Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
The Akeda
Today we find it abhorrent that a god should ask for a child sacrifice (that humans might imagine a god who would require child sacrifice); in fact, in those days, what was extraordinary was that this particular god did not want the sacrifice, which was very much the normal activity. Deuteronomy 12:31 says:
"You must not worship YHVH your god in their way, because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things that YHVH hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods."In pre-Yeru-Shala'im, the child sacrifices to the city's god Moloch (note the link, mentioned in the previous chapter, from Avi-Melech to Moloch) took place in the valley (Gey/גי) of Hinnom, whence the term Gehenna = Hell. But they started on the hilltop where the Tsi'un, the obelisk that honoured Moloch, was mounted, the obelisk that King David would later tear down, but whose name he retained for the hilltop town, Tsi'on. It was on the neighbouring hill, at the threshing-floor of the shrine of Araunah (or Ornan, or Ornah), that the women wept bitter tears for the annually dying and reborn son of the sun-sky god and his moon-earth goddess wife, Utu, Inanna and Tammuz in the Babylonian version that was the tradition of pre-Yeru-Shala'im and its neighbour Beit Lechem Ephratah (Bethlehem), YHVH Yah and Yedid-Yah in the new Beney Yisra-El version brought to the city by the first king named for that famous son, Daoud or David, who acquired the threshing-floor of Araunah to build their temple there, and renamed it Mor-Yah for those bitter tears, Mor-Yah which would become Maria or Mary when another mother wept bitter tears for her ever-dying ever-reborn son, killed on that same spot a thousand years to the day later; two thousand years to the day (probably it was 2160 years, the space between the beginning and end of an astrological era) after another mother wondered where her husband and son had gone with their two servants and their donkeys, and did not know until they returned that Av-Raham had taken his son to that same hilltop, Mor-Yah, only for the god to say "Enough" of human sacrifice, and to insist upon the paschal lamb instead. The eternal Pesach, the Fisher-King whose origins are known by archaeologists to go back at least to the Cro-Magnon era, thirty-five thousand years ago.
Before reading the following story, it is worth noting the Greek myth of Athamas and Nephele. The story is Kadmean (usually rendered as Cadmean in English). Kadmea in Yehudit is Kedem (קדם) and the children of Kedem (Beney Kedem/בני-קדם) are listed in Yishma-El's genealogy (Genesis 25:16). KEDEM also means east, as we noted with the closing of the Edomite Garden of Eden and the wandering of Kayin (Cain) before he fathered the Edomite people and saw his daughters marry the sons of Yishma-El. The Kadmeans claimed their descent from Agenor, which was their name for Kena'an, from where they wandered in the 11th century BCE, via Caria and crossing the Aegean to found Boeotian Thebes. Thus:
King Athamas the Boeotian married Queen Nephele of Pelion, by whom he had a son called Phrixus. Then Athamas fathered a second son, named Melikertes [or Melkarth, or Melech-Ha-Ir/מלך העיר - a variation on Moloch and Avi-Melech] - on Nephele's rival Ino the Kadmean. This did not please Nephele, who laid a curse on Ino and Melikertes. Ino responded by sending a famine to Kadmea, and bribed Apollo's priestess to announce that the land would only produce again if Athamas sacrificed Phrixus on Mount Laphystium. Athamas did as he was required, and just like Av-Raham reached the point of raising the knife when Herakles [the name means "beloved of Hera", who was the wife of Zeus; we also know him as Hercules, his Roman equivalent; "beloved of Hera" becomes Yedid-Yah or David in Yehudit] ordered him to put it down, saying that his father Zeus loathed human sacrifices. A golden-fleeced ram, sent by Zeus, suddenly appeared, and Phrixus escaped on its back to Colchis (the very ram which later supplied the Golden Fleece). Ino fled with Melikertes from Athamas' anger, diving into the sea from which Zeus saved them. Ino became deified as the White Goddess, Melikertes became the New Year God of Corinth.
The parallels are obvious (Melikertes becomes Avi-Melech, the two wives become Sarah and Hagar, the two sons become Yitschak and Yishma-El, and there is even the connection between David and Herakles in the meanings of both their names; Ino may also be a variant for of Io, who becomes Yah in Yehudit - and the origin of the story in Kadmea/Kedem, which is to say to the east of the Aegean, in Agenor, which is Kena'an, is no coincidence. The two are the same tale. The rain-making ritual described still takes place on Mount Laphystium at the Spring Equinox, with the mock-sacrifice of a man dressed in a black ram's fleece.
That the custom of sacrifice was not in fact abolished after Av-Raham is further evidenced by the story of Yiphtach's (Jephthah's) daughter (Judges 11:29 ff) - unless you accept the hypothesis, discussed in my commentaries on the Book of Judges, that the tales in Judges are in fact chronologically symmetrical with those of Genesis, and not of a later period.
The Tanach records several other instances of child sacrifice:
King Mesha (a variant of the name Mousa, Mosheh, Moses?) of Mo-Av burned his eldest son (probably to the god Chemosh though the text does not state this) in 2 Kings 3:26/7.
The Amonites sacrificed their sons to Moloch (Leviticus 18:21 & 20:2 ff).
The Aramaeans of Sepharvayim sacrificed their sons to Adram-Melech and Ana-Melech.
The Beney Yisra-El under King Achaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Menasheh (2 Kings 21:6) also sacrificed their eldest sons.
Sha'ul attempted to sacrifice Yah-Natan (Jonathan) after a victory by the Pelishtim (1 Samuel 14:43/6) but the army prevented this.
Exodus 22:28/9 reads: "The first-born of your sons you shall give to me, and of your oxen and your sheep also, on the eighth day". This practice Yechezke-El condemned (Ezekiel 20:24/6) as one of the "statutes that were not good" – for which, surprisingly, he was not excommunicated as a heretic and a blasphemer, because he dared in saying this to criticise the word of YHVH given to Mosheh on Mount Sinai. The token sacrifice of circumcision, also on the eighth day, and the Pidyon ha-Ben, seem to have been introduced as a replacement for the full-scale sacrifices of earlier times. But 1 Kings 16:34 has a similar sacrifice as part of the foundation ceremony when Chi-El of Beit-El built (presumably re-built) Yericho (Jericho) at the time of Yehoshu'a (Joshua).
Shelomoh (Solomon) introduced (re-introduced?) the worship of Moloch and Chemosh into Yeru-Shala'im (1 Kings 11:7) which involved the burning of children in the valley of Tophet, a practice only ended by Yoshi-Yahu (Josiah) - see 2 Kings 23:10. These victims were surrogates for the king, himself originally a surrogate for the sun-god, and was part of an annual sun festival. The practice was denounced by Michah (Micah 6:7), Yirme-Yahu (Jeremiah 7:31 and 32:35) and by Yechezke-El (Ezekiel 16:20 & 20:26), and it is legislated against, as noted above, in Deuteronomy 12:31; also in Leviticus 18:21 & 20:2 ff. Exodus 34:20, an amendment to Exodus 22:28/9, equates the first-born of man with that of the ass: both being redeemable by the sacrifice of a lamb or two young pigeons (Exodus 34:20, Leviticus 12:6/8) - in a ceremony still practiced today and called Pidyon Ha Ben.
This leaves open the question: did Av-Raham sacrifice Yitschak or not: and if yes, when and by whom was the text altered? And if yes, does that explain why the Yitschak of the Torah has no tales, no incidents, an utterly empty life of struggling to maintain his father's wells, and then a tribal marriage and the old blind man tale of Ya'akov's father attached to him because it had to be attached somewhere, and the Redactor was determined to follow the tri-generational (trimurtic) pattern of cultic history which was the norm across the known world at the time. A good "A Level" question this: compare and contrast and discuss...
Oh, and one last thing. In my comments on the last chapter I left a note to explain to Avi-Melech about the number of ewe-lambs, but did not fulfil that promise. Because I was waiting until now to do so. The New Year festival, on the first day of the seventh month, commemorates the binding of Yitschak. Leviticus 23:23/5 ordains the festival, but not as a New Year festival. This was created later, after the exile. Part of the answer to Avi-Melech lies in the detailed notes above; the remainder should become obvious as we now read the tale in this chapter.
22:1: VA YEHI ACHAR HA DEVARIM HA ELEH VE HA ELOHIM NISAH ET AV-RAHAM VA YOMER ELAV AV-RAHAM VA YOMER HINENI
KJ (King James translation): And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
BN (BibleNet translation): And it came to pass after these things, that Ha Elohim tested Av-Raham, and said to him, "Av-Raham"; and he answered, "Here I am".
HA ELOHIM: Scholars have posited a set of texts from which the Tanach as we know it was constructed, naming them as J, E, D and P - the Documentary Hypothesis, also called the Wellhausen or even the Graf–Wellhausen hypothesis. I am now going to propose that we need to consider a 5th text, which I shall label H, the ones in which "the god" is quite clearly "the gods", plural, and the epistemology behind it polytheistic.
NISAH: "Proved" in most translations should read "tested", although his response to the test did indeed "prove" him.
As noted previously, there is an entire essay to be written on the word Hineni, and the concept behind it – (multiple references in the Torah, plus Isaiah 6:8, 52:6, 58:9; 65:1); and its opposites: for those interested, start with Elohim in Genesis 9:9, Ya'akov in Genesis 31:11 and again in Genesis 46:2, Mosheh in Exodus3:4... and many more, all the way to the calling of Shmu-El in 1Samuel 3:4-8. That essay is in preparation and this note will be updated as soon as it is published.
22:2: VA YOMER KACH NA ET BINCHA ET YECHIYD'CHA ASHER AHAVTA ET YITSCHAK VE LECH LECHA EL ERETS HA MORIYAH VE HA'AL'EHU SHAM LE OLAH AL ACHAD HE HARIM ASHER OMAR ELEYCHA
KJ: And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
BN: And he said: "Take your son, your only son, who you love, Yitschak, and go to the land of Mor-Yah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will tell you."
KACH NA: How polite! There really ought to be a "please" in the translation.
BINCHA ET YECHID'CHA ASHER AHAVTA: A variation on this can be found in the gospel line: "this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 17:5 and many others, both at the baptism and at the transfiguration). Christians should note that the Pesach, the sacrifice of Yitschak, and the crucifixion of Jesus, are all variations on the same myth.
ET YECHIYD'CHA (את יחידך): but Yitschak is not his only son! Or was Yishma-El legally disinherited as soon as he was sent away?
And of course, while we are shocked by this mission given him by his god(s), Av-Raham would not have been at all shocked. On the contrary, he was expecting it, for it was the norm to sacrifice the first-born son (which we should remember when it comes to the Mosheh story: twice over in fact, at his birth, and with the plagues).
LECH LECHA: cf Genesis 12:1
MORI-YAH (המריה): according to tradition the hill known in English as Moriah is the hill of the Temple Mount in Yeru-Shala'im; cf 2 Chronicles 3:1 where, as here, the pointed text adds a chirik chaser (very pointedly a chirik chaser and not a chirik mala'i, which would double the Yud [י] and add even more confusion) beneath the Reysh (ר): Mor-i-Yah. Gesenius explains this by suggesting that the root is MORI-YAH (מראי יה), with the Aleph (א) missing in the Tanach, and meaning "chosen by YHVH" (actually it would mean "chosen by Yah", which is much more plausible), which would be perfect as an explanation of why the Temple is there, and be a much simpler route to the source of the name Maria or Mary in English for Jesus' mother; however the etymology is false, for there is no Aleph (א) in Mori-Yah, missing or otherwise. In fact Gesenius, like the editor who added the erroneous chirik, is trying to avoid the difficult issue which this story, and more particularly the stories of Mir-Yam (Miriam) and the desert wanderings of Mosheh, throw up; as follows:
MERI (מרי) = "contumacy" or "bitterness" from the root MARAH (מרה), itself a derivative of the root MARAR (מרר). Exodus 15:23 and Numbers 33:8 tell of the brackish and bitter waters of a fountain of that name in the deep Sinai. Other fountains and watering places are connected to the Mosheh story, particularly MERIYVAH (מריבה) in the desert of Sin and MEY MERIYVOT KADESH (מי מריבות קדש) in the very region where Av-Raham dwelt. Other linked sites include MERAYOT (מריות) which both Ezra and Nechem-Yah (Nehemiah) mention repeatedly. MIR-YAM (מרים) the sister of Mosheh also takes her name from this root. We can therefore conclude, and will have more to say on this later when we deal with Mosheh in more detail, that a water cult operated in the Eastern Sinai, presumably based on the wells, springs and oases that were so vital to nomadic life in that otherwise dry desert, and the various caravanserai were attended by water-priestesses, of whom Hagar may well have been one, Tamar almost certainly another, but most especially MIR-YAM was herself the chief priestess. Given that Av-Raham dwelt in this region (and we have just witnessed a water treaty between him and Avi-Melech; and we have just read a water-tale connected with Hagar and Yishma-El), that the hill called Mor-Yah on which the Temple was built was at that time either inside or on the perimeters of the major city of Shalem, and that a hill bearing the name MOR-YAH is almost bound to be located alongside other key sites of the cult (MOR-YAH meaning "the bitter waters of YAH"), we can state that the original site of the Akeda would have been down in the southern Negev, and not anywhere near Yeru-Shala'im. There is also a sense that the Redactor knew this, but needed the location to be in Yeru-Shala'im, for political reasons of his day; this may explain the three day journey described in verse 4.
HA'AL'EHU: Av-Raham is told to make an "olah", and an "olah" was a burnt offering. We are shocked when we see Av-Raham bind him to the rock-altar; still more deeply shocked when he takes out the knife; but he is stopped at that point, and no description is given of what would have shocked us still more deeply. But Ha Elohim here definitely say HA'AL'EHU. If you really have the stomach for the details, look at Numbers 18:17-18.
22:3: VA YASHKEM AV-RAHAM BA BOKER VA YACHAVOSH ET CHAMORO VA YIKACH ET SHENEY NE'ARAV ITO VE ET YITSCHAK BENO VA YEVAK'A ATSEY OLAH VA YAKAM VA YELECH EL HA MAKOM ASHER AMAR LO HA ELOHIM
KJ: And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.
BN: And Av-Raham rose early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Yitschak his son; and he chopped the wood for the burnt-offering, and rose up, and went to the place which Ha Elohim had told him.
CHAMORO (חמרו): note that he was a donkey-rider, not a camel-rider; the camel had probably not yet been domesticated; although it has been mentioned previously - almost certainly anachronistically - in these stories.
YEVAK'A ATSEY OLAH (ויבקע עצי עלה): note that he carries the sacrificial wood with him, as Jesus will later. We are not told what kind of wood. But can work it out by logic! Assume acacia, but go check!
He neither argues nor asks questions - his obedience is absolute (unlike Sedom, where he argued, bartered, negotiated, pleaded and even demanded). Nor does he have any doubts or reservations - one assumes that Sarah in the meanwhile, had she even known, would have been devastated. There is a case to be made that she and Yitschak were also being tested.
And on reflection, isn't it odd that he didn't argue? Av-Raham, who was being tested then too, to see where he stood on the subjects of Justice and Righteousness. I can even imagine the dialogue:
22:4: BA YOM HA SHELISHI VA YIS'A AV-RAHAM ET EYNAV VA YAR ET HA MAKOM ME RACHOK
KJ: Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.
BN: On the third day Av-Raham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place in the distance.
22:1: VA YEHI ACHAR HA DEVARIM HA ELEH VE HA ELOHIM NISAH ET AV-RAHAM VA YOMER ELAV AV-RAHAM VA YOMER HINENI
וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וְהָאֱלֹהִים נִסָּה אֶת אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּנִי
KJ (King James translation): And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
BN (BibleNet translation): And it came to pass after these things, that Ha Elohim tested Av-Raham, and said to him, "Av-Raham"; and he answered, "Here I am".
HA ELOHIM: Scholars have posited a set of texts from which the Tanach as we know it was constructed, naming them as J, E, D and P - the Documentary Hypothesis, also called the Wellhausen or even the Graf–Wellhausen hypothesis. I am now going to propose that we need to consider a 5th text, which I shall label H, the ones in which "the god" is quite clearly "the gods", plural, and the epistemology behind it polytheistic.
NISAH: "Proved" in most translations should read "tested", although his response to the test did indeed "prove" him.
As noted previously, there is an entire essay to be written on the word Hineni, and the concept behind it – (multiple references in the Torah, plus Isaiah 6:8, 52:6, 58:9; 65:1); and its opposites: for those interested, start with Elohim in Genesis 9:9, Ya'akov in Genesis 31:11 and again in Genesis 46:2, Mosheh in Exodus3:4... and many more, all the way to the calling of Shmu-El in 1Samuel 3:4-8. That essay is in preparation and this note will be updated as soon as it is published.
22:2: VA YOMER KACH NA ET BINCHA ET YECHIYD'CHA ASHER AHAVTA ET YITSCHAK VE LECH LECHA EL ERETS HA MORIYAH VE HA'AL'EHU SHAM LE OLAH AL ACHAD HE HARIM ASHER OMAR ELEYCHA
וַיֹּאמֶר קַח נָא אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶת יְחִידְךָ אֲשֶׁר אָהַבְתָּ אֶת יִצְחָק וְלֶךְ לְךָ אֶל אֶרֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּה וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם לְעֹלָה עַל אַחַד הֶהָרִים אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ
KJ: And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
BN: And he said: "Take your son, your only son, who you love, Yitschak, and go to the land of Mor-Yah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will tell you."
KACH NA: How polite! There really ought to be a "please" in the translation.
BINCHA ET YECHID'CHA ASHER AHAVTA: A variation on this can be found in the gospel line: "this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 17:5 and many others, both at the baptism and at the transfiguration). Christians should note that the Pesach, the sacrifice of Yitschak, and the crucifixion of Jesus, are all variations on the same myth.
ET YECHIYD'CHA (את יחידך): but Yitschak is not his only son! Or was Yishma-El legally disinherited as soon as he was sent away?
And of course, while we are shocked by this mission given him by his god(s), Av-Raham would not have been at all shocked. On the contrary, he was expecting it, for it was the norm to sacrifice the first-born son (which we should remember when it comes to the Mosheh story: twice over in fact, at his birth, and with the plagues).
LECH LECHA: cf Genesis 12:1
MORI-YAH (המריה): according to tradition the hill known in English as Moriah is the hill of the Temple Mount in Yeru-Shala'im; cf 2 Chronicles 3:1 where, as here, the pointed text adds a chirik chaser (very pointedly a chirik chaser and not a chirik mala'i, which would double the Yud [י] and add even more confusion) beneath the Reysh (ר): Mor-i-Yah. Gesenius explains this by suggesting that the root is MORI-YAH (מראי יה), with the Aleph (א) missing in the Tanach, and meaning "chosen by YHVH" (actually it would mean "chosen by Yah", which is much more plausible), which would be perfect as an explanation of why the Temple is there, and be a much simpler route to the source of the name Maria or Mary in English for Jesus' mother; however the etymology is false, for there is no Aleph (א) in Mori-Yah, missing or otherwise. In fact Gesenius, like the editor who added the erroneous chirik, is trying to avoid the difficult issue which this story, and more particularly the stories of Mir-Yam (Miriam) and the desert wanderings of Mosheh, throw up; as follows:
MERI (מרי) = "contumacy" or "bitterness" from the root MARAH (מרה), itself a derivative of the root MARAR (מרר). Exodus 15:23 and Numbers 33:8 tell of the brackish and bitter waters of a fountain of that name in the deep Sinai. Other fountains and watering places are connected to the Mosheh story, particularly MERIYVAH (מריבה) in the desert of Sin and MEY MERIYVOT KADESH (מי מריבות קדש) in the very region where Av-Raham dwelt. Other linked sites include MERAYOT (מריות) which both Ezra and Nechem-Yah (Nehemiah) mention repeatedly. MIR-YAM (מרים) the sister of Mosheh also takes her name from this root. We can therefore conclude, and will have more to say on this later when we deal with Mosheh in more detail, that a water cult operated in the Eastern Sinai, presumably based on the wells, springs and oases that were so vital to nomadic life in that otherwise dry desert, and the various caravanserai were attended by water-priestesses, of whom Hagar may well have been one, Tamar almost certainly another, but most especially MIR-YAM was herself the chief priestess. Given that Av-Raham dwelt in this region (and we have just witnessed a water treaty between him and Avi-Melech; and we have just read a water-tale connected with Hagar and Yishma-El), that the hill called Mor-Yah on which the Temple was built was at that time either inside or on the perimeters of the major city of Shalem, and that a hill bearing the name MOR-YAH is almost bound to be located alongside other key sites of the cult (MOR-YAH meaning "the bitter waters of YAH"), we can state that the original site of the Akeda would have been down in the southern Negev, and not anywhere near Yeru-Shala'im. There is also a sense that the Redactor knew this, but needed the location to be in Yeru-Shala'im, for political reasons of his day; this may explain the three day journey described in verse 4.
HA'AL'EHU: Av-Raham is told to make an "olah", and an "olah" was a burnt offering. We are shocked when we see Av-Raham bind him to the rock-altar; still more deeply shocked when he takes out the knife; but he is stopped at that point, and no description is given of what would have shocked us still more deeply. But Ha Elohim here definitely say HA'AL'EHU. If you really have the stomach for the details, look at Numbers 18:17-18.
22:3: VA YASHKEM AV-RAHAM BA BOKER VA YACHAVOSH ET CHAMORO VA YIKACH ET SHENEY NE'ARAV ITO VE ET YITSCHAK BENO VA YEVAK'A ATSEY OLAH VA YAKAM VA YELECH EL HA MAKOM ASHER AMAR LO HA ELOHIM
וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר וַיַּחַבֹשׁ אֶת חֲמֹרוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת שְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו אִתּוֹ וְאֵת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ וַיְבַקַּע עֲצֵי עֹלָה וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אָמַר לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים
KJ: And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.
BN: And Av-Raham rose early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Yitschak his son; and he chopped the wood for the burnt-offering, and rose up, and went to the place which Ha Elohim had told him.
CHAMORO (חמרו): note that he was a donkey-rider, not a camel-rider; the camel had probably not yet been domesticated; although it has been mentioned previously - almost certainly anachronistically - in these stories.
YEVAK'A ATSEY OLAH (ויבקע עצי עלה): note that he carries the sacrificial wood with him, as Jesus will later. We are not told what kind of wood. But can work it out by logic! Assume acacia, but go check!
He neither argues nor asks questions - his obedience is absolute (unlike Sedom, where he argued, bartered, negotiated, pleaded and even demanded). Nor does he have any doubts or reservations - one assumes that Sarah in the meanwhile, had she even known, would have been devastated. There is a case to be made that she and Yitschak were also being tested.
And on reflection, isn't it odd that he didn't argue? Av-Raham, who was being tested then too, to see where he stood on the subjects of Justice and Righteousness. I can even imagine the dialogue:
"Lord, at Sedom you said you would save the entire city if I could find five righteous souls. Is my son Yitschak not a righteous soul. Tell me what he has done wrong, and I will bring him to expiation, rather than sacrifice."
"Av-Raham, you are correct. I agreed to save the city for five. And yes, Yitschak counts as one. But where are the other four."
"Lord, it is written in the Midrashim that to save one life is as if to save the entire world. So there is Yitschak, and the other four will be there by default if you agree to save him."Note that the story is still being told as Ha-Elohim.
22:4: BA YOM HA SHELISHI VA YIS'A AV-RAHAM ET EYNAV VA YAR ET HA MAKOM ME RACHOK
בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת הַמָּקוֹם מֵרָחֹק
KJ: Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.
BN: On the third day Av-Raham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place in the distance.
If it was indeed Yeru-Shala'im, then Abe has been there before, and would recongise it; but if it is just some hill somewhere in the deepest Negev, as the notes above suggest, how did he know, among all those dozens of wadis and canyons, which one was Mor-Yah?
And if it was indeed to Mor-Yah of Yerushalayim that he went, it might be interesting to make the journey from Be'er Sheva on a donkey, just to see how long it would have taken. And then to plot what the real journey might have been. And to wonder, would they have let him enter the city? Probably they would, because he had already been there, and shared communion with its high priest, so a warm welcome could be expected, whatever his purpose - and congratulations on fulfilling a sacred duty with which the high priests of Yevus and Shalem would have been well familiar. But the text here is not describing a walled city and a populated hillside, which pre-Yeru-Shala'im already was by Av-Raham's time; seven towns, one on each hill. The text seems to be describing countryside.
BA YOM...: unusual but rather nice grammar.
SHELISHI (חשלישי): any significance in the three days? The time between the waxing of the old moon and the first appearance of the new is three days, which is reflected in the three days Jesus spends in the darkness of the tomb and those that Yonah spent in the belly of the whale - but those were after the sacrifice, not before it. 3 is always the sacred number of the triple-goddess, as 7 is of YHVH.
Even if we don't know exactly where this original Mor-Yah is, we could work it out; a three day donkey-ride in the radius of Gerar, between Kadesh and Shur, at Be'er Sheva where his farm is - see verse 9 for the final destination.
22:5: VA YOMER AV-RAHAM EL NE'ARAV SHEVU LACHEM POH IM HA CHAMOR VA ANI VE HA NA'AR NELCHAH AD KO VE NISHTACHAVEH VE NASHUVAH ALEYCHEM
KJ: And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.
BN: And Av-Raham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go on; and we will worship, and come back to you."
NISHTACHAVEH: Meaning: to prostrate oneself. Then is he being deliberately deceitful? A sacrifice would be a part of an act of worship... but this is the ISH TAMEH (righteous soul) of Sedom and Amorah, remember, now being somewhat economical in his description of his intentions.
HA NA'AR (המער): he refers thus to Yitschak, as though psychologically distancing himself - Hagar did the same with Yishma-El in the previous chapter. How old is the boy anyway? We are never told, but somehow assume him to be thirteen, the age of circumcision before the eight-day-rule was introduced. If he was younger, would he not be a YELED; if older a BACHUR - Yehudit is very fastidious about the names used for specific ages and statuses, which fact will become critical when Isaiah 7:14 gets translated into Greek and turns a teenage married woman back into a virgin. The two servants are also called NE'ARIM (נערים) denoting them at the same age - why do Ha Elohim tell him to take two such young servants and not more adult ones? In the Jesus version, the two "boys" are sacrificed as well! In the David version, insofar as can be read out of the texts, the two "boys" are named Bo'az and Yachin and become the two pillars that guard the entrance to the Temple.
22:6: VA YIKACH AV-RAHAM ET ATSEY HA OLAH VA YASEM AL YITSCHAK BENO VA YIKACH BE YADO ET HA ESH VE ET HA MA'ACHELET VA YELCHU SHNEYHEM YACHDAV
KJ: And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.
BN: And Av-Raham took the wood for the burnt offering, and gave it to Yitschak his son to carry; and in his own hand he took the fire and the knife; and the two of them went on together.
YASEM (וישם): just like Jesus, he has to carry his own cross up the hill. Av-Raham, on the other hand, is carrying absolutely nothing, or the immense burden of guilt, though these two may be the same thing in his case.
ESH (האש): In what manner did he carry it though? As a fire-wheel? They did not have matches in those days, nor cigarette lighters, which was why they interlocked the wood into a fire-wheel and held the centre while the carbonated ends smoked just enough fire to light the pyre with. And what was the name of this fire-wheel, in Persian, and from the Sanskrit. A swastika. The same that stood guard outside the closed gates of Eden, the LAHAT HA CHEREV, the flaming sword (Genesis 3:24).
MA'ACHELET (המאכלת): a rather cutting piece of etymology this; the root is ACHAL (אכל) = "food", but of course one cannot eat food without cutlery! The word here literally means "a what-you-eat-with". Who, though, was going to do the eating? Is the knife there for the ram, and Av-Raham was always anticipating lamb shishlik for his supper? Or had he brought other victuals? No doubt the two lads looking after the donkey thought they were being excluded from a picnic.
But ironic remarks apart, this is the instrument that will (not in fact) be used for the sacrifice, and it is not a SAKIN (סַכִּין), GIYLUPH (גילוף) or otherwise, nor an OLAR (אוֹלָר), nor a PIGYON (פִּגיוֹן), but quite specifically a MA'ACHELET. A SAKIN could serve any purpose as a general knife, but usually killing, unless PIGYON, which is carving; an OLAR is a pen-knife or switch-blade, a PIGYON is a dagger. But a MA'ACHELET is the knife that goes with your fork and spoon at the dinner-table, and once again - even though there is no intention of eating Yitschak - it confirms that the purpose of Shechitah is not the act of propitiation but the obtaining of permission to eat.
I haven't checked, because I am pretty certain that I won't find it, but is there, anywhere in the accounts of the Temple rituals, a word used for the knife of sacrifice?
22:7: VA YOMER YITSCHAK EL AV-RAHAM AVIV VA YOMER AVI VA YOMER HINENI VENI VA YOMER HINEH HA EYSH VE HA ETSIM VE AYEH HA SEH LE OLAH
KJ: And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering.
BN: And Yitschak spoke to Av-Raham his father and said, "My father". And he said. "Here am I, my son". And he said, "I can see the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt-offering?"
VA YOMER AVI: Beautifully, poignantly written. All it takes is that single word, AVI, behind which we can just imagine the plaintive, nervous, worried, inquisitive tone of voice. "Daaaaaaad?"
HINENI: That word again!
HINEH: Whereas translating this as "behold" loses all the poignancy, because it lacks the colloquiality that surely Yitschak would have used. This is too formal, too Biblical. "Dad, I can see the fire and I can see the wood. Did you not remember to bring a lamb for the olah?" Something more of that order.
22:8: VA YOMER AV-RAHAM ELOHIM YIR'EH LO HA SEH LE OLAH BENI VA YELCHU SHNEYHEM YACHDAV
And if it was indeed to Mor-Yah of Yerushalayim that he went, it might be interesting to make the journey from Be'er Sheva on a donkey, just to see how long it would have taken. And then to plot what the real journey might have been. And to wonder, would they have let him enter the city? Probably they would, because he had already been there, and shared communion with its high priest, so a warm welcome could be expected, whatever his purpose - and congratulations on fulfilling a sacred duty with which the high priests of Yevus and Shalem would have been well familiar. But the text here is not describing a walled city and a populated hillside, which pre-Yeru-Shala'im already was by Av-Raham's time; seven towns, one on each hill. The text seems to be describing countryside.
BA YOM...: unusual but rather nice grammar.
SHELISHI (חשלישי): any significance in the three days? The time between the waxing of the old moon and the first appearance of the new is three days, which is reflected in the three days Jesus spends in the darkness of the tomb and those that Yonah spent in the belly of the whale - but those were after the sacrifice, not before it. 3 is always the sacred number of the triple-goddess, as 7 is of YHVH.
Even if we don't know exactly where this original Mor-Yah is, we could work it out; a three day donkey-ride in the radius of Gerar, between Kadesh and Shur, at Be'er Sheva where his farm is - see verse 9 for the final destination.
22:5: VA YOMER AV-RAHAM EL NE'ARAV SHEVU LACHEM POH IM HA CHAMOR VA ANI VE HA NA'AR NELCHAH AD KO VE NISHTACHAVEH VE NASHUVAH ALEYCHEM
וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל נְעָרָיו שְׁבוּ לָכֶם פֹּה עִם הַחֲמוֹר וַאֲנִי וְהַנַּעַר נֵלְכָה עַד כֹּה וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְנָשׁוּבָה אֲלֵיכֶם
KJ: And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.
BN: And Av-Raham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go on; and we will worship, and come back to you."
NISHTACHAVEH: Meaning: to prostrate oneself. Then is he being deliberately deceitful? A sacrifice would be a part of an act of worship... but this is the ISH TAMEH (righteous soul) of Sedom and Amorah, remember, now being somewhat economical in his description of his intentions.
HA NA'AR (המער): he refers thus to Yitschak, as though psychologically distancing himself - Hagar did the same with Yishma-El in the previous chapter. How old is the boy anyway? We are never told, but somehow assume him to be thirteen, the age of circumcision before the eight-day-rule was introduced. If he was younger, would he not be a YELED; if older a BACHUR - Yehudit is very fastidious about the names used for specific ages and statuses, which fact will become critical when Isaiah 7:14 gets translated into Greek and turns a teenage married woman back into a virgin. The two servants are also called NE'ARIM (נערים) denoting them at the same age - why do Ha Elohim tell him to take two such young servants and not more adult ones? In the Jesus version, the two "boys" are sacrificed as well! In the David version, insofar as can be read out of the texts, the two "boys" are named Bo'az and Yachin and become the two pillars that guard the entrance to the Temple.
22:6: VA YIKACH AV-RAHAM ET ATSEY HA OLAH VA YASEM AL YITSCHAK BENO VA YIKACH BE YADO ET HA ESH VE ET HA MA'ACHELET VA YELCHU SHNEYHEM YACHDAV
וַיִּקַּח אַבְרָהָם אֶת עֲצֵי הָעֹלָה וַיָּשֶׂם עַל יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ וַיִּקַּח בְּיָדוֹ אֶת הָאֵשׁ וְאֶת הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת וַיֵּלְכוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם יַחְדָּו
KJ: And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.
BN: And Av-Raham took the wood for the burnt offering, and gave it to Yitschak his son to carry; and in his own hand he took the fire and the knife; and the two of them went on together.
YASEM (וישם): just like Jesus, he has to carry his own cross up the hill. Av-Raham, on the other hand, is carrying absolutely nothing, or the immense burden of guilt, though these two may be the same thing in his case.
ESH (האש): In what manner did he carry it though? As a fire-wheel? They did not have matches in those days, nor cigarette lighters, which was why they interlocked the wood into a fire-wheel and held the centre while the carbonated ends smoked just enough fire to light the pyre with. And what was the name of this fire-wheel, in Persian, and from the Sanskrit. A swastika. The same that stood guard outside the closed gates of Eden, the LAHAT HA CHEREV, the flaming sword (Genesis 3:24).
MA'ACHELET (המאכלת): a rather cutting piece of etymology this; the root is ACHAL (אכל) = "food", but of course one cannot eat food without cutlery! The word here literally means "a what-you-eat-with". Who, though, was going to do the eating? Is the knife there for the ram, and Av-Raham was always anticipating lamb shishlik for his supper? Or had he brought other victuals? No doubt the two lads looking after the donkey thought they were being excluded from a picnic.
But ironic remarks apart, this is the instrument that will (not in fact) be used for the sacrifice, and it is not a SAKIN (סַכִּין), GIYLUPH (גילוף) or otherwise, nor an OLAR (אוֹלָר), nor a PIGYON (פִּגיוֹן), but quite specifically a MA'ACHELET. A SAKIN could serve any purpose as a general knife, but usually killing, unless PIGYON, which is carving; an OLAR is a pen-knife or switch-blade, a PIGYON is a dagger. But a MA'ACHELET is the knife that goes with your fork and spoon at the dinner-table, and once again - even though there is no intention of eating Yitschak - it confirms that the purpose of Shechitah is not the act of propitiation but the obtaining of permission to eat.
I haven't checked, because I am pretty certain that I won't find it, but is there, anywhere in the accounts of the Temple rituals, a word used for the knife of sacrifice?
22:7: VA YOMER YITSCHAK EL AV-RAHAM AVIV VA YOMER AVI VA YOMER HINENI VENI VA YOMER HINEH HA EYSH VE HA ETSIM VE AYEH HA SEH LE OLAH
וַיֹּאמֶר יִצְחָק אֶל אַבְרָהָם אָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר אָבִי וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֶּנִּי בְנִי וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה הָאֵשׁ וְהָעֵצִים וְאַיֵּה הַשֶּׂה לְעֹלָה
KJ: And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering.
BN: And Yitschak spoke to Av-Raham his father and said, "My father". And he said. "Here am I, my son". And he said, "I can see the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt-offering?"
VA YOMER AVI: Beautifully, poignantly written. All it takes is that single word, AVI, behind which we can just imagine the plaintive, nervous, worried, inquisitive tone of voice. "Daaaaaaad?"
HINENI: That word again!
HINEH: Whereas translating this as "behold" loses all the poignancy, because it lacks the colloquiality that surely Yitschak would have used. This is too formal, too Biblical. "Dad, I can see the fire and I can see the wood. Did you not remember to bring a lamb for the olah?" Something more of that order.
22:8: VA YOMER AV-RAHAM ELOHIM YIR'EH LO HA SEH LE OLAH BENI VA YELCHU SHNEYHEM YACHDAV
וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֱלֹהִים יִרְאֶה לּוֹ הַשֶּׂה לְעֹלָה בְּנִי וַיֵּלְכוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם יַחְדָּו
KJ: And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
BN: And Av-Raham said, "Elohim will provide the lamb for the burnt-offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
ELOHIM: not HA ELOHIM now. This is probably a scribal error, however, as Ha Elohim is restored in the next verse.
Note that the sacrifice is specifically a lamb, as in the Agnus Dei, "the lamb of God", as in the sacrificial lamb of the Pesach. Not a bullock, not fruit or vegetables or shewbread or a libation, not a goat or a turtle-dove, but specifically a lamb; and with the fire in his hand, as well as the knife, clearly a lamb for a burnt offering, the full Kurban.
YIR'EH however cannot be ignored. It is by no means the verb we would expect here, and by no means certain it even means what it is translated as meaning, though clearly the translation is correct in the immediate context. Paradox? Only in part. I am wondering if this is where Gesenius found his speculation - see the notes to MORI-YAH in verse 2, above. For this is the MORI-YAH (מראי יה) that he hypothesises, right here, somewhat oddly forced into the text, as though needing to ensure that the name has its meaning located in the text somewhere - a commonality of the Tanach. So ELOHIM YIR'EH - Elohim will provide. Which becomes one of the names for the deity, especially in the Psalms! YHVH YIR'EH! Coincidence? I don't think so. Now jump forward to verse 14, where the text changes from Elohim to YHVH, and the name of the place changes from the Mor-Yah of the Triple Goddess to... nothing to do with "providing".
22:9: VA YAVO'U EL HA MAKOM ASHER AMAR LO HA ELOHIM VA YIVEN SHAM AV-RAHAM ET HA MIZBE'ACH VA YA'AROCH ET HA ETSIM VA YA'AKOD ET YITSCHAK BENO VA YASEM OTO AL HA MIZBE'ACH MI MA'AL LA ETSIM
וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אָמַר לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים וַיִּבֶן שָׁם אַבְרָהָם אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וַיַּעֲרֹךְ אֶת הָעֵצִים וַיַּעֲקֹד אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ וַיָּשֶׂם אֹתוֹ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִמַּעַל לָעֵצִים
KJ: And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and arranged the wood, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, on the wood.
BN: And they came to the place which Elohim had pointed out to him; and Av-Raham built the altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Yitschak his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.
Did Yitschak struggle? According to the rules of Shechitah, a beast that does not go willingly to the altar cannot be sacrificed. We have to assume that Yitschak did not struggle.
Is this a rendering of the ancient ritual regicide? Once again we are on a hilltop, presumably a sacred grove or sacred tree stands there and it is known as a holy place... if it is the ritual regicide then it is a late development in which Yitschak the first-born stands in for the father who is himself the surrogate on behalf of the god; we are thus three stages removed; and presumably the act of circumcision will remove us still one further stage, as the Eucharist will also do for the theophagy.
ET HA MIZBE'ACH: Note "he built the altar there", and not "an altar there" - a literary attempt to lay claim to a shrine?
YA'AKOD: "bound" - the word that gives us "Akeda" as the overall name for this incident.
22:10: VA YISHLACH AV-RAHAM ET YADO VA YIKACH ET HA MA'ACHELET LISHCHOT ET BENO
וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְרָהָם אֶת יָדוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת לִשְׁחֹט אֶת בְּנוֹ
KJ: And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
BN: And Av-Raham reached out with his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
LISHCHOT: the same word that gives Shechitah, the formal name for the Jewish slaughtering of animals for food.
22:11: VA YIKRA ELAV MAL'ACH YHVH MIN HA SHAMAYIM VA YOMER AV-RAHAM AV-RAHAM VA YOMER HINENI
וַיִּקְרָא אֵלָיו מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּנִי
KJ: And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
BN: And an angel of YHVH called to him out of the heavens, and said, "Av-Raham, Av-Raham". And he said, "Here I am".
We can almost imagine the scene in the Redactor's office, with Ezra furious, reading through the manuscript as it has been written thus far. "Why Ha Elohim?" has been his complaint till now, but now he has had enough. "I don't care that historically he went through with this, and killed the boy. We don't worship Ha Elohim any longer. We worship YHVH. And after the argument between YHVH and Av-Raham over Sedom and Amorah, YHVH is not going to allow this sacrifice to go ahead. We have put an end to human sacrifice for ever, and this is the moment in the historical narrative when we affirm it. No more Ha Elohim; write YHVH. And the sacrifice has to be aborted. YHVH refuses to interfere directly in human affairs, so put in one of those angels King Cyrus' people were telling us about. Whatever you do, abort the damned sacrifice!"
Note that it is an angel, not the angel - click here.
The concept of Heaven does not belong to the time of Av-Raham. It infers a sky-god, rather than a sun-god, but the concept, as in Genesis 1, belongs to the later Persians. I have therefore, as throughout the text, translated HA SHAMAYIM as "the heavens".
HINENI: For the third time in this chapter
22:12: VA YOMER AL TISHLACH YAD'CHA EL HA NA'AR VE AL TA'AS LO ME'UMAH KI ATAH YADA'TI KI YER'E ELOHIM ATAH VE LO CHASACHTA ET BINCHA ET YECHIYDCHA MIMENI
וַיֹּאמֶר אַל תִּשְׁלַח יָדְךָ אֶל הַנַּעַר וְאַל תַּעַשׂ לוֹ מְאוּמָה כִּי עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶת יְחִידְךָ מִמֶּנִּי
KJ: And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
BN: And he said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad, nor do anything to him; for now I know that you are a man who fears Elohim, seeing that you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."
Again the notion that this is his only son; the idea of a test being passed and god relenting must be a late emendation; presumably Yitschak's willingness, like his father's, suggests again that the practice was normal to Av-Raham's time. In the earlier form of the ritual, the one that continues into Christianity, the beloved first-and-only son does not get reprieved.
YER'E ELOHIM: Clearly Ezra did not get his way fully and completely; YHVH sends an angel to abort the sacrifice, but the angel speaks about Elohim, not YHVH. A conflict perhaps between those of Yehudah, the men of the Book of Kings, who followed YHVH, and the Samaritans, and any remaining Ephrayimites, of the Galilee, the men of the Book of Chronicles, who followed Elohim; and this the compromise. Who can say? But look at verse 14, where this is transformed into YHVH YIR'EH, the same sound, but actually a different verb with a different meaning.
Which prompts a further questioning of what are thus three different understandings of MOR-YAH or MORI-YAH: provision, vision, and fear. See verse 14 for that questioning.
22:13: VA YISA AV-RAHAM ET EYNAV VA YAR VE HINEH AYIL ACHAR NE'ECHAZ BA SEVACH BE KARNAV VA YELECH AV-RAHAM VA YIKACH ET HA AYIL VA YA'AL'EHU LE OLAH TACHAT BENO
וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה אַיִל אַחַר נֶאֱחַז בַּסְּבַךְ בְּקַרְנָיו וַיֵּלֶךְ אַבְרָהָם וַיִּקַּח אֶת הָאַיִל וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ לְעֹלָה תַּחַת בְּנוֹ
KJ: And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
BN: And Av-Raham lifted up his eyes and looked, and there was a ram behind him, caught in the thicket by his horns. And Av-Raham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering instead of his son.
AYIL (איל): why a ram? That is, why specifically a male sheep; the significance of its being a sheep, and not say a goat is obvious. The mention of the horns is also significant. But why a ram, when the parallel was a lamb? Why a ram, when verses 7 and 8 were quite specific: HA SEH. A lamb. And the god will himself provide it. If the Pesach is supposed to be a yearling, will god accept mutton? Apparently he will.
Or there has to be another reason, of which the only one obviously available is the astrological - at the start of each astral epoch, 2160 years apart, the male of that epoch is made sacred through sacrifice, and at the end the first-born: so the ram may indicate the transition from the Age of Taurus (the bull) to that of Aries (the ram), which took place in precisely 2160 BCE - more detail on this here.
TACHAT BENO (תחת בנו): the phrase is interesting. Why TACHAT (תחת) not BIMKOM (במקום)? It must have been an idiom at the time because it is used frequently in the Tanach.
22:14: VA YIKRA AV-RAHAM SHEM HA MAKOM HA HU YHVH YIR'EH ASHER YE'AMER HA YOM BE HAR YHVH YERA'EH
KJ: And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
BN: And Av-Raham gave the place the name YHVH Yir'eh; as it is said to this day: "In the mountain where YHVH is seen."
Is there a distinction being made between the name of the place where the shrine now stands, as opposed to the hill itself, which was named previously? The inference of this verse is aetiological: that the tale exists to explain why that place has that name.
But again: where is it? By Ezra's time "the mountain where YHVH is seen", or possibly "the mountain of the fear of YHVH", was unquestionably Mount Mor-Yah in Yeru-Shala'im, the site of the First and Second Temples; but the evidence of these verses is that cannot have been that. Despite the claim here that this was the name already in common usage, there is no other usage of it anywhere in the Tanach.
Can we read the line as confirmation that YHVH was a mountain-god all along? See my commentaries on this throughout the Book of Shemot (Exodus), where it seems even more certain, and that the mountain in question was not only Chorev (Horeb), including the part which was the volcano that exploded over the Cities of the Plain, but that Chorev was in Midyan, east of the Dead Sea, and not in the Sinai desert at all.
YER'E ELOHIM, יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים (verse 12); YHVH YIREH, יְהוָה יִרְאֶה (verse 14). The root of YIR'EH is RA'AH (ראה), and it means "to see". How then can it also come to mean "to fear", especially when the normal root for "fear" is PACHAD, as we will see when Ya'akov refers to his god as PACHAD YITSCHAK - פַחַד יִצְחָק - "Yitschak's fear", in Genesis 31:42? Or maybe it isn't "Yitschak's fear" at all, but "Yitschak's vision".
The answer is that the root of YIR'EH is YIR'E (ירא), and it does indeed mean "to fear", but it is an entirely different root from RA'AH (ראה), though both just happen to conjugate to YIR'EH, the former in the 3rd person singular of the future tense, the latter in the 3rd person singular of the present tense. These things happen (when the rain bows to the re-emerging sun, how do you pronounce "bow"?).
But still one more however: even if we accept the "to see" meaning, YHVH YIR'EH does not actually mean "in the place where YHVH is seen" (that would be NIR'AH, in the passive/Niphal), but "YHVH will see". What will he see? Proof of faith perhaps, or the blood of a sacrifice?
The inference of these latter verses seems to be that the naming of the place is the more important reason for the tale, that rather than the Akeda. Given the significance of the Second Temple in defining the religion that will become Judaism, and in uniting the newly established people of Yehudah, this need to determine the status and significance of Mor-Yah or Mori-Yah is hardly surprising, and I am going to suggest that, on this occasion, the confusion within the text may well be entirely deliberate, allowing all three (if we include the Gesenius speculation, then all four) "traditional" understandings of the name, and both of its spellings, in order to make every tribal and cultic participant in the new land feel valued (imagine finding a text, provably written by Muhammad, in which he stated that he wanted both Abu Bakr and Ali to succeed him, that he regarded them as equals, but was appointing Abu Bakr first, purely because he was the older, and might not live long enough to succeed if Ali was appointed first: how would that have impacted, and impact now, on the history of the world!)
22:15: VA YIKRA MAL'ACH YHVH EL AV-RAHAM SHENIT MIN HA SHEMAYIM
KJ: And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
BN: And an angel of YHVH called to Av-Raham a second time out of the heavens.
Again the definite article is missing. The first time it hardly mattered; this time it feels like a grammatical error. On the other hand, as it is coming out of the heavens in the form of a faceless voice, might we not read it much more accurately as "a message" and not an angel at all, summoning him over the celestial loud-speaker system, so to speak?
22:16: VA YOMER BI NISHBA'TI NE'UM YHVH, KI YA'AN ASHER ASITA ET HA DEVAR HA ZEH VE LO CHASACHTA ET BINCHA ET YECHIDCHA
KJ: And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
BN: And said, "This is my oath, says YHVH, that because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son...
Presumably there is a Mor-Yah (Elohim and/or Ha Elohim) version and a YHVH Yireh version, in the way that there are so often both Elohim and YHVH versions.
BI NISHBA'TI (בי נשבעתי): yet another covenant? Also note that the word is again from the root Shev'a (שבע), the number seven - which adds the nice irony of a god swearing an oath in his own name.
In Exodus 32:13 Mosheh makes specific reference to this oath in pleading for Yisra-El.
I am also interested in a theological distinction (I know the BibleNet is a non-faith work, and therefore avoids theological questions, but sometimes they arise, and I am only asking - I leave it to the folks of faith to provide an answer). It appears that sometimes YHVH YOR'EH - the deity sees what is happening in the world, and responds. But sometimes YHVH SHOME'A - the deity hears (hundreds of examples, I have randomly picked Numbers 14:28), and responds. Neither of these are responses to humans approaching the deity, but merely the deity being aware of human words, actions, thoughts. So why is the deity sobriqueted as YHVH YIR'EH, but not also sobriqueted as YHVH SHOME'A?
When it comes to the time of the Prophets, we will hear repeatedly the statement that neither Elohim nor YHVH really wants these sacrifices; what they want is human obedience (1 Samuel 15:22 is the earliest, click here for several more, though still not the full list). This at a time when sacrifices both human and animal were the norm, and the sacrifices provided permission to eat, and were therefore an act of obedience in themselves, to the god-given rules of Shechitah, so the statement is paradoxical. Nonetheless, this set of verses are the source text for the Prophets.
22:17: KI VARECH AVARECHECHA VE HARBAH ARBEH ET ZAR'ACHA KE CHOCHVEY HA SHAMAYIM VE CHA CHOL ASHER AL SEPHAT HA YAM VE YIRASH ZAR'ACHA ET SHA'AR OYEVAV
KJ: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
BN: "That with a blessing I will bless you, and it will be that I will multiply the number of your descendants until they are as many as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the sea-shore; and your descendants shall possess the gates of their enemies.
HARBAH ARBEH: A phrase we have encountered several times before, starting with Chavah at the end of the Eden episode (Genesis 3:16). See my notes there.
Is this then a fourth covenant? a fifth even? Unstated as such, formally, but the deity is swearing an oath, and Av-Raham is sacrificing a ram, just as he did for his treaty with Avi-Melech. Yet again the covenant is connected to fertility, because this was the ancient religion, pre-Judaism, or perhaps we should call it proto-Judaism; or Yahwism. The ritual of the sacrifice is clearly part of the covenant ceremony, regardless of whether Yitschak was or was not actually sacrificed.
The notion of multiplication has, of course, a deeply ironic edge to it, especially in this massively over-populated world which has more people alive at this moment in which you are reading than the total number of human beings who have ever occupied the planet through all the millions of years before this moment; and primed to double again before the century ends. But amidst that proliferation, which still doesn't equate to the number of grains of sand on Tel Aviv beach, let alone all the other sandy places of the world, amidst this, the number of Jews in the world at any one time has never, at any point of history, been more than a maximum of about 14 million people, including the whole of the Diaspora - about the same size (click here) as South Sudan or Somalia! There are even cities - Jakarta, Delhi and Mumbai for example, several in China - which have more people than there are Jews in the entire world; and then Mexico City, New York, Sao Paolo, several others (click here), way more! And Tokyo... How do you execute the grand ambitions of the International Zionist Conspiracy with such small numbers? It's Key Stage 2 maths: one percent of one billion is 10 million, so 14 million must be 1.4%; but there are 6.5 billion, so divide 1.4% by 6.5 - and then leave out the guys sitting in the yeshiva studying all day, leave out the wives who are at home ironing their sheitls, leave out the children and the senior citizens, leave out the ones who are only culturally Jew-ish... that leaves, Benjamin Netanyahu for sure, and about twelve others, one of whom is probably playing Judas... plus... an absolute maximum of 0.215384615% of the world population, and of course that proportion will reduce by half when the world population doubles but the Jewish numbers remain constant... today, Golders Green and Brooklyn, tomorrow... probably still just Golders Green and Brooklyn, you really don't have to worry that the day of the fulfilling of the divine plan is at hand. Not the "evil takeover of all of capitalism" part anyway; maybe in the words of the next verse - though you should feel free to boycott the blessing if you are that way inclined.
22:18: VE HIT'BARACHU VE ZAR'ACHA KOL GOYEY HA ARETS EKEV ASHER SHAMA'TA BE KOLI
KJ: And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
BN: "And through your descendants all the nations of the Earth shall be blessed; because you have listened to my voice."
EKEV (עקב): the sentence is straightforward in every way except this word. The root will give us YA'AKOV (Jacob - יעקב), whose name means "the heel" (cf Genesis 25:26), but it also gives us "the limping god", the original "partridge dance", which was part of the ritual immolation of the newly anointed sacred king in the pre-Mosaic Pesach - one of the earliest known forms of the Fisher-King, though both Achilles with his sacred heel, Oedipus with his swollen foot, and the geisha'ed emperors of Japan may well be even earlier. Its use here as a conjunctive preposition, translatable as "because" but really meaning "in consequence of", is a very late development of the root; we might say, using a similar idiom, that something "came on the heels of..."
The root is also used in Isaiah 40:4, alongside references to sacred hills and mountains, and probably means "rugged": VE HAYAH HE AKOV LE MISHOR, וְהָיָה הֶעָקֹב לְמִישׁוֹר, though translations tend to prefer the idea of the crooked being made straight. Note that the blessing echoes the original covenantal blessing with Av-Ram, though this tale is attributed to Av-Raham. Note that the change of Ya'akov's name to Yisra-El, at Penu-El, will also come in the form of a blessing.
22:19: VA YASHAV AV-RAHAM EL NE'ARAV VA YAKUMU VA YELCHU YACHDAV EL BE'ER SHAVA VA YESHEV AV-RAHAM BI VE'ER SHAVA
KJ: So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.
BN: So Av-Raham returned to his young men, and they rose up and went together to Be'er Shava; and Av-Raham dwelt at Be'er Shava.
Note that it is called Be'er Shava again, not Be'er Sheva, a pointing that definitely emphasises the oath over the number seven - for which see the notes to Genesis 21 verses 14, 24 and 31-33.
It does seem as if practically all the stories set in Be'er Sheva omit Sarah altogether; as though there is one Av-Raham at Chevron and another in the desert; or is it simply that she is sedentary at Chevron, and he in his nomadic state goes south? She appears to have Yitschak at Be'er Sheva, and the Phiychol sister-wife story takes place there; but both of these are questionable anyway. Or is this too a reflection that there was an Av-Ram and also an Av-Raham?
What the text does not say, and omissions are often more interesting than inclusions, is what Sarah thought of all this. I once raised the question at a seminar on the poetry of A.B Yehoshua, when a distinguished Israeli literary professoress was expounding on the subject, and was silenced by a universal "but Sarah was already dead". I said nothing at the time, though I was sure they were wrong, and went home and checked. We are certainly not told that she was dead; all we can say is that she is not mentioned in the story, and that the next occasion on which she is mentioned is the announcement of her death. However, she is aged 127 when that happens, so unless she was considerably older than her husband, who was 100 when Isaac was born, and even if Isaac was 13 at the time of the Akeda, then she cannot have been more than 113, and her death therefore some 14 years further on. I wonder if the traditional view, that she was dead, was simply a convenient way of dealing, or rather not dealing, with the grotesque inferences of this for a mother: "so where have you and your dad been all day?" "Oh, dad took me up a mountain to sacrifice me as a burnt offering; but it's alright, a messenger of YHVH showed him a ram and we sacrificed that instead. Here, we've barbecued one of its shoulders for supper." I suspect Sarah might not have much of an appetite for it.
Plus, there are in fact Midrashim on the direct impact of the Akeda on Sarah's death, so clearly some of the Rabbis believe she was still alive. Midrash Leviticus Rabba on Genesis 23:1-2, for example. Leviticus Rabba is one of the oldest Midrashic works, thought to have been composed in the land of Israel in the fifth century CE, the very epoch when this Tanach was being compiled It is one of the great Midrashim-as-folktale and well worth the trouble; read it by clicking here.
Pey break here; the story of the Akeda ends here, but there is a Maphtir, which seems like it ought to belong at the beginning of chapter 24, when Av-Raham sends Eli-Ezer to find a wife for Yitschak...
22:20: VA YEHI ACHAREY HA DEVARIM HA ELEH VA YUGAD LE AV-RAHAM LEMOR HINEY YALDAH MILKAH GAM HI BANIM LE NACHOR ACHICHA
KJ: And it came to pass after these things, that it was told Abraham, saying, Behold, Milcah, she hath also born children unto thy brother Nahor;
BN: And it came to pass after these things, that it was told to Av-Raham saying, "Behold, Milkah, she too has born children to your brother Nachor.
Even Hertz treats these verses as a link added for convenience of the next tale.
Why was it told to Av-Raham - who by??? - cf Genesis 12:27/32 in which Nachor and Milkah are left behind in Ur Kasdim when Terach takes Av-Ram, Lot and Sarai on the journey to Charan - yet we are to learn later (Genesis 24:10) that his homeland is Aram Naharayim and not Ur Kasdim; so clearly they either weren't left behind, or they managed to come on later. And indeed the Mishnah places them firmly in Charan itself.
22:21: ET UTS BECHORO VE ET BUZ ACHIV VE ET KEMU-EL AVI ARAM
KJ: Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram,
BN: "Uts his first-born, and Buz his brother, and Kemu-El the father of Aram...
Told by whom? This is narrative technique rather than angelic information; some carpet-seller or sheep's-wool dealer, no doubt, stopped at the caravanserai overnight, chatting with Abe... I say this, not to be sarcastic, but to point out how the text of the Tanach constantly shifts its tone, from law-book to prayer-book, from history-book to parish magazine, from cosmic tale to local gossip. How else do you capture the universal?
Twelve sons in all, just like Ya'akov and Yishma-El, just as some Midrashim give Av-Raham 12 (1 with Hagar, 1 with Sarah, 6 with Keturah; unclear who mothers the other four). One for each of the gods and goddesses of the TSEVA'OT, the "host" or constellations of the heavens.
And note that root-word again, appearing as MILKAH (מלכה) now, but the same as AVI-MELECH (אבימלך) and others. MILKAH is the queen of heaven, Delilah to the sun-god's Shimshon (Samson), Ishtar to his Marduk.
UTS (עוץ) - Uz in most English renditions (I have no idea where the King James got HUZ from): means "soft and sandy earth"; probably the Ausitae, who inhabited the northern fringes of the Arabian desert, between Kena'an, Edom and Perat (the Euphrates) according to Gesenius, or further north towards Charan - which makes more sense - according to Sale. Iyov came from there (Job 1:1); Jeremiah 25:20 and Lamentations 4:21 mention it, the former however associating it with the Pelishtim, the latter hinting strongly that it was an Edomite demesne; see also Genesis 10:23, where the sons of Aram are recorded as Uts, Chul, Geter and Mash, and 36:28, where Uts and Aran are the sons of Dishan. All of which tells us - and in truth we knew this anyway - that names recur across time and space; so it is entirely possible that both Gesenius and Sale are correct, and that the several men and tribes named Uts are entirely unconnected, or connected in the way that English colonists in Canada named their town London, and French colonists further south chose Orleans for theirs. This understanding adds a further level of complexity to our reading of the Tanach (were there multiple Av-Rahams, multiple Sarahs? probably there were).
BUZ (בוז): again a figure out of Iyov (Job 32:2), he is from Arabia Deserta in Jeremiah 25:23; see also 1 Chronicles 5:14. The word means "contempt" - or probably came to mean "contempt", from the statement in Yirme-Yahu (Jeremiah). BUZI (בוזי) was the father of Yechezke-El (Ezekiel) according to a parenthesis in Ezekiel 1:1.
KEMU-EL (קמואל): "congregation of God". See also Numbers 34:24 and 1 Chronicles 27:17.
ARAM (ארם): whence Aramaic - cf Padan Aram. Avi-Aram for Av-Raham is worth a thought.
22:22: VE ET KESED VE ET CHAZO VE ET PILDASH VE ET YIDLAPH VE ET BETU-EL
KJ: And Chesed, and Hazo, and Pildash, and Jidlaph, and Bethuel.
BN: "And Kesed and Chazo and Pildash and Yidlaph and Betu-El.
KESED is Chaldea, and the Jewish translators are perfectly aware of it, but prefer to pretend they don't know, in order to avoid the difficult issues.
CHAZO (חזו): the meaning of this name is unclear. It could be rooted from CHAZAH (חזה) = "to see", "behold" in the sense of prophetic sight; this would make sense as we know that CHAZAH is a root of Chaldean origin (see Daniel 3:19; 5:5; 5:23; and others; also Ezra 4:14). If correct then CHAZO (חזו) might be an alternative word for NAVI (נָבִיא).
PILDASH (פלדש): the four-letter root is not of Yehudit origin; even Gesenius cannot offer anything on this one.
YIDLAPH (ידלף): = "weeping", from DALAPH (דלף) = "to drip, shed tears, weep". Again a word of Chaldean origin; Esther 9:7 mentions one Dalphon, a son of Haman. A connection to Greek Delphi cannot be ignored.
All of these Chaldean names must make us ask: did they come with Av-Raham, or with Ezra?
BETU-EL (בתואל): this name stands out from the rest; where they are all Chaldean, this is from much further north, at the source not the mouth of the great river. It is also an El-name, like Kemu-El. How does it get to be with the others? Presumably through making Av-Raham reach Kena'an from Chaldea via Padan Aram. Earlier genealogies have given similar names, worth comparing, of which Metusha-El (מתושאל) is the closest.
BETU-EL is the father of Lavan and Rivkah (Laban and Rebecca), which is why he is being mentioned here now; prefiguration is the technical name, and it is a technique that we find throughout the Tanach. BETU-EL is also the name of a town in the tribal territory of Shim'on (Simeon) - see 1 Chronicles 4:30 . However the reference in Joshua 19:4 suggests this may have been BETUL (בתול) rather than BETU-EL (בְתוּאֵ֥ל). If it were Betu-El, it would probably be a variation of Beit-El (Bethel), which is to say a wider hint at the existence of a baetylos or dolmen. It certainly makes for an interesting family group, having the ithyphallic icon of the deity as the father, the queen of heaven as the mother, the white moon for the son, and the new crescent moon for the daughter, thereby completing the mythological pantheon, of which we have already seen the roles played by Av-Ram and Sarai and Lot.
22:23: U VETU-EL YALAD ET RIVKAH SHEMONAH ELEH YALDAH MILKAH LE NACHOR ACHI AV-RAHAM
KJ: And Bethuel begat Rebekah: these eight Milcah did bear to Nahor, Abraham's brother.
BN: And Betu-El begot Rivkah; these eight Milkah bore to Nachor, Av-Raham's brother.
RIVKAH (רבקה): this is Yitschak's bride-to-be, called in English Rebecca.
22:24: U PHILAGSHO U SHMAH RE'UMAH VA TELED GAM HI ET TEVACH VE ET GACHAM VE ET TACHASH VE ET MA'ACHAH
KJ: And his concubine, whose name was Reumah, she bare also Tebah, and Gaham, and Thahash, and Maachah.
BN: And his concubine, whose name was Re'umah, she also bore Tevach, and Gacham, and Tachash, and Ma'achah.
Making the obligatory twelve.
RE'UMAH (ראומה): see my earlier notes on RE'U (Genesis 11:18), and later in connection with Re'u-Ven as well as here; Gesenius has much to say on the subject. The name is understood to mean "exalted".
TEVACH (טבח): the root means "to kill", as in slaughtering for food; whence the modern MITBACH - מטבח - for "a kitchen". However it is mostly used for killing men, whence TABACH (טבח) = "executioner" and the SAR HA TABACHIM (שר הטבחים) in the Yoseph tale is not the chief cook but the royal executioner, or at the very least the captain of the guard which carried out any executions - cf Genesis 37:36 ff. Proof of this translation can be found in RAV TABACHIM (רב טבחים) in 2 Kings 25:8 as well as Jeremiah 39:9 and 52:15. Daniel 2:14 uses the same word, but in Chaldean (רַב טַבָּחַיָּ֖א).
GACHAM (גחם): means "a flame" and is used, as in Arabic, to mean "a person with flaming eyes". Possibly an equivalent of the Nordic Loge, or Loki.
TACHASH (תחש): not a Yehudit word, or at least no other known word comes from this root. It appears in Exodus 25:5 and 26:14, 35:23 and 39:34; also Numbers 4:6 and 4:25; also Ezekiel 16:10; on all occasions suggesting skins of some sort. The Talmud treats it as a weasel (Tractate Shabbat 2:28 ff); Arabic has TACHASH for the dolphin, but both the seal and the badger have also been suggested.
MA'ACHAH (מעכה): Joshua 13:13 names it as a town and a region near the foot of Mount Chermon, near Geshur in Syria. Several men bear the name, in 1 Kings 2:39 and 1 Chronicles 11:43 and 27:16; though the name MA'OCH (מעוך) is also used. Here it is not clear whether a man or woman is intended. Rechav-Am's (Rehoboam's) wife was named Ma'achah (מעכה). The name means "oppression", which is as odd a thing to call a child as any other of these characters being named here.
Pey break; end of chapter 22; end of scroll
22:14: VA YIKRA AV-RAHAM SHEM HA MAKOM HA HU YHVH YIR'EH ASHER YE'AMER HA YOM BE HAR YHVH YERA'EH
וַיִּקְרָא אַבְרָהָם שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא יְהוָה יִרְאֶה אֲשֶׁר יֵאָמֵר הַיּוֹם בְּהַר יְהוָה יֵרָאֶה
KJ: And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
BN: And Av-Raham gave the place the name YHVH Yir'eh; as it is said to this day: "In the mountain where YHVH is seen."
Is there a distinction being made between the name of the place where the shrine now stands, as opposed to the hill itself, which was named previously? The inference of this verse is aetiological: that the tale exists to explain why that place has that name.
But again: where is it? By Ezra's time "the mountain where YHVH is seen", or possibly "the mountain of the fear of YHVH", was unquestionably Mount Mor-Yah in Yeru-Shala'im, the site of the First and Second Temples; but the evidence of these verses is that cannot have been that. Despite the claim here that this was the name already in common usage, there is no other usage of it anywhere in the Tanach.
Can we read the line as confirmation that YHVH was a mountain-god all along? See my commentaries on this throughout the Book of Shemot (Exodus), where it seems even more certain, and that the mountain in question was not only Chorev (Horeb), including the part which was the volcano that exploded over the Cities of the Plain, but that Chorev was in Midyan, east of the Dead Sea, and not in the Sinai desert at all.
YER'E ELOHIM, יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים (verse 12); YHVH YIREH, יְהוָה יִרְאֶה (verse 14). The root of YIR'EH is RA'AH (ראה), and it means "to see". How then can it also come to mean "to fear", especially when the normal root for "fear" is PACHAD, as we will see when Ya'akov refers to his god as PACHAD YITSCHAK - פַחַד יִצְחָק - "Yitschak's fear", in Genesis 31:42? Or maybe it isn't "Yitschak's fear" at all, but "Yitschak's vision".
The answer is that the root of YIR'EH is YIR'E (ירא), and it does indeed mean "to fear", but it is an entirely different root from RA'AH (ראה), though both just happen to conjugate to YIR'EH, the former in the 3rd person singular of the future tense, the latter in the 3rd person singular of the present tense. These things happen (when the rain bows to the re-emerging sun, how do you pronounce "bow"?).
But still one more however: even if we accept the "to see" meaning, YHVH YIR'EH does not actually mean "in the place where YHVH is seen" (that would be NIR'AH, in the passive/Niphal), but "YHVH will see". What will he see? Proof of faith perhaps, or the blood of a sacrifice?
The inference of these latter verses seems to be that the naming of the place is the more important reason for the tale, that rather than the Akeda. Given the significance of the Second Temple in defining the religion that will become Judaism, and in uniting the newly established people of Yehudah, this need to determine the status and significance of Mor-Yah or Mori-Yah is hardly surprising, and I am going to suggest that, on this occasion, the confusion within the text may well be entirely deliberate, allowing all three (if we include the Gesenius speculation, then all four) "traditional" understandings of the name, and both of its spellings, in order to make every tribal and cultic participant in the new land feel valued (imagine finding a text, provably written by Muhammad, in which he stated that he wanted both Abu Bakr and Ali to succeed him, that he regarded them as equals, but was appointing Abu Bakr first, purely because he was the older, and might not live long enough to succeed if Ali was appointed first: how would that have impacted, and impact now, on the history of the world!)
22:15: VA YIKRA MAL'ACH YHVH EL AV-RAHAM SHENIT MIN HA SHEMAYIM
וַיִּקְרָא מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה אֶל אַבְרָהָם שֵׁנִית מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם
KJ: And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
BN: And an angel of YHVH called to Av-Raham a second time out of the heavens.
Again the definite article is missing. The first time it hardly mattered; this time it feels like a grammatical error. On the other hand, as it is coming out of the heavens in the form of a faceless voice, might we not read it much more accurately as "a message" and not an angel at all, summoning him over the celestial loud-speaker system, so to speak?
22:16: VA YOMER BI NISHBA'TI NE'UM YHVH, KI YA'AN ASHER ASITA ET HA DEVAR HA ZEH VE LO CHASACHTA ET BINCHA ET YECHIDCHA
וַיֹּאמֶר בִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי נְאֻם יְהוָה כִּי יַעַן אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶת יְחִידֶךָ
KJ: And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
BN: And said, "This is my oath, says YHVH, that because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son...
Presumably there is a Mor-Yah (Elohim and/or Ha Elohim) version and a YHVH Yireh version, in the way that there are so often both Elohim and YHVH versions.
BI NISHBA'TI (בי נשבעתי): yet another covenant? Also note that the word is again from the root Shev'a (שבע), the number seven - which adds the nice irony of a god swearing an oath in his own name.
In Exodus 32:13 Mosheh makes specific reference to this oath in pleading for Yisra-El.
I am also interested in a theological distinction (I know the BibleNet is a non-faith work, and therefore avoids theological questions, but sometimes they arise, and I am only asking - I leave it to the folks of faith to provide an answer). It appears that sometimes YHVH YOR'EH - the deity sees what is happening in the world, and responds. But sometimes YHVH SHOME'A - the deity hears (hundreds of examples, I have randomly picked Numbers 14:28), and responds. Neither of these are responses to humans approaching the deity, but merely the deity being aware of human words, actions, thoughts. So why is the deity sobriqueted as YHVH YIR'EH, but not also sobriqueted as YHVH SHOME'A?
When it comes to the time of the Prophets, we will hear repeatedly the statement that neither Elohim nor YHVH really wants these sacrifices; what they want is human obedience (1 Samuel 15:22 is the earliest, click here for several more, though still not the full list). This at a time when sacrifices both human and animal were the norm, and the sacrifices provided permission to eat, and were therefore an act of obedience in themselves, to the god-given rules of Shechitah, so the statement is paradoxical. Nonetheless, this set of verses are the source text for the Prophets.
22:17: KI VARECH AVARECHECHA VE HARBAH ARBEH ET ZAR'ACHA KE CHOCHVEY HA SHAMAYIM VE CHA CHOL ASHER AL SEPHAT HA YAM VE YIRASH ZAR'ACHA ET SHA'AR OYEVAV
כִּי בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ וְהַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם וְכַחוֹל אֲשֶׁר עַל שְׂפַת הַיָּם וְיִרַשׁ זַרְעֲךָ אֵת שַׁעַר אֹיְבָיו
KJ: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
BN: "That with a blessing I will bless you, and it will be that I will multiply the number of your descendants until they are as many as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the sea-shore; and your descendants shall possess the gates of their enemies.
HARBAH ARBEH: A phrase we have encountered several times before, starting with Chavah at the end of the Eden episode (Genesis 3:16). See my notes there.
Is this then a fourth covenant? a fifth even? Unstated as such, formally, but the deity is swearing an oath, and Av-Raham is sacrificing a ram, just as he did for his treaty with Avi-Melech. Yet again the covenant is connected to fertility, because this was the ancient religion, pre-Judaism, or perhaps we should call it proto-Judaism; or Yahwism. The ritual of the sacrifice is clearly part of the covenant ceremony, regardless of whether Yitschak was or was not actually sacrificed.
The notion of multiplication has, of course, a deeply ironic edge to it, especially in this massively over-populated world which has more people alive at this moment in which you are reading than the total number of human beings who have ever occupied the planet through all the millions of years before this moment; and primed to double again before the century ends. But amidst that proliferation, which still doesn't equate to the number of grains of sand on Tel Aviv beach, let alone all the other sandy places of the world, amidst this, the number of Jews in the world at any one time has never, at any point of history, been more than a maximum of about 14 million people, including the whole of the Diaspora - about the same size (click here) as South Sudan or Somalia! There are even cities - Jakarta, Delhi and Mumbai for example, several in China - which have more people than there are Jews in the entire world; and then Mexico City, New York, Sao Paolo, several others (click here), way more! And Tokyo... How do you execute the grand ambitions of the International Zionist Conspiracy with such small numbers? It's Key Stage 2 maths: one percent of one billion is 10 million, so 14 million must be 1.4%; but there are 6.5 billion, so divide 1.4% by 6.5 - and then leave out the guys sitting in the yeshiva studying all day, leave out the wives who are at home ironing their sheitls, leave out the children and the senior citizens, leave out the ones who are only culturally Jew-ish... that leaves, Benjamin Netanyahu for sure, and about twelve others, one of whom is probably playing Judas... plus... an absolute maximum of 0.215384615% of the world population, and of course that proportion will reduce by half when the world population doubles but the Jewish numbers remain constant... today, Golders Green and Brooklyn, tomorrow... probably still just Golders Green and Brooklyn, you really don't have to worry that the day of the fulfilling of the divine plan is at hand. Not the "evil takeover of all of capitalism" part anyway; maybe in the words of the next verse - though you should feel free to boycott the blessing if you are that way inclined.
22:18: VE HIT'BARACHU VE ZAR'ACHA KOL GOYEY HA ARETS EKEV ASHER SHAMA'TA BE KOLI
וְהִתְבָּרֲכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ עֵקֶב אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקֹלִי
KJ: And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
BN: "And through your descendants all the nations of the Earth shall be blessed; because you have listened to my voice."
EKEV (עקב): the sentence is straightforward in every way except this word. The root will give us YA'AKOV (Jacob - יעקב), whose name means "the heel" (cf Genesis 25:26), but it also gives us "the limping god", the original "partridge dance", which was part of the ritual immolation of the newly anointed sacred king in the pre-Mosaic Pesach - one of the earliest known forms of the Fisher-King, though both Achilles with his sacred heel, Oedipus with his swollen foot, and the geisha'ed emperors of Japan may well be even earlier. Its use here as a conjunctive preposition, translatable as "because" but really meaning "in consequence of", is a very late development of the root; we might say, using a similar idiom, that something "came on the heels of..."
The root is also used in Isaiah 40:4, alongside references to sacred hills and mountains, and probably means "rugged": VE HAYAH HE AKOV LE MISHOR, וְהָיָה הֶעָקֹב לְמִישׁוֹר, though translations tend to prefer the idea of the crooked being made straight. Note that the blessing echoes the original covenantal blessing with Av-Ram, though this tale is attributed to Av-Raham. Note that the change of Ya'akov's name to Yisra-El, at Penu-El, will also come in the form of a blessing.
22:19: VA YASHAV AV-RAHAM EL NE'ARAV VA YAKUMU VA YELCHU YACHDAV EL BE'ER SHAVA VA YESHEV AV-RAHAM BI VE'ER SHAVA
וַיָּשָׁב אַבְרָהָם אֶל נְעָרָיו וַיָּקֻמוּ וַיֵּלְכוּ יַחְדָּו אֶל בְּאֵר שָׁבַע וַיֵּשֶׁב אַבְרָהָם בִּבְאֵר שָׁבַע
KJ: So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.
BN: So Av-Raham returned to his young men, and they rose up and went together to Be'er Shava; and Av-Raham dwelt at Be'er Shava.
Note that it is called Be'er Shava again, not Be'er Sheva, a pointing that definitely emphasises the oath over the number seven - for which see the notes to Genesis 21 verses 14, 24 and 31-33.
It does seem as if practically all the stories set in Be'er Sheva omit Sarah altogether; as though there is one Av-Raham at Chevron and another in the desert; or is it simply that she is sedentary at Chevron, and he in his nomadic state goes south? She appears to have Yitschak at Be'er Sheva, and the Phiychol sister-wife story takes place there; but both of these are questionable anyway. Or is this too a reflection that there was an Av-Ram and also an Av-Raham?
What the text does not say, and omissions are often more interesting than inclusions, is what Sarah thought of all this. I once raised the question at a seminar on the poetry of A.B Yehoshua, when a distinguished Israeli literary professoress was expounding on the subject, and was silenced by a universal "but Sarah was already dead". I said nothing at the time, though I was sure they were wrong, and went home and checked. We are certainly not told that she was dead; all we can say is that she is not mentioned in the story, and that the next occasion on which she is mentioned is the announcement of her death. However, she is aged 127 when that happens, so unless she was considerably older than her husband, who was 100 when Isaac was born, and even if Isaac was 13 at the time of the Akeda, then she cannot have been more than 113, and her death therefore some 14 years further on. I wonder if the traditional view, that she was dead, was simply a convenient way of dealing, or rather not dealing, with the grotesque inferences of this for a mother: "so where have you and your dad been all day?" "Oh, dad took me up a mountain to sacrifice me as a burnt offering; but it's alright, a messenger of YHVH showed him a ram and we sacrificed that instead. Here, we've barbecued one of its shoulders for supper." I suspect Sarah might not have much of an appetite for it.
Plus, there are in fact Midrashim on the direct impact of the Akeda on Sarah's death, so clearly some of the Rabbis believe she was still alive. Midrash Leviticus Rabba on Genesis 23:1-2, for example. Leviticus Rabba is one of the oldest Midrashic works, thought to have been composed in the land of Israel in the fifth century CE, the very epoch when this Tanach was being compiled It is one of the great Midrashim-as-folktale and well worth the trouble; read it by clicking here.
Pey break here; the story of the Akeda ends here, but there is a Maphtir, which seems like it ought to belong at the beginning of chapter 24, when Av-Raham sends Eli-Ezer to find a wife for Yitschak...
22:20: VA YEHI ACHAREY HA DEVARIM HA ELEH VA YUGAD LE AV-RAHAM LEMOR HINEY YALDAH MILKAH GAM HI BANIM LE NACHOR ACHICHA
וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיֻּגַּד לְאַבְרָהָם לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה יָלְדָה מִלְכָּה גַם הִוא בָּנִים לְנָחוֹר אָחִיךָ
KJ: And it came to pass after these things, that it was told Abraham, saying, Behold, Milcah, she hath also born children unto thy brother Nahor;
BN: And it came to pass after these things, that it was told to Av-Raham saying, "Behold, Milkah, she too has born children to your brother Nachor.
Even Hertz treats these verses as a link added for convenience of the next tale.
Why was it told to Av-Raham - who by??? - cf Genesis 12:27/32 in which Nachor and Milkah are left behind in Ur Kasdim when Terach takes Av-Ram, Lot and Sarai on the journey to Charan - yet we are to learn later (Genesis 24:10) that his homeland is Aram Naharayim and not Ur Kasdim; so clearly they either weren't left behind, or they managed to come on later. And indeed the Mishnah places them firmly in Charan itself.
22:21: ET UTS BECHORO VE ET BUZ ACHIV VE ET KEMU-EL AVI ARAM
אֶת עוּץ בְּכֹרוֹ וְאֶת בּוּז אָחִיו וְאֶת קְמוּאֵל אֲבִי אֲרָם
KJ: Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram,
BN: "Uts his first-born, and Buz his brother, and Kemu-El the father of Aram...
Told by whom? This is narrative technique rather than angelic information; some carpet-seller or sheep's-wool dealer, no doubt, stopped at the caravanserai overnight, chatting with Abe... I say this, not to be sarcastic, but to point out how the text of the Tanach constantly shifts its tone, from law-book to prayer-book, from history-book to parish magazine, from cosmic tale to local gossip. How else do you capture the universal?
Twelve sons in all, just like Ya'akov and Yishma-El, just as some Midrashim give Av-Raham 12 (1 with Hagar, 1 with Sarah, 6 with Keturah; unclear who mothers the other four). One for each of the gods and goddesses of the TSEVA'OT, the "host" or constellations of the heavens.
And note that root-word again, appearing as MILKAH (מלכה) now, but the same as AVI-MELECH (אבימלך) and others. MILKAH is the queen of heaven, Delilah to the sun-god's Shimshon (Samson), Ishtar to his Marduk.
UTS (עוץ) - Uz in most English renditions (I have no idea where the King James got HUZ from): means "soft and sandy earth"; probably the Ausitae, who inhabited the northern fringes of the Arabian desert, between Kena'an, Edom and Perat (the Euphrates) according to Gesenius, or further north towards Charan - which makes more sense - according to Sale. Iyov came from there (Job 1:1); Jeremiah 25:20 and Lamentations 4:21 mention it, the former however associating it with the Pelishtim, the latter hinting strongly that it was an Edomite demesne; see also Genesis 10:23, where the sons of Aram are recorded as Uts, Chul, Geter and Mash, and 36:28, where Uts and Aran are the sons of Dishan. All of which tells us - and in truth we knew this anyway - that names recur across time and space; so it is entirely possible that both Gesenius and Sale are correct, and that the several men and tribes named Uts are entirely unconnected, or connected in the way that English colonists in Canada named their town London, and French colonists further south chose Orleans for theirs. This understanding adds a further level of complexity to our reading of the Tanach (were there multiple Av-Rahams, multiple Sarahs? probably there were).
BUZ (בוז): again a figure out of Iyov (Job 32:2), he is from Arabia Deserta in Jeremiah 25:23; see also 1 Chronicles 5:14. The word means "contempt" - or probably came to mean "contempt", from the statement in Yirme-Yahu (Jeremiah). BUZI (בוזי) was the father of Yechezke-El (Ezekiel) according to a parenthesis in Ezekiel 1:1.
KEMU-EL (קמואל): "congregation of God". See also Numbers 34:24 and 1 Chronicles 27:17.
ARAM (ארם): whence Aramaic - cf Padan Aram. Avi-Aram for Av-Raham is worth a thought.
22:22: VE ET KESED VE ET CHAZO VE ET PILDASH VE ET YIDLAPH VE ET BETU-EL
וְאֶת כֶּשֶׂד וְאֶת חֲזוֹ וְאֶת פִּלְדָּשׁ וְאֶת יִדְלָף וְאֵת בְּתוּאֵל
KJ: And Chesed, and Hazo, and Pildash, and Jidlaph, and Bethuel.
BN: "And Kesed and Chazo and Pildash and Yidlaph and Betu-El.
KESED is Chaldea, and the Jewish translators are perfectly aware of it, but prefer to pretend they don't know, in order to avoid the difficult issues.
CHAZO (חזו): the meaning of this name is unclear. It could be rooted from CHAZAH (חזה) = "to see", "behold" in the sense of prophetic sight; this would make sense as we know that CHAZAH is a root of Chaldean origin (see Daniel 3:19; 5:5; 5:23; and others; also Ezra 4:14). If correct then CHAZO (חזו) might be an alternative word for NAVI (נָבִיא).
PILDASH (פלדש): the four-letter root is not of Yehudit origin; even Gesenius cannot offer anything on this one.
YIDLAPH (ידלף): = "weeping", from DALAPH (דלף) = "to drip, shed tears, weep". Again a word of Chaldean origin; Esther 9:7 mentions one Dalphon, a son of Haman. A connection to Greek Delphi cannot be ignored.
All of these Chaldean names must make us ask: did they come with Av-Raham, or with Ezra?
BETU-EL (בתואל): this name stands out from the rest; where they are all Chaldean, this is from much further north, at the source not the mouth of the great river. It is also an El-name, like Kemu-El. How does it get to be with the others? Presumably through making Av-Raham reach Kena'an from Chaldea via Padan Aram. Earlier genealogies have given similar names, worth comparing, of which Metusha-El (מתושאל) is the closest.
BETU-EL is the father of Lavan and Rivkah (Laban and Rebecca), which is why he is being mentioned here now; prefiguration is the technical name, and it is a technique that we find throughout the Tanach. BETU-EL is also the name of a town in the tribal territory of Shim'on (Simeon) - see 1 Chronicles 4:30 . However the reference in Joshua 19:4 suggests this may have been BETUL (בתול) rather than BETU-EL (בְתוּאֵ֥ל). If it were Betu-El, it would probably be a variation of Beit-El (Bethel), which is to say a wider hint at the existence of a baetylos or dolmen. It certainly makes for an interesting family group, having the ithyphallic icon of the deity as the father, the queen of heaven as the mother, the white moon for the son, and the new crescent moon for the daughter, thereby completing the mythological pantheon, of which we have already seen the roles played by Av-Ram and Sarai and Lot.
22:23: U VETU-EL YALAD ET RIVKAH SHEMONAH ELEH YALDAH MILKAH LE NACHOR ACHI AV-RAHAM
וּבְתוּאֵל יָלַד אֶת רִבְקָה שְׁמֹנָה אֵלֶּה יָלְדָה מִלְכָּה לְנָחוֹר אֲחִי אַבְרָהָם
KJ: And Bethuel begat Rebekah: these eight Milcah did bear to Nahor, Abraham's brother.
BN: And Betu-El begot Rivkah; these eight Milkah bore to Nachor, Av-Raham's brother.
RIVKAH (רבקה): this is Yitschak's bride-to-be, called in English Rebecca.
22:24: U PHILAGSHO U SHMAH RE'UMAH VA TELED GAM HI ET TEVACH VE ET GACHAM VE ET TACHASH VE ET MA'ACHAH
וּפִילַגְשׁוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ רְאוּמָה וַתֵּלֶד גַּם הִוא אֶת טֶבַח וְאֶת גַּחַם וְאֶת תַּחַשׁ וְאֶת מַעֲכָה
KJ: And his concubine, whose name was Reumah, she bare also Tebah, and Gaham, and Thahash, and Maachah.
BN: And his concubine, whose name was Re'umah, she also bore Tevach, and Gacham, and Tachash, and Ma'achah.
Making the obligatory twelve.
RE'UMAH (ראומה): see my earlier notes on RE'U (Genesis 11:18), and later in connection with Re'u-Ven as well as here; Gesenius has much to say on the subject. The name is understood to mean "exalted".
TEVACH (טבח): the root means "to kill", as in slaughtering for food; whence the modern MITBACH - מטבח - for "a kitchen". However it is mostly used for killing men, whence TABACH (טבח) = "executioner" and the SAR HA TABACHIM (שר הטבחים) in the Yoseph tale is not the chief cook but the royal executioner, or at the very least the captain of the guard which carried out any executions - cf Genesis 37:36 ff. Proof of this translation can be found in RAV TABACHIM (רב טבחים) in 2 Kings 25:8 as well as Jeremiah 39:9 and 52:15. Daniel 2:14 uses the same word, but in Chaldean (רַב טַבָּחַיָּ֖א).
GACHAM (גחם): means "a flame" and is used, as in Arabic, to mean "a person with flaming eyes". Possibly an equivalent of the Nordic Loge, or Loki.
TACHASH (תחש): not a Yehudit word, or at least no other known word comes from this root. It appears in Exodus 25:5 and 26:14, 35:23 and 39:34; also Numbers 4:6 and 4:25; also Ezekiel 16:10; on all occasions suggesting skins of some sort. The Talmud treats it as a weasel (Tractate Shabbat 2:28 ff); Arabic has TACHASH for the dolphin, but both the seal and the badger have also been suggested.
MA'ACHAH (מעכה): Joshua 13:13 names it as a town and a region near the foot of Mount Chermon, near Geshur in Syria. Several men bear the name, in 1 Kings 2:39 and 1 Chronicles 11:43 and 27:16; though the name MA'OCH (מעוך) is also used. Here it is not clear whether a man or woman is intended. Rechav-Am's (Rehoboam's) wife was named Ma'achah (מעכה). The name means "oppression", which is as odd a thing to call a child as any other of these characters being named here.
Pey break; end of chapter 22; end of scroll
Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment