The act עקד AQAD of Gen. 22:9

[Isaac Fried]

We read there: ויעקד את יצחק בנו וישם אתו על המזבח ממעל לעצים

The root עקד AQAD is a variant of the roots
אגד, אחד, שקד, סגד

This description of the עקדה AQEDAH seems to me illogical. Was the victim used to be slaughtered on the kindlings upon the altar? And what with all the outpouring blood? And, first of all, what drove Abraham to contemplate the heinous act of killing SARAH's son?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Isaac Fried:

You wrote: “And, first of all, what drove Abraham to contemplate the heinous act of killing SARAH's son?”

Abraham had several trials and tribulations in his life, which were necessary in part to show YHWH that Abraham was the ideal man strong enough to start the correct religion. Abraham’s two greatest trials and tribulations were (i) having to wait thirty 12-month years before siring a son by Sarah, and (ii) having to decide who his proper heir was as between his son Ishmael sired on behalf of Sarah, vs. his son Isaac literally sired by Sarah.

1. Abraham has a largely irrational fear that perhaps there was some small chance, perhaps 1 in a 100(?), that Isaac was not Abraham’s son, but rather the biological father might be Abimelek, since old Sarah had never gotten pregnant until she spent one night in Abimelek’s bedroom. In fact, Sarah was too old to incite any lust in Abimelek, and Abimelek wanted to sire a son as his proper heir by his own original main wife #1, rather than impregnating the wife-sister of a wandering prophet.

But if there was a 1 in a 100 chance that Isaac was not Abraham’s biological son, then YHWH could be telling Abraham to kill Sarah’s son (who was not Abraham’s son), in order that Abraham’s own son, Ishmael, could then be recalled from the wilderness and named Abraham’s sole heir. That is “what drove Abraham to contemplate the heinous act of killing SARAH's son”. Abraham knew that if in fact Isaac was Abraham’s biological son (which was highly likely), then YHWH would certainly rescind the initial divine order for Abraham to kill Isaac -- which of course is what happens.

2. People misunderstand YHWH’s motivation for doing this. It’s almost the opposite of what people think. YHWH knew that if YHWH provisionally ordered Abraham to kill Isaac, Abraham would follow that divine order, thinking that Isaac must not be Abraham’s biological son and that such was the (proper) basis for that divine order.
What YHWH wanted to find out, rather, was whether at the time Isaac was weaned, had Abraham decided that Isaac was more charming than Ishmael, so that Abraham now personally favored Isaac at that point over Ishmael, even though earlier Ishmael had been Abraham’s favorite son? That is, when Abraham followed Sarah’s order to exile Ishmael, had that been a heart-wrenching decision for Abraham to make, since firstborn son Ishmael was still Abraham’s favorite son even when he exiled him, or was it a rather easy decision, since Abraham now liked Isaac more than Ishmael anyway, and of course Isaac, unlike Ishmael, was Sarah’s blood son. T-h-a-t was what YHWH wanted to find out.

What bothers people is that Abraham seems over-eager to kill Isaac in chapter 22 of Genesis. Why doesn’t Abraham bargain with YHWH?!?!?!? Abraham had bargained with YHWH so that if there were even a few righteous men in Salem, then Sodom should not be destroyed. And Abraham had bargained with YHWH to try to get YHWH to accept Ishmael as Abraham’s proper heir. But when the chips are down regarding Isaac, there is no bargaining at all! No, Abraham simply proceeds to get ready to kill Isaac.

What people don’t like about Abraham’s attitude toward Isaac is, however, exactly what YHWH w-a-n-t-e-d to see. It confirmed that the decision to exile Ishmael in favor of Isaac had nothing to do with which son Abraham liked more, but rather had everything to do with which son should be selected as Abraham’s proper heir.
Isaac was not Abraham’s favorite son; Jacob was not Isaac’s favorite son; Judah was not Jacob’s favorite son; and Akhenaten was not Amenhotep III’s favorite son. But in all four cases, the early monotheist made the r-i-g-h-t decision for the r-i-g-h-t reason: name a younger son, whose birth mother was his father’s original main wife #1, as sole heir.

To us, (i) Abraham seems over-eager to kill Isaac, (ii) Isaac seems over-eager to let Esau’s ability to bag big game be the key to Esau being planned to be named by Isaac as Isaac’s main heir, and (iii) Jacob seems too smitten by statuesque Rachel’s beauty so that he gives her son Joseph the coat-of-many-colors, with Jacob being over-eager to name Joseph (Rachel’s firstborn son) as his heir apparent. But you see, that’s what YHWH w-a-n-t-e-d to see. That meant that when Abraham exiled Ishmael in favor of Isaac, Abraham was doing that for the right reasons, and that when Isaac chose Jacob over Esau (with Isaac knowing that Jacob was impersonating Esau), that Isaac did that for the right reasons, and that when Jacob named Judah to be the leading tribe of Israel (rather than either of Jacob’s two favorite sons, who were Rachel’s two sons, Joseph and Benjamin), that Jacob’s choice of who would be his heir was, for the third straight time, the right choice for the right reasons. Note that in all four cases (including Amenhotep III choosing non-favorite younger son Akhenaten [whose birth mother was the Queen of Egypt] as his sole heir), the early monotheist made the r-i-g-h-t decision for the r-i-g-h-t reason: name a younger son, whose birth mother was his father’s original main wife #1, as sole heir.

I know that people are uncomfortable with Abraham seeming over-eager to kill Isaac. But that is what YHWH w-a-n-t-e-d to see.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Mark Lightman]

ויעקד את יצחק בנו וישם אתו על המזבח ממעל לעצים

...what drove Abraham to contemplate the heinous act of killing SARAH's son?

אמונה(Heb 11:17) made him do it.

Roots pointing to the opposite state of עקד likely include עקר .

[Jim Stinehart]

Isaac Fried and Mark Lightman:

Before we ask Prof. Yigal Levin’s expert opinion, perhaps it would be helpful to survey what the leading lengthy studies of Genesis by today’s leading mainstream university scholars say specifically as to why Abraham pleads Ishmael’s case to YHWH in chapter 17 of Genesis and Sodom’s case to YHWH in chapter 18 of Genesis but never pleads Isaac’s case to YHWH in chapter 22 of Genesis, with Abraham thus appearing to be overly eager to kill Sarah’s only son:

1. Gordon Wenham, “World Biblical Commentary: Genesis” (1987, 1994), two volumes totaling 870 pages: Nothing.

2. E. A. Speiser, “The Anchor Bible Genesis” (1962), 378 pages: Nothing.

3. Robert Alter, “Genesis” (1996), 324 pages: Nothing.

4. Bruce K. Waltke, “Genesis: A Commentary” (2001), 656 pages: Nothing.

5. Gerhard von Rad, “Genesis” (1961), 440 pages: Nothing.

Do you guys see the scholarly pattern here?

Prof. Levin can s-a-y , repeatedly, that Jim is dead wrong in asserting that the Patriarchal narratives have pinpoint historical accuracy when viewed from the historical perspective of Year 13 in Late Amarna. But note what the mainstream scholarly community has published in its general reference books (which are very lengthy) on the specific topic of why Abraham pleads Ishmael’s case to YHWH in chapter 17 of Genesis and Sodom’s case to YHWH in chapter 18 of Genesis but never pleads Isaac’s case to YHWH in chapter 22 of Genesis, with Abraham thus appearing to be overly eager to kill Sarah’s only son:

N-o-t-h-i-n-g .

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

1. It is implied, though not expressly stated, that Abraham is awkward age 13 tenfold shanah (where shanah has, regarding stated ages of human beings in the Patriarchal narratives the archaic meaning of “turn of the year”, thus effectively signifying a 6-month “year”) at the awkward binding incident. If so, then Abraham is age 65 years in 12-month years. That makes Isaac age 15 years. So Isaac is really not a “boy” or a “child”, as often thought. In the ancient world, a 15-year-old male was an adult. Isaac, per his character, is naïve for his age.

The fact that Abraham is age 13 tenfold archaic shanah is intended to focus on the fact that the binding incident, like virtually everything else in the Patriarchal narratives, makes perfect sense in the historical context of Year 13 in Late Amarna, while making little sense in any other time period.

2. I hope everyone caught the gist of what Mark Lightman was saying. To put it in my own words, Mark Lightman is saying that outside of the Patriarchal narratives, this is what the rest of the Hebrew Bible has to say about the binding incident:

N-o-t-h-i-n-g .

3. In my previous post, I noted what the leading mainstream university scholars have to say about the notable fact that whereas Abraham bargains with YHWH for Ishmael and for the people of Sodom, Abraham nevertheless does not try to bargain with YHWH for Sarah’s only son Isaac:

N-o-t-h-i-n-g .

4. Are people starting to see the pattern? Outside of the historical context of Year 13 in Late Amarna, these Bible stories in the Patriarchal narratives make little sense. Yet virtually e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g in the Patriarchal narratives makes perfect sense in the context of Year 13. Including Abraham’s implied age of 13 tenfold archaic shanah at the binding incident.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Mark Lightman]

...I hope everyone caught the gist of what Mark Lightman was saying. To put it in my own words, Mark Lightman is saying that outside of the Patriarchal narratives, this is what the rest of the Hebrew Bible has to say about the binding incident:

N-o-t-h-i-n-g .

Hi, Jim.

The theology of the עֲקֵידָה is indeed found elsewhere in Tanak:

Job 13:15: הֵן יִקְטְלֵנִי לוֹ אֲיַחֵל

[Jim Stinehart]

Mark Lightman:

You wrote: “The theology of the עֲקֵידָה is indeed found elsewhere in Tanak:
Job 13:15: הֵן יִקְטְלֵנִי לוֹ אֲיַחֵל”

Here’s the KJV for Job 13: 15: “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him.”

But that is not focused on the binding incident in chapter 22 of Genesis in particular. Should Abraham kill Sarah’s only son if ordered to do so by YHWH? And since the text emphasizes that the binding incident is a test, w-h-y does YHWH provisionally order Abraham to kill Isaac? In particular, why doesn’t Abraham bargain with YHWH for Isaac’s life, since Abraham bargained with YHWH on Ishmael’s behalf in chapter 17 of Genesis, and on behalf of the people of Sodom in chapter 18 of Genesis? Job 13: 15 says nothing about that last question. Nor do any of the standard, lengthy scholarly treatments of Genesis. Why the overwhelming silence of the academic community as to that particular question?

As I have noted before, from the historical standpoint of Year 13 in Late Amarna, all four successions of monotheists make perfect historical sense and have the s-a-m-e essential characteristics. Isaac was not Abraham’s favorite son (firstborn son Ishmael was, as confirmed by the binding incident, where Abraham does not bargain for Isaac with YHWH); Jacob was not Isaac’s favorite son (firstborn twin son Esau was); Judah was not Jacob’s favorite son (Joseph was, and after him, Rachel’s other son, Benjamin); and Akhenaten was not Amenhotep III’s favorite son (firstborn son Tuthmosis was). But in all four cases, the early monotheist made the r-i-g-h-t decision for the r-i-g-h-t reasons: name a younger son who is not the father’s favorite son, whose birth mother was his father’s original main wife #1, as sole heir.

You see, in Year 13, there were v-e-r-y L-O-U-D whispers throughout Egypt that Egypt would have been much better off if Amenhotep III had picked one of his favorite, manly, playboy sons by one of his hundreds of harem wives as successor pharaoh, rather than religious zealot Akhenaten, who had both manifold family problems and great trouble handling a deteriorating foreign policy situation. In Year 13, Akhenaten would have loved to hear the Patriarchal narratives recited, and perhaps might then have even considered the first Hebrews’ fervent request for Akhenaten to remove evil Yapaxu as the new, hated ruler of the Ayalon Valley, where the first Hebrews were sojourning (the Patriarchs’ xa-bu-ru-u[n]-ne : XBRWN : “Hebron”, being the Hurrian word for “heaven” or “earth” or, less literally, “nirvana”; Genesis 13: 18; 14: 13 and 18: 1 all reference “Ayalon -- Mamre”, where the defective spelling of “Ayalon” is ’LN, which is then followed by yod/Y as a xireq compaginis dash/--).

To me, one of the reasons why the rest of the Hebrew Bible and university scholars say n-o-t-h-i-n-g as to why Abraham fails to bargain for Isaac is because the binding incident only makes good historical sense in the specific context of Year 13 of Late Amarna.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Isaac Fried]

True. עקר AQAR, 'tore away', is the opposite of עקד AQAD, 'held together'. The act עקד AQAD is also related to עקש AQA$, 'bend, deviate, turn around', as in Deut. 32:5. From this root we have also the מעקש MA-AQA$, 'curved', of Isaiah 42:16, and also the new useful Hebrew word עקשן AQ$-AN, 'stubborn, strong willed' unyielding, persevering, holding fast to his ideas'. The "suffix" -AN in this word is the personal pronoun אני ANIY, turning AQA$ into a personal attribute or characteristic, to a תואר.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Worth adding is the post-biblical עיקר IYQAR, 'core, gist, extract, essence, principle, important', originating possibly in Dan. 4:12(15).

Isaac Fried, Boston University