What if the story of Cain and Able is ....

[danieldemol]

No, I'm not. We know the Hebrew originally had human sacrifice. There are plenty of books out there about it. And of course the Bible later tells the Hebrew people don't do it.

Note that they put a mark on him after the sacrifice/murder. A Jewish site that I was on said that the priest that killed the "scape-goat/human" was then marked so none would approach him, and sent off.

In other words a sacrifice takes on the sins - someone has to kill him as a sacrifice - then he the killer can't be killed (or someone would have his blood on their hands,) so he is marked and sent off.

*

In some sense the Gospel account of Jesus' death for the sins of others and the Jews subsequently being exiled as a divine retribution for this murder has parallels to the story of Cain and Abel.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In some sense the Gospel account of Jesus' death for the sins of others and the Jews subsequently being exiled as a divine retribution for this murder ...

Once again the filthy slur of Jewish deicide rears it's ugly head.

 

[danieldemol]

LOL! That is actually why I question what this story is supposed to represent.

When his veggies were not good enough, he killed a human. Then he wasn't actually punished - he had a mark put on him, and was sent out - as the Jewish site that I went to, said ancient priests that performed the ultimate sacrifice were!

He actually goes off, has children, founds a city and country, etc.

*

I think that the story is meant to imply that he was exiled, which in those days many may have considered similar to the death sentence.

However if my memory serves me correctly, the story relates that he later repents of the murder and is forgiven with God's covenant passing to him.

Perhaps this explains the founding of the city etc and may have been intended to show that for those who repent of their sins God will forgive them.

 

[danieldemol]

Once again the filthy slur of Jewish deicide rears it's ugly head.

There was no slur, just a difference of historical opinion. As I understand it the Jews today say that the Romans put Jesus to death for trying to overthrow them lol, and reject the Gospel accounts of the involvement of the self declared enemies of Jesus from amongst the Jewish religious leaders.

Your charge of deicide is not relevant to one who does not take Jesus as a deity.

 

[danieldemol]

Once again the filthy slur of Jewish deicide rears it's ugly head.

Since my last post I read the wiki article which states, Jewish deicide is a belief that places the responsibility for the death of Jesus on the Jewish people as a whole.

I have reconsidered and do consider my wording in drawing out the parallels to have been careless/insufficient.

I do not believe that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for the martyrdom of Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

One part is that it parallels early civilization and the conflicts between nomadic lifestyle VS city life.

on the same side of the coin It also parallels the burnt meat smell god loves in sacrifices VS sacrifices from agriculture.

The most reasonable explanation is the "feud" between the settled agrarians and the hunter/gatherers, according to several eminent OT scholars.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There was no slur, just a difference of historical opinion.

... one used to butcher my people for centuries. It is gross antisemitic rubbish, and it's more than a little interesting that you are so insistent on promulgating it. I wonder what your Bahai brothers and sisters would think.

 

[danieldemol]

Did you read post 45 before writing that?

There was certainly no anti Semitic intention on my part, even when I wrote the original post, it just wasn't properly thought out.

If you think I have an anti-Jewish cell in my body you are barking up the wrong bush, I have never had the slightest ill will towards the Jews.

 

[horizon_mj1]

So what exactly do you think they are teaching?

What are those "fundamental facts," and clues science seeks in evolution, that these stories teach?

*

One story I see both as being stories of jealousy; one feeling jealousy for not being favored by an authoritarian figure while the other showing jealousy over flesh. IMO in Evolution these stories can teach how jealousy can be seen as denigrating to the person who has such feelings and how other alternative methods could have been used to assure a better non-destructive outcome. Once again IMO not only can History but such stories teach us how to "Evolve" into a better and more productive society by simply showing us there are always other alternatives; and at many times alternatives in which no one has to be injured. IMO again both stories are simply observations on how jealousy is viewed as a detrimental emotion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Did you read post 45 before writing that?

No, I did not. Thank you for that post.

 

[Falvlun]

If we have to get philosophical, I would think it would represent more the struggle within early human society between hunter-gatherers or at least nomadic herders (Able) and agriculturalists (Cain).

This seems the most likely explanation. The story represents the change of life, and the struggle, with the rise of agriculture.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From Nahum M. Sarna in the The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis ...

This narrative has often been interpreted as a reflection of the traditional conflict between the farmer and the nomad, and its supposed bias in favor of the latter is seen as representing a nomadic ideal in Israel. This is unlikely. The evidence for such an ideal in the biblical literature is extremely flimsy. Further, there is not the slightest suggestion in the text of any comparative evaluation of the vocations of Cain and Abel, nor is there the slightest disparagement of the tiller of the soil. On the contrary, agriculture is regarded as the original occupation of man in the Garden of Eden as well as outside it. The sentence upon Cain is restricted to him alone; his sons are not made into vagrants or stigmatized in any way. Finally, the three pillars of semi nomadic culture, as set forth in verses 20-22, are actually said to have originated with the descendants of Cain.

 

[Falvlun]

It doesn't necessarily have to be a proponent of one occupation over the other. More of a just-so story of this is what happened: nomadic lifestyle slowly gave way to agricultural lifestyles, often with the agriculturalists being the aggressor, or having the upper hand in some way.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Aside from that who is to say what did or did not exit "pre-earth"? IMO the whole thing is nothing more than a simple explanation of jealousy. Why is this so hard to perceive? Cain was jealous of Able for being favored over him, therefore he murdered him (rather if it is the KJV version or the Lost Books of Eden version they reflect the same scenario).

 

[Quagmire]

From Nahum M. Sarna in the The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis ...

​

I disagree with most of what Sarna is saying here:

This narrative has often been interpreted as a reflection of the traditional conflict between the farmer and the nomad, and its supposed bias in favor of the latter is seen as representing a nomadic ideal in Israel. This is unlikely. The evidence for such an ideal in the biblical literature is extremely flimsy.

I think there's a strong pro-nomadic sub-text throughout the entire Tanakh/Old Testament: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2989260-post6.html

Further, there is not the slightest suggestion in the text of any comparative evaluation of the vocations of Cain and Abel, nor is there the slightest disparagement of the tiller of the soil.

I think the idea that God honors Abel's sacrifice but rejects Cain's could be interpreted as His preference for one mode of life over another.

On the contrary, agriculture is regarded as the original occupation of man in the Garden of Eden as well as outside it.

Disagree with this too. Genesis does say in several places that Man is to eat herbs, fruit, plants in general, but there's nothing to indicate that Man has any role in the production of any of it (except for one brief passage in Gen.1). It could just as easily be interpreted as another endorsement of the Hunter/Gatherer existence as it could be an agrarian one.

On the other hand, the curse that God lays on Adam sounds (to me) like a pretty good description of the agrarian lifestyle:

Gen: 17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

Which seems to suggest that there was no work involved in the consumption of plant foods prior to the curse.

Same here:
Gen:18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread

The sentence upon Cain is restricted to him alone;

The text has God condemning Cain to a life as "A fugitive and a vagabond", an outcast, not a nomadic herdsman.

his sons are not made into vagrants or stigmatized in any way. Finally, the three pillars of semi nomadic culture, as set forth in verses 20-22, are actually said to have originated with the descendants of Cain.

[/indent]

He's talking about this:

Genesis 4:20 And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.

I don't think the fact the fact that one of Cain's (fairly distant) descendants became a nomadic herdsman contradicts the theme. The same verse goes on to identify two brothers of Jabal as the "fathers" of music and metallurgy, two by-products of civilzation.

Gen:21 His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. 22 And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I disagree with most of what Sarna is saying here

OK ... but, all else being equal, I'll side with a world renown expert.

 

[Quagmire]

OK ... but, all else being equal, I'll side with a world renown expert.

I would on most things too, but I think he dropped the ball on this one.

 

[Ingledsva]

Aside from that who is to say what did or did not exit "pre-earth"? IMO the whole thing is nothing more than a simple explanation of jealousy. Why is this so hard to perceive? Cain was jealous of Able for being favored over him, therefore he murdered him (rather if it is the KJV version or the Lost Books of Eden version they reflect the same scenario).

They had words for jealousy - they use them in other stories - so why not in this story if that is what they wished to convey?

*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would on most things too, but I think he dropped the ball on this one.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion much as I am free to reiterate that not all opinions are created equal.

 

[Quagmire]

You are certainly welcome to your opinion much as I am free to reiterate that not all opinions are created equal.

The points he's using to make his case don't stand up to scrutiny.

World renowned expert or not, that makes it a weak case.