Talk:Binding of Isaac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents 1 Inaccuracy 2 Expansion of "Christian Views" Section 3 Removed text 3.1 removed text 3.2 removed text 4 The {} sign/s 5 Obscure midrash: Isaac was sacrificed? 6 Parallel between Genesis 22 and the ending of George Orwell's "Nineteen eighty-four" 7 Name of this article 8 Mormon View 9 Good job! 10 BHI Addition (Welcomed?/Not Welcomed??) 11 Muslim interpetation

[edit] Inaccuracy

"The Bible states that God tests Abraham, by asking him to present his son, Isaac, as a sacrifice on Mount Horeb."

As far as I know, the near sacrifice of Isaac did not take place at Mount Horeb (a Google search reveals only the quaint websites concerning Mount Horeb, Wisconsin). According to the Bible, the Akedah took place at Mount Moriah:

1 After these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 2 He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you." (Genesis 22:1-2)

A fairly thorough search of all available versions of the Bible at bible.crosswalk.com reveals that the word "Horeb" does not appear once in the entire book of Genesis.

Furthermore, Kierkegaard speaks of the location in question as "Mount Moriah" repeatedly in Fear and Trembling. (Particularly in Exordium.)

- User:Dws

Whatever the original intent (which may never be totally elucidated) of the text, the episode has quite an effect on Abraham and Isaac; it is clear to Abraham and his progeny that human sacrifice is not acceptable.

The above statement is incorrect. Human sacrifice is acceptable to Abraham and his progeny. I give you an on-line summary reference. [1]

Perhaps, Abraham and his progeny are willing to sacrifice only NON-tribal humans.

Alternatively, that paragraph should state that many think that Abraham and his progengy did consider human sacrifice acceptable.

Or possibly the whole paragraph should be removed as inaccurate and irrelevant. Rednblu 19:52, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wrong. That website does not prove that Abraham and the Jews approved of human sacrifice. It only proves that some fundamentalist Christian wrote a website making this ridiculous claim. He takes verses totally out of their literary and historical context, and twist them around to make the Israelites look like murderers. He is so distorted that he uses a much later work (the New Testament's claim that Jesus had to die) to try and "prove" that Jews living hundreds of years earlier approved of human sacrifice. Sorry pal, but if certain Christians want to believe that God wants them to sacrifice humans, then deal with those people. Don't lay such bizarre beliefs at the feet of the Jews. I have seen this insinuation made many times before, but never in academic journals...only on anti-Semitic websites. RK

RK, you might try re-reading the essay that rednblu linked to, and see if you might have misinterpreted it. Martin 20:48, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

*Ahem*see this-K

[edit] Expansion of "Christian Views" Section

It seems a bit odd to me that the Akedah, one of the most important types in our Faith, has so little representation from the Christian perspective. While I agree with everything said ... a small expansion effort wouldn't hurt. (Mr.Ligit was responsible for this comment)

---

I am suggesting, in view of Judges 11:30-40, that the paragraph

Whatever the original intent (which may never be totally elucidated) of the text, the episode has quite an effect on Abraham and Isaac; it is clear to Abraham and his progeny that human sacrifice is not acceptable.

of the article is inaccurate. Perhaps, we should delete the above paragraph entirely. Would you agree? Rednblu 23:53, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I changed "Abraham and his progeny" to "them both", which I think more clearly reflects the sentiments of this paragraph (ie "quite an effect on Abraham and Isaac") and is indisputable. Hope this keeps all happy. Martin 10:10, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Amazing solution! Just brilliant! I can imagine Abraham and Isaac looking at each other and saying, "We made it through this. Geez! We will make it through anything." Yes I can see it! Absolutely brilliant! Rednblu 12:27, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nowhere in this article does it mention the Muslim tradition that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was "near sacrificed" or whatever you want to call it. Considering that this is the tradition of 1 billion people, it is a serious lacuna in the article. Danny 11:08, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC) dictionary:lacunae

Is this true? Is that in the Qur'an? Or is it a traditional story? Rednblu 12:27, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The story is in the Quran, but told vaguely, without reference to either Isaac or Ishmael. The majority of Muslim commentators hold that Abraham never had a near-sacrifice with Isaac; they hold that it was with his brother, Ishmael. RK 23:01, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Was it Isaac or Ishmael? Muslim views

[edit] Removed text

Note: I had to give a lot of thought before removing the following text. I think a section of the article for the "atheist response" is a good idea, but the header ('An Atheist's response), the text ("It is fairly clear" with no source cited for the theory) and his edits to similar pages indicate that this is original 'research'. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

=== An Atheist's response ===

It is fairly clear from the text that the "ram" portion of the story is a latter interpolation, and that in the original Abraham sacrificed Isaac as God commanded. Indications are:

* God rewards Abraham "because you have done this thing, and witheld not your only son" * God's reward to Abraham is out of proportion to the mere sacrifice of a ram * The line "And God spoke to Abraham a second time, saying ..." is an obvious join. It marks the resumption of the original text * Most poignantly, at the start of the story Abraham and Isaac go up the mountain, but afterward only Abraham is mentioned coming back down

Of course, in the Old Testament, children - along with wives, slaves, and livestock - are simply property. Nowhere in this story is there the idea that Isaac's life is not Abraham's to give. Whatever lives in a man's house is his. See also the story of Jephthah in Judges 11:29-40, and Leviticus 27:28-29

:28 Surely anything which a man permanently dedicates to the Lord from all that belongs to him, whether from people, animals, or his landed property, must be neither sold nor redeemed; anything permanently dedicated is most holy to the Lord.

:29 Anyone who is permanently dedicated from mankind must not be ransomed; he must be put to death.

[edit] removed text

I agree with the removal of this but I disagree that there needs to be an "atheist's response" to this. This is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of narrative and interpretation. This entry is about explaining the story from the bible and interpreting its significance. Its contents should be the same for believers and non-believers. Would the entry on Shakespeare's Macbeth need to include a response from someone who doesn't believe Shakespeare exists? Whether or not Shakespeare exists, we have and can interpret Macbeth. The atheist response can go under the entry for God if you like, but it makes no sense here. --csloat 05:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] removed text

I had not expected this section to survive long on the wiki. One does try to wave the flag occasionally, even knowing that you will quickly be trampled by the fanatical hordes.

However, removing it on the basis that it was "original research" - which I did not attempt to conceal - is certainly fair enough. I had overlooked that.

On the other hand, a fair bit of the wiki is uncited. I modified, as you may have noted, the page on Jephtha (another paragrah which I expect will not survive long). Is this paragraph:

Later, Jephtha went to war against the Ephraimites, who refused to aknowledge him. The story is remembered for the killing of the fugitive Ephraimites, who pronounced the Hebrew word shibboleth as sibboleth. In this rebellious action, 42,000 people lost their lives. (Judges 12:5,6)

also to be deleted because it is uncited, and looks like original research (note the misspelling)?

as to "csloat"'s response, I am in two or three minds.

Firstly, this is not a christian or "belivers" encyclopaedia. Also, while I labelled my section "an atheists" response, there are plenty of belivers - in other religions, in less literal versions of christianity - who do not nessesarily take the position that this story really happened as written. If we are talking about "interpretation", isn't "when it was written, they thought child sacrifice was ok, but then later they did'nt" an interpretation? The question then arises "Should we today accept the view of the original author, or that of the redactor? Which of these is the true will of god? Isn't our abhorrence of the idea just the influence of the liberal world?". Isn't this meat for discussion enough?

Another thought is that yes, the difficulties in this story can be disposed of by dropping the assumption that it ever really happened. But so can every other difficulty (how much gold was in the temple, what really happened after the resurrection, did Paul see a light or hear a voice, etc etc). Biblical scholarship and interpretation is a field in it's own right, and would hardly be helped by the addition of "On the other hand, this may all be just a load of do-do" on each page.

But, the page does discuss "the original intent of the author". My contention, that there were (at least) two authors, the second expurgating the first, would deserve a mention under that rubric. And my previous comment applies to the idea that the non-literal view does not add to the field of doctrinal interpretation. For instance: if we accept Earl Doherty's view that the Pauline epistles (with their christ "in the heavens") came first, and that the gospels were fictions written much later, isn't it worthwhile to then discuss what that implies for christians today? The fact that one takes a non-literal interpretation dos not nessesarily blow away doctrine as a field of inquiry.

I suppose the isssue is: what is the subject of this page? Is it "perspectives on Genesis 22"; or is it "attempts to reconcile the near sacrifice of isaac with modern attitudes towards child sacrifice, in the context of Christianity, Islam, and Juadism"?

[edit] The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Obscure midrash: Isaac was sacrificed?

Time and again I have come across the idea that, according to a minority of obscure classical rabbinic sources, Isaac really was sacrificed by Abraham, and then was miraculously resurrected. The classical midrashim that I have read say no such thing. Can anyone verify the following? If this is accurate, it surely is a minority view, but it would be interesting to note.

...Since Isaac appears subsequently (Chapoter 24 et seq.), advocates of these theories...content that God brought back Isaac from the dead. R. Jensen...reports that svereal ancient traditions refer to the ashes and blood of Isaac indicating that he died and was revived, citing the Babylonian Talmud, Ta'anit, 16a; Jerusalem Talmud, Ta'anit 2.1 (on the ashes); Mekhilta of R. Simeon ben Yohai, on Exodus 16.2 (on the blood); and that L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, n.29, supra, Vol.1, at p.281 et seq., and Vol. 5, p.251, recounts the tradition that Isaac was also the name of the ram.

Burton Caine, The Akedah: Angel Unbound, Conservative Judaism, Vol.52, No.1, Fall 1999

---

I checked up on one of the earliest sources. The Babylonian Talmud, tractate Taanit, page 16a, states:

And why do they place wood-ashes upon the Ark? — R. Judah b. Pazzi said: As if to say, I will be with him in trouble.4 Resh Lakish said: [As if to say] In all their afflictions He was afflicted.5 R. Zera said: When I first saw the rabbis placing wood-ashes on the Ark my whole body shook.

And why does everyone else put ashes on his head?- With regard to this there is a difference of opinion between R. Levi b. Hama and R. Hanina. One says: [To signify thereby], We are merely like ashes before Thee; and the other says: That [God] may remember for our sake the ashes of Isaac.6 What is the difference between them? — The difference is with regard to [the use of] ordinary dust.7

The Soncino Talmud, English translation

I checked the translation and commentary of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz on this passage. He holds that it should not be understood literally, and rather that "the ashes of Isaac" should be understood as referring to the ashes of the ram. He notes that in traditional rabbinic thought, the sacrifice of the ram represents the sacrifice of Isaac. He brings forth the views of a few other commentators who also reject the idea that this verse means that Isaac actually was sacrificed. However, why are these commentators rejecting this view? Someone must be proposing this view for it to warrant being rejected.

Based on what I have read here and elsewhere, it seems to me that the following is most likely: Classical rabbinic tradition held that Isaac was not sacrificed, as Genesis tells us. However, this vague phrasing in the Babylonian Talmud can be read as meaning that he was sacrified. Unfortunately, we cannot know for certain the intention of the writers of the Talmud. (As the text of the Talmud was essentially written in shorthand, and underwent centuries of editing, it is impossible to know precisely the intention of any given person quoted in the Talmud.) This ambiguity caused some rabbis to question whether or not Isaac really died, and a few later rabbinic midrashim did in fact explicitly describe Isaac as dying, and then being resurrected. It seems to me that these views are not well known among most Jews, and would not be representative of mainstream Jewish thought, but they are an interesting minority view worth mentioning. Can anyone bring forth a direct quote from any of these later midrashim which do explicitly state that Isaac died and was resurrected? RK 21:48, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if the author of the book of Hebrews was aware of this belief that Isaac actually died and was resurrected? He writes about the incident, "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, "In Isaac your seed shall be called," concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense." Wesley 06:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parallel between Genesis 22 and the ending of George Orwell's "Nineteen eighty-four"

There is an interesting parallel between Genesis 22 and the climax of George Orwell's "Ninety Eighty-Four." Winston is terrified of rats, and in Room 101, O'Brien uses these to destroy Winston's feelings for Julia ("Do it to Julia"), ensuring Winston's submission to the power of the Party. In the same way, in the incident in Genesis 22, Abraham puts obedience to God above his love of his own son Issac, an act of total submission.

[edit] Name of this article

The common name for this event is the "Binding of Isaac", which gets almost 50,000 hits. "Near sacrifice of Isaac", in contrast, gets about 800, the majority of them Wikipedia links and mirrors. In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions, I'm going to move the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mormon View

The pearl of great price tells of Abraham being tied down by his own father in the book of Abraham. His Father was wicked and idolatrous himself. Abraham abhored human sacrifice. Was symbol of The father sacrificing the son. One story was abraham had to learn about abraham. He himself was saved by Jehovah earlier making it more heart wrenching. He met the test and since Isaac was the covenant son would of had to be raised from the dead. Hebrews in the new testament tells of that Abrahams faith. Jesus was also raised from the dead.

Terah, Abraham's father, is mentioned briefly in Genesis 11, as well as in a genealogy, but for the most part, both the Old and New Covenant Books remain silent on him. This story about him you refer to is a clear addition made by Smith; it is hardly worth regard. In any case, what is this section? Is it a perspective? If it is, it seems only fitting it should remain here; the subject of the Akedah is most relevant to the Jewish and Christian communities. Of course a Moslem perspective is welcomed, too, seeing as it is the second most wide-spread religion. As for a Mormon view ... it seems ... to add little overall. And please, my friend, work on your grammar. I had a bit of trouble understanding. (Mr.Ligit was responsible for this comment)

[edit] Good job!

What an incredible article! Congratulations and thank you to everyone who has worked so hard on this article. This is a great example of wikipedia's success: people working together on an informative article with a fair treatment on a controversial topic dear to three major world religions. I know it's not perfect but it is being perfected. Good job guys.

I would like to see more about Kierkegaard's views on this subject if anyone has sufficient knowledge to do so. The person who posted above made me think that we should also include the LDS view in the article.

--Victoria h 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be written in purple prose. Cansomebody fix this? --miqonranger03 18:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How so? The whole thing? A section? Please offer an example to help us correct this. Anyway, I have to agree: This article, one of a religious nature, is beautiful ... It's great to see interfaith cooperation like this. I wish the article about Jesus of Nazareth had some clean-up work from this crew! The balance between the three faith systems here is really terrific, guys! Keep it up. Please! (Mr.Ligit was responsible for this comment)

[edit] BHI Addition (Welcomed?/Not Welcomed??)

I am a member of the so-called "Black Hebrew Israelites". We do not call ourselves by this name, but we do recognize it as a valid reference to groups of our kind. We are a fairly disorganized as religions go. We can best be described as "Sects" of Judaism, and Ethnic Christianity (an oxymoron to most).

Our claims have been called everything from "thought provoking" to "absurd", and none of the congregations in North America have gained much fame as "enlightened" spiritual groups.

Conversely. We are infamous for having disparate doctrines. I cannot post my view of this topic as being representative of all BHI groups. I am wondering if everyone who has contributed to this article has the complete backing of the organized religion that they represent?

We teach a very different view of the binding of Yitzchak, yet I fear that there is so much anti-BHI sentiment on wikipedia, that it will meet with a vigilant barrage of deletions, and I just don't have the time, and energy to keep fighting various editors.

Claiming to be the Israelites of the Bible is offensive to many, and you all need to understand that being descendants of slaves in America used to be offensive to many. At one time my ancestors were met with ridicule for even suggesting that they were "human". Later on they were met with indignation for suggesting that they should have civil rights. I just don't see how calling our self-affirmation in this area "fantastic" is any different a response from the status quos".

Moreh Qanaa Ben Yehudah

[edit] Muslim interpetation

First of all I'd like to echo other's comments and congratulate everyone on a great article.

I have just a minor point I'd like to raise about what I perceive to be a contradiction in the Muslim story (and which should probably be explained in the article). A pre-Islamic Arab story adopted by Muslims and included in the Hadiths tells of Abraham meeting a fully grown and twice married Ishmael (for the first time since him and his mother's flight) and building the Kaaba.

So when was this test by God supposed to have happened if Abraham had never met Ishmael before the construction? Or does this make sense in light of the Jewish belief that the son was in his early thirties (pre-Islamic Arabs learnt many similar stories from Jews, whom they envied until an Arabic book was revealed to one of their own; thus many stories in the Qur'an begin "And remember when..." confirming these tales and underlining God's involvement)?

Any thoughts?

Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 00:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)