{"title":"The Hekhalot Literature","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/2214-8647_bnp_e506010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the present chapter, we shall discuss some of the general characteristics of the Hekhalot literature. In the second part of the book, a detailed introduction to each of the Hekhalot texts will be given. The first scholar who attempted a serious evaluation of the Hekhalot literature, and suggested a historical sequence for its composition, was H. Grätz.1 In a series of three articles published in the Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums VIII (1859), Grätz reached the conclusion that the so-called Hekhalot literature was composed in post-talmudic times, and that the first text in the series was ʾOtiyot de-Rabbi ʿAkiva. Grätz’s dating of that literature is still considered by some people to be correct, though the sequence, which he suggested for its composition is no longer accepted. In a series of studies on the Hekhalot literature, G. Scholem proposed a different order and a much earlier date of composition.2 Scholem’s views on these two issues are adopted in this book. However, our discussion will deal with some aspects of that literature, which still deserve attention. In addition, Scholem’s suggestion to interpret the Merkavah mysticism as a Jewish concomitant to Gnosticism will be re-examined.3","PeriodicalId":207614,"journal":{"name":"Descenders to the Chariot","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Descenders to the Chariot","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2214-8647_bnp_e506010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In the present chapter, we shall discuss some of the general characteristics of the Hekhalot literature. In the second part of the book, a detailed introduction to each of the Hekhalot texts will be given. The first scholar who attempted a serious evaluation of the Hekhalot literature, and suggested a historical sequence for its composition, was H. Grätz.1 In a series of three articles published in the Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums VIII (1859), Grätz reached the conclusion that the so-called Hekhalot literature was composed in post-talmudic times, and that the first text in the series was ʾOtiyot de-Rabbi ʿAkiva. Grätz’s dating of that literature is still considered by some people to be correct, though the sequence, which he suggested for its composition is no longer accepted. In a series of studies on the Hekhalot literature, G. Scholem proposed a different order and a much earlier date of composition.2 Scholem’s views on these two issues are adopted in this book. However, our discussion will deal with some aspects of that literature, which still deserve attention. In addition, Scholem’s suggestion to interpret the Merkavah mysticism as a Jewish concomitant to Gnosticism will be re-examined.3
在本章中,我们将讨论赫卡洛特文学的一些一般特征。在本书的第二部分,将详细介绍每一个赫卡洛特文本。第一个试图认真评价希哈洛特文学,并建议其组成的历史顺序的学者是H. Grätz.1在1859年出版的《犹太学刊》第八期(Monatsschrift fr die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums VIII)上发表的一系列三篇文章中,Grätz得出了这样的结论:所谓的Hekhalot文学是在后犹太法典时代创作的,而该系列的第一篇文章是《al - Otiyot de-Rabbi al - Akiva》。Grätz对这些文献的年代测定仍然被一些人认为是正确的,尽管他提出的组成顺序已不再被接受。在对希哈洛特文学的一系列研究中,G. Scholem提出了一个不同的顺序和一个更早的创作日期本书采纳了肖勒姆关于这两个问题的观点。然而,我们的讨论将涉及这些文献的一些方面,这些方面仍然值得注意。此外,Scholem将梅卡瓦神秘主义解释为诺斯替主义的犹太伴随物的建议将被重新审视