The sacrifice of Isaac in Qumran literature.pdf

7/24/2019 The sacrifice of Isaac in Qumran literature.pdf

1/20

GBPress Gregorian Biblical Press

The sacrifice of Isaac in Qumran literatureAuthor(s): Joseph A. FitzmyerSource: Biblica, Vol. 83, No. 2 (2002), pp. 211-229Published by: GBPress- Gregorian Biblical PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42614365.

Accessed: 07/01/2015 14:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

GBPress- Gregorian Biblical Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Biblica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:59:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=gbpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/42614365?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/42614365?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=gbpress


2/20

The sacrifice of Isaac

in

Qumran

literature

The

story

f Abraham's

willingness

to sacrifice saac

is well

known

because of the account of it n Genesis 22. Well knowntoo is the

way

allusion is made to this

story

n

some

writings

f

the New Testament

(e.g.,

Jas

2,21-23;

Heb

6,13-14; 11,17-19;

possibly

Rom

8,32).

Even

morewell known

s the

understanding

f that ccount n therabbinical

traditionmongtheJewishpeople, where t is known as the 'Aqdat

Yishaq

'Binding

of

Isaac',

or

simply

he

Aqedah

or Akedah. It is not

surprising,

hen,

hat

Qumran

text

might

be found that heds some

light

on the

understanding

f that famous account in

the

Book of

Genesis.

The name

Aqedah

however,

s used with different

onnotations

today,

nd so it s

necessary

o be

clear from he outset bout

the sense

in

which it is

being

used. Sometimes it is used to

denote

only

the

vicarious

xpiation

f the acrifice f

saac,

i.e. the

offering

f saac on

behalfofotherspeople of srael); sometimes t means thestory fthe

sacrifice f Isaac as it

developed

in

the Jewish raditionn

contrast o

the bare account n

Gen

22;

and sometimes t

connotesthe

totality

f

events

depicted

n

art nd

literature hat uilds on

Gen

22,1-19

*).

The

noun

mpi?

does not

appear

n

the

biblical account of

Genesis or

in

the

0)

See J.

wetnam,

esus nd saac. A

Study

f he

pistle

o

theHebrews

in

the

Light

f the

Aqedah

AnBib

4;

Rome

1981)

75. Also

R.J.

Daly,

"The

Soteriologicalignificance

f the

acrifice f

saac",

CBQ

39

(1977)

45-75;

J.

Danilou,

"La

typologie

'Isaac dans e

christianisme

rimitif',

ib 28

(1947)

363-393; .Ginzberg,he egends f he ewsPhiladelphia,A1909-1938) ,

218,

n.

52;

L.

Jacobs,

Akedah",

ncyclopaedia

udaica

Jerusalem

970-1971)

II, 480-484;

R. Le

Daut,

"La

prsentation

argumique

u sacrifice

'Isaac et a

sotriologie aulinienne",

tudiorumaulinorum

ongre

sus

internationalis

catholicus 961

(AnBib

17-18;

Rome

1963)

II, 563-574;

D.

Lerch,

saaks

Opferung

hristlich

edeutet.

ine

uslegungsgeschichtliche

ntersuchung

BHT

12;

Tbingen

950)

0-42;

.

Lvi,

Le sacrifice

'Isaacet a mort

e

Jsus",

EJ

64

(1912)

161-184;

A. Mdeb

elle,

U

Expiation

ans

'Ancien t e

Nouveau

Testament

SPIB

42;

Rome

1923)

264-265;

RA.

Rosenberg,

Jesus,

saac and

the

Suffering

ervant'",

BL84

1965)

381-388;

H.-J.

choeps,

TheSacrifice

of

saac

n

Paul's

Theology",

BL 5

1946)

385-392;

.

Spiegel,

he astTrial:

on theLegends nd LoreoftheCommando Abraham oOffersaac as a

Sacrifice.

he

Akedah.

ranslatedrom

he

Hebrew,

with n

introduction

y

Judah

Goldin

New

York

1967);

J.E.

Wood,

"Isaac

Typology

n the

New

Testament",

TS

14

1967-1968)

83-589.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/20

212

Joseph

A.

Fitzmyer

Qumran ext obe discussed. tfirstppears ntherabbinic radition f

the

third-fourth

entury

f the

Christian ra. For this

reason shall not

use it

again

until

come to discuss that

radition. shall be

speaking

of

the sacrifice of

Isaac

in

a sense that

mediates between the first nd

second senses

ust

mentioned,

ecause

I

am concerned

to determine

how much of

the first

meaning

can

really

be found in

the Jewish

traditionthat

develops

out of Gen

22,1-19

in

the

pre-Christian

Palestinian

Jewish radition

rior

o the New

Testament.

My

further

emarkswill be made under four

headings:

(1)

the

Genesis account in its originalHebrew formand in the Old Greek

version;

2)

the

understanding

f the account n

the Book of

Jubilees;

(3)

the

Qumran

ext hat

nterprets

t;

and

(4)

later

developments

f the

understanding

f

the sacrifice f saac.

I. The

Genesis Account n Its

Original

Hebrew

Form

and in

the Old Greek Version

The Hebrew narrative f the

sacrifice f saac is recounted n

Gen

22,1-19,which can be summarized hus:

1

Afterhese vents od

put

Abrahamothe est. 2. Take

your

on,

your nly

on

saac,

whom

ou

ove,

nd

go

to the and f

Moriah nd

offer

im

here s a burnt

ffering

n one ofthemountainshat shall

point

ut o

you'.

3

Abraham

ose

arly

henext

morning,

addledhis

donkey,

nd ookwith

im

wo fhis ervantsndhis on saac. He cut

woodfor he urnt

ffering

nd et ut o

go

tothe

lace

ofwhich

God

had told

him.

On the hird

ay

Abraham aisedhis

eyes

nd saw the

place

from

far.

6

Abraham ook he

wood

for heburnt

ffering

nd

put

n

on his son saac's

shoulders;

e himselfarried hefire ndthe

knife;

nd the woof themwent n

together.

Isaac

said to his

father

Abraham,Father 'Abrahamnswered,Yes,my on?' He continued,

'Here

are

thefire nd the

wood,

butwhere s the ambfor heburnt

offering?'

Abraham

nswered,

God

himself ill

provide

he amb or

theburnt

ffering, y

on'. Thenthe

wo

of themwent

n

together.

9When

hey

ame to the

place

of which

God

had

told

him,

Abraham

built here n altar nd

arranged

hewood

upon

t);

then

he bound

("ipjn)

his son saac and

placed

him

pon

he ltar n

top

fthewood.

10

Then

Abraham eached ut ndtook he

knife

o

slay

his son.

11

The

angel

fthe ord ried ut

ohim rom

eaven,Abraham,

braham '

He answered

im,

Yes?'

12

'Do not

ayyour

and n the

oy;

do not o

anything

o

him,

ecause

nowknow hat

ou

rea

God-fearer,

ince

youhavenotwithheldrommeyouron,your nly on'.13As Abraham

raised

his

eyes,

he saw a ram

caughtby

its horns

n

the

thicket.

Abraham

went,

ookthe

ram,

nd offeredt

up

as a burnt

ffering

instead f

his on.

14

Abrahamalled

hat

lace

Yahweh-Yir'eh'.

o it

is called o this

ay:

On

themount fthe

ord twillbe

provided'.



4/20

The

sacrifice f Isaac

in

Qumran

iterature 213

The striking etails in the Genesis account are theage of Isaac,

who is no

longer

a mere infantbut a

youth

who understandswhat

sacrifice s and can

carry

wood,

and the

place

fromwhich Abraham

starts nd to which he

returns,

iz.

Beer-sheba.

Only

two

noteworthy

differences re found n

the

Septuagint

version of this

account.

First,

the

way

it translatesHebrew mon as

ei

tt|v

yfjv t|v

j'|/r|Xiv,

to the

high

land',

in v.

2;

and

second,

how

tit,

'only',

the

description

of

Abraham's

son,

as

yatrix,

beloved',

in vv.

2, 12,

16.

Elsewhere

n

the

Septuagint

it

is sometimes endered s

|o.ovoyevrj

Judg

1

1,34

n

MS B [2];also Ps 22,21). Although Moriah' turns p again only n 2

Chr

3,1,

as the

place

where

Solomon built the

Temple,

the

site

in

Genesis is

usually regarded

as

otherwise unknown.

Moreover,

this

narrative

mphasizes

that Isaac is Abraham's

'only'

son

(MT)

or

'beloved' son

(LXX),

because

Abraham has

already

abandoned

and

sent off o the

wildernessof Beer-sheba both

shmael and his mother

Hagar

(Gen

21,8-21),

so that shmael no

longer

counts as a son. In

Genesis

itself,

one

eventually

learns that Abraham

had six other

children

y

Keturah

25,2),

but

they lay

no

role n thisnarrative

bout

Isaac, who is Abraham's 'only' son and heir (3). The testto which

Abraham s

subjected:

the child bornto him

after

long delay,

who is

to be the ink

to the

promised

numerous

rogeny

Gen 15,4-6),

s now

to be

given up

at

God's

request

s a

sacrifice.

II. The

Understanding

f the

Account n the Book of

Jubilees

The narrative f the

sacrifice f saac was

reproduced

n the

Book

of

Jubilees,

nd it

reveals how the

Genesis

story

was

being

understood

in thesecond pre-Christian enturyn PalestinianJudaism.Although

the

details of the

narrative emain

basically

the

same,

five

mportant

(2)

n MS A one

finds

xovoyevfi

YCMtiT

s the

ranslation.

(3)

See further

. von

Rad,

Genesis.A

Commentary

London

966)

232-

240; d.,

Das

Opfer

es

Abraham

KT

6;

Munich

971);

H. Graf on

Reventlow,

Opfere

einen ohn. ine

Auslegung

onGenesis 2

BSt

53;

Neukirchen-Vluyn

1968);

C.

Westermann,

enesis 2-36.A

Commentary

Minneapolis,

N

1985)

351-365;

G.W.

Coats,

"Abraham'sacrifice

fFaith:A

Form-Critical

tudy

f

Genesis

2",

nt

7

1973)

389-400;

.

Kundert,

ie

Opferung/Bindung

saaks

(WMANT 78; Neukirchen-luyn 998) , 95-107;G. Steins,Die "Bindung

Isaaks"

im Kanon

Gen 22).

Grundlagen

nd

Programm

iner

kanonisch-

intertextuellen

ektre. it

Spezialbibliographie

u Gen 22

(Herders

iblische

Studien

0;

Freiburg

mB.

1999);

R.

Brandscheidt,

Das

Opfer

es Abrahams

(Genesis

2,1-19)",

TZ

110

2001)

1-19.



5/20

214

Joseph

A.

Fitzmyer

elements were introduced nto it as it became part of Jub 17,15-

18,16(4).

The

first s the role of

'prince

Mastemah'.

Whereas

God's

command

given

to Abraham

n

Gen

22 to offer is son is

simply

tated

without

ny

reason

for t other han hatGod

would 'tes

Abraham,

n

Jubilees

prince

Mastemah

is used to

supply

the motivation or t. He

functions

n

the

heavenly

court as Satan

does in

Job

1-2,

for he

challenges

God to

put

Abrahamto the test:

The princeMastemah ame and said in God's presence,Look,Abraham oves his son Isaac and is more

pleased

withhimthan

anything

lse;

command

im o offer

im s a burnt

ffering

n an

altar

nd see whether e will

carry

ut his rder. hen

you

willknow

whether e is faithful

n

every

est o

which

you

subject

him'

Jub

17,16).

Second,

the account

in

Jubilees

gives

a list of tests to

which

Abraham

was

subjectedby

God

prior

o the

great

estof the sacrifice

of

saac.

God's

answer

to Mastemah's

challenge

runs

s follows:

The

Lord knew thatAbraham

was faithful

n

all

his

afflictions,becausehe had tested imwith commando eavehiscountry,nd

with

amine;

e tested

imwith hewealth

f

kings,

ndhe tested

im

again

withhis

wife,

when

he was taken

way

from

im;

and with

circumcision;

nd he had tested

him

with

shmael nd

Hagar,

his

slave-girl,

hen

he sent hem

way.

n

every

est o which he

Lord

subjected

im,

Abraham

ad been

found aithful.

is soul was

not

impatient,

r slow to act.

For he was

faithfulnd oved

theLord

Jub

17,17-18).

In this

passage

we learn about

six tests

to which

Abraham

was

subjectedby

God

(5): (a)

the command

to leave

his

country=

Gen

12,1); (b)

the famine n Canaan thatmakeshim

go

down to

Egypt

to

get

grain

=

Gen

12,10); (c)

the wealth

of

booty

retrieved

rom he

defeat f the

eastern

kings

thatAbraham

did

not

keep

from

he

king

of

Sodom

(=

Gen

14,21-23); (d)

the abduction

of

Sarah

by

Pharaoh

=

Gen

12,14-15); (e)

thecommand

o circumcise

himself nd

all his men

as a

sign

of the covenant

=

Gen

17,10-12);

and

(f)

the

sending

way

of

Hagar

and

his son

Ishmael

(=

Gen

21,9-14).

(4)

See

J.C.

VanderKam,

heBook

of

Jubilees

Guides

o

Apocrypha

nd

Pseudepigrapha;heffield001)52-53.

(5)

The

ater abbinic

radition

umbered

he

ests s

ten,

ut

nly

ix are

mentioned

nJub

7,17.

he

ten ests re

isted

n

Pirqe

eRabbi

li'ezer

6-31;

see

also Jub

9,8,

nd J.

Bowker,

The

Targums

nd

Rabbinic

iterature.

n

IntroductionoJewish

nterpretations

f

Scripture

Cambridge

969)

228-229.



6/20

The sacrifice f Isaac in

Qumran

iterature 215

Third, fter he ix tests,Jubilees ecounts he tory f the acrifice

of

Isaac,

the

great

test n Abraham's life

18,1-16).

The

story epeats

the details of the

account

in

Gen 22 rather

closely,

but it

again

introduces he

prince

Mastemah at two

points,

a)

As Abraham

s about

to use the knife o

slay

Isaac,

it

records:

I

was

standing

n the Lord's

presence,

nd

the

prince

Mastemah was there oo.

And the Lord

said,

"Tell him not to

lay

his

hand

on

the child. '"

(Jub 18,9).

(b)

Later on

it

records,

after God

has found Abraham faithful:

The

prince

Mastemah was

put

to shame'

(18,11).

Thereupon

Abraham

spies

the

ram. n thisway,whatthe theangel of the Lord' does in theGenesis

account

becomes one of the tasks of Mastemah.

Fourth,

Jubilees

may

connectthe

sacrifice f Isaac with

Passover,

but

only

ndirectly.

t dates

the

approach

of Mastemah to

God on the

twelfth

ay

of the

firstmonth

17,15),

and the

reader s left o add the

three

ays

that hetext

mentions,

when

t notesthatAbraham nd

Isaac

approach

the mountain f their

destination on the third

ay'

(18,3).

That would have

been the fifteenth

ay,

when

Passover was

being

celebrated

6).

Finally,Jubilees dentifies the mount'called inHebrew Yahweh-

Yir'eh as Mount Zion

(18,13),

i.e. Jerusalem.

III. The

Qumran

Text

That

nterprets

he

Account

Among

the

many fragmentary

extsretrieved

rom

Qumran

Cave

4,

which rewrite

the Hebrew

Scriptures,

one in

particular

is

noteworthy,

Q225

or

4QPseudo-Jubileesa(7).

It

is

noteworthy,

because it reveals that

the sacrifice of

Isaac was not

passed

over

in

silence among theEssene Jews at Qumran,as has been thought t

times

8).

The

text s extant n

only

three

fragments,

nd its account

(6)

See further

.C.

VanderKam,

The

Aqedah,

Jubilees,

nd Pseudo-

Jubilees",

he

Quest

or

Contextnd

Meaning.

tudiesn

Biblical

ntertextuality

in Honorof James

A. Sanders

ed.

C.A. Evans

-

S.

Talmon) (Biblical

Interpretation

eries

8;

Leiden

997)

241-261,

sp.

245-248;

lso P.R.

Davies,

"Passovernd he

Dating

fthe

Aqedah",

JS 0

1979)

59-67.

(7)

See J.C.

VanderKam J.T.

Milik,

225.

4QPseudo-

ubilees'",

umran

Cave4. VIII.

Parabiblical

exts,

art

ed.

H.

Attridge t

l.) DJD

13;

Oxford

1994)141-155.

(8)

See R. Le

Daut,

La Nuit

ascale

AnBib

2;

Rome

1963)

184,

n.

134:

'Il est rs

emarquable

u'tant

onnea

popularit

u

sacrifice'Isaac dans e

Judasme

ncien,

l

soit

pass

sous silence ans

e

que

nous

onnaissonse la

littrature

umrnienne'



7/20

216

Joseph

A.

Fitzmyer

resemblesthatof Jubilees.Although tsvocabularyand phraseology

are similar to that of

Jubilees,

t differs

learly enough

so

that one

cannot call it

simply copy

of

Jubilees;

hence Pseudo-Jubilees. his

fragmentary

exttells

of

an

heir

to be born of

Abraham,

he

birth f

Isaac,

and God's reward of Abraham for

being willing

to

spare

this

only

son.

Fragment

,

columns and ii are

important

or his

discussion,

nd

thetextof col. i runs s follows:

[ro],i

]

7

p[ n]n p "rinp-rc aorrrnf-nji^a ornan] 8

noQ[o]on

o Kim

pno-

oo n

mp-i

[mat]

9

nom

pnera

rna

n

nwi

D'm^R *?]

0

[io ro]Trr

i

pno'

ns nan na

np

on

nas

11

'[man onnn

n bo

riab mbrm

n[an n]

12

[min i]n

ba rman

G Di]p'i

na1?

im -kok]

3

n

[on-i]aK ri[ ]*?[ ]

14

7 And

Abraham]

8

be[lieved]

God,

and

righteousness

as reckoned

o

him(9).

A son

was born

f[ter]

his

9 [toAbraha]m,ndhe named im saac. Butthe rinceMa[s]temah

came

10

[toG]od,

ndhe

odged

complaintgainst

braham bout saac.

[G]od

said

11

[to

Abra]ham,

Take

your

on

saac,

[your] nly

ne,

whom]

12

[you

o]

ve,

and offer im o me as a burnt

ffering

n one of the

[hig]h

mountains,

13

[which

shall

point

ut]

to

you'.

He

aro[se

and

w]en[t]

rom

he

wells

10)

p

to

Mo[untMoriah].

14

[ ]And

Ab[raham]

aised

Column ii continues hetextof col. i directly:

[nrr

a'n m

prar

ba d'sot

n]

n["]i

eanam

]"3[-iJ]

[non

rw rsrm an

nn

ra]

orna

pne

-on 2

[non

nu nsT ua

pne

f*

nma -nam bsh 3

[

ns' tiis

ms]a

ra

pric

-m

ft

4

[

naton

bv

D'aia o'iquj

o>p

Dsbo 5

[

nano]on

tftoi

n ]D

via ntc 6

O

For

an

interpretation

f this

part

f

the

ext,

ee J.A.

Fitzmyer,

The

Interpretation

f

Genesis

5,6:

Abraham'saith nd

Righteousness

na

Qumran

Text"forthcoming).

(I0)

n Gen

22,19

Beer-sheba

rato ta)

is

given

s the

dwelling-place

f

Abraham.

he author f this ext eems

o have

nterpreted

hename o mean

'seven

wells',

s itwasunderstood

ometimesater

n

see

T.

Nldeke,

Sieben

Brunnen",

RW7

1904]340-344).



8/20

The

sacrifice f

Isaac

in

Qumran

iterature

217

[ornormenn r nrTon] ntr edjjonoimdtt 7

[-ip-1

vrfrtf?

ma]

pw

rcarv

dm

btd rcar

8

[

-dtot

nn]j>

on

-on

arra

nn-QR

9

[n

rn

^

ta

pnjzr

na

mm

?

pm

an

mm

10

pro

rm

(v^cfl) "i]ri

na mVn

mpjn

mpjr

11

[

"]-f7)

pm

prron

rra "ir

12

[

ipn

OtfjQ

n^]l?

TIOK

7CDD101

3

[

nocHDDn

HB]

?

roctn

i[0]on

KB 4

1

[his

y]es,

and

herewas

a]

fire;

nd he

pu[t

he

wood on

his son

Isaac,

and

they

went

ogether.]

2 Isaac saidtoAbraham,hisfather,Herearethe ire ndthewood,

but

where s the

amb]

3 for

the burnt

ffering?'

braham

aid to

[his

son

Isaac,

'God

himself ill

provide

he

amb'.]

4

Isaac

said to

his

father,

B[ind

me

fast

]

5

Holy

ngels

were

tanding,

eeping

ver he

altar

]

6 his

sons

from he

arth.

he

angels

f

Mas[temah

]

7

rejoicing

nd

saying,

Now

he will

perish'.

And

[in

all

this he

Prince

Mastemah

was

testing

hether]

8 he

would

be found

eeble,

r

whether

[braham]

ouldbe

found

unfaithful

to

God. He

cried

ut,]

9 'Abraham, braham 'Andhe said, Yes?' So He said, N[ow I

know

hat

]

10 he will

notbe

loving'.

The

LordGod

blessed

s[aac

all the

days

f

his

ife.He

became he

ather

f]

11

Jacob

n),

and

Jacob

became

the

father f

Levi,

[a

third]

generation

12).

vacai) All]

12

the

days

of

Abraham,

saac,

Jacob,

nd

Lev[i

were

]

13 The

prince

Mastemah

bound

on

ac[count

f

them.

Holy

angels

were

14

The

prince

Ma[s]temah,

nd

Belial

listened to

[the

prince

Mastemah

?)

(13) ]

Unfortunately,

hetext s

fragmentaryust

atthe

points

whereone

finds he

different

istinctive

lements,

.g.

the

reactionof

the

angels

of

heaven to

Abraham's

willingness

o

sacrifice

saac. In

any

case,

six

points

may

be

singled

out as

significant:

(1)

In

2 i

9-10,

'The

Prince

Mastemah

came to

God

and

lodged

a

complaint

against

Abraham

about

Isaac'.

Here

we

find

an

angelic

figure

iving

up

to

his

name,

since riosmn

s a

feminine

bstract

noun

(n)For he estorationf he nd f ine10, ee4Q226 4QPseudo-Jubileesb)

7,2-3,

which

verlaps

ith

he

nd f

ine

10 and

he

eginning

f

ine11

(12)

or

the

estoration

ere,

ee

4Q226

4QPseudo-Jubileesb)

,3-4,

which

overlaps

ith

his

ine.

(I3)

ee

4Q226

4QPseudo-Jubileesb)

,7.



9/20

218

Joseph

A.

Fitzmyer

meaning opposition'. It is difficult o determinewhether ne should

translate otocon s 'the Prince of the

Mastemah',

as VanderKam

and Milik take it in

the editio

princeps,

or as a

name,

'Prince

Mastemah',

as

it

often

appears

in Jubilees

e.g.,

17,16;

18,9).

The

name denotes

opposition'

of a

legal

or

udicial

nature,

nd the

verb

taos used in the

uridical

sense

of

lodging

a

complaint

with

higher

authority

r in a court of law. Hence

just

as

)oto,

Satan',

in Job

1,6

comes into God's

heavenly

court and lives

up

to his

name,

'Adversary',

s he

lodges

a

complaint gainst

blameless and

righteous

Job' (1,1), so too nooco, '(judicial) Opposition', is depicted as

Abraham's court-roomrival or

prosecutore4).

Whereas the

only

angelic figure

hat

ppears

in Gen 22 is

mrr

'the

angel

of the

Lord'

(vv.

11,

15),

who at times

cannot be

distinguished

rom

God

Himself,

his

Qumran

rewriting

f

the

biblical

account

has introduced

a further

eavenlyfigure,

s did Jubilees.

(2)

In 2 ii

1,

Abraham raised his

eyes,

and therewas a fire'. This

detail about the fire emains

unexplained

n

the

Qumran

text,

but

t s

probably

meant to mark the

high

mountainto which Abraham was

proceeding15).

(3)

In

2 ii

4,

in

a

saying

thathas no

counterpart

n either

Gen

22 or

Jub

18,

saac

surprisinglyegs

his

father,

B[ind

me

fast]'.

That

might

seem like a

gratuitous

reconstruction f

the

fragmentary

ext,

but

VanderKam nd Milik note that hewords that

recede

the nitial

kaph

of the ast extantword of the ine matchthe

developed paraphrase

f

Gen

22,10

in

Targum

seudo-Jonathan,

which reads:

'Qt

na-

oen

pmpa

ioBnorn arn au'?

mai an toss

p

cms] tTtw rr ran

And saac said to hisfather,Bind mewell that maynot trugglen

the

gony

f

my

oul and be

pitched

nto he

pit

of

destructionnd a

blemish e found

n

your ffering'

l6).

04)

The verbal oot

iic s

actually

elatedo

pto

the

oot f

Satan'),

ince

both f hem

mean

oppose',

be

adversary

f,

and

differ

nly

nthe inal

iquid

consonant.

(")

The

paraphrase

f Gen

22,4

n the ater

argum

seudo-Jonathan

ay

explain

t,

which

eads: nnobv

"rop

K~p'R a

am,

and he saw the loud

of

glory

moking

n the

mountain',

.e. themountainoward

hich e was

going.

Pirqe eRabbi li'ezer 05 s evenmorexplicitn tsversionf he acrifice:He

sawa

pillar

ffire

rising)

romarth oheaven'.

(")

VanderKam nd

Milik restore he ine

n the editto

rinceps

hus:

[ns"

ils

re]D,

utG.

Vermes,

New

Light

nthe acrificef saac

from

Q225",

JJS

l

[1996]

140-146,

sp.

142,

.

12,

onsidershe

estoration,

T

n

msD,

bind



10/20

The sacrifice

f Isaac in

Qumran

iterature

219

SimilarlyTargumNeofiti and theFragmentary argum 7),and also

Genesis

Rabbah

56,8.

This

Qumran

addition

to the biblical account

thus

becomes

important

or he

developing

Jewish

radition,

ecause

it

reveals an

aspect

of Isaac's

cooperation

withhis own sacrificialdeath

that

igures

ften

n

Jewish

writings

f a laterdate.

(4)

In 2 ii

5,

it

s

recorded

hat

holy angels

were

standing,

weeping

over the

[altar]

-

or

possibly

'over

[Isaac's

coming

death]'.

This

Qumran

addition thus introduces

other

heavenly figures beyond

notooQ

i.

They

are

ttnp

Ofc,

holy angels',

and

being plural,

hey

re

notmerely substitute or the angel of the Lord' of Genesis. Their

standing

and

weeping

are

again unexplained

because of the

fragmentary

tateof the

text(18).

(5)

In 2 ii

6,

'the

angels

of

Mastemah',

who are

probably

the

attendants f narro

n

o,

re

depicted rejoicing

and

saying,

Now he

will

perish',

.e.

gloating

ver the

coming

death

of

saac. These

angels

thus stand

in

contrast o the

'holy angels'

of line

5.

Their

rejoicing

becomes

part

of the

testing

f Abraham to see whether e would be

foundfeeble or

strong

nd faithful.

(6) Finally, n 2 ii 13 theprinceMastemah s said to be 'boundon

ac[count

of

them]'(19).

ecause of the

fragmentary

tateof the

text,

t

is

hard to

explain

the

detail,

but it could refer to the

binding

of

Mastemah mentioned ater n

Jub

48,15.

my

ands',

o

be more

ikely, eferring

othe

Targums'.

Whereas isrestoration

does

agree

with

the

Fragmentary

argum

of

Gen

22,10,

whichreads

m" NT

nED,

bind

my

ands

well',

VanderKam

ndMilik's estorations found

not

nly

n

Targum

seudo-

onathan,

ut lso

n

Targum eofiti

. In either

ase,

the estorationust eright,ven fnsD s a rareHebrew ord, ot ppearingn

Biblical

Hebrew r

otherwise,

t

eems,

n

Qumran

ebrew

exts;

t

occurs ften

in

ater

almudic exts nd

rabbinic

ritings.

(17)

See A. Dez

Macho,

Neophyti

.

Targum alestinense

s de la

Biblioteca aticana. omo :

Gnesis

Textos

y

estudios

;

Madrid

968)

127.

AlsoM.L.

Klein,

The

Fragment-Targumsf

he

entateuch

ccording

o Their

Extant

ources

AnBib

6;

Rome

1980)

, 54; II,

16.

08)

Their

resence

t the

vent

may

be similar o

that ecordedn the ater

Tg.

Ps.-J.: qi-idDtibnb

pniri

"inn

piwr

-nr-m

^non

nrratn

irr,

'the

yes

of

Abraham ere

gazing

t the

yes

of

saac,

but saac's

eyes

were

gazing

t

the

ngels

fthe

Heights'Tg.

Ps.-J.Gen.

22,10).

The

weeping

fthe

angelss notmentionedn the argum,ut t at east ecordsheirresence.ee

further

J.

Bernstein,

Angels

t the

Aqedah:

A

Study

n

the

Development

f

a

Midrashic

otif',

SD

7

(2000)

263-291.

(19)

s

VanderKam

otes,

no

ould e read s

'

asur the

assive articiple,

'bound',

ut lso as ysr

the

mperative,

bind '



11/20

220

Joseph

A.

Fitzmyer

These are the main differences roughtto the account of the

sacrifice of Isaac in this

Qumran

text,

which reveals new

ways

in

which the basic biblical account

was

already being developed

within

the Jewish

raditionn

pre-Christian

alestinian

Judaism.

Beforewe

pass

on to other ncient orms f

the

ccount,

we should

take

note of how this

Qumran

text

has been

interpreted

n addition

o

the editio

princeps.

I have cited

already

another article of J.C.

VanderKam,

in which he discusses

further

spects

of

the

text,

especially

ts relation

o Passover

20).

Geza

Vermeshas also

interpreted

thisQumrantext, nd I have to comment n his treatment.

Before

the

Qumran

extwas

published,

Vermeshad

written arlier

on the

Aqedah,

"Redemption

nd Genesis

xxn: The

Binding

of Isaac

and

the Sacrificeof Jesus"

2I).

There he

analyzed

the Jewish radition

that

grew

out of Gen 22 and found

ts

simplest

development

n the

oldest Palestinian

targumic

tradition

found

in the

Fragmentary

Targurn

nd

TargumNeofiti

).

The main features

f that

development

he maintained o be

the

following:

1. Abraham

ells saac about

hisrole s a sacrificial

ictim.

2. Isaac giveshisconsent.

3. Isaac

asksto be bound

o that is sacrifice

may

be

perfect.

4. Isaac

is

accorded

heavenly

ision f

angels.

5. Abraham

rays

God to remember

is own obedience

nd saac's

willingness

n

behalf f saac's

descendants.

6. His

prayer

s answered

22).

Vermes also

noted an

expanded

form f this

tradition n what

he

called

'Tannaitic nd

Amoraic

sources',

whichdo notconcern

us now.

More

important,

owever,

s the

way

in which Vermes

nterprets

he

fragmentaryumrantext, Q225, when he sees it as a refutation f

the thesis

of P.R. Davies and

B. Chilton

23).

They

restricted

he term

Aqedah

to the first

meaning

mentioned

at the

beginning

of

my

introductory

emarks,

iz. the sense

of the vicarious

expiation

of the

sacrifice f

saac.

They sought

o ascribe

the invention'

f the

Aqedah

in this ense

to 'the Rabbis'

(mostly

Amoraic),

who

'went so far

s to

(-")

ee J.C.

VanderKam,

The

Aqedah"

in

n. 6

above).

(2I)

Chapter

in G.

Vermes,

cripture

nd Tradition

nJudaism.

aggadic

studiesStudia ost-biblica; Leiden 961; epr. 973)193-227.

(")

See

Vermes,

cripture

nd

Tradition,

95-197.

hey

reformulated

little

ifferently

nhis

rticle,d.,

New

Light",

43.

(")

p.R. Davies

-

B.

Chilton,

The

Aqedah:

A Revised

radition

istory",

CBQ

40

(1978)

514-546.



12/20


Qumran

iterature 221

appropriate etails of the Passion [ofJesusfrom he New Testament]

to

heighten

he

drama of Isaac's

Offering

nd to

deny thereby

he

uniqueness

of Jesus'

offering'

24).

Their

understanding

f the

Aqedah

in this sense was

not

new,

for a formof it was

proposed already

in

1872

by

A.

Geiger(25).

Exaggerations

n the

thesisof Davies and Chiltonhave been noted

by

others,

which I shall not

rehearse

26).

The real

question

now,

however,

s whether he

Qumran

fragment

eveals 'the

pre-Christian

skeletonof

the

Targumic-midrashic

epresentation

f the sacrificeof

Isaac', andwhether t renders thehypothesis f anAmoraicorigin f

the

Aqedah

at least

highly mprobable'

27).

In his

article,Vermes,

fter

iscussing

ertain

spects

of

the

newly

published

Qumran

ext,

oncludes with

'Synoptic

Table',

which ines

up

twelve elements that he

considers the

pre-Christian

keleton'. I

reproduce

he

table here

28):

B.C.E. 1st

.E.

F

Tan

Amor/Later

1. Isaac dult

Jos

PsJ/FT/N

GenR

2. Fire/brightloud 4Q225 PsJ GenR,RE

3. Isaac nformed

Jos/LAB

FT/N

GenR

4. Isaac

onsents

4Q225?

Jos/LAB/4Macc

GenR

5. Asks obe

bound

4Q225?

PsJ/FT/N ifDt

6. Presencef

ngels

4Q225

FT/N

GenR

7.

Cryingngels

4Q225

GenR

8. Meritf saac

4Q225?

LAB

Mekh

GenR

9.

Temple

ount

2Chr,

ub

Jos

FT/N

GenR

10. assover

Jub

FT/N Mekh

GenR

1 . amb

acrifice

FT/N/PsJ

12. saac's

lood/ashes

LAB

Sifra

GenR/y/bTaan

(24)

bid.,

16-517.

(25)

ee A.

Geiger,

Erbsndend

Vershnungstod:

erenVersuch

n

das

Judenthums

inzudringen",

discheeitschrift

rWissenschaft

ndLeben10

(1872)

166-171.

(26)

ee R.

Hayward,

The

Present tate f

Researchnto

he

Targumic

Account f

he

acrificef

saac",

JJS 2

1981)

127-150.

(27)

ermes,

New

Light",

45.

(28)

T

=

Palestinian

argums;

an

=

Tannaitic

Writings;

mor/Later

Amoraic rLaterWritings;os Josephus;sJ Tg.Pseudo- onathan',T =

Fragmentary

argum

N

=

Tg.

Neofiti

;

LAB

=

Pseudo-Philo,

iber

ntiquitatum

biblicarum'

ub

Jubilees;

ifDt Sifre

euteronomium;

ekh

Mekhilta;

GenR

=

Genesis

Rabbah;

PRE

=

Pirqe

de Rabbi

Eli'ezer;

LevR

=

Leviticus

Rabbah;

/bTaan

Jerusalem/Babylonian

almudic

ractate,

aanith.



13/20

222

Joseph

A.

Fitzmyer

To be noted in thisTable, first f all, is thequestionmark that

Vermes

dds to

4Q225

on three lements:

, 5,

8.

If

one looks

again

at

col. ii of the

Qumran

fragment,

here s not the east traceof a

word or

phrase

about Isaac's consent

(element

4),

which Vermes

separates

from saac's

request

to be bound. That

is,

there s

nothing

n

the

Qumran

text imilar o

what one

finds,

or

nstance,

n

Josephus,

Ant.

1

232: 'Isaac . receivedthesewords

of

his

father]

with

oy,

declaring

thathe was not

worthy

o be born

t all

if

he were to

reject

hedecision

of God and of his

father';

or even as

implied

n 4 Macc

16,20; 13,12;

7,14; or in Pseudo-Philo, LAB 32,2-4 29).That 'consent' mightbe

implied

n Isaac's

asking

to be bound

(element 5),

which s found n

4Q225

2 ii 4

(as

correctly

econstructed

y

the

editors);

but

then

why

make a distinct lement of it in this

Qumran

text? Here Vermes is

reading

nto he

Qumran

ext

notion ound

n

other exts

oming

from

thefirst

hristian

entury

t the

arliest,

uthow does he know that he

'consentof Isaac' was

alreadypart

of the

pre-Christian

keleton'

Second,

there s not a trace of the merit f

Isaac'

in

the

Qumran

fragment

element

8).

Not even the

words,

his sons from he earth'

(line 6) can be said to refer o such an idea, because thefragmentary

textdoes not tell us whose 'sons' are meant.

Being plural,

the word

most

likely

does refer to

Isaac,

since this embellishmentof the

Abraham

tory

n Gen 22 knows

nothing

s

yet

of thechildren ornto

Abraham fromKeturah

25,2).

Yet even if

they

are Isaac's

sons,

the

phrase

from he earth' s

quite

differentrom

ny

of the

phraseology

of the ater radition bout saac's merit. o that

ragmentary

ine

6

can

hardly

efer o such a

topic.

Third,

why

should elements

1

(Isaac's

adult

age),

9

(relation

o the

Temple Mount), 11 (Lamb sacrifice),and 12 (Isaac's blood/ashes)

even be listed n the Table?

They

do not

appear

in

4Q225,

and even if

they

are attested n

first-century

.D.

writings

such

as

Josephus

or

Pseudo-Philo,

LAB),

they

re not

part

of the

pre-Christian

keleton'.

They appear

for he first ime n theChristian ra.

Fourth,

even if 2 Chr

3,1

mentions Solomon's

building

of the

house of theLord on 'Mount

Moriah,

wheretheLord had

appeared

to

his father

avid',

there s not the

slightest

onnection n that

passage

of

thatmount

with

the sacrifice

f Isaac

("').

Why

is

it, then,

given

as

evidence for he pre-Christiankeleton'

(29)

ontrast

hemuchater mbellishmentnGenR

6,4:

I

acceptmy

ate'.

Note lso the ormalonsent

xpressly

educed romhe

inding

n

56,8.

(30)

.F.

Segal,

"He whodidnot

pare

isown on...':

Jesus, aul,

nd he



14/20

The

sacrifice f Isaac in

Qumran

iterature 223

In Jub 18,13, 'Mount Zion' is named by Abraham as theplace

where he sacrifices he

ram.

n

Ant.

1.224,

226

Josephus

recordsthat

Abraham

went withhis son alone to that

mount,

n which

king

David

[sic]

afterwards uiltthe

temple',

whichhas

already

been identified s

'the Morian Mount'

3I).

In

any

case,

the dentification f

Mt. Moriah

withthe

Temple

Mount is a minor

detail and of little

ignificance

or

the

developing

doctrine

f the

Aqedah.

One wonders

why

Vermeshas

introduced t nto the

discussion

of

the

Qumran

text?The same

has to

be said about element 11

(relation

f the sacrifice f saac to

the amb

sacrificed in the Temple as Tamid), and element 12 (Isaac's

blood/ashes).

Fifth,

he

crucial element n the

Table is the so-called merit

of

Isaac.

Vermesclaims that

t is attested

n

Pseudo-Philo,

LAB.

In LAB

18,5,

however,

he sacrifice f

Isaac is said to be

'acceptable'

to

God,

and for hat eason

God 'has chosen'

Israel

to

be His

people

(facta

est

oblatio eius in

conspectu

meo

acceptabilis

et

pro sanguine

eius

elegi

istos)C2).

The divine

decision about Israel as the

Chosen

People

is

Akedah",

rom

esus oPaul. Studiesn

Honour fFrancis

Wright

eare

ed.

P.

Richardson

J.C.

Hurd) Waterloo,

nt.

1984)

169-184,

sp.

173,

eeking

o

establishhe

pre-Christian

oot f the

Jewish

eaching

bout

saac,

says,

The

history

f

nterpretation

f the acrifice f

saac

begins ight

n

theBible. n

2

Chronicles t.

Moriah,

cene f the

acrifice,

s identified

ith he

Temple

Mount

2

Chron.

,1);

o an

explicit

onnection

etweenhe

tory

f he

acrifice

of saac and the

acrificialult n

Jerusalems

established'There

may

be an

explicit

onnectionetween

MountMoriah ndthe

Jerusalem

emple,

ut he

verse f

Chronicleso which

egal

refersoesnot

ay

word bout

acrificer

about saac.

Segal

has

extrapolated

nd

nachronistically

ntroduced

reference

to he acrificef saac nto non-committaltatementbout olomon's uilding

the

Temple

n

Mt.Moriah.

he mere act hat

Mt.Moriah s

mentioned

n

the

Bible

only

n

Gen 22

and

2

Chr

3 does not o

ipso

mean hat

Chronicless

alluding

othe

acrificef saac.

(31)

Thackeray

otes

that the

locality

here

ntendeds

unknown;

ts

identification

yJosephus

226)

and

by

he

Rabbinicalradition

ith he

emple

mount

annot e

sustained';

ee

Josephus.

ith n

English

ranslation

y

H.St. .

Thackeray.

Edition]

n

Eight

Volumes. V:

Jewish

ntiquities,

ooks -IV

(LCL;

London

NewYork

1930)

111.

(32)

ee

D.J.Harrington

t

al.,

Pseudo-Philon

SC

229-230;

aris

1976)

,

150.The

editorsf

his ext

omment:Dans LAB

XVIII,5,

l

n'est

as

question

du rachatespchs pr ar e sang 'Isaac- lamanire e Hebr. ,22 et

T.b.Yoma

a)

sans

ffusion

e

sang

l

n'y

pas

de

rmission.

ci,

e

sang

'Isaac,

considr

omme n

vritable

acrifice,

celle

'lectiont

'alliance e

Dieu avec

son

peuple'

ibid.,

I,

126).

See

further.N.

Fisk,

Offering

saac

Again

nd

Again:

seudo-Philo'

Use of

he

Aqedah

s

Intertext",

BQ

62

2000)

481-507.



15/20

224

Joseph

A.

Fitzmyer

quitedifferentrom heexpiatory alue of thesacrifice f saac. Why

is this

passage

cited?

In LAB

32,3,

Isaac does

speak

to

his father

Abraham,

omparing

his

coming

death to

that

of

animals to be killed

because of human

iniquities:

.

pro niquitatibus

ominum

ecora

onstitutaunt

n

occisionem

et

in

me

annunciabuntur

enerationes

t

per

me

intelligentopuli

quoniam

ignificavit

ominus nimam ominisn

sacrificium,

...generations

will be

instructed

y my

case and

peoples

will

understandecause of me that heLord hasconsidered he ifeof a

human

eingworthy

to

be

offered]

n

sacrifice.

Here Isaac concludes

that his death would have

a

vicarious,

expiatory

ffect.

imilarly

perhaps

n LAB

40,2,

the same

might

be

implied

quis

est

qui

tristetur

oriens,

idens

opulum

iberatum and

who would be

sorry

to

die,

seeing

a

people

freed'),

if

that

iberty

means freedom rom ins

or

iniquities.

This

text,however,

s

usually

dated between A.D.

70 and 100.

Even if it

does formulate he sense of Isaac's

meritorious eath

n

at

least one passage, on whatgroundsmayone extrapolate hat vidence

and

say

that t builds

up

the

pre-Christian

keleton'.

Sixth,

n

the Mekhiltaon Exod

12,13,

the

words,

When

I

see the

blood'

(12,13),

are related o Gen

22,

I

see theblood of

the acrifice f saac

(priT

bv

nipr

en).

For t s

said: And

Abraham alledthename fthat

lace

Adonai-jireh'

The

lord

will

ee),

etc.

Gen.22.14)

What idhe behold?

He beheld he

blood of the acrifice f

saac,

as it said: God Himselfwill see the

lamb',

tc.

Gen. 22.8).

Yet even theeditor, .Z.Lauterbach dds in a notethatactuallyno

blood of saac was offeredn sacrifice' nd

according

to

Gen.

Rab. on

Gen.

22. 12

Abrahamwas

not

allowed

to

shed even one

drop

of saac's

blood'

(33).

Consequently,

here s in this

passage

no

question

of the

'merit'of Isaac.

Similarly,

ater on

in

Mekhilta,

the same midrash

s

repeated

34),

gain

without

ny

reference

o Isaac's 'merit'.

Still

ater,

the Mekhilta

quotes

R. Jose the Galilean as

saying:

At

themoment hen

he hildren f sraelwent nto he

ea,

mount

Moriah

egan

o movefromts

place

with he ltar or saac that ad

beenbuilt n t ndthewhole cene hat adbeen rrangedpon t

(33)

ee J.Z.

auterbach,

Mekilta e-Rabbi

shmael

Philadelphia,

A

1976)

I, 57,

n. 7.

(34)

bid., ,

88.



16/20


Qumran

iterature 225

Isaac as ifhe werebound ndplacedupon he ltar, braham s ifhe

were

tretching

orth ishand nd

taking

heknife o

slay

his on.God

then aidtoMoses:

Moses,

My

childrenre n

distress,

he ea

forming

a barand the

nemy

ursuing,

nd

you

tand o

long

praying?

oses

said before im:

What hen hould be

doing?

Then

He said to him:

'Lift hou

p thy

od',

etc.

you

should e

exalting,

lorifying

nd

praising.

Him n whosehands rethe

fortunesf war'

35).

This

passage may

indeed relate the sacrifice of

Isaac to Mt.

Moriah,

meaning

the

Temple

Mount,

but it

scarcely says

anything

about the

meritorious r

expiatory

value

of Isaac's sacrifice. It is

relating

Abraham's

willingness

osacrifice saac to the

crossing

of

the

Red

Sea,

with

scarcely

a word about the

iniquities

of Israel or

any

expiation

of ts

sins.

In the

fifth-century

.D. Genesis

Rabbah

56,7

God does

ascribe

merit

o Abraham: for

ndeed

I

ascribe merit o

thee as

though

had

bidden thee sacrifice

thyself

nd thou

hadst not refused'

36).

Yet

no

indication s

given

of what thatmerit

might

e,

and it

says nothing

f

merit ue to

Isaac himself.

The

upshot

of this

discussion s that

Vermeshas amassed dubious

evidence for he

nterpretation

f thisQumrantext. t is clear that his

pre-Christian

Qumran

fragment

reveals

important

steps

in the

developing

tradition bout

the sacrificeof

Isaac,

especially

in

(1)

the

testing

f

Abrahamat the Prince

Mastemah's

request;

2)

the mention

of fire'

that dentifies he

mountain o which

Abrahamwas

going;

3)

Isaac's

request

that

Abraham bind' him

fast;

4)

the mention

f

holy

angels

standingby, weeping

over

(the

altar or Isaac's

death); (5)

the

mention f

'angels

of Mastemah'

rejoicing

and

saying,

Now he will

perish';

and

(6)

an unclear

reference o the

binding'

of Mastemah.

That,however,means that here s no mention n theQumrantext

of six of the

elements hatVermes

has

put

n his

'Synoptic

Table' : no

mention

of Isaac's

adult

age,

of Isaac

being

informed

y

Abraham

about

his status as a

victim,

of

Isaac's consent

separate

from his

request

to

be

bound,

of the

connection

with the later

Temple,

or

Passover,

or the

Tamid lamb

sacrifice,

r

Isaac's blood or

ashes,

and

especially

of the

merit f saac'.

One wonders

why

the xtra

lements

have been

put

ntothat

able,

because

they

have

nothing

o do with

he

(3S)

bid., ,

222-223.

(36)

ee

Midrash abbah.

Translatednto

nglish

with

otes,

lossary

nd

indices nder he

ditorship

f

RabbiDr.H.

Freedmannd

Maurice imon.

With

a

foreword

y

RabbiDr

.

Epstein.

ol : Genesis

(London 939)

97.



17/20

226

Joseph

A.

Fitzmyer

Qumran ext nd,apartfrom he east-relevant lements ftheTemple

Mount and

Passover,

which are mentioned

n

Jubilees,

he others re

not attested

n

any pre-Christian

writing,

r even in a

writing

f the

first

entury

A.D.

The six extra

elements,

which

may

have

some

pertinence

o the later tradition

bout the

Aqedah, provide

only

a

camouflage

for he

understanding

f the

Qumran

ext,

n whichwe still

have not even

found he term

Aqedah

Although

ne must

agree

withthe

methodologicalprinciple

with

whichVermes

nterprets

hese

texts,

s

he

expressed

t n his

book,

to

follow thedevelopment fexegeticaltraditions ymeansof historical

criticism'

37),

ne must lso

heed the criticism

f Vermes'

application

of that

methodology iven

by

A.F.

Segal:

We must ake

his

arguments

uch

more

lowly,

o

as to see

exactly

what he radition

ftheAkedah

was

ustprior

o the ime f

Jesus,

o

definewhatweretheChristian

dditions

o that

ext,

nd

finally

o

definewhat

may

have been the Jewish

eaction o

the

Christian

interpretation

38).

Or

again,

Although e [Vermes] oteswheremportanthemes remissingn

each

document,

n sum he

operates

s

if thewhole constellation

s

always resent

nce the

arts

fthe radition

re ttested

39).

That s

why

one must

ry

o

distinguish

learly ust

what

elements

of the

Aqedah

tradition re

indeed

pre-Christian

nd

what

may

have

been

contemporary

ith

herise of

Christianity

nd

its New Testament

(37)

ermes,

cripture

nd

Tradition

1.

(38)

egal,

"He whodid

not. 171-172.

I

citehere

egal's

criticism

f

Vermes,greeing itht;but findtdifficulto greewith he hrustfSegal's

argument

ibid.,

74),

when

e cites hilo

heElder

in

Eusebius,

raeparatio

Evangelica

.20.

),

Demetriusnd

Alexander

olyhistor

ibid.

.

19.4),

ir

4,

9-

21,

ndJdt

,25-27

s instances

f

popular

ermeneutical

ctivity

efore

esus'.

When ne scrutinizes

he

assages

mentioned,

hey

re t

most llusions

o the

story

n Gen

22 and

hardly

ver eveal

trace

f embellishment

r

exegetical

development

f the

text,

ot

to mention

hat

egal

calls a

'martyrological

analogy'.

imilarly,

hen read

hilo f

Alexandria,

e

Abrahamo

5.198-199,

I find

here o

concept

f

giving

ne's

ife or thers'

enefit',

hich e

finds

'clearly' xpressed.

For

Philo he

lder,

ee C.R.

Holladay,

Fragments

rom

ellenisticewish

Authors. ol. II: Poets (SBLTT 30/12;Atlanta, A 1989) 234-237.For

Demetrius,

ee C.R.

Holladay,

Fragments

rom

Hellenistic

ewish

uthors

Vol. : Historians

SBLTT

20/10;

hico,

A

1983)

62-63.

(39)

Segal

"'He

who did

not...

,

179.

See also

L.

Kundert,

Die

Opferung/Bindung

saaks

96.



18/20

The sacrifice

f Isaac

in

Qumran

iterature 227

writings40).To thispurposewe must urn o the aterdevelopment f

the

tradition.

IV. Later

Developments

of

the

Understanding

of the

Sacrificeof Isaac

The

question

of

themeritorious

alue of Abraham's

willingness

o

sacrifice

Isaac,

although

it is

not

expressed

in

the

pre-Christian

Qumran

text,

s

clearly

mentioned n the

Palestinian

targums.

shall

cite

only

the

Fragmentary

Targum

P,

which

has

preserved

a few

importanterses ofGen 22 (41):

8

And

Abraham aid: From

heLord a

lamb will be

prepared

or

burnt

ffering,

y

on;

and

f

not,

hen

ou

re

the amb'

andthe wo

of

them

walked

ogether

holeheartedly,

braham o

slay,

nd saac

to be slain.

10

Abraham

xtended ishand

ndtook he

knife o

slay

saac his son.

Isaac

spoke

up,

aying

o

Abraham is

father:

Father,

ind

my

hands

well,

that

may

not

truggle

n

thehour f

my

distress

nd confuse

you,

nd

your

ffering

ouldbe found

lemished

nd we

wouldbe

pitched

nto he

pit

of

destructionn

the

world o

come'. Abraham's

eyeswere azing tthe yes f saac,but he yesof saac were azing

at the

ngels

f the

heights.

saac

saw

them,

ut

Abraham id

not ee

them.At

thatmoment

voice

came forth

rom

heaven and

said,

'Come,

ook at two

unique

ighteous

en

who are n

the

world,

ne

who is

slaying

nd one who

is

being

slain;

he

that

lays

has no

compassion,

nd

he that s

being

lain

xtends is

neck'.

11

The

angel

f

the ord

alled ohim

rom

eaven,

aying,

Abraham,

Abraham '

Abraham

nsweredn the

anguage

f the

Holy

Temple,

saying,

Here am '

14

Abraham

worshiped

nd

prayed

here

n

the

name

of the

word f the

Lord,

aying,

You

are the

Lord

God,

Who

sees

but s

invisible;

verything

s

manifest

nd

known

efore ou:

that here as nodivisioni.e.hesitation]tthemomenthat ou said:

'Offer

p your

on

saac in

My

presence'.

mmediately

arose

arly

n

the

morning

nd did

whatYou

commandednd

kept

Your

decree.

Now,

beg mercy

rom

ou,

Lord

God,

that

when he

children

f

Isaac

my

on

enter n

hour f

oppression,

hat

ou will

rememberor

their

ake the

binding

f

saac

their

ather,

nd

release

nd

forgive

(40)

egal,

"'He who

idnot.

176,

indssaac's

sacrifices the

xample

par

excellence

f

martyrdom'

n 4

Maccabees,

ated o

the

arly

0s but

evoid

of

Christian

nfluence',

s

the est

vidence

that

omekind

f

tradition

ormed

the

basisof

the]

hristian

iewof

Jesus s

a

type

f

saac'.

Yet

Segal

has to

admithateven ntheGreek araenesisf4 Maccabees,saac's sacrificetself

is

never

irectly

inked ith

icarious

tonement'

ibid.,

77).

(41)

he text

f

Tg.

Neof

and

Tg.

Ps.-J. s

fuller,

ut t

contains

nly

few

points

hat

re

pertinent

o

this

iscussion

f he

ater

evelopments;

hey

illbe

mentioned

elow.



19/20

228

Joseph

A.

Fitzmyer

their ins and save them romvery istress. orfutureenerations

destined

o arise

will

say:

On theMount f the

Holy Temple

f the

Lord,

Abraham ffered

p

his son

Isaac;

and on thismountain he

glory

fthe

Dwelling

ftheLordwas revealed"

42).

Here one

notes the

explicit

use

of

prrcr"rrrnpy,

the

binding

of

Isaac',

the

Aramaic

counterpart

f the

phrase

used above in the

Mekhilta.

Other

noteworthy

eatures of this

developed

version of

Gen

22

are the

following:

1. Isaac is informed

y

Abraham f his role s the acrificial ictim

(v. 8)(43).

2. Isaac asksto be bound

v. 10) C").

3. Isaac is accorded vision

f

angels

v. 10) 45).

4. Both Abraham nd Isaac

are declared

righteous y

heaven

(v. 10)H.

5.

Abraham nswersGod

in

the

language

of the

Holy Temple'

(v. 11).

6. Abraham's

rayer,ecalling

is obedience

v. 14) 47).

7. Abraham

egs

God to remember

the

binding

f saac' whenhis

descendants nter

an hourof

oppression'

nd to 'release and

forgive

heir ins nd save

them rom

very

istress'

v. 14) 48).

8. Theofferingf saac is relatedotheMount f heHolyTemple f

theLord

v. 14) 49).

9.

Only

n

Tg.

Ps.-J.

s Isaac's

age

given

37

years).

10.

Only

n

Tg.

Ps.-J.

Abraham uilds he ltar

tthe

pot

where dam

hadbuilt ne andwhere

Noah rebuiltt after he

deluge.

In

this

targumic

radition ne

thusfinds clear statement

f what

Vermes alls the

merit f

saac',

and

t s whatone would

expect

by

the

time his

developed

tradition

merges.

None of t s earlier

han he hird

century

.D.,

and some

of

these

targumsmay

come

from still ater

date, speciallyTg.

Ps.-J.

and

Tg.Neof. 50).

t

shows,however,

ow the

(42)

ee

M.L.

Klein,

The

Fragment-Tar

umsof

the Pentateuch

I,

54.

Fragmentary

argum

is MS Paris

Bibliothque

ationale

br.110.

Very

similaro tforGen

2 s

Fragmentary

argum

whichs MS

Vatican br.

40;

its ext an

be found

n

Klein, ,

140-141.

(43)

lso

n

Tg.Neof.

butnot

n

Tg.

Ps.-J.

C*4)

lso n

Tg.Neof.

nd

Tg.

Ps.-J.

(45)

lso

n

Tg.Neof.

nd

Tg.

Ps.-J.

46)

lso n

Tg.Neof.

nd

Tg.

Ps.-J.

(47)

lso

n

Tg.Neof.

nd

Tg.

Ps.-J.

(48) lso nTg.Neof.ndTg.Ps.-J.

(49)

lso n

Tg.Neof.

(50)

his oo

s a

problem

ith ermes'

reatment

f he

exts,

hich

egal

has

noted,

ollowing

avies

Chilton,

The

Aqedah",

14-515.

egal,

"'He

who

id

not...'",

172-173writes:

...it

has so farbeen

almost

mpossible

o

develop



20/20

The sacrifice f Isaac

in

Qumran

iterature

229

traditioneflectedn thefragmentaryext Q225 developedstillfurther

and

gradually

ecame theclassic

topic

of the

Binding

of saac'.

In

conclusion,

then,

ne realizes how

important

he

Qumran

text,

fragmentaryhough

t

be,

is not

only

for

the

background

of New

Testament eferences o the sacrificeof

Isaac,

but

especially

for the

later

targumic

nd rabbinic

eaching

bout the

Aqedah

as

the Jewish

expression

of that acrifice s

an

expiatory

nd

redemptive

ct for ll

Israel.

Department f Biblical Studies

Catholic

University

f America

Washington,

C 20064

JosephA. Fitzmyer,S.J

SUMMARY

Gen

22,1-19

he ccount f

Abraham's

illingness

o sacrifice is

son

saac,

s

discussed irst

n

tsHebrew nd

Old Greek

orm;

hen s itwas

developed

nthe

Book fJubilees

7,15-18,16,

nd

specially

nthe ormf

Pseudo-

ubilees,

s it

ispreservedn4Q2252 i and i 4QPs-Juba27-14, ii 1-14),nordero scertain

how much f

the

development

f the ccount an

be traced o

pre-Christian

Palestinian

ewishradition

rior

otheNew

Testament.

inally,uilding

n such

evidence,

he

rticle races he

development

n other

exts f thefirst hristian

century

nd

n

the ater

argumic

nd abbinicraditionbout

he

Aqedah.

consistentriteriaor

solating

he

irst

entury

raditionsn

he

argumim.

n such

a

case,

hough

e can

appreciate

he

reativity

fthe

argum

ndmust ome o

some

understanding

f ts

method,

e must rackethe

argumic

vidence f

Vermes o

bring

he

historical

roblem

o the

fore

gain: ust

what an

be

establisheds the ommonlynderstoodext f Gen. 22 in thefirstentury?

Vermes'

methodologicaluestion

bout he

meaning

f the

biblical ext omes

back o

haunt imwhen ne

akes

way

he

argumic

videncen which ebuilds

his wn

ase'.

At ssuehere

s the

dating

f the

Palestinian

argums.

hen ez

Macho,

Neophyti

,

95*,

published

he ext f

Tg.Neof.

he claimed hat

t

pertinece

a

la

poca

neotestamentaria';

the

PT

[=

Palestinian

argum],

ven f t n

ts

present

ecension,

reserved

n theMs

Neofiti

seems o

belong

o the irstr

second

entury

.D.,

s on

thewhole

prechristian

ersion'

A.

Dez

Macho,

The

Recently

iscovered alestinian

argum:

ts

Antiquity

nd

Relationship

ith he

Other

argums",ongress

olume,

xford

959

VTS

7;

Leiden

960]

36).

That

claim,of course, s an exaggeration.lein, n publishingheFragmentary

Targums

wasmore

ircumspect;

ee

Klein,

The

ragment-Tarums,

,

23-25. ee

further.D.

York,

"The

Dating

f

Targumic

iterature",

SJ

(1974)

49-62;

J.

Heinemann,

Early

alakha

n

the

alestinian

argumim",

JS 5

1974)

114-

122,

sp.

122.

Documents

The sacrifice of Isaac in Qumran literature.pdf