Questions

I find it interesting that so many religions are consumed with determining the source and original author or authors of texts and writings. I understand how it can seem important to be able to identify where a text comes from and when it was written. The time and place and circumstances all have a lot to do with the meaning of a text and the way it was written. However, I think almost too much emphasis is placed on this aspect of studying religious texts. Breaking it down into such historical analysis and theory takes away from the beauty and experience of reading and appreciating religious texts. Not only is this seen in the Origen readings we had earlier, but also in the readings about the Zohar. The Wikipedia entry focused on how the commentaries of the Zohar were met by different Jewish denominations. Some accept the book as authentic and others do not. Even those who accept the book argue about who wrote it and when it was written. This makes me think of the way classicists have argued over who wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey and whether it was Homer the entire time or not. The long debated "Homeric question" is the same sort of problem. However, in looking at the different theories about the origin and authors of the Zohar, the Wikipedia article makes it seem that a lot of the theories are far flung and random. It would certainly make sense that the book was written either by de Leon or by a group of people with de Leon as the leader, since it is a mystical commentary on the Torah. But this still puzzles me, because I don't really understand why people need to find answers as to who wrote what and when. Does it really matter? Would it make that big of a difference whether it was written by de Leon or by a group of people with de Leon at the top? Either way, this is how the religion has evolved, through this commentary. Admittedly, you can't go around believing every random book or commentary that is thrown out there, but with something like the Bible, the Zohar and even the Iliad and the Odyssey, isn't it enough to take it for what it is?