apocalyptic mystic

8/2/2019 Apocalyptic Mystic

1/38

From Apocalypticism to Early Jewish Mysticism?

Michael Mach

The topic of this paper is highly speculative in nature. The following

survey seeks to single out some elements that may be seen as pointing to an

inner-religious development from ancient apocalyptic texts towards later

mystical ones. The attempt as such has to struggle with considerable

difficulties of methods and evidence. It seems advisable, therefore, to address

some of these problems at the outset and to discuss the relevant apocalyptic

texts only thereafter.

A

Ancient Jewish apocalypticism has produced a considerable amount of

literature. Within the Jewish community, however, the writing of apocalypses

seems to have ceased some few decades after the destruction of the second

Jewish temple in 70 CE. The first still known document released by the rabbis

thereafter, the Mishnah, mentions the days of the messiah no more than

once (Mishnah Berakhot I,5; in an eschatological meaning the term messiah is

mentioned once again in a later gloss in Mishnah Sota IX, 15). The works of

Jewish apocalypticism have been copied and transmitted by different

Christian churches.

One gets the impression that for a short period of time the apocalyptic

heritage and all that goes with it have been suspended from rabbinicaldefinitions of Jewish religion. To make it immediately clear: Only a short

while after theMishnah, official rabbinic documents will mention themessiah

again, will come back to some notions of apocalyptic literature etc. The

change is not as radical and one-sided as might be expected. Yet, most

characteristic features of the apocalyptic literature and its eschatology are

either not really represented or appear only as possible background candi-

dates, e.g., for rabbinic polemics or other theological discourses. Could it

indeed be that such an enormous theological (not necessarily: social!)

movement was erased from the intellectual landscape? In the later Talmudic

period and shortly thereafter apocalyptic ideas will re-enter the rabbinic

discussion, and outside the Talmudim some minor apocalypses will be

written (Even Shmuel, 1968). The ongoing stream of that literature, marginal

as it might have been, testifies at least that apocalypticism was not totally

abandoned. It was kept in the background of the more official works such as

the Mishnah that were given to serve the community as a new basis for

religious self-definition. However suppressed, it will continue to influence

some thinkers.Nevertheless, one cannot fail to see a major change that occurred in

8/2/2019 Apocalyptic Mystic

2/38

Michael Mach 2 From Apocalypticism to Mysticism

Jewish piety, once the works of apocalypticism were abandoned (being, in-

deed, no longer transmitted by the synagogue but by the Christian church

alone), but also eschatology and every other form of hope for the future had

to undergo substantial re-interpretations. One might go so far as to define the

rabbinic re-formulation of Judaism as sanctification of the nation within thisworld with no real importance to any other-worldly salvation (cp. Neusner,

1984). The question to be asked is, therefore, quite naturally whether other

strands of Jewish piety - be it at the fringes of rabbinical teaching, as

suppressed part of it or totally outside - reflect the former apocalyptic

traditions and to what degree. Formulated in a different direction: What other

forms of religious thought might have been created out of former apocalyptic

ideas and in what religio-social context are these to be expected? An

outstanding candidate for a re-modeled piety, based upon the earlier

apocalypses was found in the literature of what is commonly called early

Jewish mysticism, i.e., the so-called Hekhalot-literature. The following lines

will, therefore, deal with the possible connections between apocalypticism

and the early mystic traditions in Judaism treating especially the possible

(proto-) mystical elements occurring in the former.

B

The renewed interest in ancient Jewish apocalypticism has gone side

by side with a relatively new academic field of Jewish studies, namely Jewish

mysticism. If the former was inter alia due to the new finds of, e.g., the Dead

Sea Scrolls the later owes its existence mainly to the life-work of Gerhard

Gershom Scholem. He elevated mystic texts to a level of academic discussion

and investigation that could and indeed still does take its place at the side of

more traditional fields of academic Jewish learning (see mainly Scholem,

1946; 1960).

Yet, it was only later that following Scholems more general remarks

both groups of texts, apocalypses and Jewish mystic lore, were brought into

closer relation. The first peek in this regard is Ithamar Gruenwalds Ph.D.thesis, conducted under Scholems supervision and consequently published

in a totally reworked form (Gruenwald, 1980, and later followed by other

scholars). The direction of scholarly interest mainly articulated in this later

work is to a certain degree obligated to Scholems definition of the different

stages of inner development detectable within Jewish mysticism. What stands

for discussion here is especially the literature known as Hekhalot

([heavenly] palaces, that the mystic passes through) or Merkavah ([Gods]

chariot, the aim of the mystics vision). The main purpose of this literature

was defined by Scholem and his followers as the mystics passing through the(seven) heavenly palaces in order to gain a vision of God enthroned on his

chariot. Thus the apocalyptic ascent stories, e.g., have been considered the

8/2/2019 Apocalyptic Mystic

3/38

Michael Mach 3 From Apocalypticism to Mysticism

direct soil that nurtured the later mystic ascents. Following that line of

argumentation scholars working upon Jewish apocalyptic texts have taken

some interest in Hekhalot-literature and its motives, using them partly as

proof of the ongoing existence of apocalyptic traditions. Only recently the so-

called 3Enoch, a part of the Hekhalot texts, has been included in J. H.Charlesworth assembly of apocalyptic texts (cp. also Himmelfarb, 1993;

Fossum, 1995). To be sure, the name given to this specific text is a misnomer

introduced by its modern editor (H. Odeberg; according to the manuscripts:

Book of the Palaces). On the other side scholars have tried to deal with the

mystic qualities of apocalyptic literature (e.g., Rowland, 1982).

The outlined development alone would have sufficed to justify a

discussion of early Jewish mystic texts and their dependence upon the older

apocalypses within the frame of a broader study on apocalypticism.

However, before entering into such a comparison it should be made clear,

that this whole line of relating one group of texts to another is open for

discussion because of different counter arguments. These will be addressed in

the following. They concern the nature of the Hekhalot texts as regarding the

manuscripts, the fluctuation of the textual tradition, the date and character of

this whole literature. Only thereafter the broader issue of possible

transformations from apocalypticism as a basically prophetic, politically

critical type of religion into a quite different, more individual (not necessarily

uncritical), yet, more quiet form of religion may be approached.It is, however, still another question whether or not mystic elements

may already have been part of the underlying traditions behind the

apocalypses. In such a case the transformation of these eschatological texts

into mystic experiences would take on another dimension and would affect

our understanding of these topics within the Hekhalot literature. We will

have to come back to this issue, too.

In short, despite the considerable amount of scholarly activity to clarify

the precise relations between both bulks of texts there remains a lot to be

done. Here some of the main questions should be pointed out without an

attempt to solve them.

C

However, before entering into the real subject some features of the

Hekhalot-writings should be outlined which will considerably restrict any

comparison between the two streams of literature: The first and most im-

portant objection against the assumption of a direct historic link between

ancient apocalypses and the Hekhalot-literature has come up relatively re-

cently. The manuscripts of these mystic texts differ notably from those of

other texts. Ancient texts are normally copied by scribes - sometimes together

8/2/2019 Apocalyptic Mystic

4/38

Michael Mach 4 From Apocalypticism to Mysticism

with others - as whole units. The Hekhalot-manuscripts, on the other hand,

combine the material quite often in different orders, sometimes overlapping

etc. (Schfer, 1981, vi-viii). It has, therefore, been asked whether one is

permitted to see in the different writings indeed books, treatises, in other

words: defined works of religious literature or else a stream of an ongoingtradition reworked more or less by every scribe (Schfer, 1988). This specific

characteristic of the manuscript tradition has led the editor of the texts to a

synoptic printing of the evidence instead of establishing a critical text as we

are accust