semiopen

Interesting that Isaac and Jesus were approximately the same age (mid 30s), at their sacrifices. I think the minority Talmudic opinion that Isaac actually died is quite well respected.

http://www.rabbiyeshua.com/articles/2001/akeidah.html

The link above is from cursed Jesus loving Jews, but it makes some interesting points.

The link below is more mainstream.

http://www.aish.com/tp/i/m/48950016.html

Neither link comments that Isaac was pretty much of a space cadet for the rest of his life.

ph2ter

The magic staff or sceptre of some Indonesian tribes shows to be equivalent to Moses' staff. Sceptre belongs to royal insignia and represents authority. The Indonesian Batak tribes have to make a new sceptre when a part of the tribe breaks off from the rest and a new tribe is formed. To make the sceptre, the Batak tribes must kill a child. A child, boy or girl, is dug into a ditch with only its head above the earth. They make it promise to do their bidding after death, to attack the enemy, and then they pour lead into the victim's open mouth. The ointment made of the corpse is used as a medium to convey the horrible power of sceptre. The staff actually represents a penis which was used as a weapon against the enemy. (Animism, Magic, and the Divine King By Geza Roheim)

In that light the story about Iedoud and Phoencians becomes even clearer (from Eusebii Pamphili evangelicae praeparationis):
Also:
This circumcision also has some protection features. The soul of sacrificed child has no power on circumcised, but only can harm uncircumcised and is directed against them in case of war. The same feature can be seen in ancient Summer in the case of gala-priests. They had been safe from death when they performed sacrifices, funeral rituals and lamentations, because they were castrated. Death can do no harm to them.
Although the magic staff symbolizes the penis, the attitude is sadistic, not genital. It is connected with the famous thunder weapon as its prototype in heaven, because phallic interpretation can be given also to the thunderbolt.
If teraphim could be connected with the magic staff also, then would become clear why it was in possession of Laban and David. They both were the chiefs, Laban of his tribe and David of Israel, as was the custom among the Batak tribes. Mosses was the chief of Israel, so he also had to have a magic staff. The staff represents authority and ancestors, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In Exodus 4.4 after introducing the magic staff to Moses, God connects it with the patriarchs:
It could be speculated that the sacrificed child which was used for making the staff represented the ancestor which made the staff out of his sacrificed child.


Also, another thing, it is interesting to note a schema in Genesis regarding the patriarchs. That schema foreshadows the two goats sacrifice of the Day of Atonement.

Adam had two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain is expelled into the wilderness, and Abel is killed. Actually, Abel was the legal heir and had the blessing of God.
Abraham had two firstborn sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was expelled into the wilderness, and Isaac was intended for the sacrifice. Isaac was the legal heir and blessed by Abraham.
Isaac had two firstborn sons, Esau and Jacob. Esau was sent into the wilderness to hunt, and Jacob got the blessing. Jacob was the legal heir.
Jacob had two legal firstborn sons, Ruben and Joseph, but also 10 other sons. Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites in the wilderness and ended in Egypt. All sons of Jacob were the heirs, the ancestors of the Israelite tribes.

In the above schema there are two sons (except in case of Jacob). One is designated for the wilderness and the other is a legal heir and blessed, but at the same time possesses the suppressed motive of sacrifice.

The two goats had to have identical appearances and had to be without defect. The goats had to be equal. One is slain and the other is sent away into the wilderness, to the desert places where Azazel and the demons dwell.
The two goats probably represents the same entity. When the first goat is slain and became dead, it means that it goes into the underworld, which the second goat actually does, goes into the wilderness, which is a metaphor for the underworld. Also, if Isaac was actually sacrificed, then Ishmael is in function of his shadow in the underworld. The one which is slain is for the Lord, he is the legal heir and gets blessing. The one sent into the wilderness is for Azazel and is cursed.
Also the same can be applied to Haman and Mordecai from the book of Esther. Haman is cursed and Mordecai is blessed.

We can note that the goats intended for sacrifice must be perfect and without defect. Also the son which is intended for sacrifice must be without defect. When someone is circumcised he is no longer suitable for sacrifice, because he has defect. This is probably one more reason why all male Israelites not intended for sacrifice were circumcised.

From wiki:

semiopen

It is not clear that Adam was Cain's father, Genesis doesn't refer to Cain as Adam's son.

Chapter 3:13

Where the hebrew hishi can be translated as deveived, beguiled, or seduced.

Genesis 4:1

Knew is often translated as "lay with" or "shtupped" etc. This is arguable for this verse, because of her comment.

The serpent as Cain's father is perhaps more in line with our discussion.

The offerings by Cain and Abel are peculiar. I ran across some commentary on a different subject where non animal offerings were considered invalid. There is also a peculiarity of Abel killing and burning animals when men were vegetarian.

One has to wonder if God in rejecting Cain's offering was more at fault than Cain for not explaining the rules clearly. Further, Abel is actually the first human to murder (animals) and perhaps Cain 's killing of Abel can be seen as an execution for this crime.

The two son's combination is interesting. Technically, Abraham had other sons (which are related to the Akeida and death of Sarah). I don't understand the birthright of Abel though.

I'm not familiar with the sons/goats relationship but it sounds brilliant - do you have a source for this or is it original?

I had a question on the legal implications of a woman having sex with the scapegoat after it was sent into the wilderness. I debated with myself about asking my rabbi's opinion but decided not to.

Tom Sawyer

What happens if your firstborn child is a daughter and the second is the son, but then your daughter has a sex change operation. Who are you supposed to sacrifice?

ph2ter

Such interpretation looks forced to me, but maybe has some connection with the myth of abduction of Persephone by Hades.

Non animal offerings are in pagan rituals perceived the same way as animal offerings. Killing the sacrificed animal is the same as grinding the wheat in a mill. Tearing the body parts of the sacrificed animal is the same as breaking the bread. Meat is identical to bread and blood is identical to vine. You can see the clear expression of that in Christianity. The animal offerings started first and are characteristic of hunting societies. Non animal offerings came later and are characteristic of agricultural societies, but the schema which was applied to animal offerings was then transferred also to non animal offerings. Plants and their fruits were treated like animals.

The primitive societies always feel the guilt after killing the sacrificed animal. Actually, in hunting societies where the only food was the meat of killed animals every killing was treated ritually. The integral part of the ritual was restitution of slaughtered victim. The skin (with the head) was stringed up after eating the meat. The sacrificer sometimes identifies with his victim to the point of wearing its skin, trying in effect to undo his own deed. The skin was sometimes used as the membrane of a tympanon (timbrel) in the temple. Slaughtered animal was ultimately treated like god. The one who killed a god was in danger. So the job was done by the special class of peoples which got immunity somehow - the priests. But also, the guilt was distributed equally among all community, because they all were eating the sacrificed body and were equally guilty. This is essentially the same guilt which Christians feel eating the Holy Communion, or Jews when they were confessing their sins over the goats in the ritual of the Day of Atonement.

This is completely my idea. I don't know of any source.
There are some inconsistencies, but not that big to cancel the analogy.


Your firstborn son, because the child must be a male and without defect.

ph2ter

Actually, now I see that this idea was already exploited. For example, see Jacob's Tears: The Priestly Work of Reconciliation By Mary Douglas

ph2ter

When noticing the two son's combination, I was confused with the case of Joseph. Because he was sold to the Ishmaelites, the logic says that his descendants should not be counted among the Israelite tribes. But his sons Manasseh and Ephraim were counted. But in that I missed the point that their descendants were considered to be the Samaritans. Jews often refused to believe this, because they did not regard them as true Jews.
Now, I can see why.

semiopen

Joseph married Ashenath - an Egyptian, daughter of Potiphera which some in the Talmud claim is Potiphar. It's anybody's guess who the other brothers married with the exception of Judah. Jewish descent appears to be patrilineal until Talmudic times, I don't know of any scholars who question this, but it annoys fundamentalists.

There were many other tribes than the 12 brothers, Caleb for example. Of course, there is a tendency to have things backwards in the bible, where the origin story is inserted to explain the people living in a certain place.

I think Manasseh and Ephraim are treated well in the Pentateuch. The so called E source is thought to be from Israel as opposed to Judah. When Israel fell, Judah experienced a great increase in population from refugees. There was no point in pissing off the descendants of the refugees by coming down too hard on Ephraim and Manasseh.

John Kesler

Here is an archived thread, which discusses human sacrifice and briefly touches on sacrifice of the firstborn. Also, it's interesting to contrast Abraham's reactions to the proposed destruction of Sodom and the command to sacrifice Isaac.

Abraham thought that killing the righteous with the wicked would be a horrible miscarriage if justice, but when he was told to sacrifice his son as a "burnt offering," Abraham offered no counter and proceeded as if nothing about the command was unusual. There is no appeal for Yahweh to "do what is just" or a "not so Lord, for that's what the Canaanites do" to be found.

semiopen

Of course there is commentary on the two stories about this. Frankly, most moralizing commentary is the most outrageous twisting of the text. I'm convinced that the events in any random book could be twisted into giving the same moral lessons that the bible gives us.

Sodom and Gommorah has always puzzled me because God knows how many righteous people there are. Why not just ask God how many righteous people there are and continue the negotiation from there? Also, in all the excitement, the story ends here. Seems like the negotiation was a later addition to the text.

The Akeida is also very odd. The parents were willing presumably participants in the actual child sacrifices that took place. The bible notes that various religious in the area had this ritual but there isn't anything to suggest it wasn't voluntary.

The story was obviously redacted many times. Most likely Isaac died in the earlier versions.

Akeida