Gershom Scholem.time, Charisma..

8/10/2019 Gershom Scholem.time, Charisma..

1/19

Gershom Scholem: Charisma, "Kairos" and the Messianic DialecticAuthor(s): Amos Funkenstein and Bill TemplerSource: History and Memory, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring - Summer, 1992), pp. 123-140Published by: Indiana University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25618629.

Accessed: 29/12/2013 07:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Indiana University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toHistory and

Memory.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25618629?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25618629?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupress


2/19

Amos Funkenstein

Gershom Scholem:

Charisma,

Kairos

and theMessianic Dialectic

1.

Formulating

the

Problem

Gershom

Scholem

devoted

virtually

his

entire lifework

to

the

study

of

the

Kabbalah,

its

origins

and

impact.

His

towering

achievement reflects farmore than "une vie d'analyse pour

un

moment

de

synthese,"

to

modulate that

well-known

maxim

coined

by

the classical

historian Fustel

de

Coulanges

-

a

motto,

by

the

way,

that

was

likewise

hardly

applicable

as a

characterization

even

of

its author.

Roughly

the first fifteen

years

of Scholem's

academic

creativity

centered

on

a

formidable

task: the

systematic tracking

down

and

evaluation

of

kabbalistic

texts

in

European

libraries and archives. In the

years

that

followed,

he assembled

these

voluminous

materials,

rendered accessible by dint of his meticulous philological

spadework,

fashioning

them

into the

grand

architectonic

design

of

an

imposing historiographic

edifice. Scholem

delineated

a

painstakingly

precise picture

of

the

origins

and

transformations

of

Jewish

mysticism,

isolated

many

of

its

major

motifs

in

a

series of

separate

monographs

and

wrote

the

early

history

of

the Shabbatean

movement.

His

approach

to

the data

was

marked

by

a

rigorous

application

of

philological-historical

criteria. Yet he

was

far

from being a naive positivist and remained quite cognizant of

his

own

metahistorical

presuppositions,

never

trying

to

conceal

their

presence.

Scholem's method

was

characteristically

and

stubbornly

immune

to

the

intellectual

fads

of his

time.

And

there

was no

lack of such

new

scholarly

vogues

during

the

course

of

his

long

career: one

need

but

recall

the

obsession

of

the

"history

of

religions"

school

with

analogies

and

associations

a

la

Retzenstein,

the

phenomenological

method,

existentialism,

structuralism,

the

new

hermeneutics,

psycho

This content downloaded from 217.147.230.6 on Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:22:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/19

Amos Funkenstein

analysis

and

depth

psychology.

Indeed,

it

is

astonishing

how

rarely

Scholem's

conceptual figures

and

insights

leaned

on

other disciplines; often, they even expressed his negative views

about

them.

In this

light,

the

echo his work has

found

in

other

fields

(a

reverberation

that

continues)

both

within and

beyond

the

pale

of

Jewish

studies

is

all

the

more

astounding,

if

not

paradoxical:

an

impact

and

resonance

that

far exceeds

that

of

any

other scholar since

the

beginnings

of

the

Wissenschaft

des

Judentums

with whose work

I

am

familiar.

In the

present

essay

I

intend

to

explore

the

possible

reasons

behind

this

powerful

echo

emanating

from the Scholem

oeuvre, as well as his

position

as

representative

of a new

style

in the

Wissenschaft

des

Judentums

-

this

despite

the fact that

his

specialist

field,

as

he

himself

admitted,

was

centered

solely

on

a

single

(and

indeed

relatively

late)

form

of

expression

of

Jewish

spirituality

and

intellect

It

is

precisely

this

paradoxical

circumstance

that

lies

at

the

heart

of the

question

I

wish

to

pose

here.

Can

we

find

a

cogent

explanation

-

other

than

one

based

on

merely

immanent

features

-

to

account for

Scholem's

extraordinary

degree

of

visibility,

his

scholarly

authority

extending

far

beyond

the confines

of his

own

field

-

in

a

word,

for

his

scientific

charisma}

That

charisma

remains

difficult

to

explain

if

we

resort

only

to

elements

immanent

to

his

field.

Admittedly,

the internal

assets

and

advantages

of

his

work

as a

teacher

and scholar

were

immense;

yet

during

the

span

of his creative

career,

there

were

a

number

of

other

achievements

elsewhere,

no

less

pioneering,

and various

spectacular

findings

in

diverse

subfields across the

gamut

of

Jewish

studies. But to

paraphrase

Martin

Buber:

was

it

not

Gershom

Scholem,

more

than

any

other

scholar,

who

singlehandedly

managed

to

establish

a new

discipline?

If

so,

the substance

of

my

question

still

remains:

how

was

Scholem

able

to

succeed

in

persuading

the

scientific

community

that

his

specialty

was

in fact

an

independent

new

discipline?

Why

did

others,

for

example,

fail in their

attempts

to

gain legitimacy

for

the subfield

of

the

literature

of

ethical

instruction

(mussar), equally

voluminous

in its

scope,

and its

associated

movements,

as a

special

discipline?

How did

it

come

124



4/19

Charisma,

Kairos and the

Messianic Dialectic

about that

a

whole

cohort

in

the

religious

education of Israeli

intellectuals

during

the

1950s

and

1960s

saw

the

Kabbalah

as

the sole

living

content of Judaism - indeed, that for many of

them

Scholem's

presentation

of

the

Kabbalah constituted the

only

concrete

knowledge

they

acquired

about

Judaism

and

its

traditions?

Finally,

how

can

we

account

for his

continuing

influence

in the

non-Jewish scholarly

world and

among

the

educated

public

more

generally.

These

are

questions

that

cannot

be answered

on

the basis of his

work alone.

Insights

culled

from the

history

and

sociology

of

knowledge

can

perhaps

help

to

shed

relevant

light,

bringing

us

further

down

the

path

toward an

adequate explanation.

For that reason, I

would

like

to

pose

the

question

in

a

reformulated

guise,

making

use

of

two

key

terms

borrowed from

Weberian social

analysis:

what

was

the

special quality

of the

dialectical

interplay

between

charisma and kairos

in

the

conception

and

reception

of Scholem's

work?

2.

A

Bridge

toward

Actualization

In No. 88 of his famous theses "On the Education of the

Human

Race"

-

observations

that

served

both

Scholem

and

Walter

Benjamin

elsewhere

as

a

kind

of antithetical

foil for

advancing

their

own

ideas about the

philosophy

of

history

-

G. E.

Lessing

remarked

that

the

mystical

philosophical

historical

speculations

on

the

nature

of the

Trinity

by

the

Calabrian

abbot

Joachim

of

Floris

in

the twelfth

century

were

perhaps

"not

just

some

empty

whim

of

fancy."1

In

a

letter

written

in

1925

to

the uncrowned Hebrew

poet

laureate

of

that

time,

Haim Nachman

Bialik,

the

young

scholar Scholem

adopted

a

similar

tone:

At the

conclusion

of all

these

investigations

I

hope

to

be

able

to concern

myself

with

what

originally

induced

me

to

engage

in

this

research and drove

me,

against

my

will,

to

deal

with

philological

studies,

an

enterprise

whose limits

I

am

well

aware

of

-

namely

to

find

an

answer

to

the

question:

does the Kabbalah

have

any

value?

Naturally,

this

is

a

question lying beyond

the

125



5/19

Amos

Funkenstein

purview

of

philology

per

se;

yet

the

inspired

observer

cannot

sidestep

the

query.

Without the

slightest

sense

of

shame, I' confess that it is this philosophical interest

which will also

stand

by

me

during

the

course

of

my

historical-philological

research.2

And

indeed,

the

young

scholar

Scholem

already

harbored

hopes

that the

Kabbalah

might eventually

generate

a

change

of

paradigm

in

Jewish

studies.

In

place

of the

obsessive

-

and

in

Scholem's

view

petty-bourgeois

-

preoccupation

among

Jewish

historians and

philosophers

of

religion

in

the

nineteenth

century

with "dis-enchanted" rational contents of

Judaism

such

as

halakhah,

exegesis

and rational

reasoning,

the

Kabbalah

held

out

the

promise

of direct

access

to

the

mythopoeic,

highly imaginative

and indeed

romantic

wellsprings

of

Jewish

spirituality.

And

such

access was

not

encumbered

by

any

artificial,

ahistorical

reconstruction

of

a

supposedly

submerged

Israelite

Urmythos

a

la

Berdyczewsky.

In

later

years,

Scholem

believed

that

as

a

younger

scholar he

had,

with

this

approach,

charted

a

course

which constituted

a

decisive

rejection

of

previously

dominant tendencies within the

Wissenschaft

des

Judentums

toward

apologia

and

a

concern

with

the

ways

in which

Judaism

was seen

by

others. We

may,

however,

recall the heated

debate,

in

the wake of

Ernst

Renan's

generalizations

regarding

the

purported

lack

of

mythopoeic

powers

in

Semitic

cultures,

about

whether

the

Jews

(or

Semites

more

generally)

were

endowed with

any

collective

imaginative

abilities. Scholem

discovered

this

pristine

power

of

mythopoeia

in the

Kabbalah;

and it

was

clear

that

kabbalism

did not make do with a mere "minimum of a Godhead."

In this

phase

of

his

work,

Scholem's

thinking

was

still

dominated

by

the old

hopes

of Pico della

Mirandola

and

German

Romanticism that

the

Kabbalah would

yield

up

a

prisca philosophia.

After

all,

the Kabbalah had

the

advantage

of

being specifically

Jewish

-

in

contradistinction,

say,

to

Jewish

religious

philosophy,

which

had

always spoken

in

foreign

tongues

and

idioms.

Thus,

he

reasoned,

the Kabbalah

was

also

a

genuine

alternative

to

both

liberal-rational

Kulturjudentum

and

ossified

Jewish

orthodoxy.

For

that

reason,

Scholem

126



6/19

Charisma,

Kairos

and theMessianic Dialectic

initially

fell

prey

to

the

temptation

of

wanting

to

demonstrate

the

antiquity

of kabbalistic

traditions and

texts,

most

especially

the Zohar,

using

more exact

philological

means than

Adolphe

Franck

had

applied,

now

coupled

with

the

bolstering

hypothesis

of

autochthonous

origin.

Gradually,

however,

he

emancipated

himself from this obsessive

quest

for

proof

of

originality.

Scholem

arrived

at

the

liberating insight

that

a

Jewish

gnosis

had

in

fact

existed,

but

that there

was no

definitive

answer

to

the

question

as

to

whether the

gnostic

tradition

as

such

was

of

Jewish

origin.

He noted that

the first

kabbalistic

texts

stemming

from

the

end

of the twelfth

century

did not

perpetuate

previous

traditions of

mystical

speculation,

but rather had broken

with that

legacy,

and that the

Zohar,

as

the

Jewish

historian

Heinrich

Graetz

had

already suspected,

was

largely

a

pseudoepigraphic

text

authored

by

Moses

de

Leon. These

insights

were

liberating

for

Scholem:

they

enabled

him

to

achieve

a

breakthrough, arriving

at

a

new

evaluation of

kabbalism

and its

historical

role

-

a

fresh

understanding

of

the

concrete

historical

relevance of the

Kabbalah

in

its

own

time and

in

ours.

And

it

was

precisely

those

insights

which

helped

to

popularize

his

work,

opening

up

avenues to a

broader

readership.

Thus,

the

young

Scholem had

initially

viewed

kabbalism

in

exactly

the

same

terms

in

which it

presented

itself

-

namely,

as an

ancient,

autochthonously

evolved

tradition.

Accordingly,

he viewed

it

as

evolutionary

in

its

medieval

unfolding, although

revolutionary

in

its

content.

But

now,

with

the

ensuing

shift

in

his

perspective,

Scholem

came

to

conceive

of

medieval

kabbalism

in

an

altered

light:

as

a

body

of

thought

and

practice

that

was

essentially

revolutionary.

Nonetheless,

he

chose

(then

and later

as

well)

to

leave

open

and

unanswered

a

key

question

as

to

its

roots:

had it

arisen

sua

sponte

in

the

twelfth

century,

or

had kabbalism

originated

as

a

result of the

discovery

of

forgotten,

subterranean

traditional

texts

of

gnostic

provenance?

The Kabbalah

was

more

revolutionary

than,

for

example,

the

philosophical

interpretation

of

Judaism,

an

approach vehemendy rejected by

the

early

kabbalists

as an

undesirable

innovation,

since

in contrast

with

Jewish religious

philosophy,

kabbalism

sought

to

conceal

the

fact

that

it,

too,

127



7/19

Amos Funkenstein

was

translating

the

traditional

content

of

Judaism

into

a

totally

alien

language.

Yet

right

from

its

inception,

the

opponents

of

the Kabbalah had accused it of

Christianizing

tendencies, a

criticism

expressed

in the

polemical

lines

penned

in the

early

thirteenth

century:

He

[the kabbalist]

soiled with his

word/

The

sanctum

of

the Lord

Whatever he

put

forth/

Is

not

a

penny's

worth.

And

since

he

failed

in

all/

Destruction

was

his

goal:

The "air' he

misconstrued/

Much

as

a

bishop

would.3

Let

me

add

that

Scholem

did

not

endeavor

to

assess

the

actual

scope

of Christian influence

on

the

Kabbalah;

only

in

recent

years

has research been able

to

shed

increasing

light

on

this

controversial dimension.

One

might

wonder

whether the

early

kabbalists

themselves

were

aware

of the

revolutionary

oudook

embedded

in the

Kabbalah,

an

awareness

which

coram

publico

they emphatically

denied.

Scholem

hardly

touched

on

this

question;

nonetheless,

on the basis of several

indications,

there is sufficient evidence

to

indicate that the

early

practitioners

of

Kabbalah

were

quite

aware

of its almost

heretical

implication.

On

occasion,

it

is

possible

to

catch

these

early

kabbalists

in

flagranti

delicto,

as

it

were,

openly expressing

their

disdain

for ancient

traditions.

Thus,

for

example,

the reversal of

the

subject

in

the first

verse

of

Genesis

into

a

direct

object

-

as

though

a

being

named

"beginning"

had created another

being

named "God"

-

was

regarded

as a

heretical,

indeed

gnostic,

variant

reading,

one

for

the sake of which the

presumed

translators of the Bible

into

Greek

had

supposedly

altered

the word

order

intentionally.4

Yet

now

the

kabbalists

seized

upon

this and

similar

variant

readings,

previously

branded

as

heresy,

as

though

it

were

in

their

exegetical

power

to

transmute

heretical

traditions

into

profound

mysteries.

Whether

they

were

conscious

of

being

revolutionary

or

not,

in

Scholem's

new

assessment

the

medieval

kabbalists

had indeed

created

something

new.

In

his

eyes,

the

Kabbalah

was

(to paraphrase

a

line

from

Goethe's

Faust

uttered

in

self-reference

by Mephisto)

128



8/19

Charisma,

Kairos and

theMessianic Dialectic

"Ein

Teil

von

jener

Kraft,

Die

stets

das

Bdse will

und

stets

das

Gute schafft,,:

a movement

which

always

desires

the

old

-

and

yet

is destined

repeatedly

to

bring

forth

something

new.

This revised

assessment

by

Scholem

was

accompanied by

a

shift

in

emphasis

within

the

ambit

of

his

own

evolving

historical interests.

Beginning

in

the

mid-1930s,

his

scholarly

attention

came

to

focus

more

and

more

on

later kabbalistic

works

and

movements

during

the

early

modern

period.

If

Scholem had done

nothing

more

than

to

engage

in

the

explication

of

classical

and medieval

texts,

supplemented by

the

occasional

interpretive glance

at more

modern

developments,

his work would still stand as an

astounding

edifice and

pioneering

achievement.

Yet its

impact

and

reverberation

would

not

have been

as

broad and

deep.

Instead

of the

philosophia

perennis

he had

once

sought

in

the

Kabbalah,

Scholem

now

went

about

demonstrating

its relevance

to

life

in

each

respective

epoch

of

history,

in

particular

that

of the

early

modern

period. Closely

bound

up

with

the

historical

importance

of the Kabbalah

in

the

past

were

various allusions

to

its

contemporary

relevance,

here

and

now.

Scholem

was

able

to

persuade

his

contemporaries

that it

was

precisely

in

Lurianic

mysticism

where

sua res

aguntur,

since it

was

only

because of the

extreme

consequences

of the

kabbalistic

teachings

of

Isaac

Ashkenazi

Luria,

the

"Lion" of

Safed,

that

the

present-day,

quasi-dialectical

"overcoming"

(Aujhebung)

of

messianic

hopes

within Zionism

became

possible:

i.e.,

their

simultaneous

negation

and

preservation.

Scholem's

essay

"Redemption

through

Sin,"

published

in

1937,

constituted

an

external indicator

of this

new

perspective

on

evaluating

kabbalism,

serving

as

well

to

facilitate the

breakthrough

to

a

broader

interested

public.5

Some

two

years

after,

Scholem

held

a

series of

lectures

at

the

Jewish

Theological

Seminary

in

New

York,

subsequendy published

as

Major

Trends

in

Jewish Mysticism

-

probably

his

most

famous

book.

A

decade later

his

monumental

monograph

on

the

Shabbatean

movement

appeared:

Sabbatai Sevi.

The

Mystical

Messiah.

In

the

confines

of

the

present

article

I

will

not

attempt

to

evaluate

the

concrete

scholarly

contribution

made

by

these

and

other

studies,

but

intend

to

concentrate,

as

129



9/19

Amos Funkenstein

promised, primarily

on

the

interplay

between

kairos

and

charisma

so

clearly

reflected

in

these works

and

their

process

of

reception.

3.

Kairos and Charisma

A

telling point

of

departure

is

Scholem's

characteristic

terminology.

In the

1930s

a

so-called

"Jerusalem

school" of

historical research

crystallized

at

the Hebrew

University

under

the

aegis

of Benzion

Dinur and

Yitzhak

Baer. Their

program

was

spelled

out

in

the

first

issue of

the

new

historical

periodical

Zion. The school wished to free itself from

any

tendencies

toward

apologia;

the

history

of the

Jews

should

be

interpreted

as

Jewish

history,

i.e.,

as

the

history

of

one

and

the

same

organism

-

and

not,

as

even

in

the

case

of

Graetz,

as

the

history

of

one

and

the

same

idea.

Although

this

organism

repeatedly

absorbed

external

impulses,

its

development

followed

its

own

immanent

logic.

Scholem

also

considered

himself

to

be

a

member of this

new

school

of

Jewish

historiography

and

was

so

regarded by

others.

Thus,

his works

contain

numerous

instances of

the

key

terms

"organic,"

"organism," "original,"

"sovereign"

and

"spontaneous."

The

organism

was

conceptualized

as

being

inventive,

capable

of

adaptation

and,

in

particular,

was

endowed with

an

unlimited

potential

for

creativity.

It

embodied

the ideal

of

spontaneity

so

familiar

to

us

since

Leibniz and

Kant,

and

especially

since the

Romantic

movement.

No

past

achievement

of this

collective

body

had the

power

to

stamp

and determine its

essence

for all

time.

Accordingly,

all formulae

regarding

the

supposed

"essence"

of

Judaism

deserved

to be

carefully

scrutinized and

relativized.

Scholem

maintained

that

the

essence

of

Judaism

in

any

given

era

could

be found

in the

specific

products

created

at

the time

by

the

Jewish

spirit

and

Jewish

life,

no

matter

how

novel

and

unpredictable

the

manifestation.

Thus,

Yehezkel

Kaufmann

had

developed

his

interpretation

of

the

origin

of

monotheism

in

ancient

Israel

as

an

intellectual-spiritual

mutation

ex

nihilo,

a

new

primal

pattern

which had

created its

own

forms. And

Scholem's

insight,

based

on

laborious

research,

that

the

Kabbalah

was a

new,

medieval

form of

130



10/19

Charisma,

Kairos and

theMessianic

Dialectic

intellectual-spiritual

expression

served

as

an

excellent

demonstration

of

the boundless

creative

power

of that

"organism."

Finally,

the new historical school wished to

highlight

Israel's

relation

to

Zion,

shifting

it

into

the

forefront

of

Jewish

historical narrative.

In

keeping

with

that

chord,

Scholem

also

paid

increasing

attention

to

those

manifestations

of

kabbalism

that had

made their

appearance

within

the

historical Land

of Israel.

However,

alongside

this

organicist,

"domo-centristic''

vocabulary,

we can

note

another

family

of

key

concepts

that

tend

to

recur

in

Scholem's

writings:

terms

such

as

"dialectical,"

"paradoxical,"

"revolutionary,"

nihilistic" and

"antinomian." Such

concepts

were

quite

alien

to

the lexicon

of

Dinur and

Baer,

who wished

to

interpret

Jewish

history

reading

it "with the

grain,"

so

to

speak

(to

borrow

an

image

from

Benjamin),

while Scholem

was

intent

on

reading

that

history "against

the

grain."

His

conceptual

terminology

underscored

the constructive

power

of the

antithetical

forces,

both

in the

Kabbalah

and

in its

historical roles.

This is

especially

true

when

it

comes

to

Lurianic

kabbalism,

that

myth

of theocosmic drama born

in

Safed

during

the

sixteenth

century.

In

the

Lurianic

myth

of the

contraction,

self-alienation,

restoration

and

redemption

of the

Godhead

itself,

Scholem believed he had found what

constituted the

most

original

and

powerful

response

by

the

Jews,

albeit

belated,

to

the

series

of

traumatic

events

prior

to,

during

and

after

their

expulsion

from

Spain

(1492).

The

situation

of

exile

of

the

Jewish

people,

its alienation

from

its

homeland,

became

here

a

symbol

of

the

path

and

unfolding

of the

Godhead

itself,

as

well

as

the

final

station

on

the

cosmic

itinerary.

The

Godhead

itself,

plagued

by

the "roots

of

severity"

in

its

own

primal being,

is

caught

up

in

a

cathartic

process

of

self

alienation. With the

redemption

of

Israel,

it

too

will

be

redeemed,

returning

to

its

purified

original being.

If

medieval

Kabbalah

was to

a

certain

extent

an

anatomy

of

God

-

a

speculative

attempt

to

determine

and

influence

the

interplay

and

counterpoint

of

divine

forces

-

Lurianic

Kabbalah

was a

biography

of

God,

recounting

a

catastrophe

in

the life

of

the

Godhead

and the

slow,

almost automatic

overcoming

of

that

131



11/19

Amos Funkenstein

catastrophe.

In this

metahistorical

myth,

the

post-exilic

generation

found

consolation

-

and

fuel

for

their

eschatalogical

hopes.

The

most

powerful

messianic

movement

in

the

modern

era,

that

of

the

false

messiah

Shabbatai

Zevi

(1665-66),

was

also

given

its

ideological

underpinning

within

the

framework of

Lurianic

symbolism.

After

Zevi's

apostasy

from

Judaism,

the

antinomian,

law-negating

characteristics

of

the

movement

came

clearly

to

the fore: thus it

was

that orthodox

Judaism,

on

the

eve

of

a

wave

of

secularization that would be

propelled

by

the

forces

of

enlightenment

and

emancipation,

had in

fact been

undermined at an even earlier date

by

another

process

- from

within,

so to

speak.

This

development

from latent

to overt

antinomianism is

quite

evident when

viewed

in

terms

of the

history

of the motif

"redemption through

sin."

Already

in

Lurianic

Kabbalah

(a

point

overlooked

in

Scholem's

famous

1937

article)

it

had

played

a

certain

secondary

role,

albeit

relegated

to

the

earliest

eras

of

the

history

of

Israel.

In

order

to

rescue

an

especially

valuable soul

from

the

clutches

of

the

kelippot

-

the

powers

of

impurity

-

the

forces of

light

occasionally

resort to a ruse:

they pretend

that this soul is

being

used

in the world for

impure

purposes.

Thus,

for

example,

Abraham

was

born

as

the result of

a

forbidden

act

of sexual

intercourse.6

However,

according

to

Lurianic

narrative,

the

event

had

taken

place

exclusively

at

a

remote

remove

in

time,

in the

mythical primal

era,

in

illo

tempore,

nd

certainly

cannot

be conceived

as a

suggestion

relevant

to

the

present.

Yet

Shabbatai

Zevi,

and

even

more

so

followers

of the

nihilistic

theology

of

Jakob

Frank,

did

in

fact

interpret

this

principle

as

providing

concrete

justification

for

contemporary

acts

in

violation

of

the law

-

as

a

means

of

redemption.

In

a

milder,

more

attenuated

form,

the

principle

can

also be found

in Hasidism

-

for

example,

when Rabbi

Nahman

of Bratslav

permits,

and

even

commands,

the

"righteous

one

who

is like

Moses"

to

do

what is

stricdy

forbidden

to

everyone

else,

namely

to

descend

into

that

"empty space,"

the

realm of

radical

skepticism,

wordlessness

and

melancholy.7

Thus,

Scholem

viewed

the

contemporary

relevance

of

Lurianic

Kabbalah

as a

paidagogos

heis

Christon,

a

preparation

132



12/19

Charisma,

Kairos and

theMessianic Dialectic

for

Shabbatean

messianism.

The

achievement of

the

Shabbatean

movement

for

Jewish history

was

truly

dialectical:

it

preserved

the messianic idea, while at the same time

destroying

it

completely.

With that

destruction,

Shabbateanism

also

prepared

the

way

for the

dissolution of normative

Judaism.

Yet

there is

an

additional

dialectical

aspect

here

uniting

past

and

(Scholem's)

present

-

a

point

of

interplay,

as

I

see

it,

between

kairos and charisma. Scholem's view of

history

was

shaped

significandy

in the late

1930s and 1940s.

As

such,

it

took

on

another

dimension of

contemporary

relevance

-

one

that

was

immediate and

fully

in

keeping

with Scholem's

intentions.

The

analogy

between

the

national

movement

for

redemption

then and

now,

at

the

burning

edge

and in the wake of the

catastrophe,

was

obvious.

The

early

Christian

community

(as

well

as

the

Dead Sea

sect

of

Essenes)

had

wished

to

"decipher"

the

story

of

the

Bible

eschatalogically

and

had

viewed

Israel

wandering

in the desert

as

the

prefiguration

of

its

own

self,

typos

hemon,

in

both

a

positive

and

a

negative

sense.

Both

stood

confronted with

a new

world: the

former

were

blind,

faltering, representative

of the old

world;

the

latter,

however,

were

enlightened

and

just,

a

true

avant-garde

of

the

new

age

in

the midst of

a

decrepit

order

rushing

headlong

toward its final end

-

quia

festinans

festinat

saeculum

pertransire.

In

Scholem's

eyes,

the

Shabbatean

movement

(and

its

later

developments)

was

likewise

a

prefiguring

of

Zionism

in

a

double

sense,

positive

and

negative.

Both

were

national

movements

for

redemption,

nurtured

by

more

than

a

thousand

years

of messianic

expectations.

Both

were

led

by

a

self-styled

elite,

a

self-appointed

avant-garde.

Both were

poised

over

the

abyss

of

a

catastrophe, walking

a

dangerous

tightrope.

Both

were

propelling

secularization

forward,

whether

they

consciously

intended

to or

not.

But while the

Shabbateans

longed

for

an

end

to

history,

a

release

from

history

for

the

Jewish

people,

Zionism

desired the

very

opposite:

namely,

the

reentry

of

Jews

onto

history's

stage

here and

now,

in

this

world. Whereas

the former

dreamed

their

eschatalogical

dreams,

the

latter

acted

concretely

in

the midst of the

world.

While

the

Shabbateans

prepared

their

own

ultimate

133



13/19

Amos Funkenstein

destruction,

Zionism

had

a

real,

albeit

limited,

concrete

chance

-

at

least

that is

how

it

must

have

appeared

in

the

1930s, when Zionism had the ability to operate within the

framework

of the

possible.

Whether

it

would

actually

continue

to

do

so was

something

Scholem,

a

founder

of

the circle

Brit

Shalom,

could

not know

or

even

surmise.

Moreover,

no

one

at

the

time could

know

whether the

entire

enterprise

of

Zionism,

and indeed the whole

of

the

Jewish

people

in

Europe, might

not

perish

in

the inferno

of National Socialist

destruction.

But

it

was

precisely

the

comparison

with

Shabbateanism

that

underscored

the

existence

of

a

possible

chance for

the

Zionist

project

of national construction. And I am using the term

''chance"

here

quite

consciously

in its Weberian

sense

-

namely,

as

a

possibility

for social

action

that

presents

itself

in

society

and

is

based

on

rational

calculation.

I

have

attempted

to

present

a

rough

sketch

of the

transformations

of

the

motif

"redemption

through

sin." There

is

a

related

and

surprising

variant

of

this

conception

deriving

from

the

matrix

of

orthodox

thinking

in

the

twentieth

century,

though

quite

naturally

it

was

not

burdened with

the

loaded label of such

redemption.

Due to his

positive

attitude

toward

the

Zionist

movement and

its

settiement

project,

the

Chief

Rabbi

of

Palestine,

Abraham

Isaac

Hacohen

Kook,

often

became the

target

of vehement

verbal

attacks

during

the

1920s

and

1930s

within

his

own,

stricdy

orthodox

circles,

and

on

occasion

was even

singled

out

for harsh condemnation.

Kook

asserted

that

the

halutzim,

the

Zionist

pioneers,

were

precursors

paving

the

way

for

redemption.

Subjectively,

he

noted,

virtually

all

of them

were

opposed

to

the

Torah and

thus were sinners

against

halakhic law. Yet, Kook reasoned, the

cunning

of

Providence

was

utilizing

their

zeal

in

order,

despite

everything,

to

hasten

both

their

redemption

and

that

of

the

land;

accordingly,

the

Zionist

enterprise

was

holy

in its

nature,

and

they,

Rabbi

Kook

maintained,

were not

children

of

darkness,

but

rather

represented

scattered

sparks

from

the

kelippat

noga.

How

similar

and

yet

different

was

Scholem's

view

of the

"redemption

of the

land"

It

was

diametrically

opposed

to

Rabbi

Kook's

reasoning.

Scholem

argued

that

precisely

134



14/19

Charisma,

Kairos

and the

Messianic Dialectic

because

Zionism had

arisen

from

the

secularization

and

destruction

of messianic

conceptions

(but

not

sentiments),

it

had a

genuine

chance. Zionism's

opportunity

consisted in the

fact that it

had abandoned

messianism but

was

making

cunning

use

of

accumulated

messianic

urges.

Which

brings

us

to

a

discussion

of

Scholem's fundamental

attitude toward

messianism.

4.

Dialectical

Messianism

The

dialectic of

the Shabbatean

movement

lay

in

the fact

that,

while

proclaiming

the sacral

apotheosis

of

Jewish

life,

it

simultaneously

acted

to

render that life

fully

profane

and

secular,

facilitating

the

emergence

of

a

realistically

oriented,

secularized

redemption

movement

liberated

from

the

encumbering baggage

of

messianic dreams: "the

cunning

of

reason

is

that

it

adopts

the

passions

of

individuals."8

But

from

Scholem's

perspective,

Zionism

also

maintained

a

distinctive

and

unique

dialectical

relation

with the

tradition of messianic

conceptions

and

movements

-

at

the

same

time

reaffirming

and

rejecting

it,

itwas both constructive and destructive in its

thrust.

Zionism made

use

of the

accumulated

energy

of

messianic

expectations

without itself

being

messianic

(only

toward

the end

of

his life

was

Scholem

able

to

witness the

emergent

dynamism

of

the Gush

Emunim

setders'

movement

in the West

Bank).

This

is

why

Zionism

represented

a

real,

concrete

and

genuine

chance.

It is instructive

at

this

juncture

to

compare

Scholem's

metahistorical

conceptions

widi

two

other

contemporary

interpretations

of

messianism,

no

less dialectical

in

nature,

namely

those

of Franz

Rosenzweig

and Walter

Benjamin.

In

Rosenzweig's

view,

Judaism

had

long

since arrived

at

the

goal

which other

peoples

(i.e.

Christianity)

were

still

striving

to

attain. Phrased

differendy,

the

messianic

element

-

what is

valuable

and

permanent

in

messianism

-

is,

Rosenzweig

suggested,

nothing

but the

present

extrapolated

to

a

higher

power,

that-which-has-always-been-eternally-present,

the here

and

now

in

purified

form.9

In

Benjamin's

theses

on

the

philosophy

of

history,

the messianic

dimension

is the

135



15/19

Amos

Funkenstein

opportunity,

constantly

present

and

repeatedly

lost,

the

wind

blowing

out

from

paradise

behind

our

backs,

that-which-has

become-eternalty-impossible,

i.e. the

past

enhanced, raised to a

higher

power.

By

the

way,

I

suspect

that these famous

theses

on

history,

as

well

as

Scholem's

non-historical theses

on

the

Kabbalah,

were

conceived

in

a

consciously

antithetical relation

to

Lessing's

theses

on

the

philosophy

of

history

referred

to

earlier

-

namely,

the

dream

of

a

third,

eternal

covenant

which

was

no mere

"whim

of

fancy."

For

Scholem,

the

positive

core

of messianism

only

became

clearly

visible after its

apparent

destruction

in

Shabbateanism

and Frankism: messianism now

existed,

albeit in a tamed

form,

within the

framework

of what had become

a

concrete

possibility,

the

realistic

planning

of

the

future.

In

my

view,

these

three modes

of

messianism

-

that-which-has-always-been

eternally-present

(Rosenzweig),

that-which-has-become-eternally

impossible

(Benjamin)

and

that-which-has-now-become-possible

(Scholem)

-

represent

one

of

the last

and

most

fruitful

trialogues

in the

history

of

Germanjewish

intellectual

discourse.

I have

spoken

at

length

about the 1930s and 1940s. But how

can we

account

for

the

continued fascination

generated by

Scholem's

oeuvre

in later

decades,

and

particularly

among

that

generation

of Israelis born

or

brought

up

in

Israel after the

establishment

of the

state? For

these,

Scholem

conjured

up

the welcome

image

of

a

Judaism

that

was

creative,

thoroughly

authentic

and

not-merely-halakhic.

This and

more:

he

invited

them

to

embark

upon

an

adventure

of

discovery,

the creative

reconstruction

of

a

mythopoeic symbolic

world,

a

reconstructive

enterprise

that

was

fully

equal

to earlier creative

endeavors

-

a

contemporary

form

of

Jewish creativity.

On

top

of

this,

Scholem's

view

of

history

suggested

that the crucial

contrast

between

tradition

and

secularization

was

indeed

dialectical

in

nature

-

interactive,

and

not

merely

antithetical.

Indeed,

an

interesting

question

for

research

would be

to

determine

and

explore

the

extent

and

scope

of kabbalistic

motifs

and

symbolism

in

Israeli

fiction

and

poetry

of the

1950s

and

1960s, particularly among

writers who otherwise

adopted

a

somewhat

distant

relation

to

Judaism

such

as

Nathan

Zach.

A

136



16/19

Charisma,

Kairos and theMessianic Dialectic

further

related

task

is the

investigation

of

the

German

poet

Paul

Celan's

relation

to

Scholem and

the

symbolism

of the

Kabbalah. These are by no means isolated phenomena, but

remain

symptomatic

of

the

age.

It

is

also

necessary

to

explain

the

attraction

which

Scholem's

opus

has

had

for

other,

nonjewish

intellectuals

and its

impact

on

more

removed

scholarly

disciplines.

When,

after

World

War

II,

the interest

in

Judaism

and

its

forms

of

expression

became

manifest

in

circles

beyond

the

immediate

compass

of

Jews

and

Jewish

scholarship

-

this for the

first time since the humanism

of

the sixteenth

century

-

Scholem's

image

of

the Kabbalah

offered a rich,

heavily

nuanced

language

woven of

symbolism,

speculation

and

tradition,

one

that

bore the

stamp

of

authenticity.

This

was

in marked

contrast to

the

wooden,

universal and

saccharine

forms of

traditional

Jewish

philosophy

or

the

literature

of

moral

edification;

it

also differed

from

the

legalistic

edifice

presented

by

orthodox

Judaism,

which

did

not

generate

any

formulae

or

worldviews

whatsoever

ex

officio,

nor

wished to do

so.

Finally,

a

further

reason

for fascination with the Scholem

oeuvre should be

mentioned,

despite

the difficulties in

trying

to

grasp

it

in

precise

terms.

This element is

very

general,

almost trivial

in

character,

so

that it

would

appear

to

be valid

universally,

serving

to

motivate

an

attitude of

identificational

involvement

as

well

as

distanced observation.

Everything

mysterious

exercises

a

certain

fascination

on

human

beings.

The attraction

to

decipher

strange

mysteries

is all the

more

irresistible

when

it

involves

a

system

imbued with the

aura

of

ancient

tradition,

an

entire

corpus

of

secret

and esoteric

knowledge.

In such

cases,

the scholar

may

even have

something

in

common

with

the

voyeur.

This

holds

true

in

respect

to

far

less

imposing

terrain than that

represented by

kabbalism. Studies

dealing

with

freemasonry,

for

example,

are

consumed with

as

great

an

ardor

as

they

are

written. Yet the

motivating

force

behind

such

curiosity

is

not

merely

a

desire

to

reveal

what

was

hidden,

to

remove

a

mask

or

lift

a

veil.

In

the

background

there

always

lurks

the

faint

hope

of

unearthing

a

precious

gem

buried

in

such

fields of

esoterica,

a

motivation alluded

to

in

candid

terms

by

Scholem

in

his

137



17/19

Amos

Funkenstein

letter

to

Bialik cited above.

Arguably,

this

is

a

quite legitimate

urge;

indeed,

it

remains

one

of

the

most

original

and

basic

of

motivations

underpinning

all

knowledge

and the thirst for its

revelation.

After

all,

is

not

the

uncovering

of

a

secret

-

i.e.

dis

covery

in

its

literal

sense

-

the

pure

Urbild

of

any

and

all

modes

of

understanding?

Scholem's

lasting

influence

in

academia

can

also

be

measured

in

terms

of

the

degree

of institutionalization

of

kabbalistic

studies.

Indeed,

institutionalization

is

the

only

sure

criterion for

assessing

whether

a

particular

subfield

has

gained

the

status

of

a

separate

and

independent discipline.

In

many

institutes of

Jewish

studies, we now find as

many

chairs for the

history

of

the

Kabbalah

as

for the

history

of

Jewish

philosophy.

A

chair for the

history

of

the Kabbalah has become

indispensable

today

for

every

institution

of

higher

learning

where

Jewish

studies

are

seriously

pursued.

Supply

does

not

only

follow

demand

but also stimulates

it,

thus

creating

a

critical

mass

for

scholarly dispute

and

interaction.

The

"institutionalization

of

charisma,,

can

most

certainly

be

seen

manifest

in Scholem's

successors,

in

bonam

et

malam

partem.

5.

By

Way

of

Conclusion

Our

original

question

was:

how

was

Scholem able

to

anchor

and

maintain

his

charisma

as

a

scholar?

In

part,

we

have

seen,

this

proved

possible

as

a

result

of the

consistency

of

the

dramatic

portrait

of

Jewish

intellectual

history

which he

delineated

and

for

which he

provided

evidence.

In Scholem's

interpretation,

the Kabbalah

was

shaped by

the circumstances

of the times

in which it

arose;

yet

it also acted to mold those

same

circumstances,

influencing

the

course

of

Jewish

history,

sometimes

even

decisively.

We

have also

seen

that

this

unified,

self-contained

and

persuasive

picture

was,

on

occasion,

of

tremendous

relevance

for

interpreting

and

dealing

with

the

immediate

present

-

without

doing

violence

to

history

by

harsh

anachronisms.

I

have

labeled

this

correspondence

between

scholarly

and

present-oriented

interest

in

Scholem,

and

among

his

public,

the dimension

of

kairos,

without

which

there

can

be

no

charisma.

Yet this

correspondence

was

also

138



18/19

Charisma,

Kairos and theMessianic Dialectic

articulated

at

times

in

terms

of Scholem's

vision

of

a

dialectical messianism.

As

Rosenzweig

once

noted

in

respect

to

Hegel,

Scholem also

possessed

an

"incredibly bright

consciousness

of

time." This

consciousness

permeated

his

image

of

history,

assuring

him

a

role of

intellectual eminence.

The

view

of

history

mapped

out

by

Scholem

was

not

uncontroversial

and

sparked

critique

both

during

his

lifetime

and

after his

death.

Most

recently,

it

has

been

attacked

precisely

in

connection

with the

alleged

contemporary

relevance

of the Kabbalah. Has kabbalism

really

served

as

an

answer,

since

the

sixteenth

century,

to

messianic

urges?

In

actual

fact,

did Shabbateanism function to

pave

the

way

for

the

Enlightenment?

Is the

history

of the Kabbalah

merely

the

tradition

of

its

texts

and views

-

or

rather

the

history

of

unwritten

theurgic

and

meditative

practices?

In

regard

to

such

controversies,

can one

demonstrate

that Scholem

anticipated

the

standpoint

of his

apparent

critics,

demonstrating

that

what

is

at

issue is litde

more

than

a

matter

of

emphasis?

Questions

abound.

This much

remains

clear: Gershom

Scholem relished

controversy;

he

saw

it

as

living

proof

of

the

vitality

of his

discipline.

In this

spirit,

it is

fitting

to

recall

the

closing

words

of

Solomon

Maimon,

Enlightenment

philo

sopher,

in his Versuch

uber die

Transzendentalphilosophie.

"Our

Talmudists

(who

most

certainly

expressed

ideas

at

times

worthy

of

a

Plato)

said: 'The

pupils

of wisdom

find

no

repose,

neither

in this life

nor

in

any

future

one.'

To which

they

then

relate

the words of the

Psalmist

(84.8):

'They

go

from

strength

to

strength,

Every

one

of

them

appears

before God

in

Zion.'

"

Translated

from

the

German

by

Bill

Tempter

139



19/19

Amos

Funkenstein

Notes

1 Gotthold

Ephraim

Lessing,

Die

Erziehung

des

Menschen

geschlechts,

in

SdmtlicheWerke

(Leipzig,

1841),

945.

2

Gershom

Scholem,

Devarim

be-Go

(English

title:

Explications

and

Implications:

Writings

on

Jewish

Heritage

and

Renaissance)

(Tel

Aviv,

1975),

63.

3

Scholem,

Reshit ha-Kabbalah

(Origins

of the

Kabbalah)

(Jerusalem,

1948),

154.

Not

included

in

the

(expanded)

German

version

or

in

its

English

translation.

4

Babylonian

Talmud,

Megillah

8a.

5

Scholem,

"Mitzvah

ha-Ba'ah

baAverah,"

translated

as

"Redemption

through

Sin,"

in

idem,

The

Messianic

Idea

in

Judaism

(New

York,

1971),

78-141.

6

J.

Tishby,

Torat ha-Ra

ve-ha-Kelippah

be-Kabbalat ha-Ari

(The

doctrine

of evil and

the

kelippah

in

the

Kabbalah

of

Luria)

(Jerusalem,

1942),

131.

7

Nahman

of

Bratslav,

Likkutei ha-Moharan

(Anthology

of

writings)

(Jerusalem,

1930),

78a-80a.

8 G.

W.

F.

Hegel,

Philosophie

der

Geschichte,

ed.

F. Brunstadt

(Reclam,

1961),

61, 65, 69,

78.

See

also

my

Theology

and the

Scientific

Imagination

from

the

Middle

Ages

to

the Seventeenth

Century (Princeton, 1986),

204.

9 See

my

article,

"An

Escape

from

History: Rosenzweig

on

the

Destiny

of

Judaism,"

History

6f

Memory

2,

no.

2

(Winter

1990):

117-35.

140

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lashaxaro
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Gershom Scholem.time, Charisma..

Documents