Customer Reviews

Messianic Mystics

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Professor Moshe Idel is the foremost pupil of the great pioneering scholar Gershon Scholem. In this work he takes on a major conception of Scholem's thought i.e. Messianism is in Judaism is a reaction to historical and political disaster. The great example is the Kabbalah created in the wake of the expulsion of Jews from Spain. Idel sees the relationship between Messianism and Mysticism as being much more complex. While he underlines the difficult of understanding mystical thinking in all its layers of complexity he asserts it has had a powerful effect on Messianism. He too argues that Messianic thinking may come , as it did after the Six- Day War in Israel out of a time of new historical hope, and not out of crisis only. Idel reads the inner mystical thought as finding frequently historical implications, outward connections and aspirations in Messianic thinking. He presents very detailed and thorough scholarly arguments which are themselves often of great complexity. He shows a mastery of the sources and an admirable thoroughness in research.
This is a major work and one vital for anyone interested in understanding Jewish Mystical and Messianic thought through the ages.

This text is for academics not Kabbalists or general readers. It highlights disputes with Scholem (& some agreements) & Werblowsky-many, from my perspective, are pilpul-like nit-picking. Unlike his prior texts (esp. the Abulafia trilogy--also difficult reading & academic), it lacks a depth of Kabbalistic wisdom--except Appendix 2 with pithy information on a Lurianic ritual (strangely ignoring parallels with tzimtzum, shi'ur komah, & shemmittah). Idel presents a trio of models which I find artificial & not particularly helpful (vs. the physical-social, mental-emotional, & mystical-spiritual) & different views of redemption & messianism from Scholem & others. Read chapter 8 "Concluding Remarks" early to better understand the text. Idel uses legitimate definitions differing from those I employ (unabridged Websters has both). For example, Idel uses "phenomenological" extensively but my scientific definition didn't fit his philosophical definition. But, since the book is about messianism & mysticism, their definitions are critical. Idel shows that Messiah (M) means anointed & applies to kings, but extends it to make messianism include much more than is generally connoted; he also defines/expands "redemption." Yes, it can mean individual redemption according to Websters, but that's NOT what people mean when they refer to M & messianism. So, I object to Idel's usage of certain words. Rationalism (theory or logic) epistemology lacks grounding or corroboration. Science uses Empiricism (data) to counterbalance its theory. Mysticism, though phenomenological in the scientific sense, provides a counterbalance for the Kabbalist-both discrete (a posteriori personal experience) & statistical (historical & educational a priori data). But Idel appears to be neither Kabbalist nor scientist (neither is the historian Scholem). Indeed, Idel states that Buber, a mystic, says that individual messianism is impossible. I believe their difference is terminological--the meaning/use of "messianism" & "redemption." Similarly, Idel objects to the common focusing of messianism on the apocalyptic. Personal terminological connotations lead Idel into circular reasoning-defining his view into existence. Per Josephine Tey's Daughter of Time: p. 201: "Historians should be compelled to take a course in psychology before they are allowed to write" & p. 173: "Grant wondered with what part of their brains historians reasoned. It was certainly by no process of reasoning known to ordinary mortals that they arrived at their conclusions." Idel himself notes p. 264: "The influence of historical contexts upon the historian himself" & p. 326: quotes Chastel "There are cases in which the modalities of the imagination become the stuff of historical moments." What about the imagination of the historians? Or the erstwhile messiahs. Idle says Abulafia thought he was greater than Moses-no ego inflation, infantile grandiosity, or narcissism there!-reminds me of the 4 who went to Pardes-none fared well, even Akiva who went in peace-only to be martyred supporting Bar Kochba (ignored in this book) as M. Still, Idel shows interesting parallels: EXPLICIT--Buddhist Bodhisattvas, Shi'ite Mohamed, & Messiah (M) & INFERRED--shemmittah to Buddhist kalpas & Hindu yugas; sparks of the M are in all Jews & Buddhists have hidden Buddha nature; Kabbalists/Zaddik's can descend & rescue souls as did Buddha & Jesus; the M was incarnated as Adam & David=Buddhist/Hindu transmigration & esp. Tibetan Tulkus & Shi'ite Mohamed; Abulafia returning from God in order to teach others = Bodhisattvas; & the demonic power of the M per Jung's shadow. Nevertheless, this book is about Kabbalah not of Kabbalah. For interested academics this book could be a 4 or 5 star. Not for me.