Define the term ‘Kabbalah’ and discuss a main figure, text or movement
Kabbalah, being a multi-contextual term is difficult to define. This multi-faceted term has been the catalyst for the surge of sub-currents that pertain to it, all of which emerging from the medieval period. From Provincial France to the Iberian Peninsula, over to Italy and North Africa, to its eventual residence in Palestine, the place where it flourished for over half a century. Kabballah survived the medieval period and grew from its origins of an elitist esotericism to become an important spiritual factor in the lives of all Jews world-wide. Accomplishing this almost impossible task of combining the religion’s orthodoxy with its mystical counter-part, Kabbalah achieved the preservation of its practices within its Jewish community. It is through this idea that I will explore the challenges Kabbalah posed to traditional Jewish thought, looking in detail at one of the most elaborate ideas within Kabbalah, as taught by the 16th Century scholar, Isaac Luria.
Let’s start with the term ‘Kabbalah’. Little is known about Kabbalah itself or its meaning. The word Kabbalah consists of the root letters (Semitic grammatical trait) K-B-L: depicting the verb ‘to receive’. The depths of this verb ‘KBL’ stems from a great lineage that depicts the core of Jewish tradition itself; the receiving of the Ten Commandments. It is important to understand that from a Jewish perspective the revelation given to Moses on Mount Sinai was complete of all knowledge and any ‘new idea’ stumbled upon today was in fact first revealed to Moses and handed down through oral transmission. With this perspective the Kabbalah that Moses received was sacred tradition from the Divine and the prevalence of Kabbalah within the span of Jewish orthodoxy can be understood. It is the mystical perspective of Kabbalah which is hard to fathom when thought of within the foreground of its traditional and often paradoxical routes.
Mysticism in the broader sense is usually perceived as the personal experience of an individual, although it is this psychological view point which directly counter-acts with the exclusive idea of the Kabbalist. For the Kabbalist, the sole purpose of the spiritual journey within the mysticism of Kabbalah is to re-instate the relationship between mankind and god (Scholem p18). To understand this ideology Gershom Scholem, a founding scholar in the study of Jewish mysticism explains, that from an immeasurable distance grown fourth between man and God, a primal need has emerged within mankind which endeavours to re-unite the two together in a way with which he believes was present in man’s earliest relationship with the divine. Scholem presents a journey embarked on by man consisting of two main stages; In the first period, mankind in its immaturity fails to recognise any such separation between itself and God, where as in the second period the ideology of a ‘doctrinal religion’ abolishes our earliest consciousness with the divine; “religion signifies the creation of a vast abyss, conceived as the absolute, between God, the infinite and transcendental being and man” (Scholem p18). However, our attempt to re-affirm this ‘primitive realism’ takes place in no other than the institutions that have eventuated in our drift from our innate intuition. The application of the task to re-establish such a relationship with the Divine varies greatly, producing an array of sub-currents in mystical trends within any one religion. The majority view of mysticism within religion is usually based on the personal experience of the individual where as the aim of a Kabbalist is on a far less personal level. This is best illustrated through the sheer lack of personality in the earliest Kabbalistic texts up until the Hassidic movement much later on in the 18th century. A Kabbalist seeks to identify the impersonality of God and in contrast to its Christian counter parts that refer to the Divine as ‘He’ the Kabbalist will almost certainly refer to God as ‘that’. This impersonal view of the Godhead is due to the fact that with this reference the Kabbalist is indicating to ‘God in himself’ the ‘Deus absconditus’. This theological concept of the Godhead is often accompanied by metaphorical explanations just as described by Isaac the Blind, A Kabbalist from 12 Century Provence; “That which is not conceivable by thinking”.
The ‘Deus absconditus’ is known within Kabbalism as the ‘Ein-Sof’ which emerged in Kabbalistic literature in 1200 CE. It is this expression which is the representation of God in essence, before his manifestations within creation (Scholem, Idel p260). This expression, is the representation of the ‘Ein-Sof’ then, is an attempt to rationalise an identity for God void of the attributes that pertain to the divine in the view point of his creation. In the astute accuracy of the Kabbalists language, the term ‘Ein-Sof’ was a means to satisfy the Kabbalists call for an understanding of the nature of God. It is this facia of the divine that the Kabbalist endeavours to give surety to and it is in contemplation of the abundance of attributes known to us of God through scripture, such as the Rabbinical texts and the bible which united with the ‘Ein Sof’ is known to the Kabbalist as ‘Sefiroth’(Scholem p14). The term Sefiroth in particular to all other Jewish esoterical language is a distinctively Kabbalistic one. Many Kabbalists from the Hasid movement (in particular) and other 18th century Jewish mystics would try to avoid using terminology that separated itself from the Jewish texts as a whole (Dan 2007 p43), owing to the defence against ongoing heretic claims associated with Jewish Mysticism. The Sefiroth, in basic reasoning, are the 10 divine lights (spheres) that are projected by the ‘Ein Sof’ into creation and consist of divine attributes such as tifereth – beauty, hokhma - wisdom and hesed – benevolence. The ten Sefiroth were first published in the works of Isaac the Blind; ‘The Bahir’. There has often been heavy symbology of the Ten Sefiroth in accordance to scriptural names for the divine, such as the Tetragamatron (Dan, J 2007), where each of the letters YHWH (a name for God which is forbidden in Hebrew for Jews to pronounce) represents one of the divine emanations. Gershom Scholem says of the Sefiroth; “The ten Sefiroth constitute the mystical Tree of God or tree of divine power each representing a branch whose common Root is unknown and unknowable. But En-Sof is not only the hidden Root of all Roots, it is also the sap of the tree; every branch representing an attribute, exists not by itself but by virtue of En-Sof, the hidden God.”(Scholem, 1897-1982, p214).
The theodical doctrines of both the ‘Ein-Sof’ and the ‘Sefiroth’ have often been critiqued for being a dualistic concept presenting a serious threat to the monotheistic values of traditional Judaism. There has since been a multitude of systems to integrate the two together affirming the continuance of the 'Sefiroth' from that of the ‘Ein-Sof’. One of which being the ‘Zahzabot’, which are three divine sources of light said to be present within the 'Ein-Sof' and being the sources of the ten ‘Sefiroth’ (Dan, 2007 p42). Although the early Kabbalists saw the Ein Sof as first stepping outward to creation via the ten Sefiroth, there had also been speculation as to whether the Ein-Sof first projected outward (in Emanation) or whether it was a step inward, as a withdrawal from creation. It is this theological idea that dramatically separates itself from all early forms of Kabbalah. This theodicy is best known within Jewish mysticism as ‘Lurianic Kabbalah’.
After the expulsion of Jews from the Iberian Peninsula, a large amount of Jewish intellects moved to Safed in Upper Galilee which soon became Kabbalah’s epicentre in 1492. Initially, lead by the Head Rabbi at the time, Rabbi Jacob Berav, the group made an attempt to salvage a traditional rabbinate from the Talmudic and biblical times. Although this lasted several generations it failed to take hold as it was rejected by both the Rabbis of Egypt and Jerusalem. The Jewish community of Safed at the time were pre-occupied with the doctrine of redemption in the belief that adherence to the laws first observed by Moses would bring about the ‘era of redemption’ (Dan, 2007 pp.72-84). Uniting the Divine with the profane in the reestablishment of the Jewish theocracy could have been an attempt to fulfil one of the biblical predictions to bring about complete redemption as told by the prophet Ezekiel. Isaac Luria returned to Safed in 1570 whilst redemption practice was at its peak. Luria gained notoriety from his study of the Kabbalah and Jewish traditionalism and found himself surrounded by a small group of Disciples. They believed that his soul often ascended to divine realms where he learnt secrets of the Torah. The head of these disciples was Rabbi Hayyim Vital (an already established Safed scholar) (Dan, 2007 p.74). Just two years after his arrival to Safed in 1572, Isaac Luria died from the plague. The impact of his teachings imprinted heavily on his disciples well after his death, many of which thought of him to be the Messiah (son of Joseph). His death, in which case, necessitates to the redemption idea, bringing forth the second Messiah, the Messiah son of David. This was a role that Rabbi Hayyim Vital claimed was his and that Luria himself had foretold this divine destiny to him. The arrival of the second Messiah, the Messiah Son of David, according to the Messianic doctrine would eventuate in the redemption of the world (Dan, 2007 p74).
In order to understand the profundity of Luria’s concepts, irrespective of its complete contrast to basic Kabbalistic teachings, we must understand Lurianic cosmogony through the questions that Isaac Luria sought to answer; “Why everything? Why did the creation occur?” (Dan, 2007, p74). For Luria, it was important to conclude how a perfect creator could beget a flawed universe? The idea that God himself must be implicitly flawed was posed by Luria, thus, giving us our purpose: to fix such a crisis by amending these flaws. Luria presented these three main doctrines within his creation narrative: Zimzum; Shevirat ah-Kelim; and Tikkun (Scholem, Idel p.642). For Luria (and certainly those who studied under him) these doctrines provided a valid reasoning for his concept of the ‘creation myth’.
Zimzum represents the withdrawal of the Ein Sof leaving a void known as ‘Tehiru’ (Dan, 2007 p.75). Scholem and Idel explain this in the article; ‘The doctrine of creation in Lurianic Kabbalah’ as a means for leaving space for creation to occur. As the Godhead is infinite then his infinite presence should consume its entire dwelling place, leaving no room for creation. It was through his withdrawal; ‘Zimzum’, that he was able to emanate his divine light which generated in creation itself (Scholem, Idel p.642). Although the Ein Sof had retracted, it had left behind partial residues known as ‘Reshimu’. It was this divine matter of the Ein Sof that failed to mix with the divine light in the creation of ‘Kelim’ (a type of Vessel) that resulted in a great catastrophe. These vessels are the ten Sefirot. Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, a Kabbalistic Scholar of Safed who preceded Luria had already developed similar ideas. Where Cordovero failed to provide an explanation for the dissimilarity between the individual Sefirot maintaining their divinity, Luria developed the idea of the Kelim (vessel) that offer the emanations uniqueness and that it is the light that it houses within each of these which is in fact the divine essence itself. At some point (as taught by Luria) the vessels broke, known as ‘Shevirat ah-Kelim’. The Shevirah (breaking) happened as a direct result of the Reshimu failing to mix with the Divine light (Dan, 2007, pp.75-77). This sent shards of the divine light to lower realms of the Tehiru (void) creating what is known today as evil. It is with this idea that Luria proposes that there were worlds before ours created through this process and destroyed, where as in ours the Godhead only retreated.
According to Luria, the creation of Adam was an attempt to correct the initial catastrophe of the ‘Shevirat ah-Kelim’, had Adam been obedient and disobeyed the evil within him then the process of the ‘breaking of the vessels’ wouldn’t have had to re-occur, instead, Adam disobeyed God and the Shevirah occurred once again, and again with the disobedience of the people of Moses through the worship of the Golden Calf (Dan, 2007 pp.77-78).
Tikkun, from Tikkun Olam: ‘Repairing the world’, represents the mending of the broken vessels. It is the purpose of humanity to restore the shards of divine light back to God, and the only way in which that can be done is by complete and utter observance to the Mitzvoth. When the laws of the Torah and the Talmud are adhered to, the sparks of light are lifted up and returned, and every time we transgress the shards of light descend further away from the upper Tehiru. It is this, somewhat nationalistic ideology that will redeem the people of Israel and in turn, redeem the world.
It is clear that the themes that are familiar within Judaism such as Messianism, Redemption and salvation, occupy the minds of both orthodox and reform Jews alike but even stretches as far to the mystics of the faith. The importance of the receiving of the commandments on mount Sinai and receiving divine tradition from God is the backbone of Jewish religion and continues to be so even in the most elaborate of Jewish narrative such as that taught by Isaac Luria and his counter parts. As contradictory or heretic as it may be perceived, Jewish Mysticism cannot be over-looked to being completely against the grain of Jewish orthodoxy. Kabbalah has been welcomed and integrated into traditional Jewish practice and teachings regardless of these claims and will continue to be interwoven through traditional Judaism for years to come.
Bibliography
Dan, J (2007). Kabbalah. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Eliade, Mircea. (1987). Qabbalah. In: Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: Macmillan. p.119.
Scholem, G., Idel, M.. (2007). Ein-Sof. Encyclopedia Judaica. 6
Scholem, G., Idel, M.. (2007). Kabbalah. Encyclopedia Judaica. 11
Scholem, G. (1897-1982). Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. London: Thames & Hudson
__________________________________________________________________________________
The Fall of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel as Told by the Deuteronomic Historian
Jessi Walker
December 17th, 2010
Introduction to the Bible HSA020C109A
Course convener: Dr Geoffrey Walker
In 721 the fall of the northern Kingdom of Israel laid path to a downward spiral for its people and their fate. Samaria was a vassal for the war hungry Assyrians who empoverished both states of Isreal throughout the eighth century. The prophets Amos and Hosea chastised the people for polluting the cult of Yahweh with that of Bahl (the Pagan god) leading the revolt of the people against their Assyrian oppressors which eventuated in the reign of a new King, King Sargon II. King Sargon II besieged Samaria in 722-721 BCE culminating in its destruction. The upper classes were expelled from the land, a small portion of which settled in Judah fleeing from the hands of the Assyrians. The Southern Kingdom at that time was ruled by King Hezekiah who watched over the demise of the Northern Kingdom and the approaching conquests of the Assyrian Emperor Sennacherib. The Tyrannical force that was Assyria laid siege to Judah under Sennacherib despite his failure to capture Jerusalem. Yahweh’s Stereological identity was ever more apparent through Sennacherib’s failings in Jerusalem relinquishing the royal covenant made with David that his heirs were always to rule over Israel. Assyria’s status weakened further to the close of the seventh. Hezekiah’s reign was succeeded by his son Manasseh who, during his lengthy reign of 55 years decimated the reforms of his father and reinstated the path of a disobedient Judah filling the sacred temple with pagan worship. Shortly after which Josiah, the grandson of Manasseh was crowned King. Josiah proved to be a devout Yahwhist re-installing the sacred name that his grandfather, Hezekiah had done so before him, using the Deuteronomic scroll and the laws of the Torah as his guide. Later on, the Assyrian power diminished in 612 BCE with the fall of their capital Nineveh at the hands of the Babylonians. However the people saw the end of Josiah’s reign as he was killed by the invasion of Pharaoh Necho II in 609BCE, who replaced his heir with Josiah’s other son Jehoiachin and it was at this time during his reign that he and Judah was captured by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar in 605BCE. Both Jehoiachin and his court were banished and exiled to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar II. Judah was now tributary to Nebuchadnezzar II who put Zedekia in reign. King Zedekia later sought council from the Egyptians and revolted against the Babylonians. King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon was furious and sought the destruction of Jerusalem and most importantly the destruction if the temple of Solomon where Yahweh was said to remain. The rest of the people of Jerusalem were exiled to Babylon and the fall of the Southern Kingdom of Judah was such in 587BCE.
The occupation and fall of both the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel are documented in the books of Joshua through to 2Kings. These books compile what is known as the ‘Deuteronomic History’. The ‘Deuteronomic Historian’ is the school of thought that endeavours to explain how Israel went from ‘The chosen people’ in the ‘Promise Land’ to the ‘Banished’ and ‘lost tribes’ of Israel. It is an attempt to explain the perceived leap from salvation to destruction. The theodicy needed for a people in exile and crisis, full of disbelief, encapsulating a period of reflection for the former Israelites as best encompassed in Psalm 137: ‘By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion’. The term ‘Deuteronomic History’ derives from the fact that the five books it encompasses (Joshua-2Kings) shows similarity between the central themes within the book of ‘Deuteronomy’ in the bible, with close attention paid to Covenantal law. From Joshua to 2Kings is the biblical narrative from the occupation of Canaan to the exile and fall of Jerusalem 597-587 BCE.
The Deuteronomist Historian then, seeks to encompass a theological conception of the seven centuries of Israelite history by redacting separate biblical traditions from the Mosaic theology of Moses producing the reworking of existing written and oral traditions during the Babylonian exile eventuating in a proto-history of Israel. ‘Deuteronomistic History’ is a term coined by Martin Noth who explains the main aim as:
“His intention then and this is absolutely crucial to any evaluation of his work – is to write not the history of individual Kings but the history of the whole monarchical period...” (Noth 1981).
The opening book of the Deuteronomic History is the book of Joshua, which from the start is indicative of the fulfilment of covenantal law, something that the people had been anticipating since their exile from their bondage in Egypt:
“Be strong and courageous; for you shall put this people in possession of the land that I swore to the ancestors to give them” (Joshua 1:6).
In mention of the ancestors, this is a direct reference to the promise God made to Abraham:
“Abram passed through the land to the place called Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. Then the lord appeared to Abram and said, ‘to your offspring I will give this land...” (Genesis 12:6-7).
Once freed from the enslavement of Egypt, Israel became a state in exile to which they found themselves wandering in the wilderness until they were finally given Canaan through victory with the condition of abiding to covenantal law with a particularly strong emphasis to worshiping Yahweh and Yahweh only, understood within the mosaic tradition of the first commandment: ‘Thou shalt have no gods beside me’. Bringing forth the eventual fulfilment of land and nationhood granting the age-old promise of the covenantal agreement established during the Mosaic period that “God will defeat all enemies of an obedient Israel” (Harris 2007). However, this is not long lived. The people of Israel continue to live sandwiched between the pre-eminence of Canaanite civilisation and apostasy is seen to take hold time and time again throughout Israelite history.
The theological motif of the Deuteronomic historian (DH) is simple, ‘One God, One Cult, One People’ and the stresses of unification is tantamount to understanding the reasoning of the destruction of both the northern and the southern Kingdom according to DH. The DH provides the setting of Judges where folktales and victory hymns illustrate the dire need of a centralised government in a new Israel. This opens the dialogue for a need of a monarchy and thus you are bought through biographical accounts of twelve charismatic leaders (judges) till the birth of Samuel. The covenantal thesis finds itself under much strain and the neighbouring Canaanite influences bring about apostasy (Judges 3:7), Oppression (Judges 4:3) and repeated deliverance. The book of Judges gives every example of God’s consequence to the breaking of the covenant and we are shown God’s repeated efforts of renewing this covenant with the people of Israel. The Deuteronomistic authors are said by Noth (1981) to have given an example of pattern which “Virtually culminates in a complete severance of relations between the people and their God”. All of which is turned around with the beginning of a monarchical period in Samuel 1&2. Most importantly, the commencement of the Royal Covenant with the creation of the Davidic dynasty. The Royal Covenant was an oath made by Yahweh to David that his successors shall always be of his bloodline and the Northern and Southern tribes are united under him after his victory of the Philistines. It was the son of David (Solomon), however who was to build the temple of Yahweh, where the arc of the covenant was taken to reside there under, which Noth see’s as ‘The most important event” (Noth 1981) for the Deuteronmistic Historian, the “..One place which he chose to let his name dwell” (Deut. 12:5). It is the disobedience of Israel and the lack of observation that Yahweh should be worshiped in one temple alone to restrict the infection of impure worship and Pagan influences that the DH motif of ‘One God, One People, One Cult’ is personified. The Temple, which was “the place where Yahweh was present for Israel..” (Von Rad 1901). After Solomon succeed Jeroboam whose acts of disobedience were so abominable to Yahweh that all the Kings were to be judged within his light. All accept of course, Josiah and Hezekiah whose religious reforms were to become but an echo for the Southern Kingdom of Israel. The Temple holds an even greater importance later on in the narrative, as it is the destruction of the Temple that marks the destruction and end of the Southern Kingdom in 587BCE. It was after the death of Solomon in 922BCE that the nation split into the two retrospective states of the Northern and Southern Kingdom, the southern kingdom, the smallest of which still ruled by Davidic Kings.
Many scholars attempted to un-earth the truth behind the origin of the sources or reasoning behind the text of the Pentateuch. The most successful of whom are Martin Noth and Gerhard Von Rad who revealed the ‘Deuteronomist Historian’s’ key themes, narrative and theology. Martin Noth questioned whether or not the end of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms presented a finite end of Yahweh’s saving endeavours upon the people of Israel or whether it was just the end of the hope of a future forgiveness and redemption for them. Von Rad however, see’s 2 Kings 25:27-30, Jehoiachin’s later rehabilitation as a possible presupposed idea from DH that the Davidic line has not come to an end and asks the subsequent question if the theological conception in the narrative is to lead Israel to a gracious but futile end. Noth and Rad together coined ten key themes highlighted within the Deuteronomists redactions and editing’s, many of which we have looked at earlier on in the essay.
Revised examples of which are listed below:
Theme 1: The election, exodus and conquest themes...
Israel was labelled as the chosen people by Yahweh, they were promised the land of Canaan long before their exodus from Egypt as seen earlier in the essay: “Abram passed through the land to the place called Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. Then the lord appeared to Abram and said, ‘to your offspring I will give this land...” (Genesis 12:6-7). This is reiterated once more in the second theme...
Theme 2: The inheritance of the land…
…to the offspring of the ancestors (as seen in the above quote; Genesis 12:6-7). Canaan was then given to them through a victory assisted by Yahweh as a divine gift.
Theme 3: One centralized cult.
As we have discussed, the underlying motif in the DH is ‘one god, one cult, one people’. The emphasis on the cultic aspect placed on Israel is specifically in keeping with the worship to be taken place solely at the Temple of Solomon, any worship seen otherwise would be a direct sin and insult to the cult of Yahweh. As Von Rad explains of the Temple in his book ‘Old Testament Theology’: “the place where YHWH was present for Israel and where he spoke to and had cultic dealings with her” (vol 1, 337).
Theme 4: Observance of the law.
The key for an accepted and blessed ruling is to keep to the law of the Torah which was part of Josiah’s saving grace in judgment from Yahweh as he worked to reintroduce the ancient law found in the temple and reinstated traditions from the Mosaic period such as that of the Passover.
Theme 5: The election of David and his dynasty.
Yahweh proposed an unconditional oath to the establishment of David’s royal line through the Royal Covenant which ensures to David that the rule of the Kingdom will forever be within his bloodline. This is in strong contrast to the mosaic covenant which concluded Israel’s fate dependant on the obedience of the people rather than the ruler. None of the Kings that succeeded David within his lineage would be held to such light and all kings were later judged within the light of Jeroboam who sealed the sin of Israel. The Kings of the southern kingdom, all of whom were of David’s bloodline (except for Hezekiah and Josiah) were said in 1Kings to have “walked in the sin of Jeroboam, son of Nebat” (1 Kings 12: 25-33).
Theme 6: The struggle against idolatry.
Idolatry runs rife within Israel throughout the Deuteronomic history under the guidance of disobedient kings and foreign influences. Notoriously so by King Manasseh: “Manasseh king of Judah has committed these detestable sins. He has done more evil than the Amorites who preceded him and has led Judah into sin with his idols.”(2Kings 21:10).
Theme 7: The monotheistic ideal.
Again with the aforementioned Deuteronomic motif of ‘one god, one cult, one people’, the monotheistic ideal is presented as tantamount to the survival of the people of Israel. The Temple, Mosaic tradition (i.e. first commandment), and praised religious reformations of Pagan influences only goes on to establish this ideal.
Theme 8: Distrust of anything foreign.
Not only was this made apparent by the centralized cult in keeping a distance from foreign god’s but also with an emphasis placed on the abstinence from marrying foreign spouses. We see this foremost in the second phase of Solomon’s reign being that of apostasy in his old age which is given to amount in him taking foreign wives and their ill influence on an old and disheveled King. Solomon is spared the wrath of Yahweh through allegiance with the Royal covenant that was made with his father David: “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates, Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.” (1 Kings 11:11-13).
Theme 9: The fulfillment of prophecy.
The prophets were the divinely chosen voices of God. They gave warnings, advice and predictions. This is seen by the prophets Amos and Hosea who were sent by Yahweh after King Ahab & his foreign wife spread the practice of the worship of Bahl (a Pagan God). Likewise, it was King Zedekia’s refusal to take heed of the warnings from prophet Ezekiel to submit to the Babylonians in the sixth century that eventuated in the fall of the Southern kingdom in 587BCE.
Theme 10: Material reward and retribution.
Throughout the DH are clear evidences of punishment in not keeping the covenant, centralised cult or monotheistic Yahweh which is paralleled through blessings of a desisting God, a promising God and a saving entity.
In conclusion, The Deuteronomic History is the editing of existing books through the re-working of older traditions to provide an interpretive framework through which the fall of both Niorthern and Southern Kingdoms in 721 & 587BCE are to be understood. An epilogue for a people who had once again found themselves expelled from their land, a land that was given to them as a divine gift from the saving and desisting Yahweh who promised to keep it within the rule of the Davidic royal lineage. But with the Temple of Yahweh destroyed, a place that he proclaimed to reside within, and a people in exile from their chosen land as the chosen people, led the Israelites to wonder why Yahweh had left them? The answere was not that Yahweh was a weak, un-forgiving God and DH’s motive of editing was to provide evidence for the contrary. Yahweh had forever been a saving and forgiving identity for Israel, even through their constant wrong-doings of failing to keep to the law of the Torah and desisting from following foreign influence. Not to forget that the DH Yahweh was a desisting God as mentioned by Von Rad that Yahweh “had already resolved to pass sentence on Judah because of the sins of Manasseh, which had broken all bounds. Even Josiahs behaviour could avert it no longer. Thus over Judah YHWH’s patience had long held even though the judgement had been long-overdue” (Von Rad Old Testament Theology vol 1, 341). Often holding the punishment of one generation for the praise of their ancestors and in turn giving warning to the future punishment as seen with Solomon. Therefore it was because of the ill doings of the people and their Kings that Yahweh allowed the fall of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms in 721 and 587 BCE. They repeatedly ignored the covenant, Law of the Torah and disregarded the word of Yahweh through the warnings and messages of the prophets, thus resulting in the demise of their sacred relationship with Yahweh, their occupation of the Promise Land, and in turn, their race. The people of Israel were led away to Babylon.
Bibliography
Harris, S.L., (2007) Understanding the Bible, (7th edition), New York, McGraw-Hill International Edition
No Author, (1995), New Revised Standard Version Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Noth, M., (1981) The Deuteronomistic History, Sheffield : JSOT Press Perdue, L.G., ed. (2001) The Blackwell Companion to the Hebrew Bible, Oxford: Blackwell
Seminary, l. (2009). Old Testiment [Online]. Available from: http://www.enterthebible.org/Bible.aspx?rid=20 [Accessed 15/11/2010].
Von Rad, G., (1975) Old Testament Theology, London: S.C.M. Press Rogerson, J. W., (1999) An Introduction to the Bible, London: Penguin
William James's Psychological approach to religion.
Jessi Walker
December 37th, 2010
Introduction to the Study of Religion
Course convener: Dr Simonetta Calderini
William James was a cultured philosopher who constantly strove to find scientific ways within which to measure psychology within religion. He was a pioneer of his time in the early 19th century, helping to form the much disputed approach; Psychology of Religion. He focused on an empirical method to measure the effect that a ‘religious experience’ may have had consequentially on an individual and using it as a means to defend the importance of ‘belief’ and the reality it holds within the occupier. To begin with in this essay I will look at what brought William James to the psychological approach of religion and how he fell prey to the founding criticisms that an early ‘psychology of religion’ brought along with it i.e. the philosophical attributes of epistemology contained within his pragmatic methods that positive consequences from the ideology of a religious experience gives an apparent reason for defining it as true. Moreover, the scientific arguments against the rationale that William James fought to defend of science and religion alike having an emotional basis will be discussed. I will also explore whether the ‘personal religion’ that James focuses on is really as much as a danger to religion as a social institution as Charles Taylor argues, giving rise to my own argument of the limitations brought further from an extreme empiricism.
William James was born January 11, 1842 to a father inspired and interested with philosophy and theology with the means to provide his children with a rich and culture-full education. William James travelled extensively and was educated through much of Europe acquiring a particular interest within Science. This later amounted to a medical degree at Harvard University in 1869. During this period James embarked upon an expedition to South America in pursuit of his artistic flair, however, suffered much melancholy which reverberated for James and led him to spend a further two years in France and Germany. There, he gathered a strong interest in Psychology in particular Physical psychology in a new German school. This led James to later teach the subject and he established the first laboratory for it in the United States. In 1878 James taught psychology at Harvard University and he gave many lectures on the subject abroad. In 1897 at the mature age of 55 years old, James published ‘The Will to Believe’ which was his first statement on the nature of faith (which included that of a religious nature) as an accomplished scholar in philosophy and psychology. This seemed to have helped pave the way for James into the field of psychology within religion as he published ‘The Varieties of Religious Experience’ just four years later in 1902. To the contrary of the many critiques of his work within the field of religion, the book is still in print and popular over 100 years on.
To understand James’s works within the psychological approach to religion, we must first understand exactly what the Psychology of Religion is. Psychology of Religion emerged in the mid 19th century in Western Europe as a resource for reviewing religion within a scientific framework. This arose from two major disciplines; Depth Psychology, the first systematic pursuit to the theory of the unconscious mind as a purpose of healing mental illnesses and Psychophysiology, which is a theorem stemming from physiology as a means to replace the philosophical stand point of perceptual theory through concrete measurement and experimentation (Eliade1987 p.58). These are the strong holds by which the varieties of avenues to the present psychological approach of religion are characterized by at the present. As you can see there is nothing in particular that denotes neither psychophysiology nor depth psychology strictly within a ‘religious’ domain. This is because the phenomenon of psychology and religion within the same field is something that has been debated and philosophized over for centuries before the likes of William James had collated. This is best illustrated within the Encyclopedia of religion; “Indeed the word Psychology (“the science of the soul”) already implies some relationship with those dimensions of human experience that had long been spoken of as religious.” (Eliade 1987 p.58)
Although the psychological approach to religion was an approach highly deliberated over by the intellects of the mid 19th century, its move from the philosophical standpoint to a scientific one, weakened its credibility further still. Yet, it’s still an approach that attracts both positive and negative criticisms alike. Ellen Suckiel, a professor of philosophy at the University of California and the author of ‘Heaven's Champion: William James Philosophy of Religion’, goes to great lengths in which to defend James against several attacks to his views, approaches and methods. Most prevalent of which being the attack against his epistemological direction in the case studies of which he formulates his findings in his pragmatic approach to the view that “religious experience is a legitimate source of knowledge of the divine” (Pawelski 2001 p.1). In short, James’s Empirical approach to belief was through the method of defining truth to the value of its belief. James later went on to develop his empirical ideas of truth through the pragmatic theory that the belief/ideology is true as long as it contributes functionally in our lives. We will look into this later as James uses such methods to epitomize his claims.
James is often attacked from scientific rationalists for the primitive assumption that he is trying to compete in the war of using science to prove the existence of a Theos. To the contrary, however, Suckiel makes the argument that James is not trying to prove the existence of God but rather trying to “suggest more imaginative approaches to religious questions” (Pawelski p.1). To the ‘scientific rationalists’ Suckiel provides a valued argument that in general we find emotional feelings of ‘the spiritual’ to be a normal human capacity, and find it an abnormality of those who are unable to experience the same emotions (such as those with autism for instance). If we are able to decipher the functionality of emotions of the spiritual or sublime as a ‘normal’ human function then just as we trust any other normal human functions such as sense of smell or hearing, being able to trust our own religious intuitions, feelings and experiences should be just as reasonable. Should this then go on to contend the truth and rationale behind a single religious experience however, there would be extreme fault in it through an extreme empirical point of view. If James is really trying to measure the truth of a religious experience based purely on this scientific reasoning then the claim for any perception of truth would be infallible. For instance, a man/woman would not be able to have a religious experience where he/she envisaged the Virgin Mary unless they had preconceptions/exposure to the ideology of the Virgin Mary. Otherwise one could argue that even the monster that hides under beds in the night that countless children complain of really does exist!
Alongside the critiques from the anti-empiricists and the scientific attacks of which William James endures are criticisms of another nature entirely. The matter of whether the ‘personal religion’ that James holds to importance threatens the 21st century world to further emancipate itself from institutions such as the church, the communal doctrines. Charles Taylor [November 5, 1931] is a Canadian born philosopher who won the prestigious Templeton award in 2007, an award that is often given to theologians and scientists whose work has evolved around the ever-flourishing field of science and religion. In Taylor’s book, ‘Varieties of Religion Today: William James Revised’ it is clear that Taylor’s biggest criticism is of William James’s psychological approach to religion is the concentrated focus that James has of the ‘individual’ within a religious context. William James relates the dispensability for the need of a social definitive orthodox within religion (namely the church) to be an ideology that places an obstruction between the believer and the essence of the divine. He also argues that the importance of religion lies within the spiritual experience of the individual along with the sole positive consequences that may unfold there from within the context of his/her life. This is James’s most pragmatic empirical claim within his idea of religious experience to the individual. Taylor highlights in his critique of James that the lack of a social collective religious practice within the Jamesian theory takes away important elements that could transpire from the socially collective practices that an ‘individual’ could really benefit from spiritually. Taylor uses this to emphasise his central theme of what he regards as our current ‘religious predicament’; that the society we live in is an ever-growing secular one within which religion has no place. Taylor concludes that James’s approach takes away the survival for religion as a social communal entity within a modern society, namely the church. Taylor also points out that the ‘believer’ should have the choice to integrate their own experiences within a religious community as part of a collective and that this would not necessarily deduce the religious experience of that individual.
As much as I agree with Charles Taylor’s criticisms I can also find fault in them. Yes it is true that although profound religious experience is often in a setting of isolation for an individual (especially within conversion), but it is also worth noting that the spiritual value of that experience could well transform into a greater one and the individual may not only find spiritual growth through doctrinal practices but also contribute to the growth of others spirituality. I feel along with Taylor that the social participation within a religious community can be detrimental to the survival of the value that the experience has on individuals themselves. As Taylor puts it; “many people are not satisfied with a momentary a sense of wow” (Taylor 2003 p.103). However, to the reader Taylor falls foul to portraying himself as an overly defensive Christian consumed with the battle of ‘the place of the church’ within a secular society. This, I feel, may have clouded Taylor’s judgement on James and allowed Taylor to reduce James’s claims of the power of the individual to a limited definition of the term. To put such an emphasis on James’s use of the word ‘individual’ over-looks the fact that one finds it hard to be a sole entity or individual in the sense of the word determined by Taylor. For instance, an individual is more often than not part of a family unit or a figurehead of some sort within their own sub-society, sometimes without their realisation. If I was to look for an individual whose sole religious experience has had a profound effect on a society, culture and history I would have no problem, to name one of the obvious; The Prophet Mohammed (within Islam). His own prophetic experience (which indeed was one often-found in moments of solitude) has given birth to the fastest growing religion of our time. William James himself looks at the case studies of saints such as St Paul. St Paul’s conversion is the result of Christianity as we know it today, whereby his theological imagination transformed ‘Jesus the Jew’ into ‘Jesus Christ’. Paul, without whom would not exist the social Christian traditions known today such as Holy Communion, the taking of the Creed and Baptism, founded Christianity through one sole individual and personal experience. James himself says of the Saints “impregnators of the world, vivifiers and animators of potentialities of goodness which but for them would lie forever dormant” (James 1960 p.348). This is a clear indication that James is not only looking at the value that the religious experience holds within the believer, but is also aware of the detrimental effects that such an experience can have on the natural world. This is James’s most pragmatic claim within his theory.
With hindsight, I have found that William James’s philosophy of religion and his groundings within the much disputed over approach of Psychology of Religion is under constant fire. Not just from the ‘scientific rationalists’ that Suckiel speaks of in her book nor the ‘modern religious crusaders’ fighting against secularism, like Charles Taylor, but also from religious leaders and members of a doctrine that find his usage of religious experience with which to help against mental illness an exploitative one. However, I feel that William James’s objective throughout is to defend the value of religious experiences, not of the existence of God. James uses the pragmatic justification that should the consequences of said experiences resonate within the life of that individual, and in turn reverberate into the natural world rather than just their own psyche, then they have a true value, not only in a truth to the believer, but also in evidence of the metaphysical results that they may later give rise to. I don’t believe that any one concentrated approach to religion is complete enough to stand alone as the key to defining the practicality of religion within life or society. James has often been wrongly accused of making claims that he never sought to defend. William James as we have discovered never intended to contend in the battle of ‘whether God truly exists’, nor does he state that the apparitions of saints were divine interventions. William James simply puts fourth that the consequences that one sole experience from the psyche of an individual to the physical world is what should be accounted for as a measure of validity. As James has pointed out and as previously discussed, it is the sole religious experiences that gave birth to the religions that are forever shaping our world.
Bibliography
Connolly, P. (1996). ‘Psychological Approaches’. In: Pals, D. (ed). Seven Theories of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 135-192.
Croce, P. (2010). William James Society [Online]. Available from http://wjsociety.org/officers.htm [Accessed 25/10/2010].
Dewey, R. A. (2010). Psych Web [Online]. Available from: http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/james/toc.htm [Accessed 25/10/2010].
Barzun, J. (1987) ‘James, William’. In: Eliade, M. (ed). The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: Macmillan. vol 7. pp. 58-61.
Gavril, I. E. (2006). ‘Religious Criticism in Contemporary Philosophical Reflection: Charles Taylor’, European Journal of Science and Theology. 2 (4) pp. 15-28.
James, W. (1960). The Varieties of Religious Experience: a study in human nature. London: Fontana.
Pawelski, J. O. (2001). ‘Heavens Champion: William James Philosophy of Religion’, The Journal of Speculative Philosophy.15 (1) pp. 56-61.
