Peter Schäfer. The Origins of Jewish Mysticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. xv + 398 pp. $35.00, paper, ISBN 978-0-691-14215-9.

Reviewed by Mark Verman

Published on H-Judaic (May, 2012)

Commissioned by Jason Kalman (Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion)

Peter Schäfer’s new monograph The Origins topics covered are arranged chronologically and of Jewish Mysticism (hereafter OJM) is a magiste‐ begin with the prophetic book, Ezekiel, followed rial tour de force. Owing to the breadth of the ma‐ by discussions of 1 and 2 Enoch, various apoca‐ terial that is covered and Schäfer’s consistently lu‐ lypses, Dead Sea scroll writings, Philo, and rab‐ cid, methodical, and incisive analysis, this book is binic literature, and conclude with a discussion of an instant classic and will become the benchmark four Hekhalot texts. Schäfer thus examines all of for all subsequent discussions of the topic. the major literary works that modern scholars as‐ Schäfer’s lengthy and productive career has re‐ sociate with the early stages of Jewish mysticism. volved around his incomparable contribution to One of the many benefts of Schäfer’s presenta‐ the publication and scholarly analysis of that cor‐ tion is that he not only assesses published scholar‐ pus of writings known as Hekhalot (Temples/ ship, but frequently cites illuminating, private Palaces) texts. An examination of these particular communications with experts in the subfelds, works constitutes the culmination of his current such as Philip Alexander and Maren Niehof. book. In fact, the basic agenda of OJM is an at‐ After careful consideration of all of these tempt to discover to what extent the pre-Hekhalot works, Schäfer comes to conclusions that are es‐ writings, biblical and post-biblical, can be seen as pecially noteworthy and thought-provoking. He anticipating the mystical experience delineated in deduces that few of the dozens of texts that he an‐ the Hekhalot corpus. alyzed are “mystical” in the way that the term is Although specifc aspects of pre-medieval, ordinary used. Moreover, he challenges the com‐ Jewish mystical literature have hitherto benefted monly held view that these disparate writings from scholarly treatment, nothing rivals the scope constitute connected stages within a progressively Schäfer’s presentation. The book is divided into nine chapters, plus a substantial introduction. The H-Net Reviews developing enterprise. Accordingly, the book’s ti‐ Given that Schäfer contends that it is a throne tle is simultaneously ironic and subversive. vision that is the quintessential element of early In his introduction Schäfer ofers a thoughtful Jewish mysticism, it is understandable that he de‐ discussion of the term “mysticism” and its stan‐ votes chapter 1 of his book to a detailed analysis dard associations. He starts by positing that gener‐ of Ezekiel’s vision of the divine Chariot, which ally mysticism is connected with the concept of had a major impact on subsequent writings. By unio mystica, i.e., mystical union of man and God. opening this chapter with the phrase “In 597 BCE Most scholars of Jewish mystical writings, such as ... ” (p. 34), one is misled into thinking that the Gershom Scholem, the pioneer of the academic “origins of Jewish mysticism” begin in the sixth study of the Kabbalah, have not found evidence of century BCE. Although he does make passing ref‐ unio mystica in Jewish texts and have therefore erences here and elsewhere to Isaiah 6, the reader advanced other characteristics. After assessing would have been better served had Schäfer of‐ and critiquing the utility of the approaches of Sc‐ fered a systematic analysis of this core text. Isa‐ holem, Bernard McGinn, and many others, iah’s vision, occurring some 150 years earlier than Schäfer considers the recent approach of Elliot Ezekiel, focuses not only on the divine throne, but Wolfson, who argued that the early Jewish mysti‐ also includes the angelic doxology of the seraphs. cal writings focused instead on the “angelifca‐ Both of these constitute key elements of the tion” of the human being. Schäfer notes that Hekhalot texts. Moreover, Isaiah and Ezekiel were “[t]he advantage of this defnition consists in the infuenced by the much earlier vision of Moses fact that it does not impose a terminology on the and the seventy elders found in Exodus 24:9-11, as ancient texts that is alien to them (such as “mysti‐ Schäfer does indeed acknowledge. cal union”) but takes the experience described in One of the enriching aspects of Schäfer’s pre‐ these texts as its starting point” (pp. 19-20). In his sentation is his inclusion of Jewish-Christian writ‐ conclusion, Schäfer returns to this issue and ulti‐ ings, such as Revelation, the culmination of the mately rejects this approach, as well, for being ap‐ New Testament, and a later work, The Ascension plicable to only a small number of the texts under of Isaiah, of which the portion including chapters consideration. 6-11 “no doubt is of Christian origin and is be‐ For Schäfer the fullest form of Jewish mystical lieved to belong to the early second century CE” experience is expressed in the last group of writ‐ (p. 93). He goes on to note that the visionary expe‐ ings, namely, the Hekhalot compositions of the rience described herein “is surprisingly similar” Merkavah (divine Chariot) mystics. His summary to that found in Hekhalot literature (p. 95) and of one of these works is illustrative. It “focuses on proceeds to show parallels between it and the the elevated status of the mystic, praising him as seminal text of the corpus, Hekhalot Rabbati. the chosen human being who undertakes his Although Schäfer is clearly not averse to dis‐ heavenly journey in order to see God on his cussing unconventional texts, it is disappointing throne in the celestial Temple. In achieving this that he virtually ignores Paul’s account of his goal he joins the rank of the angel and is placed at heavenly journey as found in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 the right side of or, alternatively, opposite God’s and relegates it to page 335, n. 5. Paul’s descrip‐ throne and observes what is happening in heav‐ tion is arguably the earliest, datable, autobio‐ en: the liturgy of the angels and, more important, graphical account of a Jew who claimed to have what will happen to the people of Israel in the fu‐ visited heaven/“paradise.” One detail of Paul’s ture” (p. 327). presentation that is most compelling is his uncer‐ tainty as to whether he was taken up to heaven

2 H-Net Reviews

“in the body or out of the body” (2 Cor. 12:2). This possibility, of course, that some of the material ambiguity lends credence to Paul reporting an ac‐ collected and edited in this literature may well be tual experience, whatever its nature, as opposed earlier (third to sixth centuries)” (p. 245). He also to it simply being a fabricated account. It is note‐ hypothesizes a Babylonian provenance for the worthy that in general Schäfer explicitly dismiss‐ redaction of these texts, as opposed to Scholem es any attempt to ascertain which of the texts that and others who argued that they were composed he analyzes are based on actual experience and in Israel. Accordingly, Schäfer considers Paul’s ac‐ not simply a literary creation. count irrelevant. Whereas discussing Paul in OJM To be sure, Schäfer has discussed this text in a would not serve his purposes, Paul defnitely does prior essay, which entails a critique of an earlier warrant inclusion in any survey of early Jewish analysis by Gershom Scholem.[1] Scholem in Jew‐ mysticism and Alan Segal’s discussion, “Paul’s Ec‐ ish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmu‐ stasy,” in his 1992 monograph Paul the Convert is dic Tradition (1960) links Paul’s account to both a fne remedy for this omission. Hekhalot literature, as well as the Talmudic narra‐ Although Schäfer repeatedly argues for a rel‐ tive of the four rabbis, who entered pardes (i.e., a atively late dating of the Hekhalot corpus in OJM, garden/orchard), which Scholem assumes is an al‐ he does not bother to ofer a systematic defense of lusion to paradise. Schäfer, however, endorses an his position, but instead refers in his footnotes to interpretation proposed by Ephraim Urbach that his earlier writings. This is unfortunate, given that the rabbinic usage of pardes is a metaphor and he does not hesitate to repeat his argumentation unrelated to heaven. For Schäfer pardes merely on other issues, and even in his earlier writings symbolizes proper rabbinic exegesis of Ezekiel. his assertions are quite succinct and are based on Moreover, his principal dismissal of Paul’s report three specifc points. The frst is that there is a as not being mystical is that his revelation was prevalence of magical practices in the Hekhalot primarily auditory in nature and not visual. This writings, which is not the case with the earlier assessment seems rather arbitrary and while it is Jewish writings. The second is that these texts are true that Paul does focus on the inefable expres‐ clearly pseudepigraphic and therefore must be sions that he heard, he begins his account by as‐ much later than the early second-century fgures serting: “I come now to visions and revelations that they invoke. Finally, given that the earliest granted by the Lord” (2 Cor. 12:1). parallels to the Hekhalot texts are found in the What is at stake here for Schäfer is more than redaction layer of the Babylonian Talmud, which just whether Paul should be included in the dis‐ Schäfer dates to 700 CE (p. 316), the Hekhalot writ‐ cussion, but rather the dating of the Hekhalot cor‐ ings must be relatively late. pus, which is one of the insoluble cruxes of schol‐ None of these arguments is especially con‐ arly debates. According to Scholem, the Hekhalot vincing. Schäfer acknowledges that recent discov‐ texts originated at a relatively period, in the sec‐ eries of Jewish magical practices in earlier Jewish ond or third centuries CE. Therefore Scholem writings have caused him to retract the frst point. views Paul’s account from the middle of the frst Furthermore, although he continually refers to century CE as a prototype. Schäfer on the other the Hekhalot texts as “pseudepigraphic,” this is hand argues that the Hekhalot texts crystallized technically inaccurate. The major works that he much later. His most explicit statement on the discusses, such as Hekhalot Rabbati and Zutarti, dating of these writings is that they constituted “a do not claim to have been written by Rabbis Ish‐ late rabbinic or even postrabbinic phenomenon mael and Akiva, respectively. Instead they are (sixth century and later)--notwithstanding the third-person accounts of the exploits of these indi‐

3 H-Net Reviews viduals and as such are similar to classical rab‐ binic literature. Moreover, even if they represent‐ R ed pseudepigrapha, why assume that there must be a time lag of half a millennium or more? Once In so doing, the reputed author has died and a generation or the conclusions that two has passed, there would not be any real ob‐ D stacles confronting a spurious author, especially D in ancient and medieval times when questions of provenance and authenticity were not usually chapter  raised. For example, among the writings of the D mid-thirteenth-century Spanish Jewish mystics, whose known as the Iyyun Circle, there is a pseudepi‐ R graphic work attributed to R. Eleazar b. Judah of Worms, Germany, who died in 1238, only a few P decades earlier. H Schäfer’s fnal assertion is more cogent. As he as has demonstrated, the parallels to the Heikhalot ; therefore, writings occur in the Babylonian version of the fndings Talmud and not in the earlier strata of rabbinic literature. Given the scope of the Hekhalot corpus and the fragmentary nature of the Talmudic par‐ allels, (which also includes an Akatriel passage found in B. Berakhot f. 7a, but not mentioned in OJM), it seems more reasonable to assume that at least some of the Hekhalot works signifcantly predated the redaction of the Babylonian Talmud and afterwards found echoes therein. A relatively early dating of Hekhalot literature would also ac‐ commodate the similarities that Schäfer himself presented between Hekhalot Rabbati and the sec‐ ond-century work Ascension of Isaiah, mentioned above. In conclusion, Peter Schäfer’s The Origins of Jewish Mysticism is a fascinating and thought-pro‐ voking work that will certainly be discussed for years to come. Lucidly written and edifying throughout, it makes for worthwhile reading for both experts in the feld and the general public. Note [1]. Peter Schäfer, “New Testament and Hekhalot Literature: The Journey into Heaven in Paul and Merkavah Mysticism,” Journal of Jewish Studies 35 (1984): 19-35.

4 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-judaic

Citation: Mark Verman. Review of Schäfer, Peter. The Origins of Jewish Mysticism. H-Judaic, H-Net Reviews. May, 2012.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=32796

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

5