With the development of psychoanalysis as a form of literary criticism, many new and controversial interpretations of religious texts, including the Bible, have emerged. One such interpretation is that the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are dominated by the desire of sons 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 of killing him first (Delaney 211). Although there are many examples of the Laius complex in Greek and Hebrew traditions, I will focus primarily on the Akedah, the binding of Isaac, in Genesis 22. This story demonstrates ancient Hebrew culture's desire to maintain patriarchy at all costs. to plagiarism. Get Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original EssayIn Genesis 22, God said to Abraham, “Take your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah , and offer to him there 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 pleaded with him to try 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. When Isaac asks where the lamb for the sacrifice was, Abraham responds vaguely: "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son" (Genesis 22:7-8). Abraham keeps the sacrifice secret for some unexplained reason. When they reach Mount Moriah, an altar is built and Abraham binds Isaac to it. The text implies that Isaac does not utter a word during this procedure, even as his father raises the knife to kill him. An angel of the Lord intervenes before Abraham can do 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, of me" (Gen. 22:12). Abraham instead uses a ram as a sacrifice. God rewards Abraham for his willingness to defy his ethics in order to obey the Lord, saying that he will bless him thus that all his offspring He literally becomes the father of the Israelites, just as God is symbolically their father. Oddly enough, the text states that Abraham left the mountain to go to Beersheba. Isaac's departure with him. Genesis 22 ends with a genealogy based on Abraham's brother and not on Isaac Before analyzing the Akedah, it is important to first look at the origins of the struggle between father and. son Sigmund Freud theorizes in his book Totem and Taboo about a primitive horde that preceded civilization. They were subject to a primordial father who cast them out as they grew up. Eventually, the sons banded together, killed the father, and started their own company. However, they were so guilty of their actions that they created a totem which they worshiped in place of the father (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 banished them and made woman subject 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 unable to work together because of the language barrier (Ch. 11). In Hesiod's Theogony, the older generation of deities always devour the younger generation in order to remain in power, but they are always overthrown until Zeus swallows Metis(137-187, 456-500, 891-905). In all of these origin stories, the younger generation wants to be like the older generation. Some believe this pattern is representative of natural human psychology. Identification produces emotional ambivalence, arousing both love for the object of identification and fury toward it, because identification is never completely successful. For the son to succeed in becoming his father, the father must cease to exist, and thus desire arouses 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. The son therefore represents a threat to the father. In the tales of Hesiod and Freud, the father is unable to maintain his domination over his son(s). In the Hebrew Bible, the father always maintains control over the son(s). Freud focused on the psychological tendency of the son to want to replace the father. He called it the Oedipus complex, because in Oedipus the King, Oedipus kills his father, Laius. However, he does not take into consideration the fact that Laius attempted to kill Oedipus, knowing that he would one day pose 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 the father as well as the son, he reinforces patriarchy (Delaney 189). Georges Devereux believes that the Oedipus complex is triggered by the father at least as much as by the son (Delaney 213). Laius stabbed Oedipus in the foot, then left him to die. He wanted his son dead so that he could survive. Carol Delaney points out that “the myth's first murderous wish belonged to the father” (191, emphasis mine). Devereux believes this is a common subconscious desire among those in positions of authority. He calls this the Laius complex and believes that it serves to complement and perpetuate the Oedipus complex (Delaney 212). “The story of Abraham,” Delaney says, “is more about the father than the son, about the father's willingness to kill the son. " (191). When God orders him to kill Isaac, Abraham does not try to dissuade him, even though he has already succeeded in a similar task. He does not tell his wife or son what is happening Delaney even suggests that Abraham actually killed Isaac, as he does in some non-biblical versions of the tale, and that the biblical version is a repression of the truth (202). Abraham was all too willing to sacrifice Isaac and Genesis 22 ends without any trace of Isaac. The vast majority of artwork depicting the Akedah depicts a stern, serene Abraham who will not even look Isaac in the face while he is there. performs the deed (Delaney 222) It does not seem to take much imagination for him to unconsciously seek an excuse to murder his son, but in the Genesis account he is prevented from doing so. is a striking and obvious example of proper filio-parental relationships in Hebrew Scripture. At the same time, Abraham, the son, submits to God, the father. Bakan believed that, for Jewish men, fatherhood established a bond with the son who put their lives in danger due to the depletion 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 put this impulse into practice 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 he is rewarded for it. This sends the message that Jews, 1986.