Ho trovato un articolo accademico che studia in dettaglio alcuni dei punti sopra.


Thomas Römer, Paris — Lausanne

L'articolo contiene la seguente analisi.

"[...] Which deity asks Abraham to sacrifice his own son?

Before addressing the question of why the original elohim-text was altered into a mixed text by the insertion of passages using the tetra-grammata, we have to pay attention to a particularity of the elohistic text in Gen 22, which remains unacknowledged in most English translations and also in commentaries. Verse 1 is usually translated as “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham”. The Hebrew, however, has “ha-elohim”, literally “the God”, and the same holds true for verses 3 and 9. This lexeme appears frequently in texts from the late Persian and early Hellenistic period, and especially in the book of Qoheleth. In this book ha-elohim is used to denote a god that
dwells far away from humans and appears to be incomprehensible. The same may hold true for Gen 22. The term - used only by the narrator and not by Abraham - may deliberately denote what Luther called the Deus absconditus or the dark side(s) of God. I would therefore argue for a translation like “the deity” in order to distinguish “ha-elohim” from “elohim”.
This subtle distinction was perhaps also the reason why later redactors inserted the tetragrammaton into the narrative. By doing so they constructed a scenario in which a deity asks that human sacrifice be offered to the god of Israel, who does not want this kind of offering.
The god who asks Abraham to sacrifice his son (even if he only wants to “test” him) is called “ha-elohim” (the deity); Abraham first says that
“elohim” will provide himself a victim (v. 8). Finally, the human sacrifice is stopped by the messenger of Yhwh (v. 11). After that the redactor of v. 14b affirms that Yhwh is the real name of the God that his audience should worship.
Gen 22 can thus be read as a transition from human to animal sacrifice, from ha-elohim to Yhwh.
Although the story ends with a “happy end” of a sort, it hints at the fact that Abraham has to separate from Isaac as he had separated
from Ishmael. In verse 5, when leaving his servants with Isaac, he tells them: “Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will return to you.” But the narrator
concludes the story in v 19 with “So Abraham returned to his young men”. No word is said about Isaac. Does this mean that in the oldest
tradition behind this text, Isaac had indeed been immolated, as some commentators have suggested? This is probably not the case. The
end of the story hints at the necessary separation between Abraham and Isaac. Henceforth Isaac apparently lives without his father, since
in the chapters that follow Abraham and his sons never again appear together. Only on the occasion of their father’s funeral do both sons return to him.
As already mentioned, Gen 22 underwent a final revision by a redactor, who, by adding verses 15-18, insists on Abraham’s obedience that is rewarded by the divine promises. It is for this reason that the au-
thor of the epistle of James combines Gen 22 and Gen 15, in order to speak about Abraham’s faith and righteousness [...]"

Da notare che questa frase "Gen 22 can thus be read as a transition from human to animal sacrifice, from ha-elohim to Yhwh" (traduzione: Gen 22 può quindi essere letta come una transizione da sacrifici umani verso sacrifici animali, da ha-elohim a Yhwh) sembra supportare l'interpretazione di Padre Maggi.