Cain and Abel, A new look

[Huiou_Theou]

It is true that God does not specifically give consent for animals to be food until after the Ark incident. But the nature of sacrificing a lamb which would later become the passover, is that the best portions of fat, etc. are burned whole for God – BUT in order to partake of the sacrifice the family MUST eat the rest of the lamb.

In another line of thought, God says that the expulsion from the Garden is to prevent A&E from taking from the tree of life – lest they live forever.

Since the life is in the blood, it makes me wonder if the intention is ‘tree of blood’. The text next shows Abel (the just one) sacrificing a Lamb which would prefigure the sacrifices of the Jewish people, and ultimately of Christ himself – whose blood saves us.

Cain also sees the same figure, in his brother, whom he murders.
The difference is that the Lamb is a figure, whereas Abel is the image of God. They both appear to foreshadow the sacrifice of Jesus – Cain as the sin involved in the death of the Just one, and Abel as the figure of Christ.

The vegetarian angle is interesting, as it is suggestive of an attempt by God to limit the sin of Man ( Cain ~= I have begotten a man ).

But also notice that the first thing God does for Adam and Eve was to clothe them in LEATHER – the skin of dead animals – when expelling them from the Garden. God thus sets the stage for murder by showing himself the lord of life and death – of whom the imitation by Cain and Abel could follow since the temptation to be “God’s” was the downfall of the parents, and the children have the same weakness.

The text of Genesis, however, took its final form (written) during the Babylonian captivity, and some elements of the story may have much more to do with apologetics against the Babylonian Gods than it does with a precision chronological history of the world.

Abel and Noah follow the example of God with respect to animals, but do not do so with respect to other human beings. The Babylonians were preoccupied with theology which included the creation of humans from the blood of the God’s, and the Hebrew scriptures appear to echo this by saying the image of God found in man includes the bleeding which is somehow personal to God – and cries out to him.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Am I totally ignorant here? Can someone show me where it says in Genesis that man was vegetarian until after the flood?

Incidentally, I’m inclined to agree with the “anti-Babylonian” angle of Genesis. Historical chronology does not appear to be a major focus of Scripture.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Benadam]

Since God allowed meat eating in the way He did. I’m not sure, but didn’t he say you can eat just about any animal as long as it isn’t still bleeding? Seems to me a prerequisite understanding that meat is edible is implicated or even a desire to eat it. I believe that it’s likely that it was eaten at times but those times for whatever reason contained an element that quieted the conscience with such little experience of death.

 

[Benadam]

*I thoroughly enjoy reading thoughtfull analysis like this. *

It is true that God does not specifically give consent for animals to be food until after the Ark incident. But the nature of sacrificing a lamb which would later become the passover, is that the best portions of fat, etc. are burned whole for God – BUT in order to partake of the sacrifice the family MUST eat the rest of the lamb.
*Genesis does make creatures out of what other cultures considered the sources of divinity. I take it for granted that an appeal to reason a necessary component. As it concerns chronology, I find it fitting that pagan cultures are the first to write down their traditions. Error is allowed the time to express it’s deepest subtleties in order that they be exposed to the light of truth. *

Would you mind explaining Babylonian theology as it pertains to the creation of humans from the blood of gods? Nephilim came to mind

 

[Wildgraywolf]

I also got the impression that Cain in addition to not giving a proper tithe was not offering to God his best produce either. Abel on the other hand took the best of the lambs for his sacrifice.

That’s what I thought as well, but the wonder of it is that God told Cain exactly what he was doing wrong and how to remedy it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It is true that God does not specifically give consent for animals to be food until after the Ark incident. But the nature of sacrificing a lamb which would later become the passover, is that the best portions of fat, etc. are burned whole for God – BUT in order to partake of the sacrifice the family MUST eat the rest of the lamb.

In another line of thought, God says that the expulsion from the Garden is to prevent A&E from taking from the tree of life – lest they live forever.

Since the life is in the blood, it makes me wonder if the intention is ‘tree of blood’. The text next shows Abel (the just one) sacrificing a Lamb which would prefigure the sacrifices of the Jewish people, and ultimately of Christ himself – whose blood saves us.

Cain also sees the same figure, in his brother, whom he murders.
The difference is that the Lamb is a figure, whereas Abel is the image of God. They both appear to foreshadow the sacrifice of Jesus – Cain as the sin involved in the death of the Just one, and Abel as the figure of Christ.

The vegetarian angle is interesting, as it is suggestive of an attempt by God to limit the sin of Man ( Cain ~= I have begotten a man ).

But also notice that the first thing God does for Adam and Eve was to clothe them in LEATHER – the skin of dead animals – when expelling them from the Garden. God thus sets the stage for murder by showing himself the lord of life and death – of whom the imitation by Cain and Abel could follow since the temptation to be “God’s” was the downfall of the parents, and the children have the same weakness.

The text of Genesis, however, took its final form (written) during the Babylonian captivity, and some elements of the story may have much more to do with apologetics against the Babylonian Gods than it does with a precision chronological history of the world.

Abel and Noah follow the example of God with respect to animals, but do not do so with respect to other human beings. The Babylonians were preoccupied with theology which included the creation of humans from the blood of the God’s, and the Hebrew scriptures appear to echo this by saying the image of God found in man includes the bleeding which is somehow personal to God – and cries out to him.

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. You’ve pointed me in a new direction. I knew the relative time of when the OT came together, but didn’t stop to research babylonian influences. It seems I should do that to gain a better picture of biblical events.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. You’ve pointed me in a new direction. I knew the relative time of when the OT came together, but didn’t stop to research babylonian influences. It seems I should do that to gain a better picture of biblical events.

Mesopotamia (literally, middle of the rivers) and the geographic features described in Genesis bear a very strong resemblance based not only on the final captivity in Babylon ( Literally, gate of the Gods??- could be wrong) but also as the ancestral origin of the Israelites.

Genesis 11:26-28 records the land from which Abraham’s fathers came – Ur of the Chaldees – a mere 140miles from Babylon proper – This is the likely place that Abraham’s father started the journey from which Abraham was to finish. ~1900BC ??

The ziggaraut, which exists there today was created in ~2100 BC, and is tied to the general religious context of later Babylon which shared a common origin in creation/religious stories. The structure itself is dedicated to the moon god (NANNA in sumerian / Sin in Babylonian). The Babylonians produced a creation account – the Enuma-Elish worth reading for some vocabulary that Genesis’s apologetics are working against. (Although, be aware that many English translations interpolate quite a bit without telling you.)

It is in the Enuma-Elish that one finds that Man is made from the blood of a rebel God, ergo – blood crying out to God would have apologetic impact with the Babylonians. There is also a pun between Cain and Abel – since the captives and the people of Ur were “brothers”, cain referring to man and the suffix of -el on Abel suggestive of divinity.

Ties to the people in Ur, since it was ancestral, could have provided leverage in the returning to Jerusalem.
Only about 1/3 of the captives returned from captivity, where Ur may have played a role as a Babylonian stronghold – perhaps the apologetic was most important since the common background would have been a potent attractor of apostasy from the Jewish faith.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Would you mind explaining Babylonian theology as it pertains to the creation of humans from the blood of gods? Nephilim came to mind

I am going from memory here, so check what I say for corrections.

The watchers, according to Babylonian mythology were angelic beings – and in their view – the watchers sinned by coming to earth and having sexual relations with the women. From these came the hybrid giants of old – the nephilim. For their crime, the angels are punished (I guess that makes them demons? )
These types of stories are common in the ancient world – the island of Crete boasting to even have the grave of a Zeus I think! (at least when he was still a man and not a demigod) Cretans! always liars.

I don’t recall the Nephilim being associated with the blood of gods specifically – except that angels are known as “sons of God” in the general vocabulary of the region, so that divine life is supposed to be their source.

Secondly, the kings of the region were always claiming the title of “God” when possible for themselves (or demigod) so much so, that the term gods could apply to any prideful or boastful authority.
(Angelic or human) and it would not be a far stretch to suppose that the giants of any area could claim the title regardless of what blood really ran in their veins.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The question is very interesting from the standpoint of Jesus’ comments to the Sadducees – who do not believe in the resurrection or angels, for Jesus claims that the angels in heaven do not marry.
The comment is tricky, for if the Sadducees could have ridiculed Jesus by asking why the “supposed” angels in Genesis did so – the question remains as to why they did not push the point.

Whether or not they believed in angels, the account would appear to discredit Jesus. I am not absolutely sure, but I tend to think that the angel-sex angle is probably not the correct interpretation of “the son’s of God” in Genesis who bring about the nephilim.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Mesopotamia (literally, middle of the rivers) and the geographic features described in Genesis bear a very strong resemblance based not only on the final captivity in Babylon ( Literally, gate of the Gods??- could be wrong) but also as the ancestral origin of the Israelites.

Genesis 11:26-28 records the land from which Abraham’s fathers came – Ur of the Chaldees – a mere 140miles from Babylon proper – This is the likely place that Abraham’s father started the journey from which Abraham was to finish. ~1900BC ??

The ziggaraut, which exists there today was created in ~2100 BC, and is tied to the general religious context of later Babylon which shared a common origin in creation/religious stories. The structure itself is dedicated to the moon god (NANNA in sumerian / Sin in Babylonian). The Babylonians produced a creation account – the Enuma-Elish worth reading for some vocabulary that Genesis’s apologetics are working against. (Although, be aware that many English translations interpolate quite a bit without telling you.)

It is in the Enuma-Elish that one finds that Man is made from the blood of a rebel God, ergo – blood crying out to God would have apologetic impact with the Babylonians. There is also a pun between Cain and Abel – since the captives and the people of Ur were “brothers”, cain referring to man and the suffix of -el on Abel suggestive of divinity.

Ties to the people in Ur, since it was ancestral, could have provided leverage in the returning to Jerusalem.
Only about 1/3 of the captives returned from captivity, where Ur may have played a role as a Babylonian stronghold – perhaps the apologetic was most important since the common background would have been a potent attractor of apostasy from the Jewish faith.

thanks again. I am aware that cultures nearly everywhere create stories about how the world began, most have a flood of some kind. There was a british show on ohhh, maybe 8 months ago about art and how it impacts and shapes culture. Fertility gods are known virtually everywhere, and they are almost always constructed the same. There is something in the human condition or psyche that calls us to explain our presence in the world and to cope pretty much the same way with life. It’s utterly fascinating to find these parallels.

 

[Benadam]

The question is very interesting from the standpoint of Jesus’ comments to the Sadducees – who do not believe in the resurrection or angels, for Jesus claims that the angels in heaven do not marry.
The comment is tricky, for if the Sadducees could have ridiculed Jesus by asking why the “supposed” angels in Genesis did so – the question remains as to why they did not push the point.

Whether or not they believed in angels, the account would appear to discredit Jesus. I am not absolutely sure, but I tend to think that the angel-sex angle is probably not the correct interpretation of “the son’s of God” in Genesis who bring about the nephilim.

So much food for thought written in your last three posts. It seems the Sadducees were caught in their own snare. Also, I appreciate your suggesting the Enuma-Elish for a more comprehensive understranding of
Genesis. Thank you.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Benadam,

I am sure the Sadducees were caught ( they didn’t answer back ).
I wish I understood why with more precision

God bless you in your study.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Hi folks, I apologize for being away so long. My desk has been piled up with things which simply had to be done and I am proud to announce that most of them are done now.

I haven’t even had time to read the replies, but will as soon as I can think clearly.

I felt I had to log on though and post something I noticed in Joshua. The Levites were promised the cities in the Promised Land. Their sole heritage was said to be the Lord Himself.

Cain of course got the cities. There is something mighty strange about Cain. Any thoughts about this city business? Thanks.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…But also notice that the first thing God does for Adam and Eve was to clothe them in LEATHER – the skin of dead animals – when expelling them from the Garden…

Yes and it was this that twigged me to the notion that the first family had no clue what death was. God clothed them in the skin of animals, no doubt quite bloody and who is to say that A&E did not then look upon the flayed carcass of the animals from which the skins were taken?

Would that not have been a very graphic ‘lesson’ in death? Evidently they still didn’t get it. I actually think folks continue to not get it all through the Bible.

Ever notice the biggest critics of Gibson’s Passion of the Christ were folks who dismissed it as being ‘too violent’? Yikes! Compared to what crucifixions actually involved, POC was retrained.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Am I totally ignorant here? Can someone show me where it says in Genesis that man was vegetarian until after the flood?

I already have.

 

[Benadam]

Benadam,

I am sure the Sadducees were caught ( they didn’t answer back ).
I wish I understood why with more precision

God bless you in your study.

Thank you, and also you.

Dear Huiou, I may have found a more precise reason why the Sadducees didn’t answer back. In Lukes account, in the passage below the statement underlined appears. It’s not in the other accounts. In my Jerusalem bible it is translated " because they can no longer die’, I think they expected the discussion to remain centered on the problems the idea of resurrection presents and weren’t prepared to hear a deeper revelation about the purpose of marriage based on a reality about earthly life they couldn’t deny.

**Luke 20-35 But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives. **
**36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal to the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. **

 

[Joe_Kelley]

A Jewish view The world’s first murder

Question 1. Why would I do such a thing?

Question 2. How could God, as a loving parent, reject a gift as insufficient?

This is going to be a ten week discussion at the link given.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

here is the Greek from 1st clement found online compared line for line with the septuagint text.
The () mark the differences.

1.Clem. επι δε Καιν και επι (τοις δωροις) αυτου ου προσεχεν και (ελυπηθη Καιν) λιαν και συνεπεσεν τω προσωπω (αυτου).
Genes 4:5 επι δε καιν και επι (ταις θυσιαις) αυτου ου προσεσχεν και (ελυπησεν τον καιν) λιαν και συνεπεσεν τω προσωπω ()

I. Clem. και ειπεν () ο θεος (προς) Καιν· Ινα τι περιλυπος εγενου; και ινα τι συνεπεσεν το προσωπον σου;
Genes 4:6 και ειπεν (κυριος) ο θεος (τω) καιν ινα τι περιλυπος εγενου και ινα τι συνεπεσεν το προσωπον σου

I. Clem ουκ εαν ορθως προσενεγκης ορθως δε μη διελης, ημαρτες(;) ησυχασον· προς σε η αποστροφη (αψτου), και συ αρξεις αυτου.
Genes 4:7 ουκ εαν ορθως προσενεγκης ορθως δε μη διελης ημαρτες ησυχασον προς σε η αποστροφη (αυτου) και συ αρξεις αυτου

The last change in clement looks like a spelling error, as I don’t know of any word that looks like that.
The changes aren’t enough to be a paraphrase, although clement uses synonyms in a few places.
eg. sacrifices becomes gifts. etc.
It looks more of a grammatical polishing – only, clement copies exactly the phrase in verse 7; and this verse is unique in the whole bible for have “not if” rather than “if not,” of any other form – which makes it very hard for me to verify if I have translated verse 7 into english correctly.

More later…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

My own English was horrible in that last post!

Clearly clement was quoting the septuagint Greek, at least where the accusation comes in about cutting / dividing.

The English translations of the verse are somewhat loose though – since the septuagint translation posted by Joel Tunnah (#10), and the original clement translation do not agree.

I found a similar enough phrase, that I can improve the translation some. Aristotle uses a construction with the same parts in nicom. ethics.
If I have the idea correct; ουκ εαν / δε

Genes 4:7
ουκ εαν ορθως προσ-ενεγκ-ης
not conclusion [you] rightly offered-before

ορθως δε μη διελ-ης η-μαρτ-ες
rightly (if) not [you]cut-before [you]wandered(impf)

**
if you didn’t rightly cut, then don’t conclude you rightly offered. You sinned (wandered).
**

There is a (; ) in clement to end the question that shows “You sinned” is included in the question by modern Greek commentators – so I might have missed something, although the (; ) is not in my copy of the septuagint…

The second part of the translation of v7, however, seems fanciful – as there is no talk of returning in the greek at all.

Be at peace: thine offering returns to thyself, and thou shalt again possess it.

versus

be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt rule over him.

Perhaps I’ll work that one out tomorrow, and note a couple of useful historical details.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I already have.

If so, I must’ve missed it – my apologies. Can you give me the chapter and verse again?

Peace,
Dante