Unio Mystica and Ancient Jewish Mysticism

Chapter 3 Unio Mystica and Ancient Jewish Mysticism

Philo’s synthesis of Middle Platonism and Judaism included the first articu- lation of an ideal of theistic union with the monotheistic God. It is my fundamental argument that the Jewish language of union in and of itself is the fruit of such synthesis: first in the Hellenistic world of Philo, and then once again in medieval Judaism which underwent a second synthesis with Hellenism via high Arabic culture—both later developments of Platonism and Neoaristotelian philosophy. It is true that, after this fundamental synthesis, Jewish mystics developed a number of different understandings and depic- tions of union (including forms of embodied union), some differing drastically from the platonic ideal of “mystical henōsis”. But the project of union with the divine, began as a whole within Judaism, as far as we can tell, with the Philonic- Neoplatonic synthesis. The history of this synthesis, with its diverse foci in the body of Jewish unitive language, will be laid out in detail in the following chapters. Before we continue on to the medieval synthesis, let us address several recent studies that argue for the pre-medieval existence of mystical union beyond the writ- ings of Philo. Prior to the medieval development of Jewish Neo-Platonism, with the great exception of Philo, the henōsis type of mystical union was absent in Jewish sources. It should be noted, however, that the absence of such union does not exclude other types of union. Both the metaphorical union between the “assembly of Israel” as a mythical collective entity engaged in a covenantal relationship with God and the union of Israel and the Torah are found in pre- medieval sources. I am concerned here with notions of union with God on the private, individual level, which appears to be absent almost entirely in the Judaism of the rabbinic period. However, we must ask whether traces of unio mystica can be found in the vast literature of ancient Jewish mysticism, written outside the scope of Platonism and other forms of Peripatetic philosophy. In the exhaustive varieties of ancient Jewish mysticism, including merkavah mysticism, Heikhalot mysticism, and the community at Qumran, is there evidence of unitive language of any sort, even for partial union with the divine, or with angels? And even if there is no language referring to it directly, could or should the mystical practices of apotheosis, unio liturgica, visionary experiences, enthronement, and other forms of mystical engagement and transformations associated with merkavah mysticism be considered forms of mystical union?

Without entering into a detailed analysis of the mystical experience in pre- medieval Jewish sources,1 we will argue here that all forms of pre-medieval Judaism should in fact be excluded from the category of unio mystica and dis- tinguished from the language of unitive mysticism. In his evaluation of merkavah mysticism, Gershom Scholem justifi- ably excludes the notion of mystical union from the merkavah’s mystical components.2 While describing the earliest extensive brand of Jewish mystical literature, the Heikhalot literature of late antiquity, Scholem emphasizes that:

Ecstasy there was, and this fundamental experience must have been a source of religious inspiration, but we find no trace of a mystical union between the soul and God. Throughout there remained an almost exag- gerated consciousness of God’s otherness, nor does the identity and individuality of the mystic become blurred even at the height of ecstatic passion.3

1 See: Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 10–124; Elliot Wolfson, “Yeridah la-Merkavah: Typology of Ecstasy and Enthronement in Ancient Jewish Mysticism,” in Mystics of the book—Themes, Topics, and Typologies, ed. with an introduction by Robert A. Herrera, (Peter Lang: 1993), 21–26; Wolfson, “Seven Mysteries,” 177–214; See also: Morton Smith, “Ascent to the Heavens and Deification in 4QM,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls; the New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 181–188; Haviva Pedaya, Vision and Speech: Models of Revelatory Experience in Jewish Mysticism, (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2002), 1–110 (Hebrew); Adam Afterman, “Ma’aseh Merkava in Rabbinic Literature: Prayer and Envisioning the Chariot,” Kabbalah 13 (2005): 249–269 (Hebrew); Philip Alexander, “Prayer in the Heikhalot Literature,” Priere, Mystique et Judaisme, Colloque de Strasbourg (10–12 septembre 1984), (Paris: Presses Universitires de France 1987), 43–64; Ra’anan S. Boustan, From Martyr to Mystic: Rabbinic Martyrology and the Making of Merkavah Mysiticism (Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); Joseph Dan, “The Religious Experience of the Merkavah,” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages, ed. Arthur Green (New York: Crossroad, 1986), 289–307; Rachel Elior, “Mysticism, Magic, and Angelology: The Perception of Angels in Hekhalot Literature,” Jewish Studies Quarterly, 1 (1993/94): 3–53; Itamar Gruenwald, “Reflections on the Nature and Origins of Jewish Mysticism,” in Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism 50 Years After, ed. Peter Schäfer and Joseph Dan (Tuebingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1993), 25–48; Michael D. Swartz, Mystical Prayer in Ancient Judaism: An Analysis of Ma’aseh Merkavah, (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992). 2 Scholem, Major Trends, 56; Elliot Wolfson, “Mysticism and the Poetic-Liturgical Composition From Qumran: A Response to Bilhah Nitzan,” JQR 85 (1994): 191. 3 Scholem, Major Trends, 55.