Baidarka

River -

Is this idea from the Koran or is it from an oral tradition?

River

I have a feeling it is from oral tradition. But I will have to check up on this.


P.S: The fact that the Bible says that Abraham's eldest son was Isaac at some point also complicates the matter.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Baidarka,

This is a brilliant reconstruction. I've been away from my Genesis studies for a while, and I'm a bit too busy to go back to them at the moment, but I remember that I also came to the conclusion that in the original story Isaac got sacrificed and Ishmael was the original founder of the twelve tribes.

Probably at some point in the seventh or sixth century B.C. some people thought that the idea of child sacrifice was not such a hot selling point for the worship of Yaweh any longer, so the narrative got rewritten and Isaac was saved.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Lavis Knight

I remember reading somewhere in the psalms that God wouldn't so much as even "ask" for human sacrifices.

Anyone know the reference?

-Lavis

Notsri

It's a traditional interpretation of a somewhat ambiguous passage from the Koran. It says in 37:100ff.:

Baidarka

It seems that the Islamic claim that it was Ishmael and not Isaac in the akedah is based on the biblical contradiction of God calling Isaac, Abraham's "only son". According to the Bible text Ishmael was Abraham's first son and at least for a few years he was Abraham's only son.
Ishmael is the only person who could ever have been called Abraham's only son. I am not saying that any of these people ever existed I'm only saying that there is a contradiction in the text and that the Islamic solution makes sense.

PDH5204

Actually, it's not a good reconstruction, as one would have to alter other passages as well. Now to prove both that point and the other point about this story having nothing whatsover to do with the immorality of child sacrifice, please count for you and for me the prior instances wherein Abraham was purportedly told by God that it would be through Isaac that his seed would be called [as it were]. So those passages would have had to have been added as well [and the bodily resurrection of Isaac deleted].

Now ask yourself one question, to wit, given the prior promises by God to Abraham re Isaac, if Abraham had indeed sacrificed Isaac, how would God have kept his prior promise[s]? By bodily resurrecting Isaac from the dead? Now recall that prior admonition, the one that came when Abraham let the seed of doubt creep in and relied on his efforts rather than God's, thereby necessitating a personal visit from the Eternal who rather directly asked Abraham during the course of their discussion....is anything too hard/wonderful for the Eternal? The Akedah is the story that proves that Abraham finally got the lesson, i.e., not even bodily resurrection from the dead is too hard/wonderful for the Eternal. And such explains, in no small part, why that other Paul said something about God preaching the gospel to Abraham beforehand. Oh, and when my Lord said something to the Pharisees about Abraham seeing his day and otherwise being glad and leaping for joy, he was referring, in part, to the Akedah.

godalmighty

If Isaac was killed then who had Esau and Jacob?

Isaac is the father of ISRAEL

He wasn't sacrificed end of subject

G

Baidarka

PDH5204:
Actually, it's not a good reconstruction,

It is not a reconstruction. It is a deconstruction.

as one would have to alter other passages as well.

Yes, exactly, I think that your getting it!

Now to prove both that point and the other point about this story having nothing whatsoever to do with the immorality of child sacrifice, please count for you and for me the prior instances wherein Abraham was purportedly told by God that it would be through Isaac that his seed would be called [as it were].

Of course you are right that the plain meaning of the Akedah as we read it in the canon is that the great Yahweh has decided that he no longer needs chid sacrifice or at least not this particular child. But have no fear within a few chapters the Old guy will return to his blood thirsty baby killing ways.

So those passages would have had to have been added as well [and the bodily resurrection of Isaac deleted].

Yes and [Yes]

Now ask yourself one question, to wit, given the prior promises by God to Abraham re Isaac, if Abraham had indeed sacrificed Isaac, how would God have kept his prior promise[s]?

According to OT law a brother is obligated to marry his brothers widow and have children with her in his brother's name. So brother Ishi (that was Ishmael's nickname) could have fulfilled God's promise by having children in his brother's name. Besides, according to rabbinic calculations Isaac was in his thirties at the time of the attempted (or successful) murder. So he could already have had Yackov and Essau.

By bodily resurrecting Isaac from the dead? Now recall that prior admonition, the one that came when Abraham let the seed of doubt creep in and relied on his efforts rather than God's, thereby necessitating a personal visit from the Eternal who rather directly asked Abraham during the course of their discussion....is anything too hard/wonderful for the Eternal?

History is told in a logical sequence ( if it is true) but fictional narratives are not constrained by any such bonds. Have you never heard the term poetic licence? In one Gnostic retelling of the Garden of Eden, Yahweh is an evil monster called the Demi-urge and the good snake is actually Jesus sent by the High God to save Adam & Eve. My point is that these myths are told and retold by different tellers at different times to serve differing needs and that the creative human imagination can twist and turn a story any which way.

The Akedah is the story that proves that Abraham finally got the lesson, i.e., not even bodily resurrection from the dead is too hard/wonderful for the Eternal.

Now your twisting the story. Where in the canonical Akedah is there a mention of resurrection?

And such explains, in no small part, why that other Paul

What other Paul?

said something about God preaching the gospel to Abraham beforehand. Oh, and when my Lord said something to the Pharisees about Abraham seeing his day and otherwise being glad and leaping for joy, he was referring, in part, to the Akedah.

How do you know this?

godalmighty:
If Isaac was killed then who had Esau and Jacob?

Brother Ishi ( see above)

Isaac is the father of ISRAEL
He wasn't sacrificed end of subject

"this I know 'cause the Bible tells me so..."
Well gee Mr. Big G, oh great omniscient one, I guess I will have to worry about thunder bolts now!

G