| |
|
|
| |
|
Come and Hear™ to increase interfaith understanding http://www.come-and-hear.com
This page has been scanned from The Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906) to ensure availability for future students of Come and Hear™ |
THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA
VOL. V
|
|
|
|
|
|
[page 681]
[…] as Kayserling holds (“Moses
Mendelssohn,” p. 481, Leipsic, 1888), “a poetical presentation of Solomon
Maimon,” seems to be conclusive. An anonymous writer in “Ha-Karmel” (1872, P.
462) relates that Abba lived in Glusk, near Lublin, and was well remembered by
its old inhabitants. Max Letteris quotes a parody which Abba is said to have
improvised on the occasion of his being thrown down a flight of stairs by the
impetuous Jacob Emden in Altona. A study of Abba Glusk appeared in the
“Vossische Zeitung” (Aug. 80, 1885), in which are reproduced several
interesting anecdotes, especially of Abba’s troubles with the unfriendly
representatives of the Berlin community, and later with the police of that
city. It seems that after wandering aimlessly in various Western countries,
Abba returned in his old age to Poland, after which all trace of him was lost.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Letteris. In Ha-Maggid. v. 21. No.
7; Kohut, Moses Mendelssohn und Seine Familie, p. 51, Dresden and
Lepsic, 1886.
GNAT.
See FLY; INSECTS.
GNESEN.
See POSEN
GNOSIS. See GNOSTICISM.
GNOSTICISM.
An esoteric system of theology and philosophy.
It presents one of the most obscure and complicated problems in the general
history of religion. It forced itself into prominence in the first centuries of
the common era, and the Church Fathers were constrained to undertake its
refutation. Writers on the history and dogmas of the Church have therefore
always devoted much attention to the subject, endeavoring to fathom and define
its nature and importance. It has proved even more attractive to the general
historians of religion, and has resulted during the last quarter of a century
in a voluminous literature, enumerated by Herzog-Rauck (“Real-Encyc.” vi.
728). Its prominent characteristic being syncretism, the scholars, according to
their various points of view, have sought its origin, some in Hellenism
(Orphism), some in Babylonia, others elsewhere. This question, however, can
not be discussed here, as this article deals with purely Jewish gnosticism.
Jewish gnosticism
unquestionably antedates Christianity, for Biblical exegesis had already
reached an age of five hundred years by the first century C.E. Judaism bad been
in close contact with Babylonian-Persian ideas for at least that length of
time, and for nearly as long a period with Hellenistic ideas. Magic, also,
which, as will be shown further on, was a not unimportant part of the doctrines
and manifestations of gnosticism, largely occupied Jewish thinkers. There is,
in general, no circle of ideas to which elements of gnosticism have been
traced, and with which the Jews were not acquainted. It is a noteworthy fact
that heads of gnostic schools and founders of gnostic systems are designated
as Jews by the Church Fathers. Some derive all heresies, including those of
gnosticism, from Judaism (Hegesippus in Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.” iv. 22; comp:
Harnack, “Dogmengesch.” 3d ed. i. 232, note 1). It
must furthermore be noted that Hebrew words and names of God provide the
skeleton for several gnostic systems. Christians or Jews converted from
paganism would have used as the foundation of their systems terms borrowed
from the Greek or Syrian translations of the Bible. This fact proves at least
that the principal elements of gnosticism were derived from Jewish
speculation, while it does not preclude the possibility of new wine having
been poured into old bottles.
Cosmogonic-theological speculations,
philosophemes on God and the world, constitute the substance of gnosis. They
are based on the first sections of
Genesis and Ezekiel, for which there are in Jewish speculation two
well-established and therefore old terms: “Ma‘aseh
Bereshit” and “Ma‘aseh Merkabah.” Doubtless
Ben Sira was thinking of these speculations when he uttered the
warning: “Seek not things that are too hard for thee, and search
not out things that are above thy strength. The things that have been
commanded thee, think thereupon; for thou hast no need of the things
that are secret” (Ecclus. [Sirach] iii. 21-22, R. V.). The
terms here emphasized recur in the Talmud in the accounts of
gnosis. “There is no doubt that a Jewish gnosticism existed
before a Christian or a Judaeo-Christian gnosticism. As may be seen
even in the apocalypses, since the second century B.C. gnostic thought
was bound up with Judaism, which had accepted Babylonian and Syrian
doctrines; but the relation of this Jewish gnosticism to Christian
gnosticism may, perhaps, no longer be explained” (Harnack,
“Geschichte der Altchristlichen Litteratur,” p. 144). The
great age of Jewish gnosticism is further indicated by the authentic
statement that Johanan b. Zakkai, who was born probably in the century
before the common era, and was, according to Sukkah 28a, versed in
that science, refers to an Interdiction against “discussing the
Creation before two pupils and the throne-chariot before
one.”
In
consequence of this interdiction, notwithstanding the great age and the
resulting high development of Jewish gnosticism, only fragments of it have
been preserved in the earlier portions of traditional literature. The
doctrines that were to be kept secret were of course not discussed, but they
were occasionally touched upon in passing. Such casual references, however, are
not sufficient to permit any conclusions with regard to a Jewish gnostic system.
If such a system ever existed (which may be assumed, although the Jewish mind
has in general no special predilection for systems), it surely existed in the form
of comments on the story of Creation and on Ezekiel’s vision of the
throne-chariot. It is even probable that the carefully guarded doctrines lost
much of their terrifying secrecy in the course of the centuries, and became the
subject of discussion among the adepts. Magic, at first approached with fear,
likewise loses its terrifying aspects as the circle of its disciples enlarges.
The same thing happened in the case of gnosticism, which was itself largely
colored by magic. Hence it may be assumed that the scattered references of the
amoraim of the third to the fifth century C.E., which in view of the statements
made by the heresiologists of the Christian Church are recognized as being
gnostic in nature,
|
|
|
|
|
|
[page 682] contain
much older gnostic thought. They are quoted in the names of later
scribes only because the latter modified the Ideas in question or
connected them with passages of Scripture, and not because they were
the authors of them or the originators of the system. It is also
highly probable that a not inconsiderable part of the earliest Jewish
gnosis is still extant, though in somewhat modified form, in the
mystical small midrashim that have been collected In Jellinek’s
“Bet ha-Midrash,” and in the medieval products of the
Jewish Cabala. Although at present means are not at hand to
distinguish the earlier from the later elements, it is undeniable that
the devotees of secret science and magic in general can not be easily
exterminated, though they may seem to disappear from time to
time. Krochmal, and after him Joel, have already pointed
out gnostic doctrines in the Zohar. Further investigation will show
the relationship of gnosticism to the Cabala, as well as that of both
to magic in general.
In the gnosticism
of the second century “three elements must be observed, the speculative and
philosophical, the ritualistic and mystical, and the practical and
ascetic” (Harnack, l.c. p. 219).
|
Definition and Termi-
nology.
|
These three elements may all be traced
to Jewish sources. The ritualistic and mystical element, however, was here much
less developed than in Judaeo-Christian and Christian gnosticism, as the
liturgical worship and the religio-legal life had been definitely formulated
for many ages. Although very clear traces of it exist, it is difficult to
determine exactly the limits of gnosis and to distinguish between what belongs
to its domain and what to the domains of theology and magic. This difficulty
is due to the nature of gnosis itself, the chief characteristic of which is syncretism,
and also to the nature of the Jewish sources, which do not deal with definite
problems, but with various questions indiscriminately. If the gnostic systems
were not known through other sources, the statements relating to them in the
rabbinical works could not be recognized. These elements were, in fact,
discovered only in the first half of the last century (Krochmal, Graetz), and
new ones have been ascertained by more recent investigators (Joel,
Friedlaender, etc.); much, however, still remains to be done.
The
speculations concerning the Creation and the heavenly throne-chariot (i.e., concerning
the dwelling-place and the nature of God), or, in other words, the
philosophizings on heaven and earth, are expressly designated as gnostic. The
principal passage with reference thereto is as follows: “Forbidden marriages
must not be discussed before three, nor the Creation before two, nor the
throne-chariot even before one, unless he be a sage who comprehends in virtue
of his own knowledge [‘hakam u-mebin mida’ato’]. Whoever regards four things
would better not have been born: the things above, the things below, the
things that were before, and the things that shall be. Whoever has no regard
for the honor of his God would better not have been born” (Hag. ii. 1). As Johanan b. Zakkai refers to this
interdiction, it must have been formulated in pre-Christian times (Tosef., Hag.
ii. 1, and parallels). The characteristic words “hakam u-mebin mi-da’ato” occur
here, correspondlng to the Greek designations [Gr.] and [Gr.] ( I Cor. viii.
1-3). The threefold variation of the verb [Hebr.] in the following passage is
most remarkable: “In order that one may know and make known and that it become
known, that the same is the God, the Maker, and the Creator” (Abot iv. end;
Krochmal, “Moreh Nebuke ha-Zeman,” p. 208); these words clearly Indicate the
gnostic distinction between “God”
and the ‘demiurge.’” “Not their knowledge but
my knowledge” (Hag. 15b), is an allusion to gnosis, as is also the statement
that man has insight like angels (Gen. R. viii. 11 [ed. Theodor, p. 65,
[Hebr.]]). These expressions also occur
elsewhere, while [Gr.] and [Gr.] are not found once in the rabbinical
vocabulary, though it has borrowed about 1,500 words from the Greek; It may be
concluded, therefore, that these speculations are genuinely Jewish. In
classical Greek [Gr.] does not mean “one who knows,’ but “that which is to be
known”; hence the technical term may even have been coined under Jewish
Influence.
Gnosis
was originally a secret science imparted only to the initiated (for instance,
Basilides, in Epiphanius, “Hæreses,” xxiv. 5) who had to bind themselves by
oath, [Gr.] (Justin, “Gnost. in
Hippolytus, “Philosophosemena,” v.
24; comp.
ib. v.7: [Gr.]; also Wobbermin, “Religions-geschichte
Studien zur Frage der Beeinflussung des Urchristenthums Durch
dasAntikeMysterienwesen,” p. 149; and Aurich, “Das Antike Mysterienwesen In
Seinem Einfluss auf das Ohristenthum,’ p. 79). The gnostic schools and
societies, however, could not have made very great demands on their adherents,
or they could not have increased enough to endanger the Church as they did.
The
Pneumatics, who formed a closed community, endeavored to enlarge it (Herzog-Hauck,
l.c. vi. 734). Indeed, most gnostic sects probably carried on an open
propaganda, and the same may be observed in the case of Jewish gnosticism. The
chief passages, quoted above, forbid in general the teaching of this system,
and Eleazar (3d cent.) refused in fact to let Johanan (d. 279) teach him it. Origen,
who lived at the same time in Palestine, also knew the
“Merkabah” as a secret
science (“Contra Celsum,” vi. 18; comp. Friedlaender, “Der Vorchristliche
Judische Gnosticismus,” pp. 51-57, on Philo and the conditions of being
initiated). Joseph, the Babylonian amora (d. 322),
studied the “Merkabah”: the
ancients of Pumbedita studied “the story of the Creation”
(Hag. 13a). As they
studied it together, they were no longer strict in preserving secrecy. Still
less concealment was there in post-Talmudic times, and hardly any in the Middle
Ages. Philosophy never has been hedged with secrecy, and the mandate of
secrecy reminds one of the [Gr.] of the magic papyri. Gnosis was
concealed because it might prove disastrous to the unworthy and uninitiated,
like magic formulas. By “correct knowledge” the upper and the lower world may
be put in motion. When Eleazar was discussing the throne-chariot, fire came
down from heaven and flamed around those present; the attending angels danced
before them, like wedding-guests before the groom, and the trees intoned songs
of praise. When Eliezer
|
|
|
|
|
|
[page 683]
and Joshua were studying the Bible, “fire came
down from heaven and flamed around them,” so that the father of Elisha b.
Abuyah, the gnostic referred to below, asked affrightedly: “Do you mean to set
my house on fire?” (Yer. Hag. 77a, b; comp. Lev. R. xvi. 4; Friedlaender, “Der
Vorchristliche Judische Gnosticismus,” p. 59). These men were all pupils of
Johanan b. Zakkai. When two other scholars interpreted the Merkabah the earth
shook and a rainbow appeared in the clouds, although it was summer. These
stories indicate that this secret doctrine revealed the eternally acting media
of the creation of heaven and earth.
Knowledge of this kind
was dangerous for the uninitiated and unworthy. When a boy read the
Merkaba (Ezek. i.) before his teacher
and “entered the hashmal with his knowledge” [Hebr.] fire came out of the
hashmal [comp. Ezek. i. 4, “as hashmal out of the fire”] and consumed him [Hag. 13a], for the boy was
one who knew [Hebr.]. Gnosis is neither pure philosophy nor pure
religion, but a combination of the two with magic, the latter being the
dominant element, as it was the beginning of all religion and philosophy. The
expression “to shake the world,” used by the gnostic Bar Zoma (Gen. R. ii. 4,
and parallels), reminds one of the origins of gnosis. The phrase “to trim the
plants,” occurring in the second leading passage on Jewish gnosticism, quoted
below, must be noted here, for it refers, of course, to the influencing of the
heavenly world by gnostic means.
The
ophitic diagram that Krochmal shows in the pictures that “may not be looked
upon” (Tosef., Shab., and parallels). is evidently derived from magic, for
the cabalistic sign of the pentagram is
found on one of the earliest shards (Bliss and Macallster, “Excavations in Palestine During the Years 1898-1900,” plates 29, 42; Dr. Emaus, in “Vajda, Magyar Zsido Szemle,” xvii. 315 et seq.). A mere reference to this view must suffice here; its importance has been noted by Anrich, l.c. pp. 86-87; it points the way to an understanding of Jewish gnosis. A few interesting examples may be given here. The following passage occurs in the Berlin Papyrus, i. 20, Parthey: “Take milk and honey and taste them, and something divine will be in your heart’ The Talmud, curiously enough (Hag. 13a), refers the phrase, “Honey and milk are under thy tongue’ (Cant. iv. 11), to the Merkabah, one of the principal parts of Jewish gnosis, saying that the knowledge of the Merkabah, which is sweeter than milk and honey, shall remain under the tongue, meaning that it shall not be taught (comp. Dietrich, “Abraxas,’ p. 157: “honey and milk must be offered”). The Valentinians taught that in order to attain salvation the pneumatic required nothing further “than gnosis and the formulae [Gr.] of the mysteries” (Epiphanius, Haereses,” xxxi. 7).
“Four
scholars, Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, Aher [Elisha b. Abuyah], and Rabbi Akiba,
entered paradise [Hebr.]; Ben Azzai beheld it and died; Ben Zoma beheld
it and went mad; Aber beheld it and trimmed the plants; Akiba went in and came
out in peace” (Tosef., Hag. ii. 3; Hag. 14b; Yer. Hag. 77b; Cant. R. i. 4). The
entering into paradise must be taken literally, as Blau points out
(“Altjudisches Zauberwesen,” pp. 115 et seq.).
|
The Four Who Entered Paradise.
|
The following proof may be added to those given there: “In the beginning of the Paris Papyrus is that great [Gr.] in which the mystic rises above stars and suns [Gr.] near to the Godhead. By such art Iamblichus, freed from his body, endeavored to enter the felicity of the gods [‘ De Mysteriis,’ i. 12], and thus his slaves said that they had seen him, ten ells above the earth, his body and garments gleaming in golden beauty” (Dietrich, lc. p. 152). Paul (II Cor. xii. 1-4) speaks similarly of paradise, a passage that Joel (“Die Religionsgesch.” i. 163, note 3) misinterprets as a “picture of gnosis.” This instructive passage is as follows: “It is not expedient for me, doubtless, to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I can not tell; or whether out of the body, I can not tell: God knoweth); such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I know such a man… . How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”
Philo says, similarly: “Some one might ask, ‘If true holiness consists in imitating the deeds of God, why should I be forbidden to plant a grove in the sanctuary of God, since God did the same thing, when
He planted a garden?’… While God plants and sows the beautiful in the
soul, the spirit sins, saying, ‘I plant’” (”De Allegoriis Legum, §§52 et
seq; ed. Mangey, §§ 117 et
seq.). Philo here speaks also of trimming the trees. It is evident
that this is the language of gnosis,
but the words are used allegorically, as
in Scripture. The literal interpretation here is perhaps also the correct one.
The mystic imitates God, as Philo says, in planting a grove—that is, the
mystic becomes himself a creator. He likewise has the power to destroy. There
were books on the plants of the seven planets—for example, a work by Hermes,
[Gr.] (Dietrich. l.c. p. 157, note 1). Hence the planets were
also regarded as “plantations,” and Aber’s “trimming of the plants” in paradise
must be interpreted in this sense. Berechiah (4th cent.) interpreted the words
of Canticles i. 4, “God brought me into his apartments,” to refer to the
mysteries of the Creation and the throne of God (Cant. R. ad loc.; Bacher,
“Ag. Bab. Amor.” iii. 356). Hence he regarded the knowledge of the Merkabah as
an entering of the apartments of God, or as entering the “Pardes”. Akiba says
to his companions who have entered paradise: “When you come to the pure marble
stones, do not say, ‘Water, water!’ for of this It is said (Ps. ci. 7): ‘He
that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house’” (Hag.. xiv. 6). “Ben Zoma
stood and pondered; R Joshua passed him and addressed him once and twice, but
received. no answer. The third time he answered quickly. Then Joshua said to
him: ‘Whence the feet [Hebr.]? He answered, ‘Nothing “whence,” my master.’ Then
R. Joshua said, ‘I call heaven and earth to witness that I will not stir from
this place […]
|
|
|
| |
|
|
