How Beautiful Upon the Mountains: Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 52, Pt. 1

After Sunday School yesterday, I decided it would be interesting to do a series of blog posts on Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 52. Walker Wright has already posted on both the Dead Sea Scrolls and LDS interpretations of the same chapter, so I'm going to refer the reader there rather than going over it again.
http://walkstar.blogspot.com/2010/12/isaiah-according-to-abinadi-qumran.html
The first interpretation I'll discuss is less an interpretation than it is a use of Isa. 52:7. In the Babylonian Talmud there is a long list of various dream symbols and their range of meanings. A word on the psychology of dreams might be helpful. Carl Jung wrote that dream symbols, subliminal aspects of our daily lives, are "the almost invisible roots of our conscious thoughts." As a result, they play a crucial role in the interpretation of dreams. "That is why commonplace objects or ideas can assume such powerful psychic significance in a dream that we may awake seriously disturbed, in spite of having dreamed of nothing worse than a locked room or a missed train." Jung goes on to say that the reason dream symbols are so vivid is due to the dissimilarity between them and our conscious thoughts in which we "restrain ourselves within the limits of rational statements."[1]
Granted, my dream where I approached someone at night and began running past them as soon as I felt something wrong, too late though as a knife flashed in the dark, that dream disturbed me more than I ever was by any door, but Jung does have a point. Things we see in dreams can stand for something deeper. That being said, Trachtenberg, in his classic study of Jewish "magic," pointed out a different approach to dreams. I might as well mention that this approach is still favoured by many people around the world. Not everyone puts stock in Western psychological paradigms.

In the long pre-Freudian centuries, before the mystery of the dream was reduced to all too human terms, when men still listened for the voice of God in the still of the night, dreams played a greater role in shaping ideas and actions and careers than it is easy for us today to believe. If we have come to look upon these nocturnal visions as the products of experience, we have simply reversed the older, though not yet altogether discarded, view which made of them initiators of experience. The supernatural world communicated with man through the dream, and spoke words of counsel and command which he felt impelled to heed.[2]

There were many different approaches to dreams and their sources. Whether they be 1/60th of prophecy, or revelations to the soul in its nightly journey, dreams (though not all) were considered another form of interraction between this world and those beyond it, conveying information impacting the future.

Since unfavorable as well as favorable dreams come true, and the event therefore came to be regarded as the consequence of the dream, it was believed that if one could somehow nullify the dream itself in advance its effects would be obviated.[3]

Using much the same idea behind the Western scientific process, events were observed and the cause deduced from the effect. It seemed to work in many cases.

Once the dream has been experienced, however, other means must be adopted to forestall its consequences.[4]

Nothing, of course, is infallible. Very few people rely solely upon Plan A, without also having Plans B, C, and so on. Jewish dream interpreters had various methods in place for when the dream couldn't be avoided.

Still a third method is to recite, immediately upon waking, a Biblical verse suggested by the dream, which contains a promise of good.[5]

Here, then, is the talmudic passage.

One who dreams of a mountain should arise and recite, "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger of good tidings (Is. 52:7),"  before he is overtaken by another verse, "For the mountains will I take up a weeping and wailing (Jer. 9:9)."[6]

This use of the Bible to ensure a favourable outcome to the future, not to mention that it also controls the negative outcome, underscores both the centrality and the power of the Bible in early Judaism. Howard Schwarz's Tree of Souls expands on those themes. The Torah not only was the means for creating the world, but sustains its very existence.

Thus not only was the Torah created prior to the creation of the world, it was the vessel by which the world was created. Thus the universe was created through the letters of the Torah. So too did God declare, at the time of man’s creation, that the world was created only for the sake of the Torah, and that as long as the Jewish people occupy themselves with the Torah, the world will continue to exist. But if the Jewish people abandon the Torah, God will return all of creation to a state of chaos.[7]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this method of assigning biblical verses to symbols in order to affect a dream's outcome doesn't appear to be a part of Christian dream-lore. At least, I was unable to find anything similar.

[1]Carl G. Jung, "Man and His Symbols," p. 43.

[2]Joshua Trachtenberg, "Jewish Magic and Superstition," p. 230.

[3]Ibid, p. 244.

[4]Ibid.

[5]Ibid, p. 245.

[6]Babylonian Talmud, t. Berachot 56b. Further examples of the positive verses are found on p. 245 of Trachtenberg. " If one dreams of a well, he should say, "And there Isaac's servants digged a well" (Gen. 26:25); of a river, "Behold I will extend peace to her like a river" (Is. 66:12); of a bird, "As birds flying so will the Lord of hosts protect Jerusalem" (Is. 31:5); of a dog, "Against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog whet his tongue" (Ex. 11:7); of a mountain, "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger of good tidings" (Is. 52:7); of a shofar, "In that day a great shofar shall be blown" (Is. 27:13); of a bullock, "His firstling bullock, majesty is his" (Deut. 33:17); of a lion, "The lion hath roared, who will not fear?" (Amos 3:8); of shaving, "Joseph shaved himself and changed his raiment and came in unto Pharaoh" (Gen. 41:14); and so on. "

[7]Howard Schwartz, "Tree of Souls," p. 249.

Hugh Nibley and the Wisdom of the Zohar

Hugh Nibley. One the one hand, a brilliant, erudite man. On the other hand, well, let's just say I am far from being uncritical of Hugh Nibley's work. His methodology tends to be outdated now and has been for a while. His greatest weakness to me is what amounts almost to a disregard for historical developement and different cultural significances when choosing his parrallels. He seemed to presuppose an unchanging, universal perspective. The kind of approach heavily indebted to James Frazer's Golden Bough. Carl Jung and Mircea Eliade were probably the best known proponents of that school.
Not that such a universal approach can't yield valuable insights, but a nuanced approach which takes into account the differences as well as historical developments is going to yield far more valuable insights. Sure, one could use Lurianic texts to elucidate Ptolemaic hypocephali,  but unless care is taken with the differences, the results would be skewed.
This being said, Nibley's work was pioneering and important. Much of Mormon scholarship would not exist today if it weren't for his efforts. Nibley's greatest strength was not taking scriptures at face value. Perhaps I should say he looked beyond a Mormon point of view and tried reading them from an Ancient Near Eastern one. He also went into great depth, though not always in the right direction. Lehi as a Bedouin is a classic example. There is and was more to the Middle East than just Bedouins, indeed, there has always been a sharp distinction between them and the settled populations until just recently. I grew up near a Bedouin village in northern Israel and in my childhood the last of the great marauders had just begun dying off. Bedouins raids were a fact of life for farmers until the 1930s and 40s.
There are quite a few passages in 1 Nephi, such as the divine instruction to light no fires, or the panic surrounding the broken bow incident, that make little sense if Lehi were a desert adept.

It is nice to see Nibley referenced by non-LDS scholars.
In the introduction to part V, section I of the third volume of his "The Wisdom of the Zohar", Isaiah Tishby wrote, "These two tendencies: the positing of a Temple in the upper world, and interpretation of the Tabernacle, the Temple, and all their related equipment as symbols of cosmic and supernatural phenomena, are developed and expanded much further in rabbinic aggadah[3] and Christian theology[4]."
Footnote number four references H. Nibley, "Christian Envy of the Temple." Nibley's article is available online in its entirety. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CGMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmaxwellinstitute.byu.edu%2Fpublications%2Ftranscripts%2F%3Fid%3D61&ei=coSkT6yBGMitiQL3grzBAg&usg=AFQjCNED0PWcR0eQhsDWDVPNsmUQkzY_2g&sig2=dwxsxZe0IS4EHloDfhuvXw Definitely one of his better efforts.
"The Wisdom of the Zohar" is an important work in the study of Jewish mysticism, and won Tishby the Bialik and Nordau Prizes. It made available in accessible, Modern Hebrew important passages from the Zohar. The Zohar was originally written in arcane, obscure Aramaic, making it hard for the lay reader to understand. Even traditionally, many Jewish communities ritually recited the Zohar without an understanding of the text being considered necessary.
While there were other Hebrew translations with commentaries, such as R. Yehudah Ashlag's edition, Tishby's anthology provided scholarly introductions and notes. The essay on the development of Zohar criticism is particularly valuable. If you are looking for a way into the Zohar and Kabbalah in general, I would highly recommend Tishby's three volumes.
Appearing in a footnote like that is not bad for a complete hack and laughing stock of the academic world like Nibley, as some would have it.

N-Town and Writing on the Ground

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
-John 8:3-9.

At least for me, this is one of the most enigmatic moments in the New Testament. Jesus, almost oblivious to the going-ons around him, crouches, scribbling something on the ground. Just what he wrote is never revealed and the text indicates that Jesus' spoken words- not the written words- were what affected the scribes and Pharisees. Yet, was the act of writing really unrelated to the events? From a literary point of view, I would have to say absolutely not. First off, the act of stooping and writing appears twice. It is obviously more than just an irrelevant aside, besides, I see no indication of the author of John being that execrable an author. Also, most early versions and references do not mention the act of writing.[1] An odd detail to add if it had no bearing on Jesus' words. Furthermore, is it reasonable to suppose that the scribes and Pharisees paid no attention whatsoever to Jesus' strange behaviour, that none even attempted to see what he was writing?
It seems likely to me at least that the writing had some bearing on the words Jesus spoke. The solution adopted by the author (or authors) of the N-Town play, The Woman Taken in Adultery, is as good a guess as any. By fleshing out the dry bones of a story, drama can often reveal important insights. A story has to be shown in order to be effective. Mere declamation wont do.
The N-Town author discovered an important plot device in the act of writing on the ground, using it to propel the story forward to its conclusion.

Jesus.     Look which of you that never sin wrought,
              But is of life cleaner than she;
              Cast at her stones, and spare her nought,
              Cleant out of sin if that ye be.

Here Jesus, again stooping down, shall write on the ground, and all the accusers, as if put to shame, shall go apart into three separate places.

Pharisee.     Alas, alas I am ashamed!
                    I am afeard that I shall die;
                    All my sins, even properly named
                    Yon prophet did write before mine eye.
                    If that my fellows that did espy,
                    They will tell it both far and wide;
                    My sinful living if they out cry,
                    I wot never where my head to hide.

Accuser.     Alas, for sorrow mine heart doth bleed!
                   All my sins yon man did write;
                   If that my fellows to them took heed,
                   I cannot me from death acquit.
                   I would I were hid somewhere out of sight,
                   That men should me me nowhere see ne know;
                   If I be take, I am afflight
                   In mickle shame I shall be throw.

Scribe.     Alas the time that this betid!
                Right bitter care doth me embrace;
                All my sins be now unhid:
                Yon man before me them all doth trace.
                If I were once out of this place,
                To suffer death great and vengeance able,
                I will never come before his face,
                Though I should die in a stable.[2]

As in John 8, Jesus invites the scribes and Pharisees to execute the law in its full severity, provided they are free from sin. Ashamed, the accusers all leave in different directions, each having seen Jesus write out the exact sins they were guilty of commiting. That, according to the N-Town play, was the purpose of writing on the ground. The play in its entirety, in the original Middle English is available online.[3] In terms of simplicity, immediacy and emotional impact, The Woman Taken in Adultery is one of the finest medieval plays.

[1]http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf

[2]Adapted by A. C. Cawley, "Everyman and Medieval Miracle Plays," pp. 140-141.

[3]http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/sdnt24frm.htm

Abraham's Divine Power of Speech

Hasidism preserved a remarkable tradition of the creative, divine powers of speech. The power of speech, of course, is connected to letter esotericism.
In Judaism there was an early and sustained fascination with letters, their power and meaning. The roots of letter esotericism could be said to go back as far as the book of Genesis itself. God commands, things obey. This process was accomplished by the medium of speech. In Pirkei Avot 5:1, one of the earliest rabbinic texts, we read that God created the world by ten utterances. As speech consists of sounds represented by letters, it is logical to conclude that letters themselves have power and intrinsic meaning. Letters have individual sounds and in different combinations yield different words with different meanings. Ayin-Nun-Gimel is oneg- delight. Change the sequence and you get nega- blight or disease. God didn't say "kartina maslom" and there was light. He said "wa-yehi or." For the ancient Jewish exegetes the word choice wasn't arbitrary or randomn.

As an example of this, the Tabernacle in the wilderness was believed to be modelled after the cosmos. Bezalel the architect and craftsman who constructed the tabernacle, knew,

How to combine the letters by which the heavens and earth were created. It is written here (Exod. 35:31): "And He hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom and in understanding, and in knowledge." It is written elsewhere (Prov. 3:19): "The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding He established the heavens."

It is also written (Prov. 3:20): "By His knowledge the depths were broken up."[1]

That is to say, Bezalel knew which letters were used in which combinations in order to bring about the desired results.
In 3rd Enoch the theme of mystical creation by letters is continued.

Rabbi Ishmael said: ‘Metatron said to me: “Let me show you letters out of which heaven and earth were created. Letters out of which oceans and rivers were created. Letters out of which mountains and hills were created. Letters out of which trees and grass were created. Letters out of which the stars and constellations, the moon and the sun, Orion and the Pleiades and all kinds of lights of the firmament were created. Letters out of which the ministering angels were created, each letter flashed time after time like bolts of lightning, time after time like torches, time after time like flames, time after time like the rising of the sun, moon, and stars.” I approached him, and he seized me with his hand, lifted me with his wings, and showed me all those letters that were engraved with a pen of fire on God’s throne, and fiery sparks and lightning were coming out of them and covering all the chambers of the seventh heaven.’[2] 

The five openings of the mouth is part of the classification system the Sefer Yetzirah uses for the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Each "opening" is a position of the tongue for producing speech.
In a discourse by the Hasidic master R. Menahem Nahum of Chernobyl (1730-1798), the letter heh, which changed Abram's name to Abraham, symbolised the five openings. Abraham was given mastery over the openings and the powers they regulated. According to the Chernobyler, in each letter of the alphabet is hidden some of the divine light which is what brings life and blessings into the world.

Abraham our Father so served God with love that he came to be called “Abraham My Lover” (Isa. 41:8). God gave over to him the conduct of all the worlds, placing within him this speech, centered in the five openings of the mouth. This is the meaning of God’s adding the heh [ = five] to Abraham’s name; it was through this that he became “father of many nations,” father and leader of the great host of the world’s peoples, by means of these five openings of the mouth…

His leadership is to be in all the worlds. That was why Abram did not father children; until he had reached the point at which speech was given to him, he could not yet be a father. Abraham did father children, for those openings of the mouth by which he conducted all the worlds had now been given him. Surely through that word he could draw forth offspring for himself as well.[3]

The power of procreation is linked to the power of creation, both being dependant upon the divine potency inherent in pure, divine speech. I did not include R. Menahem Nahum's discussion of the rung of sacred speech. Rungs of course are what allow one to climb a ladder.
Martin Buber, in his Ten Rungs, adapted a Hasidic interpretation of Jacob's ladder, emphasising the universal, ethical aspect.

Man is a ladder placed on the earth and the top of it touches heaven. And all his movements and doings and words leave traces in the upper world.[4]

The more traditional formulation is theurgic- by performing the commandments, man not only draws divine power into this world, but increases the power of Heaven above. In Joseph's dream, after all, the angels both descended and ascended upon the ladder.

The goal of man's coming to this lower world is to adapt himself to Torah and commandment[s], which are a ladder that stands on earth and the top of which reaches to Heaven, in order to draw down, by his performing the Torah and commandment[s], influx upon all the worlds, and to give power to the supernal retinue.[5]

For the Chernobyler, this is achieved primarily by means of pure, holy speech.
R. Meir ha-Levi of Apta, a later Hasid, provides another description of this process.

The supernal light is emanated into his heart, and the influxes go by his mediation, by the way of the five places of his mouth...[6]

Until Abraham perfected by loving service- acts of worship motivated by love- his ascent to the rung of sacred speech, he lacked the power to bring forth offspring. Having attained that rung, Abraham shared the divine power to create and to produce life. Menahem Nahum of Chernobyl's homily stops short of pursuing the implications to their logical, but radical conclusion. Man is capable of attaining a level of holiness in which not only is God's power delegated to him, he governs the worlds also. This form of theosis is not post-mortal, nor is it eschatological, but available in the here-and-now through elevating the profane and mundane to holiness.
 
[1]Babylonian Talmud, t. Berachot 55a.

[2]Rachel Elior, "Jewish Mysticism: The Infinite Expression of Freedom," p. 108.
[3]Arthur Green, "Menahem Nahum of Chernobyl: Upright Practices, The Light of the Eyes (Classics of Western Spirituality)," pg. 161-163.

[4]Martin Buber, "Ten Rungs: Collected Hasidic Sayings," p. 34.

[5]R. Aharon Shemuel ha-Cohen, translated in Moshe Idel, "Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic," p. 143.
 
[6]Ibid, p. 204.

The Council of Souls

Found something too good to pass up. In fact, it deserves to be posted in its entirety, dealing at it does with an obscure strand of Jewish thought on the preexistence and prehistory of the soul, or, at least, some souls.
This is from Howard Schwartz's "Tree of Souls: the mythology of Judaism".

           196. THE COUNCIL OF SOULS

The souls of the righteous existed long before the creation of the world.
God consulted these souls in creating the universe, as it is said, They dwelt there in the king’s service (I Chron. 4:23). God called upon the souls of the righteous, who sat on the council with the Supreme King of Kings, to come together. He then took counsel with them before He brought the world into being, saying, “Let us make man” (Gen. 1:26). So too did they help Him with His work. Some assisted in planting and some helped create the borders of the sea, as it is said, Who set the sand as a boundary to the sea (Jer. 5:22). Nor does God make any important decision without consulting the Council of Souls. So too did God take counsel with the souls of the righteous. He asked them if they were willing to be created. And that is how the souls of the righteous, including the souls of Abraham and the other patriarchs, came into being.

While there are traditions that God took council with the angels or a divine partner such as Adam in creating the world, here the phrase, “Let us make man” from Genesis 1:26 is said to refer to a Council of Souls (nefashot shel Tzaddikim), with whom God consulted before creating the world. These souls of the righteous are said to have existed before the creation of the world. In fact, it is not specified that they were created by God at all, but only called together by God before He created the universe.
Further, they not only give their consent for the creation of the world, but they participate in it, assisting God in planting and creating the boundaries of the sea. Rabbi Levi Yitzhak of Berditchev interprets God’s consulting with the souls of the righteous to mean that He asked them if they were willing to be created.
Evidence of a divine council can be found in several biblical passages, such as Psalms 82:1, which states that God stands in the divine assembly; among the divine beings He pronounces judgment. Here the term for the divine assembly is “adat el.” In Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, Frank Moore Cross describes this council as the Israelite counterpart of the Council of El found in Canaanite mythology, referring to El, the primary Canaanite god. It would thus seem that this obscure Jewish tradition is directly drawn from the Canaanite. Psalm 82 adds a strange twist to this myth: God appears to condemn the gods of the Council of Gods to death: “I had taken you for divine beings, sons of the Most High, all of you; but you shall die as men do, fall like any prince” (Ps. 82:6). This might be interpreted to mean that monotheism declares the death of polytheism.
Jeremiah 23:18 also describes a divine council: But he who has stood in the council of
Yahweh, and seen, and heard His word—He who has listened to His word must obey. Another reference to the divine council is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22, where God addresses the host of heaven, asking who will entice Ahab, and a certain spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, “I will entice him.” Other passages suggesting the existence of heavenly beings with whom God discusses His decisions include Isaiah 6 and Job 1-2.
Usually the term, “the souls of the righteous,” refers to the souls of the pious who have died, and whose souls have ascended to Paradise. By pre-existing, these souls become identified as primordial gods, such as are found in other Near Eastern mythologies. By calling them together as a council, God implicitly recognizes their power. It must be assumed that the council of souls gave its approval for the creation of the universe, since God proceeded with it after that. Another possible explanation would be to identify “the souls of the righteous” in this midrash with the angels. In other sources, God is said to have consulted with the angels before creating man, and there are traditions and countertraditions of the notion that the angels somehow participated in the creation of the world itself. See “Creation by Angels,” p. 116. However, it would be highly unusual to refer to the angels as “the souls of the righteous,” although Philo does refer to angels as “unbodied souls.” A prooftext for the existence of such a council of souls or angels can be found in Daniel 4:14: The matter is by decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy ones. Both of these terms, the “watchers” and the “holy ones,” suggest some kind of supernatural figures from the heavenly realm, whether angels, souls, or additional divinities. The Council of Souls may also be identified with the heavenly court, and identified as the Watchers. See “The Heavenly Court,” p. 208, and “The Watchers,” p. 457. There are parallel myths about God consulting the angels, rather than souls, in the creation of Adam. The text of Genesis 1:26 states that God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” But in the Pseudo-Yonathan Targum on Genesis 1:26, this is changed to read: “And God said to the angels who minister before him, who were created on the second day of Creation. `Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’” See “Creation By Angels,” p. 116. In Genesis Rabbah 8:9 the question of how many deities created the world is directly broached: “How many deities created the world? You and I must inquire of the first day, as it is said, For ask now of the first days (Deut. 4:32).” The rabbis subsequently debate whether the first sentence of Genesis describes creation by one God or by many, since Elohim is plural. Read this way, the first line of Genesis reads: “In the beginning Gods created the heaven and the earth.” That such a debate can take place at all is remarkable, considering the centrality of monotheism. But it is also a tribute to the open-ended willingness of the rabbis to explore even apparently heretical interpretations of the Torah. The existence of this discussion and the fact that it was recorded in a primary text such as Genesis Rabbah, indicates that the “heretical” had some advocates among the rabbis. Perhaps it harks back to a residual pagan myth, a Canaanite myth about a council of gods. Such divine councils rule in Mesopotamian, Babylonian, and Canaanite mythology. In the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish, Marduk is made head of the divine council by defeating Tiamat, the personification of the sea. It is likely that the existence of such a council in Jewish tradition is a remnant of such an ancient myth. Ugaritic texts describe the abode of El, the primary Canaanite god, and his council on the mountain of El, where the gods are seated at a table. El’s abode is said to be in the north. This setting and location is echoed in Isaiah 14:13: “I will sit in the mount of assembly, on the summit of Zaphon.” (Zaphon is Hebrew for “north.”) God’s perplexing use of the first person plural in verses such as Let us make man in our image (Gen. 1:26), Behold the man has become like one of us (Gen. 3:22), and Let us, then, go down and confound their speech there (Gen. 11:7) can be explained as addressing the divine council. This same usage is found in the Ugaritic texts. Most midrashic texts interpret “Let us” as God addressing the angels.

Sources:
Genesis Rabbah 8: 7; Maggid Devarav le-Ya’akov 1; No’am Elimelekh, Bo 36b.
Studies:
"Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic" by Frank Moore Cross, pp. 36-43, 186-190.
“The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah” by Frank Moore Cross.
“The Council of Yahweh” by H. Wheeler Robinson.
“God and the Gods in Assembly” by Matitiahu Tsevat.
"Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature" by E. Theodore Mullen.

Moshe Idel and Joseph Smith

I'm always interested when references to LDS history appear in unrelated studies.
Moshe Idel's 2008, The Angelic World: Apotheosis and Theophany, has several references to Joseph Smith. Since the book has yet to appear in English, I'll quote the relevant bits.
After a short paragraph on Emanuel Swedenborg and his Jewish sources, Idel says the following on Joseph Smith.

I should remark that it is possible that angelologies from a Jewish source also influenced the founder of the Mormon faith, Joseph Smith. Hence, the founders of two new forms of Christianity, both with a clear revelatory form having to do with angels, religions in which the concrete dimension is obvious- needed this Jewish concept. If Jarl Fossum is correct in his conclusion that this ancient concept of the great angel, creator of the world and giver of the Torah, influenced the emergence of the gnostic movement, then here again there lies before us an example of the formative role of Jewish angelology in the developement of religious developements outside the world of Judaism. (Pg. 73)

See for now the controversial article by Owens, Joseph Smith and Kabbalah, pg. 117-194, which also contains a list of Kabbalistic sources which supposedly were in the library of Joseph Smith's teacher. The connection between Enoch-Metatron in Jewish tradition and Mormonism was first noted by Harold Bloom, in his book The American Religion, pg. 99, 105. I can't go into the details of the controversies created by Owens' article and the doubts about Smith's relationship to the Kabbalah. It seems that the matter of kabbalistic connections is more complicated and interesting than what can be learned from the currently published documents. (Pg. 156)

See the above, in the introduction, for Joseph Smith's studies with Alexander Neibaur, a figure of Jewish extraction who seemed to have known Kabbalah. See also the end of chapter 4. (Pg. 194)

Idel's source was Lance S. Owens' Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection, published in Dialogue, Fall 1994. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V27N03_131.pdf  
I confess a certain fondness for Owens' article, despite disagree with much of its conclusions, particularly the portrayal of Neibaur as a kabbalist.
More on that later. 
Owens did attempt to fit Joseph Smith into the larger patterns of Western esotericism by utilising lesser-used sources. That in itself is an interesting, commendable venture, even when the degree of success is questionable. As Idel said, "the matter of kabbalistic connections is more complicated and interesting than what can be learned from the currently published documents."
William Hamblin's rebuttal of Owens is, I think, ultimately succesful, some minor points notwithstanding.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=8&num=2&id=229
Also, one of my older blogposts deals with the supposed similarities between the Zohar and the King Follet Discourse. http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2010/01/joseph-smith-and-beginning.html
I will post further mentions of LDS history in other works as I come across them. If you know of any, feel free to post them in the comments section.

A Response to Rob Bowman: Early Jewish Mysticism Pt. 1

Rob Bowman wrote a blogpost critiquing an installment of Daniel Petersen's column in the Deseret News.[1]
My previous post details why one of Bowman's assumptions is untenable, mainly, the position that the word midrash generally means a specific Tannaitic body of literature. I've shown that there is no reason for that to be considered the default definition. He used that assumption in an attempt to show that Petersen misrepresented his source.
In this post I'll examine another statement of his on which much of Bowman's argument hangs.
Before doing so it is worth explaining my use of the word "mysticism." I use it here in a general sense, the imperfect equivalent of the Hebrew term "torat ha-sod," similar to how Gershom Scholem used it in his book "Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism." I will be using it interchangeably with "esotericism."

We need look no further than Patai’s book, from which all of the Mormons derive the quotation, to discover that the text dates from at least six centuries later than Aqiva. In Patai’s “Chronological List of Sources” at the back of the book, the “Midrash Alpha Beta di R. Akiba” is listed as originating from the “8th-9th” centuries. In another book, Patai explains the religious context of the work:
“The foundations of medieval Kabbalism were laid in Babylonia and Byzantium in the 7th and 8th centuries, when a number of Midrashim with marked Kabbalistic tendencies made their appearance. Several of these (e.g,, the Alpha Beta of Rabbi Akiba and the Midrash Konen) deal with the mysteries of Creation and the structure of the universe.”
That’s right, the quotation comes from a foundational work in the development of the medieval mystical Jewish tradition known as Kabbalah. This isn’t just Patai’s opinion. It is the scholarly, academic consensus.

Rob Bowman goes on to say that,

The fact that Peterson and several other Mormon apologists resort to utilizing such a quotation while failing to describe its source accurately is especially troubling. This is the only quotation in Peterson’s article that he does not identify specifically. Clearly, had he done so, it would have weakened his argument. Each of the Mormon apologists cited here had the wherewithal to track down the source of the quotation and to state accurately the period of history and religious perspective from which it originated. I make no judgment as to why they all failed to do so.

Unfortunately, beyond stating a range of dates for the composition of the Ottiyot de-Rabbi Akiva (ORA), Rob Bowman has not accurately stated the religious perspective from which it originated. A glaring example is that none of the other references provided by Bowman state that the ORA is markedly Kabbalistic.
Aside from inaccurately describing the religious perspective and not discussing what kind of text the ORA is, Bowman has failed to address important issues affecting the dating of the concepts presented in the work. He has not discussed a single primary source beyond providing the full quote as it appears in "The Messiah Texts", nor said which part he considers late.
Looking at the quote from Patai's "The Hebrew Goddess," I am at a loss to find exactly which tendencies in the ORA Patai saw as markedly Kabbalistic.
Try as I might, I just can't find any. There is no mention of such key Kabbalistic concepts as Ein-Sof or Ayin, no emanations (Sefirot) of the Godhead and their role in the universe, no feminine aspect of God which must be reunited with God, nothing which is specific to the Kabbalah.
If Bowman would assert that there is something explicit or implicit in the text which could be considered specifically Kabbalistic then he must make a case for it.
Kabbalah is often used to refer to all forms of Jewish mysticism, but this usage is sloppy. Though the Kabbalah shares strong affinities with earlier mystical trends, such as the Merkabah mystics or the German Pietists (Hasidei Ashkenaz), as a distinctive movement it mainly stems from 12th century Provence.
Rob's "Proto-Kabbalistic" is not a very useful term generally. I don't know of a single Jewish esoteric text or tradition which couldn't with some justification be called proto-Kabbalistic. It is possible to write many entries on this alone, but a few examples should suffice.[2]
My highschool was not far from Or Haganuz, a Jewish community formed on Kabbalistic ethics and ideals as formulated by a disciple of R. Yehudah Leib Ashlag. Ashlag was a pivotal 20th century Kabbalist who translated the Zohar into Modern Hebrew and attempted to popularise its teachings. His goal was to create an altruistic community based on living the Torah (or rather, the true meaning as revealed by Kabbalah) for Torah's sake. By accepting the life of "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" they would be fulfilling the purpose of creation and would ascend as it were on a ladder to God and cleave to him completely.[3]
Or Haganuz takes its name from a Jewish tradition regarding the light of creation, and literally means the hidden, or concealed light.
Howard Schwartz provides a brief explanation.

Everyone is familiar with the words of Genesis 1:3, And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. But the ancient rabbis, who scrutinized the words of the Bible for every hidden mystery, wondered what light this was. After all, God did not create the sun, the moon, and the stars till the fourth day. So what was the light of the first day?...
The rabbis conclude that the two lights—that of the first day and that of the fourth—are different. The light of the first day is a primordial light, what is called the or ha-ganuz, or hidden light. This resolves the problem. But it also raises a whole series of new questions—What was the nature of that sacred light? Where did it come from, and where did it go? These questions have been debated among the rabbis for many centuries, and they arrive at a variety of explanations.[4]

The concept of this light is important to many, if not most, kabbalistic systems, and in its hasidic form exemplifies the philosophy of Or Haganuz's settlers.
This is seen in the teachings of the Rav Kook, who was a seminal figure in modern Judaism and Israeli history. He served as chief rabbi in British Mandate Palestine and did much to bring the gap between the secular Zionist movement and the reactionary orthodox community. For him they both had that part of the truth which the other lacked. The middle path, combining the zealous activism of the former with the deep religiosity of the latter, would help bring salvation to the world.

When I lived in London I used to visit the National Gallery, and my favourite pictures were those of Rembrandt. I really think that Rembrandt was a Tzadik. Do you know that when I first saw Rembrandt's works, they reminded me of the legend about the creation of light? We are told that when God created light, it was so strong and pellucid, that one could see from one and of the world to the other, but God was afraid that the wicked might abuse it. What did He do? He reserved that light for the righteous when the Messiah should come. But now and then there are great men who are blessed and privilaged to see it. I think that Rembrandt was one of them, and the light in his pictures is the very light that was originally created by God Almighty[5]

This light is what sustains and rejuvenates the world, and is expressly manifest through ethical behaviour.

The enlightenment of holy men is the basis for the spiritual illumination that arises in the world, in all human hearts. The holy men, those of pure thought and contemplation, join themselves, in their inner sensibilities, with the spiritual that pervades all. Everything that is revealed to them is an emergence of light, a disclosure of the divine, which adds life and firmness, abiding life and spiritual firmness, which gives stability to the whole world with the diffusion of its beneficience.
A life-giving illumination flows always from the source of the Torah, which brings to the world light from the highest realm of the divine. It embraces the values of the spiritual and the material, the temporal and the eternal, the moral and the practical, the individual and the social. These spell life to all who come in contact with them, and guard them in their purity.
Meditation on the inner life and moral conformity must always go together with those qualified for this. They absorb the light pervading the world, which abides in all souls, and they present it as one whole. Through the influences radiating from their life and their fellowship with others, through the impact of their will and the greatness of their spirirtual being, through their humility and love for all creatures, they then disseminate the treasure of life and of good to all.
These men of upright heart are channels through which light and life reach to all creatures. They are vessels for radiating the light of eternal life. They are the servants of God, who heed His word, the messengers who do His will to revive those near death, to strengthen the weak, to awaken those who slumber.[6]

The Rav Kook's view here is drawn from a core Hasidic concept- the Tzadik.
This is not the place to discuss Tzadikism in depth, but a few words by way of explanation are necessary.
Tzadik is Hebrew for righteous. In Hasidism though it came to represent a special class of leader, a holy man who is the intermediary between the world of God and the world of man. He is the pipeline which draws the holy downwards and the profane upwards. Since he cleaves whole-heartedly to God, his disciples cleave to him. He can intercede for them and raise them up, transforming everything into holiness.[7]
There is a famous Hasidic tradition from the circle of R. Elimelech of Lizhensk, adapted by Martin Buber for the opening portion of "Or Haganuz," his collection of Hasidic stories.

R. Eleazar said: "The light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day- Adam could see with it from one end of the world to the next. Since the Holy One, blessed be He, looked at the generation of the Deluge and the generation of the Division and saw that their deeds were wicked, He concealed the light from them. And for whom did he conceal it? For the righteous in the future to come."[8]
Hasidim asked: "Where did he conceal it?"
They were answered: "In the Torah."
They asked: "If so, will the Tsadikim not find some of the light as they study Torah?"
They answered: "They certainly will find some."
They asked: "If so, what will the Tsadikim do when they find some of the concealed light in the Torah?"
They answered: "They will reveal it in the way they live."[9]

Apart from the ethical interpretation, there is another aspect of the hidden light which played an even greater role in Kabbalah.
In that classic of Hasidic hagiography, "In Praise of the Baal Shem Tov," a story is told of how R. Baruch was having his oxen sold in a distant town, but worried that they might have been stolen. He sent R. Yosef Kaminker to the Baal Shem Tob (Besht) who then opened the Zohar and read from it.

"I see that R. Baruch's oxen have not been stolen."
R. Yosef asked the Besht, "Is that really written in the Zohar?"
The Besht replied. "This is what our sages said about the verse 'And God saw that the light was good.' They said that it is good to hide it, since with the light of the six days of Creation, one could see from one end of the world to the other. Where did the Holy One, Blessed be He, hide it? He hid it in the Torah. And when they said 'for the righteous in the future to come,' this means for the righteous who will come into the world. Whoever attains the light hidden in the Torah can see with it from one end of the world to the other. Do you suppose that I only saw the oxen? I also saw something which happened in the Jewish community of Amsterdam."[10]

We aren't told what the Besht saw in Amsterdam, but this use of the hidden light is also characteristic of R. Isaac Luria (the Ari) in the hagiography which grew around him.

The hidden light was in him, reaching from one end of this world to the next. He was able to illumine and explain the words of R. Shimon bar Yohai. As it is written in Shivhei Ha-Ari, everything the Ari achieved came from the Zohar.[11]

R. Azriel of Gerona, a leading Kabbalist of the generation before the Zohar had the following to say about the hidden light.

This first light is like the light of thought in which a man sees all that he wishes to look at... and this is the light of wisdom which would rest upon the prophets and crown them with its light, and they would see visions by power, visions of whatever could be, from one end of the world to the next. As long as the soul is pure it shows in her its power and increases, shining brighter and brighter. This light is set apart for the righteous, as they posess a clean and pure spirit, and this light is called the light of life.[12]

Other Kabbalists focused on the implications of the hidden light for creation. R. Shimon ibn Lavi was born in Spain but during his childhood his family was forced to move to Morocco due to the Spanish Expulsion. He was active during the early 16th c. and composed "Ketem Paz," a very important commentary on the Zohar. In it he expresses an idea very similar to the slightly later one found in Lurianic Kabbalah- Tzimtzum, or contraction. The "mystery of expansion" where light is emanated and fills the universe, thus bringing everything into existence, is considered exile, since the light leaves God. The light is then retracted and concealed, since it is too powerful for anything to continue existing in its glare.[13]
This concept of a primeval, hidden light appears both in the talmuds and in various midrashim. One of these quotes has already been mentioned in connection with Buber's anthology.

R. Eleazar said: "The light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day- Adam could see with it from one end of the world to the next.

Fourth Ezra, a work from around the late 1st c. CE, also knows of such a light.

Then You commanded that a ray of light be brought forth from your treasuries, so that your works might then appear.

This goes back as far as the Hellenistic Jewish writer Aristobolus.

The first [day], the one in which the light was born by which all things are seen together.[14]

Should we consider these as proto-Kabbalistic? That designation quickly becomes meaningless. These texts are not proto-Kabbalistic, even though many of the Kabbalists are often closer to those texts in their thoughts on the nature of this light than the Amoraic statements are.
I doubt that Rob Bowman would consider 1 Corinthians 15:29 proto-Mormon just because LDS use it as a prooftext for the doctrine of proxy baptism.[15]
It is also highly doubtful that he would consider Ezekiel 1 proto-Kabbalistic, even though terminology drawn from it forms an important part of Kabbalistic teachings and modes of expression. Shaul Magid explains how Ezekiel's vision played a role in the way certain Hasidic movements perceived God's interaction with the universe.

R. Gershon Henokh suggests that the telos of Ezekiel’s vision was to reveal the place where divine concealment (koah ha-hester) begins to reveal itself, resulting in the realization that divine absence is itself divine.
"At that time it was God’s will to show Ezekiel how God fills the entire creation. Therefore, he showed Ezekiel the first [highest] place where He could be apprehended until the place that was necessary, i.e., the place of His concealment.
That is, until the world of formation [‘olam ha-yezerah].
As it is explained . . . in the world of emanation, holiness and goodness are
dominant.
This is also true in the world of creation. In the world of formation, however, good and evil are balanced. Therefore, it is only in the world of formation that the power of divine concealment begins. God wanted to show Ezekiel that the power of concealment is itself from God."
R. Gershon Henokh utilizes the Lurianic notion that the chariot is housed in the world of formation (yezerah)—the first world where good and evil appear as distinct—as a support for the Maimonidean claim that the chariot represents metaphysics.
That is, metaphysics is the highest realm of speculation of the divine because it is the first place where God is hidden. Divine absence becomes the first stage of our apprehension of God. The first human apprehension of God is His absence.
For R. Gershon Henokh, the purpose of the vision is for Ezekiel to see and communicate that God’s absence (evil) is the result of divine will.
The Lurianic interpretation of the chariot of Ezekiel lowers the status of the prophetic vision to a place that is accessible to the human intellect and experience, that is, the angelic world where good and evil are already distinct.[16]

There is a Zohar section discussing the elements of Ezekiel's vision.

From these two sparkling spirits the wheels (Ofannim) are created, and they are holy, their nature being like that of the creatures... "It flashed up and down among the creatures" (Ezekiel 1:13). What does "it" refer to? This is the holy spirit... When spirit was composed within spirit, there emerged from them the illumination of one creature, which lies above the four wheels.[17]

Another example that has a little more bearing on the ORA is gematria. Like everyone else in Israel of the days of a single TV station, I grew up watching the comedy program "Zehu Zeh." Every Friday during the Gulf War, it hardly seems an exaggeration to say that it kept the country sane. One of the best-loved characters was the Baba Bubah, a parody of a senile old Moroccan Kabbalist who interpreted contemporary events by exaggerated and implausible use of gematria.
There are and were several radio shows featuring experts in gematria who use it to resolve issues in the callers' lives, and even many internet sites with gematria calculators. In the popular imagination, Kabbalah and gematria are practically synonymous.
The Sabbateans used gematria heavily in their attempts to prove that Sabbetai Tzvi was the Messiah. A generation earlier in what was then part of the Polish Commonwealth, R. Shimshon of Ostropol devoted his life to nullifying the power of the demonic agents of evil- kelipot, that is, shells. For him these kelipot were manifested in Christianity. There are numerous instances of fierce anti-Christian mystical polemic in his writings. He used gematria to show that King David provided a key to nullifying the power of Christ. If the numerical values for two of the names of Christ in R. Shimshon's teachings are combined- beam (korah) and hunger (raav, consisting of the same letters as raven, which is the antithesis of the dove)- they result in sar pah (Prince Snare). Psalm 124:7 reads,

Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers; the snare is broken, and we are escaped.[18]

Gematria has very ancient roots, and was used in the talmuds as well.

Satan has no permission to act as accuser on the Day of Atonement. Whence [is that derived]? — Rama b. Hama said: "The numerical value of Ha-Satan in gematria is three hundred and sixty-four, that means: on three hundred and sixty-four days he has permission to act as accuser, but on the Day of Atonement he has no permission to act as accuser.[19]

The ORA was important to the developement of the Kabbalah because instead of statements scattered here and there, it presented an extensive treatise on the inner meaning of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and, by extension, the possibilities inherent in those letters. There are few concepts in the ORA which can't be found in earlier writings, and this is partiularly true of the quote in question.
Joseph Dan has this to say on what sort of text the ORA is.

This midrash, usually regarded as one collected in the seventh century, is actually an anthology that is distinguished from other similar ones by its keen interest in both cosmogony and mystical literature, but first and foremost by its structure as a commentary on the shape and meaning of the letters of the alphabet. It includes among other things, a brief description of the ascent of Enoch and his transformation to Metatron.[20]

Gershom Scholem, father of the modern study of Jewish mysticism and Joseph Dan's teacher, briefly discussed the ORA as it relates to the textual history of the "Shiur Komah."

Two manuscripts of Shiur Komah versions partially survived on parchment pages in the Cairo Genizah... Further fragments are extant in Hekhaloth Rabbati and Hekhaloth Zutarti... Another fragment is preserved in the so-called Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba, which, to be sure, was edited later than the above-mentioned pieces but nevertheless preserved a great deal of the old Merkavah material.[21]

In other words, according to Scholem and Dan both, the ORA was an anthology of older material. Bowman's emphasis on the late date of the ORA implies that anything in it must be regarded as having a 7th-9th c. provenance. This does not take into account the nature of the ORA. Bowman would need to show that the quote in question is late, since there is sufficient evidence for the continuity from earlier times of the concepts in said quote. Bowman's argument can be illustrated by an admittedly imperfect analogy. If I had written a newspaper editorial on Elizabethan and Jacobean dramaturgy and quoted the following from Charles and Mary Lamb's "Tales from Shakespear" without mentioning the source, would it mean that this scene was from 1806?

Iago knitted his brow, as if he had got fresh light on some terrible matter, and cried: 'Indeed!' This brought into Othello's mind the words which Iago had let fall upon entering the room, and seeing Cassio with Desdemona; and he began to think there was some meaning in all this: for he deemed Iago to be a just man, and full of love and honesty, and 'what in a false knave would be tricks, in him seemed to be the natural workings of an honest mind, big with something too great for utterance: and Othello prayed Iago to speak what he knew, and to give his worst thoughts words. 'And what,' said Iago, 'if some thoughts very vile should have intruded into my breast, as where is the palace into which foul things do not enter?' Then Iago went on to say, what a pity it were, if any trouble should arise to Othello out of his imperfect observations; that it would not be for Othello's peace to know his thoughts; that people's good names were not to be taken away for slight suspicions; and when Othello's curiosity was raised almost to distraction with these hints and scattered words, Iago, as if in earnest care for Othello's peace of mind, besought him to beware of jealousy: with such art did this villain raise suspicions in the unguarded Othello, by the very caution which he pretended to give him against suspicion. 'I know,' said Othello, 'that my wife is fair, loves company and feasting, is free of speech, sings, plays, and dances well: but where virtue is, these qualities are virtuous. I must have proof before I think her dishonest.'

In Hardin Craig's edition of Shakespeare's plays this takes up 91 lines!
Joseph Dan brings up another issue which has bearing on this discussion.

It is sometimes difficult to decide when a text serves as an influential source for further creativity, and when its message is simply reproduced, so that the individuality of both the source and the medieval follower is completely negated.[22]

Rob Bowman hasn't even attempted to show that the ORA quote falls into the former category, he merely asserts that it is.
Lawrence Schiffman discusses Enochian and Hekhalot material in particular, but his observations hold true for Jewish mystical works in general.

The notion of a developing literature of “booklets” that he has explored so carefully regarding 1 Enoch (VanderKam 1984, 17-101) is clearly the correct method with which to understand the eventual emergence of 2 and 3 Enoch as well. These works are composites of documents that were themselves put together from other minor protodocuments, a phenomenon clearly emerging from the results of VanderKam’s detailed research… The close relationship of our official Enoch literature- or better, the various booklets- with other texts (not just traditions) highlights the value of this literary-historical model. Had I sought to work on 2 Enoch and its relation to 1 Enoch, this approach would have been enough to provide a model to understand the development of 2 Enoch… It turns out that “booklets,” or better, short treatises, are the building blocks of all the hekhalot-type texts, as shown by Peter Schafer (1983).
In fact, texts as we know them, independent compositions, are a misnomer for these “texts,” since different manuscripts have different mixes of common, but not always present, building blocks. With this model in mind we can grasp that, like 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch is such a composite.
However, 3 Enoch is not just a composite of text traditions such as those found in 1 and 2 Enoch. The circle that produced, exported, composed, redacted, copied, and studied traditions like those in 1 Enoch and 3 Enoch produced various booklets which still circulated in different forms and in different languages after the so-called 1 and 2 Enoch came into being as redacted texts. Some of the original documents circulated in translation. These traditions somehow mixed with those of the hekhalot trend and were redomesticated as part of the emerging textual tradition of late rabbinic/early medieval Jewish esotericism.[23]

Aside from these matters of text, Joseph Dan explains another aspect of Jewish mysticism which Bowman has ignored.

These three subjects- homiletical interpretations of Ezekiel 1, of the first chapters of Genesis, and magic- constitute by far the majority of the parallels found between talmudic and midrashic literature and the esoteric literature. It is true that it is nearly impossible to describe the beginnings of these phenomena, which are so closely integrated with all other aspects of Jewish religious expression from biblical times to the period of the Talmud and Midrash, including the Apocrypha, the Dead Sea scrolls, and early Christian works. One may try to show the beginning of a specific idea or concept in this vast panorama, but the subjects as a whole seem to have been of continuous interest to all trends and tendencies within Jewish culture.[24]

Bowman has asked, or, rather, presented his readers the wrong question.
The kind of questions that should be asked relate to how was the text composed; is it a single composition or is it an anthology; how were traditions transmitted; what in the text is genuinely new or otherwise marks a departure from older texts and traditions; does the designation "medieval" imply a new historical era at this point in Jewish history or is there a continuum in ideas. Bowman declares that the quotation has a medieval theology yet he doesn't show that it is so. His analysis of the quote is just as inadequate.

Continued in the next post...

[1]Rob Bowman's post can be found at http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/08/did-joseph-smith-restore-theosis-part-four-esoteric-jewish-theology-and-joseph-smith%E2%80%99s-doctrine-of-exaltation/ and Daniel Petersen's article at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700168175/Joseph-Smiths-restoration-of-theosis-was-miracle-not-scandal.html

[2]Other examples include the heavenly Jerusalem, Enoch-Metatron, Shiur Komah, the golem, heavenly ascents, and the Sepher Yetsirah. On the origins of the Kabbalah as a distinct movement see Gershom Scholem, "The Origins of the Kabbalah", Isaiah Tishby "Wisdom of the Zohar" vol. 1, Joseph Dan "Early Kabbalah", and Moshe Idel "Kabbalah: New Perspectives". For an example of a genuinely proto-Kabbalistic text, see Ronit Meroz "The Middle Eastern Origins of Kabbalah."

[3]Boaz Huss, "Altruistic Communism," pp. 125-126.

[4]Howard Schwartz "Tree of Souls," p. Lxxii.

[5]From the "London Jewish Chronicle," September 13, 1935, p. 21. http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/2007/10/rembrandt-rav-kook.html

[6]Abraham Isaac Kook, Ben Zion Bokser (ed.) "Abraham Isaac Kook: The Lights of Penitence, The Moral Principles, Lights of Holiness, Essays, Letters, and Poems," p. 208-209. Bokser's introduction provides an excellent sketch of the Rav Kook and his outlook.

[7]Chapter 3 of Gershom Scholem's "On The Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah" discusses the developement of Tsadikism, as does Arthur Green's "Typologies of Leadership and the Hasidic Zaddiq" in "Jewish Spirituality: From the Sixteenth-Century Revival to the Present."

[8]Babylonian Talmud, t. Haggigah 12a.

[9]http://www.schocken.co.il/?CategoryID=165&ArticleID=447 see also Oded Israeli's 2010 lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwGOSWLREJM&feature=youtu.be

[10]"Shivhei Ha-Besht" 5:13.

[11]Shaul Magid "Hasidism on the Margin: Reconciliation, Antinomianism, and Messianism" p. 69.

[12]Isaiah Tishby, "Commentarius in Aggadot, auctores R. Azriel Geronensi" p. 111.

[13]Haviva Pedaya "Or Ke-Tavech Ve-Or Ke-Maatefet" http://havivapedaya.com/drupal/node/22 . The existence in North Africa of Kabbalah independent of and predating the Safed center should suffice to illustrate the inaccuracies in the "Hebrew Goddess"'s overview of the Kabbalah. "An important new development took place following the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, which brought about a powerful upsurge of Messianic longings for redemption, and resulted in the migration of several leading Spanish Kabbalists to the town of Safed in the Galilee. Within a few years thereafter, Safed became the new center of the Kabbala, and held this position for a short but remarkable period in the 16th century. From Safed, the Kabbala spread rapidly to all the Asian, African and European centers of the Jewish diaspora."

[14]4 Ezra 6:40 and Aristobulus, fragment 3. Translation is from James L. Kugel "The Bible as it Was" p. 57.

[15]See J. Trumbower, "Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity," pp. 55-57.
"I agree with Rissi and Hans Conzelmann (and, for that matter, with Mormon prophet Joseph Smith), that the grammar and logic of the passage point to a practice of vicarious baptism of a living person for the benefit of a dead person." Trumbower's endorsement, however, is far from unqualified. For him, the main difference is one of scale, the ancient texts painting a more limited picture of those eligible for such baptism.

[16]Magid, "Hasidism on the Margin" p. 57.

[17]Isaiah Tishby, "Wisdom of the Zohar" vol. 2, p. 598.

[18]Yehuda Liebes, ""Jonah as the Messiah ben Joseph." For a general overview of gematria, as well as examples of Sabbatean gematria, see Gershom Scholem "Kabbalah" pp. 337-343.

[19]Babylonian Talmud, t. Yoma 20a. The same Parchment and Pen blog has a post discussing Christian gematria. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/12/walid-shoebat-youtube-video-on-the-mark-of-the-beast/

[20]Joseph Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," 1, p. 156. In a different book, Dan points out the difficulty of deciding what came first in what work. "The schools of the gaonim, the leaders of the great academies in Babylonia, preserved the tradition of Hekhalot mysticism. Rav Hai Gaon, in the beginning of the eleventh century, mentioned in his writings many of the Hekhalot texts. It is difficult to know, whether this intrrest was only literary, or whether there was creative, mystical activity in these schools. The work of editing and preserving many of the Hekhalot texts was undertaken in Babylonia in this period, but how much of the material which has reached us was traditional, and how much was the result of the creativity of these editors we cannot ascertain. Thus, for example, the great anthology of esoteric speculation concerning the alphabet, cosmology, the heavenly realm,the angels and the divine name, known as the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba or The Letters of Rabbi Akiba, was most probably edited in Gaonic Babylonia. But what parts of this vast collection were ancient, and what were added by the editors, cannot be stated with any certainty. For, the work contains a brief description of the story of Enoch and his rhetamorphosis intoo the Prince of the Countenance, Metatron, along with a list of the secret names of Metaron. The problem is: Did the brief version, included in the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba, precede the long, detailed version in 3rd Enoch, or vice versa? That is, did some late editor compare the abridged version and add it to an alrteady extant anthology attributed to the ancient sage? There are several philological elements which support each of these possibilites, and a decision either way is impossible at this time."
"Gershom Scholem and the mystical dimension of Jewish history," ch. 3.

[21]Scholem, "Mystical Shape of the Godhead" p. 276-277.

[22]Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," 1, p. 248.

[23]Lawrence H. Schiffman, "3 Enoch and the Enoch Tradition," in Boccaccini (ed.) "Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection" p. 160.

[24]Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," 1, pp. 85-86.