The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories - Ch. 2 - Raising Cain

by RunningMan 23 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Another important thing to mention about the Cain and Abel story is its function as an etiological legend on the origin of the Kenites who were an important component to Israel's population, tho they not Israelites themselves. The Kenites were a nomadic tribe of metal-smiths (cf. qyn "metal-smith" and Genesis 4:22, identifying Tubal-cain as "the ancestor of all metalworkers in bronze and iron"), who plied their trade while wandering the Arabah rift valley in the late second millenium B.C. and who Genesis 15:19 groups with the Kenezzites as among the aboriginal peoples of the Levant. The OT connects the Kenites with the Midianites (cf. Numbers 10:29; Judges 1:16; 4:11) who were worshippers of Yahweh (cf. Exodus 18), and thus some credit the Kenites with introducing Yahwism to Israel and Judah. The Kenites lived to the south of Judah in mineral-rich areas in Sinai and the Negeb (cf. Numbers 10:29-32, 24:21-22; Judges 1:16; 1 Samuel 15:6; Judges 1:16), and settled also in locales throughout Judea (cf. 1 Chronicles 2:54-55; 1 Samuel 30:29), eventually becoming absorbed into the Judean population. The Rechabites however were a Kenite clan who retained the nomadic lifestyle and dwelled outside Judean cities (Jeremiah 35:1-19), who exactly as in Cain's curse could not "build houses, sow seed, plant vineyards" and who were commanded by their ancestor Jonadab, "You must live in tents all your lives, so that you may live long on the soil to which you are alien" (Jeremiah 35:7). Compare with the curse in Genesis 4:12: "When you till the ground it shall no longer yield you any of its produce. You shall be a fugitive and a wander over the earth", as well as the description of Cain's descendent Jabal as "the ancestor of tent-dwellers" (v. 20). That the Kenites traced their people to an eponymous ancestor Cain is also suggested by Numbers 24:21-22:

    "Balaam looked on the Kenites and declaimed his poem. He said: 'Your house was firm, Cain, and your nest perched high in the rock. But the nest belongs to Beor; how long will you be Asshur's captive?' "

    Genesis 4 tells the origin of civilization from a Kenite point of view and the conflict between Cain and Abel appears to duplicate the relationship between Kenite brothers Jubal (ybl, cf. hbl "Abel") and Tubal-cain (tbl-kyn, cf. kyn "Cain"), who were founders of shepherding and metal-working respectively. There are literary reasons for considering the Cain and Abel tale as secondary to J, such as the harmonizing gloss in 4:25-26 regarding the birth of Seth, the rendering of this verse in the LXX (which omits the word corresponding to "again" and phrases the verse differently), the different understanding of the curse on agriculture (which in ch. 3 was the result of breaking a divine command, whereas in ch. 4 was the result of fratricide), the gloss destroys the significance of the name-giving, inserting an idea of substitution into the concept of "granting, appointing", and the use of shyt "grant, appoint" and zr' in 4:25-26 is meant to evoke the wording in 3:15, but the intervening story of Cain and Abel breaks the connection between the two and complicates the relation between the two (e.g. why weren't Cain and Abel, born earlier, named the appointed "seed"?). The best explanation seems to be that the story of Cain and Abel originally circulated independently and was only later placed in its current context; this is implied by the story itself, which assumes an already-populated world (e.g. Cain and his wife, Cain's fear of being murdered tho he had just murdered his brother). Some critics have thus proposed that in the more original form of the Kenite etiological legend, Cain was the founder of humanity, started civilization, built cities, invented agriculture, and his descendents invented music, metal-working, and shepherding, and the fratricide occurred at some later point in the primeval narrative.

    There is also the wholesale duplication of the Kenite genealogy in P's Sethite genealogy in ch. 5, whereas only fragments remain of J's Sethite geneaology (cf. 4:25-26, 5:29). This has long puzzled Bible scholars, as does the bizarre statement in 4:26: "And to Seth also was born a son; and he called his name Enosh, as it was then that men began to call upon the name (shm) of Yahweh". Such statements throughout J serve to explain the meaning of the name, but Enosh means "man" not "name". On the other hand "Shem" who appears just a chapter later as a son of Noah, is exactly the name that should occur in 4:26. This suggests that the redactor of Genesis likely expunged and altered most of J's Sethite genealogy (such as taking a comment about Shem's birth and moving it to the description of Enosh's birth), and used P's genealogy instead (which was itself based on some variant of the Kenite genealogy). The fact that Enosh means "man" also suggests that the source traditions of P may have designated the first human as Enosh, who fathered the first born-child Seth, just as J (without the interpolated Cain and Abel chapter) would have had Seth as the first born-child of Adam (the appointed (shyt) "seed" (zr') expected in 3:15). J's Sethite genealogy however may have borne little resemblence to P's version; since very little of it has been preserved, we likely will never know. What is interesting, however, is that just as Cain is named as the eponymous ancestor of the Kenite tribe in Numbers 24:21-22, so does the same oracle refer to Seth eponymously in connection with a Moabite tribe:

    "A star from Jacob takes the leadership, a sceptre arises from Israel. It crushes the brows of Moab, the skulls of all the sons of Seth" (Numbers 24:17).

    There is also an interesting coincidence in Genesis 25:4 in which the eponymous ancestor Midian (ancestor of the Midianites) became father to Hanoch. The Kenites are associated with the Midianites in Numbers 10:29, Judges 1:16; 4:11, and in Genesis 4:17 Cain himself was the father of Enoch ("Hanoch" in Hebrew, the same name). The picture is that the stories and genealogies in Genesis are drawn from disparite sources, sometimes relating to the same peoples, sometimes not, but placed in linear order to tell one single story.

  • DannyBloem
    DannyBloem
    Jehovah’s Witnesses, and some others, believe that humans did not eat meat until after the flood. So, for approximately 1,600 years from creation to the flood, humans were vegetarians. They did not begin eating meat until this privilege was granted to humans in Genesis 9:3. In fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses go one step further. They believe that even animals were vegetarians until after the flood. They believe that grass is the natural, god-intended food for lions. Fossils of carnivorous dinosaurs are rather troublesome to them, so they ignore them

    Really? Can you show me where I can find this in a JW pub, that all animals did not eat meat until the flood?

    By the Way, Real good stuff, I like your writing style.

    Going to print out these can keep them..

    Thanx, Danny

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Hilarious QFR in Watchtower 1961 12.15:

    Questions

    from Readers

    When, in Genesis 1:30, God says: "To every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul I have given all green vegetation for food," are we to understand that this absolutely excludes the idea that any animals ate meat at that time or before that? And on this basis are we to conclude that all animals will be vegetarian in the new world? How, then, can we account for the meat-eating birds, insects, reptiles and other animals with their poisonous fangs, hunting prowess, and so forth, apparently given them at creation and admirably equipping them as meat eaters?

    Genesis 1:30, as just quoted, does not say that God had given "all green vegetation for food" to the wild beasts, the flying creatures and everything moving upon the earth in addition to what meat or flesh they could catch by hunting. The verse just ahead tells us that God said to Adam and Eve: "Here I have given to you all vegetation bearing seed which is on the surface of the whole earth and every tree on which there is the fruit of a tree bearing seed. To you let it serve as food." (Gen. 1:29) We do not understand this to mean that Adam and Eve could eat animals that lived on grass and other vegetation, and that in eating such animals minus their blood Adam and Eve were eating vegetation indirectly, inasmuch as, to begin with, the animals ate the vegetation and then Adam and Eve ate the animals that lived on such vegetation to convert it into flesh. No! But it is evident that God set the perfect man and woman on a vegetarian diet, without suggesting even dairy products.

    First after the flood God specified in so many words that Noah and his family and their descendants could eat bloodless meat or flesh. This indicates that God-fearing men like Abel, Enoch and Noah and his family had not lived on animal and bird flesh prior to the flood. What the ungodly men lived on till the flood we do not know. Abel, Enoch and Noah and his family did not reason in a roundabout manner and violate the Edenic dietary law that God stated to Adam and Eve in Eden, in Genesis 1:29, 30.

    Of course, the Bible says a lot about zoology, but the Bible is no exhaustive treatise on all zoological matters. It therefore leaves in a lower or secondary position the discussing of details about the lower animal creation. It fixes first attention on Jehovah’s superior earthly creature, man, and specializes on that. Hence the facts about wild beasts, domestic beasts, flying creatures and insects are spoken of only incidentally, or in illustrations.

    So, if the Bible itself does not give any answer to these questions about those creatures lower than man, it does not mean that there is no answer to the questions that is consistent with the Bible. It simply means that we are not to preoccupy ourselves with such questions. One big fact we must remember: that we humans are living and all these birds, insects and other animals are living in a system of things that has obtained since Jehovah God legalized man’s eating animal flesh minus its blood. Accordingly, if man has been eating animal flesh and insects for four thousand three hundred years and has teeth that can be adapted to eating such solid food as flesh, it is not strange that birds, insects and other animals should be also living on flesh that they hunt for and catch.

    As to the preflood situation on the diet of man and animals, we may take the situation in Noah’s ark as an illustration. Under God’s instructions Noah and his family were to take into the ark wild beasts, domestic animals, flying creatures and birds, two each (male and female) of the unclean kind, and seven each of the clean kind. Besides this, Noah was to take into the ark every sort of food that is eaten to "serve as food for you and for them." (Gen. 6:19-22) Now Noah had no deepfreeze unit nor any refrigeration installation to preserve processed flesh foods in the ark. The seven sheep, seven bulls and cows, seven goats, two horses, two pigs, and so forth, that Noah took into the ark would hardly have been enough flesh food for the two lions, two tigers and two of the other wild flesh-eating beasts of today to live on in the ark during the flood. Noah was not instructed to carry on a slaughterhouse in the ark to feed the wild beasts with flesh foods. Nor was he told to enmesh tremendous quantities of flying or creeping insects to provide fresh food for the creatures today devouring insects.

    Noah came out of the ark the following year with not less wild beasts, domestic animals, flying and creeping creatures and birds than he took into the ark. It is possible that he had more when he came out, due to the breeding of these lower creatures. Well, then, on what did every living thing in the ark live during those twelve lunar months and ten days, or one full solar year, shut up inside the ark? Certainly not on flesh, nor on one another.

    All those creatures, human and subhuman, were able to live without flesh for a whole year inside the ark. Why could not every one of those living creatures live without flesh during 1,656 years prior to the Flood, or back to the time when God specified to Adam and Eve in Eden what he had given to earthly creatures as food? And if they could subsist that way during the first 1,656 years of man’s existence, why can they not return to that way of life and keep living that way during the thousand-year reign of Jesus Christ and then for eternity? During his millennial reign Jesus Christ as King will have control over animal, bird, insect and fish life as well as over human life. He will regulate it according to God’s will and for the good of all creature life on earth. So we should not think only of the post-Flood side of the question and leave out of consideration the pre-Flood side of the question as if it had no bearing. Let us take the Bible position on the subject and not over-occupy ourselves with merely incidental matters to the extent of wasting time, thought and peace of heart and possibly stumbling ourselves into the camp of the godless evolutionists.

  • RunningMan
    RunningMan

    I was just about to post that. Thanks, Narc.

    Danny, if you are interested in receiving a formatted copy of the entire book, just drop me a PM with your email address.

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien

    great work runningman!

    man, i'd like to get my family's reaction to reading this. he he he...

  • startingover
    startingover

    Tetrapod,

    I first ran across Runningmans writings when I read an essay (which is an upcoming chapter) which deals with irrefutable mathematical calculations that make biblical accounts look so silly. I shared it with a loyal dub that I can actually talk to, and I know the person read it. The answer I got when I pushed for a response was that they just weren't interested in that type of thing. I think the real reason was that there was no way the information could be faced, so it had to be ignored.

  • hooberus
  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien

    startingover, ya. that would be the response i would predict too. classic cognitive dissonance.

  • DannyBloem
    DannyBloem

    Thanks Narc & Runningman

    This is really a gem of logical reasoning in the questions of readers artikel. Can make use of this...

    Even when I was a serious dub, so many of us hated the reasoning like: It can be that A, and possible that B so this results in C. C is therefore a fact.

    Danny

  • patio34
    patio34
    Let us take the Bible position on the subject and not over-occupy ourselves with merely incidental matters to the extent of wasting time, thought and peace of heart and possibly stumbling ourselves into the camp of the godless evolutionists. ---Question from Readers

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit