Chapter VII: Book III: , the exponent of which is Capnio, endeavours to shew that the (1)

most essential doctrines of Christianity are to be found by the same method. Let a few instances of this method suffice. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity is to be found in the first verse of Genesis. If the Hebrew word ברא which is translated created, be examined, and if each of the three letters composing this word be taken as the initial of a separate word, we obtain the expressions בן רוח אב Son, Spirit, Father. Upon the same principle we find the two persons of the Trinity in the words, “the stone which the builders refused is become the heed stone of the corner” (Ps. cxviii, 22), inasmuch as the three letters composing the word אבן stone, are to be divided into אב בן Father, Son. Orpheus, in his hymn on the night, described the Trinity of the New Testament in the words, νὺξ, οὐρανὸς, αἰθὴρ, for night which begets everything can only designate the Father; heaven, that olyphus which in its boundlessness embraces all things, and which proceeded from the night, signifies the Son; whilst ether, which the ancient poet also designates fiery breath, is the Holy Ghost. The name Jesus in Hebrew י״ה״ש״ו״ה the πενταγράμματον yields the name יהוה Jehovah; and the ש which in the language of the Kabbalah is the symbol of fire or light, which St. Jerome, in his mystical exposition of the alphabet, has made the sign of the Λόγος. This mysterious name therefore contains a whole revelation, inasmuch as it shows us that Jesus is God himself, the Light or the Logos. Even the cross, which is the symbol of Christianity, is plainly indicated in the Old Testament, by the tree of life which God planted in the midst of the garden; by the praying attitude of Moses, when he raised his hands towards heaven in his intercession for Israel during the combat with Amalek; and by the tree which converted the bitter waters into sweet in the wilderness of Marah. [105]

The Treatise de Verbo Mirifico is, however, only an introduction to another work on the same subject which Reuchlin published twenty-two years later, entitled De Arte Cabalistica. Hagenau, 1516. This Treatise, like the first, is in the form of a dialogue between a Mohammedan named Marrianus, a Pythagorean Philosopher named Philolaus, and a Jewish doctor named Simon. The dialogue is held in Frankfort, where the Jew resides, to whom the Mohammedan and Pythagorean resort to be initiated into the mysteries of the Kabbalah. The whole is a more matured exposition and elaboration of the ideas hinted at in his first work.

The Kabbalah, according to Reuchlin, is a symbolical reception of Divine revelation; and a distinction is to be made between Cabalici, to whom belongs heavenly inspiration, their disciples Cabalaai, and their imitators Cabalistae. The design of the Kabbalah is to propound the relations of the absolute Creator to the creature. God is the Creator of all beings which emanated from him, and he implanted aspirations in them to attain actual communion with him. In order that feeble man might attain this communion, God revealed himself to mankind in various ways, but especially to Moses. This Divine revelation to Moses contains far more than appears on the surface of the Pentateuch. There is a recondite wisdom concealed in it which distinguishes it from other codes of morals and precepts. There are in the Pentateuch many pleonasms and repetitions of the same things and words, and as we cannot charge God with having inserted useless and superfluous words in the Holy Scriptures, we must believe that something more profound is contained in them, to which the Kabbalah gives the key.

This key consists in permutations, commutations, &c., &c. But this act of exchanging and arranging letters, and of interpreting for the edification of the soul the Holy Scriptures, which we have received from God as a divine thing not to be understood by the multitude, was not communicated by Moses to everybody, but to the elect, such as Joshua, and so by tradition it came to the seventy interpreters. This gift is called Kabbalah. God, out of love to his people, has revealed hidden mysteries to some of them, and these have found the living spirit in the dead letter; that is to say, the Scriptures consist of separate letters, visible signs which stand in a certain relation to the angels as celestial and spiritual emanations from God; and by pronouncing them, the latter also are affected. To a true Kabbalist, who has an insight into the whole connection of the terrestrial with the celestial, these signs thus put together are the means of placing him in close union with spirits, who are thereby bound to fulfil his wishes. [106]

The extraordinary influence which Reuchlin’s Kabbalistic Treatises exercised upon the greatest thinkers of the time and upon the early reformers may be judged of from the unmeasured terms of praise which they bestowed upon their author. The Treatises were regarded as heavenly communications, revealing new divine wisdom. Conrad Leontarius, writing to Wimpheling on the subject, says—“I never saw anything more beautiful or admirable than this work (i.e., De Verbo Mirifico), which easily convinces him who reads it that no philosopher, whether Jew or Christian, is superior to Reuchlin.” Aegidius, general of the Eremites, wrote to the holy Augustine “that Reuchlin had rendered him, as well as the rest of mankind, happy by his works, which had made known to all a thing hitherto unheard of.” Philip Beroaldus, the younger, sent him word “that Pope Leo X had read his Pythagorean book greedily, as he did all good books; afterwards the Cardinal de Medici had done so, and he himself should soon enjoy it.” [107] Such was the interest which this newly-revealed Kabbalah created among Christians, that not only learned men but statesmen and warriors began to study the oriental languages, in order to be able to fathom the mysteries of this theosophy.

1450–1498. Whilst the Kabbalah was gaining such high favour amongst Christians both in Italy and Germany, through the exertions of Mirandola and Reuchlin, a powerful voice was raised among the Jews against the Sohar, the very Bible of this theosophy. Elia del Medigo, born at Candia, then in Venetia, 1450, of a German literary family, professor of philosophy in the University of Padua, teacher of Pico de Mirandola, and a scholar of the highest reputation both among his Jewish brethren and among Christians, impugned the authority of the Sohar. In his philosophical Treatise on the nature of Judaism as a harmonizer between religion and philosophy, entitled An Examination of the Law (בחינת הדת), which he wrote December 29, 1491, he puts into the mouth of an antagonist to the Kabbalah the following three arguments against the genuineness of the Sohar: 1, Neither the Talmud, nor the Gaonim and Rabbins knew anything of the Sohar or of its doctrines; 2, The Sohar was published at a very late period; and 3, Many anachronisms occur in it, inasmuch as it describes later Amoraic authorities as having direct intercourse with the Tanaite R. Simon b. Jochai who belongs to an earlier period. [108]

1522–1570. The voice of Elia del Medigo and others, however, had no power to check the rapid progress of the Kabbalah, which had now found its way from Spain and Italy into Palestine and Poland, and penetrated all branches of life and literature. Passing over the host of minor advocates and teachers, we shall mention the two great masters in Palestine, who formed two distinct schools, distinguished by the prominence which they respectively gave to certain doctrines of the Kabbalah. The first of these is Moses Cordovero, also called Remak = רמ׳ק from the acrostic of his name קורדואירו R. Moses Cordovero. He was born in Cordova, 1522, studied the Kabbalah under his learned brother-in-law, Solomon Aleavez, and very soon became so distinguished as a Kabbalist and author that his fame travelled to Italy, where his works were greedily bought. His principal works are: 1, An Introduction to the Kabbalah, entitled A Sombre or Sweet Light (אור נערב) first published in Venice, 1587, then in Cracow, 1647, and in Fürth, 1701; 2, Kabbalistic reflections and comments on ninety-nine passages of the Bible, entitled The Book of Retirement (ספר נרושין), published in Venice, 1543; and 3, A large Kabbalistic work entitled The Garden of Pomegranates (פרדס רמונים), which consists of thirteen sections or gates (שערים) subdivided into chapters, and discusses the Sephiroth, the Divine names, the import and significance of the letters, &c., &c. It was first published in Cracow, 1591. Excerpts of it have been translated into Latin by Bartolocci, Bibliotheca Magna Rabbinica, vol. iv, p. 231, &c., and Knorr von Rosenroth, Tractatus de Anima ex libro Pardes Rimmonim in his Kabbala Denudata, Sulzbach, 1677. [109]

The peculiar feature of Cordovero is that he is chiefly occupied with the scientific speculations of the Kabbalah, or the speculative Kabbalah (קבלה עיונית), as it is called in the modern terminology of this esoteric doctrine, in contra-distinction to the wonder-working Kabbalah (קבלה מעשית), keeping aloof to a great extent from the extravagances which we shall soon have to notice. In this respect therefore he represents the Kabbalah in its primitive state, as may be seen from the following specimen of his lucubrations on the nature of the Deity. “The knowledge of the Creator is different from that of the creature, since in the case of the latter, knowledge and the thing known are distinct, thus leading to subjects which are again separate from him. This is described by the three expressions—cogitation, the cogitator and the cogitated object. Now the Creator is himself knowledge, knowing and the known object. His knowledge does not consist in the fact that he directs his thoughts to things without him, since in comprehending and knowing himself, he comprehends and knows everything which exists. There is nothing which is not united with him, and which he does not find in his own substance. He is the archetype of all things existing, and all things are in him in their purest and most perfect form; so that the perfection of the creatures consists in the support whereby they are united to the primary source of his existence, and they sink down and fall from that perfect and lofty position in proportion to their separation from him.” [110]

1534–1572. The opposite to this school is the one founded by Isaac Luria or Loria, also called Ari = אר״י from the initials of his name האשכנזי ר׳ יצחק R. Isaac Ashkanazi. He was born at Jerusalem 1534, and, having lost his father when very young, was taken by his mother to Kahira, where he was put by his rich uncle under the tuition of the best Jewish master. Up to his twenty-second year he was a diligent student of the Talmud and the Rabbinic lore, and distinguished himself in these departments of learning in a most remarkable manner. He then lived in retirement for about seven years to give free scope to his thoughts and meditations, but he soon found that simple retirement from collegiate studies did not satisfy him. He therefore removed to the banks of the Nile, where he lived in a sequestered cottage for several years, giving himself up entirely to meditations and reveries. Here he had constant interviews with the prophet Elias, who communicated to him sublime doctrines. Here, too, his soul ascended to heaven whenever he was asleep, and in the celestial regions held converse with the souls of the great teachers of bygone days. When thirty-six years of age (1570) the Prophet Elias appeared to him again and told him to go to Palestine, where his successor was awaiting him. Obedient to the command, he went to Safet, where he gathered round him ten disciples, visited the sepulchres of ancient teachers, and there, by prostrations and prayers, obtained from their spirits all manner of revelations, so much so that he was convinced he was the Messiah b. Joseph and that he was able to perform all sorts of miracles. It was this part of the Kabbalah, i.e., the ascetic and miraculous (כבלה מעשית), which Loria taught. His sentiments he delivered orally, as he himself did not write anything, except perhaps some marginal notes of a critical import in older books and MSS. His disciples treasured up his marvellous sayings, whereby they performed miracles and converted thousands to the doctrines of this theosophy.

1543–1620. The real exponent of Loria’s Kabbalistic system is his celebrated disciple Chajim Vital, a descendant of a Calabrian family, who died in 1620 at the age of seventy-seven. After the demise of his teacher, Chajim Vital diligently collected all the MS. notes of the lectures which Loria’s disciples had written down, from which, together with his own jottings, he produced the gigantic and famous system of the Kabbalah, entitled the Tree of Life (עץ החיים). This work, over which Vital laboured thirty years, was at first circulated in MS. copies, and every one of the Kabbalistic disciples had to pledge himself, under pain of excommunication, not to allow a copy to be made for a foreign land; so that for a time all the Codd. remained in Palestine. At last, however, this Thesaurus of the Kabbalah, which properly consists of six works, was published by J. Satanow at Zolkiev, 1772. New editions of it appeared in Korez, 1785; Sklow, 1800; Dobrowne, 1804; Stilikow, 1818; and Knorr von Rosenroth has translated into Latin a portion of that part of the great work which treats on the doctrine of the metempsychosis (הגלגולים). [111]

1558–1560. The circulation of Loria’s work which gave an extraordinary impetus to the Kabbalah, and which gave rise to the new school and a separate congregation in Palestine, was not the only favourable circumstance which had arisen to advance and promulgate the esoteric doctrine. The Sohar, which since its birth had been circulated in MS., was now for the first time printed in Mantua, and thousands of people who had hitherto been unable to procure the MS. were thus enabled to possess themselves of copies. [112] It is, however, evident that with the increased circulation of these two Bibles of the Kabbalah, as the Sohar and Loria’s Etz Chajim are called, there was an increased cry on the part of learned Jews against the doctrines propounded in them. Isaac b. Immanuel de Lates, the Rabbi of Pesaro, and the great champion for the Kabbalah, who prefixed a commendatory epistle to the Sohar, tells us most distinctly that some Rabbins wanted to prevent the publication of the Sohar, urging that it ought to be kept secret or be burned, because it tends to heretical doctrines. [113]

1571–1648. Of the numerous opponents to the Kabbalah which the Sohar and Loria’s work called forth, Leo de Modena was by far the most daring, the most outspoken and the most powerful. This eminent scholar who is known to the Christian world by his celebrated History of the Rites, Customs and Manners of the Jews, which was originally written in Italian, published in Padua, 1640, and which has been translated into Latin, English, French, Dutch, &c., attacked the Kabbalah in two of his works. His first onslaught is on the doctrine of metempsychosis in his Treatise entitled Ben David. He composed this Treatise in 1635–36, at the request of David Finzi, of Egypt, and he demonstrates therein that this doctrine is of Gentile origin, and was rejected by the great men of the Jewish faith in bygone days, refuting at the same time the philosophico-theological arguments advanced in its favour. [114] It is, however, his second attack on this esoteric doctrine, in his work entitled The Roaring Lion (ארי נוהם), which is so damaging to the Kabbalah. In this Treatise—which Leo de Modena composed in 1639, at the advanced age of sixty-eight, to reclaim Joseph Chamiz, a beloved disciple of his, who was an ardent follower of the Kabbalah—he shows that the books which propound this esoteric doctrine, and which are palmed upon ancient authorities, are pseudonymous; that the doctrines themselves are mischievous; and that the followers of this system are inflated with proud notions, pretending to know the nature of God better than anyone else, and to possess the nearest and best way of approaching the Deity. [115]

1623. The celebrated Hebraist, Joseph Solomon del Medigo (born 1591, died 1637), a contemporary of the preceding writer, also employed his vast stores of erudition to expose this system. Having been asked by R. Serach for his views of the Kabbalah, del Medigo, in a masterly letter, written in 1623, shows up the folly of this esoteric doctrine, and the unreasonableness of the exegetical rules, whereby the followers of this system pretend to deduce it from the Bible. [116]

1635. We have seen that the information about the Kabbalah, which Mirandola and Reuchlin imparted to Christians, was chiefly derived from the writings of Recanti and Gikatilla. Now that the Sohar had been published, Joseph de Voisin determined to be the first to make some portions of it accessible to those Christian readers who did not understand the Aramaic in which this Thesaurus is written. Accordingly he translated some extracts of the Sohar which treat of the nature of the human soul. [117]

1652–1654. Just at the very time when some of the most distinguished Jews exposed the pretensions of the Kabbalah, and denounced the fanciful and unjustifiable rules of interpretation whereby its advocates tried to evolve it from the letters of the revealed law, the celebrated Athanasius Kircher, in a most learned and elaborate treatise on this subject, maintained that the Kabbalah was introduced into Egypt by no less a person than the patriarch Abraham; and that from Egypt it gradually issued all over the East, and intermixed with all religions and systems of philosophy. What is still more extraordinary is that this learned Jesuit, in thus exalting the Kabbalah, lays the greatest stress on that part of it which developed itself afterwards, viz., the combinations, transpositions and permutations of the letters, and does not discriminate between it and the speculations about the En Soph, the Sephiroth, &c., which were the original characteristics of this theosophy. [118] The amount of Eastern lore, however, which Kircher has amassed in his work will always remain a noble monument to the extensive learning of this Jesuit.

1645–1676. The wonder-working or practical branch of the Kabbalah (קבלה מעשית), as it is called, so elaborately propounded and defended by Kircher, which consists in the transpositions of the letters of the sundry divine names, &c., and which as we have seen constituted no part of the original Kabbalah, had now largely laid hold on the minds and fancies of both Jews and Christians, and was producing among the former the most mournful and calamitous effects. The famous Kabbalist, Sabbatai Zevi, who was born in Smyrna, July, 1641, was the chief actor in this tragedy. When a child he was sent to a Rabbinic school, and instructed in the Law, the Mishna, the Talmud, the Midrashim, and the whole cycle of Rabbinic lore. So great were his intellectual powers, and so vast the knowledge he acquired, that when fifteen he betook himself to the study of the Kabbalah, rapidly mastered its mysteries, became peerless in his knowledge of “those things which were revealed and those things which were hidden;” and at the age of eighteen obtained the honourable appellation sage (חכם), and delivered public lectures, expounding the divine law and the esoteric doctrine before crowded audiences. At the age of twenty-four he gave himself out as the Messiah, the Son of David, and the Redeemer of Israel, pronouncing publicly the Tetragrammaton, which was only allowed to the high priests during the existence of the second Temple. Though the Jewish sages of Smyrna excommunicated him for it, he travelled to Salonica, Athens, Morea and Jerusalem, teaching the Kabbalah, proclaiming himself as the Messiah, anointing prophets and converting thousands upon thousands. So numerous were the believers in him, that in many places trade was entirely stopped; the Jews wound up their affairs, disposed of their chattels and made themselves ready to be redeemed from their captivity and led by Sabbatai Zevi back to Jerusalem. The consuls of Europe were ordered to enquire into this extraordinary movement, and the governors of the East reported to the Sultan the cessation of commerce. Sabbatai Zevi was then arrested by order of the Sultan, Mohammed IV, and taken before him at Adrianople. The Sultan spoke to him as follows—“I am going to test thy Messiahship. Three poisoned arrows shall be shot into thee, and if they do not kill thee, I too will believe that thou art the Messiah.” He saved himself by embracing Islamism in the presence of the Sultan, who gave him the name Effendi, and appointed him Kapidgi Bashi. Thus ended the career of the Kabbalist Sabbatai Zevi, after having ruined thousands upon thousands of Jewish families. [119]

1677–1684. Whether the learned Knorr Baron von Rosenroth knew of the extravagances of Sabbatai Zevi or not is difficult to say. At all events this accomplished Christian scholar believed that Simon b. Jochai was the author of the Sohar, that he wrote it under divine inspiration, and that it is most essential to the elucidation of the doctrines of Christianity. With this conviction he determined to master the difficulties connected with the Kabbalistic writings, in order to render the principal works of this esoteric doctrine accessible to his Christian brethren. For, although Lully, Mirandola, Reuchlin and Kircher had already done much to acquaint the Christian world with the secrets of the Kabbalah, none of these scholars had given translations of any portions of the Sohar.

Knorr Baron von Rosenroth, therefore put himself under the tuition of R. Meier Stern, a learned Jew, and with his assistance was enabled to publish the celebrated work entitled the Unveiled Kabbalah (Kabbala Denudata), in two large volumes, the first of which was printed at Sulzbach, 1677–78, and the second at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, 1684, giving a Latin translation of the Introduction to and the following portion of the Sohar—the Book of Mysteries (ספר דצניעותא); the Great Assembly (אדרא רבא); the Small Assembly (אדרא זוטא); Joseph Gikatilla’s Gate of Light (שער אורה); the Doctrine of Metempsychosis (הגלגולים), and the Tree of Life (עץ חיים), of Chajim Vital; the Garden of Pomegranates (פרדס רימונים), of Moses Cordovero; the House of the Lord (בית אלהים), and the Gate of Heaven (שער השמים), of Abraham Herera; the Valley of the King (עמק המלך), of Naphtah b. Jacob; the Vision of the Priest (מראה כהן), of Issachar Beer b. Naphtali Cohen, &c., &c., with elaborate annotations, glossaries and indices. The only drawback to this gigantic work is that it is without any system, and that it mixes up in one all the earlier developments of the Kabbalah with the later productions. Still the criticism passed upon it by Buddeus, that it is a “confused and obscure work, in which the necessary and the unnecessary, the useful and the useless are mixed up and thrown together as it were into one chaos,” [120] is rather too severe; and it must be remembered that if the Kabbala Denudata does not exhibit a regular system of this esoteric doctrine, it furnishes much material for it. Baron von Rosenroth has also collected all the passages of the New Testament which contain similar doctrines to those propounded by the Kabbalah.

1758–1763. Amongst the Jews, however, the pretensions and consequences of the Kabbalistic Pseudo-Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, and his followers, produced a new era in the criticism of the Sohar. Even such a scholar and thorough Kabbalist as Jacob b. Zevi of Emden, or Jabez (יעב״ץ), as he is called from the acrostic of his name (יעקב בן צבי), maintains in his work, which he wrote in 1758–1763, and which he entitled The Wrapper of Books, that with the exception of the kernel of the Sohar all the rest is of a late origin. [121] He shows that (1) The Sohar misquotes passages of Scripture, misunderstands the Talmud, and contains some rituals which were ordained by later Rabbinic authorities (פוסקים). (2) Mentions the crusades against the Mohammedans. (3) Uses the philosophical terminology of Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew Translation of Maimonides’ More Nebuchim, and borrows the figure of Jehudah Ha-Levi’s Khosari, that “Israel is the heart in the organism of the human race, and therefore feels its sufferings more acutely” (Khosari, ii, 36, with Sohar, iii, 221 b, 161 a); and (4) Knows the Portuguese and North Spanish expression Esnoga.

1767. Whilst the Jews were thus shaken in their opinion about the antiquity of the Sohar, learned Christians both on the Continent and in England maintained that Simon b. Jochai was the author of the Bible of the Kabbalah, and quoted its sentiments in corroboration of their peculiar views. Thus Dr. Gill, the famous Hebraist and commentator, in his work on the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, adduces passages from the Sohar to shew that the Hebrew vowel points were known A.D. 120, at which time he tells us “lived Simon ben Jochai, a disciple of R. Akiba, author of the Zohar.” [122]

1830. Allen, in the account of the Kabbalah in his Modern Judaism, also premises the antiquity of the Sohar. Taking this pseudonym as the primary source of the primitive Kabbalah, Allen, like all his predecessors, mixes up the early mysticism and magic, as well as the later abuse of the Hagadic rules of interpretation, denominated Gematria, Notaricon, Ziruph, &c., which the Kabbalists afterwards appropriated, with the original doctrines of this theosophy. [123]

1843. Even the erudite Professor Franck, in his excellent work La Kabbale (Paris, 1843), makes no distinction between the Book Jetzira and the Sohar, but regards the esoteric doctrines of the latter as a development and continuation of the tenets propounded in the former. He moreover maintains that the Sohar consists of ancient and modern fragments, that the ancient portions are the Book of Mysteries (ספרא דצניעותא), the Great Assembly or Idra Rabba (אדרא רבא), and the Small Assembly or Idra Suta (אדרא זוטא), and actually proceeds from the school of R. Simon b. Jochai, while several of the other parts belong to a subsequent period, but not later than the seventh century; that the fatherland of the Sohar is Palestine; that the fundamental principles of the Kabbalah, which were communicated by R. Simon b. Jochai to a small number of his disciples, were at first propagated orally; that they were then from the first to the seventh century gradually edited and enlarged through additions and commentaries, and that the whole of this compilation, completed in the seventh century, owing to its many attacks on the Asiatic religions, was kept secret till the thirteenth century, when it was brought to Europe. To fortify his opinions about the antiquity of the Kabbalah, Franck is obliged to palm the doctrine of the Sephiroth upon passages in the Talmud in a most unnatural manner. As this point, however has been discussed in the second part of this Essay, (vide supra, p. 183, etc.) there is no necessity for repeating the arguments here. [124] Still Franck’s valuable contribution to the elucidation of the Sohar will always be a welcome aid to the student of this difficult book.

1845. A new era in the study of the Kabbalah was created by the researches of M. H. Landauer, who died February 3rd, 1841, when scarcely thirty-three years of age. This learned Rabbi, whose premature death is an irreparable loss to literature, in spite of constitutional infirmities, which occasioned him permanent sufferings during the short period of his earthly career, devoted himself from his youth to the study of Hebrew, the Mishna, the Talmud, and the rich stores of Jewish learning. He afterwards visited the universities of Munich and Tübingen, and in addition to his other researches in the department of Biblical criticism, determined to fathom the depths of the Kabbalah. It was this scholar who, after a careful study of this esoteric doctrine, for the first time distinguished between the ancient mysticism of the Gaonim period and the real Kabbalah, and shewed that “the former, as contained in the Alphabet of R. Akiba (אותיות בר׳ עקיבא), the Dimensions of the Deity (שיעור קומה), the Heavenly Mansions (היכלות), and even the Book of Jetzira (ספר יצירה) and similar documents, essentially differ from the later Kabbalah, inasmuch as it knows nothing about the so-called Sephiroth and about the speculations respecting the nature of the Deity, and that, according to the proper notions of the Kabbalah, its contents ought to be described as Hagada and not as Kabbalah.” [125] As to the Sohar, Landauer maintains that it was written by Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia towards the end of the second half of the thirteenth century. Landauer’s views on the Kabbalah and on the authorship of the Sohar, as Steinschneider rightly remarks, are all the more weighty and instructive because he originally started with opinions of an exactly opposite character. (Jewish Literature, p. 299.)

1849. D. H. Joel, Rabbi of Sheversenz, published in 1849 a very elaborate critique on Franck’s Religious Philosophy of the Sohar, which is an exceedingly good supplement to Franck’s work, though Joel’s treatise is of a negative character, and endeavours to demolish Franck’s theory without propounding another in its stead. Thus much, however, Joel positively states, that though the Sohar in its present form could not have been written by R. Simon b. Jochai, and though the author of it may not have lived before the thirteenth century, yet its fundamental doctrines to a great extent are not the invention of the author, but are derived from ancient Jewish sources, either documentary or oral. [126]

1851. After a lapse of seven years Jellinek fulfilled the promise which he made in the preface to his German translation of Franck’s la Kabbale ou la philosophie religieuse des Hébreux, by publishing an Essay on the authorship of the Sohar. And in 1851 this industrious scholar published a historico-critical Treatise, in which he proves, almost to demonstration, that Moses b. Shem Tob de Leon is the author of the Sohar. [127] Several of his arguments are given in the second part of this Essay (vide supra, p. 174, &c.), in our examination of the age and authorship of the Sohar.

1852. Whilst busily engaged in his researches on the authorship and composition of the Sohar, Jellinek was at the same time extending his labours to the history of the Kabbalah generally, the results of which he communicated in two parts (Leipzig, 1852), entitled Contributions to the History of the Kabbalah. The first of these parts embraces (1) the study and history of the Book Jetzira, (2) diverse topics connected with the Sohar, and (3) Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to the Sohar; whilst the second part (1) continues the investigation on the Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to the Sohar, as well as (2) discusses additional points connected with the Sohar, and (3) gives the original text to the history of the Kabbalah. [128]

1853. Supplementary to the above works, Jellinek published, twelve months afterwards, the first part of a Selection of Kabbalistic Mysticism, which comprises the Hebrew texts of (1) The Treatise on the Emanations (מסכת אצילות), (2) The Book of Institutions (ספר העיון), by R. Chamai Gaon, (3) The Rejoinder of R. Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia to R. Solomon b. Adereth, and (4) The Treatise entitled Kether Shem Tob (כתר שם טוב), by R. Abraham of Cologne. These Treatises, which are chiefly taken from MSS. at the public Libraries in Paris and Hamburg, are preceded by learned Introductions discussing the characteristics, the age, the authorship and the sources of each document, written by the erudite editor. [129] May Dr. Jellinek soon fulfil his promise, and continue to edit these invaluable contributions to the Kabbalah, as well as publish his own work on the import of this esoteric doctrine.

1856. Dr. Etheridge, in his Manual on Hebrew Literature, entitled Jerusalem and Tiberias, devotes seventy pages to a description of the Kabbalah. It might have been expected that this industrious writer, who draws upon Jewish sources, would give us the result of the researches of the above-named Hebraists. But Dr. Etheridge has done no such thing;—he confuses the import of the Book Jetzira, the Maase Bereshith (מעשה בראשית) and the Maase Merkaba (מעשה מרכבה), with the doctrines of the Kabbalah; and assigns both to the Book Jetzira and to the Sohar an antiquity which is contrary to all the results of modern criticism. The following extract from his work will suffice to shew the correctness of our remarks:—

“To the authenticity of the Zohar, as a work of the early Kabbalistic school, objections have indeed been made, but they are not of sufficient gravity to merit an extended investigation. The opinion that ascribes it as a pseudo fabrication to Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century, has, I imagine, but few believers among the learned in this subject in our own day. The references to Shemun ben Yochai and the Kabala in the Talmud, and abundant internal evidence found in the book itself, exhibit the strongest probability, not that Shemun himself was the author of it, but that it is the fruit and result of his personal instructions, and of the studies of his immediate disciples.” [130]

Now the bold assertion that there are few believers among the learned of our own time in the pseudo fabrication of the Sohar by Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century, when such learned men as Zunz, [131] Geiger, [132] Sachs, [133] Jellinek [134] and a host of other most distinguished Jewish scholars, regard it almost as an established fact; as well as the statement that there are references to the Kabbalah in the Talmud, can only be accounted for from the fact that Dr. Etheridge has not rightly comprehended the import of the Kabbalah, and that he is entirely unacquainted with the modern researches in this department of literature.

1857. The elaborate essay on Jewish literature by the learned Steinschneider, which appeared in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopædia, and which has been translated into English, contains a most thorough review of this esoteric doctrine. It is, however, to be remarked that the pages devoted to this subject give not so much an analysis of the subject, as a detailed account of its literature; and, like all the writings of this excellent scholar, are replete with most useful information. [135]

1858–1861. A most instructive and thorough analysis of the Sohar appeared in a Jewish periodical, entitled Ben Chananja, volumes i, ii, iii, and iv. [136] This analysis was made by Ignatz Stern, who has also translated into German those portions of the Sohar which are called the Book of Mysteries, the Great Assembly, and the Small Assembly, and has written a vocabulary to the Sohar. The recent death of this great student in the Kabbalah is greatly to be lamented. With the exception of the analysis of the Sohar, all his works are in MS.; and it is to be hoped that the accomplished Leopold Löw, chief Rabbi of Szegedin, and editor of the Ben Chananja, who was the means of bringing the retiring Ignatz Stern into public, will publish his literary remains.

1859. As the Kabbalah has played so important a part in the mental and religious development, and in the history of the Jewish people, the modern historians of the Jews, in depicting the vicissitudes of the nation, felt it to be an essential element of their narrative, to trace the rise and progress of this esoteric doctrine. Thus the learned and amiable Dr. Jost devotes seventeen pages, in his history of the Jews, to this theosophy. [137]

1863. No one, however, has prosecuted with more thoroughness, learning and impartiality the doctrines, origin and development of this esoteric system than the historian Dr. Graetz. He, more than any of his predecessors since the publication of Landauer’s literary remains, has in a most masterly manner carried out the principle laid down by this deceased scholar, and has distinguished between mysticism and the Kabbalah. Graetz has not only given a most lucid description of the doctrines and import of the Kabbalah in its original form, but has proved to demonstration, in a very elaborate treatise, that Moses de Leon is the author of the Sohar. [138] Whatever may be the shortcomings of this portion of Graetz’s history, no one who studies it will fail to learn from it the true nature of this esoteric doctrine.

1863. Leopold Löw, the chief Rabbi of Szegedin, whose name has already been mentioned in connection with Ignatz Stern, published a very lengthy review of Graetz’s description of the Kabbalah. Though the Rabbi laboured hard to shake Dr. Graetz’s position, yet, with the exception perhaps of showing that the Kabbalah was not invented in opposition to Maimonides’ system of philosophy, the learned historian’s results remain unassailed. Moreover, there is a confusion of mysticism with the Kabbalah through many parts of Dr. Löw’s critique. [139]

We are not aware that anything has appeared upon this subject since the publication of Graetz’s researches on the Kabbalah and Löw’s lengthy critique on these researches. Of course it is not to be supposed that we have given a complete history of the Literature on this theosophy; since the design of this Essay and the limits of the volume of “the Literary and Philosophical Society’s Transactions,” in which it appears, alike preclude such a history. This much, however, we may confidently say, that nothing has been omitted which essentially bears upon the real progress or development of this esoteric doctrine.

Several works, in which lengthy accounts of the Kabbalah are given, have been omitted, because these descriptions do not contribute anything very striking in their treatment of the Kabbalah, nor have they been the occasion of any remarkable incidents among the followers of this system.

Among the works thus omitted are Buddeus’ Introduction to the History of Hebrew Philosophy; [140] Basnage’s History of the Jews, [141] where a very lengthy account is given of the Kabbalah, without any system whatever, chiefly derived from the work of Kircher; Wolfs account of the Jewish Kabbalah, given in his elaborate Bibliographical Thesaurus of Hebrew Literature, where a very extensive catalogue is given of Kabbalistic authors; [142] and Molitor’s Philosophy of History. [143]

We sincerely regret to have omitted noticing Munk’s description of the Kabbalah. [144] For, although he does not attempt to separate the gnostic from the mystical elements, which were afterwards mixed up with the original doctrines of this esoteric system, yet no one can peruse the interesting portion treating on the Kabbalah and the Sohar without deriving from it information not to be found elsewhere.

NOTES

[1] דע כי אין סוף לא יכנס בהרהור וכל שכן בדבור אף על פי שיש לו רמז בכל דבר שאין חוץ ממנו ולכך אין אות ואין שם ואין דבר אשר יגבלנו, Commentary of the ten Sephiroth, ed. Berlin, p. 4 a. This doctrine, however, that everything is in the Deity is not peculiar to the Kabbalah, it has been propounded by the Jews from time immemorial, before the Kabbalah came into existence, as may be seen from the following passage in the Midrash. “The Holy One, blessed be he, is the space of the universe, but the universe is not his space (הקב״ה מקומו של עולם ואין העולם מקומו). R. Isaac submitted: from the passage מעונה אלהי קדם (Deut. xxxiii, 27), we do not know whether the Holy One, blessed be he, is the habitation of the universe or the universe his habitation; but from the remark אדני מעון אתה Lord thou art the dwelling place (Ps. xc, 1), it is evident that the Holy One, blessed be he, is the dwelling place of the universe, and not the universe his dwelling place.” (Bereshith Rabba, § lxviii.) To the same effect is the remark of Philo, “God himself is the space of the universe, for it is he who contains all things.” (De Somniis, i.) It is for this reason that God is called מקום or המקום = ὁ τόπος, locus, and that the Septuagint renders ויראו את אלהי ישראל וגו׳ (Exod. xxiv, 10), by καὶ εἶδον τὸν τόπον, οὗ εἱστήκει ὁ θεὸς, which has occasioned so much difficulty to interpreters.

[2] לא ידע ולא אתידע מה דהוי בראישא דא דלא׳ אתדבק בחכמתא ולא כסוכלתנו ובגן כן אקרי אין (Sohar iii, 283 b.) To the same effect is the ancient expository work on the doctrine of the Emanations which we quoted in the preceding note, comp. מה שאינו מוגבל קרוי אין סוף והוא ההשואה גמורה באחדות השלמח שאין בה שנוי ואם הוא מבלי גבול אין חוץ ממנו, Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, ed. Berlin, p. 2 a.

[3] דע כי אין סוף אין לומר כי יש לו רצון ולא כונה ולא חפץ ולא מחשבה ולא דבור ומעשה ibid., 4 a.

[4] אם האמר כי הוא בלבד כיון בבריאח עולמו יש להשיב על זה כי הכונה מורה על הסרון המכון, Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, p. 2 b. Again, says the same authority, ואם תאמר שהגבול הגמצא ממנו תחלה היה העולם הזה שהוא (העולם) חסר מהשלמותו חסרת חכוח שהוא ממנו .... ואם תאמר שלא כיון בבריאחו אם כן היתה הבריאה במקרה, וכל דבר הבא במקרה אין לו סדר, ואנו רואים כי הנבראים יש לחם סדר, ועל סדר הם מתקימים, ועל סדר הם מתכטלים, ועל סדר הם מתחדשים, ibid., p. 2.

[5] Both the etymology and the exact meaning of the word ספירה (plural ספירות) are matters of dispute. R. Azariel, the first Kabbalist, derives it from ספר to number, whilst the later Kabbalists derive it alternately from ספיר Saphir, from השמים מספרים כבוד אל (Ps. xix, 1), and from the Greek σφαῖραι, and are not at all certain whether to regard the Sephiroth as principles (ἀρχαὶ), or as substances (ὑποστάσεις), or as potencies, powers (δυνάμεις), or as intelligent worlds (κόσμοι νοητικοί), or as attributes, or as entities (עצמות), or as organs of the Deity (כלים).

[6] The Sohar, like the Talmud, generally renders the words מלך שלמה King Solomon; while verses in the Song of Songs, by מלכא די שלמא דיליה the King to whom peace belongs.

[7] כי כל בריאה כשנוטלין ממנה תתמעט ותתחסר .... כח האצילות שנוטלין ממנו ואינו חסר, Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, 2 b; 4 a.

[8] הספירות שהם כח השלם וכח החסר כשהם מקבלים מהשפע הבא מהשלמתו הם כח שלם ובהמנע השפע מהם יש בחם כח חסר לכך יש בהם כח לפעול בהשלמה ובחסרון.

[9] The notion, however, that worlds were created and destroyed prior to the present creation, was propounded in the Midrash long before the existence of the Kabbalah. Thus on the verse, “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good” (Gen. i, 31), R. Abahu submits א״ר אבהו מכאן שהקב״ה היה בורא עולמות ומחריבן ובורא עולמות ומחריבן עד שברא את אלו אמר דין הניין לי יתהון לא הניין לי from this we see that the Holy One, blessed be he, had successively created and destroyed sundry worlds before he created the present world, and when he created the present world he said, this pleases me, the previous ones did not please me. (Bereshith Rabba, section or Parsha ix.)

[10] The question, however, about the doctrine of the Trinity in other passages of the Sohar will be discussed more amply in the sequel, where we shall point out the relation of the Kabbalah to Christianity.

[11] The Kabbalistic description of Metatron is taken from the Jewish angelology of a much older date than this theosophy. Thus Ben Asai and Ben Soma already regard the divine voice, the λόγος (קול אלהים) as Metatron. (Beresh. Rab., Parsha v.) He is called the Great Teacher, the Teacher of Teachers (ספרא רבא), and it is for this reason that Enoch, who walked in close communion with God, and taught mankind by his holy example, is said by the Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan b. Uzziel, to ‘have received the name Metatron, the Great Teacher’ after he was transplanted. (Gen. v, 24.) Metatron, moreover, is the Presence Angel (שר הפנים), the Angel of the Lord that was sent to go before Israel (Exod. xxiii, 21); he is the visible manifestation of the Deity, for in him is the name of the Lord, i.e., his name and that of the Deity are identical, inasmuch as they are of the same numerical value (viz.:—שדי and מטטרון are the same according to the exegetical rule called Gematria, י 10 + ד 4 + ש 300 = 314; ן 50 + ו 6 + ר 200 + ט 9 + ט 9 + מ 40 = 314. See Rashi on Exod. xxiii, 21, רבותינו אמרו זה מטטרון ששמו כשם רבו מטטרון בגמטריא שדי and Sanhedrim 38 b). So exalted is Metatron’s position in the ancient Jewish angelology, that we are told that when Elisha b. Abaja, also called Acher, saw this angel who occupies the first position after the Deity, he exclaimed, ‘Peradventure, but far be it, there are two Supreme Powers’ (שמא חס ושלום שתי רשויות הן Talmud, Chagiga, 15 a). The etymology of מטטרון is greatly disputed; but there is no doubt that it is to be derived from Metator, messenger, outrider, way maker, as has been shown by Elias Levita, and is maintained by Cassel (Ersch und Gruber’s Encyklopädie, section ii, vol. xxvii, s.v.; Juden, p. 40, note 84). Sachs (Beiträge zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung, vol. i, Berlin 1852, p. 108) rightly remarks that this etymology is fixed by the passage from Siphra, quoted in Kaphter-Va-Pherach, c. x, p. 34 b אצבעו של הקב״ה נעשה מטטרון למשה והראהו כל ארץ ישראל the finger of God was the messenger or guide to Moses, and showed him all the land of Israel. The termination ון has been appended to מטטר to obtain the same numerical value, as שדי. The derivation of it from μετὰ θρόνος, because this angel is immediately under the divine throne (כורסייא), which is maintained by Frank (Kabbala, p. 43), Graetz (Gnosticismus, p. 44) and others, has been shown by Frankel (Zeitschrift, 1846. vol. iii, p. 113), and Cassel (Ersch und Gruber’s Encyklop. section ii, vol. xxvii, p. 41), to be both contrary to the form of the word and to the description of Metatron.

[12] The view that the serpent which seduced the protoplasts is identical with Satan is not peculiar to the Kabbalah. It is stated in the Talmud in almost the same words הוא יצר הרע הוא השטן הוא מלאך המות כמתניחא תנא יורד ומטע עולה ומשטין יורד וממים the evil spirit, Satan, and the angel of death, are the same. It is propounded in the Boraitha that he descends and seduces; he then ascends and accuses, and then comes down again and kills. Baba Bathra, 16 a.

[13] כיון דנברא אדם אתתקן כלא וכל מה דלעילא ותתא וסלא אתכליל באדם ... איהו שלימותא דכלא. זוחר חלק ג׳ דף מ״ח א׳

[14] That the righteous are greater than the angels is already propounded in the Talmud (גדולים צדיקים יותר ממלאכי השרת Sanhedrim 93 a); and it is asserted that no one angel can do two things (אין מלאך אחד עושה שתי שליחות Bereshith Rabba, section 1), for which reason three angels had to be sent, one to announce to Sarai the birth of Isaac, the other to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and the third to save Lot and his family; whilst a man can perform several duties. The superiority of man over angels is also asserted in the New Testament. (1 Cor. vi, 3.)

[15] The Karmarthi, who interpreted the precepts of Islamism allegorically, also maintained that the human body represents the letters in the name of God. When standing the human body represents an Elif, when kneeling a Lâm, and when prostrated on the ground a Hê, so that the body is like a book in which may be read the name Allah. De Sacy, Introduction à l’Exposé de la Religion des Druzes, pp. 86, 87. Comp. Frank, Die Kabbala, p. 32.

[16] The pre-existence of the human souls in the celestial regions was believed by the Jews before the Kabbalah came into vogue. We find this doctrine in the Book of Wisdom (viii, 20); in Josephus, where we are told that the Essenes believed ‘that souls were immortal, and that they descended from the pure air, συμπλέκεσθαι ὥσπερ εἰρκταῖς τοῖς σώμασι, to be chained to bodies’ (de Bell. Jud. ii, 12); by Philo, who says ‘the air was full of them, and that those which were nearest the earth κατίασιν ἐκδεθησομέναι σώμασι θνητοῖς, descending to be tied to mortal bodies, παλινδρομοῦσι αὖθις, return back to bodies, being desirous to live in them.’ (De Gignat. p. 222, C.; De Somniis, p. 455, D. Comp. Arnald on the Book of Wisdom, viii, 20, and Whitby on John ix, 2., where these quotations and others are given); and in the Talmud where it is declared that the human souls which are to be born (רוחות ונשמות שעתידין להבראות), have their abode in the seventh heaven (Chagiga, 12 b); that they leave gradually the storehouse of souls to people this earth (עד שיכלו כל הנשמוה שבגוף Jebamoth, 62; Aboda Sara, 5; Nidda, 13); and that the Holy One, blessed be he, took counsel with them when he was about to create the world כנפשתן של צריקין נמלך הקב״ה וברא את העולם (Bereshith Rabba, section viii).

[17] The notion about the reluctance of the soul to enter into this world is also not peculiar to the Kabbalah. The most ancient tract of the Mishna thus speaks of the soul: “Against thy will thou becomest an embryo, and against thy will thou art born” (על כרחך אתה נוצר ועל כרחך אתה נולד Aboth, iv. 29); on which Bartenora, in his commentary, remarks: “The soul does not wish to quit the pure abode of the curtain which encloses the Holy of Holies.”

[18] כל אינון רוחין ונשמתין כלהו כלילן דכר ונוקבא דמתחברן כחדא ואתמסרן בידא דההוא ממנא שליהא דאתפקר על עדואיהן [עיבוריהן] דבני נשא ולילה שמיה ובשעהא דנחתין ואתמסרן בידוי מתפדשין ילזמנין דא אקרים מן דא ואחית להו בבני נשא וכד מטא [מחא] עידן דזווגא דלהון קב״ה דידע אינון רוהין ונשמהין מחבר לון כדבקדמיתא ומכרזא עלייהו וכד אתחברן אתעגידו חד גופא חד נשמתא ימינא ישמאלא כדקא חזי ובגין כך אין כל חדש תחת השמש. ואי תימא הא תנינן לית זווגא אלא לפום עוגדוי ואורהוי דבר נש הכי הוא ודאי. דאי זכי ועובדוי אתכשרן זכי לההוא דיליה לאתחברא ביד כמה דנפיק. זוהר חלק א דף צא ב

[19] בספרא דשלמה מלכא אשכחנא דבשעתא דזווגא אשתכח לתתא שדר קב״ה חד דיוקנא בפרצופא ד״נ רשימה חקיקה בצולמא וקיימא על ההוא זווגא ואלמלי אתיהיב רשו לעינא למחמי חמי ב״נ על רישיה חד צולמא רשימא כפרצופא דבר נש ובההוא צילמא אתברי ב״נ ועד דלא קיימא [ס״א ועד לא קיימא] ההוא צולמא דשדר ליה מאריה על רישיה וישתכח תמן לא אתברי ב״נ הה״ד ויברא אלקים את האדם בצלמו. ההוא צלם אזדמן לקבליה עד דנפיק לעלמא כד נפק בההוא צלם אתרבי בההוא צלם אזיל הה״ד אך בצלם יתהלך איש להאי צלם הוא מלעילא בשעתא דאינון רוחין נפקין מאתרייהו כל רוחא ורוחא אתתקן קמי מלכא קדישא בתקוני יקר בפרצופא דקאי׳ בהאי עלמא. ומההוא דיוקנא תקונא יקר נפיק האי צלם. ודא תליתאה לרוחא ואקדימת בהאי עלמא בשעתא דזווגא אשתכח ולית לך זווגא בעלמא דלא עלם בגווייהו. זוהר חלק ג דף קד א ,ב

[20] The two kinds of faculties, as well as the two sorts of feelings, are also mentioned in the Talmud. Thus it is said—“All the prophets looked into the Non-Luminous Mirror, whilst our teacher, Moses, looked into the Luminous Mirror.” (כל הנביאים נסהכלו באספקלריא שאינה מאירה משה רבינו נסתכל באספקלריא המאידה Jebamoth, 49 b). And again—“Also the divine service which is engendered by fear and not by love, has its merit.” (Jerusalem Berachoth, 44; Babylon Sota, 22 a.)

[21] לשם יחוד קב״ה ושכינתה ברחימו ודחילו וברחילו ורחימו ליחרא שם י״ה בו״ה ביחודא שלים בשם כל ישראל

[22] כל נשמתין עאלין בגלגולא ולא ידעין בני נשא אורחוי דקודשא בריך הוא והיך קיימא טיקלא והיך אתדנו בני נשא בכל יומא ובכל עידן והיך נשמתין עאלין בדינא עד לא ייתון להאי עלמא והיך עאלין בדינא לבתר דנפקי מהאי עלמא. כמה גלגולין וכמה עובדין סתימין עבידן קודשא בריך הוא בהדי כמה נשמתין ערטילאין וכמה רוחין ערטילאין אזלין בההוא עלמא דלא עאלין לפרגודא דמלכא. וכמה עלמין אתהפך בהו ועלמא דאתהפך בכמה פליאן סתימין ובני נשא לא ידעין ולא משגיחין וחיך מתגלגלן נשמתין כאבנא בקוספתא כמה דאת אמר ואת נפש אויביך יקלענה בתוך כף הקלע השתא אית לגלאה דהא כל. זוהר חלק ב׳ דף צט ב׳