The murder of Isaac

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Giftedone, Dec 10, 2018.

  1. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is well known that there are different traditions intermixed in the Bible. For example you have the "Elohist" and the "YHWHist" tradition.

    You can tell which tradition by the term that is used for God. These two traditions were later spliced together.

    In the earlier Elohist tradition Abraham actually sacrifices Isaac.

    https://thetorah.com/the-sacrifice-of-isaac-in-context/

    The later writers changed the story.

    But the angel of the Y-HWH called to him from heaven, and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear Elohim, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.

    God is referred to as YHWH in the inserted passage which is how we know it was added later.
     
  2. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good point.
     
  3. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Mustn't the mention of Elohim that you bolded also have been an insertion in that case, even though it uses the word Elohim?
     
    JakeStarkey likes this.
  4. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Documentary hypothesis states that there were originally two sources Elohist and Jawist. The Elohist source is though to have come from the Northern Kingdom and the Jawist from the Kingdom of Judah (southern Kingdom) - both based on oral tradition.

    The combined text was thought to have been redacted and completed around 700 BC in Judah after the Assyrians sacked and dispersed the northern Kingdom (who then became the lost tribes of Israel).

    This text was then revamped again including what is known as the Priestly source and further revisions to include the Dueteronomist source.

    http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Documentary_hypothesis

    In the Elohist source the God of Abraham is El (Enlil, Elyon, Bull-El). It is now accepted by most Biblical Scholars that the God of Abraham was El. Elements of El and Ba'al were later fused into the character of YHWH.
     
  5. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm familiar with Biblical literary criticism, I'm just saying that the arguments have to be a bit more robust, since there are examples of the contrary.
     
  6. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I posted a link previously that is very robust but, at the end of the day there is a reason why it is called the documentary "hypothesis".

    In general though, I find the idea that the same source would alternately refer to God as Elohim and then YHWH in the next sentence, then Elohim in the next somewhat preposterous.

    At the end of the day what you have is two religious traditions - one from the northern Kingdom and one from the Southern Kingdom - both which rely on oral history going back over 1000 years.
     
  7. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,491
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  8. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yet the passage you mention indeed does switch between the two. It seems to me that for your argument to make sense, you need to know a bunch about the redactivists and other stuff which is not in your post. As per the forum rules, links should support arguments, not replace them, and for the evidence you have suggested, the arguments you've actually written out are not enough.
     
  9. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My link does support my argument. The link argues exactly the same thing as I do - that in the original story Isaac was sacrificed.

    You can argue the validity of the "documentary hypothesis" if you like. Obviously my argument is built on that foundation. If that hypothesis falls so does my argument.

    In the broader sense it is well established that the Ancient Israelite's engaged in Child Sacrifice - sometimes to YHWH and sometimes to other Gods.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/polytheism-and-human-sacr_b_777340.html
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1450128.pdf

    Once this practice became taboo it is logical that later editors would remove or try to obscure references to this practice - as was done with Israel's polytheistic past - and its monolateralist past.
     
  10. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not arguing with the validity of the documentary hypothesis, it is fairly well established, and its flaws are known but not hugely controversial.

    The point I am making is that your rewording of the argument gets some things different from the link you provide.

    You say "God is referred to as YHWH in the inserted passage which is how we know it was added later". I am saying the passage which you refer to was not inserted as you suggest, only a part of it was, and not the part in which the name was changed.
     
  11. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is my understanding that there were two separate texts that were combined E and J. I grant that my use of the term "inserted" was perhaps incorrect.

    The claim is that in the E story - Isaac was sacrificed. In the J story Isaac was not.

    Those that maintained the E tradition (the northern kingdom) were wiped out and/or dispersed by the Assyrians. The Southern Kingdom - Judah - survived and they were the ones that wrote the combined text. The Southern Kingdom maintained the J tradition.

    In the combined version - which later went on to be edited further with the inclusion of P(Priestly source) and D (Deuteronic source) - Isaac was not actually sacrificed.

    The overall moral of the story is that it seems there was an early tradition where Isaac was sacrificed.
     
  12. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm a bit confused as to what the point of this thread is. Are you arguing against traditionalists who maintain that the entire Pentateuch was dictated to Moses by God? Or against people who follow the supplementary or fragmentary hypotheses? Do you suggest that the variability and inconsistency hurts the credence of the Pentateuch? Or would you say the narrowness of the difference support its validity? Or some specific point about what actually happened? Or are you just dropping arbitrary pieces of information?

    I mean, not to rain on your parade, but this feels like half an argument, the background from which some argument could be made. I think the documentary hypothesis is the dominant understanding of the source of the Bible, I wouldn't think it needs arguing, but maybe I'm wrong.
     
  13. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am simply arguing that in one of the original traditions - believed by large percentage of the Israelite's - Isaac was sacrificed.

    A belief in the documentary hypothesis - is a belief that the entire Pentateuch was not dictated to Moses by God. Same with the other hypothesis you mention.

    Obviously the idea that there were two different Isaac stories at one time, or that there were different sources used in the creation of the modern Bible - is a strike against inerrancy.

    I would say that two sources contradicting each other hurts the credibility of the Pentateuch. How could it not ?

    My "Parade" is that the Bible as we know it is 1) not the whole story and 2) may not be the story at all in some cases.
     
  14. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Moses spent 80 days and 80 nights on making 2 copies of the Ten Commandments. If he wrote the first 5 books he would still be writing them today.
     
  15. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If he wrote them, he would also be describing his own funeral.
     
  16. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,668
    Likes Received:
    1,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Only an idiot thinks Moses wrote the bible. Hell, Moses is likely a character who never existed. Pharaoh Seti I never had a grandchild. Ramses II was his only son. Seti's only known daughter, Tia, didn't have any children. So, the idea that Tia adopted a Hebrew child and raised him as a prince is completely unfounded. It exists only in the bible and has no evidence in the real world, just like the Exodus itself has no evidence to have ever occurred.
     
  17. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,613
    Likes Received:
    11,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2018
  18. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Eh, ok, I don't have a problem with that argument.
     
    Giftedone likes this.
  19. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There were several mass movements in ancient times in the Middle East that could be considered *Exoduses*.

    The Egyptian Empire included all of the land in the Levant to the Tigris River. They eventually got kicked out back across the Red Sea. In this one the Israelites didn't leave Egypt, Egypt left the Israelites.

    Then there was the time most of the Israelites got deported to Babylon. They eventually were sent back by Cyrus. So those could be considered an *Exodus*. All of the actual events could have been rolled up into a fictional story to highlight some kind of a cultural point. The Bible contains a lot of lies but all of the stories stress complete obedience and total loyalty to the Boss. And that is what they are really about.
     
  20. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,668
    Likes Received:
    1,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The biblical account of the Exodus is likely made up, and there is no historical records that support the idea that the Hebrews, as a people, were ever enslaved by the Egyptians. There are records of Egyptians having Hebrew slaves, but there are no records outside of the bible which support the claims in the book of Exodus that the egyptians enslaved the entire Hebrew population. Ramses II is the Pharaoh of the exodus. During his reign, egypt had already been driven out of Canaan. He lead a military campaign and reinstated their rule in the region.
     
  21. Hawkins

    Hawkins Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Humans never know what the nature of history is. As recent as in WWII, Nanjing massacre never happened, or did it?

    History is made of human accounts of testimonies for you to believe or reject with faith, but can hardly be proved. History is the recording of 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of overall human activities. It is thus for you to get to know what could have possibly happen. Anything not in history books can never lead to the conclusion of "something never happened" because 99.99% human activities are absent from history books. Moreover, ancient history is not well preserved, until paper was invented. After transformed to its paper form, the contents of today's history books can hardly be reconciled with any supportive ancient scrolls. Literally we lost all original documents in ancient scrolls. What we have today are the paper form texts not reconcilable with any original scrolls as the scrolls are no longer available.

    The Chinese said that 300,000 human lives were killed but denied by the Japanese. There's not much you can do here. Either you believe the history written by the Chinese, or the Japanese (i.e., Nanjing massacre is absent from history). You can prove nothing!

    At least, the Bible God is right about this,

    Isaiah 6:9
    He said, Go and tell this people: ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2018
  22. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The biblical story is obviously fictional but there were several actual mass movements that could be considered *Exoduses*.
     

Share This Page