Cain and Abel, A new look

[marymol]

Here we are on another eve of 11/ 9 …

And tomorrow, The Church celebrate Dedication of the Lateran Basilica ; Pope Benedict, in the past , having used the occasion to remind us , to rejoice in our unity , in The One Church , in our Lord …

Basilicas and churches …places for us children to meet and celebrate - unity and relationships , with The Father… with each other …of being able to relate to all… in His Merits …as forgiven …and our Kingship , over creation …over our passions …

In The Garden , when that unity was destroyed by a lie, The Father had come in …and slain The Lamb ( from the foundation of the world !) and shown us , how very precious we are to Him …

As time passed , those two boys …the division had its effects…

Cain - was he a deprived child … the parents , too caught up in the aftermath of guilt and selfpity … and he , wanting to be a god by self …not able to recognise that all is gift …including that brother …even if his sheep might have come into Cain’s pasture …and took some nibbles …

Was he the prototype of all Narcissistic types …

Abel …had he often thought of that Mysterious , slain Lamb …

His heart , probably yearning for closer ties to his brother , who seemed resentful …

Had Abel suggesetd that they offer One Worship - of grain and meat … in thanksgiving …but rejected by Cain , in his arrogance … who found more evil pleasure in the false superiority of holding onto resentments …

We are told, by our Lord - before you bring your sacrifice to the altar , if you have anything against your brother , to make it up with him …

Our Trinitarian God and Father , ever wanting His chidren too , to rejoice in relationhips …with Him and each other … graciously accepting our offerings as a sign of our yearning to do so …

Cain had missed that truth …of Oneness…

Abel …slain , yet recalled at many a Holy Mass …as we call on The Father , to accept ours … like that of Abel …

Peace !

 

[Benadam]

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.

yes, it seems to me that Cain’s value’s were utilitarian. This can be seen as the reason ‘the best’ did not describe his offering. The value of his offering was the usefullness of the earth’s produce he was able to achieve from a utilitarian outlook. Evidence of it’s utilitarian value is the quick results it seems to have offered in extending it’s organized uniformity.

Gen 4-17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and brought forth Henoch: and he built a city, and called the name thereof by the name of his son Henoch.

The next sentence after the mention of the first born up untill Cain simply states that there are many sons and daughters born. This is the extent of almost all of Adam’s line descended from Seth. The activity of procreation in response to the blessing attached to populating the earth is changed to* ‘built a city’* for Cain and not a repeated in the names of the generations of Cain. The naming of the city may have something to do with that. It makes sense that organizing the produce of the earth to reproduce it’s kind within a certain vicinity rather than collecting it where it naturally consumes would offer a surplus that would allow some of Cain’s decendents to spend their time doing something other than providing basic resources.

Perhaps eneogh surplus to have two wives and kids who invented stuff

Mathusael begot Lamech: 19 Who took two wives: the name of the one was Ada, and the name of the other Sella. 20 And Ada brought forth Jabel: who was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of herdsmen.

21 And his brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of them that play upon the harp and the organs. 22 Sella also brought forth Tubalcain, who was a hammerer and artificer in every work of brass and iron.

I see in this description when compared with Seth’s line, the possibility that the decendents of Cain are in various degrees, esteemed in the measure they are usefull.

 

[marymol]

Apologies , for may be being almost intrusive …

This, lest we not miss the chance to focus on The Father’s Mercy , in this whole episode …

Here is the ? first act of worship , by Cain , the first born of Adam … …

Seemingly an empty gesture …may be even like the empty sheaves of grain that might have been in that offering … …from an empty heart , like that of many a narcissist …

Yet - The Father came …how could Cain have not fallen prosrate in adoration …and listened to His words …

And so it goes …even now … empty, hardened hearts that call Him …and in His astounding act of fidelity, He comes …

Even if those hearts refuse to open …and be filled …to recieve the love of The Father …to be able to love the brother again …to be set free from the emptiness of selflove …

May His Mercy heal and unite us !

 

[marymol]

May the intercession of The New Eve, our Bl.Mother, fill all empty hearts ,like at that wedding at Cana …a celebration of relationships …

that there be enough helpers , to draw and plead for… the water of grace and repentance …from the Well spring of The Spirit …The Word …

that all who are invited to be guests , in the banquet of heartland , be able to have enough of The New Wine …of His Mercy…His Spirit …

that His Glory be revealed …in us being His true children …who give Him glory …

Come , O Holy Spirit !

Come, through the intercession of The Immaculate Heart of Mary …and fill our hearts !

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Scrap my last post or two, there are mistakes.

I Clement is using a single letter change to justify translating “returns to you.”, but there are other problems which make me suspect correctino by bible scholars somewhere. …

I do think Cain knew what death was, even if only from the standpoint of planting seeds in the ground. Not all seeds would grow, and so Cain had to give up some of his crop to plant the next season.

Unless a seed fall into the ground and die, it remains a single seed.

Another interesting note is that the passage in all versions of the Greek are quite clear that Cain brought plural gifts – it does not speak in the collective (eg. grain), but in the plural.

Specifically, the Septuagint records the name as θυσι… which is a word applied to animal sacrifice. It is also part of the root for the word “altar”. Gifts is a different word – and in the NT both are referenced ( Gifts and Sacrifices). So, one is left to wonder about what Cain really brought.

The Greek word for altar appears to be a compound word related to either astral worship, or if I stretch the imagination a bit, it might have to do with supporting the victim.

I find it interesting that Clement appears to avoid the use of that word – possibly because Genesis has already gone to great pains to avoid worshiping the heavens.

That’s all for me for now. God bless you all.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Huiou Theou:

…I do think Cain knew what death was, even if only from the standpoint of planting seeds in the ground. Not all seeds would grow, and so Cain had to give up some of his crop to plant the next season.

Unless a seed fall into the ground and die, it remains a single seed.

OK, fair enough. Good point. But do you think that ‘knowing what death is’ is an either/or, on/off thing? I don’t. I think that ‘knowing what death is’ falls on a learning curve. It is something which – like the seeds which fall on fertile soil – grows, develops, flowers into a mature knowledge.

The death of seeds falling on infertile ground cannot be fairly compared to death-as-sacrifice.

If folks are looking for something to condemn then I guess Cain is an easy target. But looking in Genesis, we see that God Himself is actually quite merciful with Cain. Cain’s response is dissociative. Sociopaths are generally not dissociative. Folks running from overwhelming pain often are dissociative.

So in that sense I think Cain’s response can be taken literally – not figuratively: that is, he IS his brother’s keeper. And the sacrifice of his brother meant more to him than he had realized. He had little way of predicting what death-as-sacrifice was before he killed his brother.

Yes, the Law was written on his heart. He may have experienced some discomfort about killing his brother, but without direct experience of the consequences, he had no way of knowing that killing his brother also meant the sacrifice of something of value to him, something hard to give up.

‘Some degree of discomfort’, some sense that killing a brother is wrong does not directly equate to the ravages of guilt, remorse, and grief that follow closely on the heels of the first manslaughter. I say manslaughter because was it really murder? If you consider the fratricide to be murder, then show me the mens rea.

So here we see that the consequence for sin is death. Surely God does not want death for His creation. Yet God is a Just God. So death it is. But some degree of learning is required for His creation to come back home from the jaws of death. All of the Old Testament is about that learning which turns out to be futile in the absence of the Crucifixion.

In Cain we see a man who – when faced with the reality of death – ‘pops out’ of consciousness. Not much learning there. So yeah maybe this ‘popping out of consciousness’ manifests itself in city life – far from the whispering wisdom of trees and weather.

Later (somewhere) God says that he loves Abel and hates Cain. But what does this mean? Are we to take this literally? Well what does He mean when he says He loves Jacob and hates Esau? Did you ever notice that He showers Esau with goodies? When Esau meets up with his brother on the plain, he comes with a retinue of servants and an abundance of foodstuffs – literally rolling in wealth!

… continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

So yeah I guess I am saying that some sort of mitigation takes places on the part of God as far as imputing fault. In torts law, the fault of the defendant is often tempered by mitigating circumstances. I think that this happens with Cain. It sure as hek is obvious in Joshua’s City of Asylum.

Scriptural teaching is often found in the interstices – and not in the stories themselves. In Joshua 20, for example, we are told of the Cities of Asylum:

…Tell the Israelites to designate the cities of which I spoke to them through Moses, to which one guilty of accidental and unintended homicide may flee for asylum from the avenger of blood…

Huiou Theou:

…Another interesting note is that the passage in all versions of the Greek are quite clear that Cain brought plural gifts – it does not speak in the collective (eg. grain), but in the plural…

Covering his bets? What is your theory on these plural gifts? Do you think it is perhaps about Cain not really knowing what is ‘first and best’ in his system of values? Or maybe it is implied that he horded what was first and best and attempted to scam God by offering a flurry of razzle dazzle?

To be fair, how many among us truly know what is first and best in our system of values? What would really hurt us to sacrifice? For Abraham it was Isaac, right? What is it for you? What was it for Cain?
Huiou Theou:

Specifically, the Septuagint records the name as θυσι… which is a word applied to animal sacrifice. It is also part of the root for the word “altar”. Gifts is a different word – and in the NT both are referenced ( Gifts and Sacrifices). So, one is left to wonder about what Cain really brought.

Well, obviously it would not have been animal sacrifices. Right?

Anyway cool insights from the Greek. Thanks for this. Toodle-oo for now.

btw, this is the first time I have noticed a thread on Cain & Abel taking off as well as this one has. Usually they peter our after a few posts. I think this story is a fascinating one, full of mystery and import. I love it.

… end of post

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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.

Thanks for this. Looks intriguing!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

marymol:

Here we are on another eve of 11/ 9 …

Seems so far away this year.

marymol:

As time passed , those two boys …the division had its effects…

The history you mean? The stories around the fireplace? The vicarious loss of Paradise? As much mischaracterized as a tv depiction of family life? The unfathomable, irresolvable mystery of wounded parents?

marymol:

Cain - was he a deprived child … the parents , too caught up in the aftermath of guilt and selfpity …

Mmmmm… yep. Good catch. Haven’t thought of this before.

marymol:

and he , wanting to be a god by self

Inasmuch as he wanted to FIX his parents? A broken ‘adaptive child’ aspect of his personality? Probably. Good catch on this too!

marymol:

…not able to recognise that all is gift

The hardest thing for broken children to grasp. I guess this is what makes it so critical that we keep on sending those shoe boxes of gifts through Samaritan’s purse every Christmas to those child soldiers.

marymol:

…including that brother …even if his sheep might have come into Cain’s pasture …and took some nibbles …

Well this is something that completely escaped me. The injustice in his mind that Abel got rewarded for behaviour which hinged on the predation of Cain’s ‘property’!

marymol:

Was he the prototype of all Narcissistic types …

No. If he were, he would not have gone dissociative at Abel’s death. He would have made excuses. He would have depersonalized Abel. Nope, I don’t think Cain was a sociopath.

marymol:

Abel …had he often thought of that Mysterious , slain Lamb …

Abel too probably had an onslaught of unfamiliar emotion at the slaying of the herdling. Being first and best, it was probably a pet.

Abel’s emotional onslaught may have contributed to Cain killing him. The immediacy of these emotions may have ‘triggered’ Cain. Abel was acting out of character, no longer accepting of the ‘role’ assigned to him by the broken first family.

First the meek herder of animals, wandering the hills in communion with the weather and the turning of the stars in the heavens. And then a storm of grief and rebellious anger and outrage at the realization of what he had been asked to give up.

marymol:

His heart , probably yearning for closer ties to his brother , who seemed resentful …

… closer ties to someone, Someone, having seen pet disappear into that impenetrable land of the dead. A reaching out for comfort perhaps to Cain who had his own problems. So two broken people trying for an alliance to keep the pain away and it not working. The first addiction?

marymol:

Had Abel suggesetd that they offer One Worship - of grain and meat … in thanksgiving …but rejected by Cain , in his arrogance … who found more evil pleasure in the false superiority of holding onto resentments …

It is possible that Abel had some utopian theories stemming from the brokenness of his parents. There is no evidence for this though, unless you can show me some. Likely he was asked for his first and best, he complied, and he mourned.

marymol:

We are told, by our Lord - before you bring your sacrifice to the altar , if you have anything against your brother , to make it up with him …

Ah yes, Cain likely sacrificed wrongly because the resentment over the ‘nibbling.’ Plausible.

marymol:

Cain had missed that truth …of Oneness…

Communion, you mean? Not sure about his one. I think we each come to Salvation as Individuals. Although our works of faith are manifested through community.

 

[marymol]

May our yearning to recognise and recieve The Truth and make it fruitful in our lives , be blessed by our Father !

Peace !

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Chapter 2 of the Jewish view Rabbi Fohrman notes that Cain did not offer sacrifice in imitation of Abel. Cain offered his sacrifice first. Cain invented sacrifice to God. He also notes that it is not stated that Abel’s sacrifice was better; just that it was of his best while Cain gave whatever came to hand. Then why did he not give of his best?

 

[TOME]

First I would like to thank Joe Kelley’s post and links - I think in questions about the OT it is always helpful to get a jewish perspective which often adds a fuller richness to our discussions.

I think it is important as we discuss Cain and Able that we consider two other parts of the Bible to help with our understanding.

The first is the previous three chapters of Genesis and the second is 1 John 3.

In the first three chapters of Genesis we read that God, our Creator, created us and He created us with a purpose. In these chapters we find the revelation fundelmental aspects of our human nature and our relationship both to God and to each other.
In chapter three we read about the nature of sin and the why of the “Original Sin” and it’s effects. So I think (and this is certainly not my original concept) that the authors of the OT placed the story of Cain and Able immediately after chapter 3 as a continuation of “The Fall” by showing its effects.

God rejects Cain’s sacrifice and I agree with those who wrote the reason for this rejection was not because it was a sacrifice of grain and fruit, rather, God rejected Cain’s sacrifice because Cain was not giving his best. In other words, by not giving his best Cain failed to acknowldge God’s position as Creator - as God. Cain was in effect expressing through his actions that he would do what he (Cain) though would be the acceptable sacrifice - he was making up his own rules or like his father he was becoming his own god.

But the Bible tells us that God reads the hearts of man and I think in God’s discourse with Cain God reveals that he sees Cain subcoming to the temptation of becoming his own standard. This is why the sacrifice was rejected/returned with God warning Cain,
“Sin is a demon lurking at the door: his urge is towards you, yet you can be his master”. Again Cain is offered by God the freedom either to accept God or reject God and become his own master.
(NAB Gen 4:7)

I thnk here the footnotes to the NAB provide us with an important insight that supports the view I gave above. In the footnote on this passage it (4:1) that the name Cain in Hebrew is “qayin” and comes from the term “qaniti” meaning “I Have Produced”. Here, I believe we find with this play on words Chapter 4 pointing back to Chapter 3; it is the individual who thinks he has produced the grain and fruit through his own efforts and fails to acknowledge God as the true creator.

 

[TOME]

Continued) However, this story in Chapter 4 continues to point back to Chapter 3 and now shows the effects of sin. Here is where I believe turning to 1 John 3 gives us valuable insight. As we all know that John’s letter is all about the love we must have for one another - the love that we were created for but rejected at “Fall” but restored in Christ. In Chapter 3 of his letter John tells his flock Cain slaughtered his brother because Cain belong to the evil one and his own works were evil. In Genesis this evil is expressed as envy, but isn’t envy rooted in a destructive self love? God saw Cain moving towards this evil, rejected his sacrificed and warned Cain about the evil way he was about to grasp. But what was Cain’s response? He grew in his envy to the point he killed his brother.

So again, to better understand the story of Cain and Able I think we need to study the first three chapters of Genesis (understood in the light of 1 John) especially Chapter three looking to the nature and effects of sin. I think we run the risk of missing the deeper meaning of this story if we focus in on such accidentals as grain and fruit as sacrifices as opposed to meat offerings. Our focus must be on the motivations of Able and Cain and how this relates to the nature of sin itself and its consequences.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…I think we run the risk of missing the deeper meaning of this story if we focus in on such accidentals as grain and fruit as sacrifices as opposed to meat offerings. Our focus must be on the motivations of Able and Cain and how this relates to the nature of sin itself and its consequences.

We are warned not to read the hearts of men because that is the domain only of God.

But I do agree that this chapter begins to set out the consequences of sin: note the parallel structures among the chapters.

The hebrew name ‘I have produced’ is insightful. Thanks for this.

It makes sense that someone who is raising sheep would not in a million years think he was responsible for lambs being born because it is so obvious that the ewe is giving birth.

However, someone raising grain may have a more difficult time of it. After all it is he who prepares tils the soil, plants the seed, digs the irrigation ditches, and so on.

It is plausible to me, therefore, that Cain was becoming his own God. It is plausible that the ‘adaptive child’ part of his personality was maldeveloped due to the brokenness and (probably) self-absorption of his parents. Same thing as saying he was becoming his own God.

I am not convinced that it is productive to conceive of this story as having only one ‘deeper meaning’. Evil was certainly crouching at the door. So was Mercy.

Moreover, Cain’s fault in killing his brother was mitigated by his inexperience vis a vis death. We see that it was mitigated because God draws a mark on his forehead so that others may not slay him. We see also that God permits him a wife, children, a city. He is not deprived.

It is not a simple story. It is deeply personal and fraught with mystery.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Joe Kelley:

Chapter 2 of the Jewish view Rabbi Fohrman notes that Cain did not offer sacrifice in imitation of Abel.

But Rabbi does not specify WHICH sacrifice. The grain? Or his brother Abel?
Joe Kelley:

Cain offered his sacrifice first. Cain invented sacrifice to God. He also notes that it is not stated that Abel’s sacrifice was better; just that it was of his best while Cain gave whatever came to hand. Then why did he not give of his best?

Rabbi: We imagine, perhaps, that Cain saw his brother bringing an offering to God and, not wanting to be outdone, Cain figured he would play along. His heart wasn’t really in it though, so he didn’t bring the best of what he had.

But in reality it didn’t happen like that. It wasn’t Abel who had the brainstorm to bring the first offering – it was Cain. Cain was the originator – the first person in the history of the world to bring an offering to God.

How do we know this chronology? In any case, the chronology of the animal/grain sacrifices is not really relevant or helpful. We KNOW that the killing/sacrifice of Abel by Cain comes after the offering of the animal/grain sacrifices.

Rabbi does not catch the possibility of Cain sacrificing Abel in emulation of Abel’s sacrifice of the herd animal (pet), because the Rabbi is writing from a pre-Christian perspective. See below.

This is what I have been suggesting all along. That Abel was offered as a sacrifice and that Cain – troubled that reality did not match invention – checked in with God so as to ask “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

What basis is there for interpreting this question as rhetorical instead of a straightforward request for information? Yet the usual interpretation has been that the question is rhetorical, a form of dissembling.

Rabbi: How are we to decipher Cain? Like it or not, the story is not really about Abel. He just gets killed, and we know nothing more of him. It is Cain whose legacy endures. It is Cain whose acts and thoughts are the focus of our story. It is Cain the Torah is asking us to try and understand.

Well maybe from a pre-Christian perspective, yes. Cain certainly endures. And Cain is certainly informative as to our brokenness.

However, did Abel not prefigure the Lamb of God who was *sacrificed *on the Cross so that our sins may be forgiven?

Did not all the previous sacrifices fall short of the mark in that they only covered sins but did not cancel them?

Were not the previous sacrifices therefore parallel to Cain’s offering of grain – lacking in the gift of humility, the gift of truly giving up something to which we are deeply attached?

We can be attached to animals.
We can be attached to our lives, our families, our lifestyles, our comfort, and so on.
But being attached to a loaf of bread is somewhat hard to do.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The death of seeds falling on infertile ground cannot be fairly compared to death-as-sacrifice.

Ani, I don’t think this way – I think in terms of the vocabulary presented in Genesis, and how it is interpreted through the ages.
Sacrifice is done for a purpose – in general one expects to get something back ( eg: communion, blessing, etc. )
In this sense, planting and sacrificing are very related.

The translation I have given is rather poor (ergo: hyper hyper literal) – I was mostly just pulling the simplest meaning of each word without checking the particular conjugation of the words carefully. I have looked quite a bit more since then, and will
need to revise the translation as I improve my understanding of the words, and verify their proper cases.

There are three words in the translation which present extra-ordinary difficulty in translation.

They are words roughly for turning away, cutting (sacrificial), sacrifices, and gifts.

In the Septuagint Greek – Abel brings gifts, and Cain brings sacrifices. This is backward from what one would expect, for the word associated with cutting is used in the Levitical Law specifically for animals, and it looks to be OK to cut a lamb this way – but not a bird. ( I am still looking into this!!! )

If folks are looking for something to condemn then I guess Cain is an easy target. But looking in Genesis…

God is gentle even with the devil, in the short run.

So in that sense I think Cain’s response can be taken literally – not figuratively: that is, he IS his brother’s keeper. And the sacrifice of his brother meant more to him than he had realized. He had little way of predicting what death-as-sacrifice was before he killed his brother.

He didn’t know how much murder would affect himself, I agree.
He still is culpable, but there is much to the story I don’t yet
understand – and being as I have a minor surgery in the morning, It will be some time before I will probably feel well enough to answer the burning questions.

I say manslaughter because was it really murder? If you consider the fratricide to be murder, then show me the mens rea.

ibid.

So here we see that the consequence for sin is death. Surely God does not want death for His creation.

In a sense, God does – not the second death, but the first:
the seed dies to bring forth fruit.

God hates in the sense that he separates; God is not malicious
in and of himself, for he is all good – but he can leave someone
to themselves here on earth and in hell.

So yeah I guess I am saying that some sort of mitigation takes places.

sure.

Covering his bets? What is your theory on these plural gifts? Do you think it is perhaps about Cain not really knowing what is ‘first and best’ in his system of values? …
…
Well, obviously it would not have been animal sacrifices. Right?

The Greek words suggest that Cain acted as the butcher, and he sacrifices fruit of the earth: I know from other text that honey from the earth is the expression used of wild honey, so I gather that Cain offered not only the crop he grew – but possibly some wild birds or animals in a way that displeased God.
He might also have just brought some leaves!

…

Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac was special in a different way,
and doesn’t really apply here – without special qualifications.

…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Huiou Theou:

Ani, I don’t think this way – I think in terms of the vocabulary presented in Genesis, and how it is interpreted through the ages.
Sacrifice is done for a purpose – in general one expects to get something back ( eg: communion, blessing, etc. )
In this sense, planting and sacrificing are very related.

I am not going to sweat the details; only to say that Abel’s ‘gift’ differed from Cain’s ‘gift’ in that Abel had an attraction and attachment to his ‘gift’ normally reserved for animals and humans. Abel’s ‘gift’ was likely his pet.

Bees and birds do not give live birth. They are not ‘motherly.’

Basically, what I am saying is that Abel’s ‘gift’ hurt to be given up. Cain’s did not.
Huiou Theou:

In the Septuagint Greek – Abel brings gifts, and Cain brings sacrifices. This is backward from what one would expect, for the word associated with cutting is used in the Levitical Law specifically for animals, and it looks to be OK to cut a lamb this way – but not a bird. ( I am still looking into this!!! )

Aish.com gave me a lot of help with this genre of Law.
Huiou Theou:

God is gentle even with the devil, in the short run.

Yes. That is part of what I am saying. If you read the narrative really closely, you see that God LOVES Cain and is merciful to him. He could have turned him into a pillar of salt or something.
Huiou Theou:

…being as I have a minor surgery in the morning, It will be some time before I will probably feel well enough to answer the burning questions.

God bless you and rest you.
Huiou Theou:

God hates in the sense that he separates; God is not malicious in and of himself, for he is all good – but he can leave someone to themselves here on earth and in hell.

Did he really leave Esau to his own devices? Look at what Esau ended up having.
Huiou Theou:

The Greek words suggest that Cain acted as the butcher

Ah! So a new resonance to the question: Am I my brother’s keeper? Keeper as opposed to butcher?
Huiou Theou:

…Cain offered not only the crop he grew – but possibly some wild birds or animals in a way that displeased God.

Ha! Probably some parrot that mouthed off!
Huiou Theou:

Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac was special in a different way, and doesn’t really apply here – without special qualifications.

…the notion of death and sacrifice is a theme in the Bible which develops, grows. So they are related. Certainly Abraham was asked to give up something to which he was greatly attached: the son he had longed for.

Thank you btw for the great etymologies!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Continuing the Jewish view The Worlds First Murder, Part III

Re-read the story of Cain and Abel. But don’t just read it in a vacuum. Read it side by side with the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden. At face value, the stories couldn’t seem more different. One deals with talking snakes and Forbidden Fruit; the other with a spurned offering and an act of murder. But look a little more closely. Hidden in the verses of Cain and Abel you will find a curious abundance of parallels to the story of the Forbidden Fruit. Certain key phrases, ideas or events appear in one story, then unexpectedly, re-appear in the next one. See if you can find them

 

[PeterK]

IMHO
The long standing, plain, straight-forward reading of the text has Cain committing premeditated cold blooded murder out of jealousy or envy. This is not a strained interpretation of a vague passage.

The comparison to Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac is not well thought out. Three basic and major distinctions between the stories are 1) Cain is not Abel’s father, 2) Cain is not asked by God to sacrifice Abel and 3) Abel dies - Isaac is spared.

Reading between the lines is nice as long as we don’t change the lines we are reading between.

I hope this doesn’t sound gruff, but ideas are getting fairly fantastic and creative.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone and safe travels should you venture out.
Peter

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Well,
I am glad to see the enthusiasm still lingering.

I haven’t time to post much right now, but I would like to note a few things I discovered when tracing out the origins and meanings of the Greek words in this passage (so far), and how they affect the interpretation of the passage.

The word I translated “cut” ( διελης ) is a very old word, with roots in a time before Koin greek. It is difficult to work with because the word is a contraction of vowels which I don’t see very often.

It is actually a compound word, as far as I can tell, which is made up of δια + `ιρεω dia + ireO, and several contractions taking place when used.

It means (dia) through + (ireO) taking/siezing/tearing…

More importantly, than the imprecision of tearing, is the suggestion of foul play by the word itself.

For example, one form of the word, διλει – is only found scripturally where a complicated (uneven) division is taking place.
see: Numbers31:27 where the deal seems even until taxation is taken into account.
2Samuel19:30 where David asks Meribaal whether he wants his “cut” from his guileful servant – and Meribaal wisely declines.
Joshua18:4 where political concerns will need to be settled once the mapping of the shrewd representatives is finished.
Proverbs 17:2 where even the servant gets a “cut” of the inheritance.

The carving up of a lamb is not appropriate for the use of this word, as it implies someone is probably getting the better of a deal by being shrewd with their brother.

Euclid uses it in proposition ~ X.95 (geometry), when showing how to cut up a rectangle unevenly – such that an even cut happens when you are finished.

The most important places the word is used is in Leviticus 1:17, 5:8, where it is forbidden the priest to make a complicated tearing of a bird.

I’ll leave the other words until a bit later, but this word shows clearly that God found the “cut” too shrewd to be without sin (wandering) of the cut. Perhaps Abel complained to God in prayer, and so the motive is revenge.

Also, Cain is the older brother, and according to tradition before the fall in the desert which restricted the priesthood to Aaron, Levi, and children – the “elder” ( presbuteros ) were the priests, and so there is quite a bit of reason to expect that the Septuagint is implying that Cain acted as the officiating priest at this first voluntary sacrifice – and that he had a “cut” which he thought was his of his brother’s offering.

Ani,
I do agree that the concept of death grows – but there is certanly an oral tradition which Cain would have been privy to.

In fact, to extend the point about the seed (sperma) to the human realm including the intention of God – Adam is taken to be impassible (not capable of death) in the traditional teaching of the church. To be blunt, and somewhat imprecise, Adam couldn’t die before the fall – his soul was united / forming his body in such a way that death wasn’t possible.

So, the interesting thing is what does this mean with respect to Adam’s seed? (his offspring). Anything which comes from Adam that was separated from him would necessarily die, for he would no longer control it. Eg. sever your hand – it no longer obeys you.
Also, Your children’s soul is not exactly your own.

Yet God blessed creation even before the fall with fertility.
In the case of Adam, this fertility was given in the form of his wife even before the sin. Consider, Adam was cast into a deep sleep by God – in order to strike a wound in his side (the rib) from which woman was formed. Adam suffered a partial death, the death of his rib.

He has at once a right to the wife who is indebted to him for his flesh, and at the same time she is another being with her own soul.

This is the first death and resurrection story – where God did the cutting. I had thought that the earliest is Jonah and the fish, but this is even more conspicuous.

Adam is not “motherly” either.