stroumsa, gedaliahu a.g. christ's laughter -- docetic origins reconsidered

STROUMSA/CHRIST’S LAUGHTER 267

Journal of Early Christian Studies 12:3, 267–288 © 2004 The Johns Hopkins University Press

Christ’s Laughter:Docetic Origins Reconsidered

GUY G. STROUMSA

Fritz Stolz in memoriam

One of the most radical heresies of early Christianity, Docetism, maintainedthat Jesus did not really die on the cross but only appeared to do so. Somedocetic conceptions go further, denying Jesus a physical body altogether. Thisarticle argues that a claim that Jesus’ sacrifice was not really accomplishedappeared among the very first followers of Jesus. For first-century Jews Isaacprovided an obvious model of someone who—in his akedah (“binding”) asdescribed in Genesis 22—had almost been sacrificed, but not quite. The figureof Isaac, which soon became a typos, or figura, of Christ for the churchfathers, as the Akedah was understood as a sacramentum futuri, must havebeen the source of this docetic interpretation of the crucifixion. Variousgnostic texts and traditions describe Christ laughing in heaven while Simon ofCyrene is being crucified in his place. This laughter of Christ has not so farbeen properly understood. This article proposes to see in it a reference to theetymology of Isaac’s name, yzh≥aq (“he will laugh”). This etymology waswidely known among first-century Jews. Philo, for instance, discusses it onvarious occasions, even claiming that Isaac was actually the son of God, not ofAbraham, and that his mother Sarah was a virgin when she conceived him.

I

One of the most radical attitudes to be found among the early Christians,Docetism soon became a generic term for some of the worst heresiesfought by the church fathers. Oddly enough, this puzzling phenomenondoes not seem to have elicited enough scholarly attention. In 1957 GustaveBardy, who claimed that “les origines de cette erreur sont obscures,”lamented the lack of a full-fledged monograph on the topic, and no suchmonograph has appeared in print since then.1

1. Bardy, “Docétisme,” DSAM 3 (1957): 1461–68; see 1462. The Heidelbergdissertation of P. Weigandt, Der Doketismus im Urchristentum und in der theologischen

Bridget Beall

268 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Moreover, there is no general agreement upon a convincing definitionof Docetism, and one is at a loss as to the focal point of the doceticworldview. The two main approaches relate either to Christ’s incarnationor to his passion: either Christ was not really incarnated, as the divine andmatter could not have a common ground, so Christ would be totallyspiritual in nature; or Christ was indeed incarnated, but did not reallysuffer on the cross. These two views are not identical. The first, beingbroader, is inclusive of the second. Most scholars seem to support the firstapproach and find the roots of Docetism in Platonic thought, or in what issometimes called, rather nebulously, “Graeco-Oriental Dualism.”2 Forthem, Docetism argues that the human nature of Jesus is only a sem-blance. For the second opinion, which focuses on the crucifixion, Jesus’death, rather than his very corporeal existence, was the scandal that thefirst Docetists sought to avoid. J. G. Davies, in a paper read at the SixthOxford Patristics Conference and published in Studia Patristica in 1962,seems to have been the first to suggest this idea.3 Soon thereafter NorbertBrox seconded him with new arguments.4 According to both scholars,Jewish motives (for Davies) or Jewish-Christian ones (for Brox) should beidentified, together with “Graeco-oriental” dualism, at the origins ofDocetism.

It should be pointed out, however, that the views of Davies and Brox donot seem to have become the majority opinion. As knowledgeable ascholar as Basil Studer remarks that the docetic tendency makes sense

Entwicklung des 2. Jahrhunderts (diss., Heidelberg University, 1961), was neverpublished. An analysis of Weigandt’s main argument can be found in M. Slusser,“Docetism: A Historical Definition,” SCe 1 (1981): 163–72. Slusser also quotesvarious definitions of Docetism offered since the days of Baur. I wish to express mythanks to Clemens Leonhard, Giovanni Filoramo, David Runia, Mark Silk, ShmuelHerr, and Jonathan Cahana for their comments on a draft of this paper, as well as tothe three anonymous readers for JECS who saved me from various mistakes andinfelicities. A version of this paper was read at the Fourteenth InternationalConference on Patristic Studies (Oxford, August 18–23, 2003). I wish to thank theconference organizers, and in particular Professor Frances Young, for inviting me todeliver one of the “morning lectures.” Another version was read at the University ofZurich on April 16, 2004. Finally, I wish to thank Professor Christoph Uehlinger forhis pertinent remarks and great generosity.

2. J. G. Davies, “The Origins of Docetism,” SP 6 (1962): 13–35; see 13. Similarexpression in N. Brox, “Doketismus: Eine Problemanzeige,” ZKG 95 (1984): 301–14.

3. Davies, “Origins of Docetism.”4. See Brox, “Doketismus.” See further W. Schoedel, Commentary on the Letters of

Ignatius of Antioch, To the Trallians 9–11 and To the Smyrnaeans 2–3, Hermeneia(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 152–61 and 225–29.


only within a Platonic context, adding that “strictly speaking, onlyValentinians should be considered docetists.”5 Charles Munier, for hispart, who echoes Bardy when he states that “les commencements dudocétisme sont insaisissables,” argues that Docetism was born “from thedifficulty to conciliate Jesus Christ with Hellenistic conceptions aboutGod’s transcendence.”6

What is clear is that in modern scholarly usage “Docetism” does notrefer to any clearly definable sect but rather to an attitude. While many ofthose doctrines we often refer to (rather vaguely) as “gnostic” also reflecta docetic attitude, “Docetism” is by no means identical to “Gnosticism.”Michael Williams has made a convincing case for questioning the hypo-static use of the concept of “Gnosticism,” as if it referred to a stable,historically and theologically defined movement.7 A similar caution shouldbe used with the construct of “Docetism.” In other words, “Docetism” isno more a fixed set of doctrines than “Gnosticism” is, but rather atheological option that shows up in a wide variety of early Christiantexts. It is probable that “docetic” doctrines were already present in thefirst Christian century, as it is against such doctrines that the author of1 and 2 John, for instance, seems to argue.8 The first appearance ofdoke \tismos, however, is only found in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis,while Eusebius refers briefly to the “Docetes.”9 For Clement, Docetism isrelated to those who claim that birth is evil and is therefore upheld byJulianus Cassianus, the father of encratism, as well as by Marcion andValentinus, for whom Christ’s body was “psychic.” The developed char-acter of Valentinus’ doctrines, and in particular his complex conceptionof Christ, is probably responsible for the commonly held view thatDocetism owes its rejection of the physical body to the influence of thePlatonic negation of matter.

Seeking to offer a taxonomy of three different kinds of docetic atti-tudes, Georg Strecker proposed to distinguish among three different claims:(1) the one according to which Simon of Cyrene was the substitute ofJesus on the cross (a claim made by Basilides, at least according to

5. B. Studer, “Docetism,” ODCC 1:244a.6. C. Munier, “Où en est la question d’Ignace d’Antioche?” ANRW 2.27.1 (Berlin:

De Gruyter, 1993), esp. 407–13; here 409.7. See M. A. Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a

Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).8. See for instance G. Strecker, Commentary on the Johannine Letters, Hermeneia

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995), 69–77. See in particular 2 John 1.7.9. Clement Strom. 3.17.102. Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6.12.6 (LCL 2:42–43): hous

Dokètas kaloumen.


Irenaeus); (2) the one affirming that Christ left Jesus just before his deathon the cross (according to Cerinthus and the Gospel of Peter10); and (3)the claim that Jesus Christ was indeed crucified but did not suffer, that heremained impassibilis, as his nature is pneumatic (the claim of the Doceticsfought by Ignatius).11

While the two above-mentioned articles of Davies and Brox point inthe right direction in the search for the origins of Docetism, both retain,unfortunately, rather vague formulations in their hypotheses; and bothargue for a “twofold” origin of Docetism, in both “Graeco-Oriental andJewish thought.”12

To my mind, however, the very historical core of Docetism, at least inits earliest phases, does not lie in Platonic elements, which were whollyabsent from Christian origins, but in the rejection of Jesus’ passion on thecross, “a stumbling block [skandalon] to Jews and foolishness to Gen-tiles,” to use Paul’s terms (1 Cor 1.24). This rejection, I submit, came first;and only then were the docetic attitudes broadened, as it were, to includealso the very incarnation, the idea of Christ having possessed a body offlesh. It is only at a later stage, finally, that Docetism may have influencedearly Christian conceptions of martyrdom.13 While it is by no means myintention here to offer a review of all the evidence on early ChristianDocetism, I shall discuss a few texts that I hope will shed some new lighton the origins of Docetism and shall emphasize its roots in the earlieststages of Christianity.

I shall begin with the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, a particularlypowerful text (extant in Coptic translation) that has been called one ofthe most interesting texts from Nag Hammadi relating to Docetism:14

For my death, which they think happened, [happened] to them in their errorand blindness. They nailed their man up to their death. For their minds did

10. See J. W. McCant, “The Gospel of Peter: Docetism Reconsidered,” NTS 30(1984): 258–73. McCant’s conclusion that the Akhmim fragment “should not beconsidered docetic” reflects a rather limited and rigid conception of Docetism. On thetext, see W. Schneemelcher and R. M. Wilson, The New Testament Apocrypha(Cambridge: Clarke, 1991), 1:216–27.

11. Strecker, Commentary on the Johannine Letters, 72.12. Davies, “Origins of Docetism,” 16.13. Pace R. Grant, “Gnostic Origins and the Basilidians of Irenaeus,” VC 13

(1959): 121–25.14. K. W. Tröger, “Doketistische Christologie in Nag-Hammadi-Texten: Ein

Beitrag zum Doketismus in frühchristlicher Zeit,” Kairos 19 (1977): 47–52; see 51.Tröger, however, does not offer a real analysis of this text and only refers to theparallel about the suffering Simon and the laughing Christ in the views attributed toBasilides in Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 1.24.4.


not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, theyrender judgment against themselves. As for me, on the one hand, they sawme; they punished me. Another, their father, was the one who drank the galland the vinegar; it was not I. They were hitting me with the reed; anotherwas the one who lifted up the cross on his shoulder, who was Simon.Another was the one on whom they put the crown of thorns. But I wasrejoicing in the height over all the riches of the archons and the offspring oftheir error and their conceit, and I was laughing at their ignorance.15

One does not have to be a Christian to be taken aback by the image ofChrist laughing when watching from heaven as the poor Simon of Cyrenecarries his cross and suffers in his place.16 Indeed, from antiquity tomodern times a quite common image of Christ in the Christian tradition(albeit not the only one) is that of a stern figure who could cry at times buthad never laughed. The topical texts here are some Homilies of JohnChrysostom and a text of Ambrosius.17 While it is true that the SecondTreatise of the Great Seth does not specifically say that Simon was crucifiedin Christ’s place, it is hard to argue (as Gregory Riley, whose translation Ihave quoted, seems to do) that this text has no docetic proclivities.18 Thecosmic cruelty of this laughter seems to evoke Siva’s mythic destruction ofthe demons’ cities rather than Christ’s traditional compassion.

This passage is not the only one mentioning Christ’s laughter. In theApocalypse of Peter, another text from Nag Hammadi, we read:

When he had said these things, I saw him [the Savior] apparently beingseized by them. And I said, “What am I seeing, O Lord? Is it you yourselfwhom they take? And are you holding on to me? Who is this one above thecross, who is glad and laughing? And is it another person whose feet andhands they are hammering?” The Savior said to me, “He whom you see

15. Gr. Seth (NHC VII,2) 55.30–56.19. Trans. G. Riley (see no. 18 below).16. This laughter of Christ is reflected in the title of John Dart’s introductory book

to Christian Gnosticism, The Laughing Savior: The Discovery and Significance of theNag Hammadi Gnostic Library, first published in 1976, and reprinted in a revisedand expanded edition under the title Jesus of Heresy and History: The Discovery andMeaning of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Library (San Francisco: Harper, 1988). Dart,however, does not deal at length with this passage and its parallels. See also I. S.Gilhus, Laughing Gods, Weeping Virgins: Laughter in the History of Religion (NewYork: Routledge, 1997). Gilhus too, although a specialist of Gnosticism, refers to thisand similar passages but without offering any real interpretation of them.

17. See J. Le Brun, “‘Jésus-Christ n’a jamais ri’: Analyse d’un raisonnementthéologique,” in Homo religiosus: Autour de Jean Delumeau (Paris: Fayard, 1997),431–37. Le Brun refers to Chrysostom Hom. VI on Matthew and Hom. XV onHebrews and to Ambrosius’ De officiis ministrorum 1.23.102 on Luke 23.25.

18. See B. Pearson, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex VII, Nag Hammadi and ManichaeanStudies 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 137–38. “Their man” is the body of Christ.


above the cross, glad and laughing, is the living Jesus. But he into whosehands and feet they are driving the nails is his physical part, which is thesubstitute.”19

Various other texts from Nag Hammadi reflect the same docetic percep-tion of Jesus, who did not suffer on the cross. The Letter of Peter to Philipoffers a similar vision of things: “My brothers, Jesus is a stranger to thissuffering. But we are the ones who have suffered at the transgression ofthe mother.”20 The text entitled The Concept of Our Great Power de-scribes how the ruler of the archons “found that the nature of his [theSavior’s] flesh could not be seized, in order to show it to the archons.”21 Inthe First Apocalypse of James the Lord is quoted as saying: “James, donot be concerned for me or for this people. I am he who was within me.Never have I suffered in any way, nor have I been distressed. And thispeople has done me no harm.” Elsewhere in the same text, the Lord saysto James that he will reveal to the “authorities,” or archons, that “hecannot be seized.”22

Two other texts, at least, mention the laughter of a feminine figurebehaving in a manner similar to that of the docetic Christ, namely, avoid-ing being caught by the evil archons. In the Hypostasis of the Archons Eve“laughed at [the authorities] for their folly and their blindness; and intheir clutches, she became a tree, and left before them a shadow of herselfresembling herself.” It is this shadow, of course, that they catch anddefile.23 In the Valentinian Exposition, finally, Sophia “laughs since sheremained alone and imitated the ‘ungraspable.’”24 The figure imitated by

19. Apoc. Peter (NHC VII,3) 81.3–21 (trans. J. Brashler, in Pearson, NagHammadi Codex, 241).

20. The Letter of Peter to Philip (NHC VIII,2) 139.15–22 (trans. F. Wisse, inJ. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English [San Francisco: Harpers,1977], 397).

21. The Concept of Our Great Power (NHC VI,4) 41.14–42.3, ibid., 287.22. First Apocalypse of James (NHC V,3) 31.15–22 and 30.1–4 (trans. W. R.

Schoedel, ibid., 243). In a note to his recent translation of the text Antonio Piñerooffers the following explanation (which explains very little): “La sonrisa del Salvadorpuede ser una inversión gnóstica a los escarnios de lo que veían la crucifixión (Matt27.39–43).” See A. Piñero, J. Montserrat Torrents, and F. Garcia Bazan, Textosgnosticos: Biblioteca de Nag Hammadi III (Madrid: Trotta, 2000), 67 n. 88.

23. Hypostasis of the Archons (NHC II,4) 89.23–26. I quote the translation ofBentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 71. Laytondoes not deal with Eve’s laughter in his commentary to his edition of the text in HTR69 (1976): 31–101. See also B. Pearson, “‘She Became a Tree’—A Note to CG II,4:89, 25–26,” HTR 69 (1976): 413–15.

24. Valentinian Exposition (NHC XI,2) 34.35–38. (Or “the uncontainable one,”according to John Turner’s translation, in Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, 439).


Sophia seems to be he who cannot be caught, i.e., who cannot sufferthrough his capture by the archons.25

To these texts one should add some “gnostic” traditions retained by thepatristic heresiographers, in particular the views of Basilides according toIrenaeus of Lyon. The question has been raised whether Irenaeus’ reportreally reflects Basilides’ doctrine, or rather the views of some of hisfollowers, but this does not affect its significance for our present task.

And unto the nations belonging to them it [the intellect] appeared on earthas a man, and he performed deeds of power. Hence he did not suffer.Rather, a certain Simon of Cyrene was forced to bear his cross for him, andit was he who was ignorantly and erroneously crucified, being transformedby the other, so that he was taken for Jesus; while Jesus, for his part,assumed the form of Simon and stood by, laughing at them [irrisisse eos].26

Finally, the Acts of John preserve a famous description of Christ’sdocetic nature quite similar to the “gnostic” traditions quoted above. Asnoted by the editors of this text, Eric Junod and Jean-Daniel Kaestli, thedissociation reflected in this text between the Savior and the man on thecross fits quite well Eastern Valentinian christology.27

“So then I have suffered none of those things which they will say of me. . . .You hear that I suffered, yet I suffered not . . . and that I was pierced, yet I

See J. E. Ménard, L’exposé valentinien, les fragments sur le baptême et surl’eucharistie, Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi 14 (Québec: Université Laval,1985). Ménard translates as “l’insaisissable” and offers the following commentary:“Le rire est l’apanage des êtres célestes, celui du Christ par exemple . . .” (p. 76).Ménard’s remark (“Le rire de la Sophia vient de ce qu’elle a voulu imiter l’Insaisissablesans être pour autant dans le monde des syzygies . . .”) does not really solve the riddle.

25. See also On the Origin of the World (NHC II,5) 113.13, where Sophia Zoelaughs at the Archontic authorities; 116.26, where Eve laughs at the powers (textparallel to that from the Hypostasis of the Archons quoted in n. 23 above); and112.27, where the Archons laugh at the Archigenitor because of his foolishness. Thesetexts are referred to by one of the anonymous readers for JECS, who adds theApocryphon of John (NHC II,1) 22.12, where the Savior laughs (or smiles, sWbe)when answering a question from John or some other disciple.

26. Irenaeus Adv. Haer 1.24.4 (trans. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 242). For furtherreferences to the theme of laughter in gnostic sources and traditions, see W. A. Löhr,Basilides und seine Schule: Eine Studie zur Theologie- und Kirchengeschichte deszweiten Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: Mohr, 1996), 269 n. 58. Löhr, however, does notreally offer an interpretation of this laughter of Christ. See also, in particular, somerich pages in A. Orbe, Cristologia gnostica (Madrid: Biblioteca des autores cristianos,1976), 1:381–412 (el docetismo gnostico) and 2:229–37 (on the theme of laughter).Orbe states: “El tema de la risa merecería estudio” (2:229).

27. E. Junod and J.-D. Kaestli, eds., Acta Iohannis, CCA 2 (Turnhout: Brepols,1983), 601.


was not lashed, that I was hanged, yet I was not hanged; that blood flowedfrom me, yet it did not flow. . . .” When he had said these things to me,and others which I know not how to say as he wills, he was taken up,without any of the multitude seeing him. And going down I laughed atthem all when they told me what they had said about him. . . .28

The texts briefly discussed above, which are certainly not the only onesharboring a docetic view of the Savior, are enough to highlight the impor-tance of the motif of laughter on the part of Christ, as he secretly avoidsthe passion on the cross.

One cannot say, however, that this laughter, which has been identifiedby various scholars as “typically gnostic” and as directly related in itsorigin to both gnostic mythology and Docetism, has been adequatelyexplained.29 Louis Painchaud, in the commentary to his edition of theSecond Treatise of the Great Seth, refers to some of the parallels, notingthat the laughter underlines the blindness and ignorance of the archonsand of their creatures as well as their inability to distinguish reality fromillusion. Jacques Ménard, on his side, notes the strangeness of this laugh-ter, adding that it is typical of “celestial entities.” Neither Junod andKaestli, nor Bentley Layton, nor even Antonio Piñero, who refers only to“a gnostic inversion,” offer any substantial interpretation.30

The only serious suggestion I am aware of is that of Robert Grant, whoproposed, in an article published long ago, to interpret Christ’s laughteras a reflection of Ps 2.4: “He who sits in the heavens laughs [yoshev ba-shammayim ish≥aq]; the Lord has them in derision.” This proposal mustbe taken seriously, as Psalm 2 deals with the messianic drama, calling theMessiah “God’s son” (v. 8). The same chapter, moreover, is quoted inActs 4.23–26 in the prayer of Peter and John after their release by theSanhedrin.31 I hope to offer here a more convincing interpretation ofChrist’s laughter. My proposal, however, is not exclusive of Grant’s sug-gestion, as an early conflation between two different themes might havecontributed to the development of the idea of Christ’s laughter.

28. Acts of John, 101–102.29. Cf. G. Bröcker, “Lachen als religiöses Motiv in gnostischen Texten,” in Studien

zum Menschenbild in Gnosis und Manichäismus, ed. P. Nagel (Halle: Abt. Wissen-schaftspublizistik der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 1979), 111–25.

30. See Piñero, Textos gnosticos; L. Painchaud, Le deuxième traité du Grand Seth(NH VII, 2), Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi, Section Textes 6 (Quebec: Laval,1982), 106 and n. 70; and J. Ménard, L’Exposé Valentinien, les fragments sur lebaptême et l’eucharistie (NH XI, 2), Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi, SectionTextes 14 (Quebec: Laval, 1985), 35, 76, and n. 90.

31. Grant, “Gnostic Origins,” 121–25. See also Prov 1.22–26: “I will laugh at yourcalamity.”


Before going any further, it is important to underline the context of thislaughter. It seems that in various texts the Savior’s laughter (or that of aheavenly figure seeking to imitate him) is directly related to his ability toavoid death at the hands of the archons. It is either through his transfor-mation at the last moment, his disappearance, or his replacement by asubstitute (such as Simon of Cyrene) that the Savior avoids death, and helaughs at having succeeded in averting the evil archon’s scheme. Thislaughter, then, would appear to be integral to the docetic interpretation ofChrist’s passion.

II

As is well known, the biblical patriarch Isaac is presented in early Chris-tian literature as a typos of Christ, or sacramentum futuri.32 While Isaac isnot alone among the major figures of the Old Testament to be thusperceived, he certainly has a pride of place, thanks both to his birth and tohis near sacrifice.33 After the New Testament, the earliest text to refer toIsaac explicitly as a typos of Christ is the Epistle of Barnabas. The Lord“was going to offer the vessel of the spirit as a sacrifice for our sins, inorder that the type established by Isaac, who was offered upon the altar,might be fulfilled.”34 From then on, many patristic authors writing inGreek, Latin, or Syriac will refer to Isaac as a typos of Christ, focusing inparticular on the Akedah in Genesis 22. Abraham, like God, intended tosacrifice his own son.35 Isaac carried the wood for the burnt offering, in a

32. On this concept, see in particular J. Daniélou, Sacramentum futuri: Etudes surles origines de la typologie biblique (Paris: Beauchesne, 1950).

33. See for instance J. Daniélou, “La typologie d’Isaac dans le christianismeprimitif,” Biblica 28 (1947): 363–93, esp. 365.

34. Barnabas 7.3 (LCL, Apostolic Fathers 1:364–65; trans. Kirsopp Lake): hina kaiho tupos ho genomenos epi Isaak tou prosenekhthentos epi to thusiastèrion telesthèi.Barnabas also mentions the two goats of Yom Kippur (Lev 16.7–9), one of which issent to Azazel. Cf. Babylonian Talmud Yoma 62a–68b.

35. Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 4.5.4: “Abraham, whose faith drew him to obey God’sorder, offered his only and beloved son in sacrifice to God, so that God, in his turn,would grant him the gift of sacrificing his only and beloved son for the redemption ofall his posterity.” See also M. Harl, “La ‘ligature’ d’Isaac (Gen 22.9) dans la Septanteet chez les Pères grecs,” in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky,ed. A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel, and J. Riaud (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 457–72, whopoints out that Melito is the single author to relate the binding of Isaac to that ofJesus. See further S. Brock, “Genesis 22 in Syriac Tradition,” in Mélanges DominiqueBarthélemy: Etudes bibliques offertes à l’occasion de son soixantième anniversaire,ed. P. Casetti, O. Keel, and A. Schenker (Fribourg-Göttingen: Editions universitaires,Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 1–21, who notes that in the Syriac tradition Isaac


prefiguration of Jesus carrying his cross. The major difference betweenthe two figures, of course, lies in the fact that according to the biblical textIsaac was eventually not sacrificed, while Jesus did die on the cross.

Melito of Sardis deals with the parallelism between the two figures inhis Peri Pascha.36 Melito, who has been called “the first poet of Deicide,”emphasizes the difference between Isaac and Christ:

and he carried the wood on his shouldersas he was led up to be slain like Isaac by his Father.

But Christ suffered [epathen], whereas Isaac did not suffer;for he was a model of the Christ who was going to suffer.

But by being merely the model of Christhe caused astonishment and fear among men.37

Origen devotes one of his most powerful Homilies on Genesis to thebiblical figure of Isaac. According to him, “Isaac means laughter or joy”(Isaac risus uel gaudium interpretatur).38 Origen does not pursue this lineof interpretation and does not link Isaac’s laughter to Christ. He does say,however, that Abraham, willing to sacrifice his son, hoped that he wouldbe resurrected, believing that what had never taken place would happen.Abraham’s faith was based upon his knowledge that Isaac was the pre-figuration of the truth to come, Christ’s resurrection from the dead.39

“That Isaac carried himself the wood for the burnt offering, this is thefigura of Christ who carried himself his cross.”40 Later, he adds that whileAbraham offered to God a mortal son who did not die, “God, for hu-

and the ram are a combined type of Christ and that we do not find there theallegorical or anagogical interpretation familiar from the Alexandrian tradition.

36. Fragments 9 and 10 in the edition and translation of S. J. Hall, Melito ofSardis, Peri Pascha and Fragments, OECT (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), 74–77. Thetwo following fragments, 11 and 12, deal with the ram as a typos of Christ.

37. See R. L. Wilken, “Melito, the Jewish Community at Sardis, and the Sacrificeof Isaac,” TS 37 (1976): 53–69. Wilken rightly insists upon the significance of Melitofor the central role of the Akedah in the polemics between Jews and Christians in lateantiquity but is wrong when he claims that the Akedah played only a minor role inearly Christianity during the first one hundred or one hundred and fifty years (p. 64).On the role of the Akedah in these polemics, see G. G. Stroumsa, “Herméneutiquebiblique et identité: L’exemple d’Isaac,” RB 99 (1992): 529–43, where I tried toconnect rabbinic and patristic interpretations with the different contexts andparameters of Jewish and Christian identity.

38. I am using the edition of L. Doutreleau, Origène, Homélies sur la Genèse 7.1(SC 7bis [Paris: Cerf, 1976], 194–95). The next homily, 8, is dedicated to the Akedah(pp. 212–35).

39. Ibid. 7.1 (SC 7:216–17).40. Ibid. 8.6 (SC 7:222–23).


mans, delivered to death an immortal Son” (Abraham mortalem filiumnon moriturum obtulit Deo; Deus immortalem filium pro hominibustradidit morti).41 In the next paragraph Origen discusses the ram, whichwas indeed slaughtered, as another typos of Christ, in parallel to Isaac. Inorder to explain the double type of Christ he notes that Christ is at oncehuman, born of a virgin, and the Logos of God, coming from on high.

Hence, Christ suffers, but [only] in his flesh, and he underwent death, but[only] in the flesh, of which the ram is here the form [Patitur ergo Christus,sed in carne; et pertulit mortem, sed caro, cuius hic aries forma est]. Johnsaid, similarly, “Here is the lamb of God, who takes away sin from theworld.” The Logos, however, which is Christ according to the spirit, ofwhom Isaac is the image, remained “in incorruptibility” [Verbum uero inincorruptione permansit, quod est secundum spiritum Christus, cuius imagoest Isaac]. This is why he is at once victim and high priest.42

In other words, Origen points out that the parallelism between the Akedahof Isaac and the crucifixion of Christ relates precisely to the fact thatChrist, at least in his divine nature, like Isaac, did not suffer death.

Isaac as a figura of Christ also often appears in Latin authors. ForTertullian, types and figures

needed to be covered in obscurity, so that difficulty of understanding mightmake request for the grace of God. And so Isaac, to begin with, whendelivered up by his father for a sacrifice, himself carried the wood forhimself, and did at that early date set forth the death of Christ, who whensurrendered as a victim by his Father carried the wood of his own passion.43

Augustine too discusses both the meaning of Isaac’s name (Isaac, quodinterpretatur Risus) and the ram of the Akedah as referring to Jesus (Quisergo illo figurabatur, nisi Iesus, antequam immolaretur, spinis Iudaicis

41. Ibid. 8.8 (SC 7:228–29). P. Perkins, The Gnostic Dialogue (New York: PaulistPress, 1980), 180, refers to Christ (ho Kyrios) laughing with scorn at the ignorance ofthose who crucified him in Origen’s Commentary on Matthew 13.9. Origen quoteshere from LXX Ps 2.4; the archons who betrayed him are laughed at and derided bythe Lord.

42. Origen, Homilies on Genesis 8.9 (SC 7:230–31).43. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 3.18.2 (ed. and trans. E. Evans, OECT

[Oxford: Clarendon, 1972], 1:224–25). Cf. Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos 13.636. ForTertullian, the ram too is parallel to the crucified Christ with the crown of thorns. Inother words, the typos of Christ is double: while Isaac, who did not die, is the typosof the divine nature of Christ, the ram, who was sacrificed, is the typos of his humannature. This conception will become widespread, also in the East; see for instance,Germanus of Constantinople, On the Divine Liturgy (ed. and trans. P. Meyendorff[Crestwood, N.Y.: St Vladimir’s Seminary, 1999], 84–85).


coronatus?).44 He also knows that Isaac is a figure of Jesus but does notseem to be particularly interested by the topic.45

In iconography too the importance of the sacrifice of Isaac seems toreflect its similitude to the crucifixion in Christian culture throughout theages.46 This tradition, which has been much studied, is reasonably well-charted. It should be pointed out that a similarly central place of theAkedah seems to be found among Jews, as reflected in synagogue mosaicssuch as the ones from Beit Alpha and Sepphoris.47

A passage from Clement of Alexandria’s Paedagogus deserves specialattention in our present context.48 While this intriguing text has receivedsome notice (Jean Gribomont calls it “une page curieuse,” and JeanDaniélou speaks of “ce passage très remarquable”), its full significanceseems to be still ignored. 49 In the context of discussing the various ways inwhich men and women can be called children—and thus in need ofeducation by the divine teacher—Clement writes, “The word Isaac I alsoconnect with child. Isaac means laughter [gelôs hermeneuetai ho Isaak].”He then goes on to interpret this laughter as the joy of the Christians,rejoicing in the salvation offered by Christ, adding: “That which is signi-fied by the prophet may be interpreted differently, namely, it is we whorejoice and laugh on account of salvation, like Isaac. He too laughed,when delivered from death . . . (egela de kakeinos tou thanatou lelumenos).”Further on, he adds:

44. Augustine, De Civitate Dei 16.31 and 32 (San Agustin, La ciudad de Dios,Biblioteca de autores cristianos [Madrid, 1978], 2:298–99). This etymology (Isaac,quod interpretatur risus) is of course an old and popular one, which seems to havebeen included in most lexica and commentaries in antiquity. It does not testify to anyreal knowledge of Hebrew.

45. Augustine, Ennarationes in Psalmos 51.5. Much has been written on the figureof Isaac in Christian literature and art. See, for example, J. Gribomont, “Isaac lePatriarche,” DSAM 7 (1970): 1988–2005; C. Jacob and S. Schrenk, “Isaak I(Patriarch),” RAC 18 (1998): 910–30; Daniélou, “Typologie d’Isaac,” 363–93; idem,Sacramentum futuri; and D. Lerch, Isaak’s Opferung christlich gedeutet: Eineauslegungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Tübingen: Mohr, 1950).

46. See for instance I. Speyert van Woerden, “The Iconography of the Sacrifice ofAbraham,” VC 15 (1961): 214–55; and the bibliography at the end of Jacob andSchrenk, “Isaak I (Patriarch).”

47. See E. Kessler, “Art Leading the Story: The Aqedah in Early Synagogue Art,”in From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity, ed.L. I. Levine and Z. Weiss, Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 40(Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2000), 73–81.

48. 1.5.21.3–1.5.23.2. I am using the text in Clément d’Alexandrie, Le Pédagogue,Livre I, ed. H. I. Marrou, trans. M. Harl, SC 70 (Paris: Cerf, 1960), 148–53. See alsothe English translation by S. Wood, Christ the Educator, FC 23 (Washington, D.C.:Catholic University of America, 1954).

49. Daniélou, “Typologie d’Isaac,” 381; and Gribomont, “Isaac le Patriarche.”


The king, then, is Christ, who beholds our laughter from above, andlooking through the window, as the scripture says, looks at thethanksgiving, and the blessing, and the rejoicing, and the gladness, andfurthermore the endurance which works together with them and theirembrace. . . . He himself [Christ] is Isaac [for the passage may beinterpreted otherwise], who is a type [typos] of the Lord, a child as a son;for he was the son of Abraham, as Christ, the Son of God, and a sacrificeas the Lord. But he was not immolated as the Lord. Isaac only bore thewood [of the sacrifice], as the Lord the wood [of the cross]. And he [Isaac]laughed in a secret way [egela de mustikôs], prophesying that the Lordwould fill us with joy, as we have been redeemed from corruption by theblood of the Lord. But Isaac did not suffer, yielding the precedence insuffering to the Logos. Moreover, his not having been slain hints at thedivinity of the Lord. For Jesus rose again after his burial, without havingsuffered, exactly like Isaac was released from sacrifice [mè pathôn, kathaperhierourgias apheimenos ho Isaak].50

While many other patristic authors refer to the similarities betweenIsaac and Jesus, Clement (who like them also recognizes the differencebetween the two figures: Isaac did not suffer and is therefore inferior toJesus) seems to be the only one to go beyond insisting on the etymologicalmeaning of Isaac’s name (yzh≥aq: “he will laugh”)—a meaning that hecould easily have learned from Philo and Jewish Alexandrian traditionswith which we know he was familiar. As we have seen above, this Alex-andrian tradition is also reflected by Origen. Clement, however, alsoconnects this laughter directly with Isaac’s last-minute escape from sacri-ficial death. He also relates Isaac’s laughter to the joy of the Christians, astheir Lord, although he had been crucified, did not suffer, thanks to hisresurrection; and he equates this lack of suffering with Isaac’s avoidanceof sacrifice.51 It is worth noting that Clement, as also Origen after him,underlines the fact that at least in his divine nature Jesus did not suffer.One can speak here, in a way, of a semi-docetic perception. A full-fledgeddocetic perception, however, would contradict the central myth and thecentral ritual of Christianity: a sacrifice. Such a full-fledged Docetism is of

50. Both Marrou and Harl seem puzzled by the text here, in which Jesus is said notto have suffered. See SC 70:152 n. 5, where Marrou considers the text to be corrupt,and Harl’s translation: “. . . ressuscita sans avoir souffert (dans sa divinité) exacte-ment comme Isaac fut libéré du sacrifice.” Bardy, “Docétisme,” 1466, notes thatPhotius (Bibliotheca 109) accuses Clement of having taught docetic doctrines in hisHypotyposes.

51. One of the anonymous readers refers here to the Gospel of Philip (NHC II,3)74.25–75.2: “Some have entered the kingdom of heaven laughing . . .”, adding thatwhile the passage is here frustratingly fragmentary, it is tempting to see heresomething similar to Clement’s remarks about laughter and salvation.


course conceivable only in a religious system where there exist othersacrifices; when the very notion of sacrifice is rejected, Docetism is mean-ingless.

The significance of this unique text goes far beyond the story of theAkedah. It should lead us on the way to an interpretation of Christ’spuzzling laughter in the gnostic texts mentioned above and to a newsuggestion about the origins of Docetism.

III

It is a fact beyond dispute that the Jewish hermeneutical tradition on theAkedah in Genesis 22 is very old and can be followed through the differ-ent literary genres from the Second Temple period.52 This fact entails,inter alia, that the intricate connections between the Akedah and thecrucifixion, which have attracted scholarly interest for a long time, can bedocumented as having started very early. Indeed, there is reason to believethat they are reflected in significant fashion in the New Testament. JamesSwetnam’s monograph on Jesus and Isaac, in particular, has highlightedthe deep significance of the Akedah in various writings of the New Testa-ment, besides its obvious central role in Hebrews 11.17–19.53 Swetnamhas also offered a detailed status quaestionis, the results of which neednot be repeated here.54

The most seminal article on the topic, however, remains Israel Lévi’sstudy of the connection between the Akedah and the death of Jesus,published in 1912.55 Lévi was seeking to refute the argument of Abraham

52. I shall not deal here with the original meaning and function of the myth as itappears in Genesis, as a “mitigation” of human sacrifice. For parallels in Greekreligion, see D. D. Hughes, Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece (New York:Routledge, 1991), 90–92. The most recent monograph on the Akedah in the Jewishtradition and the New Testament is L. Kundert, Die Opferung/Bindung Isaaks, BandI: Gen 22: 1–19 im Alten Testament, im Frühjudentum und im Neuen Testament,Band II: Gen 22: 1–19 im frühen rabbinischen Texten, Wissenschaftliche Monographienzum Alten und Neuen Testament 78–79 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,2002). I owe this reference to Clemens Leonhard, who is preparing various criticalremarks of some of the conceptions of this work to appear in his book on Passoverand Easter. Leonhard argues, in particular, that the importance of the Akedah for theunderstanding of Passover has been overstated in the history of research.

53. J. Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Lightof the Akedah, Analecta Biblica 94 (Rome: Biblical Pontifical Institute, 1981).

54. See also R. J. Daly, Christian Sacrifice: The Judeo-Christian Background beforeOrigen (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1978), 175–86: “TheSacrifice of Isaac.”

55. I. Lévi, “Le sacrifice d’Isaac et la mort de Jésus,” Revue des Etudes Juives 64(1912): 161–84, and 65 (1913): 138–143; reprinted in idem, Le Ravissement du


Geiger. According to him, the significance of the Akedah in the Jewishliturgy of the New Year (Rosh ha-Shana) was a later development, whichhad taken place in late antique Mesopotamia and which reflected a Chris-tian influence on rabbinic Judaism. Although Lévi’s study has been criti-cized for his anachronistic use of Jewish liturgy, he was able to show quiteconvincingly that the Jewish sources relating the Akedah not only toPassover—as for instance in Jubilees (ch. 18), a text from the third cen-tury b.c.e.56—but also to the Rosh ha-Shana ritual (prayers as old as thefirst century c.e.) could not possibly have been redacted under a Christianinfluence. Moreover, Lévi showed that the old identification of the placeof the Akedah as the Temple Mount pointed not only to temple sacrificesbut also to the Messiah, while the ritual connections between Isaac andthe blowing of the shofar on Rosh ha-Shana were directly linked tomessianic prayers. The cumulative evidence showed, argued Lévi, that thesacrifice of Isaac (or rather his binding, or akedah) was conceived, beforethe emergence of Christianity, as having a merit which could save Israelfrom the consequences of its sins.57 Further studies followed the pathopened by Lévi. Hans Joachim Schoeps and Geza Vermes, in particular,made a more systematic analysis of targumic sources, without changingin any drastic way the picture drawn more than ninety years ago byLévi.58 Both Schoeps and Vermes insisted on the significance of the Akedahfor some of the earliest Christian texts and doctrines, such as Paul’sepistles (Schoeps) or the formulation of the Eucharist (Vermes). In the

Messie à sa Naissance et autres essais, ed. E. Patlagean (Paris, Louvain: Peeters, 1994),143–72. One should be grateful to Evelyne Patlagean for having made Lévi’simportant studies easily available.

56. Other connections with Passover in Jubilees: the completion of Noah’s ark,Abraham’s offering in Sichem, and Jacob’s dream in Beth El.

57. For Isaac’s sacrifice and Yom Kippur, see now D. Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impactof Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second TempleJudaism to the Fifth Century, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testa-ment 163 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). The continued centrality of the Akedahamong Jews throughout late antiquity is reflected in the various synagogue mosaicsdescribing it, such as those in Beit Alpha and Sepphoris. See for instance J. Yahalom,“The Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic and Its Story,” in Levine and Weiss, From Dura toSepphoris, 83–91.

58. H. J. Schoeps, “The Sacrifice of Isaac in Paul’s Theology,” JBL 65 (1946): 385–92; and G. Vermes, “Redemption and Genesis XXII,” reprinted in idem, Scriptureand Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies, 2nd. ed., Studia Post-Biblica 4 (Leiden:Brill, 1973), 193–227. See further R. A. Rosenberg, “Jesus, Isaac, and the ‘SufferingServant,’” JBL 34 (1965): 381–88. For seminal studies of the motif of the Akedah inrabbinic Judaism, see S. Spiegel, The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of theCommand to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice (New York: Pantheon, 1967);A. (R. E.) Agus, The Binding of Isaac and Messiah: Law, Martyrdom, and Deliver-


conclusion of his study Lévi argued that Paul combined the Akedah andIsaiah 53 in his conception of Christ’s redemptory death: “Once Paul hadaccepted the principle of the divine Sonship of Jesus, the transpositionwas obvious, God took the place of Abraham, and Jesus that of Isaac. Atthe same time, the redeeming virtue of Isaac’s sacrifice was transferred tothe death of the crucified one.”59

It is the almost undisputed consensus that the Targums represent majortestimonies of Jewish conceptions in the later part of the Second Templeperiod. (On the other hand, the Targums remained living literature formore than a millennium, and it stands to reason to assume later accre-tions from the rabbinic period.) The four versions of the PalestinianTargum essentially agree in their interpretation of the Akedah.60 Theconnection they see between the Akedah and Passover is clear: Isaac isconsidered to be a sacrificial victim—who may even have been actuallysacrificed—and Abraham prays that his own obedience and Isaac’s con-sent be remembered. Other early sources corroborate these conclusions.Thus, the lengthy and somewhat romantic passage on the Akedah inJosephus’ Antiquities contains most of the essential features of the targumictradition.61

ance in Early Rabbinic Religiosity (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY, 1988); and J. D. Levenson,The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of ChildSacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), esp.ch. 14–15. See further the articles in F. Manns, ed., The Sacrifice of Isaac in the ThreeMonotheistic Religions, Analecta/Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 41 (Jerusalem:Franciscan Printing Press, 1995).

59. Lévi, “Sacrifice d’Isaac,” 163–64: “Une fois admis par Paul le principe de lafiliation divine de Jésus, la transposition allait de soi, Dieu prenait la placed’Abraham, et Jésus celle d’Isaac; en même temps, la vertu rédemptrice du sacrificed’Isaac passait à la mort du crucifié.”

60. On the importance of the Targumim, see R. Hayward, “The Present State ofResearch into the Targumic Account of the Sacrifice of Isaac,” JJS 32 (1981): 127–50;and R. Le Déaut, La nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partirdu Targum d’Exode XII.42, Analecta Biblica 22 (Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical,1963).

61. Josephus, Antiquities 1.222–36. The Liber Antiquarum Biblicarum, or Pseudo-Philo (a text written in Hebrew before the end of the first century c.e.), mentionsIsaac’s blood (18.5), a tradition echoed in the Targum on 1 Chr 21.15. See furtherAthanasius Hom. Pasch. 6.8, referring to the Jewish doctrine according to which Isaachad voluntarily offered his life for his people (cf. Daniélou, Sacramentum futuri, 100).For a summary of research, see Daly, Christian Sacrifice, 175–86. The best study isSpiegel, Last Trial. See esp. pp. 38–44 on Isaac’s ashes in later Hebrew traditions. Forthe Akedah at Qumran and in other early Jewish texts, see M. Bernstein, “Angels atthe Aquedah,” Discoveries in the Dead Sea 7 (2000): 263–91; and J. C. VanderKam,“The Aquedah, Jubilees, and Pseudo Jubilees,” in The Quest for Context and


The early date and the importance of the redemptory conception ofIsaac’s sacrifice are quite striking. Moreover, this sacrifice is sometimesperceived (in direct contradiction with the biblical text!) as Isaac’s volun-tary self-immolation and as having actually taken place. This materialhas, I believe, dramatic consequences for the sacrificial theology expressedin various texts of the New Testament. The fact that this theology canonly be properly and fully understood within the context of the Akedahhas already been pointed out many times since Lévi’s article. It appearsnow in even stronger light. The Akedah was indeed so obviously presentin the minds of Jews in the first century c.e. that the story of Jesus’redemptory sacrifice must be seen directly in its light. There is no doubtthat Lévi’s conclusion regarding Paul should be both sharpened and alsoapplied to other New Testament texts, beyond the Epistle to the Hebrews.To give just one (but central) example: “the Lamb of God who takes awaythe sin from the world” (John 1.29) seems to be directly related to boththe paschal lamb and Isaac, whose sacrifice, according to Jewish tradi-tion, also happened at Passover.62

There were, then, two possible Jewish interpretations of the Akedah,one (following the biblical text) according to which Isaac had been boundbut not killed and the other according to which he had actually beenimmolated. Scholars, however, all seem to accept as a premise that theearliest conception of the passion of Jesus had been predicated upon hisdeath—and resurrection. If, as it seems, the first Christians were keenlyaware of Isaac as a typos of Christ, there existed also, prima facie,another possibility for essentially exegetic minds: namely, that Jesus, justlike Isaac, had not really died on the cross but had been saved in extremisby his father and replaced by a substitute sacrifice, just as Abraham hadreplaced his own son by a substitute sacrifice. While this suggestion,which strikes me as logically plausible, cannot be proven, it should beaccepted at least as a working hypothesis. The obvious implication of this

Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders, ed. C. A.Evans and S. Talmon, Biblical Interpretation Series 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1997). Seefurther J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Sacrifice of Isaac in Qumran Literature,” Biblica 83(2002): 211–29; and F. Garcia-Martinez, “The Sacrifice of Isaac in 4Q 225,” in TheSacrifice of Isaac: The Aqedah (Genesis 22) and Its Interpretation, ed. E. Noort andE. Tigchelaar, Themes in Biblical Narrative, Jewish and Christian Traditions 4(Leiden: Brill, 2002).

62. See Le Déaut, Nuit pascale, 201–10. See further J. B. Segal, The HebrewPassover from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70, London Oriental Studies 12 (London:Oxford University Press, 1963), 241–46, on the secondary identification of the LastSupper with the Pessah meal.


hypothesis is the existence of a docetic interpretation of Christ’s passionat the very origins of the new faith. I shall presently seek to strengthen mycase with some circumstantial evidence from Philo of Alexandria.

IV

When dealing with the traditions on the meaning of the name “Isaac” aslaughter or joy, as reflected in Clement and Origen, I postulated that thesewere Jewish Alexandrian traditions. Indeed, Jewish Hellenistic literature,or its remains, has kept for us various references to Isaac. Fragments ofboth Demetrius the Chronographer (in the third century b.c.e.) and Philothe Epic Poet (at the turn of the second century) reflect an interest in thefigure of Isaac.63

Such traces, however, remain quite scarce. By far the most obvious andsignificant source for the passing of Jewish Hellenistic traditions to theearly Christian authors is of course Philo. Let us then review some ofPhilo’s perceptions of Isaac, which might prove highly relevant to ourpresent task. Sadly, the figure of Isaac in Philo does not seem to haveattracted much attention. This is perhaps due to the puzzling fact thatPhilo’s treatise On Isaac has not survived, nor have the passages of hisQuestions in Genesis dealing with Genesis 22 (the chapter relating theAkedah). Gleaning through Philo’s works, however, brings some remark-able contributions to our theme.

For Philo, Isaac, who is presented as carrying the wood to his ownsacrifice, was not actually slain.64 (To be sure, the fact that Philo movesfreely between the literal and “historical” registers demands an extracaution on our part.) Philo knows that the name Isaac means “laugh-ter”—in Chaldean, he tells us. He comes back to this meaning of thename on various occasions, in different contexts.65 Isaac not only means“laughter” but also “happiness.”66 For him, indeed, Isaac’s name is con-nected to the fact that “laughter is the outward and bodily sign of the

63. See J. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden City,N.J.: Doubleday, 1985), 2:848 and 2:781, respectively. See also 2 Maccabees 16.11,20 (a work of the first century c.e.).

64. Philo Abr. 171, 177 (LCL 6:86–87, 88–89).65. Philo Abr. 201–202 (LCL 5:201–2); Mut. Nom. 137, 157 (LCL 5: 212–13,

222–23); Leg. All. 1.82 (LCL 1:200–201), 3.83 (1:358–59); Quod Det. 124 (LCL2:284–85). See further the very interesting appendix (“Note complémentaire sur lesymbolisme d’Isaac”) in A. Jaubert, La notion d’alliance dans le Judaïsme aux abordsde l’ère chrétienne (Paris: Seuil, 1963), 491–94.

66. Philo Leg. All. 3.83 (LCL 1:328–29), 3.218 (LCL 1:448–51); Cher. 8 (LCL6:12–13).


unseen joy in the mind, and joy is in fact the best and noblest of the higheremotions.”67 As such, Isaac is “the only example of freedom from passionbeneath the sun,” higher than Abraham and Jacob, and purely spiritual(asômatos).68

Such references are enough to point to the origin of Clement’s andOrigen’s etymologies of Isaac’s name. But for Philo, Isaac (alias laughter)is happiness personified, or joy, i.e., laughter in bonam partem, the goodemotion of understanding; and he reflects the nature of the incorporealGod, who has no passion and is perfect happiness and bliss.69 Moreexplicitly even: “Laughter is the outward and bodily sign of the unseenjoy in the mind, and joy is in fact the best and noblest of the higheremotions. By it the soul is filled through and through with cheerfulness,rejoicing in the Father and Maker of all.”70 Philo goes further:

For God is the Creator of laughter that is good, and of joy, so that we musthold Isaac to be not a product of created beings, but a work of theUncreated One [ergon de tou agenètou]. For if “Isaac” means “laughter,”and according to Sarah’s unerring witness God is the maker of laughter,God may with perfect truth be said to be Isaac’s father.71

Philo comes back elsewhere to this striking teaching: that God, notAbraham, is Isaac’s father, showing full awareness of his audacity: heopens his interpretation of Gen 21.6 (“The Lord hath made laughter forme . . .”) by stating:

This is a “holiest teaching,” to be heard only by initiates [ô mustai!]. The“laughter” is joy, and “made” is equivalent to “beget,” so that what is saidis of this kind, the Lord begat Isaac; for he is himself Father of the perfectnature, sowing and begetting happiness in men’s souls.72

The idea that God, rather than Abraham, is Isaac’s real father, accord-ing to Philo’s esoteric teaching, is surprising enough. But this is not all. Inhis treatise On the Cherubim Philo has a long paragraph introduced witha reference to a “divine mystery” reserved to “the initiated who areworthy to receive the holiest secret.”73 Here Philo uses, obviously, the

67. Philo Praem. 31 (LCL 8:330–31).68. Philo Quod det. 46 (LCL 2:232–33); Leg. All. 2.59 (LCL 1:260–61).69. Philo Abr. 201–4 (LCL 6:98–101).70. Philo Praem. 31 (LCL 8:330–31).71. Philo Quod det. 124 (LCL 2:284–85); Mut. Nom. 131 (LCL 5:208–11).72. Philo Leg. All. 3.219 (LCL 1:450–51): Ho gelôs estin hè khara, to de epoièsen

ison tôi egennèsen, hôst’ einai to legomenon toiouton: Isaak de gennèsen ho kurios,autos gar patèr esti tès teleias physeôs, speirôn en tais psychais kai gennôn toeudaimonein.

73. Philo Cher. 42 (LCL 2:34–35).


language of the Greek mysteries, which he often does as a façon de parler,in allegorical fashion as it were. In any case, this language, which shouldnot perhaps be taken at its face value, does reflect the seriousness of hisintent. The gist of this “holiest secret” is the following: while men andwomen have intercourse in order to beget children, God sows virtues.“When he begins to consort with a soul, he makes what before was awoman into a virgin again.” The first and best example of a woman whobecame a virgin again—in order to conceive from God—is Sarah beforeshe conceived Isaac, God’s Son.74 The idea of Sarah’s virginal conceptionof Isaac is certainly not a slip of Philo’s pen, as it were. Philo’s introduc-tion clearly shows that he is quite aware that he is going to present ahigher, esoteric interpretation of Moses’ work. Moreover, the same teach-ing appears at least one more time in Philo’s works.75

The perception of Isaac as Son of God and born of a virgin, by acontemporary coreligionist of Paul, brings us to reconsider the idea ofIsaac as typos of Jesus. The conclusion seems to impose itself that thereexisted in first-century Judaism, or at least in some trends in HellenisticJudaism, a conception of Isaac, alias laughter, Son of God, born of avirgin.76 If Isaac had been offered in sacrifice by his heavenly Father forthe redemption of his people and had escaped death, all the elementsneeded for the emergence of a docetic theology of Jesus, having escapedsuffering on the cross, were present at the very origins of Christianity.These elements might well have been known to some of the first Chris-tians, toward the end of the first century, who could hardly have avoidedthinking of Isaac and his Akedah when reflecting on the crucifixion of

74. Philo Cher. 42–51 (LCL 2:32–29).75. Philo Post. 134 (LCL 2:404–5). In his beautiful study of the avatars of the

Great Mother in ancient Mediterranean and Near East religions Philippe Borgeaudhas devoted a few pages to the early figure of the Virgin, but he does not deal withcontemporary parallels to the early Christian figure. See P. Borgeaud, La Mère desdieux de Cybèle à la Vierge Marie (Paris: Seuil, 1996), esp. 175–77. Incidentally, thisconception of Sarah’s (renewed) virginity bears upon that of the virgin birth of Christ.Scholarly consensus views this conception as stemming from a mistranslation of‘almah in LXX Isaiah. Philo’s discussion would seem to absolve the Christians fromtheir supposed misreading and make the virgin birth an aboriginal part of theirtradition, as it were.

76. For Jewish pre-Christian conceptions of the Messiah as Son of God, seeI. Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 87–89. See ibid., 25, where Knohlstates that a combination of divine status and suffering is unknown before theQumran hymns, where a messianic interpretation of the suffering servant of Isa 53 isoffered for the first time.


Jesus. For the first followers who believed that Jesus had sacrificed him-self willingly for the sins of Israel, his figure could not but evoke instantlythat of Isaac. The acceptance of Jesus’ death, and its transformation intothe cornerstone of Christian theology, was the invention of Paul’s religiousgenius. But it was not the only possible interpretation readily available.

Philo’s De Isaaco seems to have been lost quite early, as Ambrose ofMilan, in his own work on Isaac, comments mainly on Song of Songs.77

Had he had a copy of Philo’s work at his disposal, he would no doubthave followed it, as he did in other occasions.78 We do not know why theDe Isaaco disappeared. A long time ago Erwin Goodenough speculatedupon the reasons for the lack of preservation of Philo’s De Isaaco and ofthe passages on Genesis 22 in his Questions in Genesis. Unfortunately,the fact that he remained unable to substantiate his speculation on anyreal independent evidence prevents us from building anything upon it.Goodenough argued that the disappearance of the Philonic texts on Isaacmight not simply have been due to the vagaries of ancient manuscripts inlate antiquity. Goodenough claimed that these texts might have disap-peared on purpose, as Christian scribes found what Philo said about Isaacto be unacceptably close to what was said about Jesus Christ in theChristian tradition.79

If my analysis is convincing, Christ’s laughter as it appears in somedocetic traditions reflects the fact that very early on (in the first century)some (Jewish) believers in Jesus and in his redemptory role consideredhim to be, as it were, Isaac redivivus. In a second stage, when the docetic

77. Ambrose, De Isaac vel anima, ed. C. Schenkl, CSEL 32.1 (Vienna, 1896), 640–700. In this text Ambrose refers to Plotinus; see J. Rist, “Plotinus and ChristianPhilosophy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, ed. L. P. Gerson (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1996), 403 and 413 n. 47.

78. See Daniélou, “Typologie d’Isaac,” 389 n. 2.79. See E. R. Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic

Judaism (New Haven: Yale, 1935), 153–79, esp. 153–57 and n. 15; cf. H.-C. Puech’sreview in Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 116 (1937): 95–99. Puech also refers toPhilo’s conception of the triune God; see for instance Qaest. Gen. 4.8 on Gen 18.6(LCL 278–79) and De Sacr. Abelis et Caini 60. If one also adds to these Philonianviews his conception of the Logos as Son of God, or his “firstborn” (Agric. 51 andSom. 1.215; cf. Fug. 109 and Conf. Ling. 63.146), one cannot but be impressed by thefact that so many elements usually considered to be specifically Christian are presentin his works. See further Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period,Bollingen Series 37 (New York: Pantheon, 1954), 4:172–85; and ibid. (New York:Pantheon, 1965), 12:90, where Goodenough argues that the analogy Isaac-Christwould be “still more piquant” if Christians had not, apparently quite purposely,destroyed Philo’s Life of Isaac and all the sections of his writings that would havecommented upon the Akedah at length.


attitude became more or less identified with gnostic dualism and antino-mianism, Christ’s laughter received a new turn, as it came to reflect hissarcasm at the failed efforts of the forces of evil to kill him. To be sure,there are different kinds of laughter of Christ. It would be the goal ofanother study to attempt a taxonomy of these laughters, also in othertraditions such as some Arabic Sufi texts that describe the laughing Issa(Jesus) in bonam partem in opposition to the stern figure of Yahya (Johnthe Baptist).80

Obviously, I do not claim in any way that such a view of things isexclusive of other directions in the search for the origins of “Docetism.”Neither do I claim that the identification of the historical origins of aphenomenon is enough to understand its character, later evolution, andnature. There is certainly a possibility of conflation or meeting betweentwo different interpretive directions. What I do claim is that in some waythe figure of Isaac was central in this regard. For first-century Jews thefigure of Isaac, in relation to both his sacrifice (whether accomplished ornot) and his miraculous birth, had reached a very high stature. In contra-distinction to Greeks, for instance, Jews were living not only with theirmyths but in them. Their myths had a historical significance, and historywas Heilsgeschichte. The constant re-presentation of the biblical myths inJewish cult and liturgy reflected (and still reflects) what is usually called“the exegetical mind.” Such a phrase is of course correct, but remainsperhaps rather pale and does not express clearly enough the constantmythopoieic power of this obsession to insert the present (literally) intothe cast of the past.81 When we speak of the Jewish origins of Christianity,we usually mean that many of the stones of the new religious monumentbuilt by Paul and the first generations of Christian thinkers and writerswere Jewish stones. Traditions such as those retained by Philo about Isaacborn of God and of a virgin are cause for some dizziness; for it wouldmean that much of the building itself, not only most of its stones, was aJewish creation.

Guy G. Stroumsa is Martin Buber Professor of Comparative Religionand Director, Center for the Study of Christianity, The HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem

80. I owe this reference to my colleague Sara Sviri.81. The mythopoieic power of the Akedah is still alive, as the recently stolen war

memorial in the Sheffield cathedral testifies: it represents Abraham embracing Isaacand is surrounded by explicitly Christian memorials.

stroumsa, gedaliahu a.g. christ's laughter -- docetic origins reconsidered

Documents

quod interpretatur

philos de

nag hammadi

early christian

philo quod

isaac le patriarche

jewish alexandrian

isaac means