Abraham failed the test.

[Ebionite]

Nothing original exists today, unless it's preserved in stone.

The original patterns of the movement of the planets exist today. It's from this that signs exist which assist in the interpretation of secondary artifacts like written records.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Because the more context you have about something the better the odds are that your interpretation of it will be useful.

The book of Jasher is not part of any religion's sacred texts. It is important to historians, but not really of value in any other way.

 

[Ebionite]

The book of Jasher is not part of any religion's sacred texts. It is important to historians, but not really of value in any other way.

The ad populum fallacy is the basis of all religious authority. If you want to find true religion then there's some work involved.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The ad populum fallacy is the basis of all religious authority. If you want to find true religion then there's some work involved.

It has nothing to do with how popular a text is. You are missing the point. The point is whether a text is considered sacred text for a group. Harry Potter is enormously popular, but isn't anyone's sacred text.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The point of the story was not that Abraham unquestioningly went along with the mores of his times and accepted as a legitimate and not particularly surprising request from God that he should sacrifice his own son, but rather the point was that Abraham stopped when God ordered him to do so. Not only did Abraham stop short, he learned, when God provided a ram in Isaac's place, that only non-human sacrifice was to be acceptable to this God that Abraham called his own above all the other gods that were acknowledged in the land where Abraham lived. It was a hard lesson, but a necessary one. It was a lesson that Abraham passed.

Back in 2008 I wrote: "The Akedah is a masterful folkloric narrative that served, not to condone human sacrifice, but to justify the transition away from it." [source]

I still prefer this interpretation, but it's but one of many, as this list demonstrates.

My other "preferred" take on the pericope is that noted in post #16. So, for example, Richard Elliott Friedman writes:

It is possible that in the old E story, Abraham actually carries out the sacrifice of Isaac. The evidence that vv. 11-14, in which the sacrifice is stopped, were added by RJE [the redactor of JE] is as follows: (1) This is an E text, referring to the deity as God (Elohim) in narration three times (vv. 1,3,9), but suddenly, as Abraham takes the knife in his hand, the text switches to am angel of YHWH. (2) Verses 11-15, which describe the angel's instructions to Abraham not to sacrifice his son after all, are enclosed in a resumptive repetition in which the angelcalls out two times. (3) Following this resumptive repetition, the angel (or God) says, "because you did this thing and didn't withhold your son." (4) The story concludes, "And Abraham went back to his boys." Isaac is not mentioned -- even though Abraham had told the boys, "Ww'll come back to you." (5) Isaac never again appears in E after this. (6) In the E story of a revelation at Mount Horeb in Exodus 24, there is a chain of eighteen parallels of language with this story of Isaac, but not one of those parallels comes solely from these verses (11-15). See the note on Exodus 24:1. (7) There is a group of midrashic sources that say that Isaac was in fact sacrificed.​

​

In light of these factors, it is possible that in the E story Abraham sacrifices Isaac, but that later this idea of a human sacrifice was repugnant, and so RJE added the lines in which Isaac is spared and a ram is substituted. It is not possible to say how the original E version accounted for the introduction of Jacob. Notably, though, it is in E (in the very next passage that is traced to E) that Abraham later has another wife, Ketura, and has more children. [source, pg. 65]​

I should add that both @Harel13 and @idea were kind enough to remind me of verse 25:9, this being part of an epilog, much of which Friedman assigns to the P source.

I rather like Richard Elliott Friedman.

His first book, "Who Wrote the Bible?", introduced me to the documentary hypothesis (DH), and his last, "The Exodus," was one of the more than interesting books on the subjject.​

Obviously, entertaining such theories requires accepting that the Torah is a human authored and redacted text, which I do. Still, I must admit that DH sometimes strikes me as a bit too malleable and convenient.

Perhaps my views on the Akedah will change when I encounter it again (twice) next year.

 

[Ebionite]

It has nothing to do with how popular a text is.

Ad populum is all about the opinion of the majority. Whether something is considered sacred or not is a matter of opinion, so the fallacy is relevant.

Harry Potter is enormously popular, but isn't anyone's sacred text.

Straw man. It's obviously entertainment, not religion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ad populum is all about the opinion of the majority. Whether something is considered sacred or not is a matter of opinion, so the fallacy is relevant.


Straw man. It's obviously entertainment, not religion.

The strawman here is that you are accusing me of ad populum when that is the furthest thing from the truth.

 

[Ebionite]

The strawman here is that you are accusing me of ad populum when that is the furthest thing from the truth.

It's true because religious belief is a form of opinion, ad populum is all about opinion, and you apparently have no other way of determining is something is sacred or not.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's true because religious belief is a form of opinion, ad populum is all about opinion, and you apparently have no other way of determining is something is sacred or not.

Every religious group has a right to decide for themselves which (if any) books will be their sacred texts. Do you dispute this?

 

[RabbiO]

AFAIK it's the original.

Actually, it is not, although labelling it an 18th century forgery, as did @nPeace , would not be exactly accurate either. The earliest known version of this is a printing in 1625 CE which means that if one considers this a forgery it would be a 17th century forgery. The actual date of composition, however, is uncertain. Dates as early as the 10th century CE, for st least parts of it, have been put forth.

 

[Ebionite]

Every religious group has a right to decide for themselves which (if any) books will be their sacred texts. Do you dispute this?

In the sense that every religious group has the right to believe whatever they like. What matters here is what the original meaning of qodesh (translated as holy or sacred) is.

 

[Ebionite]

Actually, it is not, although labelling it an 18th century forgery, as did @nPeace , would not be exactly accurate either. The earliest known version of this is a printing in 1625 CE which means that if one considers this a forgery it would be a 17th century forgery. The actual date of composition, however, is uncertain. Dates as early as the 10th century CE, for st least parts of it, have been put forth.

Do you know what the differences are between it and the earliest known version?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In the sense that every religious group has the right to believe whatever they like. What matters here is what the original meaning of qodesh (translated as holy or sacred) is.

So then it follows that if Jasher is not part of their collection of sacred texts, that they would have no reason to care what Jasher has to say. For example, Judaism has quite an extensive list of sacred texts -- the Tanakh, the Talmud, the writings of the sages... But Jasher is not included. So a religious Jew has no interest in what Jasher has to say about Abraham. Do we agree?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So then it follows that if Jasher is not part of their collection of sacred texts

Someone want to tell me why Jasher is being addressed?

 

[nPeace]

Actually, it is not, although labelling it an 18th century forgery, as did @nPeace , would not be exactly accurate either. The earliest known version of this is a printing in 1625 CE which means that if one considers this a forgery it would be a 17th century forgery. The actual date of composition, however, is uncertain. Dates as early as the 10th century CE, for st least parts of it, have been put forth.

I cry foul. No fair. You added 6 to my 12. Ma.

Since you can't be sure of the truthfulness of the contents, because 1) it's not an inspired book, 2) the oldest copy is perhaps 12th century A.D., 3) many forgeries containing spurious texts are claimed as authentic, it doesn't seem to be a good idea to use it as a source or reference of information on Biblical accounts... even if two of its reports match Bible accounts.

 

[idea]

The Orthodox Jews of my acquaintance, both lay and in the rabbinate, will be surprised to learn that they oppose Zionism. I will have to let them know. Slight sarcasm aside, there are groups within what is often referred to as ultra orthodoxy that are opposed to Zionism, but they represent only a segment within the Orthodox community,

I am curious why you believe that Christians originated Zionism.

Christian Zionism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Many Christians support Jews/Israel because they believe the second coming will happen in Israel, that God will fight for Jewish people again, and that the Jews will come to worship Jesus.

The state of Israel is viewed by many/most Christians as fulfilling Christian prophecies.... of course, Christians believe God (not Christians) will save the Jews - so they can watch from far away without getting their toes too muddy in what they established through ww1, ww2... they are bystanders for the most part, will pray - however far prayers go.

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/qanda-for-every-1-jewish-zionist-there-are-30-christian-zionists-and-netanyahu-exploits-this-15656249

30 to 1. Who is really driving the zionist movement?

 

[nPeace]

Do you know what the differences are between it and the earliest known version?

That would be not help.
What is significant, is this.
This is one of the apochrypal Books of Jasher. There are several (as many as five) separate works by this title, all composed much later than Biblical times.

Even if you compared what we have today, you still wouldn't be able to know what the original did not contain.

 

[Ebionite]

So then it follows that if Jasher is not part of their collection of sacred texts, that they would have no reason to care what Jasher has to say.

Of course, but that's not what matters since knowledge is more valuable than belief. That's why I brought up the ad populum fallacy.

 

[Ebionite]

That would be not help.

It could help by identifying a motive for any forgery. Without any known differences the obvious motive is to discredit a historical text which is doctrinally unacceptable. There's reason to think that this is the case with Jasher because of the relationship between Jasher, Job, the covenant of the land, and blood sacrifice. The connection between blood and the land goes back to Cain's murder of Abel, which relates to the star of Jacob via Seth.

And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, [and] were in the going down to Bethhoron, that YHWH cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: [they were] more which died with hailstones than [they] whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.
Then spake Joshua to YHWH in the day when YHWH delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Joshua 10:11-13

"signs in the heavens, stones as long distance weapons"

And David said unto him, Thy blood [be] upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the YHWH anointed.
And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son:
(Also he bade them teach the children of Judah [the use of] the bow: behold, [it is] written in the book of Jasher.)
2 Samuel 1:16-18

"death of a messiah, the bow as a long distance weapon"

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Of course, but that's not what matters since knowledge is more valuable than belief. That's why I brought up the ad populum fallacy.

What do you mean knowledge? Religious texts are not reliable sources of anything historical or scientific.