The Jewish Colony at Kaifeng
ms numberms794-006
Persistent Identifier
The Jewish Colony at Kaifeng.
Two years ago I had occasion to visit Kaifeng and I was naturally
^interested^ in seeing what I could of the
remains
^relics^ of the Jewish Colony there. I was
disappointed in finding so few traces remaining. Beyond the Jewish
physiognomies which you occasionally see on the streets there seems to
be nothing.
Bishop White of the Canadian Church mission was
interested himself in preserving the tablets, but there is no single
brick or stone left of the old Synagogue. The land where it once
stood has been purchased by Bishop White and has now been loaned
to the [illegible: Y. M. C. A.] for an
athletic field. The stone
tablets which formerly stood within the grounds of the Synagogue
have been rescued from destruction and now stand in front of the
church. They have been much defaced. One of them is quite illegible.
Two of the carved in scription, however, can still
be read, though some of the char acters have
been chipped off. I have here rubbings from these two stone tablets
and translations, made, I believe, by Bishop Smith of HongKong 70
years ago. The translations show that some phrases which are now
illegible were in a better state of preservation when the translations
were made. For example, we read in
the translation that the
an cestors of the Jews came from India. The
characters T'ien Chu Kuo (天竺國) "Land of Heavenly
Bamboos" cannot now be made out in the Chinese through defacement.
There is no doubt about its having been there originally. In the 2 nd tablet we can still read the statement
that Adam the first ancestor of the Jews came from India. The dates of
the two inscriptions which now remain are the 2nd year of Hung Chih (弘治) of the Ming
Dyn asty, A.D. 1489 and the 7th year Cheng Te (正德) of the same
Dynasty A.D. 1513. I must object to Bishop Smith's translation in one
or two particulars. In an apparent
attempt to make the
chronology of the tablet more accurate, the translator makes the
writer of the inscription say that Abraham lived in the 146th year of the "Chou State" which he places
at the time of Yao (堯) and Shun (舜) over 2000 B.C., but
the statement of the tablet is quite clear "the 146th year of the Chou Dynasty" (周朝)
or B.C. 976, or about 1000 years later than the date ordinarily
assigned to Abraham. Moses is stated to have lived about the 613 th year of the Chou Dynasty, which would
also be about 1000 years later than the date usually assigned to him.
It seems to me rather unnecessary for the translator to be so zealous
to prove the
accuracy of the chronology of
the tablet in view of the fact that the inscription begins with
the statement that Abraham was the 19th
descendant of P'an Ku (盤古) or Adam.
I must also defend the standing of the writers of the earlier
inscription by criticizing the translation of their literary titles,
which has been repeated in every reference that I have seen to the
Kaifeng tablets. The translation reads "Composed by a promoted
literary graduate of the Kaifeng Prefecture named Chin Chung ;
inscribed by a literary graduate of purchased rank of the Hsi An Fu
District named Tsao Tso, and engraved by a literary graduate of
purchased rank of the Kaifeng Prefecture
named Pu Ju". The phrase
rendered "Promoted Literary Graduate" is Tseng Kuang Sheng Yüan
(增廣生員) which means a "sheng yüan" or
"hsiu-ts'ai" who got his degree in the supplementary list, i.e. in the
number added by Imperial Edict to the quota originally assigned to the
Province. What is translated "Literary Graduate of Purchased Rank" is
the phrase "lin shan sheng yüan
(廩膳生員) which means a "sheng yüan" or
"hsin ts'ai" who receives a govt. pension. So poor Ts'ao Tso and Pu Ju
have had their special honor turned into dishonor by the translator.
The fact is that all three were evidently scholars of some local
distinction. I think that the general assumption is that they were
members of the
Jewish Community. I consider
this very improbable. It is the custom in China when a tablet is to be
set up to distinguish
^honor^ any temple or public building to invite
some scholar of local reputation to compose or write it. He is then
posted upon such facts as it is desired shall be contained in the
inscription and he draws it up in such a way that it may have the
necessary literary flavor. From the internal evidence of the Kaifeng
Synagogue inscriptions I feel quite certain that the usual Chinese
custom was followed and that the inscriptions were not composed by
Jews. A rather patronizing tone pervades both documents. We are told
that Jewish and Confucian doctrines
are practically identical.
The I Ching or Book of Changes is freely quoted and the Jewish
religion is summarized as follows: "The main design of it is nothing
more than reverence for heaven and veneration for ancestors, fidelity
to the prince and obedience to parents, just that which is
included in the five human relations, the five constant virtues and
the three principal connections of life." In the first tablet we read
"To venerate Heaven and to neglect ancestors is to fail in the
services which are their due. In the spring and autumn, therefore, men
sacrifice to their ancestors to show that they serve the dead as they
do the living. They offer
sheep and oxen and present the fruits of the season to show that
^they^ do not neglect the honor due to ancestors
when they are gone from us." This certainly does not come from the
Old Testament ritual.
The tablet of 1513 reads even more like a Confucian essay
than the earlier tablet. The translation is perhaps rather misleading
in that the familiar "tao" is trans lated
"Eternal Reason".
The general tone of the two inscriptions indicates ^that^ the process of the amalgamation
^absorption^ of the colony into the general
population was rather advanced at the time when they were
written.
As to the historical facts which
we may glean from the
tablets, that of A.D. 1513 contains the sentence "This religion
entered China during the Han Dynasty." This ^is^ evidently tradition merely and we have no particular
reason either to doubt or to believe the statement. It is not
claimed that the Jews who came to China in the Han Dynasty were
the ancestors of the Kaifeng Jews for it is distinctly stated that the
ancestors of the colony came from India during the Sung Dynasty (A.D.
960-1278) and that the first synagogue was built in the
1st year of Lung Hsing of the Sung Dynasty
(A.D. 1164), and that it was rebuilt in the 16th year of Chih Yüan of the Yüan Dynasty (A.D. 1296). Other
details are given regarding
various repairs and additions at other times. We are informed also
that the Hebrew scriptures in 53 sections were deposited in the
Synagogue, and that during the reign of T'ien Shun of the Ming Dynasty
(1457-1465) a Jewish colony at Ming Po, furnished them new copies ^of the scriptures^. This last statement is
inter esting as showing the existence of
other communities of Jews in China at that period. I have heard
several singular reports of Jewish travillers that they have found
people in Shantung and also in Mongolia who speak a debased form of
Hebrew allied to the Yiddish. These reports have not been carefully
verified and so must be
considered for the present
as rumors only. If true, they would seem to indicate former
Jewish colonies in Mongolia and Shantung.
The Kaifeng inscriptions give various details of the
ceremonies observed in the Synagogue and contain mention of
Sabbath observance. They show a certain familiarity with the names of
the ancient heroes of Jewish history. Thus, in the 2ndtablet we read "From the beginning of the
world our first father Adam handed down the doctrine to Abraham;
Abraham to Isaac; Isaac to Jacob; Jacob to the Twelve Patriarchs; the
Twelve Patriarchs to Moses; Moses to Aaron; Aaron to Joshua and Joshua
to Ezra." The older tablet gives a
shorter list saying merely
that Abraham handed down the doctrine to Moses and that they were
again handed down to the time of the reformer of religion and wise
instructor, Ezra. I am obliged to criticize the historical accuracy of
the writer of the inscription and
^as^ well as that of the translator. of
the The writer states that the Jewish ancestors arrived at
[Kaifeng or Pien Liang in the Sung Dynasty and were cordially received
by the Emperor who said "Since they have come to our Central land and
reverently observe the customs of their ancestors, let them hand down
the doctrines at Pien Liang." Now Pien Liang was
the official name of Kaifeng in the Yüan Dynasty not in the Sung.
The Sungs called the city Pien Ching. Further on the statement is made
that the synagogue was
was erected in the 1st year of Lung Hsing (A.D.1163). Now Lung
Hsing was the 2nd emperor of the Southern
Sung Dynasty, and in his time Kaifeng had been abandoned to the
Chin Tartars who captured the city in the year 1126
^7^ after which the Southern Sungs made their
capital at NanKing. So the Emperor Lung Hsing resident at NanKing,
could not have been the one who welcomed the Jews at Kaifeng. Their
arrival must have been at least two generations earlier before it fell
into the hands of the Kin Tartars.
The earliest account of China by foreign travillers is that
written by a Mohammedan who visited South China early in the 9th century during the T'ang Dynasty. He speaks
of large numbers of foreigners at Canton and other cities of South
China.
In the commentary on this account written by Abu Zeid al Hasan
we find an account of the over-running of South China by an army of
brigands led by Bei Chu. Canton was captured and the inhabitants put
to the sword. The Arab writer says "There are persons fully acquainted
with the affairs of China who assure us that, besides the Chinese who
were massacred on this occasion, there perished 120 thousand
Moham medans, Jews, Christians, and Parsees
who were there on account of traffic." Whatever we may think of the
accuracy of this number it seems established that there were ^at Canton^ many foreigners, including both Jews
and Christians in the 9th century of the Xu
era.
Four hundred years later in the
time of Kublai Khan of the
Yüan Dynasty Marco Polo visited China and at that time there were
certainly many foreigners of different faiths in North China. In the
writings of Marco Polo I find only one direct reference to the Jews.
That is in his account of the rebellion of Nayan, Prince of Manchuria
and andrepeated word some adjacent
regions, against his kinsman Kublai Khan. According to Marco Polo
Prince Nayan had become a Christian and had the cross displayed upon
his banners. I will quote from Marco Polo "After the great Khan
had conquered Nayan it came to pass that the different kinds of
people who were present, Saracens and
[illegible: Idolatris] and Jews, and many
others that believed not in
God, did give those that were Christians because of the cross that
Nayan had borne on his standard. Thus they would say to the
Christians 'See now what precious help this God's Cross of yours
hath rendered Nayan who was a Christian and a worshipper there of'.
And such a din arose about the matter that it reached the Great
Khan's own ears. When it did so, he sharply rebuked those ^who^ cast these jibs at the Christians, and he
also bade the Christians be of good heart 'for if the cross had
rendered no help to Nayan, in that it had done right well — for
Nayan was a disloyal and traitorous rebel against his Lord —
wherefore the cross of your God did well in that it
gave him no help against the
right'" Most of the Mohammedans, Jews and Christians who were in
North China in Marco Polo's time appear to have entered China by the
northern land route. The Kaifeng Jews coming from India must have come
by the southern sea route.
The first knowledge of the existence of the Honan Colony
reached Europe through the Jesuit missionaries who were at the Court
in the early days of the late dynasty. A young Jew from Kaifeng called
upon Father Ricci at Peking, where upon ^[right]Jesuit^ (Jesuit) missionaries went to Kaifeng to investigate.
Through them the European Jews first heard of their co-religionists
in Honan. Letters in Hebrew were exchanged
between London and Kaifeng.
At the time when these Jews were first introduced to the Western
World by the Jesuit missionaries they were on the down-grade as
regards worldly prosperity and since that time their poverty has
increased year by year until now the colony is actually extinct. In
1850 Bishop Smith of HongKong interested himself in them, and, since
then both Protestant mission aries and Jewish
merchants have visited Kaifeng in an attempt to arouse them without
success. Before the last attempts by Protestant missionaries to help
them, the Taiping Rebellion had already completed their ruin. In the
16th century the synagogue was
described as a building 300 feet in length
and 150 in breadth, but in
1870 it was only a heap of ruins and as I hear said, two years
ago there was not even a broken brick to represent the old
building.
They seem always to have been regarded by the Chinese of
Kaifeng as a sect of Mohammedans. They called them the "T'iao
Chin Hui-hui (挑筋回回) or "Sinew Picking
Mohammedans. You will remember that in Genesis Jacob is said to have
visited with the Angel of the Lord all night and the Angel touched the
hollow of his thigh "Therefore the Children of Israel eat not of the
Sinew which shrank —- because he touched the hollow of Jacob's
thigh in the Sinew that shrank." The author of the article on the
Jewish Colony at Kaifeng in
the Jewish Encyclopaedia
argues from this name great antiquity because he thinks that the
practice of Rabbinical Judaism would have suggested to the Chinese
more distinctive peculiarities of the Jews than this of picking out
the Sinew. I do not think much of the argu ment.
It presupposes that on their arrival at Kaifeng these Jews were
[illegible: punctilious] in the
observ ance of all the rites of Rabbinical
Judaism. This is extremely un likely in view of the
fact that they were only a company of traders and also that
they
^their forbearers^ had lived for a long period in
India before they migrated to China
There appear to be two great lessons to be learned from the
history of the Jewish Colony at Kaifeng.
The first is that the Jew as a trader had met his match in
China. Instead of enriching themselves at the expense of their Chinese
neighbors, the Kaifeng Jews have themselves been sucked dry in the
competition of trade. Year by year they have sunk lower in poverty
until they have at last given up the struggle.
The second lesson which we may learn from the experience of
the Kaifeng Jews is the extraordinary absorption or assimilating force
of Chinese Society. The enormous mass of the Chinese makes a
human ocean in which the rivulets from outside soon lose their
identity. Christianity established itself here not later than the 8th
and again in the Yuan
Dynasty in the 13th century, but the
church has been smothered. The Jews have established themselves, but
little by little the tenets and ceremonies of their religion have been
modified and adapted to the views of hereditary beliefs
^and superstitions^ of the surrounding Chinese
population, until the Jewish religion has disappeared like the small
stream in the ocean.
The Mohammedans so far have kept their identity because
they have settled among the Chinese in such prodigious numbers.
Wherever they constitute a minority of the people you may clearly see
the disintegrating forces at work. Modern Catholic and Protestant
missions retain their individuality because of the unfailing supply of western
leaders that continues to
pour into China. What would happen if these leaders were to be
withdrawn, we cannot but wonder in view of the fate of the Middle Age
Christian communities and of the Jewish Colony of Kaifeng.
Loading...