Talk:List of Jewish mysticism scholars

Created page: What this page is for, and what not for:

Page name and definitions: I changed the page name from "List of Jewish mysticism academics" to "List of Jewish mysticism scholars" because the list includes a section for independent historian researchers outside academia - religious historiography views. I considered changing the page name to the accurate "List of Jewish mysticism academics and researchers", but decided that it was too long, and would likely be changed. "List of Jewish mysticism scholars" is a title that could cause confusion with Traditionalist/non-Orthodox Theological scholars who should not be included on the page - unless they also have written historical research works. Only academic-critical or religious-historiography Historian scholars should be included. I thought that any potential confusion could be resolved by instructing this carefully in hatnotes etc. However the related linked wikimedia commons page: "Academics and researchers of Jewish mysticism" I think should not be changed to "Scholars of Jewish mysticism" - because wikimedia commons is for all languages, not just English, so hatnote instuctions would be more difficult - they might not be understood. I think it is best to keep the wikimedia commons page name as "Academics and researchers.." to avoid potential confusion of people adding images of theological scholars/spiritual teachers/mystics - which the category is not for.

Category:Scholars of Jewish mysticism: When I have time I'll make an English wikipedia "Category:Scholars of Jewish mysticism" for all the included scholars on this page - again with careful hatnote instruction that it is only for historian scholars. As with this page, it will also include the independent religious historiography view scholars, who are a separate group from the academic historians - they require inclusion, as their research can be a seminal contribution, even if treated with some caution in academia. There are 3 distinct general contemporay groups in historian scholarship on Jewish mysticism, as the page explains. These distinct groups-fields should not be merged together on the page:

• Academics of Jewish mysticism-texts following Scholem's founding of the subject as a full University discipline (before Scholem Jewish mysticism textual analysis was existent but rudimentary)
• Academics of Jewish social history, following on from the 19th century first academic Jewish historians (after Scholem this field has been influenced by his positive historiographical assesment of Jewish mysticism)

Nowadays these 2 University Departments of Jewish Mysticism & History collaborate

• Religious historiography viewpoint historians outside academia

To illustrate the nature of the religious historiography view group of historian scholars: for example Aryeh Kaplan would be included for his innovative historical studies on Meditation methods of the Biblical Prophets, Kabbalistic Meditation, and Breslov Hasidic biography. The eminent Adin Steinsaltz for example I think would not be included as his Talmudic commentaries include historical research, but his learned Hasidic-Kabbalistic commentaries are theological, not historical in nature (at least all his English language works - commentaries on the Tanya, innovative theological essays on Jewish mysticism. NB Aryeh Kaplan would not be included on the basis solely of his similar innovative theological essays on Jewish mysticism). Theological commentaries can be very learned in all the historical sources, but unless they analyse the historical development of concepts from whichever viewpoint (academic-critical, or religious historiography), they remain theological, rather than historian.

A few people are somewhat hard to classify on this page:

1. The first group "Academics of Jewish mysticism/thought" is fundamentally for Scholem's school and its present day successors in University departments of Jewish mysticism/thought. However, it also includes a few academic methodology figures whose historian research interpreted Jewish mysticism philosophically, rather than detached objective philological/phenomenological/historical textual analysis: Martin Buber is the main example of this. Scholem disagreed with his analysis of Hasidism saying it ignored the Kabbalistic history of ideas in Hasidic theological texts, interpreting Hasidism solely on the basis of its story-narrative literature, and reshaped genuine Hasidism according to Buber's Neo-Hasidic personal Existentialist philosophy. Consequently, Buber was given tenure in the Hebrew University for Philosophical anthropology, not Jewish mysticism. However, Buber belongs in the first group on the page, because his methodology is academic, his approach to Hasidism is discussed extensively in the works of Scholem's historian school, and it is sometimes conceeded by them that Buber's approach does contribute some important phenomenological insights into the nature of Hasidic mysticism. Abraham Joshua Heschel would be another example of someone in the first group who also interprets Hasidism philosophically, but his works on Hasidism, I think, are nonetheless closer to Scholem's detatched historian analysis approach.
2. Examples of another type that is somewhat hard to classify according to the three distinct groups on the page: some religious researchers who are close to academic critical methodology: Yitzchak Alfasi is an Israeli Haredi researcher who writes extensively on Hasidic history. I think his works are biographical in nature, rather than analysing Hasidism according to the academic theoretical categories utilised in Religious studies. However, as a biographer and bibliographer of Hasidism, who is critical-objective in his approach (I think), his Hasidic compendium writing are cited in the academic literature of Scholem's school. Therefore, I'll include him in the first group, I think, rather than the religious historiogrphy group (the academic literature doesn't cite eg. Aryeh Kaplan's religious historiography historian research, but it does cite his translations of the Bahir and Sefer Yetzirah, though advising caution for their commentary). I think the litmus test of whether a religious researcher is included in the academic section or the religious historiography section is: whether or not their works are cited in the academic literature. Yehoshua Mondshine is another example. He is a Habad librarian in the Hebrew University (I think), who has written on Habad Hasidic historiographical sources, but he is cited in the academic literature, so I'll include him in the first group. In contrast, there are internal Habad historians whose approach remains religious historiography alone. Ada-Rapoport Albert in University College London has published papers looking at the religious historiographical views within Hasidism. In Hasidism Reappraised she says that the majority of these historian works, which use all the modern scholarly apparatus of footnotes etc. but remain within the religious historiography camp, emanate from Habad. At issue is discussion of the historical nature of the early Hasidic movement, and use of the academically debated Herson Geniza sources used in Habad historiography, but usually criticised in academia. Nonetheless, she says that the contemporary academic study of Jewish mysticism needs to discuss the previously neglected religious historiography views. I think Jacob Immanuel Schochet, for example, would be an internal Habad historian scholar of Jewish mysticism who would be included in the third group. His biographies of DovBer of Mezeritch and Schneur Zalman of Liadi use the Herson Geniza religious historiography view sources. In the litmus test above, his historian works are not cited in academic works (though they are beginning to be looked at critically as said above).

The Difference between academic and religious historiography historian approaches: NB. "Critically" does not necessarily mean always in a negative light, though it can mean that. Like someone who reviews eg. classical music performances is called a critic, rather than an "appreciator" (!), "critical evaluation" strictly means merely objective analysis - though of course there can ultimately be no absolute objectivity. Scholem's conclusions were shaped by his own assumed outlook in life, as religious historiography is shaped by its viewpoint assumptions. Scholem differs from the religious historiographies by basing his views only on extant manuscript evidence. Religious historiography views include theological evaluations: eg. The 5th Lubavitcher Rebbe spent a long time evaluating the Herson Geniza sources, considering whether they were genuine. The Herson Geniza surfaced from Ruzhin Hasidic dynasty at that time, claiming to be copies of historical manuscripts originally stemming from the Baal Shem Tov. They patently include contadictions. After a long time Shalom DovBer Schneersohn decided that they were (corrupted) copies of genuine sources from the Baal Shem Tov. Academia sees the inconsistences, and usually (at present) rejects these sources, because it is evaluating them historically. The 5th Lubavitcher Rebbe ultimately accepted these sources, because his judgement was based upon the sources' theological content. As a supreme theological scholar, not a historian, he determined that their new theological content could only have stemmed originally from the Baal Shem Tov. This was a holistic/cultural/faith ("art") conclusion rather than a reductionist/evidence ("science") conclusion of historians. It is understandable, therefore, that religious historiographical research views will differ from academic ones. Both need inclusion on the page, as both are historian scholars, but accordingly in different sections of the page. Ada Rapoport-Albert's academic paper discussing Habad historiography was called "Hagiography with footnotes". However, Yehoshua Mondshine, as well as eg. Naftali Loewenthal are Habad scholars who have published within the academic methodology works on Habad. The difference is that in their academic publications, thay remain circumscribed within the academic-critical approach in dealing with problematic sources.

Changing historiographies in academia, and Scholem's contribution: In academic method scholarship, views of course change. "Critical Philosophy of history" shows that historiography views change according to the era. Academic History is the contemporary interpretation of past events, not the past events themselves ("Popular History"). Accordingly, there can be no absolute interpretation of history, but like the Exact Sciences, academic History successively approaches closer to the true evaluation. Scholem overturned the 19th century Wissenschaft des Judentums historiography viewpoint of Judaism, which was severely critical of Kabbalah. The 19th century scholars usually interpreted Jewish history in the light of Haskalah rationalism and marginalised Kabbalah and Hasidism as a superstitious foreign implant into Judaism. Scholem positioned Jewish mysticism, Kabbalah, the mythical, and the non-rational as the inherently generated vital underground source of renewal within Judaism, and viewed Medieval Jewish rationalism as the foreign implant. In turn, Moshe Idel has proposed reevaluation of Scholem's Kabbalistic historiography in Kabbalah: New Perspectives. Accordingly, the page needs a prelude 4th group of historians of Judaism before Scholem whose writings dealt with Jewish mysticism. Scholem began his research in the 1920s and published the seminal Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism in 1941. He is regarded as the founder of the University department discipline of Jewish Mysticism, as before him, Jewish mysticism textual analysis was rudimentary. The prelude historians before him often combined both later disciplines of Jewish mysticism academia and Jewish social history academic discussion of Jewish mystical context. After Scholem the social historians were influenced by his new historiographical positive assessment of Jewish mysticism (they didn't marginalise it like the Wissenschaft school).

Difference between Jewish mysticism academia and Jewish social history academia: These 2 departments - Scholem's discipline, and the social historians - should remain 2 separate groups on the page, as they are 2 different University departments and academic fields. Scholem and his successors are Religious studies textual Historians of Ideas, using philological, phenomenological etc. approaches to study the development and nature of Jewish mystical thought. Research of relevant social historians - those social historians of Jewish history who have published works relating to Jewish mystical history - has included study of the social context and influence of society on Jewish mystical development (especially when the mysticism had direct social consequences or relationship, eg. Hasidic movement popular revivalism, eg. feminine involvement in Sabbatean movement etc.). The former studies the internal development of Jewish mystical ideas, the latter their historical context. Originally these remained 2 separate fields. In recent times cross-fertilisation and collaboration is common: eg. both disciplines have published on the historical background of early Hasidism, or both disciplines have published involved discussion of mystical ideas. Nonetheless, they remain 2 different fields, and should remain 2 separate groups on the page.

Scholarship on all historical forms and eras of Jewish mysticism included: The page is for historian scholars who have published studies in any one or more of the different historical eras and forms in Jewish mysticism development: early Apocalyptic literature mysticism, early Rabbinic Judaism mysticism, early Merkabah-Hekhalot mysticism, Medieval Chassidei Ashkenaz, Medieval Kabbalah Theosophy-Meditative Kabbalah-Practical Kabbalah, Abraham Abulafia's Prophetic Kabbalah, Lurianic Kabbalah, Sabbatean mystical heresy, Hasidism, Mitnagdic Kabbalah, Mizrachi Kabbalists etc. The heretical Jewish Sabbatean mystical movement is included as it was based on Lurianic Kabbalah and its followers still practiced Judaism. Sabbatean continuation in the Islamic Dönmeh therefore not included. Mysticism among the early Christian Jewish sect, while still within Judaism, who still practiced Judaism and shared its thought and mysticism, would be included on the same basis as Sabbateanism. - However, as the mysticism of the early Christian Jews is studied as part of Christian mysticism, and became a basis for its later continuation and development, so it is not included (directly) in the scholarly field of Jewish mysticism, and therefore its scholars are not included on this list (unless they also published on the equivalent-related solely Jewish early mysticism of the same time). Modern Christian Messianic Judaism is not included (if it had specifically mystical developments according to the academic definition of mysticism, which I don't think so), as its theology does not require Jewish observance even if some of its followers practice Judaism, it does not share Jewish-Rabbinic thought or mysticism, and therefore is regarded in Judaism as not Judaic, but Christian. It goes without saying that historian scholarship on any era of Jewish mystical development has been carried out also by non-Jewish academics, who are included on the page, even though most academics of Jewish mysticism or history are Jewish. Some scholars, especially the leading academics in the field of Jewish mysticism/thought (Gershom Scholem, Joseph Dan, Moshe Idel, Rachel Elior etc.) have investigated and published works on all historical eras of Jewish mysticism. Scholars who have published on only one era/form, or written only one book on Jewish mystical history are also included (the leading figures should be indicated as such in brackets - and it is best if short bracketed descriptions of the relevant scholarship are given for all listed people). Scholars who specialise in rationalist Jewish philosophy but who have written works on Jewish mysticism should therefore be included. Academics of Jewish social history may have written mostly on non-mystical Jewish themes, but would be included if they have contributed to Jewish mysticism social history scholarship. anthropologists who have published research on contemporary Hasidim, Kabbalistic groups etc. can be included in the 2nd section - "academics of Jewish history/society". They research the customs, personal views etc. of their subjects according to sociological/anthropological categorisation. Academic scholars in Departments of Jewish or General literature/culture/folklore who have studied eg. Hasidic mystical storytelling, or Kabbalistic Hagiographical literature, should be included in the first group of academic scholars of Jewish mysticism/thought. Indeed some of Gershom Scholem's school have also written on this Jewish mystical literature genre. Scholarship on Renaissance and Early-Modern non-Jewish Christian Cabala or its continuing occult offshoot Hermetic Qabalah is not included on the page. Even though it derives from syncretically mixed-adapted-borrowed Jewish Kabbalah, it is a non-Jewish mysticism or magic. Gershom Scholem, Joseph Dan etc. have written on the Christian Kabbalah, but this topic itself is not part of Judaism's mysticism.

Historical Jewish "magic": Jewish Practical Kabbalah, though a minor tradition in the history of Judaism, is included on the page as it is a part of Jewish mysticism: studies of Sefer Yetzirah's application, the Golem narrative, Dybuks, Jewish exorcism, Baalei Shem etc. Practical Kabbalah has been described as Jewish White Magic. Scholem uses the academic categorisation of "magic" extensively in his scholarship on Jewish mysticism, and even meditative Jewish mysticism (eg. Meditative Kabbalah) can easily blur into "magical" application, while Practical Kabbalah is more directly-practically magic. Non-Jewish Magic (paranormal) itself is intimately derived from mystical belief, though a different or competing application of it. In Jewish theological views sympathetic, or at least believing in, Practical Kabbalah (Maimonides excepted) kosher versions of Jewish Practical Kabbalah differ from non-Jewish occult magic by their restraint to strict limits, so as not to transgress Judaic prohibitions on magic in Halakha. Jewish Practical Kabbalists, therefore, held that they did not practice magic, but a deeper theurgic application of mysticism. To avoid degeneration into magic, Practical Kabbalah was accepted/tolerated in Judaism only for the most elite spiritual masters, whose holy motive avoided impure magic. Consequently, Practical Kabbalah according to views of mainstream Kabbalists, even when they censored/restricted it strongly, belongs to Jewish mysticism, rather than impure-forbidden (in Judaism) occult/magic. It is a minor, censored/restricted, but significant inherent stream in Jewish mysticism, and is studied by academic scholars of Jewish mysticism such as Scholem and his successors - belonging fully on the page. For example, Joshua Trachtenberg's over 60 year old classic study Jewish Magic and Superstition A Study in Folk Religion merits his inclusion on the page: the new forward by Jewish mysticism scholar Moshe Idel reassessed the book's outdated view and its title today. Trachtenberg erred in regarding magic in Judaism as only Folk Religion, when it embraced also elite figures. Consequently, magical practices or magical interpretations of normative practices in Judaism are intimately bound up with Jewish mysticism, if uneasily. Scholarship on Jewish mysticism merges without boundaries into scholarship on Jewish magic, requiring full inclusion on the page (if done in a scholarly research, rather than populist/sensationalist fashion). April8 (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

---