¹ The issue of the understanding and use of Isaiah 53 in the New Testament is not within the purview of this article. The underlying assumption of the present study is that, whatever the treatment of the Servant chapter in the Christian Scriptures, it is with the church fathers that this Isaianic passage is explicitly defined as a single prophecy specifically relating to Jesus' suffering.

² See n. 46 below.

³ On the theological problems associated with the crucifixion of Jesus, see Hengel, Martin, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).Google Scholar Crucifixion as the ultimate humiliation is noted in the New Testament in Phil 2:6–11, and in Justin Martyr's 1 Apology 13 and Dialog with Trypho 131; see Trakatellis, Demetrius Christ, The Pre-existence of Christ in Justin Martyr (HDR 6; Missoula: Scholars, 1976) 175.Google Scholar Justin's preoccupation with the cross has been noted by Goodenough, E. R., The Theology of Justin Martyr (reprint ed., Amsterdam: Philo, 1968) 159–60, 251–52, 257–61;Google ScholarBarnard, L. W., Justin Martyr, His Life and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967) 123–25;Google ScholarOsborn, F., Justin Martyr, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 47 (Tübingen, 1973) 51–53, 63Google Scholar; and Trakatellis, Pre-existence of Christ, 175–77. Trakatellis' comments notwithstanding, Justin's suggestion of such a variety of types for the cross from both pagan and biblical sources (pagan: cf. 1 Apol. 55 and 60: a ship's sail, tools, a human form, a Roman banner, the X shape of Plato's world soul in Timaeus 36; biblical: cf. Dial. 40, 90, 91, 94, 97: the roasted lamb, Moses' outstretched arms, the horns in Moses' blessing of Joseph's descendants, the pole of the brazen serpent) indicates that he felt the need to demonstrate and justify the legitimacy of the cross as a symbol of power and salvation. The issue of the crucifixion is also raised by Celsus, the second-century pagan critic of Christianity, in his Alethes Logos, apud Origen Contra Celsum 2.31. This may be a response to Justin's interpretation of Timaeus 36.

⁴ Among the important early church writers to contribute to the development of the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 are Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen. See, e.g., Justin's 1 Apol. 43, 50, 51 and Dial. 10–12, 32, 89–90, 97; Tertullian's Adversus Judaeos 9, 10, 13, 14, and Origen's Contra Celsum 1. 54–56; 2. 44, 58–59; 4. 14–16; 7. 14–16. The tradition flows into the works of later writers, such as Augustine, cited by Blumenkranz, B., Die Judenpredigt Augustins (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1946) 102Google Scholar, and Nicolas de Lyra, cited by Hailperin, H., Rashi and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 1963) 173–75.Google Scholar De Lyra responds to Rashi's collective understanding of the Servant figure and to Andrew of St. Victor, one of the few medieval Christian commentators to incorporate the collective interpretation into his commentary on Isaiah 53. See also the literature cited by North, Christopher R., The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah (Oxford: Oxford University, 1963) 26 nn. 3 and 4.Google Scholar North (pp. 218–19) finds this interpretation most compelling.

⁵ See Loewe, R., in Driver, Samuel R. and Neubauer, Adolf, eds., The Fiftythird Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters (hereafter: Driver-Neubauer) (reprint ed., New York: Ktav, 1969) Prolegomenon, 2.17–22.Google Scholar The sparseness of the extant rabbinic treatment of Isaiah 53 becomes even more striking when compared to the midrashic exegesis on other Isaianic chapters; see Hyman's, A. index to rabbinic midrash on biblical passages, Torah ha-ketuva ve-ha-mesura (Tel Aviv, 1938) 2.167–68Google Scholar, for the sources that interpret Isa 52:13–53:12, and passim for the interpretations of other Isaianic material. It is reasonable to view this relative silence as a form of Jewish self-censorship in the face of the Christian emphasis on the Christological meaning of such passages and as an attempt to control messianic movements and speculation among Jews. Efforts at such control in the early rabbinic period are discussed by Avi-Yonah, Michael, The Jews of Palestine (New York, 1976) 68–70.Google Scholar However, see Urbach, Efraim Elimelech, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975) 649–92.Google Scholar Urbach demonstrates how complex the rabbinic reaction to messianic speculation was and how an anti-Christian polemical motive cannot be assumed to be an ever-present factor in the rabbinic thinking on this matter. Regarding the notion of a suffering messiah, see Urbach, Sages, 685–89. The tension between apocalyptic and rationalistic speculations as they relate, respectively, to more developed and to more controlled messianic thinking is discussed by Scholem, Gershom G. in The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York: Schocken, 1972) 1–36Google Scholar; regarding the interpretation of Isaiah 53 and similar sources, see esp. p. 33. The rabbinic pericopes are brought forward in Driver-Neubauer, 1. 6–9; 2. 7–11.

⁶ For a comprehensive analysis of rabbinic homiletical midrash, see Theodor, J., “Midrash Haggadah,” in The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1916) 8. 550–69.Google Scholar

⁷ Driver-Neubauer, 1. 4–5; 2. 5–6.

⁸ Loewe in Driver-Neubauer, 2. 17–18, 22; see also Fischel, H. A., “Die deuterojesajanischen Gottesknechtlieder in der juedischen Auslegung,” Hebrew Union College Annual 18 (1944) 53–76Google Scholar, for a helpful survey of Jewish handling of the so-called Servant songs.

⁹ Loewe in Driver-Neubauer, 2. 22–23; see n. 46 below.

¹⁰ See, e.g., Justin 1 Apol. 47, 49, 53 and Dial. 11–14, 16, 19, 21–22, 24, 26, 28, etc., and Augustine City of God 18. 46–50. On medieval expressions of this point, see Berger, David, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Niẓẓaḥon Vetus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979) 226–28, 341–42;Google Scholar see also Williams, A. L., Adversus Judaeos (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1935) 200.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Urbach, Sages, 545–47. Origen (Contra Celsum 1.55) knows of Jews who developed a similar idea. For medieval and modern linking of Isaiah 53 with this idea, see Driver-Neubauer, 1. 46, 50, 53, 170, 223–24, 257; 2. 65; and nn. 39 and 96 below. The notion of the Jewish people serving as teachers of the nations is also expressed in a Maimonidean tradition cited by Maimonides' son, Abraham, in his Commentary on Genesis and Exodus (ed. Wiesenberg, E.; London 1958; Hebrew) 302; for a discussion of this idea,Google Scholar see Ben-Sasson, H. H., “The Reformation in Contemporary Jewish Eyes,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 4/12 (Jerusalem, 1970) 242–44.Google Scholar A similar idea, with a reference to Isa 53:10, expressed by ḥayim ben Beṣalel, is cited by Ben-Sasson, “Reformation,” 297–98.

¹² See Baron, Salo Wittmayer, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York: Columbia University, 1965) 9. 55–134, 266–307Google Scholar; Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 241–76, 366–415. On medieval disputations in general, see the sources collected in Thorndyke, L., University Records and Life in the Middle Ages (New York, 1975)Google Scholar index “Disputation,” 456.

¹³ See Driver-Neubauer, passim, for numerous references to the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 by Jewish exegetes; see also many of the sources in n. 46 below.

¹⁴ See North, Suffering Servant, 18, and Loewe in Driver-Neubauer, 2. 22–23. See also the discussion preceding n. 62 below.

¹⁵ See Eidelberg, Schlomo, The Jews and the Crusaders (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1977) 3–8, 10–14Google Scholar; Eidelberg also notes economic factors that affected the attitudes of Christians toward Jews. See also Runciman, Steven, A History of the Crusades (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1955) 1. 83–118, 134–41;Google ScholarDuncalf, F., “The Councils of Piacenza and Clermont,” in Setton, K. M., ed.,A History of the Crusades (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1969) 1. 220–52;Google ScholarKatz, Jacob, Exclusiveness and Tolerance (London: Oxford University, 1961) 3–23.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The Jews' initial effort to defend themselves from the Crusaders' attacks was to seek the protection of the bishops and others in the towns. When this step failed, numbers of Jews took up arms and fought their attackers in hand-to-hand combat, only to be overwhelmed; see Habermann, Abraham, Sefer gezerot ˒ashkenaz ve-ṣorefat (reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1971) 30Google Scholar. See also Ben-Sasson, H. H., A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge, MA, 1976) part 5Google Scholar, “The Middle Ages,” 413–20; Eidelberg, Jews and the Crusaders, 11–13, 145 n. 29, 149 n. 67.

¹⁷ See Ben-Sasson and Eidelberg in nn. 15 and 16 above, and see Katz, Exclusiveness, 67–92.

¹⁸ See the sources in n. 46 below.

¹⁹ Ben-Sasson, H. H., Peraqim be-toledot ha-yehudim be-yemei ha-beinayim (Tel Aviv, 1962) 258–59Google Scholar; see also Baer, Y., “Rashi ve-ha-meṣiut ha-historit shel zemano,” in Hacohen-Maimon, Y. L., ed., Sefer rashi (Jerusalem, 1956) 494, 495–96, 497Google Scholar, and see 493–502 on Rashi's general reactions to the First Crusade and the apocalyptic spirit of the times. Eidelberg (Jews and the Crusaders, 166 n. 3) has noted that there is no explicit reference to the Crusade in Rashi's writings. Still, the following circumstantial evidence pointing to Rashi's awareness of the events must be taken into consideration: (1) the French Jewish community, itself touched by the crusaders' fury, warned the German communities of the danger that was soon to confront them; see Habermann, Sefer, 93; and see Baer, Rashi, 494, on the crusader attacks on French Jewry. (2) Rashi was trained in the communities of Mainz and Worms, and he remained in contact with those centers after he returned to France; see Lipschütz, E. M., R. shlomo yiṣḥaki (Warsaw, 1912) 17–19Google Scholar, 129, 132 (see also p. 194 on Rashi's reactions to the events of 1096); Liber, M., Rashi (trans. Szold, A.; reprint ed., New York, 1970) 45–52Google Scholar, 57–59, 160; and Agus, I. A., “Rashi and His School,” in Roth, Cecil, ed., The World History of the Jewish People, 2d Series 2: The Dark Ages (New Brunswick, 1966) 215–19.Google Scholar (3) Rashi's sons-in-law also studied in the Rhineland after Rashi returned to France; see Agus, “Rashi,” 218–19. (4) Rashi's school immediately filled the void created by the destruction of the Rhenish academies, and Rashi revised his Talmud commentaries to meet the needs of the numbers of students who came to study with him; see Agus, “Rashi,” 233. (5) Rashi, in commenting on the text of the Babylonian Talmud, Sanh. fol. 98a, associates the messiah with passages from Isaiah 53, and Raymundus Martini (Pugio Fidei fols. 311, 429) cites a comment by Rashi in which a similar association is made; see Driver-Neubauer, 1. 39–40. The discrepancy between this understanding of the Servant and the collective-national interpretation espoused by Rashi in his Bible commentary has led some to conclude that the latter was, indeed, formulated as a reaction to the 1096 events and may represent a rethinking of the subject on Rashi's part; see Rosenthal, J., Meḥqarim u-meqorot (Jerusalem, 1967) 113Google Scholar (see also p. 104 on Rashi's comments on Isaiah 53 and their relevance to the First Crusade).

²⁰ Maarsen, J., ed., Parshan-data (reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1972) 2. 119–20;Google Scholar Driver-Neubauer, 1. 37; 2. 37.

²¹ Maarsen, Parshan-data, 120; Driver-Neubauer, 1. 37; 2. 37.

²² Maarsen, Parshan-data, 120–21; Driver-Neubauer, 1. 38; 2. 38.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Rashi's concern with the plain meaning of the biblical text is well known; see the literature cited in n. 19 above. Lipschütz (R. shlomo, 163–64) suggests that Rashi's emphasis of the peshat may have been a response to the allegorizing of traditional Christian Bible exegesis. See also n. 32 below.

²⁵ Origen Contra Celsum 1.55.

²⁶ Maarsen, Parshan-data, 121; Driver-Neubauer, 1. 39; 2. 39. See Ben-Sasson, Peraqim, 258–59.

²⁷ On Anselm's ideas concerning Jesus' sacrifice and its functioning as satisfactio to God, see Williams, George Huntston, Anselm: Communion and Atonement (St. Louis: Concordia, 1960)Google Scholar and his discussions of the relevant sections of Anselm's Cur Deus Homo and other works. See also Colleran, J. M., ed., Why God Became Man, by Anselm of Canterbury (Albany: Magi Books, 1969) 42–53Google Scholar, and esp. 45–46, where a link is made between Anselm's ‘satisfaction’ idea and the feudal notion of compensation to an overlord for impugning his honor.

²⁸ Driver-Neubauer, 2. 37–38, 39. For the translation of the Isaiah passages, see ibid., Prolegomenon, 2. 5, 6. Some minor changes in the translations have been made. For Hebrew originals, see the appendix to this paper.

²⁹ See the discussion of atonement through the suffering of the righteous in Moore, George Foot, Judaism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1954) 1. 546–52Google Scholar, and see the comment of Moses Hadas, The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953) 121–22.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Habermann, Sefer, 25, 42–43. For a similar notion regarding the meaning of Jewish suffering in exile, see Shem Tov ibn Shaprut's comments on Isaiah 53, in Driver-Neubauer, 1. 92.

³¹ See Urbach, Sages, 531–32 and 506–7 on the righteous who sustain the world. However, the concept of atonement for the world is not present in these traditions.

³² One might be inclined to suggest that Rashi s unique interpretation simply flowed out of the plain meaning of the Isaianic passage (see n. 24 above). However, the language of Isaiah 53 is sufficiently obscure so as to lend itself to a variety of interpretations, and, in fact, most Jewish commentators who, like Rashi, were sensitive to the peshat of the Bible, chose not to understand the Servant's suffering as vicariously providing universal atonement; see nn. 46–48 below. Thus, the language of Isaiah 53, per se, cannot be said to be the determining factor in Rashi's interpretation.

³³ See, e.g., Rosenthal, Meḥqarim, 101–16, and Katz, Exclusiveness, 13–18. See also Weinryb, B. D., “Rashi against the Background of His Epoch,” Rashi Anniversary Volume (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1941) 41–42.Google Scholar

³⁴ Rosenthal, Meḥqarim, 104–5; see also A. Marx, “The Life and Works of Rashi,” Rashi Anniversary volume, 20.

³⁵ See n. 27 above.

³⁶ See, e.g., Habermann, Sefer, 27, 32, 44, 68–69, 75.

³⁷ See, e.g., Rashi's comment on Isaiah 53:9 (Maarsen, Parshan-data, 121; Driver-Neubauer, 1. 38–39; 2. 38–39).where he notes that the Jews die rather than deny God and perpetrate evil like the Gentiles among whom they live. See also Kimḥi, Joseph, The Book of the Covenant (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1972) 32–35Google Scholar, for a comparison of the Jews' moral qualities with those of the Christians; see Rosenthal, J., “Haganah ve-hatqafah be-sifrut havikkuaḥ shel yemei ha-beinayim,” Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1969) 2. 349–52.Google Scholar

³⁸ Spiegel, S. (The Last Trial [Philadelphia, 1967] 119–20)Google Scholar has suggested that the medieval Jewish interest in the sacrificial qualities of the ˓aqedah may have been influenced by the Christian environment.

³⁹ Funkenstein, A., “Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics in the Later Middle Ages,” viator 2 (1971) 376–77.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See n. 11 above.

⁴¹ The ‘cathartic’ can be found in the sources cited in n. 46 below, nos. 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, 16, and the Arabic Anonymous in Driver-Neubauer, 2. 65. The ‘missionary’ is found in the sources cited in n. 11 above. The ‘soteriological’ is found in the sources noted in n. 47 below.

⁴² See nn. 26 and 28 above.

⁴³ Driver-Neubauer, 1. 44–46; see nn. 63–65 below. A review of the sources cited in n. 41 above will provide further evidence of this pattern of finding multiple meanings for Jewish suffering.

⁴⁴ Driver-Neubauer, 1. 45; see n. 64 below. See also Driver-Neubauer, 1. 73, 125, 212–13, 335–36, 336–37, for other sources that take note of the transgression and/or punishment of the nations. Solomon Astruc (Driver-Neubauer, 1. 125) explicitly states that Israel, living among the nations, serves as a vehicle for enabling God to punish the nations for their sins as He had punished the Egyptians.

⁴⁵ See nn. 89, 93, and 96 below.

⁴⁶ In this note and nn. 47–49, volume and page numbers cited are to Driver-Neubauer. Other texts will be noted below in the discussions of specific sources. Transliterations of Hebrew names are according to the spelling of the EncJud. The thirty-one authors are: (1) Joseph Kara: 1. 41–42, 398–400; 2. 41–42, 569–71; (2) Abraham ibn Ezra: 1. 43–47; 2. 43–48; (3) David Kimḥi: 1. 48–54; 2. 49–56; (4) Jacob ben Reuben: 1. 58; 2. 60; (5) Joseph ben Nathan Official: 1. 68–71; 2. 72–74; (6) Isaiah ben Mali di Trani: 1. 72–74; 2. 75–77; (7) Moses ben Naḥman: 1. 75; 2. 78; (8) Shem Tov ben Isaac ibn Shaprut: 1. 90–92; 2. 94–96; (9) Solomon Astruc: 1. 122–27; 2. 129–36; (10) Isaac Eli ha-Kohen: 1. 130–36; 2. 138–46; (11) Yom Tov Lipmann Muelhausen: 1. 139–42; 2. 147–51; (12) Isaac Abrabanel: 1. 153–71; 2. 164–87; (13) David de Rocca Martino: 1. 180–82; 2. 198–201; (14) Solomon ben Melekh: 1. 194–96; 2. 217–20; (15) Abraham Farissol: 1. 197–202 (203–7); 2. 222–28; (16) Anonymous: 1. 208–16; 2. 229–39; (17) Isaac Troki: 1. 220–30; 2. 244–57; (18) Abraham of Cordova: 1. 254–57; 2. 290–94; (19) Abraham ben Judah ḥazzan: 1. 276–79; 2. 314–17; (20) Meir ben Simeon: 1. 324–25; 2. 376–78; (21) Mordecai ben Joseph: 1. 326–27; 2. 379–81; (22) Moses of Salerno: 1. 327–29; 2. 381–84; (23) Joseph Albo: 1. 330; 2. 384; (24) Samuel David Luzzatto: 1. 351–64; 2. 412–28; (25) Fuente Claro: 1. 365–83; 2. 429–35; (26) Gershom ben Nathan: 1. 395–97; 2. 564–67; (27) Manasseh ben Israel: 1. 5–20 (non-Hebrew section); 2. 436–49; (28) Isaac Orobio de Castro: 1. 50–118 (non-Hebrew section); 2. 476–531; (29) Jacob ibn Amram: 1. 153–70 (non-Hebrew section) (repeated in Latin original in 2. 532–49); (30) Graetz, Heinrich, in Schorsch, I., ed., Heinrich Graetz: The Structure of Jewish History (New York, 1975) 148–49, 210–11, 224–27, 238Google Scholar; (31) Klauzner, Joseph, The Messianic Idea in Israel (trans. Stinespring, W. F.; New York: Macmilian, 1955) 163–69.Google Scholar Moses ben Naḥman (no. 7 above) briefly alludes to the collective understanding as the correct interpretation, though he prefers to elaborate upon the messianic meaning.

⁴⁷ See no. 46, nos. 1, 2, 5, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31.

⁴⁸ See n. 46, no. 3 (1. 50); no. 24 (1. 356, 360–61); no. 27 (1. 7–8, 16, 20 [non-Hebrew section]). The comment of David Kimḥi (no. 3) is paradygmatic in this case.

⁴⁹ See n. 46, no. 12 (1. 164).

⁵⁰ On the impact of Rashi's biblical commentaries, see Liber, Rashi, 133–34, 196–221; Lipschütz, R. shlomo, 189–93; Agus, “Rashi,” 239–48.

⁵¹ Joseph Kara was known to have participated in theological discussions with Christians; see Poznanski, Samuel, Perush ˓al yeḥezqe˒el uterei ˓asar lerabbi ˒eli˓ezer mi-belgenṣi (Warsaw, 1913) XXXVI–XXXVII, esp. n. 4.Google Scholar Abraham ibn Ezra's comments on Isaiah 53 begin with a critique of the Christological interpretation of the passage; see Driver-Neubauer, 1. 43; 2. 43; and Friedländer, M., ed., The Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah (London, 1873) 2. 90.Google Scholar Joseph Albo was an active participant in disputations with Christians; and chapters 25–26 of book 3 of his Sefer ha-˓iqqarim are devoted to a critique of Christianity; see Husik, Isaac, A History of Medieval Jewish Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 1966) 407Google Scholar, and Baer, Yitzhak F., A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia, 1966) 2. 173, 178, 185, 197, etc.Google Scholar See also Husik, Isaac, ed., Sefer ha-˓ikkarim by Joseph Albo (Philadelphia, 1946) 1. xv–xvii, xx–xxi.Google Scholar Abraham Farissol's and Isaac Troki's comments on Isaiah 53 come from anti-Christian polemics. On Farissol's Vikkuaḥ or Magen ˒avraham, see Driver-Neubauer, Introduction, 1. xiii no. 33; ibid., Preface, 2. xiii no. 33, and Ruderman, D. B., The World of a Renaissance Jew: The Life and Thought of Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol (Cincinnati, 1981) 57–84Google Scholar and passim. On Troki and his ḥizzuq ˒emuna, see Waysbaum, M., “Isaac of Troki and Christian Controversy in the XVI Century,” JJS 3 (1952) 62–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Mann, J., Texts and Studies (New York, 1972) 2. 714–19Google Scholar. Heinrich Graetz was among the most active Jewish apologetes and polemicists in nineteenthcentury Germany; see the index in Schorsch, sub “Christianity” and idem, Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870–1914 (New York, 1972) 10–11, 46, 70–72, 232 n. 44.Google Scholar

⁵² On Kara and his relationship with Rashi, see Liber, Rashi, 197; Lipschütz, R. shlomo, 156–57, 190; Agus, “Rashi,” 223.

⁵³ Driver-Neubauer, 1. 41–42; 2. 41–42.

⁵⁴ ibid., 1. 42, 398; 2. 42. The contrast between Israel's true law and the error and folly of Gentile belief is developed in the comments in ibid., 1. 398–99.

⁵⁵ ibid., 1. 42; 2. 42, comment on 53:5.

⁵⁶ See n. 52 above. Unlike Rashi, Kara does not explicitly refer to Israel's atoning for the nations. Perhaps he is more closely adhering to the text's simple meaning.

⁵⁷ On Abraham ibn Ezra, see Friedländer, Commentary, 1. ix–xxvii.

⁵⁸ ibid., 2. 64,70,83–84,86; 1. 170–71 (nn.).

⁵⁹ ibid., 2. 93; Driver-Neubauer, 1.47; 2. 48.

⁶⁰ See Ibn Ezra's comments on Isa 52:13, 53:2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 in Friedländer, Commentary, 2. 90–93, and Driver-Neubauer, 1. 43–47; 2. 44–48. The MSS differ on Ibn Ezra's statement toward the end of his comment on 52:13. Driver-Neubauer (1. 43) prefers ve-hinei yidabber ˓al kol ˓eved ˒adonai she-hu ba-galut ˒o yihyeh ˓avdi ha-navi˒ ve-zeh qarov mi-zeh; Friedländer (Commentary, 2. 90) gives precedence to ve-hinei yidabber ˓al kol ˓eved ˒adonai she-hu ba-galut ˒o yihyeh ˓avdi kemo yisra˒el ˓avdi ve-zeh qarov mi-zeh. The first version is more consistent with the comments cited in nn. 58–59 above; the second version is more in line with the comments cited above in this note. Nachman Krochmal, the nineteenth-century thinker and historian, has also noted Ibn Ezra's seeming ambiguity and his preference for the identification of the Servant with an individual, King Yehoyakhin, who was the source of these particular prophecies in the Babylonian exile. Krochman operates on the assumption that underlying Ibn Ezra's apparent ambiguities there does lie a consistency of thought. See The Writings of Nachman Krochmal, Ravidowitz, Simon, ed. (London, 1961; Hebrew) 114–18, 306Google Scholar (Hebrew numbering). My thanks go to Amos Funkenstein for calling my attention to Krochmal's treatment of Ibn Ezra in Moreh nevuchei ha-zeman.

⁶¹ On Nahmanides, see Driver-Neubauer, 1. 74; on Abrabanel, see ibid., 1. 153. This issue is discussed by Fischel, “Gottesknechtlieder,” 64–65.

⁶² Friedlander, Commentary, 2. 90; Driver-Neubauer, 1. 43; 2. 43; see n. 14 above.

⁶³ Friedländer, Commentary, 2. 91–92, 93; Driver-Neubauer, 1. 44–45, 47; 2. 45–46, 48. See also Ibn Ezra's comment on ˓avon, 53:6; see n. 65 below.

⁶⁴ See Ibn Ezra's comments on 53:5 and 8; Friedländer, Commentary, 2. 92; Driver-Neubauer, 1. 45; 2. 46.

⁶⁵ Friedländer, Commentary, 2. 92; Driver-Neubauer, 1. 45; 2. 46.

⁶⁶ On the popularity of Ibn Ezra's Bible exegesis, see The Jewish Encyclopedia 3. 169.

⁶⁷ See Husik and Baer in n. 51 above and Husik, ˓Ikkarim, 4/1. 112–13; Driver-Neubauer, 1. 330; 2. 384.

⁶⁸ Babylonian Talmud, Mo˓ed qatan, fol. 28a.

⁶⁹ Husik, ˓Ikkarim, 113.

⁷⁰ On Albo's philosophical background, see Husik, History of Medieval Jewish Philosophy, 406–7.

⁷¹ On Farissol's broad range of cultural interests as well as other aspects of his life, see Ruderman, World of a Renaissance Jew, passim.

⁷² The relationship between the polemic and the disputation is briefly discussed in Farissol's introduction to his work; see Driver-Neubauer, Introduction, 1. xiii, and Preface, 2. xiii, where the different titles associated with the work are also discussed. See also Ruderman, World of a Renaissance Jew, 57–84.

⁷³ Driver-Neubauer, 1. 197–98; 2. 222–23. References are to version A in Driver-Neubauer; see ibid., Introduction, 1. xiv no. 33, and Prefnce, 2, xiii no. 33, for information on versions A and B. Version B, with its parallels to version A, is given in ibid., 1. 202–7.

⁷⁴ ibid., 1. 199–200; 2. 224.

⁷⁵ ibid., 1. 201; 2. 226. For similarities in language analysis, cf. Farissol's and Rashi's comments on Isa 53:3, 4, 7, 8; see ibid., 1. 199–200 and 1. 37–38 respectively.

⁷⁶ ibid., 1. 202; 2. 227–28; Judah Halevi, Kuzari, 2. 36–44, esp. 44. Halevi bases this idea on Isa 53:4. According to Halevi, Israel's suffering purifies the people, thereby enabling them to bring “God's presence” into the world. The words “God's presence” are used here only for convenience. The exact meaning of Halevi's phrase al-amr al-ilāhiyy (Arabic) or ha-˓inyan ha-˒elohi (Hebrew) cannot be so simply expressed in English. On the various meanings of the term, see Wolfson, H. A., “Hallevi and Maimonides on Prophecy,” JQR n.s. 32 (1942) 355–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and, more recently, Davidson, H., “The Active Intellect in the Cuzari and Hallevi's Theory of Causality,” REJ 131 (1972) 351–95, esp. 381–95.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ On Isaac of Troki, see Waysbaum and Mann in n. 51 above. See also Shulvass, Moses Avigdor, Jewish Culture in Eastern Europe (New York, 1975) 72, 137, 143, 151, 163, 165, 167–69, 170, 172.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ On Isaac's and general Karaite absorption of Rabbanite tradition, see Mann, Texts and Studies, 553, 682–85; see also Ankori, Z., Karaites in Byzantium (New York, 1959) 204–51.Google Scholar On the link between Constantinople and Polish Karaism, see Ankori, Karaites, 25, 452, and Weinryb, B. D., The Jews of Poland (Philadelphia, 1973) 88.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Shulvass, Jewish Culture, 168–69; see also Weiss-Rosmarin, T., in Mocatta, Moses, trans., Faith Strengthened (reprint ed., New York: Hermon, 1970) VI–XII.Google Scholar There appear to be Rabbanite interpolations in the Hizzuq ˒emunah; see Shulvass, Jewish Culture, 168; see also Mann, Texts and Studies, 553 n. 2, and 682–85. This does not seem to be the case with regard to the Isaiah 53 passage, whose consistency is attested to by the following example. In discussing the superiority of Israel, Isaac (Driver-Neubauer, 1. 222) alludes to Judah Halevi's notion that Israel is mivḥar ha-min ha-˒enoshi, the elect of the human race (see n. 82 below). Isaac uses the same term to express a similar idea in his comment on Isa 53:12; Driver-Neubauer, 1. 225. In both cases the statements fit naturally into the contexts in which they are found.

⁸⁰ Deutsch, D., ed., Sefer ḥizzuq ˒emunah mi-r. Yiṣḥaq b.r.˒avraham z.l. (Sohrau, 1873) 145–48Google Scholar; Driver-Neubauer, 1. 219–21; 2. 243–45.

⁸¹ Deutsch, Sefer, 149; Driver-Neubauer, 1. 221–22; 2. 245–46.

⁸² Deutsch, Sefer, 149–50; Driver-Neubauer, 1. 222–23; 2. 246–47; and see Kuzari, 1. 109; 2. 36–44, with an allusion to Babylonian Talmud, Roš. Haš., fol. 17a.

⁸³ See n. 76 above.

⁸⁴ Cf. elements of Troki's comments on Isa 52:12, 13, 14 and 53:1, 5 with Rashi's remarks on 53:3, 52:13, 14 and 53:1, 5, respectively. For Troki, see Deutsch, Sefer, 154, 155, 156–57, and Driver-Neubauer, 1. 225, 226; for Rashi, see Driver-Neubauer, 1. 37, 38.

⁸⁵ On Graetz, see Bloch, P., “Memoir of Heinrich Graetz,” in Graetz, H., History of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1956) 6. 1–86Google Scholar; S. Ettinger, “Yahadut ve-toledot ha-yehudim be-tefisato shel greṣ,” and Michael, R., ṣvi greṣ-toledot ḥayyav,” in Ettinger, S., ed., ṣvi greṣ: Darkhei ha-historia ha-yehudit (Jerusalem, 1969) 7–36, 37–51Google Scholar; Schorsch, Structure, 1–62.

⁸⁶ On Graetz's emphasis on Jewish suffering, see Baron, S. W., “Heinrich (Hirsch) Graetz, 1817–1891,” History and Jewish Historians (Philadelphia, 1964) 78, 267, 274–75, 278Google Scholar; and on the “lachrymose” conception of Jewish history, see History and Jewish Historians, 63–64, 88, 96.

⁸⁷ On the readership of Graetz's historiography, see Michael, “ṣvi greṣ-toledot ḥayyav, 44–45; S. Ettinger, “Graetz, Heinrich,” EncJud 7. 847; Schorsch, Structure, 62, esp. n. 158.

⁸⁸ The attack on Graetz from Christian circles included not only criticism but also litigation. The criticism was not limited to Christians, however.Orthodox Jews also repudiated Graetz's collective interpretation of Isaiah 53 with its emphasis on the “Messiah-nation,” viewing it as a rejection of the traditional Jewish belief in a personal messiah. See Michael, “ṣvi greṣ-toledot hayyav, 47 and Schorsch, Structure, 309 n. 4. I thank David Ellenson for calling my attention to the fact that Esriel Hildesheimer was one of the most vehement of Graetz's Orthodox Jewish critics. This criticism was motivated, in part, by Graetz's Isaiah 53 interpretations. See Ellenson, , “Continuity and Innovation: Esriel Hildesheimer and the Creation of a Modern Jewish Orthodoxy” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1981) 14–16, 26–27.Google Scholar Was Hildesheimer unaware of the dominant medieval Jewish understanding of the Suffering Servant prophecy? Or was he, like Graetz and many of his predecessors, selectively adopting an interpretation that suited his polemical purposes?

An earlier echo of the notion that the people Israel, in its travail, is a collective Suffering Servant was expressed by Graetz in his introduction to vol. 4 of his History of the Jews (1853); see Schorsch, Structure, 125. For a discussion of the significance of this suffering in Graetz's thinking, see ibid., 55–57.

⁸⁹ ibid., 148–49. Graetz quotes Isa 53:10,12.

⁹⁰ Similar associations of Christological imagery with Jewish suffering can be found in Graetz's “The Correspondence of an English Lady on Judaism and Semitism,” ibid., 203–4, 239. Graetz, in his apologetics, does not hesitate to give a positive meaning to anti-Jewish stereotypes and images; cf. the Wandering-Jew and Jew-badge imagery in the introduction to vol. 4 of the History of the Jews, ibid., 125–27.

⁹¹ This appears to be a reformulation of Halevi's notion that Israel's national experiences, be they positive or negative, are not the results of natural laws, as is the case with other nations. Rather, Israel's fate is dependent solely upon the will of God, and, therefore, in spite of any evils that befall the people, they need not fear national destruction; cf. Kuzari, 1. 109; 2. 32–34. See n. 96 below.

⁹² Schorsch, Structure, 210.

⁹³ ibid., 225–26.

⁹⁴ The idea that Jesus, the messiah, was also a sacrifice and a priest has its roots in the New Testament; see esp. Hebrews 3–10.

⁹⁵ Graetz devotes considerable space to his discussions of Capistrano's anti-Jewish activity in the Geschichte der Juden (Leipzig, n.d.) 8. 187, 193–99, 203, 205, etc.; and see Graetz, History, 4. 249, 253, 257–63, 265–66, 268, etc. See also Baron, History, 9. 30, 233, 254–55 n. 32.

⁹⁶ Schorsch, Structure, 224–27, 237–39; see also n. 11 above. In his discussion of the superiority of Jewish morality, Graetz alludes to Halevi's Kuzari, 2. 32–34, 36, where the dispersed people Israel is presented as being ill, but still far better off than the other nations who are “dead.” Israel, according to Halevi, will not die. See also n. 91 above. Graetz has modified Halevi's notion of the relation between the nations' emulating Israel and the possibility of this emulation improving their lot. Graetz assumes that the suffering Israel can show the nations how to achieve moral health. Halevi, however, suggests that the nations cannot help themselves by emulating Israel; see Kuzari, 2. 32; 3. 8–9. In this universalizing of a Halevian notion that was, originally, narrow in scope, Graetz is using Halevi in a manner similar to that of Farissol and Isaac of Troki; see nn. 76 and 80 above. Judah Halevi's thinking had a profound influence on Graetz; see Ettinger, ṣvi greṣ, 12, 35, 250 and J. E. Rembaum, “The Influence of Judah Halevi on the Thought of Heinrich Graetz” (abstract of a paper read at the Ninth Annual Conference of the Association for Jewish Studies, December 1977), in Association for Jewish Studies Newsletter 23 (September 1978) 15.

⁹⁷ For a summary of the modern opinions relevant to this understanding of Isaiah 53, see North, Suffering Servant, 28–39, 57–64, 103–16, 202–7, 233.