Recovering the Past, Renewing the Present: The Buber-Scholem Controversy over Hasidism Reinterpreted

Abstract

In 1961 Gershom Scholem (1897-1982) published a scathing critique of Martin Buber's (1878-1965) Hasidic writings, claiming that they adhered loosely at best to canons of historical scholarship and were more representative of Buber's philosophy than they were of Hasidic thought.1 In response, Buber maintained that Scholem's historical critique was misplaced; a category mistake based on a misunderstanding of aim of Buber's Hasidic writings. He had not intended to reconstruct history of but to recapture a sense of power that once gave it capacity to take hold of and vitalize life of diverse classes of people.2 The standard by which his interpretation must be measured is not, as Scholem claimed, its historical accuracy but its faithfulness to the central truth of Judaism and Hasidism and its ability to help our age renew its ruptured bond with Absolute.3 Scholem's and Buber's exchange provoked a controversy that remains ongoing. Still at issue is legitimacy of Buber's Hasidic writings as an interpretation of Hasidism, relative value of Scholem's historicalcritical approach and Buber's religious-philosophical approach to study of and Judaism in general and relationship between their bodies of writing.4 A half a century later, debate continues between