Modern research Binding of Isaac

1 modern research

1.1 redactors , narrative purpose
1.2 ethical responsibility
1.3 possible child sacrifice

modern research
redactors , narrative purpose

modern scholars operating under framework of documentary hypothesis commonly ascribe binding s narrative biblical source e, on grounds uses specific term elohim (אלוהים) , parallels characteristic e compositions. on view, second angelic appearance abraham (v. 14–18), praising obedience , blessing offspring, in fact later jahwist interpolation e’s original account (v. 1–13, 19). supported style , composition of these verses, use of name yahweh deity.

in mimesis: representation of reality in western literature, literary critic erich auerbach considers hebrew narrative of binding of isaac, along homer s description of odysseus s scar, 2 paradigmatic models representation of reality in literature. auerbach contrasts homer s attention detail , foregrounding of spatial, historical, personal contexts events bible s sparse account, in virtually context kept in background or left outside of narrative. auerbach observes, narrative strategy virtually compels readers add own interpretations text.

ethical responsibility

more recent studies question analysis of e , j strictly separate. coats argues abraham’s obedience god’s command in fact necessitates praise , blessing, receives in second angelic speech. speech, therefore, not have been inserted e’s original account. has suggested many author responsible interpolation of second angelic appearance has left mark on original account (v. 1–13, 19).

more has been suggested these traces in fact first angelic appearance (v. 11–12), in angel of yhwh stops abraham before kills isaac. style , composition of these verses resemble of second angelic speech, , yhwh used deity rather god. on reading, in original e version of binding abraham disobeys god’s command, sacrificing ram instead of son (v. 13) on own responsibility , without being stopped angel: , abraham stretched forth hand, , took knife slay son; abraham lifted eyes , looked , beheld, behind him ram, caught in thicket horns; , abraham went, , took ram, , offered burnt offering instead of son (v. 10, 13).

by interpolating first appearance of angel, later redactor shifted responsibility halting test abraham angel (v. 11–12). second angelic appearance, in abraham rewarded obedience (v. 14–18), became necessary due shift of responsibility. analysis of story sheds light on connection between binding , story of sodom (genesis 18), in abraham protests against god s unethical plan destroy city, without distinguishing between righteous , wicked: far such thing: shall not judge of earth just? abraham s ethical rebellion against god in destruction of sodom culminates in disobedience god, refusing sacrifice isaac.

the binding figures prominently in writings of several of more important modern theologians, such søren kierkegaard in fear , trembling , shalom spiegel in last trial. jewish communities regularly review literature, instance recent mock trial held more 600 members of university synagogue of orange county, california. derrida looks @ story of sacrifice kierkegaard’s reading in gift of death.

possible child sacrifice

francesca stavrakopoulou has speculated possible story contains traces of tradition in abraham sacrifice isaac. r.e. friedman argued in original e story, abraham may have carried out sacrifice of isaac, later repugnance @ idea of human sacrifice led redactor of je add lines in ram substituted isaac. likewise, terence fretheim wrote text bears no specific mark of being polemic against child sacrifice.

some scholars point @ genealogical snippet (verses 20–24) containing hint question whether abraham sacrificed isaac or not.

first of all, description of rash of newborns placed right after main story suggests existence of direct cause-effect connection between two. perspective of sacrificial economy, such numerous progeny not have been conceived without preceding payment in appropriate ‘currency’.


secondly, said passage problematic due onomastic content. verses 20–23 list progeny of nahor , milkah while v. 24 adds offspring conceived re’umah, said concubine.

however, whereas verses 20–23 have significant links other parts of hebrew bible historical , cultural entourage of ancient near east, such connections absent in v. 24. name of nahor’s concubine appears here exclusively , in no other place in hebrew bible re’umah mentioned. same applies children’s names exception of ma‘akah utilized in historical books. extreme rarity of these appellations demands alternative interpretation regards purpose.

accordingly, personal list may contain coded explanation concerning rest of story:

re’umah (ראומה) – see
tevah (טבח) – slaughtering or slaughtered
gaham (גחם) – flame or burning
tahash (תחש) – skin used describe tabernacle’s covering
ma‘akah (מעכה) – blown or crushed

in other words, v. 24 begins interpretational invitation , continues names seem explain cause of rash of newborns present @ conclusion of pericope: had been blown, slaughtered, put on tabernacle, , burned.

from 14th-century icelandic manuscript of stjórn



abraham sacrifice isaac. 14th-century english missal