CHAPTER FIVE

THE SACRIFICE OF AND JEWISH POLEMIC AGAINST CHRISTIANITY

Students of will be familiar with rabbinic Judaism’s inter- pretation of Isaac’s sacrifice by his father which is known as the Aqedah, or Binding, of Isaac. In this interpretation, the famous biblical story of Genesis 22 is considerably elaborated, so that Isaac appears as a mature man, fully informed by his father that he is to be the sacred victim, who willingly accepts his fate and joyfully suc- cumbs to the sacrificial knife. Some sources speak of Isaac’s blood as having been shed, others of his having been reduced to ashes in the manner of a whole burnt-offering; and, although the Bible tells of his rescue from death, the whole Aqedah tradition regards his act as if it had been a real sacrifice, utterly without blemish, and effective as none other to procure ’s mercy, forgiveness, and help in times of need. Abraham received his son alive from this perfect sacrifice, a specially prepared ram being offered in his place; to some Jewish exegetes,1 this suggested the notion that Isaac had died and had subsequently been resurrected.2 Some ten years ago, Philip Davies and Bruce Chilton argued, with characteristic force, that certain elements in the Aqedah had been evolved as part of a continuing and authoritative rabbinic polemic against the Christian doctrine of the atoning death and resurrection of .3 They asserted that the , following the temple’s destruction

1 Best exemplified in Pirqe R.El. 31:3. For the text, I have used quotations in M. Kasher, Shelemah 3.2 (: Azriel, 1934), and the Spanish transla- tion of M. Pérez Fernández, Los Capítulos de Rabbí Eliezer (Valencia: Institución S. Jerónimo, 1984). 2 A full account of the Aqedah in writings of the rabbis, medieval Jewish com- mentators, and liturgical poets is given in S. Spiegel, The Last Trial (tr. J. Goldin; New York: Random House, 1967). For studies of the Aqedah in the rabbinic and prerab- binic periods, see especially G. Vermes, ‘Redemption and Genesis xxii’, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1973), pp. 193–227; and R. Le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale (AnBib 22; Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1963), pp. 131–212. 3 P.R. Davies and B.D. Chilton, ‘The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History’,CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 514–546. They have continued their discussions elsewhere: see P.R. Davies, the sacrifice of isaac 73 in ad 70, countered Christian teachings with an increasing emphasis on Isaac’s all-sufficient sacrifice, at times probably depending on Christian material to give substance to their claims. So, for example, they argued that those rabbinic sources which place the Aqedah at Passover time are concerned to counter Christian claims for the merits of Jesus’ pas- chal offering on the cross.4 The period of the Amoraim, the rabbis who contributed to the formation of the two (ca. ad 200–500), was crucial in these particular developments of the Aqedah. But Davies and Chilton have not been without their critics. The present writer expressed reservations about their use and evaluation of material preserved in the Aramaic targums, while Alan Segal pointed to many unsatisfactory aspects of their thesis as a whole.5 Likewise, Roger Le Déaut, in reviewing Chilton’s most recent essay on the subject, has again voiced criticisms similar to those which Segal and I have articulated.6 Segal indeed allows for contact between Jewish and Christian exegeses of Genesis 22 and suggests that, after ad 70, both and drew on a common store of ancient interpretation which they then molded and expanded in the light of their own needs and circumstances.7 Davies and Chilton give specific examples of the way in which the Christian Passion Narratives may have influenced the rabbinic Aqedah. Thus Isaac carried the wood for sacrifice like a man carry- ing his cross; he cried out and wept; he was reduced to ashes, and shed his blood.8 And it cannot be denied that both rabbis and Fathers deduce from this story of Isaac certain common ideas. The parallel between Isaac carrying the wood and a man carrying his cross

‘Passover and the Dating of the Aqedah’, JJS 30 (1979), pp. 59–67; and B.D. Chilton, ‘Isaac and the Second Night: A Consideration’, Bib 61 (1980), pp. 78–82. 4 See especially Davies and Chilton, ‘The Aqedah’, pp. 537–540. 5 See C.T.R. Hayward, ‘The Present State of Research into the Targumic Account of the Sacrifice of Isaac’,JJS 32 (1981), pp. 127–150; and A.F. Segal, ‘“He who did not spare his own son. . . .”. Jesus, Paul, and the Akedah’, From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of F.W. Beare (ed. P. Richardson and J.C. Hurd; Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University, 1984), pp. 169–184, reprinted as ‘The Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Judaism and Christianity’, The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity (Brown Judaic Studies 127; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), pp. 109–130. 6 See B.D. Chilton, ‘Recent Discussion of the Aqedah’, Targumic Approaches to the . Essays in the Mutual Definition of Judaism and Christianity (Lanham/New York/London: University Press of America, 1986), pp. 39–49, and the review of this book by R. Le Déaut, JSJ 18 (1987), pp. 228–231. 7 See Segal, ‘The Sacrifice of Isaac’, p. 129. 8 See Davies and Chilton, ‘The Aqedah’, p. 539.