Abraham on Trial: The Social Legacy of Biblical Myth

HEADLINE: "Man murders his own child. the Accused defends crime by alleging God whispered this instruction to him." As it turns out, this was an actual criminal case in California so the father's defense was to use the Abraham story as alibi. (He was acquitted). The best part of the book is the tale of this crimimal trial...but the author explores in considerable detail the Bible story of Abraham and how it has been interpreted in the three monotheistic religions. Her main points are (1): Abraham did not own the child - the boy also belonged to Sarah (2) Rather than use the story of a father willing to murder his son as an examplar of faith, the model should be a parent who does everything in his or her power to protect the child. (3) The myth of Abraham cannot be understood as a movement from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice, either anthropologically or biblically. Overall, a very interesting book, but a serious flaw is that the author never works hard to develop a competent exegesis of the original story. She begins her analysis with two factual errors. First, she comments that Abraham obeys God's "command" to sacrifice Isaac. False. The Hebrew particle na' which accompanies the imperative verb "take" softens Elohim's command to a request. In other words, Abraham voluntarily chooses to fulfill God's request since he is free to refuse to slay his son. Second, Professor Delaney argues that "As Abraham takes the knife to slay his son", God blesses Abraham. False. The blessing is given considerably later in the narrative... only after Abraham captures a ram, hacks it into pieces, drags the meat to a slaughter site, and burns it to the Lord. The ram is the key to the whole understanding of the narrative because it shows that Abraham substitutes HIMSELF - the ram is a father symbol - in lieu of his son as a sacrifice to God. Despite the flaws, the book is still worthwhile to all those interested in exploring one of the key stories of the Bible. The section on the California trial is alone worth the price of the book.

Using anthropological insight, Carole Delaney raises serious questions about the faith foundations of the world's three major monotheistic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. She sees notions of exclusive, patrilineal generativity underlying male conceptions of God and male dominance and/or ownership of family. Women are lesser creatures, fertile ground (sometimes) for growing a child (the seed and life being supplied by the father) but contributing nothing to the biology and value of the child. Children thus belong to the father and owe absolute obedience to him. He may do with them as he likes, particularly if a "patriachial" God demands them as offerings. Hence, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac (Ishmael in Islamic tradition), though with hand stayed in the Genesis 22 narrative. (Sarah is nowhere to be found in this portion of the story.) Delaney describes in poignant terms a contemporary case of a girl child being murdered by her father who believed he heard the voice of God telling him to do so. After stressful deliberation the jury concluded "not guilty by reason of insanity." In this case, as in the Abraham episode, the mother's voice was not heard, the child was murdered (no doubt Isaac was traumatized) in the name of God. Western religious traditions (including Graeco-Roman paganism) willingly devalue women and children and give that devaluation divine sanction. It is time, Delaney says, to re-examine and re-envision the legacy of the biblical narrative of supreme Abrahamic faith which denies voice and value to women and children, whether in biblical or koranic studies or in Freud's parallel Oedipal ideas which ignore the deeds of the father against the child. Such ideas "construct" a social world which ignores the worth of children. One note: there is a contrary set of traditions (not always allowed much space in the sacred narratives) where God speaks on behalf of the victims in a patriarchial system that silences women and children. The Abrahamic narrative has two voices, one speaking against the child and one, however obliquely, for the child. This is an important book. Would that it were required reading for our public policy makers. Children are not our first priority. What if they were?