Hebrew Alphabet & Tarot

Do you believe Tarot was originally based on the Hebrew alphabet?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 5.7%
  • No

    Votes: 68 77.3%
  • It seems likely, even if unproven

    Votes: 4 4.5%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 11 12.5%

  • Total voters
    88

firecatpickles

(making two posts because one would be too long)

To count to twenty-two from 10 on, one must add the appropriate letters as if they were numbers:

יא =11
יב =12
יג =13
יד =14
(6 + 9) טו =15
(7 + 9) טז =16
יז =17
יח =18
יט =19
כ =20
כא =21
כב =22

Note that 15 cannot be יו as it corresponds to the first two letters for the name of G-d. Traditionally, the succeeding number, 16, is written alternately as well.

The alephbet simply has *nothing* to do with counting one to twenty-two.
 

moderndayruth

Ross G Caldwell said:
I think Mary's question was phrased properly - it asked whether you "believe" that Tarot was "originally" based on the Hebrew Alphabet. She didn't ask whether such a relationship between the two was personally meaningful to you, or whether it could have come about later.

So obviously I voted "no".

We can "know" that Tarot was not originally based on the Hebrew Alphabet as well as we can know most things in distant history - by gathering evidence and drawing conclusions. There are many kinds of evidence, and many methods for evaluating it. In early Tarot's case, all of the evidence is silent on a connection with the Hebrew alphabet, and all of the methods of evaluating the evidence make it implausible that there was a connection.

The Hebrew alphabet has 22 letters; the standard Tarot deck has 21 ordered trumps and a Fool, which are often taken together as 22 Trumps. This is the only "connection", and is at the very least a coincidence. Thus it cannot be ruled out as a logical possibility that either the inventor of this sequence of cards or an early interpreter noted the coincidence and found it meaningful in some way. But the coincidence extends no further - the names and lore of the Hebrew letters have no relationship with the images and sequence of the trumps. Thus it seems extremely unlikely that the coincidence of number has any meaning, i.e. that the coincidence IS evidence of such a relationship.

Any disinterested historian can therefore say with complete confidence, as much as can be expected in history, that the Tarot was not originally based on the Hebrew alphabet. That's the only rational conclusion.

If evidence comes up to show otherwise, it will not be shameful for the rational historian to say "I was wrong".

Ross

Ross, with due respect to your in my opinion vast knowledge, as i understood the initial question was about each individual believes.
Definition of Believe
Be`lieve´
v. t. 1. To exercise belief in; to credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of, upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by circumstances other than personal knowledge; to regard or accept as true; to place confidence in; to think; to consider; as, to believe a person, a statement, or a doctrine.
http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/believe
From academic viewpoint, the historicity of the Bible itself is disputable too, due to existance of counter evidence/ lack of evidence, which of course doesn't seem to be an obstacle for many to base their believes on it. :)
 

mjhurst

Hi, Ruth,

moderndayruth said:
Ross, with due respect to your in my opinion vast knowledge, as i understood the initial question was about each individual believes.
...
From academic viewpoint, the historicity of the Bible itself is disputable too, due to existance of counter evidence/ lack of evidence, which of course doesn't seem to be an obstacle for many to base their believes on it. :)
With all due respect, you haven't said anything that contradicts what Ross posted.

Mary asked about people's belief. Some people believe in historical lore based on religious faith, and others, those you refer to as having an "academic viewpoint", believe in history as reconstructed by sober analysis of factual evidence. Ross repeatedly phrased his post in terms of the latter approach -- he was answering for himself, and explaining his approach.

As with the Egyptian poll, I think that Mary is primarily interested in the explanations provided by those using another approach to historical "knowledge", but Ross -- as usual -- explained the fact-based approach concisely and clearly.

Regarding your comparison to belief in the Bible's historicity, the Comte de Mellet, Antoine Court de Gebelin, and the fortune-teller Alliette just made stuff up according to the pop-culture enthusiasms of the day. Egyptian origins and etymologies, Tarot temples of initiation, transmission by the Templars or Gypsies, Cabalistic meaning, and the rest is pure bunk. Unlike occult Tarot's fictions, more than a few historical stories of the Bible turns out to have historical support from modern archeology, evidence which at least suggests a factual basis for the biblical lore.

On the other hand, Christian Fundamentalists have adopted a pseudo-scientific guise and attempted to present 3,000 year-old Bronze Age creation myths as 21st-Century "Creation Science" about "Intelligent Design", and so on. This is exactly like the true believers who post to every Tarot history forum I've seen. These people are fascinated by isolated factoids of Tarot history in the same way that Jehovah's Witnesses are fascinated by paleontology, physical anthropology, and the like. They seek items they can cherry pick, take out of context and distort to make a case for their beliefs even though those beliefs were never based on evidence to begin with.

The more sophisticated ones even pretend to be skeptical about historical facts, and conservative in their analyses. As we saw in the Egyptian-origins thread, they say one thing -- their true beliefs -- in vague and rambling terms, but when someone questions them they say "oh no -- I didn't mean that I believe the things I said!" These are pseudo-skeptics as well as pseudo-historians, employing language from skeptical historians but not the actual methodology. (Unfortunately, the term "pseudo-skeptic" was invented by just such a pseudo-skeptic, as a way to slur people who don't believe in UFOs and the paranormal.) On the Egyptian-origins thread the poll results suggest that serious-minded people replied in the majority, by about 2:1 or 3:1. However, the postings reveal that it is largely a silent majority.

Based on that, it seems that lurkers are better Tarot historians than posters and most of the people who write books and websites on Tarot.

Best regards,
Michael
 

Ross G Caldwell

moderndayruth said:
Ross, with due respect to your in my opinion vast knowledge, as i understood the initial question was about each individual believes.

Thanks Ruth. As Michael noted, you haven't contradicted anything I wrote. I was only explaining why I believe Tarot was not "originally" based on the Hebrew Alphabet. Everybody has reasons for their beliefs, whether they examine those reasons (i.e. are aware of them) or not.

I also wanted to point out the question was about a specific belief - that is, that Tarot was ORIGINALLY based on the Hebrew Alphabet - it didn't ask about feelings or beliefs in general about the idea of the connection - i.e. the mystical or religious value of such a connection. In fact, it proves meaningful to many people. Trying to crowbar it into the origin of Tarot is where religious faith turns dangerous - it can corrupt your thinking, and make criticism based on facts and reasoning seem like a personal attack based on malice or some other ulterior motive.

I wanted especially to point out that the compelling reason for most people to believe that there is a connection - that both have 22 items - is not a sound reason, because there is no coincidence of subject matter, and no evidence that anybody before Antoine Court de Gebelin and the Comte de Mellet in 1781 saw such a connection - despite plenty of talk about Tarot before then.

That "core reason" is of course kind of abstract and the result of analysis; in fact the reason most people believe it is because they want to (for whatever reason), and they find that belief affirmed by many others. It is an old belief (around 230 years), which has allowed plenty of development.

I look forward to the day that someone before de Gebelin is found to have noted that the number of Trumps and the number of Hebrew letters is 22. That would mean that new evidence of Tarot's history has been discovered! A new text to look at. As I said, it is not an absurd idea - it is not a logical impossibility. But when all the evidence is gathered and weighed, however you want to weigh it, at least if you are an honest broker, then the idea seems at least an historical absurdity - there is no reason at all to think that Tarot was associated with the Hebrew alphabet before 1781, and every - literally every - reason to think otherwise.

So, I don't think otherwise, and I don't believe otherwise.

Ross
 

moderndayruth

mjhurst said:
Hi, Ruth,
Hi Michael :)


mjhurst said:
With all due respect, you haven't said anything that contradicts what Ross posted.
Of course not. Michael, i believe the intent of my posts was quite clear to many - it was definitely not to contradict Ross's opinion because he personally is one of the senior posters at AT from whom i learned immensely and who has been contributing to our community really a lot.
So, let me try to explain to you personally what i meant, ok?
1. I respect very much Teheuti personally and her work and given that a poll was started - i believe most of us choose to participate not to contradict each other - but to find out how many of us believe in what;
2. For myself i wanted to clarify whether we are speaking about beliefs or of evidence, as i suppose you know - beliefs do not have to be based on hystorical evidence. If we are speaking about evidence - to me Ross is authority No1 there and i bow out.

mjhurst said:
Mary asked about people's belief. Some people believe in historical lore based on religious faith, and others, those you refer to as having an "academic viewpoint", believe in history as reconstructed by sober analysis of factual evidence. Ross repeatedly phrased his post in terms of the latter approach -- he was answering for himself, and explaining his approach.


As with the Egyptian poll, I think that Mary is primarily interested in the explanations provided by those using another approach to historical "knowledge", but Ross -- as usual -- explained the fact-based approach concisely and clearly.
Thank you for explaining Mary's and Ross primarily interests, but than, i believe most of us who post regularly are somewhat familiar with other senior posters, and though i appreciate your mediation i doubt it was really called for.
mjhurst said:
Based on that, it seems that lurkers are better Tarot historians than posters and most of the people who write books and websites on Tarot.
Micheal, i totally understand why someone who can substract their questionable reasoning to a single and quite limited post/or avoids posting all together - should avoid writing books on any subject - if that is what you are hinting at :)
I believe i can not word my thoughts in a more plain way than that and if there are some further misunderstandings i believe i shall leave them unresolved as far as i am concerned.
Happy New Year, Michael and all the best to you.
 

Greg Stanton

I think that Tehuti's polls would have brought different results if they were conducted 20 years ago. Since that time, considerable research has brought to light facts that are, until evidence to the contrary is discovered, irrefutable. Many tarot authors during that time have revised their earlier works to reflect what has since been discovered about the history of tarot, and at least one (Huson) was compelled to write an entirely new book on the subject.

Not just the Tarot, but most occult topics are undergoing a "new rationalism", so to speak. It's getting harder to find a Wiccan who really believes their faith existed before 1950. Scholarly analysis of the Golden Dawn materials, as well as Crowley's works, have turned up many errors -- it wouldn't surprise me if a "corrected" GD volume turned up in a few years. The old standard grimoires (Agrippa, G & L Keys of Solomon, Abramelin) have been re-published in new translations with scholarly commentary, showing that the Golden Dawn and Crowley weren't quite working from authentic source material.

Most of this would not interest us tarot people, but it does show a welcome trend in the general field of "the occult."
 

moderndayruth

Thank you for your reply, Ross :heart:
We cross-posted :D
Pm-ed you.
 

Umbrae

The issue I have is that the Hebrew Alphabet contains 22 sequenced letters.

We assume that the trumps were added to the 52 card deck.

22+52=74 That’s four short of 78. I don’t care how you do the math.

26+52=78

One cannot ignore some pieces of evidence at the expense of others (cherry picking).

Origin theories that center on the addition of 22 data points fail for this reason – they are incomplete.

Comparing a coincidental sequence that shares the number 22 does not prove causation. Hebrew letters, Oghams, Runes etc cannot be proved to be ancestors of a cardgame simply because they contain a sequence (zeroth or not). Such ignores the arithmetic of the problem.
 

firecatpickles

Umbrae said:
The issue I have is that the Hebrew Alphabet contains 22 sequenced letters.

We assume that the trumps were added to the 52 card deck.

22+52=74 That’s four short of 78. I don’t care how you do the math.

26+52=78

One cannot ignore some pieces of evidence at the expense of others (cherry picking).

Origin theories that center on the addition of 22 data points fail for this reason – they are incomplete.

Comparing a coincidental sequence that shares the number 22 does not prove causation. Hebrew letters, Oghams, Runes etc cannot be proved to be ancestors of a cardgame simply because they contain a sequence (zeroth or not). Such ignores the arithmetic of the problem.

Exactly. And I might add, what about the earliest decks that appear to have way more minors and fewer Majors?
 

Ross G Caldwell

Umbrae said:
We assume that the trumps were added to the 52 card deck.

That is not as secure an assumption as one might think. Bernardino of Siena in a sermon in Florence in 1424 describes the four suits, and a King, Queen, Upper and Lower Soldier. That should be a 56 card pack (he doesn't say there are 10 pips, but there is no reason to think otherwise). The addition to the 52 card pack prior to Tarot was the Queen. She is first noted in John of Rheinfelden's moralization of 1377 - thus already there were packs in Germany with 56 cards (and other kinds).

56 card packs might have been common if not standard for a certain time and a certain region of Italy. In the context of a sermon, it might seem that Bernardino assumed it was the pack his listeners were most familiar with.

So there is nothing preventing 56 card packs from existing at this time.

Ross