Ed. note: Here is a discussion on the hj list relating to the story of Abraham and the requested sacrifice of Isaac. Rabbi Robert Barr's midrash on the Binding of Isaac was read at HJ (Greater Portland, OR) during Rosh Hashanah services. Alternate midrashes were also given (by Norm Rickles, Ruth Katon and Muriel Adler) in 1995. The publishing of the alternates on the list set off the following discussion. The alternate versions starts us off. Posts included here by: Mike Goldhamer (for Norm Rickles, Muriel Adler and Ruth Katon) Bob Klemow Mike Prival Hershl Hartman Adam Chalom Louis Friedlander Bert Rothschild Judith Seid Robert D. Wolfe ....................................................................... From goldhamr@teleport.comSat Oct 28 09:46:46 1995 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 20:06:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "M. Michael Goldhamer" To: hj@teleport.com Subject: A midrash At the Rosh Hashana service of the Humanistic Jews of Greater Portland, Mike Goldhamer read Rabbi Robert Barr's humanistic version of the Binding of Isaac, and some members were asked to present their reactions. Norm Rickles was moved to compose and read yet another version, which follows: ISAAC ON THE ALTAR "Avram, are you hearing that voice again? The one that calls itself God--is He telling you to do this terrible thing?" Avram/Abraham looked around the desolate hillside--who was speaking to him? No! It couldn't be--the words seemed to come from that black ram, standing amidst the extra firewood branches for the newly-made altar. Its gaze seemed to penetrate deep into Avram/Abraham's soul. Meanwhile, Isaac, bound onto the altar firewood, wondered why his father was playing this silly game--pretending that he was to be the sacrifice. Then, when Abbah picked up the knife and turned toward him with that strange, not-father stare, Isaac understood and froze in fear...Oh, why had Daddy suddenly stopped and why was he standing so still? He heard his father speak--could it be?--to that black ram. "Who are you, and how dare you challenge my carrying out the Lord's commands?" "I but reflect that hidden part of you that is still Avram--before that voice told you to change your name to Abraham, and later, to do this terrible thing. I am bouncing back to you the Avram part of you that can still think clearly whenever the cloud lifts a little and the voice is muted. Then your true self asks, 'Why am I doing this thing?' That true voice is the voice of Avram; the other speaks to Abraham. Why did you change your name, Avram? And why did you destroy the idols in your father Terah's house--even though the rest of your family revered their gods? And why did you quit your father's house in Ur to go to this place?" continued the black ram, looking at Avram searchingly. Avram/Abraham regarded the ram thoughtfully and responded, "Because God has commanded me to do these things. And yes, it's true that once in a while I wonder why, and sometimes I even question why. But when I hear his voice again, I tremble and am sore afraid for my wicked thoughts. The ram's eyes opened wide in understanding. "Think, Avram, when you hear the voice, does anyone around you hear it too?" "No, come to think of it, no one hears Him but me, and He tells me that it is because He has chosen me to be the father of a great people, through Isaac, my son--a people as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sands on the shores. And He tells me that I and my family will prosper and live off the fat of this land of Canaan, but only if I obey His commands. Then I shake with fear and hasten to do His bidding. Sometimes, after His voice has left me, I am confused and, in my perplexity, I think of myself as Avram. Then I weep over leaving my family in Ur that I loved." "And what are you thinking now, Avram, as you gaze at your beloved son Isaac, bound on the altar, and you with a knife in your hand? If you sacrifice him because that voice told you to, what then of the earlier voice that promised a great people from you and the seed of Isaac, your son? Which voice should you listen to--a voice that commands you to kill the son you love more than life itself, or the true voice of Avram which pleads you to release him and thus preserve the sanctity of life? Which voice, Avram?" During this whole exchange, lasting only seconds, Isaac lay frozen in terror at the sight of his father, transfixed, holding the sacrificial knife in his upraised hand. Avram/Abraham trembled and swayed, first toward, then away from the altar, his fevered eyes turning once to the heavens, next to his son, and then back to the clear-eyed ram. Avram/Abraham read the message in the ram's eyes--"Release your son and put me on the altar--and all will be well with you. Even after this day you will dispute any voice that commands unjust acts, and your life will be filled with righteousness." In a frenzy, Avram cut Isaac's bonds, took him tenderly from the altar, then easily lifted the ram, now incomprehensively light, from the adjacent branches onto the altar firewood. With grim determination, he brought a glowing coal toward the altar and, as he was about to set it afire, the ram shimmered brightly and vanished. With the bright shimmering of the ram's radiance, the clouds lifted from Avram, and his mind was clear and his heart was full of joy. ....................................................................... From goldhamr@teleport.comSat Oct 28 09:46:47 1995 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 17:37:57 -0700 (PDT) From: "M. Michael Goldhamer" To: Humanistic Judaism Subject: Another response to the Binding of Isaac Ruth Katon and Muriel Adler also composed and read a reaction to this midrash at the Rosh Hashana service of Humanistic Jews of Greater Portland. They alternated reading paragraphs, Ruth read Sarah's lines and Muriel read Abraham's. SARAH'S RESPONSE When we remember the story of the binding of Isaac, we often forget one of the principal characters; Sarah, wife of Abraham and mother of Isaac. As so often happens in the Bible, the woman's relationship to events is largely ignored. The Bible, as we know it, is a book written by men for men and for their male heirs. That fact sparks our feminine curiousity and directs us to ask some questions. For instance, where was Sarah when Abraham took Isaac by the hand and led him to Mt. Moriah? Did he tell her about his intentions? How did she learn about the threat to her son's life? And how did she react to the news? A legend grew up around the binding of Isaac regarding Sarah's reaction because someone must have wondered about it. Someone--perhaps a group of women meeting at the well--must have thought it peculiar that Sarah, the mother of Isaac, who laughed with joy at his birth and whose laughter became his name, is not even mentioned in the biblical account of the binding of Isaac. And so the legend goes, when Sarah was told, she went to a field and died of extreme grief. Let's ask some questions to help us discover meaning for women today. Why was Abraham willing to murder his beloved child? For the sake of an abstract principle, a "higher" good, to cement his bond, his relationship to God, an unseen, unknowable, abstract object of fear demanding total obedience. What of Sarah? Born of woman, inferior to men in power and status, her value as a human being measured solely by her ability to reproduce male children, Sarah was socially conditioned to make moral decisions on the basis of empathy, nurturance, her connection, her relationship to another human being, not to an abstract principle. In our service, we read a humanistic version of the old story in which Abraham faces his own conscience. Let's put a new feminist twist on the story and see what happens. In this version, Sarah takes a servant and climbs to the top of Mount Moriah to see for herself what is happening. LISTEN TO A CONVERSATION BETWEEN SARAH AND ABRAHAM; SARAH: My husband, what are you doing with our son, Isaac? ABRAHAM; Sarah, go back down the mountain, go into the tent and prepare a festive meal to celebrate the biggest event in the history of our family. SARAH; But why do I see the rope, the gleam of the knife, and the wood, and yet I do not see a sacrifice? ABRAHAM; Sarah, Sarah, you're such a nag. Just like the time I took Hagar to be my second wife and the mother of Ishmael. Nag, nag, nag. You never understood that God commands us to bring male children into the world for His glory. So what can a moral leader do but obey the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Almighty? SARAH; Oh, Abraham, I know I am but an ignorant woman. After all, when God sent His messengers to announce that I, Sarah, would bear a male child at the age of almost 100 after being barren all my life, I laughed and even said that anyone else who heard such a ridiculous story would laugh too. I certainly didn't understand the power and glory of the Almighty then. ABRAHAM; OK Sarah, since you admit your ignorance, I won't keep my mission a secret from you. Today I will fulfill a commandment from God that I make a burnt offering of our son, Isaac as a sacrifice to the Exalted, to Him that has created the universe and all of its creatures. SARAH; BIST DU MESHUGAH? ARE YOU CRAZY? NEVER! OVER MY DEAD BODY! ABRAHAM; See, I knew you wouldn't understand. Sarah, Sarah, don't you realize that there is no nobler act than obedience to the Lord? Don't you understand that no sacrifice is too great for the honor of being the founder of monotheism, the patriarch of a great nation chosen by God as his very favorite, let alone the promise of a nice piece of property over there in Canaan? SARAH; Who are you to say that your relationship with this abstract God is more important than your son whom you cherish and love? You are obeying God out of fear instead of protecting your son out of love! Abraham drops the knife at her feet. Sarah picks up the knife, cuts the rope, and sets Isaac free. In our fable of Sarah, she is unwilling to tolerate killing and violence. TODAY THE MORAL FORCE OF WOMEN LIVES IN THE GROWING INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S PEACE MOVEMENT. IN THE LATE 1980'S, ISRAELI WOMEN DRESSED IN BLACK STAGED A SILENT VIGIL IN JERUSALEM PROTESTING THE OCCUPATION. BY THE GULF WAR THERE WERE 30 VIGILS ALL OVER ISRAEL. IN DECEMBER 1994, A WOMEN IN BLACK CONFERENCE IN ISRAEL DREW 300 WOMEN FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD. DURING A 1992 CIVIL WAR IN MOLDAVA, WOMEN ON BOTH SIDES PERSUADED POLITICIANS TO STOP THE FIGHTING. A WOMAN MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT SAID; "OUR SONS, OUR HUSBANDS, OUR BROTHERS WERE THE SOLDIERS SO WE HAD TO DO SOMETHING TO PRESERVE THEIR LIVES." FIFTEEN WOMEN'S PEACE GROUPS SHOWED UP AT A PREPARATORY MEETING FOR THE BEIJING CONFERENCE FROM WAR-RAVAGED AFRICAN COUNTRIES SUCH AS SUDAN, LIBERIA, MALI, SOMALIA. AFTER 18 YEARS, THE MOTHERS OF THE PLAZA DE MAYO ARE STILL MARCHING TO DEMAND INFORMATION ABOUT THE FATE OF THEIR "DISAPPEARED" CHILDREN UNDER THE MILITARY REGIME IN ARGENTINA. THE WOMEN OF CHECHNYA ARE TAKING THE WAR INTO THEIR OWN HANDS BY PULLING THEIR SONS FROM THE FRONT LINES. THEY MARCHED ONTO ARMY BASES AND DEMANDED THAT THEIR SONS BE RELEASED, AND SEVERAL ARMY COMMANDERS ALLOWED THE SOLDIERS TO LEAVE WITH THEIR MOTHERS. These are inspirational examples of women becoming actively involved in the peace process and because of their primal connection to children and family, they are able to put aside territorial, political, philosophical, and even theological differences. Among our hope for the New Year is that the feminist-humanist conscience that is emerging will help maintain and promote peace in trouble spots throughout the world. ....................................................................... Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 22:36:08 EST From: Bob Klemow To: goldhamr@teleport.com Subject: Re: Another response to the Binding of Isaac Hi, I've often felt that the story of the binding of Isaac explains many things, 1) Why Jews were so often the chosen people, ( chosen for suffering.) 2) Why many good God Fearing people in all generations have suffered. If the Binding of Isaac was a test, (contrary to the view of most sages and most Jews, Christians and Muslims,) Abraham failed miserably. If God really wanted Abraham to kill his son, rather than tell him where to go, he's not my kind of deity. My deity wanted Abraham to act like a father. He failed. We all suffer. I don't think I would have liked the man. ....................................................................... From goldhamr@teleport.comSat Oct 28 09:46:47 1995 Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 13:51:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "M. Michael Goldhamer" To: Humanistic Judaism Subject: Sarah and the Binding of Isaac (fwd) Mike Prival of Macharm, the Washinton DC affiliate of SHJ, sent a thoughtful response to the recent "midrashim" on The Binding of Isaac by members of the Humanistic Jews of Greater Portland used in our Rosh Hashanah service. I'm sure he won't mind if the whole list shares it. Mike Goldhamer goldhamr@teleport.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with Teleport Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-14400, N81) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 04:36:20 -0400 From: MPrival@aol.com To: goldhamr@teleport.com Subject: Sarah and the Binding of Isaac Thanks for forwarding to me the notes that have been posted concerning the binding of Isaac. You mentioned that they originated with a discussion of Rabbi Robert Barr's version of the story, which you offered to mail to me. I already have this version; it was published in the Summer 1986 issue of our journal, "Humanistic Judaism." The question of Sarah's role in the story of the binding of Isaac was discussed in the note posted on October 2. The problem of where Sarah was has been answered in the past in many different ways. The rabbis had their own midrashim about this. First, they said that Abraham could not bring himself to tell Sarah what he was planning to do, because he was afraid the she would thwart his plan if he told her. On the other hand, he was afraid that Sarah would die of grief if he took Isaac away without telling her. (I guess he never bothered to think through how she would react when he brought Isaac home dead). So instead he asked her to prepare a big banquet, during which he told her that he was taking Isaac away to a school nearby where he could become educated in God's commandments. (The rabbis had this silly habit of projecting the existence of rabbinic-style study of Torah back to the time of the Patriarchs, many centuries before the first rabbis, and also centuries before the time when Moses, according to the Bible stories, first brought the commandments of the Torah to the Israelites). According to this midrash, Sarah reluctantly agreed to let Isaac go off to school with Abraham, and she gave Abraham detailed instructions on how to take care of Isaac. The rabbis also had a midrash relating Sarah's death to the Akeda (the Binding of Isaac). According to this story, Satan (appearing as an old man) visited Sarah while Abraham and Isaac were away and he told her that Abraham had sacrificed Isaac. Sarah cried out in bitterness, but then consoled herself with the belief that Isaac had carried out the commandment of God. Later on, Satan returned and told Sarah that Isaac, in fact, was still alive. Her joyous reaction was so violent that her soul went out of her through joy, and this is how she died. (What do you make of that?) These rabbinic legends fill in blanks left in the Biblical texts. This, I believe, is what a midrash is. Rabbi Barr's version of the Akeda and other versions of what transpired between Abraham and Isaac are not, in my way of thinking, midrashim because they actually change the Bible story itself rather than just adding to the narrative. My own view is that Rabbi Wine is correct when he says that we should not sanitize or modernize the Bible stories themselves, but rather we should learn to appreciate them as they are for what they are. The Creation story was meant to state that the Creation happened in 6 days, not in 6 cosmological epochs. Similarly, Abraham fully intended to kill Isaac until he was stopped from doing so by an angel sent Yahveh. This is what the writers, and almost all readers until the past century or two, literally believed to be true. We should accept this and try to understand what it says about the people who wrote and believed this story. If we change it, we are not interpreting the Bible but are, rather, writing a new Bible, the way Muhammad rewrote Bible stories in the Koran. My favorite version of the akeda is the Woody Allen version. (Whatever any of us may think of his personal life, he's still pretty funny). We have used it in Washington (along with Rabbi Barr's version) with great effect at Rosh Hashana. It involves Sarah as a principal character and truly expresses a Humanistic outlook. ---------------------------------------- WOODY ALLEN'S VERSION OF THE BINDING OF ISAAC And Abraham awoke in the middle of the night and said to his only son, Isaac, "I have had a dream where the voice of the Lord sayeth that I must sacrifice my only son, so put your pants on." And Isaac trembled and said, "So what did you say? I mean when He brought this whole thing up?" "What am I going to say?" Abraham said. "I'm standing there at two a.m. in my underwear with the Creator of the Universe. Should I argue?" "Well, did he say why he wants me sacrificed?" Isaac asked his father. But Abraham said, "The faithful do not question. Now let's go because I have a heavy day tomorrow." And Sarah who heard Abraham's plan grew vexed and said, "How doth thou know it was the Lord and not, say, thy friend who loveth practical jokes." And Abraham answered, "Because I know it was the Lord. It was a deep, resonant voice, well modulated, and nobody in the desert can get a rumble in it like that." And Sarah said, "And thou art willing to carry out this senseless act?" But Abraham told her, "Frankly yes, for to question the Lord's word is one of the worst things a person can do, particularly with the economy in the state it's in." And so he took Isaac to a certain place and prepared to sacrifice him but at the last minute the Lord stayed Abraham's hand and said, "How could thou doest such a thing?" And Abraham said, "But thou said--" "Never mind what I said," the Lord spake. "Doth thou listen to every crazy idea that comes thy way?" And Abraham grew ashamed. "Er--not really ... no." "I jokingly suggested thou sacrifice Isaac and thou immediately runs out to do it." And Abraham fell to his knees, "See, I never know when you're kidding." And the Lord thundered, "No sense of humor. I can't believe it." "But doth this not prove I love thee, that I was willing to donate mine only son on thy whim?" And the Lord said, "It proves that some men will follow any order no matter how asinine as long as it comes from a resonant, well-modulated voice." And with that, the Lord bid Abraham get some rest and check with him tomorrow. --------------------------------------------- Mike Prival ....................................................................... From Hershl@aol.comSat Oct 28 09:46:47 1995 Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 18:03:47 -0400 From: Hershl@aol.com To: hj@teleport.com Subject: Isaac, Sarah, Midrashim and Facts While not wanting to intrude on the interesting creativity reflected in the various midrashim recently shared, I've nevertheless been waiting for someone to shed the light of scientific biblical criticism on the _akeda_ (binding) of Isaac in Genesis, chap. 22. According to Richard Elliot Friedman (_Who Wrote the Bible_, Summit Books, NY, 1987, pp. 256-7), the story is another case of CONFLICTING stories woven together from the disparate strands of the Elohim god(s) (E) and those of the Yave cult (Y). Friedman notes that the first part of the story, in which god demands the sacrifice of Isaac and Abraham complies, refers to the god by the plural name, Elohim (usually rendered "God" in English translations). The verses that record the sparing of Isaac come from a wholly different source in which the name of the god is Yave ("LORD," in English versions). In the E version, Isaac is NOT saved. In fact, the story ends with the words, "And ABRAHAM returned to his servants." No mention of Isaac. In the E version, there is no further reference to Isaac. Friedman notes that there is a midrashic tradition that Isaac actually had been sacrificed. Apparently, some early rabbinic commentators read the biblical tales with sharper eyes than some current readers. Nothing wrong with fanciful midrashim in secular and humanistic Jewish circles. However, I prefer that they be based on, and _informed_ by, a secular understanding of the bible and its development, rather than a reverent (or even irreverent) acceptance of its "facts." That, it seems to me, is the signal contribution that secular and humanistic Jews can and should make to the development of Jewish culture. Hershl Hartman ....................................................................... From adam.chalom@yale.eduSat Oct 28 09:46:47 1995 Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 18:16:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Adam Chalom To: Hershl@aol.com Cc: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: Isaac, Sarah, Midrashim and Facts Hello. I just wanted to comment on one thing Hershel said. I wanted to first thank him for explaining the documentary basis for the Akeda, but then he wrote: > Nothing wrong with fanciful midrashim in secular and humanistic Jewish > circles. However, I prefer that they be based on, and _informed_ by, a > secular understanding of the bible and its development, rather than a > reverent (or even irreverent) acceptance of its "facts." That, it seems to > me, is the signal contribution that secular and humanistic Jews can and > should make to the development of Jewish culture. The discussion of "midrash" in secular circles I think is not based on a "reverent acceptance of the facts" but rather looks at the story as _literature_. Of course the development of a piece of literature is important, but the form in which it was experienced by non-scholarly Jews for centuries was in that of a complete story. The messages we glean from the story should be affected by a) what we know about the story's genesis (sorry about the pun) but alsbo by b) the content of the story as received. What S & HJ Jews can contribute to Jewish culture is both this historical/documentary approach but also a literary examination that is not bound by religious strictures but rather can lead to humanistic messages (eg defiance of an unjust God). But thanks again, Hershl, for your contribution. ....................................................................... From Lfridhan@aol.comSat Oct 28 09:46:49 1995 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 14:24:13 -0400 From: Lfridhan@aol.com To: hj@teleport.com Subject: Still more on the binding of Isaac The _Akeda_, the binding of Isaac by Abraham for sacrifice as a burnt offering (holocaust in Middle English), is a most troubling story. There have been many comments and _takes_ posted here. As Hershl Hartman points out, the bible is pieced together from various sources. The pieces are often at odds. For example, the two stories of creation in Genesis are incompatible. The editors were not stupid, so I think this reflects the pluralism that has infused the Jewish traditions for many, many years. Now about Abraham preparing to kill his son for God: This is my _take_. How can a Jew come to terms with killing for Judaism? Judaism is a religion of life, _this_ life! I've heard learned people touch on this problem. One simply said, _I don't like this story._ Another claimed he saw clues in the text that showed Abraham didn't really mean it, that he never intended to kill Isaac. I can not see those clues. I suggest that the story does not belong in the bible. I suggest it's an awkward compromise between those editors who wanted it in, and those who did not. The negotiations may have been intractable, and now we are stuck with trying to understand it. The story does not fit with other clues suggesting the hospitable, humane character of Abraham. Wasn't it Abraham who was appalled by the notion that the righteous as well as the evil inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah would be destroyed by God? With ultimate khutspe, but elegantly, masterfully, he argued against God. Abraham, the humanist, faces down God and makes Him adhere to His own principles, though in a compromised fashion. That biblical passage comes before the binding of Isaac. It makes no sense that Abraham is first the sophisticated, heroic humanist, then later regresses into meekly obeying a command to practice primitivehuman sacrifice. It makes no sense. Louis Fridhandler ....................................................................... From adam.chalom@yale.eduSat Oct 28 09:46:49 1995 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 16:00:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Adam Chalom To: Lfridhan@aol.com Cc: Humanistic Judaism Subject: Re: Still more on the binding of Isaac One last comment on the Akeda: This summer I was in Israel studying Biblical Hebrew, and one of the stories that we read in the original was the Akeda. Until one reads the story in the original, it is hard to see any emotion, because the writers of that time didn't use psychological descriptions. Instead, in Hebrew you notice that every time Abraham refers to Isaac he doesn't say "Isaac" but "Beni," "my son." And Isacc calls him "Av'i," my father instead of something like my lord/master. The emotion is in the little parts that often get lost in translation. As for its belonging in the Bible, I think it's a little late for that argument to change anything, but the issue of obedience to God is very important for religious Jews, and the history of the idea of obedience is important for humanistic Jews. Adam Chalom ....................................................................... From BRoths@aol.comSat Oct 28 09:46:49 1995 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 07:31:10 -0400 From: BRoths@aol.com To: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: Still more on the binding of Isaac In a message dated 95-10-11 14:25:38 EDT, you write: > It makes no sense that Abraham is first the >sophisticated, heroic humanist, then later regresses into meekly obeying a >command to practice primitivehuman sacrifice. It makes no sense. It makes sense if you think of him has having episodes of psychosis. Patients (and others) today tell us they hear god's voice and must obey his commands. If they are benign, there is no problem, but often they command horrible acts. There is no wisdom to be found in Abraham's behavior unless you take seriously either god spoke to him or he was crazy as a loon. ....................................................................... From JudithSeid@aol.comSat Oct 28 09:46:49 1995 Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 17:07:42 -0400 From: JudithSeid@aol.com To: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: Still more on the binding of Isaac Louis Fridhandler calls Abraham a humanist. That's not how I read him at all. A humanist does not throw out his child and her mother into the wilderness. ....................................................................... From 102636.626@compuserve.comSat Oct 28 09:46:50 1995 Date: 17 Oct 95 01:21:00 EDT From: "Michael J. Prival" <102636.626@compuserve.com> To: hj mailing list Subject: Abraham's multiple personalities Louis Friedlander (10/11) points out the contradiction between Abraham the defender of Sodom and Abraham who sets out to sacrifice his son, Isaac. He says, "It makes no sense that Abraham is first the sophisticated, heroic humanist, then later regresses into meekly obeying a command to practice primitive human sacrifice. It makes no sense." Actually, it makes complete sense if we recognize what I have stated previously: that the Bible is a historical text, and NOT a work of literature. A work of literature should hold together thematically, but the Bible doesn't because it was pieced together from different sources by editors who were not willing to throw out texts to avoid contradictions. This may be because they considered all the texts to be "holy" and, therefore, essential. According to Richard Elliott Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible", the story of how Abraham argued with God not to destroy Sodom (Genesis 18:16-33) was written by "J", the "Yahvest"--an author associated with the traditions of the southern kingdom of Judah. The Akeda (Binding of Isaac) was written by "E", the "Elohist" of the northern kingdom of Israel (Samaria). These two authors had different ideas about many of the characters in their stories, including Abraham and God. In fact, the ending of the Akeda story, in which Isaac is saved, is attributed to J rather than to E, with the thought being that in the original ending by E Isaac is actually killed. This point was previously made in Hershl Hartman's note (10/8) on the importance of viewing the Bible from a critical, historical point of view. (I had the opportunity at the Colloquium to apologize to Hershl in person for repeatedly agreeing with him in these notes. I want to emphasize that no disrespect is intended by my failure to argue with him.) Mike Prival Machar Washington Congregation for Humanistic Judaism ....................................................................... From SVMC08A@prodigy.comSat Oct 28 09:46:51 1995 Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 07:54:51 EDT From: MR ROBERT D WOLFE To: hj@teleport.com Subject: wars and binding I am a new subscriber to the hj list. My name is Robert Wolfe and I am a member of the hj chapter in Queens, New York. I notice that most of the messages I have been reading the past 2 or 3 weeks relate either to the binding of Isaac or to the relationship between wars and religion. I find the common thread between these two topics to be the subject of violence and how Humanistic Jews ought to relate to this subject. Is it possible that this concern is somehow related to the recent emergence of Farrakhan as a national figure? I saw one message which spoke directly to this issue, asking whether or not it would be appropriate to open a dialogue with Farrakhan. In my opinion it would not be appropriate. In my opinion Humanistic Jews, like all other Jews, must confront directly the threat of violence to the Jewish people emanating from Farrakhan. We need to prepare ourselves for this struggle, and we also need to develop ways of isolating and destroying him politically. What do others think?