Difference between revisions of "Binding of Isaac"
(→The Literal Interpretation Is Immoral)
(→Isaac Would Be Traumatized For Life)
|Line 59:||Line 59:|
===Isaac Would Be Traumatized For Life===
===Isaac Would Be Traumatized For Life===
Interpretations of this story never seem to mention how Isaac feels about all this. Put yourself in his shoes: you're taking a long journey with your father carrying a heavy bundle of firewood on your back. Your father explains that the two of you are going to perform a sacrifice to your god, which you understand to mean an animal sacrifice. You ask your father, where is the animal? And he gives a
Interpretations of this story never seem to mention how Isaac feels about all this. Put yourself in his shoes: you're taking a long journey with your father carrying a heavy bundle of firewood on your back. Your father explains that the two of you are going to perform a sacrifice to your god, which you understand to mean an animal sacrifice. You ask your father, where is the animal? And he gives a answer about your god providing it. When you get to the site of the sacrifice, your father ties you down on the very same wood you trudged all this way, and raises a to your throat. At this point, you're freaking out at your clearlyinsane father, but, as luck would have it, your father hears a voice from the sky telling him it was all a ruse. He unties you, kills an animal instead, and then gives a fun name to the site of your -murder. Then you walk back home with him. Should you ask him, "what the hellman?" Should you alert the authorities? How well will you sleep knowing that he might try to murder you ?
===Yahweh's Reward Is Immoral===
===Yahweh's Reward Is Immoral===
Revision as of 15:14, 13 August 2019
The Binding of Isaac is the common name for a Hebrew story found in the Book of Genesis where the patriarch Abraham is commanded by Elohim to murder his son Isaac and burn his corpse as a human sacrifice to Elohim. Abraham unquestioningly accepts the order and prepares to murder his son, but, at the last minute, an angel of Yahweh tells Abraham to stop because he was merely being tested. Abraham then sacrifices a ram and is told that he will be rewarded for his obedience with a large number of offspring who will conquer their enemies.
- 1 Source
- 2 Dating
- 3 Interpretations
- 4 Historical Evidence
- 5 Criticisms
- 6 Adaptions
- 7 Links
The story appears in Genesis 22:1-19. The following is the New International Version translation:
Although the Book of Genesis, as we receive it today, was finalized around 400 BCE, portions of this story are probably much older. According to the documentary hypothesis, the bulk of Genesis was formed when the Elohist and Yahwist sources were merged together around 650 BCE, but the Elohist and Yahwist sources themselves are estimated to have been first formulated around 900 BCE and 750 BCE respectfully. Since the final story contains elements from both sources, and both sources describe a similar narrative, the story must predate unification making it at least as old at 700 BCE.
The interpretation of this story is different in each major Abrahamic religion, but the primary moral seems to be, obedience in the god of Abraham yields rewards.
The oldest commentary by Jewish authors states that Abraham knew he was merely being tested, and that he would never be expected to murder his son.
Early Christians accepted the Jewish interpretation, but later Christians adopted an interpretation where Abraham believed Isaac would be raised from the dead after he was murdered. The Christians I've spoken to about this topic (mostly American Evangelicals) have a more literal approach where Abraham had no idea it was a test, and believed he was about to murder his son.
The Quran has a significantly modified version of the story, where Abraham has a vision that he is to sacrifice his son, and his son willingly agrees to be sacrificed, but they are stopped at the last minute. Early Muslims couldn't agree which son Abraham was going to kill, but now predominately agree that it was Ishmael, not Isaac.
Other than the account in Genesis, there is no evidence that this story ever actually happened. There is no credible evidence that Abraham or Isaac existed and no credible evidence that the site mentioned in the story, Jehovah-jireh, ever existed. The Quran is not a secondary source, but rather a modification of the original which was written at least 1,000 years later.
The Jewish Interpretation Makes the Test Pointless
In the Jewish interpretation, which has no textual basis, Abraham is immediately aware that Elohim is testing him based on the fact that Abraham would recognize the demand for human sacrifice to be disingenuous based on his existing understanding of Elohim. This interpretation has two main problems.
The first is that it requires people trust their own understanding over a direct commandment from their god. However, a common theme in the Abrahamic faiths is that human reasoning is limited and cannot be trusted on matters of morality. Instead, people should always defer to their god to know what is right or wrong. However, this interpretation suggests that humans should not only use their reasonoing to know what's right, but they should place it above the will of their god.
The second problem is, if Abraham knew this was merely a test, then his obedience is pointless. Obedience only matters when you have to do something difficult. If you ordered a child to eat candy, you wouldn't praise their obedience because they wanted to eat the candy anyway. However, you might praise them for obediently brushing their teeth even when they didn't want to. Likewise, if an employee is ordered to do a difficult task, but their boss gives them a wink and a nod assuring them they won't actually have to do it, then the employee doesn't deserve to be rewarded; it was all pretend.
The Christian Interpretation Makes the Test Pointless
In the Christian interpretation, Abraham believes he will have to go through with murdering his son, but he believes Elohim will raise Isaac from the dead after he has been sacrificed. This interpretation also has no textual basis, and, much like the second problem with the Jewish interpretation, it renders the test pointless. Abraham is convinced that there are no real consequences to his actions, Isaac will be alive and well at the end of this, so obedience requires no effort on his behalf.
The Literal Interpretation Is Immoral
When you don't force your own beliefs into the story to make it seem less barbaric, and use a literal appraisal, the story is quite horrific. This is how most Evangelical Christians I've met interpret the story. As it is written, Elohim plainly commands Abraham to murder the son whom he loves without giving him any justification, and Abraham blindly carries out the order without any mention of argument or hesitation. This interpretation doesn't add anything to the story which isn't there and makes it a proper test of obedience. Since Abraham loves his son, he wouldn't want to murder him, and there is no mention that Abraham thinks the request is anything but genuine.
However, just because this is a proper test of obedience, it doesn't make it any less immoral. The adherents of Abrahamic religions view their god as all-good and all-powerful. It is conceivable that an all-good god could require a small amount of evil in order to construct an even greater good, but, if the god were also all-powerful, then it would be unnecessary, so this story falls prey to the problem of evil. If Abraham were aware that his god were both all-good and all-powerful, he would know that his god would never ask him to do anything immoral. Abraham should have instantly rebuked the order assuming it was coming from Satan. In fact, pretending to be Yahweh in order to convince a human to do something evil is precisely the sort of thing you would expect Satan would do.
Of course, these days, when people claim to hear a voice in their heads telling them to murder their children, even religious people agree they're mentally ill, and they certainly don't entertain the idea that those parents might actually be doing the bidding of Yahweh. Sadly, this story has been cited as justification for countless mentally ill parents who have committed infanticide, and will certainly be used as inspiration for countless more.
However, I do find that this story has an interesting use in modern discussions about morality. When religious people taut the importance of obedience to their god and the inability of humans to make moral judgments, this story helps to explain why their beliefs are internally inconsistent. If they truly practiced what they preached, they should always cheerfully accept any despicable command that their god makes (murder, rape, genocide, etc.), confident it is the perfectly moral thing to do.
Isaac Would Be Traumatized For Life
Interpretations of this story never seem to mention how Isaac feels about all this. Put yourself in his shoes: you're taking a long journey with your father carrying a heavy bundle of firewood on your back. Your father explains that the two of you are going to perform a sacrifice to your god, which you understand to mean an animal sacrifice. You ask your father, where is the animal? And he gives a less-than-forthright answer about your god providing it. When you get to the site of the sacrifice, your father ties you down on the very same wood you trudged all this way, and raises a blade to your throat. At this point, you're freaking out at your clearly-insane father, but, as luck would have it, your father hears a voice from the sky telling him it was all a ruse. He unties you, kills an animal instead, and then gives a fun name to the site of your would-be murder. Then you walk back home with him. Should you ask him, "what the hell, man?" Should you alert the authorities? How well will you sleep knowing that at any moment, he might try to murder you again?
Yahweh's Reward Is Immoral
Yahweh rewards Abraham's obedience with the gift of many offspring which are described as a blessing to the whole earth because they will "take possession of the cities of their enemies." And, we see later in the Torah precisely how Abraham's offspring "possess" these cities: through violent bloody genocide. Yahweh could have given Abraham's children the gift of persuasion and they might use cogent argument to convert these so-called "enemies" to the truth, or simply used his omnipotence to show everyone on earth the truth, but, instead, he chooses violent wars.
Inconsistencies With Other Scripture
The following details aspects of this story that are inconsistent with other scriptures.
Three times throughout the story Isaac is referred to as Abraham's "only" son, which is wrong. In the chronology of Genesis, before this story Abraham rapes his wife's slave, Hagar, and she gives birth to Ishmael who is Abraham's first son. Only much later in the narrative is Isaac, his second son, born. If Ishmael were dead, this statement could be true, but Genesis gives a time line for all the characters' lives, and Ishmael is still alive when Abraham prepares to sacrifice Isaac. The story could be rectified by saying Isaac was Abraham's only "legitimate" son, or the only son "he actually cared about," but, as Genesis is written, it's in error.
Yahweh rewards Abraham's obedience with countless offspring. However, he already did this back in Genesis 13:16. And then again in Genesis 15:5. And again still in Genesis 17:6. Each time Abraham is blessed with obscene proliferation, but for different reasons. The authors just couldn't seem to make up their minds.
All of the explanations for how to conduct a sacrifice and why sacrifices are necessary in the first place are not mentioned anywhere in the Torah until after the Hebrews leave Egypt with Moses in the Book of Exodus, which, in the chronology of the Torah, doesn't occur until long after Abraham is dead. This mean Abraham shouldn't even be able to understand what Elohim is asking for when he demands a human "sacrifice."
The placing of the story, like most of Genesis, is disjointed. There is no segue into or out of the story, it's simply tacked between Abraham's dispute with Abimelech and the lineage of Rebecca. This isn't so much a critique of story, but a critique of the inability of the Torah's authors to form a cohesive narrative.
The minor inconsistencies internal to the story add weight to the documentary hypothesis. The first half of the story uses the term God ("Elohim"), while the second half uses Lord ("Yahweh"). Also, in the Elohist portion, Elohim speaks directly to Abraham, while, in the Yahwist portion, an intermediary angel is used. Literary scholars also describe how each section uses a different writing style consistent with their other contributions.
This story also creates a theological inconsistency with many modern branches of Christianity who taut the importance of free will. To them, their god imbued all people with the freedom to make their own decisions. However, in this story, reward comes, not from exercising free will, but from blindly obeying commands.
Throughout the scripture of Jews and Christians, a common theme is that Yahweh cannot be tested (Deuteronomy 6:16, Matthew 4:7, among many others), however, in this story, Yahweh is testing Abraham. This shows an all-too-common problem with tyrants: the masses have to abide by the law, but the despot does not.
The vast majority of artists who have painted the Binding of Isaac have taken artistic liberties. Most of them show an angel physically stopping Abraham from murdering Isaac just as he's under the knife, but the actual story states the angel spoke to Abraham from heaven. Also, many art pieces show Isaac on a large cut-stone altar, but the story implies the sacrifice was to take place in a mountain wilderness with firewood as the altar. Some depictions show the angel pointing toward the ram indicating Abraham should sacrifice it instead, but, in the story, Abraham sacrifices the ram without any prompting. Caravaggio's famous painting appears to be guilty of all three of these inaccuracies.
In season 3, episode 6 of That Mitchell and Webb Look the comedic duo depict Abraham and Isaac as all-too eager to fulfill Yahweh's command for sacrifice, even to the point where they shock Yahweh. The skit satirizes the flaw in so many religious doctrines: if humans are incapable of figuring out morality on their own, a god's commands must be seen as the most perfectly moral thing to do, no matter how evil they may seem to us, and we should cheerfully carry them out.
The video game The Binding of Isaac uses this story as inspiration. In the game, Isaac's mother has a mental illness where she believes she hears the voice of her god telling her to murder her son. She prepares to do so, so Isaac hides from her in the basement.
- blasphemersbible.com/Index.php?Id=255 - Blasphemer's Bible (comics 255-263).