Slightly Murky

Throughout this series, the whole point was to take apart any narrow approach to the subject matter, of messiah yes or no, this type of messiah, versus a broad complex approach, seeing all sorts of messianisms, aspects of messianism in so many places and people in Jewish history.

This approach is applied to the case of Professor Gershom Scholem as well. How can we simplify the question of his own ideological messianism? How was it mixed into his research - was his research affected by his ideology, or was his ideology the fruit of his historical research? 

Well, we have first of all, to be fair, laid out some of his big historical points, of Jewish history and messianism. We also know his ideology, his political association was with Brit Shalom, a liberal intellectual group led by mostly German and Austro-Hungarian empire Jewish expats, and some Americans. 

That and generally he was worried about religious nationalism. So he was not happy about mixing messianism into Zionism. That is obvious enough and no secret. We know from his research that he considered messianism as a political thing, so of course he didn’t want to associate his Zionism with messianism. 

On top of that you can definitely add another more intellectual or spiritual concern in the opposite direction, which other important thinkers of the time shared. They were concerned less about the developing state, more for Judaism, and all its symbols, or Judaism as a holy or spiritual legacy… 

When Politics and Religion Clash

Also, the word ‘protestant’ can be thrown into the discussion above. His mind was ‘protestant’, philosophically that means he was inclined to assume that religion and state are separate inherently, versus a Catholic philosophy, which thinks along the lines of religion and state never really inherently being separate.

If religion is brought into Zionism, and Zionism / politics are brought into Judaism, and regardless the Jewish state itself, if it is a Hebrew and Jewish state, then populism and politics and profanity (in the literally sense) will infiltrate the religion, language, the texts, the memory of it all.

So for them mixing the two was a violation of borderlines between holiness and the profane. Hebrew should not be an everyday language for example. 

Scholem shared these concerns. That is Scholem on the Zionist or ideological and social level. His historical insights feed into that, but there is a mirkiness - not that he had a secret agenda, in my opinion, but murky because there were problems and inconsistencies with some of his historical points between themselves, and between his ideology and his historical points.

He said Jewish messianism historically is external political, but it is also spiritual. When the Hasidic movement removed the political he said no it is there it is just neutralized - not very convincing. (When Christian messianism is political - he doesn’t say, he doesn’t talk about that.)

Then when there was a Zionist Jewish national political movement, he said oh that is not messianic. How? Why not? Again, not very convincing. I think he had some inconsistent and unconvincing claims and opinions. That is all. 

His concern with the Zionist movement and Jewish state being religious and messianic - it is understandable. On a public policy level, on an official level, a state shouldn’t be so religious anyway. It should be civil in nature, unless it is a theocracy, which Israel is not.

What was Judaism and Jewish history and messianism for Scholem? Something like a mystified and romantic set of historical knowledge, ideas, and existence. 

What was Zionism and the State of Israel? An expression of that, the fruit of that - from an early stage, before 1948, before the Second World War for sure, he came here in 1923, before even the 1929 Palestine riots / Hebron massacre…

It is possible his worldview was set already then, when Zionism was a bit less of a nationalistic predicament. And since then it got murky.

He was an intellectual Zionist, a liberal, and a protestant thinker.

At the end of the day, Rav Kook said the state will be balanced by forces of nationalism, liberal-universalism, and religion (and considered it altogether messianic); Ben-Gurion cherished messianism as a romantic and idealistic vision; and Scholem was fearful of mixing messianism as religious nationalism into the Jewish state. 

I bring all this because it is interesting as far as the discussion contemporary of messianism and Zionism is concerned. Not only interested are we in historically who said what because they were influential. The ideas themselves are relevant now regardless of who represented them.

Covenant of Peace

“...as a member of Brit Shalom, and like thousands of other Zionists who are not members and are far from its opinions, I am opposed to the distortion and mixing of religious and political concepts. I definitely deny the notion that Zionism is a messianic movement, nor that it has the right - unless some sort of empty joking - to utilize religious language in order to promote political objectives… 

The redemption of the people of Israel, which I aspire to as a Zionist, is not identical at all with the religious redemption that I wish for in the future. I am unwilling, most definitely, as a Zionist, to provide requirements or political nostalgia from the non-political religious sphere, from the eschatological apocalyptic. 

The Zionist idealism and the messianic idealism are separate things, and there is no kingdom in it besides bombastic rhetoric within popular audiences, what fills from time to time our young people with a new Sabbatian spirit, that is bound for failure… 

The Zionist movement is not in the sphere of the Sabbatian movement by its internal roots, and the attempts to bring in such an attitude already cost us much internal harm.”

(1929, written in the face of criticism towards Brit Shalom)

That sounds like a direct response to the likes of Ben-Gurion...

“I of course am not in denial of the Sabbatian movement. I have so far been engaged in this matter for 40 years.

But I do think that it would be a great tragedy if the Zionists or the Zionist movement would switch or distort the lines between the messianic-religious level and the reality that is political-historical…

I think the entry of the people of Israel into the historical realm means taking responsibility for itself, its actions and the scandals; action on the political level of secular history is something different than that which takes place on the spiritual-religious level. It will be a catastrophe to mix them…

The mystical side of Zionism is something that comes into being without messianism; it is the renewal of the hearts, something that does not cross the line of the latter days, rather something tangible, that surely has its own symbols in history, in the external world, in the world of action, etc. but rather something that would operate, for example the revival of the language, to a language worthy of speaking and living by and articulating through it… 

I do not know if I have been consistent in making this claim.

Today I maintain it. The greatness of the Zionist movement is that it was a movement of historical responsibility, aimed at taking upon itself the burden and responsibility in the face of others for our actions, without presumptions of being messianic.”

(Scholem, Devarim be’Go - Words Within - volume 1, 50-51 - 1973)

The discourse of messianism in academic and popular circles is much to the credit of Gershom Scholem, that is, the discourse itself, and also the content or the nature of the discourse.

Still today, entering the discourse in regards to messianism, almost always involves going through the claims and ideas of Gershom Scholem - even though many of his historical research points have been corrected if not debunked, they are still relevant in the discourse.

And now that we are on the same page we can begin to discuss new interesting messianic things.