Martin Buber's Theopolitics

This Pathless Hour | 285

toward Pauline discourse, given the centrality of “Judaism” as a figure of error in Paul; Niren-
berg, Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2013), 60, 490n21.

8. Jeffrey Stout raises this point in a discussion of the term “democracy,” which is seen by
   some as an unrealized goal, by others as a system that must be destroyed, and by “the ideo-
   logues of capital and empire” as the name of the best possible form of political organization.
   Stout, Blessed Are the Organized: Grassroots Democracy in America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
   University Press, 2010), 248–250.


9. Santner, The Royal Remains, xii.


10. Buber, “Three Theses of a Religious Socialism,” in PW 113.


11. Martina Urban, Aesthetics of Renewal: Martin Buber’s Early Representation of Hasidism
    as Kulturkritik (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 1.


12. Gershom Scholem, “Martin Buber’s Interpretation of Hasidism,” in The Messianic Idea
    in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York: Schocken Books, 1995), 229, 247.


13. MBLY 284.


14. Scholem, “Martin Buber’s Conception of Judaism,” in On Jews and Judaism in Crisis, ed.
    Werner J. Dannhauser (New York: Schocken Books, 1976), 167.


15. Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer, “Man’s Relation to God and World in Buber’s Rendering of
    the Hasidic Teaching,” in The Philosophy of Martin Buber, ed. Paul Arthur Schilpp and Mau-
    rice Friedman (La Salle, IL: Open Court Press, 1967), 403–434.


16. While Scholem expanded his criticism after Buber’s death to cover the latter’s broader
    conception of Judaism, references to the “Buber-Scholem controversy” tend to restrict them-
    selves to the Hasidism debate. Scholem, “Martin Buber’s Conception of Judaism,” 126–171.


17. David Biale, Gershom Scholem: Kabbalah and Counter-History (Cambridge, MA: Har-
    vard University Press, 1979), 165–170.


18. K. E. Grözinger, “The Buber-Scholem Controversy about Hasidic Tale and Hasidism—
    Is There a Solution?” in Gershom Scholem’s “Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism” 50 Years After:
    Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism, ed. Peter
    Schäfer and Joseph Dan (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1993), 327–336.


19. Scholem, “Martin Buber’s Interpretation of Hasidism,” 231, 235.


20. Benjamin Lazier, God Interrupted: Heresy and the European Imagination Between the
    World Wars (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), 21–22.


21. With the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in 1945, scholars had direct access to
    “gnostic” texts, unmediated by the descriptions of the church fathers. However, as Karen King
    has written, modern historiography has often shared the heresiological assumptions of the
    Church Fathers themselves; King, What Is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
    Press, 2003), 2, 200.


22. Scholem, “Martin Buber’s Interpretation of Hasidism,” 245.


23. Perhaps Scholem is describing the Buber of 1915, whose exaltation of kinesis enabled
    him to endorse war as a transcendental Erlebnis. This was the Buber against whom Scholem
    first rebelled, and he may never have believed that Buber changed. Regardless, it is significant
    that Scholem permits himself to refer to this view as an anarchism.


24. Scholem, “Martin Buber’s Hasidism, a Critique,” Commentary 32 (1961): 315.


25. This may be due to its generally “scientific” presentation, which impressed Scholem
    even as he saw through it, calling it “pneumatic exegesis with learned notes.” Scholem, “Martin
    Buber’s Conception of Judaism,” 165.


26. Scholem to Buber, June 29, 1932, in LMB 385–387.


27. Scholem, “On the 1930 Edition of Rosenzweig’s Star of Redemption,” in The Messianic
    Idea in Judaism, 320–324.


28. KG 118–119.


29. Scholem, “On the 1930 Edition of Rosenzweig’s Star of Redemption,” 323.