The Holocaust has provoked many different Jewish theological responses, yet upon closer inspection interesting commonalities can be observed between even seemingly antithetical thinkers. One of these common trends within Holocaust theology has been the rejection and replacement of traditional theodicies which explain and justify suffering, with responses centred on ideas of recovery, consolation and divine mystery. Another widespread, though largely unrecognized trend is the use of Jewish mystical themes by Holocaust theologians. This study shows how the presence of Jewish mysticism can be explained, at least in part, by this post-Holocaust collapse of theodicy.

Beginning with a constructive critique of Zachary Braiterman’s analysis of Holocaust theology, this study argues that his concept of antitheodicy is in need of a tighter definition in order to avoid the charge that it is too broad for use. The concept of atheodicy is then introduced as a complementary concept, which along with antitheodicy can help in understanding the nature of Holocaust theology in greater depth and detail. Atheodicy is defined as a form of response to suffering which focuses on divine mystery, divine co-suffering and recovery. These modes are then identified in the responses of Kalonymous Shapira, Emil Fackenheim, Arthur Cohen and Melissa Raphael - therefore demonstrating the importance of atheodicy across the spectrum of Jewish Holocaust theology. Jewish mysticism is identified as an important resource for these theologians, and the two trends are then shown to be related in virtue of certain kabbalistic concepts lending themselves symbolically to the atheodic dimensions of these theologies.