What's Genesis 4 about?

[jereth]

A question for my fellow TE brethren (and sistren).

How do you understand Genesis 4? We have a story told about 2 brothers who made different sacrifices, and then one was murdered by the other. After that we have a genealogy of Cain.

Is this based in history? Were Cain and Abel literal historical people? Is totally mythical? Where does the story and genealogy come from? What does it teach us? How does it fit into the surrounding chapters?

It seems that in YEC vs. TE debates Genesis 4 kind of gets ignored.

 

[DailyBlessings]

In my POV, it's a third (or fourth) origin myth, explaining the beginning of sin in a different way. Note that Cain wanders off to a wife and city after the ordeal- the factual details are not important here, except in how they communicate the real message. As in the recounting of Adam and Eve , we were tempted into sin by greed, jealousy, and a desire for power. In doing so, we gained the thing that was desired, but lost something greater- any claim to innocence or freedom from accountability for our actions.

A tangential lesson I've drawn from it at times is in the cruelty of God- We can't slip by on intention. Cain tried every bit as hard as Abel to create a worthy sacrifice, but God did not coddle him by pretending that his was just as good. God does not spare our "feelings".

 

[gluadys]

No, I don't think we are dealing with individuals here. The two sons are symbolic. I like Daily Blessings idea that it is another version of how sin entered human community.

One possible real life inspiration for this story is the conflict between pastoralists (Abel) and agriculturalists (Cain). The settled life of the farmer -- and later citydweller--interferes with the nomadic life of the pastoralist. Farmers see nomads as trespassers. Nomads see farmers (and cities and governments) depriving them of their livelihood by blocking access to fields and water.

The Hebrews were pastoralists in the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so it is natural they saw the pastoralist as the good son who offers the acceptable sacrifice.

I've hears that a similar story is found in Sumerian tales in which it is the pastoralist who murders the agriculturalist.

 

[jereth]

Thanks for your views, dailyblessings and gluadys -- they have been very informative to me.

Another question: Do you see the Genesis 4 story as being tied to Genesis 3 (as it appears in the biblical text), or did the 2 stories arise separately and then become merged later?

Do any other people have views to share? Do any TEs regard Cain and Abel as a literal story?

 

[Willtor]

Thanks for your views, dailyblessings and gluadys -- they have been very informative to me.

Another question: Do you see the Genesis 4 story as being tied to Genesis 3 (as it appears in the biblical text), or did the 2 stories arise separately and then become merged later?

Do any other people have views to share? Do any TEs regard Cain and Abel as a literal story?

It's certainly telling that within a generation of the fall, we have murder. DailyBlessings pointed it out as a second fall story, and I think the compiler of the pentateuch was trying to make the point that we are continuing to fall and become more depraved. In some sense, this makes the flood account into a deus ex machina. The writer can't make things get any more depraved, so he starts over. There is important doctrine regarding the depravity of man and his tendency to fall further and further away from God.

Gluadys talked about the agriculturalist vs. the pastoralist, and I'd heard this, before. As she says, I think the fact that Abel is made out to be the pastoralist probably identifies him with the ancient Hebrews. However, I'd make a subtle alteration and say that pastoralism was a symbol of the line of faithfulness. The fact that Abel doesn't beget the line of promise, but that the promise continues unhindered teaches that God's plans are not foiled by the works of the unfaithful.

 

[shernren]

While I see the value in how the other TEs here read Cain and Abel as a story, I'm not quite ready to make that big jump yet. I guess I'm agnostic about this. I really like the postmodern argument about pastoralism vs. agriculturalism, it's just that there's a part of me which still wants to get by with them being real people saying "You can never prove that it didn't happen!" XD

But I think Willtor has an important point in that murder shows up immediately. It is a logical consequence of the Fall: when man tries to usurp God's authority he corrupts it to turn it into depravity. First man tried to seek knowledge outside of God and ate the fruit. Then man wants to determine what an acceptable sacrifice is before God (instead of sticking to God's givens) and learns that he can't negotiate. Man ends up ending a righteous life when he tries to control God's right to take and give life. Man builds a city where God intended a community. And in the face of judgment, man seeks security by finally wanting to physically topple God from His heavenly throne. It's a very powerful picture that starts with the Fall and works outwards to show how it completely corrupts humanity.

Then Genesis zooms in on Abraham and begins telling the story of redemption.

 

[Willtor]

I wasn't trying to indicate that I thought they weren't historical people. I think it is likely that they were. To get an idea of how I view such things, though, I made a post on the first (or second) page of Pats' Genesis Interpretation thread, where I discuss my understanding of a legendary saga.

 

[gluadys]

Thanks for your views, dailyblessings and gluadys -- they have been very informative to me.

Another question: Do you see the Genesis 4 story as being tied to Genesis 3 (as it appears in the biblical text), or did the 2 stories arise separately and then become merged later?

Do any other people have views to share? Do any TEs regard Cain and Abel as a literal story?

Some great ideas showing up here. To me it shows the power of story to teach regardless whether the characters were actual people or not.

In written form, as far back as we can go, the story of Cain and Abel appear to be a continuation of the story of the fall. Some have called all the stories from Chapter 3 to Chapter 11 "The Sin Cycle". In all of these we see how sin becomes more and more entrenched in human thought and deed. Even with the cleansing of the flood, sin comes right back and before you know it the tower of Babel is being raised.

The Documentary thesis attributes each of the stories to J, the oldest of the Hebrew written traditions.

So if ever the stories were separate it was in the oral tradition that preceded J, and they may well have been amalgamated into a single story cycle even before J put them in writing.

 

[jereth]

Personally, I feel that the Cain/Abel story must in some way be based on literal characters, because we are given some fairly precise details about Cain's genealogy -- even the seemingly irrelevant comment "the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah"

But it does certainly seem too that the author has moved beyond a plain historical telling and created a moral and theological story, which can legitimately call a "myth".

In written form, as far back as we can go, the story of Cain and Abel appear to be a continuation of the story of the fall.

Yes, it is very interesting to explore the links between Genesis 2-3 and chapter 4.

Adam was a worker of the ground (2:4, 15; 3:23). Cain then is described as a worker of the ground (4:2).
Adam's punishment was: "cursed is the ground because of you... you shall eat the plants of the field" (3:17, 18). Cain's punishment was: "And now you are cursed from the ground... when you work the ground it shall no longer yield to you its strength" (4:11, 12); cf. verse 14 "you have driven me away from the ground"

So we have the following progression:
- Adam eats the fruit of the trees in the garden paradise
- Adam must work the ground, and eat the plants of the field
- Cain works the ground
- Cain can no longer work the ground, and becomes a nomad (dependent on foraging or gathering?)

But I think Willtor has an important point in that murder shows up immediately.

To me this is strong evidence against a literal interpretation of Genesis 3. When I read Genesis 3, it feels like Adam and Eve eating the fruit is a dumb mistake, rather than a deliberate, malignant act of pure evil. So in the YECist schema, we have a morally perfect couple initiating the Fall through the dumb mistake of eating some fruit, and immediately afterwards a cold-blooded vicious murder. Doesn't quite make sense does it?

 

[Willtor]

To me this is strong evidence against a literal interpretation of Genesis 3. When I read Genesis 3, it feels like Adam and Eve eating the fruit is a dumb mistake, rather than a deliberate, malignant act of pure evil. So in the YECist schema, we have a morally perfect couple initiating the Fall through the dumb mistake of eating some fruit, and immediately afterwards a cold-blooded vicious murder. Doesn't quite make sense does it?

Indeed. However, I think the difference in degree is totally intentional. We are meant to think that humanity fell quickly and that the knowledge of God was quickly forgotten.

 

[Carey]

A question for my fellow TE brethren (and sistren).

How do you understand Genesis 4? We have a story told about 2 brothers who made different sacrifices, and then one was murdered by the other. After that we have a genealogy of Cain.

Is this based in history? Were Cain and Abel literal historical people? Is totally mythical? Where does the story and genealogy come from? What does it teach us? How does it fit into the surrounding chapters?

It seems that in YEC vs. TE debates Genesis 4 kind of gets ignored.

Your question is vague.

But Yes they were actual people . The bible also plainly states Adam and Eve had more children but does'nt say how many. We would assume that cain had to marry his sister and this was before God said to stop doing that and we would assume God knew the gene pool could
only be mixed so many time before it would destroy the Homosapien species. This also explains why the mortality rate changed dramatically as time has gone on.
And we would also assume their other Children started seperate blood lines from Cains.