeng Jews had achieved a perfect balance between the Jewish way of life
and the requirements of the Chinese state. As we have seen, they had accommodated
to Chinese practices while still maintaining their own rituals and language
- achieving what the Jesuits had been striving for. Another theory has it
that this accommodation resulted in a kind of "Confucian braindrain";
the most ambitious and talented Jews were skimmed off into official careers,
and became estranged from their own religion and culture. But the records
show no sign of this happening, in fact it was the Jewish literati who most
enthusiastically contributed to the rebuilding and decoration of the synagogue.
Also it was quite possible for one to be a Confucian and adhere to another
religion at the same time.
However, the maintenance of such a balanced symbiosis required a high level
of education, and this in turn required a certain degree of material prosperity.
Failing this, the balanced compromise will be endangered. From the end of
the 17th century there are clear signs of a social and intellectual "declassement"
of the Jewish community, which in turn leads to loss of identity. The economic
crises and natural disasters of the late 18th and early 19th centuries hit
the province of Henan severely, and the capital Kaifeng became a decayed,
pauperized city. The Jewish community shared fully in this and thus declined
rapidly, and so disintegrated.
The question remains, can it be reintegrated and revived? Jewish organizations
in America would like to help, but at the moment religious activity by foreigners
is strictly forbidden, and the remaining Jews have no "national minority"
status as the Muslims have. But there is a spontaneous upsurge of religious
activity in China at the moment, so the time may yet come when a new Jewish
community will appear.
Following his presentation, Dr. Zurcher showed a number of slides illustrating
his theme, and then, after a short question time, the meeting closed with
a vote of thanks proposed by Rabbi James Lebeau.
Adapted from "The
Asiatic Society of Japan Bulletin No. 7", September 1995, compiled
by Hugh Wilkinson.
return to Asiatic Society Home
Page, 1995 Lectures