Spellings of 'Kabbalah'

Daemon said:

Oh, and isn't Qabbalah spelled Kabala?

Click to expand...

All but three of the many spellings seem to be gradually falling out of favor.
From the books that I've read there has been a generally unspoken rule followed for the surviving three, referring to different parts of the study.
Cabala is mostly only used to refer to the mystical Christian followers.
Kabbalah tends to refer to the Jewish tradition and scholarship
Qabalah usually refers to the Western Mystery Tradition's adaptations.
The spelling, as was mentioned above, is Qoph Beth Lamed He
You can see these trends developed in the book titles in the QBLH part
of this biblioraphy, which starts about a fourth of the way through the link:
http://www.hermetica.info/TongBib.htm
PS there's also a pretty big Tarot bibliography here too

It may have been Israel Regardie who made that claim mentioned by bradford above with regards to the differences in spelling and the 'tradition' which they reflect, but I consider this to be simply incorrect.

It seems that the predominant spelling in early works is 'Cabala' (with or without a double 'b', and usually without a final 'h'). This 'shifted' in the 19th century to transliterating the word as 'Qabalah', in many ways seeking to as clearly as possible reflect the letters used, and the differences found in both Hebrew and Latin-influenced languages between the the hard 'c', the 'k', and the 'q'.

This was also the time that the Golden Dawn (amongst others) were formed, and so they also reflected the then current predominant scholarly usage.

Since, it seems, especially Scholem's ground-breaking works, the word appears to be more commonly transliterated as 'Kabbalah' - even by non-Jewish and more 'magically' oriented folks (such as Zalewski).

Which, if any, is the more 'correct' transliteration?

This will very much depend on how the two alphabets are 'linked'.

In terms of sound, possibly the 'K' is closer than the 'Q'. In terms of standard latinate usage of consonants, the 'C', opening a word before an 'a', is probably more 'natural'. If one tries to link the letters in approximate order, then the 'Q' seems more apt.

There is not, however, a more 'magical hermetic' spelling, or a more Christian version, or a more 'scholarly-Jewish' type - even if some sites, and some authors, have tried to make it so and thus have their own preference (in both style and spelling) be adopted by others.

Kosher Kabbalah?

Ahhh the C-Q-K question...

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here, JMD, with the understanding that you know a great deal more about QBLH than I and that what follows is only personal opinion.

You're making something of an academic distinction, because even if this tripartite division of spellings is not literally true it is anecdotally true. There are distinct, though not discrete, threads in QBLH and those slight spelling shifts have become a way to articulate these differences clearly and quickly. Esoteric slang, if you will. No one is claiming that any one spelling is correct, but these three traditions are distinct... why is it incorrect to distinguish between them? Any attempt at clarity is useful.

I don't see how you can call a relatively common distinction "simply incorrect" when the subject is transliteration which by definition can never be completely accurate. That's as subjective arguing that translating Mal as "bad" is correct, but as "evil" is not. In fact, your own analysis indicates not only the source of the 3spellings/3modes meme and provides the explanation for my disagreement.

As you say, the spelling Cabala dates primarily (or references material from) the period when the ban on study of QBLH had been lifted in the Jewish communities and Renaissance Christians were coopting QBLH to facilitate conversion of the Jews by proving the inevitability of Jesus-as-Messiah. Hence the absorption of the word cabal into standard English as a designator of a secret group. Mainstream Judaism shifts away from its more explosive implications leaving it to Hasidim thirsting for direct experience of the Divine. Eventually the Christian theologians are done with it, but not before the hermetic types spot the juicy Neoplatonism embedded within.

The Qabalah spelling evokes the Victorian fascination with the mysterious Orient and ancient wisdom... QBLH-as-exotica, by way of Levi and the French egyptophiles who, as good Christians, headed right back to Kircher's Jesuit Fantasia in "C". Post-industrial Hermeticism and syncretism gave rise to the various magical lodges which are the cornerstone of the modern occult movement. So Q becomes a popular spelling for the wacky gentiles. Zalewski notwithstanding (and his worthwhile love of Scholem explains it), this is the spelling used by (not all but) many Hermetic Qabalists when describing a tradition that is often only tangentially connected with the Zohar. Searching for Qabalah IS the most likely to turn up references to hermetic QBLH. That's not an opinion, that's my experience; check google. Tricky thing is that mountains of thought from the "C" period were dug up, translated and mass produced by "Q" folks back in the day, because it wasn't all about YHSVH and they had to give something to the membership.

And Scholem's spelling Kabbalah dates from exactly the moment when his publishing lifespan dragged QBLH out of obscurity and into respectability in (non-Hasidic) Jewish circles for the 1st time since the 18th century. As Kabbalah was embraced by nonHasidim, Jewish & gentile, the spelling used by its most articulate and learned proponent took hold, naturally. Scholem's Zionist politics and rock-solid academic background also played a part. K was not Q and never could have been. No small wonder that "K" & "Q" (and the occasional "C") have been duking it out as various camps lay claim to ownership of something that can't even be defined.

Transliteration is a tricky, subjective thing and obviously there is no right answer (cf the Qoph/Kaph argument or the soft/hard B argument). Many folks have seen these 3 spellings identified as you describe and understand the distinction; the dates of the various usages supports a (necessarily) vague division between the different schools of thought. The only folks I've seen lumping them together and insisting they're the same beast are ortho Rabbis and the hardline Jewish academicians who loathe the esotericists and only decided QBLH was an acceptable study topic after Scholem had planted his flag and the liberalism of the 1960s had eaten away at congregations.

C-Q-K... It's not an absolute. It's not a rule. It's squishy around the edges. I think a lot of it scomes down to sources and first contact with the topic. I've noticed that a few neoscholastic Hermetic authors have championed Scholem's K. Crowley's orientalist Q has leaked into a lot of ceremonial magick writing and thence into neopaganism. And C still pops up in nonproselytizing contexts (often involving the Illuminati), maybe because cabal is in the standard dictionaries and editors are lazy. So be it. Idioms develop.

QBLH is by definition syncretistic, in any of its mutations. There are different strains of QBLH and they don't occupy the same academic, intellectual, spiritual or practical turf. To declare the C-Q-K distinction invalid even if it is artificially imposed seems counterintuitive and pointless. Why is it preferable to discourage clarity by not distinguishing between these not-so-close cousins? What esoteric conspiracy is foisting its opinions upon the world by making it clear that Crowley's Qabalah and the Maharal are often at odds? Even if it is only the invisible hand of general opinion gradually adopting these 3 spellings, why shouldn't it be so? Languages evolve, thank the gods.

As always, this got longer than I intended, but I've been doing research and thinking about this a lot, so I thought I'd poke in with with a differing opinion just to stir the soup.

Respectfully,

Scion

My 2 cents

My 2 cents is this. Influenced most by Scholem in my education on what QBLH ostensibly was, I use the term Kabbalah for what has survived of it, merely to make clear I am dealing with it as it is characterized by serious scholarship, most of which is of Jewish provenance. Admittedly the Hermetic branch of the tradition has preserved at least two concrete teachings apparently lost sight of in Jewish circles—a demonstrably old (since it shows affinities to bardic numbering, which is obscure) version of letter-to-path correlations for the Tree, and a non-fluctuating assignment of planets to Sefirot that passes the smell test—but these are minor things compared to what we have, for example, from Ari and company, or what has survived of the writings and publications (such as the Bahir) of the 12th- and 13th-century Kabbalists themselves, and books dealing with these that I have come across seem to use this spelling.

However, there is then the question of how one might distinguish between what has survived of it and the original whole of which it constitutes suggestive fragments, at least to the extent this can be empirically and logically defined. For this I have opted simply to substitute the more correct transliteration Q (qof’s Latin counterpart) in place of K in the above term. I do this because it is an almost unused variant, the spelling Qabalah being the more common Q-version yet usually referring to wildly speculative ‘versions’ of ‘it’.

At least let us be thankful we’re only fighting over the difference between K and Q: the poor Kelts had to fight over the difference between Q and P (Q-Kelts and P-Kelts), which are farther apart, and then suffer the unmitigated indignity of having me and H.G.Wells spell Kelt with a K! C’est la vie.

Amaratzis!

The title means (in hebrew) ignorance. The whole Q idea came from that the kuf is pronounced at the back of the throat like a Q. The former is correct, the latter is not. Q is actually pronounced at the front of the throat if you have any sense. I have proof, my dad is a rabbi, and he has read every single book in the Chumash.

Fantastic posts - and wonderful reflections to read and digest.

I suppose that, for myself, I do not ask first and foremost the question: 'who uses which spelling and what do they advocate?', but rather 'what is Kabalah and are there clear distinctions that can be made?'

The answer to the latter is that, in my view, Kabalistic models are ultimately connected to the same foundation and source, irrespective as to any overlays (whether these be Christian modern or earlier, and whether it be historical studies or magical tractates).

The exception to this, as far as I am concerned, are works such as 'Greek Qabalah' that have, in any case, adopted the term for reasons of partial overlap and popularity rather than intrinsic Kabalistic considerations (a better rendition would have been 'Greek Gematria' - but then, I doubt the book would have achieved the sales it deserved).

The lists of 'correlations' that many assign to the Tree of Life is not in itself Kabalah (nor 'Qabalah'), but rather assigned correlations, in the same manner that Tarot, Kabalah and Astrology remain independent, even if various correlations are proposed, suggested or even worked.

I suppose that, unlike Scion's suggestion (if I have read it correctly - and my apologies if I missed an essential point), I do not consider that Qabalah = Kabalah + Hermeticism + Tarot + Alchemy + Astrology + I Ching + etc..

Rather, the basis of Kabalah (irrespective of spelling) is the same.

Some, such as Scholem, have a greater historical interest in the discipline (similarly does Dummett have with Tarot). Some have interests that seek to really investigate its foundation and source (such as A. Kaplan, M. Idel and a host of others), some have more an interest in using one or two of its aspects (such as one amongst various versions of the Tree of Life depiction, and the AlefBeit) and see how non-Kabbalistic aspects are either reflected therein, or can be made to interact, merge, or be superimposed.

The latter is not in itself C/K/Qabalah, but rather C/K/Qabalah mixed with all these other things. This can be 'shown' by asking questions such as 'is the location suggested upon the Tree for Persephone or for Freya Qabalistic, or does it arise from another source?'

One does, of course, in part respond by suggesting that meditation and considerations of the Sefirot themselves suggests particular currents of thought or particular qualities, that are themselves reflected in God-forms such as Persephone or Freya. These, however, show similarities, not identity, in that neither Kabalistic considerations nor Greek or Nordic workings have exact overlaps, and certainly these do not have similar metaphysical nor theological (in this term's broader sense) considerations.

This is in part why I do not consider the suggested division between Cabala, Qabalah and Kabbalah 'true'. The concept is not clarified, but rather provides incorrect walls that suggest that there isRather, I would suggest, there is a single Kabalah that various individuals have used in various ways, and have investigated from various perspectives - but the source, and the impulse, is the same, and at its edges spills over into non-Kabalistic considerations, whether these be historical, foundational, or suggested links to other systems.

Each of these directions reflect KBLH in different ways, and each has its worth, and its limitations if taken to their respective extremes.

Generality and specificity

And THAT is what I was trying to get at, JMD.

What I sensed under your criticism of the artificial split was an partially unspoken desire to treat is as a single, massive entity that is inherently indivisible. The "basis of Kabalah is the same" as you say, but people don't learn much by trying to immediately absorb a basis. And the reason I spoke of making allowance for the artificial three is that people cannot know a single indivisble whole, they approach it in parts (Aristotle and Plato again, for folks who remember that old AT thread on the School of Athens). I'm not speaking of what IS true or IS correct, but what is actually happening in the world and can be observed. I don't believe that Qabalah = "hermeticism+crystals+sidhe." The butchered syntheses of Chakras and Sephiroth make me want to hurl. But the Q terrain certainly bumps up against that ideological landscape especially given the impact of the GD on the "New Age." What I do think is that people who are looking to dip their hand in the water of the 19th century hermetic river are going to locate more under Q. That's all.

And Daemon, while I take your point, it's a literalist observation. Those 19th century folk decided on the Q/qof as opposed to kuf in the past which means we cannot change it, no matter how misguided their choice... like the ridiculous mistranslations in the King James Bible which have started bonfires and battles. The Q meme has gotten out of the box and already mutated several times in the past century. Even if your father was the Wandering Jew and received the QBLH from Luria himself doesn't alter the moment when a bunch of titled, entitled Brits decided that they would "make some sense" out of all these esoteric subsystems and changed them forever. It's like insisting any spiritual tradition springs full formed into existence, when willful, calculated syncretism is the one charateristic that all traditions share. Faith is a cannibal. So too C/Q/Kabbalah; even if there was no synthesis in Spain in the 12th century, there seems to have been... which makes for interesting questions and possibly interesting discussion. Ideas are living things.

All interesting, and worth mulling over... Thanks for separating this out, JMD

Scion

What I was describing is what the language is doing, or as aptly put,
how it's being shaped by the invisible hand of laissez faire philosophy.
I wasn't advocating it as a position, and I provided a link to a hundred
examples of how this is the case as reflected in the titles of published
works. I suppose you can protest this natural evolutionary step in
QBLH philology. But I just don't know who you can file the protest with.
You can rail against the spirit of the times. For me, for now, I find
useful information embedded in the distinction. Fuzzy edges and all.
If I'm seeking WMT developments I'm not googling at my best if I
google with a K.