The Story of Cain (Gen. 4:1-25)

God’s judgment upon Cain for killing his brother Abel was to be a wanderer. Cain is deathly afraid of this and says: “whoever finds me will kill me.” So God places a mark on him so that “no one who found him would kill him.” (v.14). Now who is Cain afraid of here? Supposedly the only people on earth were his mom and dad, and a few sisters. Then it says, “Cain lay with his wife.” (v.17). Where did he get a wife? Nothing was said about that, but presumably the author isn’t interested in such matters. Why? It’s because the author of chapters 3-11 was stressing the sinfulness of human beings. God created the world good, but look how his highest creation behaves—he behaves very very badly. Human beings are very sinful beginning with Adam and Eve’s disobedience, to Cain killing his brother, to the flood where God destroyed everyone but Noah and his family, to the tower of Babel. Human beings are very sinful and ungrateful for what God has done. To try to make sense of where Cain got his wife is to miss the point of these chapters. It has the feel of a story with a point, not a statement about marrying sisters. Then it says when Cain’s wife gave birth to his firstborn, Enoch, Cain was in the process of “building a city.” (v.17). If we try to make sense of this we simply cannot do it. Cain is banished from his parents and marked so that no one who finds him will kill him. He gets a wife and starts to build a city, and while doing so Enoch is born. None of this makes much sense given the whole setting. A city? Instead, maybe it should have read, “Cain was building a house.” But a whole city?

According to Donald Gown this whole scenario “seems to presuppose a different background from that provided by chapters 2-3, one in which Cain and Abel live in an already well-populated world. Furthermore, the genealogy at the end, leading to the founding of guilds of cattle-raisers, musicians, and metallurgists, seems strangely irrelevant when we realize that all the descendants of these people will be wiped out by the flood. Originally, then, the story of Cain and Abel was probably told as a self-contained narrative, without having any relationship to the stories of the garden or the flood.” [From Eden to Babel: Genesis 1-11 (pp. 62-63)].

This should surprise no one. Even the Gospels do not present the same chronology of events in the life of Jesus or stress the same things about him. The events in the life of Jesus were arranged by each of the four authors to stress certain distinct things in the life of Jesus, and very few, if any N.T. authorities think otherwise. [See almost any scholarly introduction to the Gospels for this].

But with the story of Cain we have an additional problem. If so many things in this story are inserted without the need to correct the setting, like his wife, the people he fears, and the city he is building, then when the editor/author earlier said that "Eve would become the mother of all the living"(Gen. 3:20)we can see it for what it really is. It is just a folk story with a point, like one of Jesus’ parables. John Gibson: “Genesis is essentially folk literature. The vast bulk of it consists of stories which still carry about them the marks of having been composed to entertain and to instruct ordinary folks.” “In effect we are treating this and other opening chapters of Genesis as imaginative stories, approaching them as we would a modern short story or, to use a Biblical parallel, one of our Lord’s parables.” [Genesis 1-11, (pp. 2, 11).

This view undercuts what both Jesus and Paul purportedly thought about Adam & Eve, Cain and Able too. Either they were both wrong to think of them as real historical people, or they thought these were imaginative folk-tales.

What other reasonable explanations are there?

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

what if jesus really did think them as historical figures, though they were not? what would that change?

Jesus was a devout Jew who believed very strongly in the traditions of his forefathers.

funny thing is that i dont disagree with your analysis of Genesis, or the assertion that Jesus and Paul believed them to be historical accounts. my question is, what does that really say about Jesus and Paul? I say nothing.

Nihlo said...

It says that Jesus was mistaken about something. God cannot be mistaken about something, so Jesus cannot be God. If Jesus is not God, then a central tenet of mainstream Christianity is false.

Anonymous said...

Most people wouldn't disagree that the origin stories and holy books of the various religions of the world are just a bunch of stories thought up to explain the world to pre-scientific people, with parables mixed in along the way to help them learn how to live better lives.

But everyone will argue with you to their deaths that it doesn't describe THEIR religion, which is, of course, the Truth.

Zachary Moore said...

Clearly, Genesis cannot be considered to have been "written" in the sense that books are written today. It is more akin to a mythological anthology, edited together in an approximation of chronology, by a member of the Yahwist priest-caste during the exile in Babylon.

Anonymous said...

Of course, similar problems arise with a universal flood story.

DagoodS said...

twitch, if Paul, and the authors who wrote about Jesus were incorrect about the historicity of Tanakh characters, what else where they incorrect about? What method do you employ to determine what is correct or incorrect?

Unknown said...

Interesting post. Inerrantists, of course, will point to the geneaology of Genesis where it says that Adam and Eve had "other sons and daughers" before listing Adam's whole lifespan and the lifespan of his descendents directly to Noah and his sons. I recall, for instance, reading in creationists texts, such as those written by the late creationist Henry M Morris about this solution and I never really considered it a problem since. I'd be interested in seeing what's wrong with Morrisesque solutions such as using that tidbit of information in the geneaology in Genesis to solve this problem.

Matthew

Anonymous said...

Matthew,then you'd have massive incest, and the text would still not be correct, for then Cain should say "any of my brothers or sisters who finds me will kill me."

And since this whole "problem" is obvious, the author/editor would have cleared it up by saying this is what happened, if it was to be cleared up at all.

Actually it was the problems inherent in Genesis 1-11 which set me on a course to reject Christianity.