Born in Berlin in 1897 and educated at German universities, Gershom (originally Gerhard) Scholem pioneered the academic study of Jewish mysticism, a topic that had been dismissed by his predecessors as something of an embarrassment. His voluminous works continue to define the terms of the subject for both his admirers and critics. Zvi Leshem examines his reception in Orthodox circles:
Scholem, who in his lifetime was on very good terms with many in the Orthodox community, was nonetheless subject to significant criticism from some of its members. Perhaps some bristled at the very idea of a “secular” scholar of Kabbalah, for many the “Holy of Holies” of the Torah. . . . Other [Orthodox] writers took strong exception of some of Scholem’s scholarly positions, e.g., regarding the lateness of the composition of the Zohar, although he was hardly the first to make this suggestion,
But while Scholem employed the methods and approaches of secular scholarship, and was not strictly observant in the Orthodox sense, he insisted, as Leshem notes, that “he could not be called ‘secular’ since he had always believed in God.” Scholem adhered to many aspects of traditional practice, and according to one of his students, “would recite kiddush on Friday nights ‘with great enthusiasm.’” As for the content of Scholem’s thought, Leshem contrasts it with that of his friend and frequent intellectual sparring partner Martin Buber, a theologian who did much to render Ḥasidism accessible to outsiders much as Scholem did Kabbalah:
Paradoxically, Scholem, whose philological approach would seem to be far less “spiritual” than the literary-existentialist-dialogic thrust of Buber or the experientialist approach of [Rabbi Abraham Joshua] Heschel, may be more palatable to an Orthodox audience. Buber, in his lovely renditions of ḥasidic tales, chose to emphasize this-worldly spirituality at the expense of halakhah and other more traditional rabbinic and/or kabbalistic elements. Scholem, in his historical/philological approach to ḥasidic discourses, was seemingly less interested in contributing to contemporary spirituality, and thus had little reason to present Ḥasidism in a more “attractive” form than what he saw in the actual texts.
So, while Buber’s writing is certainly more “spiritual” than that of Scholem, aspects of it may feel inauthentic to an Orthodox reader. Scholem, who on the one hand can be downright offensive [to Orthodox sensibilities], on the other hand leaves us with a picture of ḥasidic life and an analysis of texts that comes across as more objective and thus can actually be more inspiring as well.
Read more on Tradition: https://traditiononline.org/orthodoxy-and-the-scholem-moment-2/