#Genesis 22:1-19

The (near-)sacrifice of Isaac.

I have three things to say about this famous story. Here’s the list in brief:

1. Biblically, it’s not a particularly important story at all.
2. In many versions, including KJV, there’s a mistake.
3. The promise is secondary.

1. This is one of those stories that’s so captured the imagination of its readers that it’s hard to imagine the story of Abraham without it. But almost everyone did. This story appears only in the E source, not in J or P. No one else in the Hebrew Bible even refers to it.

This isn’t surprising: the stories and traditions of Genesis in particular are mostly unknown elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. It’s just hard for us to remember because we’ve put so much stock in them. But the Israelites, evidently, did not.

This is a good rule for both faithful readers and critical scholars: the really high value we place on the stories in Genesis, however we do so, should be tempered by the recognition that individual episodes were often unknown and unimportant. *We* have given them value.

As far as I know, this story is mentioned in the Bible only in 4 Maccabees, in Hebrews 11, and in James 2. That ain’t much, for a story that has become so central in both Jewish and Christian interpretation. (And no one in the Bible says it’s about Jesus. That’s a later idea.)

2. When Abraham sees the ram, in 22:13, does your Bible say “he saw a ram behind him,” or “behind him was a ram,” or some such? The King James does - you know, the translation that some people think is divinely inspired and the text of which is infallible and perfect?

That’s because the KJV is translating from the Leningrad Codex, the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript of the Bible that we have. And the Leningrad Codex says clearly והנה-איל אחר, “and there was a ram behind.” Good job, King James! One small problem.

That...doesn’t make sense. A ram behind what? Hebrew and English are alike here: you can’t just say “behind” without saying what something is behind. “There was a ram behind?” That’s not Hebrew or English. So the translations add “him,” so the ram is behind him.

That’s...also weird. “He raised his eyes and saw a ram behind him?” Maybe he turned around and saw it, but usually you don’t lift your eyes and see stuff behind you. Okay, you get the picture: the word “behind” is weird here. And that’s because it’s not really there.

The Leningrad is the only Hebrew manuscript - the only one! - that has the word אחר there. Every other manuscript has אחד: “one ram” (as the Septuagint has), or, as most modern translations render it, just plain old “a ram.” That, of course, makes perfect sense.

It’s an easy mistake to make: it’s the interchange of the letters ד and ר - you don’t have to be a Hebrew expert to see how easily they can be mistaken for each other. But it is a mistake - a medieval typo. Which shouldn’t be a big deal (and is usually corrected).

But if you think that when you pick up a Bible, any Bible (but especially the KJV), and think you’re reading the infallible word of God, here, in the middle of this super famous story, is a reminder that the Bible we read is, whatever its origins, a human product. With typos.

3. Briefly: critical scholars have recognized for a loooong time that the second speech of the messenger in 22:15-18, the restatement of the ancestral promise, is a later addition to the text. It begins awkwardly (“a second time”), and the content is a mashup of other promises.

Why did someone feel the need to add it here? Two possible reasons. Maybe someone thought that Abraham came so close to eliminating the child through which the promise was to be maintained that he would require reassurance that the promise was still in effect.

Or maybe someone saw that throughout Genesis whenever God (or a messenger/manifestation thereof) appears to the ancestors a promise is delivered. So it would be weird to have the appearance here without the promise attached. Either way, it’s not original.

As a central text for both Judaism and Christianity, there’s obviously much more that could be said about it. I wanted to say these three things. Feel totally free to add any other questions or comments. Plenty more to be said.