With the development of psychoanalysis as a form of literary criticism, there have been many new controversial interpretations of religious texts, including the Bible. One of these interpretations is that the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are dominated by the desire for children to be submissive to the father figure. This is what Georges Devereux calls a “Laius Complex,” named after the father who tried to kill his son Oedipus because he was afraid to kill him first (Delaney 211). Although there are many examples of the Laius Complex in both Greek and Jewish traditions, I will focus primarily on the Akedah, the binding of Isaac, in Genesis 22. This story demonstrates ancient Jewish culture's desire to maintain patriarchy at all costs. to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In Genesis 22, God says to Abraham: "Take your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I will show you" (v 2) Abraham does not protest and leaves the next morning with Isaac in tow. We already know that Abraham was not afraid to argue with God. He begged him in an attempt to save the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:16-33). It is especially curious that he does not plead for the life of his beloved son. They travel for three days and Abraham says nothing to Isaac about what is to happen sacrifice, Abraham responds vaguely: "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son" (Gen 22.7-8). Abraham keeps the sacrifice a secret for some inexplicable reason. When they reach the mountain Moriah, an altar is built and Abraham binds Isaac to it. The text implies that Isaac does not utter a word during this proceeding, even as his father raises his knife to kill him. An angel of the Lord intervenes before Abraham can carry out the deed, saying: "Lay not your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me" ( Gen. 22:12). Abraham instead uses a ram as a sacrifice. God rewards Abraham for his willingness to challenge his ethics to obey the Lord, saying that he will bless him and all his descendants. He literally becomes the father of the Israelites, just as God is symbolically their father. Strangely, the text states that Abraham left the mountain to go to Beer-sheba, but there is no mention of Isaac leaving with him. Genesis 22 ends with a genealogy based on Abraham's brother, not Isaac. Before analyzing the Akedah, it is important to look at the origins of the struggle between father and sons. Sigmund Freud theorizes in his book Totem and Taboo a primordial horde that preceded civilization. They were subservient to a primal father who chased them away as they grew up. Eventually, the sons banded together, killed their father, and created their own society. However, they were so guilt-ridden over their actions that they created a totem that they worshiped in their father's place (183-185). In Genesis, Adam and Eve tried to become more like God by eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, so God chased them away and made woman subservient to man (ch. 3). The people of the world tried to imitate God by building the Tower of Babel, so He divided them into nations who were unable to work together due to the language barrier (ch. 11). In Hesiod's Theogony, the older generation of deities always devours the younger generation to remain in power, but they are always overthrown until Zeus swallows Metis (137-187, 456-500, 891-905). In all these origin stories, the younger generation wants to be like the older one. Some think that this model is representative of thenatural human psychology. Identification produces emotional ambivalence, arousing both love for the object of identification and anger towards it because the identification is never entirely successful. For the son to successfully become his father, the father must cease to exist, and thus the desire drives both identification with the father and the desire to destroy him (Schwartz 108). The son will naturally want to replace the father figure; violently if necessary. Therefore, the son represents a threat to the father. In the stories of Hesiod and Freud, the father is unable to maintain dominion over his children. In the Hebrew Bible, the Father always maintains control over his children. Freud's focus was on the psychological tendency of the son to want to replace the father. He called it the Oedipus complex, because in Oedipus Rex, Oedipus kills his father, Laius. However, he does not take into consideration the fact that Laius tried to kill Oedipus, knowing that he would one day be a threat to him. Delaney believes this is a major blind spot in his theory. He forgets that the very titles of father and son are defined in relation to each other, and by refraining from psychoanalyzing both father and son, he is reinforcing patriarchy (Delaney 189). Georges Devereux believes that the Oedipus complex is triggered by the father at least as much as the son (Delaney 213). Laius stabbed Oedipus in the foot, then left him to die. He wished for his son's death so he could survive. Carol Delaney points out that "the first murderous desire in the myth belonged to the father" (191, emphasis added). Devereux believes this is a common subconscious desire among those in positions of authority. He calls it the Laius complex and believes it serves to complete and perpetuate the Oedipus complex (Delaney 212). “The story of Abraham,” says Delaney, “is more about the father than the son, the father's willingness to kill the son.” "(191). When God orders him to kill Isaac, Abraham does not try to dissuade him from doing so, even though he had previously succeeded in a similar task. He does not tell his wife or son what is happening. Delaney even suggests that Abraham has actually killed Isaac, as he does in some non-biblical versions of the story, and the biblical version is a suppression of the truth (202) Not far-fetched, considering that Abraham was only too willing to sacrifice Isaac, and that Genesis 22 ends without any trace. of Isaac. The vast majority of artwork depicting the Akedah portrays a stern and unflappable Abraham who will not even look Isaac in the face while performing the deed (Delaney 222). looking for an excuse to kill his son, yet in the Genesis account he is prevented from doing so The Akedah is a strikingly obvious example of correct filio-parental relationships in Hebrew. Writing. Isaac, the son, submits to Abraham, the father. At the same time Abraham, the son, submits to God, the father. Bakan believed that for Jewish men, fatherhood established a bond with the child that put their lives at risk through the drain of resources and the threat of usurpation. This created an infanticidal impulse, otherwise known as the Laius Complex (Delaney 217-218). In many biblical stories, the father is able to enact this impulse by punishing the disobedience of his son(s), somehow preventing them from further disobedience. In Genesis 22, Isaac is submissive to his father, and therefore Abraham is unable to punish him. In the same way Abraham is submissive to God and is rewarded for this. This sends the message that Jews must submit to God, to the father figure, or they will suffer the consequences. The earlier stories in Genesis (the fall of man, the Tower of Babel, etc.) suggest that too, 1986.