Baidarka

The Sacrifice of Isaac, also known as The Akedah ends with "Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba" What happened to Isaac. If Isaac was not sacrificed why doesn't it say "Then Abraham and Isaac returned to their servants"?

I am suggesting that the original Akedah may not have included a ram substitute and that Isaac may not have escaped the sacrifice.

Below is the Akidah. I have colored the words that may have been added red. I have colored the words that may have been removed blue.



Genesis 22


Abraham Tested

1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."
3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."
6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife [and slayed his son.] to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram [1] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."
15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD , that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring [2] all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."
19 Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.

JEST2ASK

Is there any source other than speculation that would lend credance to the use of colors in the text the word "may" needs something to support the theory (IMO) :huh:

Is there something like the N.T. versions for the ending(s) to Gs-Mk
interms of documents or early commentary to support the theory.

Is there anything concerning the earliest appearance of Genesis ... (written text)

Magdlyn

I thought the whole point of the story was YHWH decreeing the end of human sacrifice, not accepting it? Why include it if it is just one more Milcomesque story?

Notsri

Baidarka, remember, virtually everything after Gen. 22 is predicated on the assumption that Isaac survived: the Israelites being the descendants of the twelve patriarchs, the sons of Jacob, the son of Isaac. With the death of Isaac goes the entire biblical history of Israel.

I would suggest that the reason v. 19 mentions Abraham alone, is because the whole pericope revolves around that particular character: Abraham is at center stage, with the author's interest focused primarily on his response to God's request; v. 1 (God tested Abraham) indicates that Abraham is be our, the readers', focus as well. Isaac's role is necessary but incidental to the narrative. Thus, the story's protagonist alone is named in the closing verse.

Regards,
Notsri

Baidarka

Just to show that my speculation is not completely way out there.

Did He Never Return?
The commentators find some features of the Akedah puzzling. Why, for instance, is there no mention of Isaac returning with his father after the ram had been substituted for him? Abraham is said to have returned together with the lads who accompanied him, but nothing is said of Isaac. Abraham Ibn Ezra (a 12th century Spanish commentator) records an opinion that the angel's call came too late and that Isaac was, in fact, killed by Abraham. (On this opinion, Isaac, who reappears in the later narratives, was resurrected from the dead.)
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/text...edahJacobs.htm

Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut:


There was...a remarkable tradition that insisted that Abraham completed the sacrifice and that afterward Isaac was miraculously revived....According to this haggadah, Abraham slew his son, burnt his victim, and the ashes remain as a stored-up merit and atonement for Israel in all generations.



---The Torah: A Modern Commentary
(New York: Union of American
Hebrew Congregations, 1981), p. 151 n. 5

http://www.normativejewishthought.com/Sacrificed.html

Magdlyn

That is interesting, Baidarka, but the speculative resurrection idea seems to have been influenced along the way by the "pagan" (ncluding Xtian) idea of the dying and rising sacrificed godman then. This was not neccessarily the "original" story.

Clivedurdle

But as it was all invented during the reign of Josiah....

Notsri

I would disagree in part with this, Magdlyn. I think rather that the "speculative resurrection idea seems to have been influenced" by no more than the Jewish Scriptures themselves and what Baidarka has pointed out, namely the apparent anomalous reference to Abraham alone in 22:19. The idea that God would or could resurrect a person (regardless if he was a "godman," which Isaac was not) is not at all foreign to the Hebrew Bible: the story of Elijah and the widow's son from Zarephath comes to mind (cf. 1 Kings 17:20-2). But, of course, I would agree with your last statement: it seems unlikely that the resurrection (or death) was part of the "'original' story."

Magdlyn

All invented or some invented, some redacted? Weren't there legends already around that were then embellished throught the prism of Zoroastrianism influenced Yahwism?

Do we need 2 miracles about Isaac's existance? First, his supernaturally influenced birth to a woman near 100 yrs old, then, as well, a death and resurrection?

Magdlyn

OK, good point.

Hm, now I am not so sure. If the Jews were into thinking they were superior to other neighbors b/c they did not "pass their children through fire," might they have had an old story about child sacrifice, which they then retrofitted to show off how their superior god did not allow this practice? OK, now I am not sure of anything...LOL!