Abraham Joshua Heschel and the Sources of Wonder by Michael Marmur

Abstract

Reviewed by: Abraham Joshua Heschel and the Sources of Wonder by Michael Marmur Stuart D. Robertson Abraham Joshua Heschel and the Sources of Wonder By Michael Marmur. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2016. xiii + 279 pp. Michael Marmur's book is (apparently) an extension of the author's 1984 PhD dissertation at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Heschel's Rhetoric of Citation: The Use of Sources in God in Search of Man. The present book has as its basic purpose "to demonstrate how Heschel's political, intellectual, and spiritual commitments were imbedded in his reading of Jewish tradition." The author is Provost at the Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion. Abraham Joshua Heschel and the Sources of Wonder is structured in nine chapters, with extensive endnotes and two indices for sources and subjects. The [End Page 143] categories developed in these chapters include Heschel's use of the Bible, rabbinic sources, Maimonides, Kabbalah, the Hasidim, his "affinity with strangers," his Aspaklaria (Hebrew, "the compendium of Jewish thought," but in this book the author defines it as Heschel's "perspective and prism through which he viewed the world"), and finally, his call to action. Marmur calls attention to the criticism of various biblical scholars that though Heschel drew on the Bible more than on other sources, he was not a biblical scholar in the mold of recent biblical scholarship. "On occasion Heschel offered decontextualized readings of the Bible that came directly from rabbinic literature." His was a "hermeneutics of surprise." "The Bible is the most sublime literary distillation of the surprise, wonder, amazement, and awe that are the primal human responses to the mystery of existence." This hermeneutic was not Heschel's unique contribution, of course, as the author notes in calling attention to his citation of "key works of the Jewish esoterical tradition, including the sixteenth century kabbalistic work, Pardes Rimmonim, of Moses b. Jacob Cordovero of Safed." Though the early rabbinic PARDES scheme of interpretation included the peshat, the plain meaning of the text, it also included mystical reflection on the Bible (sod). Neither the early understanding of peshat nor a mystical interpretation was at all like the modern scholarly approach to the Bible. Since Heschel made no pretense of being a biblical scholar in the modern sense, and admitted to his nurturing from rabbinic sources, to criticize him for this lack is inappropriate. And Marmur is not among these critics that do so. Chapter 7, "An Affinity of Strangers," displays how Heschel was similar to important Jewish thinkers of the past in his openness to non-Jewish spiritual figures. Heschel proposed there had been a link between Menahem Morgenstern (d. 1859), the Polish Kotzer Rebbe, and the Danish Lutheran philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard (d. 1855). He remembers that Heschel wrote a book on Abravanel (d. 1508), the Portuguese polymath, who was at home in Christian theology and Islamic philosophy. These are only two examples of affinity with strangers of Jewish luminaries, in whose train Heschel found a place. This is not to suggest that there were not fundamental differences between the Jewish and Christian figures but that "despite profound differences in perspective and substance . . . parochialism [was] untenable." Heschel participated with Martin Luther King, Jr. in the Civil Rights march on Selma. He was a friend of Reinhold Niebuhr, the influential Christian voice of conscience, and many others. These affinities were based on a common cause that reflected the Jewish ideal of tecun olam, to heal the world. [End Page 144] Marmur appropriately reminds the reader that Heschel's driving inner forces made necessary something larger than great thoughts. His work became a call to action. As his life drew near its end, Heschel "expressed opinions on a wide array of social issues and current affairs." But he not only spoke out, but also participated in the causes about which he spoke. Why? First, because for him to withdraw from the world was "futile and unworthy." Second, because to remain a bystander was immoral. Third, because he followed the example of the biblical prophets. Though he was steeped in the rabbinic heritage, and was widely read beyond Jewish sources, he drew on the Bible...