Cain and Abel just an analogy?

[jofa]

My son’s religious ed teacher told the class (allegedly) that the story of Cain and Abel was only an analogy. I understood it to have been an actual event consisting of two men who were brothers who actually existed. Any clarity on Catholic teaching would be great.
Thanks!
Sandra

 

[John7]

I can only give you evidence from Catechism and scripture:

I look at it as to whether C & A were mythical or real. I believe that the Catechism
teaches (somewhere) Adam and Eve were real people, therefore it makes sense
that two of their sons would be real also.

also from CCC they, C & A, don’t seem to be seen as mythical:
401
“After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin. There is Cain’s murder
of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin…”

1736
Every act directly willed is imputable to its author: Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin
in the garden: “What is this that you have done?” He asked Cain the same question…"

2259
In the account of Abel’s murder by his brother Cain, Scripture reveals
the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the
beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man. God
declares the wickedness of this fratricide: “What have you done? The voice of your
brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground,
which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.”

from the NT:
Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God
a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness
that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead
yet speaketh.

1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.
And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil,
and his brother’s righteous.

Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth,
from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias,
whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

from these three NT verses (more from OT Genesis) can see that if C & A were myths, then:
-a myth offered a sacrifice to a real God
-a real God testified of the gifts of a myth
-a myth was declared righteous by a real God
-a myth died (was murdered)
-the righteous blood of a myth up to the blood of real Zacharias was accounted unto real men, according to Jesus.

I see them as real (I don’t follow Joseph Cambell’s ideas that everything in religion is a myth),
but I think others here at CA would disagree, seeing them as more mythical.

 

[StarSapphire]

The only problem I have with Cain and Abel not being an analogy is, based entirely on the bible, one goes from Cain murdering his brother, and then getting married. To whom? Where did she come from? Where did their descendents spouses come from. She certainly was not Eve’s daughter. Genesis only makes sense as a historical narrative if taken in the context of the original Jewish scripture from which it was derived.

I have asked this question of many Catholic teachers and there is no consistency in their answer to the question. But personally I see nothing wrong with perceiving Genesis as allegorical - not analogical. It is an allegory for our understanding of creation, God and mankind, related in what was originally verbal histories, like the parables were. I am probably going to make myself deeply unpopular by suggesting this, but I genuinely see no conflict between that perspective and my faith.

 

[jofa]

Thank you both - Very helpful!
God Bless,
Sandra

 

[grannymh]

The only problem I have with Cain and Abel not being an analogy is, based entirely on the bible, one goes from Cain murdering his brother, and then getting married. To whom? Where did she come from? Where did their descendents spouses come from. She certainly was not Eve’s daughter. Genesis only makes sense as a historical narrative if taken in the context of the original Jewish scripture from which it was derived.

I have asked this question of many Catholic teachers and there is no consistency in their answer to the question. But personally I see nothing wrong with perceiving Genesis as allegorical - not analogical. It is an allegory for our understanding of creation, God and mankind, related in what was originally verbal histories, like the parables were. I am probably going to make myself deeply unpopular by suggesting this, but I genuinely see no conflict between that perspective and my faith.

What about Original Sin?

 

[StarSapphire]

Sticky point that one, but still, theoretically, encompassed by allegory. After all, if the allegory allows us to understand God and creation, it also helps us to understand original sin.

And that original sin, interestingly, is knowledge. The same feeling you get when you realise that the ideas, securities, innocence and joy you had as a child has gone. You are, in effect, cast from Eden. And our desire to grow and have that knowledge is the original sin, and the price is the loss of that beautiful innocence. A heartbreaking loss. That God loves us, forgives us, is there for us, sent His son for us, is what cleanses it, through the structure and ritual of the Church that he founded.

But as I have said elsewhere on this forum, on exact precepts I do have the occasional debate. Absolute faith and acceptance is still something I am working on achieving. I am a long way off - a very long way off - but working on it. Original Sin is one of those sticking points.And in practical terms it’s an interesting question, but a separate one as to whom Cain married.

 

[Tomek]

The only problem I have with Cain and Abel not being an analogy is, based entirely on the bible, one goes from Cain murdering his brother, and then getting married. To whom? Where did she come from? Where did their descendents spouses come from. She certainly was not Eve’s daughter. Genesis only makes sense as a historical narrative if taken in the context of the original Jewish scripture from which it was derived.

You’re certainly not the first to ask such a question. One thought is that the Bible’s genealogies and lists of children are not exhaustive, that is, they don’t reveal all the children Adam and Eve had. They may very well had many more children not mentioned in the Bible. Another thought, and this is sometimes tied in with evolutionary theory, is that Adam and Eve were not the first humans, but the first humans endowed with spiritual souls. So it would be possible for a descendant of Adam endowed with a spiritual soul, to marry a human without one. But ultimately we are not sure, the Bible doesn’t specify because it’s not meant to.

I have asked this question of many Catholic teachers and there is no consistency in their answer to the question. But personally I see nothing wrong with perceiving Genesis as allegorical - not analogical. It is an allegory for our understanding of creation, God and mankind, related in what was originally verbal histories, like the parables were. I am probably going to make myself deeply unpopular by suggesting this, but I genuinely see no conflict between that perspective and my faith.

Genesis is historical in that it deals with the very beginnings of the human race, but much of the information is revealed in symbols and allegory. The genre is not strict history per se, but a revelation of truths that serve to enlighten and guide us towards God.

 

[dandingo]

The only problem I have with Cain and Abel not being an analogy is, based entirely on the bible, one goes from Cain murdering his brother, and then getting married. To whom? Where did she come from? Where did their descendents spouses come from. She certainly was not Eve’s daughter. Genesis only makes sense as a historical narrative if taken in the context of the original Jewish scripture from which it was derived.

I have asked this question of many Catholic teachers and there is no consistency in their answer to the question. But personally I see nothing wrong with perceiving Genesis as allegorical - not analogical. It is an allegory for our understanding of creation, God and mankind, related in what was originally verbal histories, like the parables were. I am probably going to make myself deeply unpopular by suggesting this, but I genuinely see no conflict between that perspective and my faith.

What I have read and heard many places is that just because the bible states that Adam and Eve were the first humans to be created by God, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they were the only humans created by God. I don’t know if this is true or not but I find it to be a very intriguing argument.

 

[grannymh]

Sticky point that one, but still, theoretically, encompassed by allegory. After all, if the allegory allows us to understand God and creation, it also helps us to understand original sin.

And that original sin, interestingly, is knowledge. The same feeling you get when you realise that the ideas, securities, innocence and joy you had as a child has gone. You are, in effect, cast from Eden. And our desire to grow and have that knowledge is the original sin, and the price is the loss of that beautiful innocence. A heartbreaking loss. That God loves us, forgives us, is there for us, sent His son for us, is what cleanses it, through the structure and ritual of the Church that he founded.

But as I have said elsewhere on this forum, on exact precepts I do have the occasional debate. Absolute faith and acceptance is still something I am working on achieving. I am a long way off - a very long way off - but working on it. Original Sin is one of those sticking points.And in practical terms it’s an interesting question, but a separate one as to whom Cain married.

Original sin is the actual severing of the first human being’s relationship with God.

Cain married either his cousin, niece, or sister since the genetic effects (evil) of incest could not have happened biologically in the first couple of generations descending from Adam and Eve.

 

[hockeyfan]

The only problem I have with Cain and Abel not being an analogy is, based entirely on the bible, one goes from Cain murdering his brother, and then getting married. To whom? Where did she come from? Where did their descendents spouses come from. She certainly was not Eve’s daughter. Genesis only makes sense as a historical narrative if taken in the context of the original Jewish scripture from which it was derived.

I have asked this question of many Catholic teachers and there is no consistency in their answer to the question. But personally I see nothing wrong with perceiving Genesis as allegorical - not analogical. It is an allegory for our understanding of creation, God and mankind, related in what was originally verbal histories, like the parables were. I am probably going to make myself deeply unpopular by suggesting this, but I genuinely see no conflict between that perspective and my faith.

This has always bothered me too. Cain complained in Genesis 4: 13-16

Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

But the LORD said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

Who are these people to kill Cain? Abel is dead, is it Adam? Where did these people come from? Then as you adeptly pointed out, Cain found a wife. In Genesis 4: 17 it says…

Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.

Wait a second! Cain builds a whole City. Even under the assumption that Adam and Eve had a unnamed daughter who gave birth to Enoch through incest, there should only be 6 people alive. (Adam, Eve, Cain, Cain’s wife, Seth, and Enoch) How did Cain find enough people to built a whole city? Even if he built all of the building himself, which I find unlikely, you need people to populate the city. Did they magically appear, or were they already there?

 

[grannymh]

Wait a second! Cain builds a whole City. Even under the assumption that Adam and Eve had a unnamed daughter who gave birth to Enoch through incest, there should only be 6 people alive. (Adam, Eve, Cain, Cain’s wife, Seth, and Enoch) How did Cain find enough people to built a whole city? Even if he built all of the building himself, which I find unlikely, you need people to populate the city. Did they magically appear, or were they already there?

Scripture does not list each and every person who has been born since the beginning of human history. It lists the important people and skips the ordinary folk.

Adam and Eve were blessed by God so that humans could fill the earth and eventually you and I would be born. Given the birth rate plus overlapping generations, a large number of people were procreated rather quickly.

 

[Warrenton]

This has always bothered me too. Cain complained in Genesis 4: 13-16

Do you imagine that 2000 years ago, people (people like Christ, and St. Paul) weren’t smart enough to notice this?

Check out how long Adam lived.

How many people might have been born in that span?

 

[hockeyfan]

Scripture does not list each and every person who has been born since the beginning of human history. It lists the important people and skips the ordinary folk.

Adam and Eve were blessed by God so that humans could fill the earth and eventually you and I would be born. Given the birth rate plus overlapping generations, a large number of people were procreated rather quickly.

And that leads to where I wanted to go with pointing those scriptures out. Now that you are bringing up the point that scripture does not bring up every single person, you just opened up the door that there could have been any number of people around. The only way you can make that leap is if you do not take the story 100% literally. Personally, I think most of the book of Genesis, with the exception of Abram and on, is allegorical. Think about it, if Noah had a arc with two of each animals on it for 40 days of rain and the amount of time it took the time for the water to recede, how did the animals eat? Did the predators kill all of the prey? If they didn’t, why didn’t they starve? If they did, could you imagine all of the animals that went extinct? Did Noah get an elephant on the arc?

If you look at the early book of Genesis (Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Tower of Babel, Noah’s Arc) as allegory it makes more sense. It becomes symbolic of the fall of every human into sin, the same way we do when we are born innocent and descend into sin by eating the tree of knowledge in our lives.

Do you imagine that 2000 years ago, people (people like Christ, and St. Paul) weren’t smart enough to notice this?

Check out how long Adam lived.

How many people might have been born in that span?

Right on.

 

[grannymh]

And that leads to where I wanted to go with pointing those scriptures out. Now that you are bringing up the point that scripture does not bring up every single person, you just opened up the door that there could have been any number of people around.

Of course, within a few generations there could be loads of people, all descendants of Adam and Eve. Ever read the obituary of a great-grandparent who started with nine children? Eve would have had a lot more than nine children. Also, as people know, children like to go off and explore the world.

The only way you can make that leap is if you do not take the story 100% literally

Which part of which story?.

Personally, I think most of the book of Genesis, with the exception of Abram and on, is allegorical. Think about it, if Noah had a arc with two of each animals on it for 40 days of rain and the amount of time it took the time for the water to recede, how did the animals eat? Did the predators kill all of the prey? If they didn’t, why didn’t they starve? If they did, could you imagine all of the animals that went extinct? Did Noah get an elephant on the arc?

I do not do Noah. I prefer the first three chapters of Genesis because I know the Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, original sin, and the promise of a Redeemer.

If you look at the early book of Genesis (Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Tower of Babel, Noah’s Arc) as allegory it makes more sense.

Adam and Eve are real. The personalities of Cain and Abel are common to every society.

It becomes symbolic of the fall of every human into sin, the same way we do when we are born innocent and descend into sin by eating the tree of knowledge in our lives.

Are you referring to one of those cutesy Adam and Eve children’s books?
I don’t recognize any Catholic doctrine in what you are saying.

 

[StarSapphire]

Easily answered, refer to your Catechism - “The Senses of the Scripture”

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism"

The Catholic faith views that God’s word is in the scripture, the divine inspiration for its words - they are open to interpretation in so much as we must interpret them correctly, inspired by the Father. Catholicism believes in the divinity of the scriptures but DOES allow their allegorical and metaphorical interpretation.

It is the understanding, of the divine spark in all creation, of original sin, of, and here grannymh you identified it spot on - the traits inherent in all of our human natures reflected in Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel - so that we learn of the message behind them.

Therefore, as we are all here in agreement of what we Understand Genesis to mean in that respect, we are all following Catholic doctrine. Catholicism is one of the few major religious branches that does not call for a literal interpretation of scripture.

Surely the words do not matter but the message they relate - after all, they vary so much, compare a bible written 150 years ago to one written today, or for someone who can read the original hebrew or Latin texts - for example, it was only recently the ‘Valley of Death’ verse was read as much - the original reads far more closely to ‘the valley of darkness (as in lack of understanding)’, which oddly enough makes a great deal more sense.

 

[grannymh]

Easily answered, refer to your Catechism - “The Senses of the Scripture”

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism"

The Catholic faith views that God’s word is in the scripture, the divine inspiration for its words - they are open to interpretation in so much as we must interpret them correctly, inspired by the Father. Catholicism believes in the divinity of the scriptures but DOES allow their allegorical and metaphorical interpretation.

It is the understanding, of the divine spark in all creation, of original sin, of, and here grannymh you identified it spot on - the traits inherent in all of our human natures reflected in Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel - so that we learn of the message behind them.

Therefore, as we are all here in agreement of what we Understand Genesis to mean in that respect, we are all following Catholic doctrine. Catholicism is one of the few major religious branches that does not call for a literal interpretation of scripture.

Surely the words do not matter but the message they relate - after all, they vary so much, compare a bible written 150 years ago to one written today, or for someone who can read the original hebrew or Latin texts - for example, it was only recently the ‘Valley of Death’ verse was read as much - the original reads far more closely to ‘the valley of darkness (as in lack of understanding)’, which oddly enough makes a great deal more sense.

May I respectfully point out that the Catholic Church has specifically devoted paragraph 390, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition to the correct interpretation of Original Sin in the first three chapters of Genesis. If one takes the time to read paragraphs 355 - 421, one will learn that there is no allegorical and metaphorical interpretation of Original Sin. The interpretation is that Original Sin is real and its effects are real.

 

[StarSapphire]

There is absolutely no allegorical interpretation of original sin whatsoever.

But there is an allegorical interpretation of the medium through which that message is delivered - namely the written word. Genesis, viewed as an allegory, allows me to understand both where original sin came from and why. I still see no contradiction here.

I am not saying Original Sin is open to interpretation. It is not. I am saying the book that tells us about original sin is open to interpretation. The message - original sin - is finite. But the route through which we understand that message is not.

In fact the catechism does state The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.

It even suggests itself that the book is figurative. (And again - the book being figurative, NOT original sin)

In fact our original sin is that we prefer to question, rather than just live by God’s divine grace. As such, we fell from his grace. We were granted free will, at the cost of expulsion from paradise. But he did make us free to choose to do so.

It’s profound, and as strangely beautiful as it is tragic.

 

[grannymh]

There is absolutely no allegorical interpretation of original sin whatsoever.

But there is an allegorical interpretation of the medium through which that message is delivered - namely the written word. Genesis, viewed as an allegory, allows me to understand both where original sin came from and why. I still see no contradiction here.

I am not saying Original Sin is open to interpretation. It is not. I am saying the book that tells us about original sin is open to interpretation. The message - original sin - is finite. But the route through which we understand that message is not.

I am not referring to you.

However, it is important to know that there have been some CAF posters, who point to the figurative language in the first three chapters of Genesis and then go on to either misinterpret the Catholic Doctrine on Original Sin or substitute some “fluff” to take the place of Original Sin.

 

[StarSapphire]

Ah, I see, my apologies.

I got carried away in the discussion, I find this stuff fascinating

 

[Warrenton]

I think most of the book of Genesis, with the exception of Abram and on, is allegorical. Think about it, if Noah had a arc with two of each animals on it for 40 days of rain and the amount of time it took the time for the water to recede, how did the animals eat? Did the predators kill all of the prey? If they didn’t, why didn’t they starve? If they did, could you imagine all of the animals that went extinct? Did Noah get an elephant on the arc?

While this is an understandable position to take (many Greek and Roman Christians in the early Church had a hard time with the Old Testament for the same reason), I would urge modern Catholics at least to suspend disbelief as much as they do in a theatre or sporting event.

Re: the ark. There is a gentleman in Holland who has built a life size replica of the ark, as best as he can figure it. It is made of wood, hand joined, and it is massive. Google it. He has it moored in a canal. And yes, there is room enough for elephants and giraffes.

What’s my point? Just this: if they were no longer there to see, who would believe that 4 or 5000 years ago the Egyptians built the pyramids, or the Chinese a wall stretching 1000 miles? 1000 years hence, if there is a degradation of culture and science due to war, or disease, cataclysm, or some combination of them, who will believe men walked on the moon, or built towers 1/4 mile high? Who will believe a man fought in the Great War, but lived to 114? Or cities that had 10 millions of people? Or devised a single bomb to obliterate such cities?

Much of what we think impossible or unlikely is the result of cultural expectations. It never for a moment crossed Pilate’s mind that Christ could be the son of God. As a governor, it is safe to assume he had one of the best educations available. He spoke Latin, Greek and Hebrew, probably had a good grasp of geometry and trig, and knew the customs of all three different cultures.

Yet when face to face to face with the living God, all he could think to ask was “What is truth?”