I want to acknowledge the kindness of Samuel Martin in sending me a copy of his small book What Was the Mark of Cain? These comments follow from reading it.
The first thing to say is that Mark of Cain can be read in a single sitting, and that's a refreshing change from the weighty tomes that afflict most people studying biblical issues. The second is to assure prospective readers that the material is eminently readable. In many ways Mark of Cain is comparable to the style of literature once produced by the church: it doesn't assume a familiarity with theological verbiage or send you off to check a dictionary with every second page.
Martin's proposal is an interesting one. The murder of Abel was a crime committed in the passion of youth. Cain had not yet reached his majority, and Abel was even younger. This explains, according to the author, why the death penalty was not exacted. Cain's exile to the land of Nod is a reference to a state of mourning: Cain became the first Nazarite, letting his hair grow. This was the mark of Cain.
Exactly how Samuel Martin arrives at these conclusions is beyond the scope of this short review, but I enjoyed his line of argument immensely. If your curiosity is aroused, you can discover how to order a copy of What Was the Mark of Cain? from the author's website.
Is Martin's case convincing? I'm not so sure. Mark of Cain makes assumptions about the authorship of the Pentateuch/Torah that I find problematic. Martin writes:
"It is essential (in the view of the author) to believe that Moses was the author, compiler or first editor of almost all sections of the first five books of the Bible."
Here I differ from Martin, though traditional COG brethren will be less skeptical. Even more basic is the assumption that Genesis relates real history. Was there truly a garden called Eden in prehistory, a place which we might find if we had H. G. Wells' Time Machine at our disposal, or are we dealing with another genre altogether? Is the reason why temple symbolism exists in Genesis a wonderful prefiguring of what was yet far in the future, or an indication that the real authors wrote at a time when the Temple stood in Jerusalem, and that they retrojected that symbolism back on the mythical past? To suggest that some kind of Nazarite vow was operative in Adam's lifetime seems to me to risk making a case based on an obvious anachronism. That said, Martin's presentation is engaging.
Mark of Cain is the first in a projected series by Samuel Martin called "Studies in Genesis". If future installments are as stimulating as this one, then fans of the late Ernest Martin will be well pleased.
7 comments:
To me, the stories of Genesis are mythologies and never happened in space and time. They do not depict literal events in history and were never intended to. Much is borrowed from previous cultures to flesh out an Israelite story. I also have my doubts about Moses being the author of anything, or perhaps even existing at least as portrayed in the text.
And now the story of Cain and Abel in Gen. 4. Cain, being the eldest becomes jealous of the fact that Abel has offered a more pleasing sacrifice to God. Cain's offering was agricultural in nature and Abel's was animal. Apologists say Cain had the proverbial WCG "Bad Attitude" which is why it was rejected. If he had a good one, then all would have been well for both boys.
As a CHILD, I wondered about what was so wrong with Cain's agricultural grain offering and why was it so offensive to God? ... And what was so right about Abel's animal offering. Veggies vs. Animals..hmmmm
Once one understands the change from Matriarchy (agricutural symbols) to Patriarchy (blood and meat) in the previous chapters, one will know the intent of the tale.
Agricultural offerings were fertility symbols, in Goddess worshipping cultures. Egyptian culture certainly taught Israelite men that. Women were held in more high esteem for this mystery of fertility. Of course when the religion respects the Goddess, they tend to respect the female in the culture. ("When God Was a Woman" by Merlin Stone is a good read)
Agricultural offerings smacked of Goddess worship to Israelite priests determined to end it. The gods of agriculture were fertility gods. Earth and sky, dirt and rain, brought forth life! This had to change and the story of Cain and Abel makes the transition from the agricultural gods from which even the God of the bible sprang, to a God that needed animal sacrifice to be worshipped. After all, the Israelite God was a "jealous god."
Now it was blood that ran the theology of the times, not veggies. It is blood that forgives sin in OT and NT theology.
The bread (grain) and wine (blood) Eucharist in the NT is a reflection of much older and pre-Israelite custom of eating both the body and drinking the blood of the god man. The Passover roots of the OT are not any more original to Israel than the Eucharist is to the NT Church, Jesus or Paul. Christianity cleaned up a very old practice in the human psyche.
The message of Cain killing Abel was not about poor Abel. It was about which kind of Priesthood and Temple service would be installed over the people. In the case of Israel, it was going to be male and women were simply to say yes sir to them and have babies painfully from now on. Politics actually!
Humerously, we have Cain getting pitched out of the Garden (a swamp near Basra, Iraq?) and fearing for his life "out there" as "when any man finds me, he shall kill ME." No concept here of not to worry because there is NO ONE OUT THERE to bother him. God doesn't even seem to answer his fear with "Cain!, it's just you, mom and dad. You killed your only sibling!" The fact that Seth was called "the third" in the text shows this clearly. Seth would have to be born, grow up, impregnate unnamed sisters (it's ok when they're all you have to work with) to make a people angry at Uncle Cain and go after him. Obviously the editor of the tale didn't care for thinking this story through as literalism was not his point either.
Father Raymond Brown, in his classic work The Birth of the Messiah laments the literalism that too many place on the Birth accounts in his showing how the stories came to be. He specifically and respectfully laments Dr. Martin's literalism in explaining the story of Jesus Birth as an example of making something mean what it never meant. We all have our perspectives.
The symbolism of the story may include long hair being the mark of Cain. It would still be a tale woven to send a message to the masses and not something that actually happened in space and time.
Genesis 1=The God of Israel, EL made your gods.
Genesis 2-3=Forget Goddess worship guys. That may be what's going on around you, but men rule here and you will obey the Priests and Worship at the temple killing, not loving large and small animals for the forgiveness of your wretched sins. Oh.. and women are property from now on and not goddesses at all
Genesis 4=Didn't you get what I just said in Genesis 3? Agriculture is not where we're going around here for our symbols. It's blood baby...not veggies.
Add to this the solar reality that the Age of Taurus the Bull was ending (4000-2000 BCE) and needed to die and the Age of Aries (2000 BCE-100 AD)the Lamb was starting, and needed to find a place in human worship and change is in the "let's write a new story" air.
It's no coincidence that "Moses" forces Israel to destroy and eat the Golden Calf near the end of the Age of Taurus in real time any more than it is one that the Lamb of God died at the end of the age of Aries and did stay with them until the end of the age, which then changed to Pices the Two fish symbolising the Church Age, which is now ending.
It's all a great story,woven by humans who have needs for great stories, foundatins for their religious systems, explanations of why this or that is so and comfort for our angst.
It is not too hard to "psychoanalyze" what happened in the story of "Cain and Abel".
Adam and Eve are cast out of the garden. What a place...good weather, food growing everywhere, being naked with probably the best looking Male/Female ever, in good health, no toiling "sweat of the brow" job, etc.
So getting kicked out of the garden was a real super bummer! However, Adam and Eve are promised that their seed (Genesis 3) would have a some kind of redemptive role, a "Messiah" if you will.
Cain is the firstborn. I have little doubt that Adam and Eve viewed this child as "the messiah" that would be the entry ticket back into the life of ease in Eden, compared to their now toiling life of hardship. They spoiled the little guy, pumped him up with how important he was to be for God, how he was chosen, the "great work he is doing" etc.
When little brother's offering was accepted, and his was not, Cain fell into a jealous rage. He kills Abel to either eliminate his contender, or out of outrage that his "dominance" is questioned.
QUESTION: Why do some COG leaders fall into a rage if you question whether or not they are the "Apostle" or "Pastor General" etc?? Can we safely call this attitude the "Spirit of Cain"??
Lussenheide
". . .the Lamb of God died at the end of the age of Aries and did stay with them until the end of the age, which then changed to Pices the Two fish symbolising the Church Age, which is now ending."
THANK GOD!!
"Can we safely call this attitude the "Spirit of Cain"??
Well you Cain if you wont to :)
"It is not too hard to "psychoanalyze" what happened in the story of "Cain and Abel".
"I have little doubt that Adam and Eve viewed this child as "the messiah"
"...that would be the entry ticket back into the life of ease in Eden, compared to their now toiling life of hardship."
There was never a time when it wasn't difficult to live in Iraq. Even Neanderthals who preceeded Adam and Eve by, oh about 100,000 years, from Shanidar, Iraq show wear and tear :)
"QUESTION: Why do some COG leaders fall into a rage if you question whether or not they are the "Apostle" or "Pastor General" etc?? Can we safely call this attitude the "Spirit of Cain"??"
We could under that scenerio if we included the Apostle Paul went ballistic over those who taught circumcision and hoped they went a bit further and chopped off their binkies.
Just like Paul who noted in I Cor 4:12-14 12 "... When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly.that when cursed, "we bless" but then curses anyone (Gal 1:8-9) who disagrees with him and says anything contrary to what he came up with as the Gospel.
I suspect Jesus himself might have asked Paul where he got all that stuff he came up with. Peter, James, John and most of the people who heard Paul was on the way certainly did. But he got it in visions, so that pretty much took care of any questions.
Kinda like Paul who was both the greatest and the most humble..
Paul's view of himself as an apostle didn't stop at just claiming to be an apostle. He did what he could to communicate to his followers that he was the biggest and the best.
Among the many self-admiring quotes are these.
"For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles". ...."As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia." 2Cor. 11:5,10 NKJV
Sometimes, almost as though he knew he should be ashamed of such claims, he would tie his claim to a statement of unworthiness.
Apparently he thought the gullible would embrace him as the greatest of apostles because he was so humble. You see this trait in Evangelical narcissistic types as well.
"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all...". 1Cor. 15:9,10 NKJV
To the Galatians, Paul makes no pretense about how he compares himself to Peter, James, and John. He denies the Damascus Road incident by claiming to have been called from the womb like Jeremiah and Jesus were. (the only others the Bible claims this for.)
"But from those who seemed to be something (The Jerusalem Apostles)- whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man- for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, ...and when James, Cephas, and John, who SEEMED to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship..." Gal. 2:6,7,9 NKJV
This is the Paul who was the bestest Pharisee, smarter than anyone around him, in fact, near perfect, but humble none the less in Him. He just wanted us to know how he "used" to be..
So I guess that's the Spirit of Cain
I hope you're just kidding with your explanation of the story of Cain and Abel
Sorry...working on verbose. I'll get there in time.
"Martin's proposal is an interesting one. The murder of Abel was a crime committed in the passion of youth. Cain had not yet reached his majority, and Abel was even younger. This explains, according to the author, why the death penalty was not exacted."
With only three people left on the planet as per the story, why would one discuss the death penalty not being exacted as if these three people made up an entire culture of rules and laws about such events? Sounds rather anachronistic to speak in such terms as if some council was in the wings not giving out death because Cain was too young. Think about it!
"It is essential (in the view of the author) to believe that Moses was the author, compiler or first editor of almost all sections of the first five books of the Bible."
Then Houston, we have a problem here as this does not seem to be the case in the realm of Higher Criticism.
The Pentateuch reads more like a story about a Moses written in the third person, rather than a story written by a Moses in the first person.
"A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late13th century B.C., where many scholars think the Biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region."
Leviticus and Number are "clearly additions to the 'pre-history' by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the 'promised land,' and other literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying much less historical."
...the whole 'Exodus-Conquest' cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term 'myth': perhaps 'historical fiction,' but tales told primarily to validate religious beliefs."
William Dever professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona.
Chinese proves Genesis account is historically true!
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/
Post a Comment