Occupy the Internet
Library Authors Scholem on religious authority and mysticism
THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself.     Continue >
Scholem on religious authority and mysticism
Gershom Scholem wrote a famous essay on religious authority and mysticism, and this seemed to me topical, both because it's interesting in and of itself and because the whole argument, I think, also tells us something about how Americans deal with authority, being a quite religious culture.

The part I'll excerpt, what really struck me (but there's only so much I can type) is at the end of the essay, where he's discussing the scholarly and religious response to the question: When the revelation was given to Israel at Mount Sinai,

"what, the question arises, is the truly divine element in the revelation? ...When the children of Israel received the Ten Commandments, what could they actually hear, and what did they hear?"

He gives various opinions. Some people thought that God spoke all the commandments directly and people heard them. Others thought that God spoke the first two, and then people were overwhelmed by the divine voice and couldn't hear the rest; Moses alone could withstand it, and then he repeated in a human voice what he had heard. Scholem then continues as follows. (the emphasis on the last line is mine.)

"This conception of Moses as interpreter of the divine voice from the people was developed much more radically by Maimonides, whose ideas R. Mendel of Rymanov carried to their ultimate conclusion. In R. Mendel's view not even the first two Commandments were revealed directly to the whole people. All that Israel heard was the aleph with which in the Hebrew text the first  commandment begins, the aleph of the word `I'. This strikes me as a highly remarkable statement, providing much food for thought. For in Hebrew the consonant aleph represents nothing more than the position taken by the larynx when a word begins with a vowel. Thus the aleph may be said to denote the source of all articulate sound... To hear the aleph is to hear next to nothing, it is the preparation for all audible language, but in itself conveys no determinate, specific meaning. Thus, with his daring statement that the actual revelation to Israel consisted only of the aleph, R. Mendel transformed the revelation on Mt Sinai into a mystical revelation, pregnant with meaning, but without specific meaning. In order to become a foundation of religious authority, it had to be translated into human language, and this is what Moses did. In this light every statement on which authority is grounded would become a human interpretation, however valid and exalted, of something that transcends it. ... [T]he truly divine element in this revelation, the immense aleph, was not in itself sufficient to express the divine message, and in itself it was more than the community could bear. Only the prophet was empowered to communicate the meaning of this inarticulate voice to the community. It is mystical experience which conceives and gives birth to authority."
Not sure where you stand on this Solveig?  To me it is horrifying. The message that the divine 'must be translated into human language' is logical, because the infinite is unlikely to be fully understood by finite beings. But that the message was 'more than the community could bear' and therefore needed a prophet 'empowered to communicate the meaning'  seems illogical and elitist. 

Do the community therefore get a version of the truth (an untruth) that they can bear?  And is the prophet (also unlikely) made differently from other people and uniquely able to bear and to interpret the truth? And is his/her interpretation any less open to false interpretation being human too? 

It reminds me of the Wizard of Oz making voices behind a curtain.  Far from justifying authority, the example exposes the ultimate danger and lie behind the notion of authority.   Deference to religious authority has led to some shocking abuses, not least the sex abuse scandals of the last century.  Or am I missing your point?
Hi Bev -- thanks a lot for your reply. First of all, Scholem is a serious scholar and one without an agenda here; I don't think Scholem should be read as saying this interpretation is true, per se. Nor is he saying that this is how it needs to happen or how the encounter always goes.  Rather than being normative, it's just analytic, that is, he's discussing several different interpretations of the Sinai story given by various respected figures and using them to try to understand what prophecy accomplishes. On some level, the idea of having prophets is complex in the way you describe. But we do see in many religious traditions that people have very different experiences of God, and some people feel they have had experiences which are very direct; and then they want to talk about them, and sometimes convince others of the authenticity of this encounter; and then a good scholar of religion like Scholem has to ask what that even means, and how it is possible to listen to them.

I think what he explains is kind of brilliant, so I'll try to explain how I read him, and tell me if I've made any sense.

Basically, for myself, I had always thought of mystics as communing with God in a kind of private way: they go to the mountaintop, they hear the divine voice, maybe they tell other people about it. (I don't think it's important in this particular story that the community actually all happened to be there but didn't hear the revelation; think of all the stories involving one person in a crowd seeing a vision -- I'm not talking about any particular religious tradition here, just thinking through my general impression of "mystic experience".)
Scholem points out that somehow when the mystic tells other people about what has happened, s/he necessarily cannot communicate the fullness of the experience, because whereas God spoke to the mystic, when the mystic speaks it's as a human being -- just as you say. So something is lost, and what comes to fill the void is authority.

I think that this is the sort of thing we see in life all the time: there are brilliant transcendental experiences, like love and great passion, which the community wants to formalize as something authoritative, like e.g. marriage till death. IT's very strange to see the way that we translate something which is almost too great to bear into systems of rules designed, somehow, to keep reminding us of that original experience (because it is almost impossible to remain in that state of ecstasy; and there is often a part of us that functions like the prophet and a part that functions like the community).

In response to Solveig Wright
Hi Solveig

Yes it makes sense.  Maybe my problem is with the word authority. People may have enlightening experiences or insights  which we can hear about and learn from.  They cannot necessarily define these experiences in words; that might diminish the experience, lose it in the translation, so what we get from them is the idea that such an experience or insight is possible, and perhaps how it was achieved.  Eckhart Tolle seems to be doing this, and like many religious teachers, keeps stressing that the only way to learn is to try for yourself, not to blindly follow others or take their word for it.  

But to call others an authority is to dictate rules about what it is and how to follow it, much as you say we do in marriage. I'm not sure you can or should capture love or enlightenment or mystic experiences with rules, its a contradiciton in terms.  These experiences are a glimpse of another world, or our world from another perspective that seems to defy translation, like a dream that we lose on waking. 

To make those who claim to have stepped through that door into 'authorities' is to set ourselves apart from the possiblity of experiencing it for ourselves.  It diminshes our intelligence and self determination, and closes our minds. My issue is still with the idea that when the translation  is lost, 'what comes to fill the void is authority'.  Why reach for other peoples pre-determined certainty when our own openness is what is needed.  I'm not sure that religious authority of this sort has helped anyone.   The Life of Brian deals with the same issue!

I relaise this is more of an explanation of my take on your reading than necessarily a counter to it.   Each to his own.
Join the Community
Full Name:
Your Email:
New Password:
I Am:
By registering at THINQon.com, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Discussion info
Latest Post: February 14, 2011 at 5:45 PM
Number of posts: 33
Spans 92 days

  
Searching
No results found.