Abstract
The Introduction describes the reception history of Genesis 22 in the classical sources of Judaism: (1) Rabbinic sources; (2) Medieval period; (3) History of Jewish medieval Bible exegesis. (4) Summaries of the chapters of Chap. 2.
-
1.
The Rabbinic traditions on the Aqedah from Talmud and Midrash, reviewed, arranged and translated according to the following haggadic topics: Ten Trials; Why this trial? ‘Things’ or ‘Words’? Satan’s involvement; The promised heir; Abraham’s reaction; His servants; Primordial: ram, ass, altar; Resurrection; The role of Isaac; The role of Sarah; Soteriology.
-
2.
The Aqedah in the Jewish Middle Ages as reflected in the Liturgy: prayers and the traditions of Jewish martyrdom (Sect. 1.3.1); in Art, Literature, Politics (Sect. 1.3.2); Theology and Philosophy: the major trends of Jewish Aqedah theology (Sect. 1.3.3).
-
3.
The choice of our texts (Sect. 1.4.1) and the absence of Kabbalah (Sect. 1.4.2); a history of Jewish medieval Bible exegesis from Saadya Gaon to the sixteenth century and after (Sect. 1.4.3).
-
4.
Extensive summaries of the Aqedah exegesis in the texts translated and analysed in detail in Chap. 2 (Sects. 4.1–4.16); the four basic positions taken on the Aqedah issue (Sect. 1.5.17).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In the translations of the sources, however, we chose for ‘Binding’.
- 2.
On Aqedah studies in general, see below notes 52 and 53.
- 3.
The first chapter of Erich Auerbach’s Mimesis (1946), where comparison of a passage from Homer reveals how differently Greek and Hebrew texts address their readers (or rather listeners), is a renowned example of the study of the story in its early stages. G.J. Wenham, “The Akedah: a Paradigm of Sacrifice” (1995), 93–102 attempts to find its origin in the sacrificial cult and also addresses the results of earlier studies. For a compact all-round Old Testament study of our chapter, with a review of the Christian reception history, see H. Reventlow, Opfere deinen Sohn (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1968).
- 4.
J.C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield 2001), 52–53; Kundert, Bnd. 1, 83–90 (see below note 6). For Abraham’s Ten Trials see below Appendix I. Jubilees 18, 16 reads: ‘And I (the Lord) have made known to all that you are faithful to me in everything which I say to you.’ Thematically close to our subject is J. Licht, Testing in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Post-Biblical Judaism (Jerusalem 1973).
- 5.
Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum XXXII, 1–4 in Deborah’s account of Israel’s history; H. Jacobson, A Commentary …(1996), Text: I, 50–51; Translation: I, 149; Commentary: II, 862–871; we also find here the jealousy of the angels and the Aqedah’s universal message. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities I, 222–236; Thackeray IV, 109–117. L.H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Version of the Binding of Isaac”, in: SBL Seminar Papers 21 (1982), 113–128.
- 6.
L. Kundert, Die Opferung/Bindung Isaaks. Bnd 1: Gen. 22, 1–19 im Alten Testament, im Frühjudentum und im Neuen Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1998); early Judaism is represented here by Jubilees, Qumran texts, Philo, Josephus’ Antiquities, the books of Maccabees, and Pseudo-Philo. For the New Testament see e.g. J. Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac. A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah (Rome 1981).
- 7.
For patristic interpretations see e.g. M.C. Paczkowski, “The sacrifice of Isaac in early patristic exegesis” in: Manns, The Sacrifice of Isaac (Jerusalem 1995), 101–121; D. Lerch, Isaaks Opferung christlich gedeutet (Tübingen 1950); E. Kessler, Bound by the Bible (Cambridge 2004).
- 8.
It is perhaps useful to state that we made no attempt to deal critically with the midrashic sources in the way it is—and should be—done in research. The questions of dating, authorship, parallels etc. are too complicated to be discussed here and they are not relevant for the medieval responses to the material. In our discussions the general term ‘Midrash’ may refer to one or more midrashic sources, whether specified or not. Chapter 3 below gives a list of ‘Midrashic Sources’ (*1*, etc.) that are referred to in the medieval commentaries, in the order of the biblical story and numbered for easy reference.
- 9.
See the annotated translation by M. Aberbach, D. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis (New York 1982); apart from a few minor details and the general tendency to avoid anthropomorphic expressions (e.g. in vs. 14) it identifies “the land Moriah” as ‘the land (of) Worship’ (pulḥana, possibly assuming a root yr’ for the name Moriah), it clarifies the difficult “after” (vs. 13) and translates the “gates” of vs. 17 as ‘cities’; on the other hand it retains ‘ad ko in vs. 5 and the infinitive constructions of vs. 17.
- 10.
See e.g. R. Hayward, “The present state of research into the Targumic account of the Sacrifice of Isaac”, Journal of Jewish Studies 32 (1981), 127–150, partly in reaction to P.R. Davies, B.D. Chilton, “The Aqedah: a revised tradition history” in: Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978), 514–546; F. Manns, “The Targum of Gen. 22” in: F. Manns (ed.), The Sacrifice of Isaac (Jerusalem 1995), 69–80. In general, Targum research is especially interested in the relation of the Aqedah as atonement for the sins of Abraham’s offspring to the theologies of the New Testament.
- 11.
Also the better part of Tanḥ Shelaḥ 14 (*28* *35*) and the beginning of Tanḥ Ṣaw 13 (dealing with the ritual of the burnt-offering; *34*) contain material related to the Aqedah with sometimes interesting details.
- 12.
Here we find strung together sources *1a*, *5*, *6b*, *19c*, and *1c*.
- 13.
As remarked earlier, the biblical text of Genesis 22 offers practically no linguistic difficulties. There might be a ‘missing’ wa-yehi at the beginning of vs. 4; vs. 5 has a slightly unexpected ‘ad ko; also aḥar + finite verb in vs. 13 is a bit unusual (see Appendix V); the etiological conclusion of the story in vs. 14: “the mountain The-Lord-will-see/will-be-seen” (yir’e vs. yera’e) poses various exegetical questions; see K. Nielsen, “To see and to be seen in Genesis 16 and Genesis 22” in: Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 27 (2013), 22–31.
- 14.
Except among the Tosafist exegetes; see below Sect. 2.5.2.1. For a discussion of various midrashic solutions see G. Reeg, “Die Ursache für die Bindung Isaaks: wie lasen die Rabbinen die Bibel?” in: M. Perani (ed.), Festschrift for Günter Stemberger (Berlin 2005), 319–329.
- 15.
The basic meaning of pulḥana is ‘fear’; Onkelos possibly considered yr’ to be the root of Moriah. A variant reading has: ‘the land Worship’; see below Rashi, Sect. 2.3.2.4 note 101.
- 16.
A so-called case of ‘imperfect determination’; cp. Joüon/Muraoka, § 137 m-o; Gesenius/Kautsch, § 126, 4.
- 17.
The earlier sources are analysed by e.g. L. Kundert, Die Opferung/Bindung Isaaks. Bnd. 2: Gen. 22, 1–19 in frühen rabbinischen Texten (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1998).
- 18.
Vol. I, 271–286, and the notes in vol. V, 248–255. The repertoire in Tora Shelema is truly exhaustive but less accessible as regards the narrative aspect. Another entry into the haggadot of the Aqedah would be the well-known anthology of H.N. Bialik and Y.H. Rawnitski, Sefer ha-Aggada I, 52–56 (nos. 44–46) (in later editions pp. 30–32 [nos. 44–47]) or M.J. Berdyczewski, Me-Oṣar ha-Aggada, vol. I, 52–60 and its offshoots (see Bibliography).
- 19.
Me-Aggadot ha-‘Aqeda, below note 50.
- 20.
Most of these narrative elements return in the late medieval Sefer ha-Yashar. They were also popular in the Tosafist commentaries; see below Sect. 2.5.2.
- 21.
Mekhilta de-R.Y 7 on Ex. 12, 13; Bo 11 on Ex. 12, 23 (Horovitz/Rabin, 25 and 39); see Kundert, Bnd. 2, 11–19.
- 22.
Mekhilta de-R.ShY on Ex. 6, 2 (Epstein/Melamed, 4); Spiegel, 493/translation 23.
- 23.
PT Ta‘an. II, 1 (65a), cp. Kundert, Bnd. 2, 32–34; cursorily mentioned in e.g. LevR 36, 5 (Margulies, 849); Ber. 62b; Zev. 62a; Ta‘an. 16a; see also Spiegel, 487-490/17-20.
- 24.
Cp. GenR 56, 7 (603): ‘”And he said do not stretch out your hand to the boy, etc.” Where was the knife? The tears of the ministering angels fell upon it so that it melt (shaḥa: ‘drooped’?).’ MHG a.l. (Margulies, 355) adds: ‘It shrank into nothing (‘amad ‘al ‘iqqaro) and disappeared (litt.: flew away).’ *23b*
- 25.
See Appendix III.
- 26.
GenR 56, 3 (598); cp. PesR 31 (Friedmann, fol. 143b): ‘To Abraham I said to bring his son Isaac and he did not delay, and Isaac was burdened with wood like a man burdened with his cross.’ TanḥB Wa-Yera 46 (fol. 57b) is somewhat hazier: ‘What was Isaac like? He was like someone who went out to be burned with his wood on his shoulder.’
- 27.
Midrash ha-Gadol on vs. 3 (Margulies, 351) has a similar passage. Kimḥi (2.6.3vs.3): ‘He did not inform Sarah lest she might do herself harm because of her love for Isaac.’
- 28.
F. Manns, “The Binding of Isaac in Jewish Liturgy” in: F. Manns (ed.), The Sacrifice of Isaac in the three Monotheistic Religions (Jerusalem 1995), 59–67.
- 29.
Jubilees 17, 15: ‘In the first month (=Nisan) … on the twelfth of that month.’ See M. Segal, The Book of Jubilees (Leiden, Boston 2007), 189–202: Ch. 9: “The Akedah and the Festivals of Passover/Unleavened Bread”.
- 30.
It was in all probability the conclusion of the seventh blessing of the Amidah, the Ge’ulla blessing, at which point the six extra blessings for the fast were inserted.
- 31.
Preserved in SER 6 (Friedmann, 36) and in some versions of LevR 2, 11 (Margulies, 51–52). Traces remained in some Tosafist commentaries (2.5.3.2 at note 251; 2.5.3.15 at note 382) and in Crescas 2.13.4.2 at note 716.
- 32.
Ṣafon – ‘north’ is reminiscent of ṣafun – ‘hidden’, i.e. ‘stored’ in God’s memory.
- 33.
To which is added Num. 29, 1–6, a portion read on both days of Rosh ha-Shanah; see already Meg. 31a. It has references to “the day of horn-blowing” and to “the first day of the seventh month”, which is considered to be Rosh ha-Shanah.
- 34.
Scholarly literature debates the question whether it was the influence of Christian typology that caused the toning down of the earlier connection with Pesach and the paschal lamb and stressed the Aqedah motif for Rosh ha-Shanah. Note that in later sources there is a tendency to include Yom Kippur into the orbit of the Aqedah as well.
- 35.
The so-called Malkhuyot-Zikhronot-Shofarot are mentioned in Mishnah RH IV, 5–6. For the complete texts see next note.
- 36.
Baer, Seder ‘Avodat Yisra’el, 402; D. Goldschmidt, Maḥzor la-yamim ha-nora’im I (Jerusalem 1970), 152–153.
- 37.
Baer, 157, 586.
- 38.
D. Goldschmidt, Seder ha-Seliḥot (Jerusalem 1965), nrs. 39, 49, 58, 67, 74 and 83; nr. 74 (Im afes rova‘ha-qen by Efraim of Regensburg) also figures among the Sefardi Seliḥot. Note that Abrabanel (2.15.3 {66}) mentions the Petiḥa for the Aramaic Seliḥa De-‘ane le-Avraham be-har ha-Moriya found in several Sefardi prayer books.
- 39.
Goldschmidt, Seliḥot, nr. 58; Davidson, Thesaurus of Mediaeval Hebrew Poetry, Alef 3207; T. Carmi, The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse (Harmondsworth 1981), 201–202.
- 40.
D. Jarden, Shire ha-Qodesh le-rabbi Shelomo Ibn Gabirol, I, 127–131 (nr. 33); Goldschmidt, Seliḥot, nr. 49.
- 41.
Carmi, Hebrew Verse, 357–359.
- 42.
Davidson’s subject index (Thesaurus, IV, 493) counts 18 ‘Aqedot.
- 43.
Critical text by Sh. Spiegel, “Me-Aggadot ha-‛Aqeda” in: A. Marx Jubilee Volume (New York 1950), 538–547; A.M. Haberman (ed.), Piyyuṭe Rabbi Efrayim b-R. Ya‘aqov mi-Bona (Jerusalem/Tel Aviv 1968), 48–52; translated and elucidated by J. Goldin in: The Last Trial, 139–152; H.-G. von Mutius, Ephraim von Bonn, Hymnen und Gebete (Hildesheim 1989), 84–90; Carmi, Hebrew Verse, 379–384.
- 44.
R. Chazan, European Jewry and the First Crusade (Berkely/Los Angeles/London 1978); Idem, God, Humanity, and History. The Hebrew First Crusade Narratives (Berkely/Los Angeles/London 2000). D. Noy, “Ha-‘Aqeda ke-avṭipus shel qiddush ha-Shem” in: E. Yassif (ed.), The Sacrifice of Isaac (Jerusalem 1978). J. Cohen, Sanctifying the Name of God: Jewish Martyrs and Jewish Memories of the First Crusade (Philadelphia 2004) discusses a number of historical cases of martyrdom as depicted in the chronicles of 1096. L. Roos, “God Wants It!” The Ideologies of Martyrdom of the Hebrew Crusade Chronicles and its Jewish and Christian Background (Uppsala 2003), esp. 88–103: The Binding of Isaac (as one of the ‘pious prototypes for martyrdom’).
- 45.
Chazan, 1978, 127–128; full translation: 225–242; cp. Chazan, 2000, 28–51.
- 46.
Translated by Chazan, 1978, 243–297; quotations 255 and 256; cp. Chazan, 2000, 52–99. The quotation from Is. 33 is one of the standard midrashic repertoire; *23b*.
- 47.
S.L. Einbinder, Beautiful Death: Jewish Poetry and Martyrdom in Medieval France (Princeton and Oxford 2002) studies a good number of commemorative elegies for Jewish martyrs but does not mention the Aqedah theme.
- 48.
A. Neubauer/M. Stern, Hebräische Berichte über die Judenverfolgungen während der Kreuzzüge (Berlin 1892).
- 49.
A.M. Haberman (ed.), Gezerot Ashkenaz we-Ṣarfat (Jerusalem 1945–1946).
- 50.
“Me-Aggadot ha-‛Aqeda” in the A. Marx Jubilee Volume (New York 1950), later followed by two shorter studies in the Mordechai M. Kaplan Jubilee Volume (New York 1953) and The Abraham Weiss Jubilee Volume (New York 1964) respectively; The Last Trial (New York 1979); see Bibliography.
- 51.
S. Spiegel,“Perur me-aggadot ha-‛Aqeda”, 559; The Last Trial, 37 (an additional note by Goldin). In the earlier Me-Aggadot ha-‘Aqedah Spiegel based his account on a reconstructed fragment from Zedekiah ben Abraham Anav’s (13th cent.) halakhic compendium Shibbole ha-Leqeṭ (ed. Buber, fol. 9a-b; ed. Mirsky, 188); see already Ginzberg, Legends…, V, 254 (note 255).
- 52.
J.B. Milgrom, The Binding of Isaac: The Akedah, a primary symbol in Jewish thought and art (Berkeley 1988) discusses a long range of visual representations of the Aqedah, from the Dura Europos synagogue to the twentieth century Israeli artists George Segal and Shraga Weil. Famous became the contrast between Caravaggio’s Sacrificio d’Isaaco, 1603 (Galeria degli Uffizi, Florence) that concentrates on the fear and pain of the victim Isaac, and Rembrandt’s painting of 1635, now in the State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg; other versions of the theme by Rembrandt (Alte Pinakothek, Munich; etchings, drawings) invite assumptions about a gradual change in the artist’s view by softening and humanizing its cruel details.
On ‘Aqedah studies’ in general see E. Yassif, “Darkhe ‘iyyun u-meḥqar be-nośe ha-‘Aqeda” in: Idem (ed.), The Sacrifice of Isaac, 6–33. The great diversity of modern studies appears to the full in M. Popović, “Bibliography of Recent Studies” in: E. Noort/E. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Sacrifice of Isaac, 211–223; also E. Yassif (ed.), The Sacrifice of Isaac, 34–40: “Mivḥar bibliografi” and EJ, vol. 2, 480–487; EJ2, vol. 1, 555–560 (s.v. “Akedah”). Its many ramifications make the Aqedah a most suitable topic for congresses, colloquia, and thematic collections; see our Bibliography: Bar-Eli/Benner; Greiner, etc.; Manns; Noort/Tigchelaar.
- 53.
I. Maybaum, The sacrifice of Isaac: a Jewish commentary (London 1959) and L.A. Berman, The Akedah. The Binding of Isaac (Northvale, N.Y. 1997). J.I. Gellman, Abraham! Abraham! Kierkegaard and the Hasidim on the Binding of Isaac (Aldershot 2003). For a late medieval Yiddish epic on the Aqedah see P. Matenko/S. Sloan, Two Studies in Yiddish Culture (1968). The Israeli experience is reflected in G. Abramson, “The Reinterpretation of the Akedah in Modern Hebrew Literature”, Journal of Jewish Studies 41, 2 (1990), 101–114; A. Sagi, “The meaning of the Akedah in Israeli culture and Jewish tradition”, Israel Studies 3/1 (1998), 45–60 and Idem,[“AKEDAH] In Israeli Culture” in: EJ2, I, 558–559. [“AKEDAH] In Israeli Culture” in: EJ2, I, 558–559. Y. Feldman, Glory and Agony. Isaac’s Sacrifice and National Narrative (Stanford, California, 2010).
- 54.
Mention (and condemnation) of child sacrifice is found in Lev. 18, 21; 20, 1–8; Deut. 12, 31; 18, 10; II Kings 3, 27; 16, 3; 17, 17. 31; 21, 6; 23, 10; Jer. 7, 13; 19, 5; Ez. 20, 31. And see e.g. E. Noort, “Human Sacrifice and Theology in the Hebrew Bible” in: E. Noort/E. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Sacrifice of Isaac. …, 1–20, esp. 6–14.
- 55.
Already Judah ha-Levi in his very short remarks on the Aqedah applied this terminology so reminiscent of Aristoteles; see below Sect. 2.13.1.
- 56.
Ber. 5a: ‘Rabba said—and some said it was Rav Ḥisda: If a man sees suffering coming upon him, let him examine his deeds. … If he examines (his deeds) and finds nothing, he can ascribe (his suffering) to neglect of Torah study. … If he does so but finds nothing, he can be certain that it is suffering of love, as it is said: “For whom the Lord loves, He chastises” (Prov. 3, 12).’
- 57.
The ‘Kierkegaardian’ view of the Aqedah; see the illuminating categorization by L. Jacobs, “The Problem of the Akedah in Jewish Thought” in: R.L. Perkins (ed.), Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling: Critical Appraisals (University of Alabama 1980), 1–9.
- 58.
S. Kierkegaard, Frygt og Bæven, 1843 (‘Fear and Trembling’, transl. A. Hanny, London 1985) very much stimulated theological reflection on our subject until today; see our Bibliography for e.g. S.H. Bergman, D.W. Conway, J.I. Gellman, C.E. Katz, A.F. Sanders.
- 59.
‘Aqedat Yiṣḥaq be-farshanut ha-misṭit we-ha-filosofit shel ha-Miqra (Tel Aviv 2006) explains in accessible terms the ‘Aqedah theology’ of the Ḥaside Ashkenaz, Maimonides, the Zohar, Isaac Abrabanel, Levi Isaac of Berditchev, Samson Raphael Hirsch, Isaac Kook, and Abraham Joshua Heschel.
- 60.
R.-P. Schmitz, Aqedat Jiṣḥaq. Die mittelalterliche jüdische Auslegung von Genesis 22 in ihren Hauptlinien (Hildesheim/New York 1979). A. Bar-Eli/U. Benner (eds.), Ner le-Elḥanan. ‘Iyyunim be-farashat ha-‘Aqeda (2014), 9–112. N. Leibowitz, ‘Iyyunim be-sefer Bereshit, be-‘iqvot parshanenu ha-rishonim we-ha-aḥaronim (Jerusalem 51975), 133–145.
- 61.
For further specification of the term and the concept see M. Idel in HBOT I/2, 456–457 and his Absorbing Perfections, 435.
- 62.
- 63.
Sefer ha-Zohar (ed. R.M. Margulies), Wa-Yera 119b; The Zohar Pritzker Edition (tr. D.C. Matt), II, 191–192. For a fuller integration of the Aqedah into Zoharic theosophy see A. Even Chen, ‘Aqedat Yiṣḥaq… (Tel Aviv 2006), 57–88.
- 64.
For the case of Moses Cordovero, Kabbalah’s great dialectician, see the remarks made by K.P. Bland, “Sixteenth-Century Jewish Exegesis”, 63–67.
- 65.
Beliefs and Opinions VII, 2 (Rosenblatt, 265–267).
- 66.
A. Grossman in HBOT I/2, 370–371: “The Historical Fate of the School of Literal Exegesis.”
- 67.
M. Cohen, “The Qimhi Family” in: HBOT I/2, 388–415; there is no standard transcription of the name יחמק.
- 68.
The commentaries on Proverbs and Job were preserved, the ones on Torah and Prophets not, except for some quotations.
- 69.
Apart from his commentaries on Ezra-Nehemia (long held to be written by Ibn Ezra) and Job, his short Hebrew grammar Mahalakh Shevile ha-Da‘at became very influential.
- 70.
The ‘Introduction’; Chavel, 1–8.
- 71.
Ibid., 6.
- 72.
Y. Elman, HBOT I/2, 419–420.
- 73.
The very appropriate term pardes (‘orchard’ and ultimately: ‘paradise’) is borrowed from the enigmatic parable of the ‘Four who entered the Garden’ (PT Ḥag. II, 3–4); for a summary see M. Idel, HBOT I/2, 457–459; and below Baḥya 2.9.1 note 491.
- 74.
I. Bettan, Studies in Jewish Preaching: Middle Ages (Cincinnati 1939); Joseph Dan, Sifrut ha-musar we-ha-derush (Jerusalem 1975); M. Saperstein, Jewish Preaching 1200–1800. An Anthology (New Haven and London 1989).
- 75.
- 76.
See above Sect. 1.4.3.8.
- 77.
K.P. Bland, “Issues in Sixteenth-Century Jewish Exegesis” in: D.C. Steinmetz (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century (Durham and London 1990), 50–67. A. van der Heide, “The Role of the Bible in the Amsterdam Portuguese Sephardi Milieu” in: Uprooted Roots. Studia Rosenthaliana 35, 2 (2001), 241–252. L. Jacobs, Jewish Biblical Exegesis (New York 1973).
- 78.
For supercommentaries on Rashi see below 2.3.2; on Ibn Ezra 2.2.2 note 36. A good example of exegetical compilation is Solomon Ibn Melech’s Biblical commentary Mikhlal Yofi (1549) based mainly on the works of David Kimḥi; Van der Heide, “The Role of the Bible…”, 244–248.
- 79.
Bland, “Issues…”, 51–58; Van der Heide, “The Role of the Bible…”, 248–251; S. Regev (ed.) Derashot R. Yiṣḥaq Qaro (Ramat Gan 1995).
- 80.
Bland, “Issues …”, 59–63; Jacobs, 144–152. Sh. Shalem, Rabbi Moshe Alshekh. Le-ḥeqer shiṭato ha-parshanit we-hashqefotaw be-‘inyene maḥshava u-musar (Jerusalem 1966).
- 81.
Jacobs, 163–170. On the independent and speculative courses of kabbalistic interpretation see above Sect. 1.4.2.
- 82.
E. Breuer, Ch. Gafni, “Jewish Biblical scholarship between tradition and innovation” in: HBOT III/1, 263–303. Jacobs, 178–189.
- 83.
- 84.
Consultation of the Indexes will lead to the details of the following observations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van der Heide, A. (2017). Introduction. In: ‘Now I Know’: Five Centuries of Aqedah Exegesis. Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Philosophy, vol 17. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47521-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47521-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47520-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47521-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)