Not a Prophet

Unlike many intellectuals, Gershom Scholem had no problem talking about messianism. He didn’t try to sweep it under the rug, or overlook it when presenting narratives of Jewish history.

He also was open about his ideas for the Zionist state before and after independence in 1948. And he was open about how the historical research worked into his ideas of contemporary politics.

However, when it comes to messianism, he was open but arguably inconsistent or self-contradictory.

Ben-Gurion had no problem talking about messianism and associating Zionism with it, while Scholem had no problem talking about messianism and associating as a monumental part of Judaism and Jewish history, but not Zionism.

Berlin and Jerusalem

He was born to a wealthy assimilated family, at the end of the 19th century. To their sorrow, his brother was a communist and young Gershom became a Zionist.

Not only that, already in Berlin he began to study Judaism and even Kabbalah, and eventually switched academic focus from mathematics to Jewish history and mysticism. Parallel to his studies, he engaged in Zionist ideas and activism. 

One thing led to another, he married and moved to pre-state Israel in 1925 and began to teach as a young professor at the new Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Long story short, his academic career was extremely influential and extended beyond to popular circles of Jewish historical general knowledge and discourse. 

He is rightfully considered the father or pioneer of the academic study of Jewish mysticism. He was also a very dominant figure within Israeli academia, not just his department and faculty, until his passing in 1982. 

Scholem identified as a historian of religion and a philologist. His great legacy was mostly in the study of Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism at large, and under that his legacy was in the niche of Sabbatianism as kabbalistic messianic movement, and the niche of messianism. 

Famous Pointers

Scholem’s opinions in regards to messianism are no secret, though some cynics say he had some secret agenda - simply he was a historian, so his views are historical and laid out in his historical wrtiings - the big famous points were laid out here in earlier posts in the beginning of this series as part of the introduction to the existing views that we are working through, so I mention them briefly:

Three of his most famous writings, famous beyond academic circles, deal with Jewish mysticism, Shabbtai Zvi’s movement, and messianism in general - Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism; Shabbtai Zvi: Mystical Messiah; and The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays.

Some of the big points are in a nutshell:

Mysticism and messianism are two separate ideas or streams or phenomena, that originally did not come together, but eventually, peaking with the Sabbatian movement, they merged. So we may observe early in Jewish mysticism that there is no messianism there. 

Sabbatianism was the merging of these two after a build-up over history since the Spanish Expulsion; totally messianic and totally mystical (kabbalistic). 

It was THE kabbalistic messianic movement, though a somehwat twisted version - the bizarre nature of Sabbatianism was not inherent to Kabbalah nor to the messianism of Abarvanel and the Tsefat mystics. 

Sabbatianism was assoicated with Shabbtai Zvi but was arguably led are significantly directed by the prophetic theologian Nathan of Gaza, who is a profound Lurianic adherent.

He emphasized the mood swings of Shabbtai Zvi between manic depression and ecstatic zeal as descending and ascending spiritually, messianic pangs - peaking with conversion to Islam. 

On that point, of the historical progression, Scholem asserted that Lurianic Kabbalah was very messianic and spread around the Jewish world like wildfire, setting the stage for Sabbatian messianism - but that point was been debunked by other scholars since... 

Following the failure of Sabbatianism, all the harm and shame inside and outside of the Jewish community, a strong force of conservatism stemmed, and for this reason, when the Hasidic movement sparked in the mid-18th century, and it naturally encountered opposition, this was because of the post-Sabbatian anxiety, and for that reason, perhaps subconsciously, the messianic fervor and expression in Hasidism was present but not acute, or ‘neutralized’.

A few of his more theoretical famous points are: that messianism in Christianity is internalized or spiritualized, or, ahistorical in its orientation, while in Judaism messianism is externalized or politicized, or, historical in its orientation; 

And that there is a price to messianism, in the Jewish public political sense, when it manifests, as a political activistic movement, and fails, the people suffer from the ramifications - like Sabbatianism and like the Bar Kochva revolt in the second century;  

And that there are a variety of dynamic forces within Judaism and Jewish history affecting messianism - conservatism, against messianism, because of the price, represented by the rabbinical instutition; the restorative force, reestablishing the kingdom, rebuilding the Temple, and more; and utopian, striving for an ideal, for peace, for cosmological change, peace upon the ruins of catastrophe, revisionist idealistic activism.

Another 2 dynamics in this regard are the apocalyptic-eschatological, including calculating the times and the signs, the legendary perspective of history, mythic symbols and cosmology, from Creation to the Days of Messiah; and along with it the catastrophic, what is commonly traditionally anticipating the messianic era.

He also noted obvious enough points that traditionally (in tradition) the Messiah himself is either personal or impersonal, in other words, there is a messianic figure in the center of the movement or text or approach, or there is not such a figure, and the emphasis is rather on the process, circumstances, and outcome - sometimes the messianic figure will simply come at the end, where the emphasis is on him or not.

And another obvious traditional point is the distinction between two typological approaches (usually but not always the personal is on the one and the impersonal on the latter but not necessarily at all) - mythic, cosmological, and/or miraculous, a fabulous messianism, compare to the more rational and natural messianisms.

So he had plenty of big points. These are the foundation of modern historical discourse in regards to messianism.