J.H. Laenen, “The twilight between scholarship and mysticism” in: S. Berger e.a.

(eds.), Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture (Dordrecht 2002) 189-199

----

THE TWILIGHT BETWEEN SCHOLARSHIP AND MYSTICISM

J.H. Laenen

Überzeugung
Als wie der Tag die Menschen hell umscheinet,
Und mit dem Lichte, das den Höh’n entspringet,
Die dämmernden Erscheinungen vereinet,
Ist Wissen, welches tief der Geistigkeit gelinget.
Friedrich Hölderlin

The scholarly study of a fundamentally elusive phenomenon like mysticism

contains a certain paradox. At first sight, one can hardly imagine a stronger
contrast than the one existing between the mystic’s world view, in which
everything seems to revolve around the perception of a supernal realm, and
the detached, rational judgment of the scholar, who has no option but to
bracket off anything divine as long as he wishes to keep within the limits set
by his profession.
The mystic approaches reality from a highly personal religious convic-
tion; the intensity of his experience is proof of its veracity. Whatever he says
or writes is aimed to express and communicate this subjective experience,
even though he is keenly aware that the very essence of his message is inef-
fable and incommunicable. He is part of his religious tradition. The modern
scholar, on the contrary, endeavours to describe Jewish mysticism as a his-
torical process; merely recording facts without giving a value judgment. His
task is to keep aloof from the religious tradition he studies. His aim is not to
prove that the mystics’ assertions are true or untrue, but rather to represent
their concepts in an objective way. The paradox consists in the fact that in
his research the scholar is constantly faced with what eludes proof; he stu-
dies phenomena that defy study.
The scholar investigating mystical ideas searches for a historical devel-
opment, a change over time. The appearance of a new terminology or the
emergence of original concepts are of prime importance to him. <190> The

1
true mystic will never pay attention to such matters; for him the religious
tradition is a timeless continuum, in which at most various aspects of one
and the same essential truth are revealed.

II

Even now, scholarly research of Jewish mysticism in many respects is an

elaboration of the work of Gershom Scholem (1897–1982), who was the
first to study the history of this phenomenon on the basis of an objective
and methodical approach. In view of the fact that he devoted practically his
entire life to the study of Jewish mysticism, it is of interest to assess how
Scholem viewed the paradox mentioned above.
During most of his life Scholem was exceedingly reluctant to reveal his
personal views of Jewish mysticism. Fortunately, we now have at our dis-
posal some letters and texts from which we may deduce Scholem’s personal
attitude toward the object of his research.1 From these documents it
emerges that Scholem himself regarded the philological description of Jew-
ish mysticism in its historical development as the mere ‘outside’; the true
mystical experiences of Jewish mystics were concerned with the ‘inside’, the
‘core of the matter’. The modern historian of religion does not share this
experience with the mystic, but for the purpose of his research has to con-
tent himself with examining a text, an indirect rendering of such an expe-
rience.
To illustrate this fundamental difference, Scholem used the metaphor of
the sphere and the circle. The three-dimensional sphere represents the vital
core from which Jewish mystics draw their inspiration. The shadow that the
sphere casts on a wall has the form of a two-dimensional circle. It is this cir-
cle, the indirect reflection of the sphere, which is studied by historians of
religion; the scholar is no longer able to enter into the centre of the sphere.
Scholem used to express this inevitable limitation concisely in the words:
‘die Philologie der Kabbala ist nur eine Projektion auf eine <191> Fläche’.2
Whoever investigates historical developments cannot but perceive and de-
scribe things one after another, whereas for the mystic who finds himself in
the centre of the sphere, all things happen simultaneously. History brings

––––––––––––––––––––––––
1 The documents concerned are a letter from Scholem to Bialik from 1925 (pub-
lished in 1967), to Salman Schocken from 1937 (published in 1979), as well as his
essay ‘Zehn unhistorische Sätze über Kabbala’ from 1958. See Peter Schäfer, ‘“Die
Philologie der Kabbala ist nur eine Projektion auf eine Fläche”: Gershom Scholem
über die wahren Absichten seines Kabbalastudiums’, Jewish Studies Quarterly 5
(1998) 1–25; Nils Roemer, ‘Breaching the “Walls of Captivity”: Gershom Scholem’s
studies of Jewish Mysticism’, Germanic Review 72 (1997) 23–41.
2 Schäfer, ‘Philologie der Kabbala’, 5.

2
us under the delusion of a historical sequence, while mysticism concerns an
eternal truth.
Notwithstanding his impeccable scholarly rigour, Scholem apparently
assumed that behind the objective facts, historical names and dull dates
there lay hidden a world of elusive, subjective experiences and timeless per-
ceptions. Just like the medieval kabbalists, Scholem was personally con-
vinced of the existence of such a spiritual world, which underlies our own
reality and must be made to connect with our human experiences. Scholem
even called this metaphysical truth of the kabbalists a ‘higher order’, a ‘hid-
den realm of connections’, which ‘leads straight into God’s bosom’. This
mystical reality can only be transmitted by means of ‘the tradition and lan-
guage, the carriers and keepers of the secrets’. According to Scholem, the
Jewish tradition and the Hebrew language clearly have their origins in this
hidden realm.3
From the material left behind by Scholem it emerges that he was well
aware of the tension between the scholarly study of Jewish mysticism and a
personal identification with the subject. In Scholem’s view, these two ap-
proaches are even in conflict with each other; critical historical research
diminishes the awareness that another, imperceptible reality is linked to
our own world. Too great a detachment from the object of one’s study may
lead to the spiritual ‘Tod in der Professur’, whereas a scholar who complete-
ly identifies with his subject matter loses a certain scholarly standard which
is indispensable for objective research.
This then raises the question of whether this other world beyond our
perceptible reality is still accessible to modern man, or whether anything
from this world can still be transmitted today. In fact Scholem’s personal
answer to this question is rather ambivalent. As a youth he harboured a
strong desire to experience this mystical reality, a desire which he retained
all of his life. Later on he would repeatedly speak of the wish to ‘break
through the veils of history’. In the course of his life, however, Scholem be-
came increasingly cautious as to the possibility of discerning an essential
truth behind the results of historical research. In any case he felt <192>
that the only way to achieve this goal, if possible at all, was through scholar-
ly investigation. The scholar must necessarily content himself with whatev-
er the mystical literature has yielded, in the awareness that the essential
core, the mystical experience is incommunicable. It is indisputable that
scholarly research provides us with a mere caricature of ‘true mysticism’,
but it is all we have. It is the only way, according to Scholem in his later
years, to somehow approach the world of the Jewish mystics.

––––––––––––––––––––––––
3 Ibid., passim.

3
 The letters and texts that Scholem left behind, clearly show his personal
ambivalence; he faced the choice between mapping out the historical devel-
opment of Jewish mysticism as an important step towards a rediscovery of
the multi-dimensional reality, or choosing the way of personal mystical ex-
perience. Judging by the increasing caution towards the feasibility of the
latter, one might easily conclude that in the end the professor gained the
upper hand over the mystic. Opinions diverge as to the moment of this
choice. According to Joseph Dan, Scholem already made this choice after
the first twenty years of his academic career. The German scholar Peter
Schäfer holds that this choice did not take place until well into the fifties.
Joseph Weiss (1918–1968), however, one of Scholem’s favourite pupils,
claimed that his teacher had always been a mystic and had indeed borne
witness to that fact in his scholarly work in a camouflaged way, between the
lines, by choosing a particular adjective or using specific phraseology.4

III

The question whether modern man is still able to empathize with the me-
dieval Jewish mystic’s experience and knowledge, brings us to the problem
of what the object of the scholarly study of Jewish mysticism actually is. To
put it concisely: how exactly do we define mysticism? We investigate a phe-
nomenon that seems to have something intangible and indefinable about it,
which may lead to diverging opinions as to whether a specific texts can be
considered ‘mystical’ in nature or not. Below we shall briefly discuss differ-
ent approaches by Gershom Scholem, Moshe Idel and Joseph Dan. <193>
Scholem devoted a passage to the problem of the definition of (Jewish)
mysticism in his classic study Major Trends, which was published in 1941.5
After having stated that it is not useful to search for an all-embracing, ab-
stract definition of the phenomenon of mysticism, which may subsequently
be applied to various currents in order to determine whether they meet the
criteria, Scholem points out that mysticism as a historical phenomenon en-
tails more that a profound experience: ‘mysticism is a definite stage in the
historical development of religion and makes its appearance under certain
well-defined conditions’.6 Scholem postulates that mysticism emerges from
a development in three phases. In the first, mythical phase there is no abyss
between man and God; man possesses a direct consciousness of the imma-
––––––––––––––––––––––––
4 Ibid., 21–23. In his letter to Schocken from 1937 Scholem called himself a kab-
balist in the ‘Schafpelz des Philologen’ (Ibid., 13).
5 G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, New York 1941, 7–10. For a

more comprehensive discussion of these issues, see J.H. Laenen, Jewish Mysti-
cism. An Introduction, Louisville 2001, 14–17.
6 Ibid., 7.

4
nence of the divine. In the second phase, during which religion comes into
being, man becomes aware of an abyss gaping between himself and the di-
vine realm. The third phase, finally, witnesses the emergence of man’s crea-
tive attempt to overcome the rift and find the way back to God. That is what
mysticism is about.7
An entirely different approach to Jewish mysticism was proposed by
Moshe Idel in an original study.8 Idel emphasizes that a considerable part of
the true doctrine of Kabbala has remained unknown to us, since it was nev-
er meant to be written down and only to be transmitted orally. Therefore,
the picture that modern scholars have of Kabbalah is necessarily quite in-
complete, although too many of them are not sufficiently aware of this fact.9
Idel points out that the object of the modern scholar’s investigation is not
the spiritual <194> experience of a specific mystic itself, but merely the
indirect and hence imperfect representation of it as it was committed to
writing.
As a consequence of the emphasis on philological-historical methods
characteristic of Scholem’s school – Idel speaks of the ‘textological’ ap-
proach – the phenomenological and comparative aspect have not received
sufficient attention. Owing to the concern for kabbalistic texts and authors,
however understandable and necessary in the early stages of scholarly re-
search, too little heed was given to ideas and systems or the general theoret-
ical aspects of mysticism. As a consequence, Idel notes a ‘striking lack of
novel theories of the nature of Jewish mysticism that differ from those of
Scholem’.10
The poor attention paid to the comparative and phenomenological ap-
proach in the study of Jewish mysticism has led to the deplorable situation
that scholars in the field of mysticism within other religions have not been
able to incorporate the results of studies on Jewish mysticism into their

––––––––––––––––––––––––
7 Ibid., 3–8. Scholem's views on the emergence of mysticism were sharply at-
tacked by E. Schweid in his Judaism and Mysticism according to Gershom
Scholem. A Critical Analysis and Programmatic Discussion, Atlanta, GA 1985, to
which Joseph Dan published an elaborate retort: ‘Gershom Scholem: Between His-
tory and Historiosophy’ (1983), in J. Dan, Jewish Mysticism IV, General Charac-
teristics and Comparative Studies, Northvale, NJ/Jerusalem 1999, 131–190. Dan,
for that matter, points out the peculiar fact that Scholem in his later work hardly
ever referred to this historical analysis of mysticism from Major Trends; apparently
it was not a central subject in the totality of his works (‘In Quest of a Historical
Definition of Mysticism. The Contingental Approach’ (1993), in: J. Dan, Jewish
Mysticism III, The Modern Period, Northvale, NJ/Jerusalem 1999, 1–46, esp. 8, n.
8).
8 Moshe Idel, Kabbalah. New Perspectives, New Haven/London 1988.

9 Ibid., 20–22.

10 Ibid., 23.

5
own work in a meaningful way.11 In addition, Idel deems it useful if modern
scholars would establish direct contacts with contemporary mystics; both
could benefit from a seminal interaction.12
Finally Joseph Dan’s approach to Jewish mysticism deserves to be dis-
cussed here.13 Dan does not expect much gain from a theological or psycho-
logical definition of mysticism. Whatever anyone may have had for a mys-
tical experience is of no consequence for the historian, since such an expe-
rience cannot be measured or checked. The world beyond the texts that are
preserved does not exist for the historian.14 There is little point in asking
whether a certain text or passage is ‘mystical’ or not. The answer to that
question is subjective, and hence discussing it is useless. Another problem
is that the term ‘mysticism’ denotes a concept that exists within a Christian
framework; neither Hebrew nor Arabic has <195> a word for it. Jewish and
Muslim mystics have in fact never considered themselves to be ‘mystics’.
In Dan’s view it is much more promising to approach mysticism as a
historical phenomenon, a movement characterized by definable historical
features, ‘a group of people separated from their co-religionists and estab-
lishing a particular group or groups, extending for several generations; the
creation of a unique literature, different in its genres and modes of expres-
sion from contemporary culture; development of a terminology that is re-
cognizable as characteristic of this group; and the appearance of references
to a kind of activity that is not to be found in previous texts’.15
How does one determine whether such a historical movement is indeed
‘mystical’? To answer this question Dan prefers to depart from a negative
definition of the phenomenon of mysticism: ‘mysticism is the negation of
the veracity of communicative language, and the belief in a non-communi-
cative truth lying in a symbolic fashion deep within revealed divine lan-
guage’.16 In other words: a mystic thinks that genuine truth cannot be ex-
pressed in ordinary human language, but can only be approached in a mys-
tical way, through the symbolic use of language. This denial of the veracity
of human language that Dan refers to is also evident in the fact that a mystic
or mystical groups take issue with their non-mystical fellow believers. Mys-
––––––––––––––––––––––––
11 Scathing criticism was uttered by R.J. Zwi Werblowsky, who gibingly disposes
of phenomenology as ‘das bevorzugte Zauberwort der “neuen Kabbalahforschung”’
and speaks of the ‘Tintenkleckserei der sogenannten Phänomenologen’. See his
‘Messianismus und Mystik’, in P. Schäfer, J. Dan, eds., Gershom Scholem’s Major
Trends in Jewish Mysticism–50 Years After, Tübingen 1993, 15–22, esp. 15–16.
12 Idel, New Perspectives, 25–27.

13 Dan, ‘Historical Definition’, 1–46.

14 Ibid., 29.
15 J. Dan, ‘Introduction’ in: J. Dan, Jewish Mysticism I, Late Antiquity, North-

vale, NJ/Jerusalem 1998, ix–xxvii, esp. xvi.

16 Dan, ‘Historical Definition’, 31. See also Dan, ‘Introduction’, xiv.

6
tics, according to Dan, are acutely aware that their religious experience is
fundamentally different from non-mystical forms of religion.17 Mystics
claim that there exists a realm of supernal truth, which cannot be reached
by ordinary means of knowledge, through sensory perception or logical rea-
soning. That is why, unlike their non-mystical co-religionists, they are ra-
ther reserved towards sensory perception or deny its veracity altogether.
Truth can only be acquired through the via mystica.18 Although Scripture
was revealed in human language, the mystic knows that language on the
literal, commu-<196>nicative level is unable to express the essential, most
important truth. For a mystic, therefore, language is a symbol.
In view of his definition of mysticism as a historically definable move-
ment separating itself from its non-mystical religious environment, Dan
apparently slightly over-emphasizes the fundamental – ‘qualitative’, as he
calls it – difference between mystics and non-mystics, which at some points
seems to create a problem. Thus he claims that the mystic does not accept
the literal meaning of Scripture, yet admits this does not imply that the
mystical aspect of Scripture should be at variance with its literal interpreta-
tion. Sometimes it seems that the separation of mystics from their envi-
ronment that Dan mentions need not have any practical implications.19
Another remarkable consequence of Dan’s approach is his evaluation of the
fourfold interpretation of Scripture (peshat, remez, derash, and sod, con-
veniently summarized in the acronym pardes). He states that this system as
a whole has nothing to do with the supposed mystical truth hidden within
the scriptural text. As Albert van der Heide shows in two learned and meti-
culous studies, the fact that specifically mystical exegetes constantly appeal
to sod, the highest of the four levels, seems to suggest otherwise.20
––––––––––––––––––––––––
17 Definitions of the phenomenon of ‘mysticism’ in terms like ‘adherence to God’
or ‘the awareness of divine presences’ all seem to suggest that ‘mysticism is a form
of religion, only a little more so’. As against this quantitative difference Dan prefers
to speak of a qualitative difference between mystical and non-mystical religion
(‘Historical Definition’, 9).
18 Ibid., 11–12.

19 Ibid., 16–17, 19. In this respect it is useful to note that Idel, on the other hand,

speaks precisely of the conservative mind of rabbinic Judaism, in which prominent

mystics such as Abraham ben David or Nahmanides felt at home (New Perspec-
tives, 20–21).
20 Albert van der Heide, ‘PaRDeS. Over de theorie van de viervoudige schriftzin

in de middeleeuws joodse exegese’, Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese en Bijbelse

Theologie 3 (1982) 118–165 (English summary on pp. 170–171); ‘“Een van zijn
ribben”. Vorm en functie van de middeleeuwse joodse Bijbelexegese’, Amsterdamse
Cahiers voor Exegese en Bijbelse Theologie 4 (1983) 97–131 (English summary on
pp. 138–139). Unfortunately, of these articles only the main thrust has appeared in
English: ‘“Pardes”. Methodological Reflections on the Theory of the Four Senses’,
Journal of Jewish Studies 34 (1983) 147–159.

7
 IV

In the foregoing we have seen that there exists a constant discrepancy be-
tween the mystic’s personal experience and the representation of it by the
scholar. It proves difficult to give an exact definition of mysticism; the phe-
nomenon may be approached in various ways.
Gershom Scholem is duly aware of the fact that beyond the circle with
which the scholar has to content himself, there is a sphere, which contains
the very essence of mysticism. He realizes that the circle is a caricature of
<197> reality. Even though Scholem takes a strictly scholarly position in
his books and articles, his awareness of the ‘sphere’ cannot but have influ-
enced the way he studied Jewish mysticism. His approach shows remarka-
ble profoundness, which the attentive reader may discern in some of his es-
says.21
Moshe Idel, too, is conscious that the texts which are at the modern
scholar’s disposition do not represent Jewish mysticism in its true form. To
him, however, this means first and foremost that the texts provide only in-
complete information; the greater part of what mysticism is about was nev-
er committed to writing and hence was lost to us. Moreover, a mystical text
is merely the representation of an experience, not the experience itself. In
addition to the focus on texts and authors, the study of Jewish mysticism
would gain depth by a phenomenological approach. Contemporary mystics
and modern scholars could learn much from each other in the process.
As befits a meticulous scholar, Joseph Dan wishes to base himself exclu-
sively on what can be demonstrated. The true nature of personal expe-
riences lies outside the realm of history and hence does not exist for the his-
torian. Whether the mystics really did experience anything and, if so, what
they perceived, is a senseless question. Rather than in terms of religious ex-
perience, Dan prefers to define mysticism negatively, by stating what it is
not. Such a definition may subsequently be applied in a historical sense to
definable movements, persons or groups of texts, which depart from their
own religious environment. Thus, Scholem personally ventured into the
realm where, according to Dan, the scholar has no business to be.22
However one wishes to define mysticism – in terms of experience, phe-
nomenologically, or as a historical movement – it seems to possess a certain
elusiveness that defies an adequate definition. Moreover, anyone who occu-
––––––––––––––––––––––––
21 Cf. e.g. ‘Das Ringen zwischen dem biblischen Gott und dem Gott Plotins in der
alten Kabbala’, in G. Scholem, Über einige Grundbegriffe des Judentums, Frank-
furt am Main, 1970, 9–52; ‘Offenbarung und Tradition als religiöse Kategorien im
Judentum’, ibid. 90–120.
22 In this regard it is interesting to note that Dan characterizes Scholem’s ‘Zehn

unhistorische Sätze’ as ‘enigmatic’ (‘Historical Definition’, 17, n. 18).

8
pies himself with the scholarly study of mysticism faces the paradox that
the object of such study is precisely a personal religious experience, whereas
scholarly discipline requires God and the divine <198> realm to be brack-
eted off. Any modern scholar, if he has a religious conviction of any sort,
finds himself in the twilight between scholarship and mysticism.
As a student, I became acquainted with this paradox during the courses
given by Albert van der Heide, who taught us that the knowledge imparted
at the university is neutral and that it is a personal matter how one wishes
to incorporate that knowledge into one’s own life. It was not until then that
I grew fully conscious of the depth of this paradox, which has intrigued me
ever since. I am sure that it is possible for this paradox to be resolved, at
least in part, by thoroughly thinking it out.
Students of Jewish mysticism would do well to acquire the skills needed
for an objective description of the phenomenon, but at the same time to
constantly determine their own personal, subjective stand towards the mys-
tical ideas encountered. The objective, concrete and factual basis of aca-
demic research is not necessarily jeopardized by the fact that students regu-
larly question themselves about their personal position toward the content
matter of their studies. Without crossing the borderline of subjectivity these
issues could and should be addressed in academic education; not only pro-
fessors, but also their students, after all, potentially face the danger of
‘death in studenthood’. It is the teacher’s task to contribute in this sense to
the personal development and formation of the student; seminal education
entails indeed more than the mere transmission of factual knowledge. In
other words: in the footsteps of Scholem students of Jewish mysticism
should gather the courage and venture into the twilight zone.
Whoever analyses Jewish mysticism and its concepts without immedi-
ately asserting the alleged inanity of it all, whoever is prepared to consider
the possibility that the medieval mystics, despite their undoubtedly differ-
ent language, may have tried in their own way to convey essential truths,
will also be able to determine whether Jewish mysticism – and by implica-
tion the modern study of it – has something of value to say to modern man.
In that regard, Idel is right with his plea for an exchange of views between
scholars and mystics.
It would be beneficial if Jewish mysticism were studied and taught at
more Dutch universities. The subject provides an excellent opportunity –
though not exclusively so – to explore the paradox described above. It is
especially in the field of Jewish mysticism that this paradox becomes appar-
ent to its full extent; unlike Jewish philosophy, for instance, <199> mystic-
ism makes an insistent appeal to irrational faculties. Therefore, the academ-
ic teaching of Jewish mysticism is potentially one of the most seminal sub-

9
jects for those who endeavour to explore the twilight zone between scholar-
ship and mysticism.
It is ironic that in this process the very ideas of Jewish mysticism might
serve as a guide. Is it not true that the core of mysticism concerns the resti-
tution of a broken harmony, the pursuit of a genuine coincidentia opposito-
rum?

10