Note 42 — II.

Having ascertained its date, we now come to the origin of the Kabbalah. Nothing can be more evident than that the cardinal and distinctive tenets of the Kabbalah in its original form, as stated at the beginning of the second part of this Essay, are derived from Neo-Platonism. Any doubt upon this subject must be relinquished when the two systems are compared. The very expression En Soph (‏אין סוף‎) which the Kabbalah uses to designate the Incomprehensible One, is foreign, and is evidently an imitation of the Greek ἄπειρος. The speculations about the En Soph, that he is superior to actual being, thinking and knowing, are thoroughly Neo-Platonic (ἐπέκεινα οὐσίας, ἐνεργίας, νοῦ καὶ νοήσεως); and R. Azariel, whose work, as we have seen, is the first Kabbalistic production, candidly tells us that in viewing the Deity as purely negative, and divesting him of all attributes, he followed the opinion of the philosophers.42 When R. Azariel moreover tells us that “the En Soph can neither be comprehended by the intellect, nor described in words; for there is no letter or word which can grasp him,” we have here almost the very words of Proclus, who tells us that, “although he is generally called the unity (τὸ ἕν) or the first, it would be better if no name were given him; for there is no word which can depict his nature—he is (ἄῤῥητος, ἄγνωστος), the inexpressible, the unknown.” (Theol. Plat. ii, 6.)