266 JEAN LOUIS SKA tually, Genesis 22 shows that, at the beginning of Israel’s history, its an- cestor succeeded where the people, afterwards, very often failed. The main point, however, is that God requires an answer and does not simply stand on Abraham’s side to support him in his trials. On the con- trary, God is the cause of the trial. We are close to the Book of Job where God is often perceived as an enemy rather than an unconditioned ally 22. To use the vocabulary of semiotic analysis, God who was until now the “sender” (French: destinateur) of the narrative cycle, all of a sudden becomes an “opponent”, at least in Abraham’s experience. This is unusual, even impossible, according to the basic rules of semiotic analysis. God can be a helper, not an opponent. Or to say it in simpler words, in the Abraham cycle, God solves Abraham’s problems and does not cause prob- lems as he does in Genesis 22. This is a complete surprise, of course, and does not correspond to any- thing else in Genesis 12-25. Some compare Genesis 22 with Genesis 21, where Abraham has to part with Ishmael. In this case, however, the ini- tiative is Sarah’s, not God’s, and the divinity merely asks Abraham to comply with Sarah’s wish 23. Moreover, every unprejudiced reader is con- vinced that the narrative cycle had reached its conclusion in Genesis 21, with the birth of Isaac and, if necessary, the definitive expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael. Nothing prepares the audience for this dramatic turn of events in Genesis 22. V. Genesis 22, “a white crow” 24? This means, of course, that Genesis 22,1-19 can hardly be considered as a “continuation” of anything else in the previous chapters 25. There are connections, as many authors noted, especially with Gen 12,1-4 and Gen- esis 21, and somehow with Gen 13,14-18. This means — according to some good rules of exegesis — that Genesis 22 is logically posterior to these texts. Other allusions, especially to 2 Chr 3,1 (Mount Moriah), can See, for instance, Job 16,22, a sentence that could be said by Abraham: 22 “I was at ease, and he broke me in two; he seized me by the neck and dashed me to pieces; he set me up as his target”. To put it in simple words, the ingredients are similar, but the dish is 23 quite different. What matters, after all, are not the ingredients, but the dish. The Latin poet Juvenal speaks of a rara avis [“rare bird”] (Satires, VI, 24 165) and of a corvo quoque rarior albo [“also rarer white crow”], Satires VII, 202. He is quoted by Erasmus (Adagia, II, 1.21). I thank A. Nepi for this pre- cise piece of information. See SCHMID, “Die Rückgabe”, 15-18, 24-26. 25 © Gregorian Biblical Press 2013 - Tutti i diritti riservati