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 is
a) a Kabbalah that is restricted to historical considerations or a Kabbalah that looks at its Jewish foundation or embedding;
b) a different Qabalah that is really an abbreviation for Qabalah + Hermeticism + Astrology + other stuff; and
c) a third Cabala that is a Christian appropriation.
Rather, 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.