Bernard Muller

Hello J.D.
Callahan is following a hypothesis which has been around for a long time:

I got that from this site:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_otb1.htm
The J & E sources, with additions from a compiler/harmonizer, is very obvious in Genesis, up to Isaac's sacrifice (not included). Then it is not so clear to me, but I do not know much about the "Documentary Hypothesis". I think "J and *P* accounts of the Noahic flood" is a typo: P should read E.

Best regards, Bernard

Kruger

I guess Berd don't understand the moral of the story. For me it is clear even it is change clearly that person understand what is wrong in the clearest sense. Indeed in the new testament Jesus clearly said the old testament in itself contradict itself you would found this clearly in the new testament if you put enough time to read and understand. The teaching of jesus are more profound then the criticism for example thinking of something evil is the same as doing it. The best example is Milosevic, Hitler and many more. When Hitler as the Germans to kill Jew they follow what Hitler order this parallel with story of Isaac. I guess it is better to be a thinker than to critic everything that we don't understand.

Happy Day

Pantera

A good introducion to the documantary hypothesis is Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible?. He mentions the possibility that Isaac may have been sacrificed in the original version of the story in a footnote in the appendix of the book. Alas I don't have my copy to hand right now, but I did paraphrase his line of argument in an old post, and reproduce it below. I'd be interested to hear what any resident experts on the Hebrew Bible (Apikorus?) make of it.

Genesis 22

The Isaac story is recognised as coming from the E source of the Pentateuch. The deity is referred to as Elohim (translated as God in most modern versions) in verses 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9. However, in verses 11, 14, 15 and 16a the deity is referred to as Yahweh (The Lord in translation). This seems to be a hint that verses 11-16a may represent an interpolation into the original story. Coincidently (or not), these are the verses where at he last minute God stops Abraham from carrying out the sacrifice.

Also note that while the angel's message "that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son... Because you have obeyed me..." could of course be interpreted to mean that Abraham was willing to obey and not withhold his son, taking the message on its own without the interpolation, it is at least as reasonable, if not more so, to interpret it as meaning that Abraham actually did obey the order to sacrifice his son.

Then in verse 19, it is only Abraham, and not Abraham and Isaac, who comes down from the mountain and rejoins his servents. More tellingly still, Isaac never again appears as a character in the E part of the Pentateuch.

Admittedly a couple of these are arguments from silence, but taken together they seem to make a reasonably strong case that in the original version of the story Abraham actually did sacrifice his son to God, in return being made the father of a vast nation, and that once human sacrifice became unacceptable the story was edited to make it more palatable to "modern" ears, while retaining the central message of God rewarding obedience.

mark9950

Do you have the verses to prove it?I would like to see for myself.

Doctor X

Bernard et Pantera:

Indeed.

This is what disappoints me about Callahan's book. I am rather certain he, himself, did not come up with the theory that in the E version Isaac gets squished. It would be nice--no, it would be responsible scholarship--to give his sources. Listing a bunch at the back of the book without attestation does not cut it. This is a major problem I have with his book.

Thank you for reminding me about Friedman--I will check to see if he gives more information.

You see, I would love to read more of the background on this interpretation of the Isaac story, but I cannot do that with Callahan. He is plagerizing, frankly.

mark:

See the above quotes from Collins for some passages where human sacrifice is required.

--J.D.

mark9950

Are we talking two different gods or religions here?

Roller

Here's what my copy of Friedman's book has to say:
"The story of the near sacrifice of Isaac is traced to E. It refers to the deity as Elohim in vv. 1, 3, 8, and 9. But, just as Abraham's hand is raised with the knife to sacrifice Isaac, the text says that the angel of Yahweh stops him (v. 11). The verses in which Isaac is spared refer to the deity as Yahweh (vv. 11-14). These verses are followed by a report that the angel speaks a second time and says, "...because you did not withhold your son from me...." Thus the four verses which report that Isaac was not sacrificed involve both a contradiction and a change of the name of the deity. As extraordinary as it may seem, it has been suggested that in the original version of this story Isaac was actually sacrificed, and that the intervening four verses were added subsequently, when the notion of human sacrifice was rejected (perhaps by the person who combined J and E). Of course, the words "you did not withhold your son" might mean only that Abraham had been willing to sacrifice his son. But still it must be noted that the text concludes (v. 19), "And Abraham returned to his servant." Isaac is not mentioned. Moreover, Isaac never again appears as a character in E. Interestingly, a later midrashic tradition developed this notion, that Isaac actually had been sacrificed. This tradition is discussed in S. Spiegel's The Last Trial (New York: Shocken, 1969; Hebrew edition 1950)."

Doctor X

Roller:

Thanks! His book should be required reading.

Mark:

At one point, yes.

--J.D.

mark9950

I think I am on to something but it may depend on who josiah worshipped elohim or yahweh and about his reform.

Did josiah worship yahweh or elohim or some other god GENERICALLY CALLED GOD?

Or better yet what are the distinct time periods or periods in the bible where yahweh and elohim was worshipped either together or separately?

Elohim may have needed a human sacrifice.

And yahweh did not need a human sacrifice due to the angel from yahweh stopping the killing of isaac.

Can I find this book at the library Who Wrote the Bible?

abospaum

I will let Kilgore send his own response about human sacrifice. If he fails, feel free to come back to me.

I also contend that the sacrifice was not neccessary. Jewish Levitical law did not require blood sacrifices for atonement. This was something that was to be done at the Temple only and only for unintentional (or ignorant) sins. There are more examples of non-sacrifical forgiveness through repentance in the OT. Sacrifices were to draw one nearer to God by showing honor and glory. Do you not believe in showing honor and glory to God. Was Jesus's death a way that man showed honor and glory to God? Also sacrifices were burned. Was Jesus burned?

We also have OT sayings that each man is responsible for his own sins and that no man can redeem another or pay a ransom for anothers sins.

So we have a blood sacrifice was not needed, one man could not redeem another man's sins, no human sacrifice...Jesus's sacrifice is therefore meaningless.