Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Three: Esoteric Jewish Theology

[Rob Bowman]

I have posted the fourth installment of my series responding to Dan Peterson's article claiming that Joseph Smith miraculously restored an ancient Judeo-Christian theology of theosis. This installment addresses Peterson's evidence for the "Judeo" part of that claim, an unnamed text that he describes as "an early Jewish midrash." I document that it is no such thing.

Edited to add: Sorry, in the title of this thread I said Part Three when I should have said Part Four.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Daniel Peterson]

I want to thank Mr. Bowman very sincerely for his efforts. They are proving most useful.

[mfbukowski]

I want to thank Mr. Bowman very sincerely for his efforts. They are proving most useful.

They always do!

[Bill Hamblin]

Bowman:

The term midrash is usually (though not always) used in religious scholarship to denote a body of Jewish exposition of the Torah that dated before and around the time of the Mishnah (compiled ca. AD 200) and thus well before the Talmud (compiled in two editions centuries later). When Peterson refers to the source of his quotation as “an early Jewish midrash,” this context of pre-Talmudic Jewish teaching is clearly indicated.

This is nonsense, of course. Midrash refers to any exegetical book or commentary on the Bible. The phenomenon of composing midrash is still going on in Judaism today.

While the earliest surviving portions of midrash date to the second century, all of these texts underwent significant editing, etc. Most of the earliest midrash date to the 3rd or 4th century, the process was still ongoing for centuries. The most famous midrash, the Midrash Rabbah was composed in different parts between the fifth and twelfth centuries. Thus a date of the seventh-eighth century for a midrash could certainly be considered "early." To argue otherwise, is sheer quibbling.

Many of the earliest midrash are attributed to Akiba and his school (e.g. Sifra Leviticus, Sifre Deuteronomy, 3-4 centuries). Such a claim is unremarkable. What represents authentic teachings of Akiba can, of course be debated. (Note that midrash was originally an oral phenomena, as was the Mishnah).

[Bill Hamblin]

Bowman

Peterson’s description of this source as “an early Jewish midrash” implies that it originates from around the time of Aqiva (again, without saying so).

It does not. This accusation is an outrageous misrepresentation. Peterson said it is an "early Jewish midrash." His statement is a bit vague, but accurate.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[volgadon]

Bowman:

This is nonsense, of course. Midrash refers to any exegetical book or commentary on the Bible. The phenomenon of composing midrash is still going on in Judaism today.

I have some examples of that in my personal library, and even one on my blog.

While the earliest surviving portions of midrash date to the second century, all of these texts underwent significant editing, etc. Most of the earliest midrash date to the 3rd or 4th century, the process was still ongoing for centuries. The most famous midrash, the Midrash Rabbah was composed in different parts between the fifth and twelfth centuries. Thus a date of the seventh-eighth century for a midrash could certainly be considered "early." To argue otherwise, is sheer quibbling.

Late vs. early is a relative statement in midrashic literature.

Many of the earliest midrash are attributed to Akiba and his school (e.g. Sifra Leviticus, Sifre Deuteronomy, 3-4 centuries). Such a claim is unremarkable. What represents authentic teachings of Akiba can, of course be debated. (Note that midrash was originally an oral phenomena, as was the Mishnah).

In midrashic studies it is often as important to what figure statements were attached as it is to who actually said them.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bowman

Barry Bickmore introduces the quotation by saying that “Rabbi Akiba (d. AD 135) is credited with the following statement,” offering no further explanation.

Is the statement attributed to Rabbi Akiba? If not, what does the title, The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba mean? That the text is not attributed to Rabbi Akiba? How is Bickmore's statement at all inaccurate? The very fact that he says it is "credited" to Akiba implies that the attribution is suspect, does it not?

Your accusations are baseless.

[Bill Hamblin]

Instead of wasting his time falsely accusing those with whom he disagrees of deception, I suggest that Bowman actually try a little research. He can begin with the so-called "Self-Glorificaiton Hymn" (4Q491c 1) from Qumran. It describes a celestial ascent and explicit deification:

my glory is incomparable and besides me no one is exalted, nor comes [close] to me, for I reside in <...> the heavens. ... I am counted among the Elim/gods. ... I am counted among the Elim/gods, and my dwelling is in the holy council. ... Who is like me among the Elim/gods?

Vermes 342-343

See P. Alexander, Mystical Texts (2006), 85-90, with additional bibliography.

This text describe the celestial ascent and deification of unnamed person, written in the first person. The text is explicit that the worshipper is one of the elim/gods--in other words, he is a god.

See also 4Q181 (Vermes 230)

He [God] caused some of the sons of the world [humans] to draw near [him] ... to be counted with Him in the com[munity of the g]ods"

Thus it is quite clear that by the first century BC, some Jews believed in the potential deification of humans, and that entering in the presence of God and becoming part of his sôd was deification, to become one of the elim/gods.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You're very welcome.

I want to thank Mr. Bowman very sincerely for his efforts. They are proving most useful.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

This is nonsense, of course. Midrash refers to any exegetical book or commentary on the Bible. The phenomenon of composing midrash is still going on in Judaism today.

Perhaps you think people won't read what I wrote carefully? I said very clearly, "The term midrash is usually (though not always) used in religious scholarship to denote a body of Jewish exposition of the Torah that dated before and around the time of the Mishnah (compiled ca. AD 200) and thus well before the Talmud (compiled in two editions centuries later)." Usually, not always...get it? I think you could argue that what I said was somewhat overstated but not "nonsense." In any case, The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva is certainly not "an early Jewish midrash"; see below.

You wrote:

While the earliest surviving portions of midrash date to the second century, all of these texts underwent significant editing, etc. Most of the earliest midrash date to the 3rd or 4th century, the process was still ongoing for centuries. The most famous midrash, the Midrash Rabbah was composed in different parts between the fifth and twelfth centuries. Thus a date of the seventh-eighth century for a midrash could certainly be considered "early." To argue otherwise, is sheer quibbling.

I think you are the one who is quibbling. To refer to a medieval proto-Kabbalistic text as "an early Jewish midrash" in the context of quoting the text as evidence for an "ancient" doctrine (sandwiched between quotations from the NT and the early church fathers, by the way), as Dan Peterson did, is surely misleading.

You wrote:

Many of the earliest midrash are attributed to Akiba and his school (e.g. Sifra Leviticus, Sifre Deuteronomy, 3-4 centuries). Such a claim is unremarkable. What represents authentic teachings of Akiba can, of course be debated. (Note that midrash was originally an oral phenomena, as was the Mishnah).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is any serious debate going on today as to whether The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva represents authentic teachings of Akiba.

I had written: "Peterson’s description of this source as 'an early Jewish midrash' implies that it originates from around the time of Aqiva (again, without saying so)." You commented:

It does not. This accusation is an outrageous misrepresentation. Peterson said it is an "early Jewish midrash." His statement is a bit vague, but accurate.

I have already explained why it is inaccurate and misleading. If the work is cited as ancient, as it is in Dan's article, and one sees that the statement is attributed to Akiva, putting two and two together leads to the implication that Dan is implying that the statement at least originates around the time of Akiva.

I had written: "Barry Bickmore introduces the quotation by saying that 'Rabbi Akiba (d. AD 135) is credited with the following statement,' offering no further explanation." You commented:

Is the statement attributed to Rabbi Akiba? If not, what does the title, The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba mean? That the text is not attributed to Rabbi Akiba? How is Bickmore's statement at all inaccurate? The very fact that he says it is "credited" to Akiba implies that the attribution is suspect, does it not?

Your accusations are baseless.

Come on, Bill. If an evangelical had quoted the same work in defense of the ancientness of one of their doctrines and said only that Rabbi Akiba was credited with the statement, you would be all over it. The fact that Barry Bickmore gives a date for Akiba but not for the work itself results in a misleading impression. For you to claim this conclusion is "baseless" is over the top. There is a basis for the conclusion.

Why is it that several Mormon apologists, all of them quite capable of tracking down the same information I presented, could cite The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva without putting in its proper context? Sorry, but I think you should be somewhat embarrassed, at least.

You wrote:

Instead of wasting his time falsely accusing those with whom he disagrees of deception, I suggest that Bowman actually try a little research.

Actually, I did a lot of research on this particular quotation -- research that apparently none of the Mormons who have used the quotation bothered to do (assuming for the sake of argument and generosity that they honestly didn't know when and in what context it originated). That's me--doing the fact-checking Mormon apologists won't do.

Here's an example of a statement by a Mormon using the quotation for apologetic and polemical purpose and explicitly misstating the facts regarding its origin. I didn't use it in my article because it wasn't in a published source but only in an online discussion forum. It comes from Daniel McClellan, no stranger to these parts. It comes from a thread on this very forum that he entitled “Do Mormons Believe They Will Rule Over Their Own Planets? Of course!” (Mormon Dialogue, 17 July 2009; underlined emphasis mine):

The reprobates at CARM and elsewhere have long enjoyed pointing and giggling at the LDS idea of stewardship over other worlds as an element of exaltation. Without exception this argument is raised simply in an effort to make other people think "Ew, weird," and to try to make Latter-day Saints stutter and equivocate to try to minimize the damage the idea may have on people previously unaware of it. What these "Christians" don't know, and what many Latter-day Saints unfortunately also don't know, is that this doctrine is not original to Joseph Smith or Mormonism. If these "Christians" would do some research instead of just suckling fetid litany from the swollen teet of online anti-Mormonism so they can spit it at others, they would find a lot of their ad hoc criticisms undermine the roots of their own belief systems. If we travel all the way back to the fourth century we find the following:

The Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future call all of the pious by their names, and give them a cup of elixir of life in their hands so that they should live and endure forever. . . . And the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future reveal to all the pious in the World to Come the Ineffable Name with which new heavens and a new earth can be created, so that all of them should be able to create new worlds. The Holy One, blessed be He, will give every pious three hundred and forty worlds in inheritance in the World to Come. . . . To all the pious the Holy One, blessed be He, will give a sign and a part in the goodly reward, and everlasting renown, glory and greatness and praise, a crown encompassed in holiness, and royalty, equal to those of all the pious in the World to Come. The sign will be the cup of life which the Holy One, blessed be He, will give to the Messiah and to the pious in the Future to Come.

Midrash Alpha beta diRabbi Akiba BhM 3:32

This is part of the Jerusalem Talmud, which was completed around 380 CE. This text was extant for some time before being abridged into the talmudic corpus. The doctrine is attributed to Rabbi Akiba, widely considered to be the most pious and orthodox of early rabbis. The text is no doubt pseudeponymous, but it derives from the same historical context as the early Christological debates.

Dan McClellan's nastiness and condescension toward those he says need to "do some research" makes him all the more culpable for his flat-out false statements here.

Then there is a blog from Hannah Rebekah (also no stranger here), who writes:

There actually is evidence of this sort of post-mortem activity in Jewish belief. For example, Rabbi Akiba, an early second century Jewish Rabbi, had this ‘detail’ to offer on our exaltation. It is found in some very early Rabbinic texts, which shows it was a part of formative Judaism, and did not originate with Mormonism.

She quotes the “Akiba” quotation from Patai, adds a couple of Talmudic quotations, quotes Erich Fromm, and concludes:

So we see that the extra features in LDS theosis finds some level of support from a second century Jewish Rabbi.

Hannah's not a scholar, like Dan McClellan, so I don't hold her to the same standard I do him. But where do you think she got the quotation? She got it from the Mormon scholars/apologists who should have known better. Specifically, she references Bickmore, likely because she derived it from him. It seems reasonable to think that her Mormon scholarly source led her to the mistaken belief that the quotation actually came from Rabbi Akiva.

I don't think my criticism was at all "baseless."

Edited August 18, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[volgadon]

"The term midrash is usually (though not always) used in religious scholarship to denote a body of Jewish exposition of the Torah that dated before and around the time of the Mishnah (compiled ca. AD 200) and thus well before the Talmud (compiled in two editions centuries later)."

Hardly. Most midrashim were compiled after the Mishnah. There is a difference between Tannaitic midrashim, Amoraic midrashim, early medieval midrashim and the various generations in those layers. Some compilations, such as the Byzantine-era Midrash Psalms contain material from all three.

The Talmudim themselves also contain many different layers.

[volgadon]

Here is a relevant quote from the introduction to Reuven Hammer's "The Classic Midrash."

"As a process, midrash began no later than the time of Ezra and, in a certain sense, may be said to continue to this day. As product, the earliest extant works of Midrash were edited in the third century of the Common Era. They may have been compiled orally at least in part in the first century C.E. 10 We have no way of knowing when they were actually written down since the prohibition of writing "Oral Torah" was a strong one, overcome only with the greatest reluctance. Presumably these Midrashim were fixed in writing by the fifth century, although we have no manuscripts earlier than the tenth century. 11 Other Midrashim compiled by the later teachers, the Amoraim, emerged a few centuries thereafter, and collections based on this material were compiled during the Middle Ages. The works contained in this book are the earliest Midrashim and, as such, constitute the classic creations of the midrashic process."

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

Hardly. Most midrashim were compiled after the Mishnah. There is a difference between Tannaitic midrashim, Amoraic midrashim, early medieval midrashim and the various generations in those layers. Some compilations, such as the Byzantine-era Midrash Psalms contain material from all three.

The Talmudim themselves also contain many different layers.

If you are speaking in terms of volume, I agree with you. Perhaps my statement reflects the fact that my studies tend to concentrate in the biblical studies area. I am willing to acknowledge that my comment about the usage of the term midrash reflects that limited perspective. Can you agree that citing The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva, describing it as "an early Jewish midrash," and claiming that it documents that a particular belief is "ancient," without mentioning that it is a medieval proto-Kabbalistic text, is at least somewhat misleading?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill and Volgadon,

I have revised my article to reflect our exchange concerning the usage of the term midrash.

[Bill Hamblin]

Perhaps you think people won't read what I wrote carefully? I said very clearly, "The term midrash is usually (though not always) used in religious scholarship to denote a body of Jewish exposition of the Torah that dated before and around the time of the Mishnah (compiled ca. AD 200) and thus well before the Talmud (compiled in two editions centuries later)." Usually, not always...get it? I think you could argue that what I said was somewhat overstated but not "nonsense." In any case, The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva is certainly not "an early Jewish midrash"; see below.

No, you are wrong. The term Midrash does not usually refer to texts dating to before and around the time of the Mishnah.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

No, you are wrong. The term Midrash does not usually refer to texts dating to before and around the time of the Mishnah.

We were posting about the same time, so you probably missed it. I posted a few minutes ago to let you know that I have revised that particular statement.

[Bill Hamblin]

I think you are the one who is quibbling. To refer to a medieval proto-Kabbalistic text as "an early Jewish midrash" in the context of quoting the text as evidence for an "ancient" doctrine (sandwiched between quotations from the NT and the early church fathers, by the way), as Dan Peterson did, is surely misleading.

So does ancient mean "really old" or not? If Dan in his paper had said "ancient means before Christ" and then said the text is ancient, you would have a point. But ancient in its most general sense simply means old. Like I said, you are quibbling.

[Bill Hamblin]

I have already explained why it is inaccurate and misleading. If the work is cited as ancient, as it is in Dan's article, and one sees that the statement is attributed to Akiva, putting two and two together leads to the implication that Dan is implying that the statement at least originates around the time of Akiva.

I had written: "Barry Bickmore introduces the quotation by saying that 'Rabbi Akiba (d. AD 135) is credited with the following statement,' offering no further explanation." You commented:

Come on, Bill. If an evangelical had quoted the same work in defense of the ancientness of one of their doctrines and said only that Rabbi Akiba was credited with the statement, you would be all over it. The fact that Barry Bickmore gives a date for Akiba but not for the work itself results in a misleading impression. For you to claim this conclusion is "baseless" is over the top. There is a basis for the conclusion.

It is potentially misleading only if you assume that Midrash

is usually (though not always) used in religious scholarship to denote a body of Jewish exposition of the Torah that dated before and around the time of the Mishnah (compiled ca. AD 200)

You've now recognized that you were wrong about that claim. Thus Dan calling this text an "early midrash" is completely reasonable. Your case falls to pieces. Furthermore, Dan does not mention Akiba. So what is the problem?

Do you agree that the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba is attributed to Akiba? Is it not therefore perfectly reasonable to say it is credited to Akiba as Bickmore? If not, why not?

As you are aware, a number of letters attributed to Paul are now thought by most scholars (including Evangelicals) to have not been written by Paul. So is an Evangelical pastor required to tell his audience every time he sites Hebrews--for example--that it's attributed to Paul, but is not really by Paul? Can I call you a deceiver if you cite a pastoral letter and don't explain in detail that most scholars don't believe the Pastoral letters are really by Paul?

[Bill Hamblin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is any serious debate going on today as to whether The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva represents authentic teachings of Akiba.

I had written: "Peterson’s description of this source as 'an early Jewish midrash' implies that it originates from around the time of Aqiva (again, without saying so)." You commented:

So? Peterson never says it is an authentic teaching of Akiba. Peterson never mentions Akiba. When you mistakenly claim that midrash generally refers to texts before or at the time of the Mishnah, you mistakenly assume that calling a text a Midrash is tantamount to claiming it dates to the time of Akiba. You now admit you were wrong on this, so your criticism of Peterson is simply wrong. Your entire argument collapses. Changing a couple of words in your criticism doesn't fix the problem. If you're honest you will remove the entire post.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I'm not going to debate this endlessly. I've given my reasons for the criticism that Mormon apologists have misrepresented the quotation in question. You are ignoring the cumulative argument I presented, including the additional examples I gave from Dan McClellan and Hannah Rebekah, and for the most part you are repeating yourself.

You wrote:

If Dan in his paper had said "ancient means before Christ" and then said the text is ancient, you would have a point. But ancient in its most general sense simply means old. Like I said, you are quibbling.

Come on, Bill. This is not a serious argument. I never suggested that "ancient means before Christ." Obviously the NT and the early church fathers are all after Christ. But they are all "ancient" in the sense of dating from what is commonly called ancient (as distinguished from medieval or modern) history. When one speaks of "ancient Christians and Jews," quotes the first-century NT, an unidentified "early Jewish midrash," and church fathers from the second, third, and early fifth centuries, and then concludes that "Joseph Smith restored an authentically ancient Judeo-Christian doctrine," the term ancient here can only plausibly be understood to denote ancient history as distinct from medieval and modern history.

You wrote:

As you are aware, a number of letters attributed to Paul are now thought by most scholars (including Evangelicals) to have not been written by Paul.

Most evangelical scholars still maintain that all 13 of the NT epistles that bear Paul's name in the salutation were dictated by Paul. (No one thinks Paul wrote those epistles by hand himself.) You wrote:

So is an Evangelical pastor required to tell his audience every time he sites Hebrews--for example--that it's attributed to Paul, but is not really by Paul? Can I call you a deceiver if you cite a pastoral letter and don't explain in detail that most scholars don't believe the Pastoral letters are really by Paul?

Hebrews is not attributed to Paul within the document itself. That is most definitely irrelevant.

If I thought Paul was not responsible for the content of the Pastoral Epistles, I would not treat them as Pauline. But I happen to think he was responsible for their content.

In any case, you're entirely missing the point. The issue is not whether Akiva himself wrote The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva. The issue is whether it is even from the same era or in any way represents an "ancient" doctrine that Joseph Smith miraculously restored.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

I'm not going to debate this endlessly. I've given my reasons for the criticism that Mormon apologists have misrepresented the quotation in question. You are ignoring the cumulative argument I presented, including the additional examples I gave from Dan McClellan and Hannah Rebekah, and for the most part you are repeating yourself.

In any case, you're entirely missing the point. The issue is not whether Akiva himself wrote The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva. The issue is whether it is even from the same era or in any way represents an "ancient" doctrine that Joseph Smith miraculously restored.

Your article was a response to DAN, not every Mormon who ever wrote on the subject. Dan never mentions Akiba. Dan says it is an ancient idea, meaning an old idea. That may be a bit vague, but it's perfectly accurate. You are endlessly quibbling about what's a midrash, what's ancient, how a text might be misunderstood, etc. It is not a substantive argument.

Furthermore, you need to properly understand how Rabbinic texts were composed. For most Rabbinic texts there was a period of oral transmission, then a phase in which the text was first written, then a period of editing and written transmission. We don't know when the particular text in question was first taught orally, or in which phase of the recording, editing and transmission of the text it was recorded. What we can assume is that the idea existed earlier than when it was first recorded. Do you agreed? Thus, although the final version of the text of the Alphabet of Akiba may date from the seventh or eighth centuries, the ideas expressed in the text are most certainly earlier than that.

The core idea, that through knowledge of the shem ha-mephorash (ineffable name of God, and hence its letters) a human can create a world or a man/golem antedates the Alphabet of Akiba. The antecedents can be found in the Sefer Yetzira {3-4C} and the B Talmud {5-6C} (See M. Idel, Golem (1990), 3-48 for references). For example, "Rava {4C} said: "If the righteous wished, they could create a world, for it is written, 'Your iniquities have been a barrier between you and your God" []. For Rava created a man and sent him to R. Zeira" (B Talmud, Sanhedrin, 65b). Thus, the core idea, human's potential to imitate God's divine power to create worlds or humans clearly dates back to at least the fourth century, and undoubtedly earlier. The existence of these ideas in esoteric Judaism is also confirmed by the descriptions of the deification of Enoch in 3 Enoch {5C-6C}. Then there are the DSS texts I cited which you have ignored. Can the DSS be accurately described as "ancient"? They clearly teach deification--that humans can be elim/gods--do they not? So in point of fact, dedication is an ancient Jewish idea, is it not? The Rabbinic text of the Alphabet of Akiba is not the beginning of the idea, it is a later manifestation of a long tradition of deification within Judaism. Thus we have a continuum of texts of describing deification and humans imitating God's creative power through the shem ha-mephorash ranging from the second century BC through the seventh century AD (and beyond). The Alphabet of Akiba text must be understood within this continuum.

Finally, it is important to note that, although we cannot know if the text in question actually dates to Akiba, it is clear that Akiba was viewed by the rabbis as a great mystic with special esoteric knowledge. This is most obvious in the famous "Four who Entered Paradise" traditions that go back to at least the third century (it is in the J Talmud and the Tosefta). Of four Rabbis who engaged in mystical celestial ascent, only "Akiba entered in peace and came out in peace." (Rowland, The Open Heaven, (1982) 306-348; Roland, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament (2009) 421-500). Thus, Akiba was known as a great mystic and a font of esoteric knowledge derived from revelations obtained on his celestial ascent. He is thus an important part of this continuum described above. The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba probably derives from a school of mystics claiming to be disciples of Akiba, and claiming to transmit his esoteric lore.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[altersteve]

Rob,

I just have to ask, what is your authority to speak on this subject? Have you formally studied these subjects? You are responding to scholars here, people who have studied these subjects extensively for many years and who probably do know what they're talking about; and while you may bring up some interesting points, you have yet to show (or, at least, I have yet to see) why we should treat your analysis of a scholar's work more seriously. If I'm wrong, then fair enough. I'm just wondering.

Edited August 18, 2011 by altersteve

[volgadon]

From Idel's introduction to his afore-mentioned "Golem," p. xxiii.

Thus, I assume that at least in this case, it is plausible

that though basic components of Jewish mysticism and magic are ancient,

the process of transmission caused an enrichment of their content. This

process was, at least partially, provoked by cultural encounters with alien

types of thought. Whatever may be the ultimate origin of the elements

constituting Jewish mysticism and magic, in general and in our particular

case the idea and techniques to create an anthropoid, some of them were

in existence in Judaism in antiquity. The unfolding of Jewish mysticism,

as we shall see below in the case of the discussion of the macranthropos

and the combinations of two letters, discloses curious examples of simi-

larities, which are, in my opinion, not only an issue of phenomenological

affinity but also of historical connections. Thus I am hesitant to conceive

the history of Kabbalah as it appears in the written documents as a "pro-

gressive" evolution alone. It seems that alongside this category we shall

better be aware of the possibility that later strata of Kabbalistic literature

may contain also older elements or structures, not so visible in the earlier

bodies of literature. In other words, I allow a greater role to the subter-

ranean transmission than Scholem and his followers did.18 In one of the

chapters below, I shall propose the possibility that what was considered

to be a late sixteenth century Kabbalistic innovation indeed predates this

period and can be reasonably traced to at least as early as the second half

of the thirteenth century.19 On the basis of some similarities, I further as-

sume that it is possible that the late sixteenth century Kabbalistic discus-

sion of a macranthropos reveals a very ancient mystical view, stemming

from Jewish sources but extant in a Gnostic text.

Although Idel is specifically addressing golem-lore, his remarks do have import implications for "proto-kabbalistic" texts.

[volgadon]

Rob,

I just have to ask, what is your authority to speak on this subject? Have you formally studied these subjects? You are responding to scholars here, people who have studied these subjects extensively for many years and who probably do know what they're talking about; and while you may bring up some interesting points, you have yet to show (or, at least, I have yet to see) why we should treat your analysis of a scholar's work more seriously. If I'm wrong, then fair enough. I'm just wondering.

I haven't formally studied these subjects either. So what.

[altersteve]

I haven't formally studied these subjects either. So what.

I'm not saying that we all have to formally study something in order to be knowledgeable about it, or to challenge what others say. It was simply asked out of curiosity. I may have come off as harsh in my last post, but that was completely unintended.