Idel and Liebes
the two’s researches rely on each other… This synergistic effect is rare and surprising in a world where it is decreed that “artists hate each other”… Harvey, a close friend of Idel and Liebes, tried to establish the “secret of the unity of opposites”
Kabbalah is still hidden in that one side of this “unity” is mostly not in English
Something similar about them
both crumbled the spectacular and elaborate structure that Scholem built
Liebes is most notably seen as someone who changed the face of both Zohar and Saturn studies.
It looks like Huss has a new book that mentions Liebes dozens of times
Tishby, defended Scholem’s authority and the hegemony of his research by rejecting the innovation in Idel’s approach and criticizing the integrity of his studies.
Huss says Idel and Liebes have hegemony over the field today, i.e. Scholem doesn’t.
You’d think there’d be Yids jumping to translate Liebes. The CORE of their tradition, and half the jews of the world can’t read the language he writes in. I guess they’re too busy with “the destruction of existence” known as proggism. HAHAHA sorry, I laugh at my own jokes. It is true though, the destruction of existence they spend every waking moment on.
Isn’t this odd?
Excluding a few exceptional cases, [Scholem] and his disciples did not research Kabbalah and Hasidism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
This seems to be the case with the “new hegemons” too.
It’s simply inconceivable to imagine finding a study that connects Hasidism and proggism, for instance. Or Luria and proggism. It’s ludicrous that this research is confined to the back-alleys of the internet. “I must be taking crazy pills”!!!!
So, given that state of things I guess you’ll just have to deal with the unsavory elements of internet denizens. For example, if I were to characterize Elliot Wolfson as a “Derridean jackoff” you’d just have to deal with it. I.e. said Kabbalist is too busy BEING a prog to write about the connection between Kabbalah and proggism, comprende?
I wish professional scholarship would include vital descriptions like that- “Derrideans are WANKERS” because that’s the most accurate thing you can say about them.
Let’s focus on the two main hegemons though
Liebes, in difference from Idel, does not often rely on the phenomenological-comparative approach of religious studies
Here is Liebes’ bibliography
- Elisha’s Sin: Four Who Entered the Orchard and the Nature of Talmudic Mysticism, 1986
- Sabbatean Studies, 1991
- The Secret of the Saturnian Faith: A Collection of Articles, 1995
- The Theory of Creation of a Book of Creation, 2000
- The Words of God: The Jewish Myth, Essays and Studies, 2009
- Dawn Worship: The Zohar’s Attitude to Foreign Work, 2011
- Manmosini: Translations of Ancient Poetry, 2011
- Studies in Jewish Myth and Messianism, 2012
- Studies in the Zohar, 2012
- From Shabbetai Tsvi to the Gaon of Vilna: A collection of studies, 2017
Only the 2012 ones are in English.
According to the Heebnet, we’re missing half the core of contemporary Kabbalah scholarship. I know I’m the lone voice in the wilderness but uhhh I take this to be A PRESSING ISSUE.
If the hub of civilization, NYC, “belongs to Sabbatai” I’d like to know what this preeminent scholar’s studies are about.
Here are some words from Liebes
[the Besht] would have succeeded in his mission, the mission of “sweetening” the words of the Sabbatians
When Kabbalists talk about “sweetening” they mean synthesizing the left pillar into the right pillar. Is Liebes implying that the Besht did not succeed in that? Only scattered fragments of translations of Liebes’ books exist. Ironically I pulled the above quote from a book written by someone with the first name “Zvi”. Why would someone name a kid “Deer” anyway? How does a Nazi know about all these things?
Carrying on- more on his methodology
Liebes also rejects the use of research methods accepted in social sciences in the study of the Kabbalah… “I have very little esteem for the sociological-anthropological-psychological research”… He mainly objects to what he regards as imposition of foreign ideologies in Kabbalah research
This is Wolfson to a T. I want to put a noose around my neck when reading Wolfson, honestly.
When they impose modern ideologies they obscure potential genealogical connections.
To give you a symptom, Idel’s “breakthrough” text, Kabbalah: New Perspectives was written in English originally. Meanwhile, Liebes is on record saying he doesn’t even want his texts translated INTO English. So we can expect a “purer yid” from him. In fact, when I’ve translated Liebes myself I often find him speaking to “us” and about “our” faith, i.e. he addresses himself exclusively to jews.
Look, this again- what is this about??
Tishby is also mostly not in English. Are they trying to hide something?
Wuttt, even that is only partly translated?
Anyway, just a glance at this “half” of the Idel-Liebes “unity”. Again, there are lots of PDFs in Hebrew here.