THE ESOTERIC AND INTER-RELIGIOUS ASPECTS OF

THE RELATION PHILOSOPHY / KABBALAH IN LATE

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN EUROPE

YOSSEF SCHWARTZ

I. On the inner Boundaries between Philosophy and Kabbalah

in the Middle Ages – Some Methodological Remarks

In 1997, The Tenth International Congress for Medieval Philosophy in Erfurt,

Germany, was dedicated to the question "What is Philosophy in the Middle
Ages?"1 This question is anything but trivial. However, it seems that underlying
many discussions such as about the interrelations between “Philosophy and Kab-
balah”, there is often a hidden conviction that the Kabbalah phenomenon requires
attention and explanation and that when speaking of “Philosophy” in the Middle
Ages the meaning is clear. Well, this is frequently not the case. For example, Moshe
Idel has made a great contribution to the study of Kabbalah when he opened it to

1. Jan A. Aertsen, Andreas Speer eds., Was ist Philosophie im Mittelater? Akten des X. Internatio-
nale Kongresses für mittelaterliche Philosophie der SIPEM [Miscellanea Mediaevalia 26], Berlin
1998.
“New Perspectives”,2 and it was mostly his path-breaking research that made clear
how much is still complex and obscure in that field. Alain de Libera in his Penser
au Moyen Age,3 has suggested a parallel critical move in the study of medieval phi-
losophy. The major difference between these two examples is grounded in the fact
that medieval philosophy is such a vast and global research field, that no single
scholar nowadays can influence it in the way it still does in the research of Kabba-
lah. This means that Alain de Libera’s work could never have the same general im-
pact as Moshe Idel’s “New Perspectives”.
De Libera argues among other things that "doing" philosophy in the Middle
Ages was not necessarily the monopoly of academic scholars lecturing on Logic and
Dialectics or interpreting the works of Aristotle. The activity may very well have
belonged also to persons – from Socrates all the way until Nicolaus Cusanus – who
popularized these abstract ideas while translating them into daily language and ex-
perience. At the beginning of the 14th century, this was exactly the role of intellec-
tuals such as Meister Eckhart (ca. 1260-1328), Dante Alighiery (ca. 1265-1321)
and Ramon Lull (ca. 1232-1315/16). All three had a point in common: They
combined their academic Latin scholarship with active use of the vernacular out-
side the university and outside the regular church institutions. By emphasizing
these linguistic characteristic of their intellectual activity one could assume that as
long as Jewish authors did not adopt European vernacular as their language of writ-
ing, no Jewish parallel would be found in that period. Yet, when seeking to find a
parallel or similar phenomenon within Jewish medieval culture I would like to sug-
gest that from the 12th century onwards, the Hebrew language functioned, much in
the same way as the European vernaculars.4 In both cases a new linguistic platform
created possibilities for syntheses not known before, and it also created a variety of
literary forms not easily defined within previous formal categories. Before Kabbalah
itself fused into a more or less fixed tradition, many central Kabbalist works, may
illustrate this development. If this assertion is correct then a figure like Abraham
Abulafia can easily find his place among the parallel Christian European figures
mentioned above.

2. Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, New Haven, 1988; Jonathan Garb, „Moshe Idel’s
contribution to the Study of Religion“, Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 18
(2007), pp. 16-29.
3. Alain de Libera, Penser au Moyen Âge, Paris 1991.
4. For similar description see Joseph Dan, The ‘Unique Cherub’ Circle. A School of Mystics and
Esoterics in Medieval Germany, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1999, pp. 252-272.

127
A common phenomenon in modern research of Christian and Jewish literature of
that time is the active utilization of the category “Mysticism” as a convenient work-
ing tool. It seems that because "Mystic" writing does not fall into regular categories
such as philosophy, science, theology, exegesis, secular literature etc., but insists on
borrowing and mixing its elements in a genuine independent way, modern scholars
tend to place such works within one single general and ambiguous category. In this
sense I would like to describe both Abulafia and Eckhart as vernacular philoso-
phers, and cite them close to other contemporary figures such as Ramon Lull and
Dante.5 All four can be regarded as intellectual outsiders, treading on the edge of
heresy, and in their speculations combining vernacular philosophy and vernacular
theology into a vernacular “mysticism”.6 I am fully aware that many modern schol-
ars tend to doubt the philosophical value of these thinkers. The more philosophi-
cally oriented among these modern critics claim that they present a confused, eclec-
tic and unsystematic usage of philosophical notions. The scholars of mysticism, on
the other hand, tend to claim that emphasizing the philosophical speculation of
those figures is a crucial mistake that prevents the scholar and the reader from con-
centrating upon the more essential elements of their mystical speculation.7 I am
afraid that such modern interpretations are doing an injustice to the authors them-
selves and to the Cultural Revolution that they both reflect and led.
To scholars of Kabbalah, such a claim of excessive philosophic tendencies is
reminiscent of Gershom Scholem, when he devaluates Kabbalist theosophy (in his
criticism of Kabbalist theories of emanation, in the seventh of his Ten Unhistorical

5. To the vernacular philosophical nature of those thinkers see Ruedi Imbach, Laien in der Phi-
losophie des Mittelalters. Hinweise und Anregungen zu einem vernachlässigten Thema, Am-
sterdam 1989.
6. On the vernacular character of mystic like Eckhart see Fritz Mauthner, Wörterbuch der Phi-
losophie (Bd. II, S. 126ff.) entry “Mystik”: “Es handelt sich nämlich bei dem Zauber von Eck-
harts Schriften gerade nur um die unerhörte Kraft der Übersetzungssprache. (…) Die Über-
setzung, die sonst so leicht tötet, mußte hier beleben, auferstehen machen. Ein Wunder musste
geschehen, ein sprachliches Wunder. (…) Eckhart hat ‘bewußt und groß’ die Möglichkeit erst
geschaffen, philosophische Gedanken in deutscher Sprache auszudrücken. Er ist der Magister
Germaniae. (…) Seine Übersetzungen sind Wiedergeburten.” On vernacular theology in general
and Eckhart’s vernacular theology in particular see Bernard McGinn, The Mystical thought of
Meister Eckhart. The Man from Whom God Hid Nothing, New York 2001.
7. An example for that might be found by Yehudah Liebes, “Rabbi Salomon Ibn Gabirol’s Use of
the Sefer Yesira and a Commentary on the Poem ‚I Love Thee’ “, Jerusalem Studies in jewish
Thought 6 (1987), pp. 73-124, esp. pp. 77.

128
Aphorisms On Kabbalah8) as not original and not “mystical” enough, i.e. as too ab-
stract and speculative. This may be correct for someone who insists upon the study
of Kabbalah as an isolated Jewish tradition, and not as an integral part of a much
wider intellectual and cultural movement. Once a more integrative approach is
taken, then a whole set of cross-cultural problematizations emerges, such as secu-
larization, vernacularization, inner scientific tensions (especially in relation to ra-
tional rejection of astrology, magic, hermetism, etc.) and popularization, or the
social movement of ideas from small elitist groups to larger circles.
Taking all that into consideration, I reiterate the question: What do we have in
mind when we ask about the relationship between Philosophy and Kabbalah? Do
we imagine different forms of self-identification used by two different communities
of knowledge? Or are we dealing with two formal literary genres? Or with the well-
known topics of philosophy and mysticism, where Kabbalah is defined as “Jewish
mysticism”? Or with the battle-cry of the warriors of enlightenment when they
stress the dichotomy between rational and irrational thought? Or perhaps there is
no presupposed dichotomy between these two traditions but simply manifold va-
riations of ongoing interchange9?
One thing is certain. Speaking about philosophy we are speaking about a uni-
versal, cross-cultural phenomenon, one that even when locally defined, i.e. as “Jew-
ish (or Christian, Moslem, etc.) Philosophy”, is always closely connected to its
neighboring cultures. A Jewish Philosopher in twelfth century Al-Andalus or in
14th century Italy is always aware of the Greek, Roman, and Arab versions of his
own ideas. New translations and constant efforts to integrate the translated materi-
als into the scholar's own tradition, including foreign names and ideas, are always
part of medieval philosophic praxis.
Things differ when it comes to Kabbalah. There, ignoring contemporary debate
concerning its origins and its possible foreign sources of influence, the self-repre-
sentation, through the very notion of tradition, is always exclusively an internal
Jewish phenomenon. Indeed, the constant occupation with the supremacy and
centrality of the Hebrew language in Kabalistic literature is just another signifier of
its basic particularistic orientation, suggesting both its autarchian independent na-
ture and its incommensurability with any other linguistic / symbolic system. Jewish

8. See Gershom scholem, Judaica 3. Studien zur jüdischen Mystik, Frankfurt a.M. 1981 [1970],
pp. 269f.; David Biale, „Gershom Scholem’s Ten Unhistorical Aphorisms on Kabbalah: Text
and Commentary“, Modern Judaism 5 (1985), pp. 99-123, hee p. 115f.
9. This seems to be the basic attitude of Georges Vajda, Recherches sur la Philosophie et la Kabbale
dans la pensée juive du Moyen Age, Paris 1962.

129
Kabbalists who integrate philosophic language into their writings and Jewish phi-
losophers who integrate Kabbalist ideas into their philosophy dissolve the dichot-
omy between the realms and create their early form of idiosyncratic language, a
domain which signals the beginnings of European preoccupation with Jewish eso-
teric traditions (the so called “Christian Cabbala”).
My own point of departure in the following is based on this inter cultural Jew-
ish-Christian perspective that emphasizes the varied relationships between the two
realms within changing cultural settings. My intention is not to expose fully all
relevant materials but rather to portray some important general principles in the
study of this field. I will start with the basic problem of Scripture hermeneutics and
move on to the theological concept of language as it finds expression within the
discussion of divine names. In both cases I would like to point out the tenuous
boundaries between philosophic speculation and Kabbalist tradition. A different
and rather complicated case regards the metaphysical and cosmological teachings
concerning Sefirot, angels, and celestial spheres, where the borders between Phi-
losophy and Kabbalah seem clearer but, in Christian discourse, underwent radical
transformation.
In parallel I will try to demonstrate the methodological need to reveal the con-
tinuity of the process that shaped Christian Hebraism in its new form, from the
12th century onwards all the way to Renaissance and early modern thought, and
thereby to reconstruct the long and complicated route in which Christian intellec-
tuals, Jews and Apostates participated side by side. In this procedure some central
chapters in Jewish-Christian intellectual history must be reconsidered, for example,
when examining “Jewish philosophy” and its influence on Latin scholasticism.
Such examination cannot be limited to the particular literary reception of individ-
ual figures such as Isaac Israeli, Salomon Ibn Gabirol and Moses Maimonides in
the Latin West. Instead one must follow the physical migration of Jewish intellec-
tuals from Moslem to European zones in its fullest socio-political structure. Once a
better picture of this migration process shall be gained the mechanism of cultural
mediation might be better explained.

II. From Maimonidean Hermeneutics to Christian Kabbalah

In the 13th century the individual and communal aspects of philosophic occupation
coalesce into one paradigmatic figure: Moses Maimonides. He personifies Jewish
philosophy and therefore becomes a major source for reception and rejection

130
among Jewish philosophers and among Latin scholars10 on the one hand and Kab-
balists on the other. In both cases the encounter with Maimonides does not repre-
sent solely the widening of the limits of interpretation11 nor necessarily reflects
some “mystical” elements in his thought.12 This is true especially of Maimonides'
hermeneutics and his active and far reaching manipulation of Rabbinical traditions
of esotericism, i.e. his philosophical interpretation of Maase Bereshit and Maase
Merkava and his claim to reveal the hidden, inner, true meaning of the Mosaic
text. At the same time this interpretation is closely related to his radical Neopla-
tonic emphasis on negative theology. Especially in the last chapters of the Guide,
Maimonides insists on combining the radical deontological negative language with
a strong vocabulary of (intellectual) union with the divine. In parallel he also in-
sists, especially in Guide, I, 60-62, to interpret not only universal attributes of God
but also the semiotics of God’s “private”, substantial names. A coherent interpreta-
tion of these seemingly contradictory elements might very easily lead into ecstatic
or mystical formulations. Maimonides systematic interpretation of biblical heaven-
ly powers – angels – through the scientific language of astronomy and cosmology
adds another point of departure that may lead either to the rationalization of bibli-
cal mythical language or to the mythologization of scientific models.
Such elements in Maimonides thought are surely responsible for the mystical
interpretation of his teaching suggested by Kabbalists such as Abulafia and Gikat-
ilya but also by rationalists such as Hillel of Verona, Yehudah Romano and Moses
Narboni.13 It is exactly these elements, which were adapted by Christian writers
who were inspired by Maimonides, i.e. not so much by critical readers such as Al-
bertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas who vehemently reject many of his ideas, but
certainly by polemicists such as Ramon Marti, by exegetes such as Nicolaus de Lyra
and by the “mystic” Meister Eckhart. Another literary phenomenon, which charac-

10. For the reception of Maimonides in Latin scholasticism see Görge K. Hasselhoff, Dicit Rabbi
Moyses. Studien zum Bild von Moses Maimonides im lateinischen Westen vom 13. bis zum
15. Jahrhundert, Würzburg, 2004.
11. On Kabbalist interpretation of Maimonides see M. Idel, “Maimonides and Kabbalah”, in I.
Twersky ed., Studies in Maimonides, Cambridge, Mass. And London 1990, pp. 31-81; Moshe
Idel, Maïmonide et la mystique juive, Paris 1991; E. R. Wolfson, “Beneath the Wings of the
Great Eagle: Maimonides and Thirteenth—Century Kabbalah”, in G. K. Hasselhof, O. Fraisse
(eds.), Moses Maimonides (1138-1204): His Religious, Scientific and Philosophical Wirkungs-
geschichte in Different Cultural Contexts, Würzburg 2004, 209-238
12. See David R. Blumenthal, Philosophic Mysticism.. Studies in Rational Religion, Bar ilan 2006.
13. For a more detailed description of all these thinkers see Schwartz, Yossef, „Magic, Philosophy
and Kabbalah: The Mystical and Magical Interpretation of Maimonides in the Later Middle
Ages“, Daat. A Journal of Jewish Philosophy & Kabbalah, Forthcoming.

131
terizes Christian preoccupation with Maimonides during the 13th – 14th centuries,
is the largely positive acquaintance such Christian thinkers gain through his texts
with Midrashic Literature. Suddenly there’s a whole new branch of Jewish litera-
ture to which they are exposed – not through its refutation by polemicist who em-
phasize its ridiculous and blasphemous aspects (Petrus Alfonsi and Nicolas Donin)
but through its most systematic philosophic interpretation. Simultaneously such
readers discover this same post Biblical literature through the polemics of Pablo
Christiani, Ramon Marti and Nicolaus de Lyra. All what was needed for Pico della
Mirandola and Johannes Reuchlin in order to develop their Christian Kabbala in
its later genuine form, was the linkage made by Apostates such as Abner of Burgos
/ Alfonso de Valladolid, Pablo de Santa Maria, Flavius Mitheridates and Paulus Ri-
cius between these already well known Maimonidean ideas and the sacred teaching
of Kabbalah.
According to the hermeneutics of Maimonides the esoteric layer of Scripture
can be connected with diverse philosophic contents. Sometimes it directs the reader
to metaphysics, on other occasions to physics and moral claims. However, it never
refers simultaneously to diverse realms. In his famous parable of "golden apples
overlaid with silver net-work" the two realms represent, not two inner layers of the
esoteric but diverse relations between "philosophy and law", i.e. between the most
abstract and universal layer of scientific / philosophic discourse and the political
level of accommodation into the daily language of a concrete human community.14
Against the background of such hermeneutical and epistemological monism we can
find in the writings of his successors - philosophers as well as Kabbalists, Jews and
Christians - an alternative understanding of the linkage principle, one that creates
inner hierarchy within the esoteric layer of revelation and therby refers in its turn to
an inner hierarchy within reason itself. Among Christian authors it is probably
Raymundus Martini, a participant in the Barcelona disputation of 1263 and the
celebrated author of the Pugio Fidei, who first used this simile of Maimonides in
his inter-religious polemics.15 Meister Eckhart translated the dichotomy Gold –
Silver into a series of double notions: outer - inner, Physics – Metaphysics, Old
Testament - New Testament. It is in this sense that Eckhart expounds the first

14. On the principel of accomodation see Amos Funkenstein, Theology and the Scientific Imagi-
nation fro the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century, Princeton, New Jersey 1986, pp. 213-
271.
15. Ramundi Martini Ordinis Praedicatorum Pugio Fidei Adversus Mauros et Judaeos, cum obser-
vationibus Josephi de Voisin et Introductione Jo. Benedicti Carpzovi, Lipsiae 1687, S. 427f.:
“R. Moses filius Maimon in libro qui a Judaeis Moreh Nebbuochim, a Latinis vero dicitur di-
rectio neutrorum…‫” תפוחי זהב במשכיות כסף‬.

132
verse of John (in principium erat verbum) as the metaphysical inner layer, facing its
physical outer counterpart in the first verse of Genesis (In principium creavit
deum).16 At the end of the 17th century one finds those two verses on both sides of
the scroll held by the allegorical figure in the title page of the Kabala Denudata.17
Abner of Burgos used the parable of Maimonides together with Gikatilya’s
commentary on Exodus 3, 15: “that is my name for all eternity” (‫ )זה שמי לעלם‬as
an imperative of concealment (The hebrew ‫ עלם‬can be translated either as meaning
eternity or concealment, hence “that is my name that must remain concealed”)
concerning the hidden truth of trinity and incarnation and hidden contents regard-
ing the spiritual level of the Israelites at the time of Moses’ revelation that could
easily evoke idolatry.18 In that way Abner introduces Christian principles into the
hidden, esoteric layer of rabbinic speculation. Pico della Mirandola19 Paulus Ri-
cius20 and Johannes Reuchlin21 later follow in that direction.
The best articulated expression of this principle of the plurality of layers within
the esoteric meaning of revelation is formulated in Eckhart’s famous claim, in the
first part of his commentary on John. Here Eckhart compares the diverse forms of
revealed truth, as formulated in the writings of the philosophers, in the Old and in
the New Testament, or according to his own understanding, in the writings of

16. See Yossef Schwartz, “Meister Eckharts Schriftauslegung als maimonidisches Projekt”, in Go-
erge K. Hasselhoff and Ottfried Fraisse eds., Moses Maimonides (1138-1204) - His Religious,
Scientific, and Philosophical Wirkungsgeschichte in Different Cultural Contexts (Ex Oriente
Lux: Rezeptionen und Exegesen als Traditionskritik, vol. 4), Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, pp.
173-208, here pp. 204-208.
17. Kabbala denudata seu doctrina Hebraeorum transcendentalis et metaphysica atque theologica,
ed. Christian Freiherr Knorr von Rosenroth, Sulzbach 1678-1684.
18. Abner’s Hebrew text is quoted according to Hecht, Jonathan L., The Polemical Exchange bet-
ween Isaac Pollegar and Abner of Burgos/Alfonso of Valladolid according to Parma MS 2440
Iggeret Teshuvat Apikoros and Teshuvot la-Meharef, unpub. Diss., New York, 1993, pp. 326-
462, here pp. 376; the Spanish is quoted according to Sainz de la Maza Vicioso, Carlos, Alfon-
so de Valladolid: Edicion y studio del Manuscrito “Lat. 6423” de la Biblioteca Apostolica Vati-
cana, unveröffentlichte Diss., Madrid 1990, pp. 431-765 [pp. 444-541: Libro del zelo de dios;
pp. 542-730: Repuestas al blasfemo], here pp. 580: “Et por esso dixieron los sabios del Talmud
sobre el viesso que dize, Exo.: ‘Este es mi nonbre para siempre’, que es escripto commo si dixi-
esse ‘este es mi nonbre para encobrir.” The Hebrew ‫ עלם‬might be translated either as meaning
eternity or concealment.
19. Who implement this principle of esoteric interporetation directly on Maimonides himself, and
see n. 41 below.
20. Pauli Ricii De coelesti Agricultura, IV, „in secundum theorema appendix“, in Iohannes Pisto-
rius ed. Ars Cabalistica, Basel 1587 [Frankfurt: Minerva 1970], pp. 124.
21. Johannes Reuchlin, De Arte Cabalistica, I, XIVb-XVa, in: Martin and Sarah Goodman eds.,
On the Art of the Kabbalah / De Arte Cabalistica, Lincoln and London 1993, pp. 94-96

133
Aristotle, Moses and Christ. The inner contents of these diverse revelations are one
and the same, while they differ from each other in their epistemic methods as well
as in their different grades of certitude. "It is therefore the same, what Moses,
Christ and the Philosopher teach. One that can be separated only in relation with
its mode, i.e. in the way in which the content of faith is related to the intelligible or
probable and to truth".22 This is one of the earliest systematic claims in the direc-
tion of a philosophia perennis made by a Master of Theology at the beginning of the
14th century.
For Eckhart, Moses Maimonides himself incorporates this principle by showing
the similitude between his faith as a Jew and his rationalistic method as a philoso-
pher. He represents the Old Testament both as the Law of Moses and as the phys-
ics of Aristotle. Eckhart as his commentator adds to it the teaching of Christ and
the “true” metaphysics of Aristotle.

III. Divine names

Furthermore Eckhart also integrates into Maimonides’ teachings concerning divine

names a series of magical interpretations, which very easily are reminiscent of Jew-
ish Kabbalists such as Abraham Abulafia and Gikatilya, as well as of a philosophic
mind such as Moses Narbonni, in their parallel interpretations to Guide I, 62.23
This integration of magical ideas into the thought of Maimonides is therefore
much earlier than its well known systematic manifestation by Pico della Mirandola.
In order to realize the innovation of Eckhart’s interpretation a short remark
concerning previous Christian references to Jewish traditions pertaining to divine
names may be relevant.24 Christian authors, especially since Jerome, are fully aware

22. Meister Eckhart, Expositio Sancti evangelii secundum Iohannem 185; in: Karl Christ, Joseph
Koch eds., Die lateinischen Werke [LW], III, Stuttgart-Berlin 1936, pp. 155, 5-7: “Idem ergo
est quod docet Moyses, Christus et Philosophus, solum quantum ad modum differens, scilicet
ut credibile, probabile sive versimile et veritas”.
23. Schwartz, Yossef, „Magic, Philosophy and Kabbalah”, op. cit.
24. I am not going to relate myself here in context of our present discussion to the well known the-
ses of Amos Funkenstein, Jeremy Cohen and many other concerning the general turn in Chris-
tian European attitude towards Jews and Judaism in that period. Funkenstein, Amos, “Changes
in Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics in the Twelfth Century”, in: Perceptions of Jewish History,
Berkeley, 1993, S. 172-201; Cohen, Jeremy, The Friars and the Jews: The Evolution of Me-
dieval Anti-Judaism, Ithaca, N.Y., 1982; Sapir Abulafia, Anna, “Jewish-Christians Disputations
and the Twelfth-Century Renaissance”, Journal of Medieval Studies 15 (1989), S. 105-125;
Dahan, Gilbert, La polémique Crétienne contre le Judaïsme au moyen âge, Paris, 1991.

134
of the existence of a developed doctrine concerning God’s substantive name as a
concrete sign of absolute and esoteric knowledge and as a central instrument for
the achievement of mystical and magical powers. The Jewish esoteric tradition is
rooted in late antiquity and left traces already on the Church Fathers. From early
on there is a certain concurrence between rival Jewish and Christian traditions con-
cerning holy names and their magical usage.25 The manner of Christian acquaint-
ance with forms of “hebraica veritas”, as found in Jerome and Origen, was gathered
in the early Middle Ages by Isidore of Sevilla in the seventh book of his Etymolo-
gies26, especially in his interpretation of the names “qui est” (cap. I, §10),“ego sum
qui sum” (§ 11-12), and “Tetragrammaton” (§ 16).27 Until the end of the thir-
teenth century three more genuine sources join the list: Petrus Alfonsi28, Maimon-
ides29 and Ramon Marti.30

25. See Elchanan Reiner, "Joseph the Comes of Tiberias and the Jewish-Christian Dialogue in
Fourth-Century Galilee", in: Continuity and Renewal: Jews and Judaism in Byzantine-Chris-
tian Palestine, ed. Levine, Lee I., Jerusalem, 2004 [in Hebrew], pp. 355-388, esp. 366—371.
26. Sancti Isidori Hispalensis Etymologiarum sive Originum Libri XX [PL 82], Lib. VII, Cap. i, 3-
16; on the Tetragramm see i, 16, 246C.
27. As the duplication of the sylable “ia”. These specific interpretation is repeated in the beginning
of the 13th century by Garnerius de Rochefort, or whoever was the anonym author of the trac-
tat Contra Amaurianos, and see Contra Amaurianos. Ein anonymes, wahrscheinlich dem Gar-
nerius von Rochefort zugehöriges Traktat gegen die Amalrikaner zu Anfang des XIII. Jahrhun-
derts, ed. Clemens Baeumker, Münster i.W. 1926 [Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie
und Theologie des Mittelalters, 24], Cap. X, pp. 34,1-38,6. See also Garnerius, Sermo 2, in:
Garnerius Lingoensis Episcopus, Sermones, PL 205, S. 715C-717C. Garnerius´ trinitarian spe-
culation goes far beyond the earlier formulations of Hieronymus and Isidore. It strongly recalls
the formulations of Petrus Alphonsi, but is not exactly identical with them. See Petri Alphonsi
ex Judaeo Christiani Dialogi (…), Titulus VI, PL 157, 611B-612C. Alphonsi uses the geomet-
rical figure of the circle, while Garnerius prefers the triagle.
28. Alfonsi, Dialogus, op.cit.; McGinn, Bernard, “Cabalists and Christians: Reflections on Cabala
in Medieval and Renaissance Thought”, in: Jewish Christians and Christians Jews, eds. Rich-
ard H. Popkin and Gordon M. Weiner, Dordrecht 1994, pp. 11-34; to the reception of Al-
fonsi by Joachim de Fiore, Ramon Marti, Alphonso de Aspina and others, see Steven J.
McMichael OFM, Was Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah? Alphonso de Espina’s Argument
against the Jews in the Fortalitium Fidei (c. 1464), Atlanta, Georgia, 1994, pp. 258-269; To-
lan, John, Petrus Alfonsi and his Medieval Readers, Gainesville: University Press of Florida,
1993, pp. 110-131.
29. Guide of the Perplexed, I, chapter 61-62; Dux seu director dubitantium aut perplexorum, ed.
Justiniani, Parisiis 1520, I, 60-61, Fol. 24r-25v; for the reception of these ideas in the scholas-
tic see Yossef Schwartz, „To Thee is silence praise“: Meister Eckhart’s reading in Maimonides’
Guide of the Perplexed, Tel Aviv 2002 [In Hebrew], pp. 220-237.
30. Pugio Fidei, ed Voisin, op.cit., Cap. IV, iv, pp. 685-689; see also Arnaldo de Vilanova, Allocu-
tio super Tetragrammaton, ed. Joaquin Carreras Artau, Sefarad 9 (1949), pp. 75-105.

135
Within Jewish tradition, Maimonides’ speculations on the topic were further de-
veloped in post Maimonidean literature. There, among the commentators of
Maimonides as well as among Kabbalists, other syntheses of philosophic, magical
and mystical speculations were developed, as I mentioned above, by figures such as
Abraham Abulafia31, Joseph Gikatilah32 and Moses of Narbonne (Narboni).33
Maimonides' discussion of divine attributes provides the reader with one of the
most radical formulations of negative theology in late medieval thought.34 At the
same time Maimonides insists on entering the realm of biblical and rabbinical my-
thical expressions concerning God’s substantive name. His discussion of the sacred
names used by the priests in the temple in Guide I, 62 became a central locus until
the 17th century for various kinds of discussions relating to the magical power of
words.
The Dominican theologian Thomas Aquinas rejects both Maimonidean ex-
tremes, i.e. first his extreme negative theology and then his evaluation of the semi-
otic value of the tetragrammaton – while having no interest whatsoever in the Rab-
binical traditions brought by Maimonides. However, Thomas' contemporary, fel-
low Dominican Ramon Marti has a different approach and makes an intensive use
of this chapter in his Pugio fidei. Their predecessor Meister Eckhart not only quotes
the whole Maimonidean discussion especially in his commentary on Exodus, but
also develops it in rather unexpected directions. 35 The fact that Eckhart adopts
Maimonides’ negative theology should not surprise anyone considering his reputa-
tion as Neo-Platonist and mystic. Eckhart’s concept of language always seems

31. Abraham Abulafia, Life of the Soul (Haye ha-Nefesh), I, x-xi, ed. Weiss, pp. 44-49; Moshe
Idel, “Maimonides and Kabbalah”, in: Studies in Maimonides, ed. Isidore Twersky, Cam-
bridge, Mass. und London 1990, pp. 31-81, here 66.
32. Yoseph b. Gikatilya, Sefer Ginat Egoz, Hanau 1615, 3b-11a; Scholem, Gershom, “Gikatilla”,
in: Encyclopedia Judaica, bd. 7, S. 564-5, dates Gikatilya’s studies by Abulafia to the years
1272-1274. Ginat Egoz was writen in 1274.
33. See Narbonni’s commentary to Guide I, 62, in Shlosha Kadmonei Mefarshei ha-Moreh, Jeru-
salem 1961 [reprint of the Goldenthal edition, Vienna 1853], fol. 11a.
34. For some modern encounters with Maimonides’ concept of negation see Ehud Z. Benor,
“Meaning and Reference in Maimonides' Negative Theology", Harvard Theological Review
88 (1995), pp. 339-360; Hilary Putnam, “On Negative Theology”, Faith and Philosophy 14
(1997), pp. 407-422.
35. Schwartz, Yossef, “Zwischen Einheitsmetaphysik und Einheitshermeneutik: Eckharts Maimon-
ides-Lektüre und das Datierungsproblem des 'Opus tripartitum'” in: Meister Eckhart in Erfurt,
ed. Andreas Speer, Lydia Wegener, [Miscellanea Mediaevalia, Band 32), Berlin and New York
2005, pp. 259-279, here pp. 272-275; see also Dagmar Gottschall, “’Man möhte wunder tuon
mit worten’ (Predigt 18). Zum Umgang Meister Eckhart mit Wörtern in seinen deutschen
Predigten”, op. cit., pp. 427-449.

136
rather pessimist and negative, one that locates language completely within the
realm of the created universe, far away from the divine realm.36 Nevertheless, at
some point of his commentary on Exodus, Eckhart's speculations appear to take a
rather different path. First, when speaking about the Tetragrammaton, Eckhart
identifies it with the concept of being itself:
“Someone might perhaps think that existence is the name of four letters itself, be-
cause the term “existence” (esse) has literally four letters and many hidden proper-
ties and perfections. It also does not seem ‘to be derived from a work nor express
any participation.’ ”37
Maimonides most crucial onto-metaphysical distinction is the one based on his
assertion regarding the equivocation of being.38 Eckhart, using the authority of
Maimonides himself, turns it here into an absolute univocation.39 Then, when
coming to discuss the name of 42 letters, Eckhart claims among other things, the
following:
“Rabbi Moses writes four things about (…) the name of forty-two letters. The
first is that it is not one single name, (…). The second point is that each of these
names indicates some perfection (…). It is possible that not only the name (…)
but also the numerical value of the letters (…) signify some perfection in God.
They could indicate perfections and properties of the divine nature with regard to
the order of letters in the names, their nature and their shape, just as, for exam-
ple, with us the secondary “stars” of the lower regions (whether in the air, the
clouds, water, the earth and things growing on the earth) point to the superior
nature and properties of the heavenly primarily stars. 'Appearances in this world

36. See L. Seppänen, Meister Eckharts Konzeption der Sprachbedeutung: Sprachliche Weltschöp-
fung und Tiefenstruktur in der mittelalterlichen Scholastik und Mystik?, Tübingen 1985; Mi-
chel Sells, Mystical Languages of Unsaying, Chicago 1994.
37. Eckhart, Expositio libri Exodi 164, LW II, pp. 144, 9-12: „Et fortassis videri alicui quod esse
esset ipsum nomen quattuor litterarum. Ad litteram enim li esse habet quattuor litteras, multas pro-
prietates et perfectiones latentes. Ipsum etiam non videtur ‘sumptum ab opere nec dictum a par-
ticipatione’. Sed haec hactenus.”
38. See Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed I, 52, trans. Shlomo Pines, Chicago and London
1963, pp. 117f.: „Now He, may He be exalted, has a necessary existence while that which is
other than He has a possible existence, as we shall make clear. There accordingly can be no cor-
relation between them.... How then can a relation be represented between Him and what is
other than He when there is no notion comprising in any respect both of the two, inasmuch as
existence is, in our opinion, affirmed by Him, may He be exalted, and of what is other than
He merely by way of absolute equivocation.“
39. See Schwartz, Yossef, “Zwischen Einheitsmetaphysik und Einheitshermeneutik“, op. cit.

137
 are subject to celestial appearances', as Ptolemy says in the ninth axiom of his
Centiloquium, because inferior things signify in the nature, shape, order and
number of superior things, just as effects signify their causes. Alchemy, geomancy,
pyromancy and many similar sciences trust in this. (…) Some hold that the
number and order of letters in nouns is perhaps not without meaning and a na-
tural propriety so that neither the order nor the number is fortuitous. The third
point is that the things signified by these names are not to be take “at face value”,
but according to the secret hidden thing they signify. For example, with alchemist
the name ‘sun’ means gold, the name ‘moon’, silver, and so on. So too, Aristotle
often attacks the surface meaning of Plato rather than the inner sense. The fourth
point (…). This is why the sages have said: ‘The forty-two letter name is holy
and sanctified ….’. After this he [Maimonides] adds: ‘What a distance there is
between what people understand … the grasp of the Agent Intellect.’ ” 40
Eckhart uses here the same locus in order to connect the hermetic tradition
known to him through Arabic sources translated into Latin (Picatrix, Ps. Alkindi’s
De Radiis etc.) with rabbinic esotericism through the mediation of Maimonides.
He combines it with another claim concerning Plato’s esoteric teaching. Once
these two claims are joined together he achieves a formulation, which is surpris-
ingly close to that of Pico in his famous assertion:
“Just as Aristotle disguised and concealed the more divine philosophy, which the
ancient philosophers veiled under tales and fables, under the mask of philosophi-
cal speculation and in the brevity of words, so Rabi Moses the Egyptian, in the
book the Latins call dux neutrorum, while in the superficial shell of words ap-
pears to move with the philosophers, in hidden insights of a profound sense en-
folds the mysteries of the Cabala.” 41
What is completely missing in Eckhart and earlier in Raymundus Martini’s
quotation from the same chapter of Maimonides’ Guide is any naming of Kabbalah
as a spiritual or literary phenomenon or any direct evidence of acquaintance with

40. Expositio libri Exodi, n. 151-154, LW II, pp. 134, 16 – 138,4.

41. Pico della Mirandola, Conclusiones cabalisticae numero LXXI secundum opinionem propriam,
ex ipsis hebraeorum sapientum fundamentis christianam religionem maxime confirmantes,
11<63, in S. A. Farmer, Syncretism in the West: Pico’s 900 Theses (1486) with Text, Transla-
tion, and Commentary, Tempe, Arizona 1998, p. 546: „Sicut Aristoteles diuiniorem philoso-
phiam, quam philosophi antiqui sub fabulis uelarunt, ipse sub philosophicae speculationis facie
dissimulauit et uerborum breuitate obscurauit, ita Rabi Moyses aegyptius, in libro qui a latinis
dicitur dux neutrorum, dum per superficialem uerborum corticem uidetur cum Philosophis
ambulare, per latentes profundi sensus intelligentias, mysteria complectitur Cabalae.“

138
any Kabbalist writing. Apostates such as the above mentioned Abner de Burgos
and Paulus de Santa Maria were perhaps the first to use the term “Cabbala” and to
use Kabbalist teachings in their polemics. Flavius Mitheridates, Paulus de Heredia
in his Epistle of Secrets and Paulus Ricius carried on this intellectual apostatic tradi-
tion. Among the various interpretations to Maimonides suggested by the apostates
the one of Abner / Alfonso has some special significance in the context of the pre-
sent discussion. Following Maimonides, Abner / Alfonso interpreted the Midrash
of Rabbi Eliezer that before the creation of the universe God exists in his complete
solitude, "alone with his name".42 But contrary to Maimonids, in a move that on
the one hand bears no literal similarities to that of Eckhart, but on the other hand
suggests a similar metaphysical twist, Alfonso moves from the radical equivocation
suggested by Maimonides to a complete unity between God and the created uni-
verse. The Midrash, according to his intrepretation, does not reflect God’s absolute
unity and simplicity,43 but must be translated into a gramatical reading of God’s
most private name YHWH as a reference to His future creative activity. While
Maimonides insists on the fact that this private name has no syntactical or gram-
matical derivation, and is therefore completely inutterable,44 Alfonso suggests that
it must be read as a verb in the future tense (He shall bring forth into being), one
that denotes God’s essence as effective cause of the universe.45 Similar to the later
formulation suggested by Nicholas of Cusa's teaching of complicatio – explicatio,
the lonely moment of the Divine contains already the fullnes and plurality of his
future attributes deriving directly from his creative actions.46 “And so, according to
the opinions of the Kabbalists (mecubalim) Me and He and You (‫)אני והוא ואתה‬
contain the divinity (yo et el et tu encierran la Divinidat)”.47

Angels: between cosmology, magic and theosophy

A similar, though rather more complex aspect also appears briefly in Eckhart's a-
bove quoted paragraph. When referring to the magical influence of words, Eckhart
relates to the heavenly realm that intermediates between the absolute transcendence

42. Pirque di-Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 3: “before the world was created there was only God alone
with his name”
43. Vgl. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, I, 61; Pines, pp. 148f.
44. Ibid..
45. Teshuvot la-Meharef, pp. 364.
46. See Volkmann-Schluck, K. H., Nicolaus Cusanus: Die Philosophie im Übergang vom Mitte-
lalter zur Neuzeit, Frankfurt a.M., 1984, pp. 48-52.
47. Teshuvot la-Meharef, pp. 366; Repuestas al blasfemo, pp. 568f.

139
of God and the sub lunar elemental world. Some kind of reference to such heav-
enly influence on the elements is common to scientists, philosophers, theologians
and magicians throughout the Middle Ages.
Maimonides' teachings on angels, as formulated in Sefer Ha-Mada48 and in
Guide II, chapters 6-7,49 does not differ radically from the teachings of Islamic
thinkers such as Alfarabi and Ibn Sinna. This fact was well known to all scholastic
philosophers. Some of them, like the author of the Summa philosophiae attributed
to Grosseteste or the author of the Erorres philosophorum attributed to Aegidius Ro-
manus, quote both Maimonides and his Arab predecessors.50 Others – Albertus
Magnus is the best example – choose to emphasize the Jewish character of this sci-
entific and philosophic de-mythologized and naturalistic concept of angelic na-
ture.51 I assume that their motivation to do so derives from the fact that unlike a
Moslem philosopher, a Jew like Maimonides does share with the Christians the
same sacred texts of the Old Testament, and therefore his interpretation of Angels
is more relevant for a Christian theologian.
In any case, and almost with no exception, all scholastic thinkers reject the Arab
naturalistic interpretation of Angelic nature and differentiate sharply between the
physical role played by heavenly spheres, heavenly intellects and separated sub-
stances, and the metaphysical role of angels.52 Throughout the Middle Ages the
most authoritative sources concerning angels, remains Holy Scripture and Augus-
tine’s writings, together with the theological description of Pseudo Dionysius in his
Celestial Hierarchy.

48. Maimonides, Mishne Torah, The Book of Knowledge, Ch. II, 3-8, Ch. III, 1-10; ed. With
english translation Moses Hyamson, Jerusalem 1962, pp. 35b-37b.
49. Pines, pp. 261-266.
50. See Summa philosophiae, tract. 29, cap. 26-27, in Ludwig Baur ed., Die philosophischen Wer-
ke des Robert Grosseteste, Bischofs von Lincoln, Münster 1912 [BGPhMA, 9], pp. 581,13-31,
584,1-33; Aegidius Romanus: Errores philosophorum, XII.5, ed. Joseph Koch, trans. John O.
Riedel, Milwaukee 1944, pp. 60, 17-20.
51. See Albertus Magnus, De causis et processu universitatis a prima causa, l. 1, tr. 4, cap. 8, ed.
Winfried Fauser (Opera omnia, 17,2) Aschendorff 1993, 58,19-23; Idem., Super Dionysium
de divinis nominibus, Cap. XIII, ed. Paul Simon (Opera Omnia, 37,1), Aschendorff 1972, pp.
212, 17-26.
52. A most systematic discussion is to be found by Thomas Aquinas who enter an intensive discus-
sion on the matter especially rejecting Gabirols universal hylomorphism but also argues against
the arabic identification of the mythical realm of angels with the scientific cosmological ST Ia,
Q. 50, art. 3; Quaestio disputata de spiritualibus creaturis, Art. 7-8; De substantiis separatis.
The most conclusive formulation is found in the condemnation of 1277, see esp. Art. 75, 77,
102, 112; Heinrich Denifle O.P., ed. Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, I, Paris 1889, pp.
548f.

140
Among Jewish philosophers and Kabbalists of the same time, theosophic Kabbalah
suggests a third, theosophical system i.e. that of the ten Sefiroth, along with the
decimal hierarchies of the Angels as organized by Maimonides, and the astrono-
mical system of the ten heavenly spheres. It is precisely this Kabbalist cosmology
that would become so dominant in the Platonic school, from Pico, Ricius and
Reuchlin53 until Fludd, Moore and Anne Conway.54
In this context, Marin Merrsenne and Henry More point out the danger that
underlies any identification of Aristotelian cosmology with Kabbalist theosophy,
i.e. the dangerous pantheistic identification of God with the created universe.55
This hazardous road was taken by R. Joseph ibn Waqar in his Principles of the Kab-
balah and again by Narboni in his Commentary on Ibn Tufayel’s Hay ibn Yak-
zan.56 This led to the ongoing debate concerning the status of Ensoph in relation
to the Sefirot.57 All these complexities steer us to later episodes in which philosophy
and Kabbalah meet in European consciousness. For example, Johann Georg Wa-
chter’s refutation of Spinozism both as a philosophic form of Kabbalah and as
Atheism in 1699 and the later reception in the Pantheismusstreit in Germany from

53. See Pico della Mirandola, Conclusiones cabalisticae, op. Cit., 11<48, pp. 540: „Whatever other
Cabalists say, I say that the ten spheres correspond to the ten numerations….“ ; Paulus Ricius,
De coelesti Agricultura, Lib. IV, Theoremata; Pistorius, pp. 122: “Potiora & sempiterna Legis
membra sund decem, perpetuo observanda mandata decalogi. Terreni hominis membra … de-
cem enumerant….. Sic & primaria coelestis hominis membra decem annunciant. … Archetypi
hominis membra decem sunt ordines angelorum, …. Cunctae denique hic exposite decades, a
decem sanctisimis, exemplaribusque Dei nominibus ducunt originem,… Eiuscemodi decem
Dei nomina, decem sephiros (id est, numerationes) vocant Cabalei“; Johannes Reuchlin, De
Arte Cabalistica, III, LXXa, pp. 316; See Moshe Idel, „The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpre-
tations of the Kabbalah in the Renaissance“, in: Bernard d. Cooperman ed., Jewish Thought in
the Sixteenth Century, Cambridge, Mass. And london 1983, pp. 186-242.
54. See Yossef Schwartz, “Kabbala als Atheismus? Die Kabbala Denudata und die religiöse Krise
des 17. Jahrhunderts“, Morgen-Glanz: Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesell-
schaft 16 (2006), 259-284, here esp. 274-280.
55. Ibid., pp. 274-6.
56. See Georges Vajda, Recherches sur la philosophie et la kabbale dans la pensée juive du Moyen
Age, Paris 1962, pp. 396-403. – Alexander Altmann, Moses Narboni’s ‘Epistle on Shi’ur
Qoma’: A Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text with an Introduction and an Annotated English
Translation, in idem. ed., Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Cambridge, Mass. 1967,
pp. 225-264, esp. pp. 243-245
57. Efraim Gottlieb suggested a systematic differentiation between two streams of Kabbalah be-
tween the late 13th century and the 17th century. The first identifies the system of the Sefirot
with the essence of God (‘Atzmut’, i.e. ‘selfness’ or ‘essence’). The second makes the Sefiroth
into God’s instruments (‘Kelim’, i.e. ‘instruments’ or ‘organs’, see Gottlieb, Studies in the Kab-
bala Literature, Tel Aviv 1976, pp. 289-315 [In Hebrew].

141
the second half of the 18th century onwards.58 As I demonstrated elsewhere, what
seems to Gerschom Scholem and many of his followers to be an original and unex-
pected synthesis between philosophy and Kabbalah was in reality deeply rooted in a
general and intensive discussion that took place all over Europe throughout the
17th century. It included figures like Robert Fludd and Marin Mersenne, Henry
More and Caramuel Lobkowitz. Since the 1670s it was the Sulzbach Project with
More, Van Helmont, Anne Conway, Knorr von Rosenroth, Thomas Burnett and
the young, still Lutheran, Johann Peter Spätt.59
Not only do these European discussions anticipate Wachter, they also preceded
Spinoza, for example in the linkage, made by Marin Merssenne during the 1620’s
between the Kabbala of Gikatilya and the pantheistic formulation “Deus sive
Natura”.60 The refutation of Kabbalah as atheism is closely connected to its theoso-
phic character, to its non-Christian origin, but also to its innovative nature. It en-
tails two contradictory claims, one that identifies Kabbala with pantheism and an-
other which emphasizes its negative claims in order to argue that it leaves no place
for the transcendent God in the created universe.
At the same time, Kabbalist teachings represent for many philosophers and
theologians a real opportunity for internal renovation of Christian dogma. It is not
only the need for new anti Jewish polemical arguments that provides the motiva-
tion but more so the need to face internal challenges from religious heretics, skep-
tics and materialists. It was Pico’s claim that Kabbalist speculations might provide
an answer to all kinds of heresies61 and this claim would be raised again by Henry

58. See Gershom Scholem, Die Wachtersche Kontroverse über den Spinozismus und ihre Folgen,
in: Karlfried Gründer und Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann (eds.), Spinoza in der Frühzeit seiner
religiösen Wirkung, Heidelberg 1984, 15—26, insb. 18 [= Wolfenbütteler Studien zur Aufklä-
rung, Bd. 12]. – idem., Abraham Cohen Herrera – Leben, Werk und Wirkung, in: Abraham
Cohen Herrera, Das Buch ‫ שער השמים‬oder Pforte des Himmels, aus dem Lateinischen über-
setzt von Friedrich Häußermann, Frankfurt a.M., 1974
59. Schwartz, „Kabbala als Atheismus?“, op. cit.
60. In his research on Maimonides and Jewish mysticism Moshe Idel assumes a Kabbalist source
for Spinoza’s formell “Deus sive Natura”. See Moshe Idel, Maïmonide et la mystique juive,
Paris 1991, pp. 105-134. – it is important tough that long before the publication of the Ethica
Mersenne already pointed out on Gikatilyas formulation that identifies God with nature and
defined it as pantheism, and see F. Marini Mersenni Ordinis Minimorum, Questiones Cele-
berrimae in Genesim, cum accurate textus explicatione, in hoc volumine Athei et Deistae im-
pugnantur, & expugnantur, Lutetiae Parisiorum 1623, Col. 675: “Adverterunt autem Rabini
dictionem ‫הטבע‬, id est naturam, tantumdem valere, quantum Elohim”. Mersenne mentions
Gikatilias Gematria that equals the two words and claim that his book “libru(m) hunc non
lucis, sed tenebrarum librum merito vocabimus”.
61. Op. cit., 11>5, pp. 522

142
More, almost 200 years later in his Conjectura Cabbalistica62, in which he turns to
Kabbalist teaching in order to defend the mystery of the trinity against those who
hold it to be a pagan tradition. As I claimed in this paper, all these thinkers would
also use Kabbala in order to protect their spiritual cosmology against early forms of
materialistic scientism. Once their “creative misunderstanding” is considered
against the background of several fundamental problems that occupied Jewish
scholars in the late Middle Ages it might reveal itself as less bizarre and misleading
as it has been so often presented.

62. Henry More, Conjectura Cabbalistica or, A Conjectural Essay of Interpreting the minde of
Moses, according to a Threefold Cabbala, London 1653, “The Epistle Dedicatory”, pp. A3a-b

143