Source Criticism And The Story Of Isaac's Sacrifice

[Stroopwafel]

Here is an example from p. 126.

 

The aqedah, in short, tests whether Abraham is prepared to surrender his son to the God who gave him. to say, with Kierkegaard and von Rad, that he is prepared so to do because through faith he expects to receive Isaac anew (as indeed happens) is to minimize the frightfulness of what Abraham is commanded to do. It is also, I hope to show, to miss one of they ambiguities and energizing tensions of the story.

 

Don't know if you read Fear and Trembling, but if you did, I hope you see how saying that Kierkegaard minimized "the fightfulness of what Abraham is commanded to do" is incorrect. From what I remember, even though Abraham is made a champion of faith, the frightfulness of the act he is required to accomplish, and the tension created by God's command with generic moral/ethical feelings is central to the work, cf. his concept of paradox.

 

Edit to add: Of course it is only an excerpt from Levenson work that was given here, so I realize I cannot accurately know and judge where he is getting at and what his full perspective is. But still, I'll stand by polemically saying he did not read at all Fear and Trembling.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Stroopwafel

[CV75]

I can understand why some are offended by the story or have concluded it is not an authentic representation of what really happened, or how God works.

 

But how many times do people obey a commandment that in their assessment would have created a burden for or harm to their loved ones, but because of their faith God intervenes and blesses? We hear some of this in terms of tithe taking food or shelter from babies, and in accepting callings that threaten to take time and resources away from fragile relationships or caretaking.

 

I think that even if it is relegated to the status of theatrics or parable, the record of Abraham and Isaac serves a valuable purpose in teaching this kind of lesson.

[David T]

David, I would highly recommend John D. Levenson's The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son. This is simply the best book that I have ever read on not only the binding of Isaac, but on biblical child-sacrifice in general, and how these themes became a foundational aspect of Christianity. Just ask Walker. I had suggested it to him a while ago, as it really helped me understand the historical aspect of the atonement a lot better.

 

Another interesting thought.

 

I've been in the process of reading through the purported sources separately, and after reading through the J passages, I turned this morning to covering the E narrative strand, the one which includes the sacrifice of Isaac.

 

My understanding is that E also includes many additions to the Exodus narrative, including Moses' use of the rod, the plagues, and the initial passover narrative.

 

Reading from this perspective, and knowing the Isaac story was part of this tradition, I saw the E version of the Passover story in an interesting light, with it 'explaining' to its readers/hearers the 'fulfillment', or ending of God's demanding a sacrifice of the Firstborn. IE, explaining why their traditions said that their ancestors did such in the past, but why it is no longer acceptable. It lets Israel know that because of all the Egyptian firstborn God took, they are now off the hook. Perhaps this story served as an important transition point, sort of how the death of Jesus was used as a reason to no longer sacrifice animals. (NOTE: I am not suggesting at all that I believe at one time, God approved of child sacrifice. Only that early Israelites may have believed that at one point God did.)

 

Likely this idea has been explored (and perhaps properly rejected!) in the scholastic literature before. Perhaps the book you recommended considers it. I don't know! Just an independent thought based on my reading of the story.

 

Would also create an interesting parallel - as the crafting of the story of the First Passover narratively ended the practice of the sacrifice of children by the shedding of blood, the Passover surrounding the death of Christ gave narrative power to ending the practice of the sacrifice of animals by the shedding of blood as well - being a capstone to the removal of any justification for shedding the blood of an innocent, period. Evolutionary revelation.

 

And then perhaps the redactor, later on adding the Angelic rescue of Isaac, wanted to suggest to the mind that perhaps God never really did approve of sacrificing people to begin with - and thus the story taking place even prior to the passover was amended to illustrate.

 

I really need to read more of the scholarship on these issues. 'cause I find it very plausible that I'm just speaking nonsense . But these are the thoughts that I was thinking as I was reading, thinking what meaning and lessons the earlier Israelites would have taken from those stories, and what it taught them about their practices, about God, and about their past traditional stories.

Edited August 21, 2013 by David T

[volgadon]

Another interesting thought.

 

I've been in the process of reading through the purported sources separately, and after reading through the J passages, I turned this morning to covering the E narrative strand, the one which includes the sacrifice of Isaac.

 

My understanding is that E also includes many additions to the Exodus narrative, including Moses' use of the rod, the plagues, and the initial passover narrative.

 

Reading from this perspective, and knowing the Isaac story was part of this tradition, I saw the E version of the Passover story in an interesting light, with it 'explaining' to its readers/hearers the 'fulfillment', or ending of God's demanding a sacrifice of the Firstborn. IE, explaining why their traditions said that their ancestors did such in the past, but why it is no longer acceptable. It lets Israel know that because of all the Egyptian firstborn God took, they are now off the hook. Perhaps this story served as an important transition point, sort of how the death of Jesus was used as a reason to no longer sacrifice animals. (NOTE: I am not suggesting at all that I believe at one time, God approved of child sacrifice. Only that early Israelites may have believed that at one point God did.)

 

Likely this idea has been explored (and perhaps properly rejected!) in the scholastic literature before. Perhaps the book you recommended considers it. I don't know! Just an independent thought based on my reading of the story.

 

Would also create an interesting parallel - as the crafting of the story of the First Passover narratively ended the practice of the sacrifice of children by the shedding of blood, the Passover surrounding the death of Christ gave narrative power to ending the practice of the sacrifice of animals by the shedding of blood as well - being a capstone to the removal of any justification for shedding the blood of an innocent, period. Evolutionary revelation.

 

And then perhaps the redactor, later on adding the Angelic rescue of Isaac, wanted to suggest to the mind that perhaps God never really did approve of sacrificing people to begin with - and thus the story taking place even prior to the passover was amended to illustrate.

 

I really need to read more of the scholarship on these issues. 'cause I find it very plausible that I'm just speaking nonsense . But these are the thoughts that I was thinking as I was reading, thinking what meaning and lessons the earlier Israelites would have taken from those stories, and what it taught them about their practices, about God, and about their past traditional stories.

 

 

Very good observation. The Exodus certainly fits this narrative matrix, and there is a very early connection between the two accounts. Levenson mentions it, as does Spiegel, in his classic study of Aqedah traditions.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Even in my TBM days, I never accepted that God did this. I dislike the test. It seems beneath God.

He did and Abraham knew if faithful his son would not be lost, and God certainly know he would not allow it to happen. When they went up the hill, Abraham said, "I and the lad will go an we will return". Abraham knew that if he did so, his son would be given back to him or had faith. So God was not telling a man to kill his child, knowing he would not allow it. Cool thing is it was a similitude of the sacrifice of Christ, as Abraham' son carried the word as Christ carried his cross, and up the same hill. The down side is Abraham's wife moved away and they did not see one another or he never went to where she was until she died much later, but I guess to Jewish custom he would not have seen her as she would already be entombed.

[volgadon]

Don't know if you read Fear and Trembling, but if you did, I hope you see how saying that Kierkegaard minimized "the fightfulness of what Abraham is commanded to do" is incorrect. From what I remember, even though Abraham is made a champion of faith, the frightfulness of the act he is required to accomplish, and the tension created by God's command with generic moral/ethical feelings is central to the work, cf. his concept of paradox.

 

Edit to add: Of course it is only an excerpt from Levenson work that was given here, so I realize I cannot accurately know and judge where he is getting at and what his full perspective is. But still, I'll stand by polemically saying he did not read at all Fear and Trembling.

Levenson was refering to passages such as this.

 

But what did Abraham do? He arrived neither too soon nor too late. He mounted the ***, he rode slowly along the way. All that time he believed -- he believed that God would not require Isaac of him, whereas he was willing nevertheless to sacrifice him if it was required. He believed by virtue of the absurd; for there could be no question of human calculation, and it was indeed the absurd that God who required it of him should the next instant recall the requirement. He climbed the mountain, even at the instant when the knife glittered he believed . . . that God would not require Isaac. He was indeed astonished at the outcome, but by a double-movement he had reached his first position, and therefore he received Isaac more gladly than the first time. Let us go further. We let Isaac be really sacrificed. Abraham believed. He did not believe that some day he would be blessed in the beyond, but that he would be happy here in the world. God could give him a new Isaac, could recall to life him who had been sacrificed.

 

As Levenson remarks, without his Christian antecedents, Kierkegaard would not have reach such an interpretation, as it is far from evident in the text. Kierkegaard misses the fact that Abraham is not acting out of faith that God would not require Isaac. Abraham is acting out of obedience to God's summons, and has little reason to hope for an outcome where he doesn't lose Isaac. His plodding actions indicate that he is trying to postpone the inevitable outcome as much as possible. Abraham's remarks to the servants and to Isaac are very ambiguous, but would seem to serve for obscuring the truth as much as possible.

Read the book, it is well worth it.

[Stroopwafel]

Thank you volgadon!

[daz2]

My mother taught me that the point of the Abraham/Isaac story is that God does not command us to kill our children, and that if God appears to command to us kill our child, and doesn't stop us by an angel, then we are listening to the wrong source.  That is, the story is intended to differentiate the children of Israel from other groups of people whose god(s) did command human sacrifice: Yahweh does not command it and it is anathema to Yahweh.  I know that doesn't square with Judges, where one character does in fact sacrifice his own daughter to Yahweh, but I choose to believe that Judges story is false, or that the person who sacrificed his daughter was in error.

[David T]

 I know that doesn't square with Judges, where one character does in fact sacrifice his own daughter to Yahweh, but I choose to believe that Judges story is false, or that the person who sacrificed his daughter was in error.

If I recall the story correctly, Yahweh didn't call for that. The guy made a rash general oath that he'd sacrifice the first thing that came through his door, and it ended up being his daughter. Pretty sure he wasn't being set up as the paragon of wisdom or virtue.

Edited August 22, 2013 by David T

[Tacenda]

My mother taught me that the point of the Abraham/Isaac story is that God does not command us to kill our children, and that if God appears to command to us kill our child, and doesn't stop us by an angel, then we are listening to the wrong source.  That is, the story is intended to differentiate the children of Israel from other groups of people whose god(s) did command human sacrifice: Yahweh does not command it and it is anathema to Yahweh.  I know that doesn't square with Judges, where one character does in fact sacrifice his own daughter to Yahweh, but I choose to believe that Judges story is false, or that the person who sacrificed his daughter was in error.

I like believing the snippet of David T's post below:

"it was not God that commands and enforces violence on a guilty mankind, it is mankind that imposes violence on an innocent God."

The crux of what man does in the name of God.

P.S. David T if you didn't mean to say this the way I took it, I apologize, but it is so good.

[daz2]

David T, you are right, Yahweh did not command the sacrifice in Judges, but He did not stop it, and the narrator does not condemn the sacrifice.

 

My own opinion of the Abraham/Isaac story is that, even if something like that really took place, it was more like the following:

 

Abraham:  God, all of my friends are so devoted to their gods that they are willing to kill (sacrifice) their own children.  Even my dad felt that way about his god.

 

Yahweh:  You know I don't operate that way Abraham.  What are you saying?

 

Abraham:  I think the other nations need to know that Your followers are just as committed and devout towards You as they are to their gods.

 

Yahweh:  Well you are more committed and devoted.  It is a lot easier to die (or kill) for one's principles and god than it is to actually LIVE them and for Me.

 

Abraham:  Yeah, but they keep throwing in my face that I would never do as much as they would, like kill (sacrifice) my own son.  I want to show them they are wrong.

 

Yahweh:  I don't like where this conversation is going.

 

Abraham:  Will you let me take my only son, who is of age and can consent, up to the mountain and sacrifice him?

 

Yahweh:  Are you asking me to tell you to do that, because you know I won't do that.  How you report it to other people is your business, but I refuse to command you to do such a terrible thing.

 

Abraham:  Are you going to stop me?

 

Yahweh:  I really don't like this.  You know as well as I do that I generally do not step into stop atrocities.  Maybe I will stop you and maybe I won't.  BTW, are you going to run this by Sarah?

 

Abraham:  Are you crazy?  You might not stop me, but I know d--- well that she can and would stop me.  Moreover, if she ever found out, it would probably kill her.  And I don't want that.  

 

Yahweh:  Well, you know what I think about this.  You have your agency.  If you figure your devotion to Me means you have to kill (sacrifice) your son, you do what you think you must do.  Maybe I will let you go through with it.  Maybe I won't.  But at least you will know that you do have the same level of commitment to your god that your dad had to his.

 

Abraham:  We are done talking.

 

And eventually Yahweh does decide to intervene, by sending an angel to stop the atrocity.  Thus, Abraham proved to himself how devoted he was to Yahweh, Yahweh stopped a human sacrifice to Himself that would have been anathema, and future prophets, poets, and philosophers were given something to write and argue about in all three great Abrahamic faith traditions.

[David T]

 

My own opinion of the Abraham/Isaac story is that, even if something like that really took place, it was more like the following:

 

That's as good a midrash on the story as any!

Edited August 22, 2013 by David T

[David T]

David, I would highly recommend John D. Levenson's The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son. This is simply the best book that I have ever read on not only the binding of Isaac, but on biblical child-sacrifice in general, and how these themes became a foundational aspect of Christianity. Just ask Walker. I had suggested it to him a while ago, as it really helped me understand the historical aspect of the atonement a lot better.

 

Bumping a substantially older thread, but wanted to note that I purchased Levenson's book on your recommendation, and have begun reading it. It begins with a bang, and I look forward to seeing where it leads. Already sparking many thoughts. Thanks again for the recommendation!

[teddyaware]

I have always had a hard time with this until I studied Hebrews 11:17-19:

17 By ^afaith Abraham, when he was ^btried, ^coffered up Isaac: and he that had received the ^dpromises offered up his only begotten son,

 18 Of whom it was said, That in ^aIsaac shall thy ^bseed be called:

 19 ^aAccounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

 

It seemed to me, that Abraham knew that whatever happened, that he had received the promises and knew that God would raise Isaac up...even from the dead to fulfill "that in Isaac shall they seed be called."  Also, I remember watching this on LDS.org so realized that Isaac was an adult.

Kate

You hit the bullseye with this post, taking the words right out of my mouth. When the Lord commanded the sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham knew God had already promised him he would have an innumerable number offspring through the line of Isaac; therefore Abraham was willing to go through with the sacrifice of young Isaac because he knew God would raise him from the dead if necessary because God keeps His promises and cannot lie. Those who believe God would never have commanded Abraham to sacrifice His son are apparently unaware of the fact that God has and will continue to test to His saints to the uttermosr to determine if their faith is genuine or not. Heavenly Father commanded the greatest of all sacrifices from His own Only Begotten Son -- are we greater than He?

 

Edited March 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Where the whole purpose of life is to have our obedience proven, and the sacrifice of His Son was known from the beginning, I think it is clear that God tries and tests His people to see if they will obey Him, and not all of those tests have immediately perceivable "happy" endings. Sometimes we hear of such tests as "our Gethsemane" or "our Goliath."

 

I think His commands to Adam and Eve are another example of such a trial.

Agreed.

 

We need to look at the general themes and the principles taught, and in this story I think you have found a good interpretative lesson.  As I continually say, scripture is not about science or history.

 

The sooner we learn that, the sooner we can move on and progress spiritually without being worried about all this stuff.