Editing Zohar (section)

===Modern critical views===
Early attempts included [[M. H. Landauer]]'s ''Vorläufiger Bericht über meine Entdeckung in Ansehung des Sohar'' (1845), which fingered [[Abraham Abulafia]] as the author, and [[Samuel David Luzzatto]]'s ''ויכוח על חכמת הקבלה'' (1852), but the first systematic and critical academic proof for the authorship of Moses de León was given by [[Adolf Jellinek]] in his 1851 monograph "Moses ben Shem-tob de León und sein Verhältnis zum Sohar". Jellinek's proofs, which combined previous analyses with [[Isaac ben Samuel of Acre|Isaac of Acre]]'s testimony and comparison of the ''Zohar'' to de Leon's Hebrew works, were accepted by every other major scholar in the field, including [[Heinrich Graetz]] (''History of the Jews'', vol. 7), [[Moritz Steinschneider]], [[Bernhard Beer]], [[Leopold Zunz]], and [[Christian David Ginsburg]]. Ginsburg summarized Jellinek's, Graetz's, and other scholars' proofs for the English-reading world in 1865, also introducing several novel proofs, including that the ''Zohar'' includes a translation of a poem by [[Solomon ibn Gabirol]] (d. 1058) and that it includes a mystical explanation of a [[mezuzah]] style only introduced in the 13th century.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Ginsburg |first=Christian David |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GZ5eAAAAcAAJ |title=The Kabbalah: Its Doctrines, Development, and Literature. An Essay, Etc |date=1865 |language=en}}</ref> [[Adolf Neubauer]] and [[Samuel Rolles Driver]] were convinced by these arguments, but [[Edward Bouverie Pusey]] held to a [[Tannaim|Tannaitic]] date.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Neubauer |first1=Adolf |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YxdbAAAAQAAJ |title=The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish interpreters: Translations, by S.R. Driver and A. Naubauer |last2=Driver |first2=Samuel Rolles |date=1877 |publisher= Рипол Классик|isbn=978-5-88085-233-8 |pages=iv |language=en}}</ref>

By 1913, the critical view had apparently lost some support: [[Israel Abrahams]] recalls that "Zunz, like Graetz, had little patience with the Zohar . . . at this date we are much more inclined to treat the Kabbalah with respect."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Abrahams |first=Israel |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_HNWVJgV7BsC |title=By-Paths in Hebraic Bookland |date=1920 |pages=119 |language=en}}</ref>

[[Gershom Scholem]], who was to found modern academic study of [[Kabbalah]], began his career at the [[Hebrew University of Jerusalem]] in 1925 with a lecture in which he promised to refute Graetz and Jellinek.<ref name=":5">Scholem, Gershon. "Ha-im Hibber R. Mosheh de Leon et Sefer ha-Zohar," Mad'ei ha-Yahadut I (1926), p. 16-29</ref> However, after years of research, he came to conclusions similar to theirs by 1938, when he argued again that de León was the most likely author. Scholem noted the ''Zohar's'' frequent errors in Aramaic grammar, its suspicious traces of [[Arabic]] and [[Spanish language|Spanish]] words and sentence patterns, and its lack of knowledge of the [[Land of Israel]], among other proofs.<ref name=":0" />

Scholem's views are widely held as accurate among historians of Kabbalah, but they are not uncritically accepted. Scholars who continue to research the background of the ''Zohar'' include [[Yehuda Liebes]] (who wrote his doctorate thesis for Scholem on the subject, ''Dictionary of the Vocabulary of the Zohar'' in 1976), and [[Daniel C. Matt]], a student of Scholem's who has published a [[critical edition]] of the ''Zohar''.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Webmaster |title=The Zohar: Pritzker Edition |url=https://www.sup.org/zohar/?d=&f=Aramaic_Texts.htm |access-date=2023-09-04 |website=www.sup.org |language=en}}</ref>

==== Influences ====
Academic studies of the ''Zohar'' show that many of its ideas are based in the Talmud, various works of [[midrash]], and earlier Jewish mystical works. Scholem writes:<ref name=":0" />

:The writer had expert knowledge of the early material and he often used it as a foundation for his expositions, putting into it variations of his own. His main sources were the [[Talmud#Babylonian Talmud|Babylonian Talmud]], the complete [[Midrash Rabba|Midrash Rabbah]], the [[Midrash Tanhuma]], and the two Pesiktot ([[Pesikta de-Rav Kahana|Pesikta De-Rav Kahana]] or [[Pesikta Rabbati]]), the [[Midrash Tehillim|Midrash on Psalms]], the [[Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer|Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer]], and the [[Targum Onkelos]]. Generally speaking, they are not quoted exactly, but translated into the peculiar style of the ''Zohar'' and summarized. [...]
:Less use is made of the [[Midrash halakha|halakhic Midrashim]], the [[Jerusalem Talmud]], and the other [[Targum]]s, nor of the Midrashim like the [[Shir HaShirim Rabbah|Aggadat Shir ha-Shirim]], the [[Midrash Proverbs|Midrash on Proverbs]], and the [[Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva|Alfabet de-R. Akiva]]. It is not clear whether the author used the [[Yalkut Shimoni|Yalkut Simeoni]], or whether he knew the sources of its [[aggadah]] separately. Of the smaller Midrashim he used the [[Hekhalot literature|Heikhalot Rabbati]], the [[Alphabet of Sirach|Alfabet de-Ben Sira]], the [[Apocalypse of Zerubbabel|Sefer Zerubabel]], the [[Baraita de-Ma'aseh Bereshit]], [and many others] [...]
At the same time, Scholem says, the author "invent[ed] a number of fictitious works that the ''Zohar'' supposedly quotes, ''e.g.'', the Sifra de-Adam, the Sifra de-Hanokh, the Sifra di-Shelomo Malka, the Sifra de-Rav Hamnuna Sava, the Sifra de-Rav Yeiva Sava, the Sifra de-Aggadeta, the Raza de-Razin and many others."

The ''Zohar'' also draws from the [[Jewish commentaries on the Bible|Bible commentaries]] written by medieval rabbis, including [[Rashi]], [[Abraham ibn Ezra]], [[David Kimhi]] and even authorities as late as [[Nachmanides]] and [[Maimonides]], and earlier mystical texts such as the ''[[Sefer Yetzirah]]'' and the ''[[Bahir]]'' and the medieval writings of the [[Ashkenazi Hasidim|Hasidei Ashkenaz]].

Another influence that Scholem, and scholars like Yehudah Liebes and Ronit Meroz have identified<ref name="bostonglobe.com">{{cite web |title=A mysterious medieval text, decrypted - The Boston Globe |website=[[The Boston Globe]] |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/06/25/glinter-kabbalah/cz5YaC9jDc3ZVwTB6L7e7L/story.html}}</ref> was a circle of Spanish Kabbalists in [[Kingdom of Castile|Castile]] who dealt with the appearance of an evil side emanating from within the world of the [[sefirot]]. Scholem saw this [[Dualism in cosmology|dualism]] of good and evil within the Godhead as a kind of [[Gnosticism|gnostic]] inclination within Kabbalah, and as a predecessor of the ''[[Qlippoth|Sitra Ahra]]'' (the other, evil side) in the ''Zohar''. The main text of the Castile circle, the ''[[Treatise on the Left Emanation]]'', was written by [[Jacob ha-Cohen]] around 1265.<ref>[[Joseph Dan|Dan, Joseph]] ''Kabbalah: a Very Short Introduction'', Oxford University Press, 2006, p 22</ref>