What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Abraham Murdered Isaac: The First Stories of the Bible Revealed
There used to be a story in the Bible in which Abraham killed his son Isaac.
It is not there anymore.
Neither are many other stories that were once told. In the original Bible, Jacob was the first Patriarch, The Israelites were not slaves in Egypt. There were only seven commandments, no other laws, and Moses made it to the promised land instead of dying in the desert.
This book tells these stories. It also explains how and why the Bible changed so radically into what we have today.
It is not there anymore.
Neither are many other stories that were once told. In the original Bible, Jacob was the first Patriarch, The Israelites were not slaves in Egypt. There were only seven commandments, no other laws, and Moses made it to the promised land instead of dying in the desert.
This book tells these stories. It also explains how and why the Bible changed so radically into what we have today.
218 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 8, 2021
26 people are currently reading
61 people want to read
About the author
Tzemah Yoreh
53 books28 followersTzemah Yoreh is one of the intellectual leaders of Jewish humanism and the head of the City Congregation in New York city. He attended the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he obtained his Ph.D. in biblical criticism in 2004. He earned a second Ph.D. in Ancient Wisdom Literature from the University of Toronto for the joy of studying ancient text. As a community leader on the spectrum, he is a passionate advocate for the inclusion of the neuro-atypical in the Jewish community and beyond.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
March 18, 2023
Despite its dramatic, provocative title, this is a book explaining the Supplementary Hypothesis. This hypothesis holds that the original core of the Bible was written in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, reflecting their heroes and traditions. This original, core document was brought to the Southern Kingdom of Judah by refugees fleeing the destruction of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians, and subsequently added to many times over by multiple editors to make it reflect the heroes and traditions of Judah. The book starts with the story of Abraham and Isaac, and continues through Moses, isolating out what the author claims is the original text and noting what were the edited additions and what their purpose may have been.
Yet it was that title, Why Abraham Murdered Isaac, that drew me to this book. Of all the problematic stories of the Bible, the story of God’s order to Abraham to make a human sacrifice of his son stands out as the biggest problem of all. Abraham is unfazed that his God demands human sacrifice, and apparently has no problem that the sacrifice required is his son. And he apparently has no problem that, at the last second, God essentially says, “Pych! Just kidding!” The story is brutal and barbaric, and beyond that, it just doesn’t make sense within the broader story being told.
While this book doesn’t mitigate the brutal barbarity of the story, it does help to make sense of the tale. For according to what is claimed here, in the original, core document, God doesn’t provide a substitute sacrifice, but rather Abraham actually murders his son as a human sacrifice to his god.
This goes a long way toward explaining why Isaac, while always included as a patriarch in the formula, “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” is nothing more than a cypher in the Bible. Abraham stands out as a character with many stories and adventures, as does Jacob, but in the incredibly short space given to the adult life of Isaac, all his stories are either clones of Abraham stories or clones of Jacob stories. Isaac never stands out as a character as do Abraham and Jacob, and seems to be little more than a narrators devise. If, in the original tale, he was actually murdered as a sacrifice, this makes a lot more sense.
And what was the purpose of changing this story so dramatically? Jacob was the founding hero of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, while Abraham served that purpose in the Southern Kingdom of Judah. In the original core, according to this theory, they were not related. Isaac survives in the edited version to link the two heroes by blood. Isaac wasn’t anyone’s hero, which is why his life story is so ignored, and why no original tales exist of him, but only copies of the other patriarch’s tales.
It was the Abraham and Isaac material that I found most original and valuable in this book. It was by far the most dramatic. The rest, while interesting, lacked the dramatic impact of the title sequence. Also, the author uses a cheeky, flippant style of writing throughout. I normally appreciate cheekiness, but here it is taken to extremes that belie the seriousness of the scholarship of what is being presented. I found it distracting enough to dock the book by a star in my review.
Yet it was that title, Why Abraham Murdered Isaac, that drew me to this book. Of all the problematic stories of the Bible, the story of God’s order to Abraham to make a human sacrifice of his son stands out as the biggest problem of all. Abraham is unfazed that his God demands human sacrifice, and apparently has no problem that the sacrifice required is his son. And he apparently has no problem that, at the last second, God essentially says, “Pych! Just kidding!” The story is brutal and barbaric, and beyond that, it just doesn’t make sense within the broader story being told.
While this book doesn’t mitigate the brutal barbarity of the story, it does help to make sense of the tale. For according to what is claimed here, in the original, core document, God doesn’t provide a substitute sacrifice, but rather Abraham actually murders his son as a human sacrifice to his god.
This goes a long way toward explaining why Isaac, while always included as a patriarch in the formula, “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” is nothing more than a cypher in the Bible. Abraham stands out as a character with many stories and adventures, as does Jacob, but in the incredibly short space given to the adult life of Isaac, all his stories are either clones of Abraham stories or clones of Jacob stories. Isaac never stands out as a character as do Abraham and Jacob, and seems to be little more than a narrators devise. If, in the original tale, he was actually murdered as a sacrifice, this makes a lot more sense.
And what was the purpose of changing this story so dramatically? Jacob was the founding hero of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, while Abraham served that purpose in the Southern Kingdom of Judah. In the original core, according to this theory, they were not related. Isaac survives in the edited version to link the two heroes by blood. Isaac wasn’t anyone’s hero, which is why his life story is so ignored, and why no original tales exist of him, but only copies of the other patriarch’s tales.
It was the Abraham and Isaac material that I found most original and valuable in this book. It was by far the most dramatic. The rest, while interesting, lacked the dramatic impact of the title sequence. Also, the author uses a cheeky, flippant style of writing throughout. I normally appreciate cheekiness, but here it is taken to extremes that belie the seriousness of the scholarship of what is being presented. I found it distracting enough to dock the book by a star in my review.
September 3, 2024
What a great hook in a title! Who wouldn't want to know more about whether and how the Binding was actually murder, or at least a completed sacrifice? Author Tzemah Yoreh doesn't disappoint here. His retelling of the early Biblical narrative purports to expose the earliest narrative bones of the Bible in accordance with the so-called supplementary hypothesis, a successor to the earlier documentary hypothesis regarding the textual origins of the Pentateuch. There are actually additional explanations, including the fragmentary hypothesis; and it seems to me that Yoreh would be supportive of Konrad Schmidt's dual-origins hypothesis (at, for example, https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/1... ). (For a really fun introduction to these theories, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY-l0... .) Although the original documentary hypothesis still has its supporters, the general consensus of most serious Bible scholars has moved on to the supplementary hypothesis. The irony here is that Richard Elliott Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible," even though it's staunchly supportive of the documentary hypothesis, is still my favorite because of its clear and careful exposition. Yoreh scatters throughout the text hints about how he came to his conclusions, but they're for the most part just that--hints--rather than a careful foundation; and even though he tells us to trust him when he gives us what he considers to be the original story, I wanted more Friedman-like evidence. "Who Wrote the Bible?" and "Why Abraham Murdered Isaac" were both meant for a wide readership, but I came away from the latter feeling dissatisfied and wanting more explanation even as I enjoyed the fresh perspective on the foundational stories of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. There's also the issue of tone. Friedman manages to be captivatingly readable while remaining sober and respectful. Yoreh aims for a lighter tone but came across to me as unnecessarily irreverent and even flippant in places. This book gets 3.5 stars from me, but it's such a relatively quick and easy read (and sufficiently whets the appetite for more) that I think that four stars will work here.
May 5, 2022
Autor podpisuje się pod „hipotezą uzupełnień”, jeśli chodzi o redakcję Biblii, czyli wersję odmienną (choć dziedziczącą) od teorii źródeł. Według tej wersji Biblia (a właściwie Tora), to źródło E, z czasem rozbudowywane.
Na papierze ma to sens — źródło E należy do najstarszych, powstało w północnym, czyli w obecnym rozumieniu nieco wcześniej rozwiniętym, królestwie Izraela, a tekst Pięcioksięgu to rzeczywiście często jakaś narracja z uzupełnieniami i redakcjami.
W szczegółach ta wersja jednak się sypie — w nowszych badaniach neguje się „źródłowość” E (wskazuje, że E to raczej „worek” na te tradycje włączone do Biblii, które ‚zostały’, po rozdzieleniu pozostałych trzech autorów). Zresztą właśnie rozróżnienie J i E nastręcza najwięcej trudności (J, P, czy D to wyraziste style — ja mam wrażenie, że rozróżniam ich nawet w przekładzie, oczywiście nie z dokładnością do poszczególnego wersetu). W dodatku czytam ten Pięcioksiąg „diachronicznie” (no… prawie…) i tego „E” nie ma tam zbyt dużo, a przede wszystkim, trudno z tego zrobić jakąś spójną opowieść…
Dodałbym jeszcze, że moją słabością jest brak zrozumienia ewolucji starożytnego hebrajskiego (i mimo żydowskiego pochodzenia i dobrego żydowskiego wykształcenia, nie widzę go u autora…) — E się raczej datowało na później niż J… Wcześniejszy E raczej rzucałby się językoznawcom w oczy.
Ale OK, dajmy, że mamy hipotezę i co nam wychodzi? Cóż, autor lubi sensację i lubi podkreślać, że on ma tu „oryginalną Biblię” przeciwstawianą „dzisiejszej Biblii” (ech, ta dzisiejszość trwająca od V/IV wieku p.n.e….), w której Izaak jest zapewne nieślubnym dzieckiem Abimeleka, przez co Abraham bez problemów go zabija na górze Moria. Albo w której w Dekalogu nie miejsca na cześć dla rodziców i święcenie szabatu…
I właśnie to druga rzecz, która mnie zniechęca — to szukanie efektownych tez, obliczonych na publikę. Abraham zabija Izaaka? OK, powiedzmy, autor „ma rację” o tyle, że rzeczywiście historię Abrahama-Izaaka uważa się za dość sztucznie złączoną z historią Jakuba-Józefa, jakby dwie różne tradycje włączone w jedno; więc Izaak mógł umrzeć bezdzietnie. Ale, z drugiej strony, literatura tym się różni od życia, że musi mieć sens. Co więc miałby nam przekazać autor biblijny w takiej wersji? Jakie przesłanie? A właściwie cała teza Yoreha jest zbudowana na tym, że czegoś „nie ma”, z sugestią, że kiedyś nie było, i że z tego braku coś wynika.
No i autorowi trzeba uwierzyć na słowo, że taki był podział na E i „nie-E” w Biblii, co, jak wspominałem, jest trudne. Np. ten Dekalog — ogólnie (w moich materiałach) uchodzi za „inne źródło”, jakąś starą tradycję, a nie element narracji tego, czy innego autora. Jak to Yoreh dzieli na słuszne i niesłuszne przykazania*? Bo ja tu mogę widzieć jedynie interwencję siły wyższej w postaci wyznawanej ideologii (a że autor chce potwierdzi, że Biblia nakazuje bycie libertarianami, to kto wie…).
Tak, że ogólnie na minus… Dobrze tylko, że książka krótka. No i "In Search of Troy" Chien Chao w porównaniu, jednak solidnie podnosi ocenę.
---
*) Nawiasem mówiąc, akurat to sformułowanie "czci rodziców", powiązane z prawem spadkowym, czasem uchodzi za relikt obyczajów epoki brązu, więc byłoby autentycznie wyjątkowo starą tradycją w Biblii; wyjątkowo niewdzięczną do odmładzania, jak to autor tu robi.
Na papierze ma to sens — źródło E należy do najstarszych, powstało w północnym, czyli w obecnym rozumieniu nieco wcześniej rozwiniętym, królestwie Izraela, a tekst Pięcioksięgu to rzeczywiście często jakaś narracja z uzupełnieniami i redakcjami.
W szczegółach ta wersja jednak się sypie — w nowszych badaniach neguje się „źródłowość” E (wskazuje, że E to raczej „worek” na te tradycje włączone do Biblii, które ‚zostały’, po rozdzieleniu pozostałych trzech autorów). Zresztą właśnie rozróżnienie J i E nastręcza najwięcej trudności (J, P, czy D to wyraziste style — ja mam wrażenie, że rozróżniam ich nawet w przekładzie, oczywiście nie z dokładnością do poszczególnego wersetu). W dodatku czytam ten Pięcioksiąg „diachronicznie” (no… prawie…) i tego „E” nie ma tam zbyt dużo, a przede wszystkim, trudno z tego zrobić jakąś spójną opowieść…
Dodałbym jeszcze, że moją słabością jest brak zrozumienia ewolucji starożytnego hebrajskiego (i mimo żydowskiego pochodzenia i dobrego żydowskiego wykształcenia, nie widzę go u autora…) — E się raczej datowało na później niż J… Wcześniejszy E raczej rzucałby się językoznawcom w oczy.
Ale OK, dajmy, że mamy hipotezę i co nam wychodzi? Cóż, autor lubi sensację i lubi podkreślać, że on ma tu „oryginalną Biblię” przeciwstawianą „dzisiejszej Biblii” (ech, ta dzisiejszość trwająca od V/IV wieku p.n.e….), w której Izaak jest zapewne nieślubnym dzieckiem Abimeleka, przez co Abraham bez problemów go zabija na górze Moria. Albo w której w Dekalogu nie miejsca na cześć dla rodziców i święcenie szabatu…
I właśnie to druga rzecz, która mnie zniechęca — to szukanie efektownych tez, obliczonych na publikę. Abraham zabija Izaaka? OK, powiedzmy, autor „ma rację” o tyle, że rzeczywiście historię Abrahama-Izaaka uważa się za dość sztucznie złączoną z historią Jakuba-Józefa, jakby dwie różne tradycje włączone w jedno; więc Izaak mógł umrzeć bezdzietnie. Ale, z drugiej strony, literatura tym się różni od życia, że musi mieć sens. Co więc miałby nam przekazać autor biblijny w takiej wersji? Jakie przesłanie? A właściwie cała teza Yoreha jest zbudowana na tym, że czegoś „nie ma”, z sugestią, że kiedyś nie było, i że z tego braku coś wynika.
No i autorowi trzeba uwierzyć na słowo, że taki był podział na E i „nie-E” w Biblii, co, jak wspominałem, jest trudne. Np. ten Dekalog — ogólnie (w moich materiałach) uchodzi za „inne źródło”, jakąś starą tradycję, a nie element narracji tego, czy innego autora. Jak to Yoreh dzieli na słuszne i niesłuszne przykazania*? Bo ja tu mogę widzieć jedynie interwencję siły wyższej w postaci wyznawanej ideologii (a że autor chce potwierdzi, że Biblia nakazuje bycie libertarianami, to kto wie…).
Tak, że ogólnie na minus… Dobrze tylko, że książka krótka. No i "In Search of Troy" Chien Chao w porównaniu, jednak solidnie podnosi ocenę.
---
*) Nawiasem mówiąc, akurat to sformułowanie "czci rodziców", powiązane z prawem spadkowym, czasem uchodzi za relikt obyczajów epoki brązu, więc byłoby autentycznie wyjątkowo starą tradycją w Biblii; wyjątkowo niewdzięczną do odmładzania, jak to autor tu robi.
April 29, 2021
Though I was very intrigued by the premise of this book, I never imagined that I would find it so addictive. I just couldn’t put it down and ended up devouring it in a few hours.
The author masterfully and with wit and humor, untangles the mysterious contradictions of the first five chapters of the Bible. We start by learning that Abraham was not meant to be the Patriarch of the three religions that bear his name (The Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and did indeed kill Isaac. He also walks us through my personal favorite stories, those of Joseph and Moses in Egypt.
Whether you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim or simply have an interest in Bible studies, I can’t recommend this book enough.
The author masterfully and with wit and humor, untangles the mysterious contradictions of the first five chapters of the Bible. We start by learning that Abraham was not meant to be the Patriarch of the three religions that bear his name (The Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and did indeed kill Isaac. He also walks us through my personal favorite stories, those of Joseph and Moses in Egypt.
Whether you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim or simply have an interest in Bible studies, I can’t recommend this book enough.
May 25, 2022
Fascinating material, hobbled delivery. The book explores the evolution of the Torah from the Elohist to the Jahwist, and does a satisfactory job of showing the stories that are composed when the YHWH is deleted from the Elohim. It unfortunately suffers from two flaws:
1) the reason for the revisions of the Jahwist are never explained outside of the content alone; the book would read far easier if the author were to propose some of the sociopolitical divisions that prompted the Southern Judean author to addend the Northern Israelite composition.
2) the author attempts to make the material readable and ends up overly conversational and mildly condescending, which makes the book’s flow more disrupted.
1) the reason for the revisions of the Jahwist are never explained outside of the content alone; the book would read far easier if the author were to propose some of the sociopolitical divisions that prompted the Southern Judean author to addend the Northern Israelite composition.
2) the author attempts to make the material readable and ends up overly conversational and mildly condescending, which makes the book’s flow more disrupted.
August 12, 2021
Many people know about the Documentary Hypothesis, which posits that the first five books of the Bible came from four different sources. Many scholars agree with this theory, although they argue about which section came from which source. I was, however, unaware of a different biblical theory, one called the Supplementary Hypothesis, which is the basis of Tzemah Yoreh’s fascinating “Why Abraham Murdered Isaac: The First Stories of the Bible Revealed” (Modern Scripture).
See the rest of my review at https://www.thereportergroup.org/past....
See the rest of my review at https://www.thereportergroup.org/past....
February 24, 2023
This is an interesting take on the Supplementary Hypothesis and the author reconstructs what he believes to be the original Bible based on his research in the field. I liked reading what the author sees as the original stories of the Bible, but as someone who is a complete novice in this subject, I don't know whether I find this author's view more or less convincing than Richard Elliott Friedman's. Overall a good book and written in a very approachable way.
May 5, 2025
Profoundly interesting, but the author includes only hints of his methodology, leaving the result somewhat suspect.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews