Conclusion
A rapid survey of the opening of the Zohar reveals some of the elements which constitute the complexity of the kabbalist text and recall the difficulty in providing a univocal definition of Jewish mysticism. It seems to us that only by taking into account Gershom Scholem's approach combined with that developed by Antoine Faivre in the field of the study of esotericism may we understand all its observed characteristics. The two perspectives are revealed as complementary: while the 'criteriology' suggested by Faivre allows for a description of the way in which the kabbalist tradition works symbolically and hermeneutically, it does however marginalise the religious dimension specifically tied to Judaism, which is clearly shown in the works of Scholem. It is the conjunction of these two approaches which provides the key to the understanding of the heterogeneity of kabbalist literature.
