Yes there have been numerous alternative theories Narkissis but these remain (and will remain as such unless more compelling evidence is found) minority views. Here's a review that reflects what I have to say is a consensus: Introduction to the Books of the OT: The Pentateuch
Abraham and Solomon, To Kill a Child as a Test
by VM44 27 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Narkissos
PP:
This text is from 1934!
Perhaps the "consensus," fwiw, is different according to countries (or language zones) though. Among French-speaking Bible scholars the page was really turned in the late 80s. For instance, the TOB (Traduction oecuménique de la Bible -- Ecumenical translation) was still teaching the classic JEDP pattern in its complete 1988 edition. A special revision of the introductions and footnotes for the Pentateuch had to be made in the early 00's because practically no OT professor would still endorse it. Here the current trend, counter-intuitive as it may seem, is "start with (the core of) Deuteronomy". Most of what is "before" in the canon actually comes later in time (including "J").
-
LittleToe
Isn't there potentially a continuous tension between Father (Elohim) and Son (YHWH) regarding sacrifice and intermediation, right down to the themes carried through in the "passion" narratives?
-
LDH
Ah yes it's true Jehoober loves a good smackdown. If you believe the Booble, (Bible) He let his own son get killed to make up for some crap that actually never involved him.
This is why I don't believe any of this malarkey. I don't need to waste my time on a blood thirsty, murdering "gawd".
Lisa
Protects Children Class
-
Narkissos
Ross
It's of course an attractive reading from a Christian standpoint .
To be more precise, the text actually has ha-'elohim (v. 1,3,9) for the request of sacrifice, but 'elohim on Abraham's lips (v. 8) and on Yhwh('s angel)'s lips (v. 12). In Biblical Hebrew, ha-'elohim means either "the gods" in a polytheistic perspective (which the extant text rules out by putting the verbs in the singular) or "the divine" as an abstraction -- pointing to the probable way 'elohim, plural, became a name for the only "God," by embodying or reuniting in him the once pluralistic "divine" (realm of gods and goddesses). So if there is some sense to describe Yhwh in the position of "Son" (after all he was a son of El in the polytheistic context, cf. Deuteronomy 32:8f), ha-'elohim implies a notion of "God" quite different from the Christian perspective of the one and simple "Father". But it's all the more interesting imo.
Let me add that, even if we should keep on treating the passage as "Elohistic," this would apply to v. 1-19 in their entirety (see for instance PP's link), and the popping in of Yhwh in v. 11 would remain a textual oddity that exegesis would have to deal with as meaningful.
-
peacefulpete
Yes that was the point, the two leading proponents of the 'no E theory' were refuted back in their day. That some still endorse their opinion is interesting but they hardly constitute a consensus. Here's a wiki article that mentions some of the alternative approaches but that R. Friedman represents a majority voice. Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
peacefulpete
Maybe your just one of those "radicals" narkissos
-
Narkissos
LOL. Well, I would not be a "radical" on this issue in Europe, but I see the consensus changes somewhere over the Atlantic...
-
TopHat
This is why I don't believe any of this malarkey. I don't need to waste my time on a blood thirsty, murdering "gawd".
Lisa
Well Lisa, and you shouldn't! That is your choice...God gave you a free will!
-
LittleToe
Didier:
I need to go back to the text, sometime. I was just throwing that piece of conjecture into the pot for the sake of assisting in your recent penchant for meandering conversations