******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - - Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/ Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-rev...@lists.h-net.org> > Date: April 20, 2020 at 7:05:06 AM EDT > To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > Cc: H-Net Staff <revh...@mail.h-net.org> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Judaic]: Werdiger on Kohler, 'Kabbalah Research in > the Wissenschaft des Judentums (1820-1880): The Foundation of an Academic > Discipline' > Reply-To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > > George Y. Kohler. Kabbalah Research in the Wissenschaft des > Judentums (1820-1880): The Foundation of an Academic Discipline. > Berlin De Gruyter, 2019. 282 pp. $114.99 (cloth), ISBN > 978-3-11-062037-5. > > Reviewed by Ori Werdiger (University of Chicago) > Published on H-Judaic (April, 2020) > Commissioned by Barbara Krawcowicz > > "It is very meritorious to provide information about the essence and > substance of such a profound intellectual endeavor, especially if its > creations are only accessible to such a small number of scholars, and > have up to now so often been misunderstood." This observation was > made by a towering figure of nineteenth-century Wissenschaft des > Judentums, the historian Isaac Marcus Jost. The endeavor to which > Jost referred was kabbalah and its literary productions, one of many > research objects of the then emerging field of Jewish studies in > Germany. Yet, within this endorsement of research on Jewish > mysticism, made on the occasion of reviewing a monograph on the > history of kabbalah by his colleague Adolf Jellinek, Jost also > confessed he viewed kabbalah as nothing short of "aberrances of the > human intellect" (p. 124). An aberrancy, then, that nevertheless must > be thoroughly studied and explained. > > In contrast to nineteenth-century Germany, in today's arguably > post-secular age, Jewish mysticism often counts among the most > studied and in a certain way also most accessible elements of > Judaism, both in the academy and in popular culture. With some > historical irony, however, the observation by Jost quoted above > captures the present-day status of research on the kabbalah conducted > by him and his colleagues: this too was a serious intellectual > endeavor that is little studied today, possibly misunderstood, and > practically non-accessible for English readers. George Y. Kohler's > book aims to remedy this situation, through a presentation of every > instance of Wissenschaft treatment of the kabbalah from 1822 up to > the early twentieth century, focusing on the scholars who wrote and > published in German. Consequently, together with more familiar > figures, such as Abraham Geiger or Moritz Steinschneider, the study > introduces many lesser-known scholars as well. Among the latter are > the Hungarian Ignaz Stern; Abraham Adler, brother of the famous > German American Reform rabbi Samuel Adler; and David Joel, head of > the Breslau Rabbinical Seminary and brother of the pioneer historian > of Jewish philosophy, Manuel Joel. > > The book comprises twenty short units that generally follow a > combined temporal and thematic line: each unit treats the > publications on kabbalah produced by one or more Wissenschaft > scholars at roughly the same time and, when relevant, also the > reviews and responses to their key publications. For example, the > second unit is titled "Leopold Zunz and Moritz Freystadt > (1818-1832)," whereas units 7 to 9 cover Jellinek's publications in > 1851-52, the "first reactions" to Jellinek, and his publications in > 1853-54, respectively (p. vii). The second-to-last unit complements > the focus on the Wissenschaft's scholarly republic of letters > throughout the rest of the book by looking at the popular > dissemination of Wissenschaft views on kabbalah in Jewish textbooks > published from the 1870s and after. The last unit, an epilogue, > extends the time covered by the book to 1907, by examining further > textbooks and publications in that later period. This predominantly > chronological organization corresponds with Kohler's declared aim to > provide an overview of the emergence and development of > nineteenth-century studies of kabbalah within the Wissenschaft > movement. Accordingly, Kohler does not enter into an assessment of > Wissenschaft's achievements in the actual analysis of kabbalah's > history and ideas, an area that he explicitly leaves for contemporary > experts on Jewish mysticism. > > In addition to making this era in kabbalah research more accessible, > Kohler also seeks to correct what he sees as a grave > misunderstanding. With few exceptions, Kohler argues, contemporary > scholarship and the broader public hold that early Wissenschaft > scholars intentionally neglected the study of kabbalah and > misrepresented it, motivated by rationalistic embarrassment, a desire > to advance emancipation, and an effort to portray Judaism in a > positive light before non-Jewish eyes. Kohler traces the roots of > this view to Gershom Scholem, the figure most strongly associated > with the study of Jewish mysticism in the twentieth century, whose > negative description of his predecessors was uncritically accepted by > Scholem's students and readers. In contrast to this myth of neglect, > the book demonstrates that questions regarding the authorship of the > Zohar, the origins of Jewish mysticism, and the history of kabbalah > were of central concern to major figures of the Wissenschaft des > Judentums movement. Despite their overall personal negative views of > kabbalah, Kohler shows, Wissenschaft scholars devoted much time to > obtain and study kabbalistic manuscripts, and some of their ideas > anticipated those of scholars who came after them. > > According to Kohler, a key to this somewhat contradictory > combination--of a manifest dislike yet scholarly investment--lies in > the theological premises of the scholars under discussion, most of > whom, Kohler notes, served as community rabbis and members of the > German Jewish Reform movement. Their resistance to kabbalah was thus > related, Kohler claims, to their denominational affiliation, which > involved the conviction that modern Judaism is, and ought to be, a > rational religion, understood as a historically developing > phenomenon, based on an eternal message of ethical monotheism. The > perceived irrational nature of kabbalah, and its assertion of > religious authority based on the Zohar's dubious claims to ancient > authenticity, endangered this vision. An additional explanation > concerns what in the eyes of Wissenschaft scholars was a > disfigurement of Jewish thought by mystical speculations and its > related preference of a mystical world of fantasies over ethical > engagement in real life. Nevertheless, Kohler insists, the outcome of > such an approach did not lead to kabbalah's neglect but to opposite > results: "The more a scholar was interested in showing the > 'harmfulness' of Kabbalah, the more space he reserved for the > description of its doctrine, while this description, of course, had > to answer all criteria of the scholarly ethos of the nineteenth > century in order to indeed serve the educational purpose to warn > against the 'dangers' of kabbalistic thought" (p. 20). > > An exemplary case treated extensively by Kohler is that of Heinrich > Graetz (whose work is discussed in about 50 out of a total 263 > pages), the most prolific Jewish historian of his generation and a > main target of attacks by Scholem and later scholars. Focus on > Graetz's admittedly pejorative terms in his discussions of kabbalah, > Kohler argues, obscures his actual and lasting contributions to its > scholarship and ignores the conventions of historical writing during > his time. Following the same style adopted by the great German > historian Leopold von Ranke, Kohler explains, Graetz included > judgmental character descriptions within the body of his narrative > and kept the more technical and impartial scholarship to attached > footnotes, which, in turn, were mostly ignored by Graetz's critics. > Thus, with his subjective theological commitments to Judaism as > ethical monotheism, and seeing kabbalah as dangerous and its ideas as > foreign to Judaism, Kohler writes, "Graetz was convinced that, in > cases where fully justified, the historian is free to 'execrate' and > resent any elements of his account he so chooses, like all other > human beings" (p. 208). > > On a theoretical level, therefore, the book's occupation with > professed attitudes vis-à-vis actual research of kabbalah pertains > to the more philosophical issue of fact-value distinction. On an > epistemological, ontological, and moral level, can discussion of the > facts (in this case, primarily kabbalistic text) be separated from > the normative views (here, an ethics that excludes Jewish mysticism) > held by those who study them? On this issue, Kohler states in the > introduction: "Ideological differences do not necessarily have a > decisive influence on research results," and among his main examples > is Scholem's ultimate, albeit little admitted, agreement with Graetz > on the authorship of the Zohar (p. 24). Yet this case, it seems to > me, rather shows the degree to which Scholem, despite his Zionist > motivations, followed the same philological methods as those used by > Graetz. In this, as discussed by David Myers and others, Scholem's > approach was characteristic of the Jerusalem school of Zionist > historians, who remained committed to the Wissenschaft ideal of > impersonal scientific and objective research. If we take methodology > as value-free then Kohler's argument stands, but if one sees > methodology as mired in ideological assumptions, then the agreement > between Scholem and Graetz only indicates that they shared more than > Scholem was willing to admit. > > On this topic, an illuminating example of Graetz and Scholem's shared > world, I suggest, emerges from Graetz's disclosure of his personal > views regarding kabbalah, cited by Kohler in the book. In the tenth > volume of his _History of the Jews _(1868), Graetz blamed kabbalah > for creating "unspeakable delusions within Judaism," even in the > hands of its most "honest" cultivators, such as Nachmanides and > Luria, and he took kabbalah's gravest sin to be the subsequent > leading of Judaism's best intellectual talents, such as > seventeenth-century kabbalist Moses Luzatto, to "chase after shadows" > and throw themselves "into the abyss" (p. 208). Strikingly, the same > association between kabbalah and the abyss was also central for > Scholem, who in 1937 wrote to his publisher that the study of Jewish > mysticism needed the "courage to venture out into an abyss."[1] > Similarly, two decades later, in a letter to a colleague regarding > his work on the Sabbatean movement and its kabbalistic underpinnings, > Scholem declared: "I never knew that Judaism flees from abysses. > Quite the contrary: so far as I know, Judaism has opened up history's > main abysses."[2] Thus, despite contrasting attitudes regarding > kabbalah--for Graetz a danger, and for Scholem a treasure--both > scholars nevertheless applied to kabbalah the same strong metaphor, > which classifies kabbalah on the side of the irrational, > non-normative, and mysterious. > > The question of ideology and scholarship in kabbalah research, past > and present, remains an unresolved but critical issue. In the context > of the current discussion, to what degree do negative attitudes of > kabbalah held by early Wissenschaft scholars, and the positive > attitudes held by Scholem and his students, inform the way texts are > read, understood, and assessed? More broadly, what are the > theological, political, and epistemological assumptions undergirding > kabbalah scholarship and its methodologies? Through its extensive > documentation, and interrelated challenge to Scholem's > historiographical delimitation, Kohler's book provides a fresh > context for engaging with these questions. Readers of Kohler will > have the rare opportunity to meet the pioneers of the academic study > of Jewish mysticism in Germany and decide for themselves whether > their attitudes to kabbalah led to its neglect or misunderstanding. > They will also be invited to reflect anew on the relationship between > rationalism and mysticism, and between personal views and > professional judgments. > > Notes > > [1]. Gershom Scholem, "A Candid Word about the True Motives of my > Kabbalistic Studies," in _Gershom Scholem: Kabbalah and > Counter-history_, by David Biale (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University > Press, 1982), 31-32. > > [2]. Gershom Scholem, "To Zwi Werblowsky," in _A Life in Letters, > 1914-1982_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 372. > > _Ori Werdiger is a PhD candidate at the University of Chicago > Divinity School._ > > Citation: Ori Werdiger. Review of Kohler, George Y., _Kabbalah > Research in the Wissenschaft des Judentums (1820-1880): The > Foundation of an Academic Discipline_. H-Judaic, H-Net Reviews. > April, 2020. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=54537 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
