hmm, never noticed that before

[cellio]

The torah uses different names for God in different places, with the most common being Elo[k]im and the tetragramaton (yud - hey - vav - hey). When I've been paying attention they've been distinct -- the first creation story is the E-name, the revelation at Sinai is the Y-name, and so on.

In preparing this week's portion (specifically the binding of Yitzchak) I've noticed something odd. The God who commands Avraham to sacrifice his son is the E-name, and Avraham uses that name when he tells Yitzchak that God will provide the sacrificial animal (there's some nice ambiguity here, but that's a tangent). Then, when the angel intervenes, it's suddenly an angel of the Y-name, and Avraham names the place "awe of Y-name".

Is the mingling of these two names in a single passage common and I haven't been paying enough attention? Is it uncommon but random/not meaningful? Uncommon but meaningful in some way?

Comments

[pedropadrao.livejournal.com]

Mingling's atypical, as I understand it. There is (or was-this isn't an area of scholarship that I keep up with much) a school of thought that says that the different names indicate different scribal traditions.

[cellio]

That's the documentary hypothesis, which postulates four authors (abbreviated J, E, P, and D).

[nobble.livejournal.com]

I have seen an archeological program on this topic that looks at the origins of the different references within passages (Elohim and Yhvh). There is some (heretical??) view that the origin of the separate references refer to different sexes of g-d and that in the time before the establishment of Judaism (pre 0) as we know it there were two recognised parts of the single g-d (masculine and feminine). I dont know how correct this is, it flies generally in the face of a theory of a unified, single entity - but some archeologists seem to support this view. The program discussed some actions on ancient temples and apparently archeological significant tablets that obliterated representation of the Yhvh element of Elohim. I dont know if it is all bunk. Sounds like some historian's attempt to make history :-) There is a lot written about the subject (via convenient google search) again lots bunk, but this is interesting:

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Names_of_God_in_Judaism/id/1894968

[cellio]

Interesting. I knew about the theory of different authors but hadn't heard a gender connection.

Judaism teaches that God has different aspects, at least one of which is understood to be feminine. (Of course, God does not have physical form so this is all metaphor.)

[goljerp]

I'm not an expert on the Documentary hypothesis, but I think that it would cite the mingling as a place where multiple authors were combined (J and E?)

[cellio]

Presumably. I just didn't expect it to be so granular. What I've previously noticed is entire blocks -- e.g. the two different creation stories, each self-consistent in this regard.

[goljerp]

Yeah. There are some cases where (again, according to documentary hypothesis) things are more separate: Deuteronomy, for example, is almost entirely D. Leviticus is almost entirely P. But in Genesis, there's more mixing. Another recent example is the Noah narrative. You get two versions smushed together -- in one, there were exactly 2 of each type of animal. In another, there were multiple "clean" animals (which Noah used for sacrifices).

[ichur72.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, the E-name is often used at times when G-d exercises the attribute of strictness (discipline, judgment, etc) and so is used here when He commands Avraham to do something unpleasant and objectionable. The Y-name, on the other hand, is often used when G-d exercises the attribute of mercy and so is used at a moment when He intervenes and saves the day, as it were.

[cellio]

Thanks! That makes sense.

Leaving the documentary hypothesis aside

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

In traditional Jewish exegesis, the E-name is used for the aspect of Judgment, the Tetragramaton used for the aspect of Mercy.

Mingling is infrequent, but not terribly remarkable. It is even more frequent if one includes the tradition of reading a double "adonai, adonai" as "adonai elohim." NB: We don't do this for the 13 attributes, but we do it fairly consistently elsewhere.

Re: Leaving the documentary hypothesis aside

[530nm330hz.livejournal.com]

We don't do it in the 13 attributes because the text there is [tetragrammaton] [tetragrammaton]. What you're referring to is that when the tetragrammaton immediately follows the literal word Adonai we substitute Elohim as the k'ri for the tetragrammaton.

Re: Leaving the documentary hypothesis aside

[cellio]

Thanks.

Are there places other than the 13 attributes where that repetition occurs? (Or did you mean "adonai [name]" as 530nm330hz suggests?)

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

I'll add that the Akeda is one of the more difficult sections. Ask me sometime in private about my heretical thoughts.

[cellio]

It is difficult, yes. I look forward to discussing it with you. (I suspect I've got some heretical views of my own on this one.)

[ralphmelton.livejournal.com]

I have a book called "Who Wrote the Bible?" that talks about the documentary hypothesis. The basic idea is that there were multiple texts that were woven together.

[cellio]

I know about the theory (though I haven't read that book); I had just expected the chunk size to be a little larger. Not always, I guess. (Mind, the hypothesis also isn't universally accepted.)

[ralphmelton.livejournal.com]

I'd happily loan it to you; I found it a quick and engaging read.

The chunk size does get down to a single verse or less (according to that book). For example, in Genesis 7, Friedman assignes verses 1-5, 7, 10, 12, 17-20, 22, 23 to the J text, and 6, 8, 9, 11, 13-16, 21, 24 to the P text.

Also, I found a bit in the book specifically relevant to this passage:

"The story of the near-sacrifice of Isaac is traced to E. It refers to the deity as Elohim in vv. 1,3,8, and 9. But, just as Abraham's hand is raised with the knife to sacrifice Isaac, the text says that the angel of Yahweh stops him (v. 11). The verses in which Isaac is spared refer to the deity as Yahweh (vv. 11-14). These verses are followed by a report that the angel speaks a second time and says, "... because you did not withhold your son from me...." Thus the four verses which report that Isaac was not sacrificed involve both a contradiction and a change of the name of the deity. As extraordinary as it may seem, it has been suggested that in the original version of this story Isaac was actually sacrificed, and that the intervening four verses were added subsequently, when the notion of human sacrifice was rejected (perhaps by the person who combined J and E). Of course, the words "you did not withhold your son" might mean only that Abraham had been willing to sacrifice his son. But still it must be noted that the text concludes (v. 19), "And Abraham returned to his servants." Isaac is not mentioned. Moreover, Isaac never again appears as a character in E. Interestingly, a later midrashic tradition developed this notion, that Isaac actually had been sacrificed. This tradition is discussed in S. Spiegel's The Last Trial (New York: Schocken, 1969; Hebrew edition 1950)."

I can't stand behind any of this, of course. I'm just excited by being able to participate in one of your theological questions.

[cellio]

Thanks for passing that on. It sounds like an interesting book, so I'll take you up on that offer when it's convenient for you.

I understand the "did not withhold" bit as meaning he was ready to do the deed. I've heard that there are midrashim where the angel isn't in time to prevent it; presumably there's resurrection involved, since Yitzchak continues to have a role.

"And Abraham returned to his servants." Isaac is not mentioned.

I was about to quibble over a plural verb, but on more careful reading that one refers to Avraham and the two boys he brought along. I previously had the impression that Avraham and Yitzchak came down from the mountain -- and then Yitzchak got out of there as expediently as possible. But maybe not!

I'm just excited by being able to participate in one of your theological questions.

I'm glad you can too! (It's funny -- when you write on many topics as I do, you never know until people speak up who's interested in which topics. So I know I have a lot of readers whose reaction is "blah blah blah torah blah blah... ooh, music!", but I can't say which ones. :-) )