Science and Genesis 4: 1 – 26 (part III)

Cain and Abel and their offerings

The reference to Abel and his offering being “acceptable” to God but Cain and his offering not being “acceptable” is interesting from a number of points of view.  They have different professions and supposedly sacrificially, they each offer from what their labours have achieved.  Abel the shepherd offers from his flocks.  Cain the farmer offers from his produce.  One thing that is striking, however, is that there has been no requirement from God for them to offer anything. Yet it seems we are meant to assume that it was right and proper for them to do so.  Making some sort of an offering to God, particularly if what they offered came as a consequence of their labours, would seem appropriate. They could be acknowledging that God has brought the increase and they are obligated to him.  They would always be obligated to him for whatever “goods” came their way.  Walton suggests that the Hebrew word (minha) translated “offering”, the term used in association with both Abel and Cain, when used with respect to individuals, “refers to a gift to give deference or honor” “and is usually given in a context of celebration”.  (p. 262). Yet the text in itself is absolutely silent on why they made their offerings.

It has been customary to assume that Abel’s offering involved an animal sacrifice (“the firstlings of the flock and their fat portions”) where blood had been shed while Cain took a less costly way by simply offering “the fruit of the ground”.  However the text makes no explicit comment to that effect.  Furthermore, there is no reference to “blood” in the text, the emphasis being on “fat portions” though undoubtedly some animals were slain.  And with respect to minha Walton maintains that although “it often accompanies an animal sacrifice … (it) is usually comprised of grain” (p. 262) with which of course no blood is associated.  The matter of “blood” seems of little account in the text under consideration.

However it could be argued that there are some hints being given that what Cain did was not as acceptable as what Abel did on the basis of Mosaic Law.  While it is true that “fruit offerings” were acceptable whether they were “first fruits” or not, most references to “fruit” (which could be a general reference to grain or the “fruit” of the olive tree or the grape vine), in the context of offerings, are references to “first fruits”.  Leviticus 2: 1 – 11 is one of the exceptions.  Here offerings involving grain and oil are mentioned but not in the context of “first fruits”.  Indeed the Hebrew for “fruit of the ground” in Genesis 4: 3 is essentially the same for “fruits of the ground” in Deuteronomy 26: 2 and 10 where the reference is to the “first” of such fruit being made an offering to God. (These are the only three cases of this phrase [where ground is adamah not erez] in the Pentateuch.) That is, the suggestion is that Genesis 4: 3 might imply that Cain should have been offering “first fruits” but it was only fruit.

On the other hand, while there is no mention of “blood” in Abel’s offering, there is a reference to “fat” being part of that offering and under Mosaic Law it would appear that while no person was permitted to partake of the fat of an animal (see Leviticus 7: 23 – Leviticus 10: 15 is probably not an exception) “fat” was a necessary portion of various offerings such as peace, guilt and sin offerings.  Furthermore his offering involved “firstlings”, as often stipulated in Mosaic Law. That is, the suggestion is that in Genesis 4: 4 Abel’s offering is meant to be seen as more in line with what, under Mosaic Law, would be recognised as acceptable to God.

But what is the relevance of the Mosaic Law?  From within the text it has no relevance.  It has not come into existence. Yet there is this sneaking suspicion that the reader is supposed to be somewhat influenced by what is to be found in that law.

There is yet another possible allusion to why what Cain did was unacceptable. It is in the reference to his being a worker of the “ground” (adamah).  Though in itself adamah has no moral overtones, its occurrence following close on the heels of it being mentioned in Genesis 3: 17 where it is cursed together with the reference to what Cain offered being the fruit of the ground (adamah) may be meant to suggest that Cain is in a sense working with “tainted” material and offering “tainted” goods.  Additionally, although Cain is the firstborn, the description of what each did is given first to Abel and only secondly to Cain, though the priority of “Abel” may be simply a consequence of the birth of Abel having just been mentioned.

Yet again, whatever strength there is in these suggestions, and certainly the writer to the Hebrews has no doubt that “Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did” (Hebrews 11: 5), the text is indeed silent as to why Yahweh looked with favour upon (looked to) Abel and his offering but he did not look with favour upon (look to) Cain and his offering. Of course both offering and the one who offered go together but no principle is given indicating what was “acceptable” in the case of Abel and his offering but not “acceptable” in the case of Cain.  Nor is there any indication as to how this favour or lack of favour was communicated.  Is there a suggestion here that God in his sovereignty has the right to look with favour upon whomsoever and whatsoever he chooses?   There might be background hints that there was something “wrong” about Cain and his offering and there was something “right” about Abel and his offering – but they are only vague hints – shadows only.  The stark truth of the matter is that Cain did what he did and Abel did what he did and God looked to Abel and his offering but did not look to Cain and his offering.  That is the way the account is constructed, unless we think that further light is shed upon the situation in the text that follows.

Science and Genesis 4: 1 – 26 (part II)

Genesis 4: 1 -16 – Cain and Abel

“Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, ‘With the help of the LORD (Yahweh) I have brought forth a man.’ Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD (Yahweh). But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD (Yahweh) looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Then the LORD (Yahweh) said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?  If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.’

Now Cain said to his brother Abel, ‘Let’s go out to the field.’  And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

Then the LORD (Yahweh) said to Cain, ‘Where is your brother Abel?’

‘I don’t know,’ he replied. ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’

The LORD (And he) said, ‘What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.  Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.’

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

The birth of Cain and Abel

Sorry.  I few technicalities before dealing with the offerings of Cain and Abel.  And the science will be towards the end of this series.

Walton (Walton, J.H., Genesis, The NIV Application Commentary, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2001) sees at least four problems in correctly understanding the birth of Cain (pp. 260, 261).  The first concerns the time when he was conceived.  He suggests that the syntax and grammatical form of the verb translated “lay” indicates that a pluperfect translation “had lain” is more appropriate.  “Lay” suggests that the conception occurred after the events described in chapter 3 had occurred.  On the other hand, “had lain” raises the possibility that the conception had occurred before the disobedience of the man and his wife or was even caught up in their disobedience.

Our chapter divisions might suggest that there is meant to be a distinct break between the account in chapter 3 and what is described in verse 1 of chapter 4.  But the chapter divisions while not arbitrary are artificial.  However, I think the use of the word, “Yahweh” in verse 1 and its regular use throughout chapter 4 is sufficient to suggest that there is indeed a type of break between chapters 3 and 4.  As a consequence the idea that the writer is intending to convey that the conception of Cain had occurred during the events described in chapter 3 should be treated with considerable caution.  Furthermore there is no clear indication in chapter 3 that such a conception took place when it would have been simple to do so.  The reference to nakedness is associated with the idea of being ashamed, not with the idea of sexual intercourse and connects with the end of chapter 2.  And the reference to “one flesh” while suggestive of sexual intercourse, is in fact a reference in chapter 2 to a situation somewhat removed though related to the events of chapter 3.  However, whatever position one adopts on this matter is basically irrelevant with respect to what occurs in chapter 4.

The second problem that Walton sees has to do with the naming of Cain.  Yet nothing of significance seems to depend on it.  There is a word play between “brought forth” (Hebrew: qaniti) and “Cain” (Hebrew qayin).  However contrary to what usually occurs with such a word play, there is no statement equivalent to the one the man makes when he names Eve. There he explains that she is so named “because she would become the mother of all the living” – the word play being between “Eve and “living”.  Furthermore, the first part of the text reads, “And she conceived and gave birth to Cain” rather than the expected “She gave birth to a son and called his name Cain” Overall the text simply reads, “And she conceived and gave birth to Cain (qayin) and said, I have brought forth (qaniti) a man (ish).  Though, as Walton explains, the normal “naming formula” where there is a word play, is not adhered to, in fact, the “and said” of the Hebrew acts as an indication that a word play is involved. “Qayin” is immediately followed by “and said” which in turn is immediately followed by “qaniti”.

Walton’s third problem relates to how to understand, “qaniti”, translated, “brought forth”.  He explains that the verb “usually means ‘to acquire’ in the Old Testament, though a few passages suggest, ‘to create’”.  He further points out that there is Ugaritic support for “create”. If this is the sense, then perhaps the text is indicating that Eve in some way is a co-creator with God whose help she has needed in giving birth to Cain with perhaps some emphasis being giving to God in this creative work.

Alternatively, Walton indicates that there is Akkadian support for “acquire” in expressions for some personal names, quoting a Mesopotamian name which means, “I acquired him from the gods”.  Though in the Hebrew, the name “Cain” is given in isolation from the verb, Walton refers to the Mesopotamian name as an indicator that in the ancient world there was this understanding that in some sense a deity could be involved in the acquiring of a child.

Walton opts for the notion of “acquiring” with the understanding that the clause reads something like, “I have obtained [a man] with the help/consent of Yahweh.” Eve had been told that with respect to at least the birth process her pain would be greatly increased.  With God’s help she was able to cope with the pain and makes an explicit statement to this effect.  In his reference to “consent” Walton seems to be additionally alluding to the idea that Eve acknowledges the necessity of God to grant her conceiving a child in the first place.

Regardless of how the phrase translated, “with the help of the Lord (Yahweh) has been understood above, Walton’s fourth problem relates to a difficulty in how to understand the Hebrew word, “et” commonly translated “with”. Given this perspective, the text simply reads, “I have acquired a man with Yahweh”.  Expressed as such, the meaning of the statement is unclear.  Interpreting “et” to mean in this instance “with the help of” makes sense.  However “et” can be understood as a “direct object marker”, with the statement then being made, “I have acquired a man, that is, Yahweh.  Apparently some, harking back to a Messianic understanding of Genesis 3: 15 (the offspring of the woman who will crush the head of the serpent etc.) see Genesis 4: 1 as also being Messianic – the man is Yahweh.  As Walton points out however, nowhere in the Old Testament is the Messiah ever referred to as Yahweh.  Besides, the context is clearly a reference to the birth of Cain.

In concluding his remarks on this matter, Walton claims that there is Akkadian support for the meaning of “with the help of” though there is no support from Hebrew usage. Citing two Akkadian examples, Walton argues that the Akkadian preposition itti can be translated “from” or “with (the consent) of” and contends that “since the Akkadian cognate preposition itti has a semantic range comparable to that of the Hebrew preposition et, either nuances can be legitimately used in Genesis.” He thereby concludes that “the NIV translation is about the best that can be done given the current state of the data.”

It is of some interest that Eve refers to the child as, “a man”.  The word “ish” is used (see Genesis 2: 23) not the word, “adam”. This delivers the reader from what otherwise might have been some theological if not otherwise confusion.  At the same time however, the reference to, “a man” focuses our attention on ongoing humanity.  Though there is no reference in Genesis 2 and 3 to man and woman being placed under the blessing of “be fruitful and increase in number” (Genesis 1: 28) that text now begins to find its fulfilment in Genesis 4: 1 and following.

The birth of Abel is simply recorded without any word play and without any reference to there being help given by Yahweh.  It is the birth of the first that is given some attention simply because it is the first child to be born. It is not only Eve’s first but the first of all that are born. Though there is no play on words, are we meant to see the connection between the word, “Abel” and a similar sounding Hebrew word, that has the sense of emptiness, something being unfulfilled, transitory or unsatisfactory?  His life cut being short has that ring about it.

Science and Genesis 4: 1 – 26 (part I)

Science and Genesis 4: 1 – 26

Introduction: The relationship between Genesis 4: 1 – 26 and Genesis 2: 4 – 3: 24

The word, Toledoth, translated by something like, “this is the account of” or “these are the generations of”, first occurs in Genesis 2: 4. The second toledoth occurs in Genesis 5: 1 and we might expect that from 2: 4 to 4: 26 there would be some type of unity.

Certainly, the events of Genesis 4 seem to flow on naturally from the end of Genesis 3.  Just as the man is referred to almost exclusively, if not totally so, as “the man” throughout chapters 2 and 3, so too he is referred to as “the man” and not “Adam” (though the NIV so translates) in 4: 1.  In that same verse, his wife, whom he had named Eve in 3: 20, is again referred to by that name.  Additionally, in 3: 20, the use of the Hebrew word for “Eve” is a play on the Hebrew word for “living” and in 4: 1 the man and Eve produce a son – new life.

However after 4: 1, though the account has a natural flow, the subject matter, unlike that of chapter 2 and 3, has a certain focus on genealogies. Two sons are born to the man and his wife – Cain and Abel. Cain eventually marries and a further six generations are recorded. Finally reference is made to a third son, named Seth, born of the man, now referred to as Adam, and Adam’s wife  Chapter 4 is a chapter of births, but not only so. The chapter has other focal points as well.

Some detail is given to the killing of Abel by Cain and the circumstances that led to that.  And there is a reference to at least one other killing by one from Cain’s line, Lamech by name.  There are also brief reference to a city being built and the beginnings of nomadic living, musical performance and a metal industry.  Overall, chapter 4 seems to be of a substantially different character to chapters 2 and 3. These chapters dealt with the first man, the fashioning of the woman, the temptation they faced in the special garden, their offence and the judgement of Yahweh Elohim upon both and the serpent involved.

Perhaps this substantial difference in character lies behind the way that God is referred to differently in chapter 4 compared to chapters 2 and 3.  Beginning at 2: 4 and through to 3: 24, except in the dialogue between the woman and the serpent, God is spoken of as, “Yahweh Elohim”.  In Chapter 4 he is referred to as, simply “Yahweh” (ten times), the final reference at 4: 26 being to “the name of Yahweh”. (Somewhat understandably, the NIV has an additional “The Lord”, its way of translating “Yahweh”, at 4: 10.).  There is the one reference to simply God “Elohim” in 4: 25.  This is the same word used to refer to God in the dialogue between the woman and the serpent (four times).  Perhaps one can make too much of these differences and one cannot deny the writer the right to display some variation in expression. Alternatively, or additionally, one could argue that there are different original sources involved.  That may well be so, yet the ten usages of “Yahweh” in chapter 4 do stand in stark contrast with the twenty times throughout chapter 2: 4 to 3: 24, where the reference is to “Yahweh Elohim”. Whether or not this difference has its origins in different source material, chapter 4 in contrast to chapters 2 and 3 while still dealing with matters of the utmost importance and while still having the personal name of God to the fore, seems to be of a less sombre character.  The narrative of chapter 4 has as its focus the affairs, even some deplorable affairs, of human beings and their “earthiness”.

The Cup of the Lord (Full Series PDF)

Here is the full series

The Cup of the Lord (part 3)

The Cup of the Lord? (Part 3)

The following should now be noted:

(i)  For all forty five (45) instances, the general context is that of giving a toast.

(ii) The Greek text of 1 Corinthians 10: 21a is:  “ou dunasthe poterion kuriou pinein kai poterion daimonion.”

(iii) Both “Lord” and “demons” (a reference to the deities) are in the genitive case.

(iv) As far as is known, there is no such thing as “the cup of demons”. There was this cup or that cup used in honour of this or that deity.  However presumably for reasons of consistency, translators of the Corinthian text, inserting the definite article before “cup of the Lord” also place it before, “cup of demons”.  The use of “the” in “the cup of demons” could be taken to mean “any cup of the demons” but it could also be misleading indicating that it was common to have a single cup used for demons (deities) considered collectively.

(v) Given that the verb pinein (to drink) accompanies “Lord” which noun is not in the dative case, the text itself is not referring to a cup that has been “poured out to”, “dedicated to” or “rendered to” the Lord.  This is not to say however, that there could be no special reference being made to the Lord by way of using a cup.

(vi) It could be argued that “a cup of the Lord” is a reference to a cup marked for designated use, that is, one especially set aside for him.  However there is nothing in the text which would clearly indicate that.  For instance if a lettered cup were in mind then the presence of the Greek word, “grammatikon” in “grammatikon poterion” would have made that clear.  Again, the presence of “organon” in “organon Kuriou” would have indicated that it was designated for the Lord.  The use of a definite article would have implied the same.

(vii) The Greek word poterion is generic for a cup of any description.  Paul makes no reference to any special cup.

(viii) The use of the verb, to drink (pinein) in the Corinthian text indicates that the actual act of using a cup in order to drink from it is in mind.

(ix) The two words, poterion kuriou, with “Lord” occurring in the genitive, together with the verb “to drink”, appear to be a reference to the common custom of toasting.

(x) The general context for 1 Corinthians 10: 1 to 10: 33 concerns meals – what the Corinthians should and should not eat at their meals.

(xi) Multiple toasts occurred at many Graeco-Roman meals. The gentiles at Corinth, now that they had become believers, had to change how they drank at their meals.

Conclusion: It would appear that a reasonable translation for 1 Corinthians 10: 21a would be along the lines of: “You cannot drink a cup to the Lord and to demons”. That is, Paul is exclaiming, “You cannot, you must not, toast or honour the Lord and at the same time, toast or honour any of the deities at your meals.  You may only toast the Lord!”  No longer should they toast, “Zeus, Saviour”.  Their toast will be to “The Lord, the only Saviour”.

The Cup of the Lord ? (part 2)

The Cup of the Lord? (part 2)

Of the forty five (45) instances examined, three (3) refer to a deity in the accusative case, the deity being the direct object of the verb involved.  Example: “With the first cup of diluted wine given after dinner they call upon (epiphoneo) Zeus Saviour.”[1]  All relate to the giving of a toast.

Eight (8) instances occur in the dative case and they relate to one or more gods or “the heroes”.  In each instance, the verb has as its indirect object the deity, deities or “the heroes”.  Examples: “Every time that they filled it up they would make a libation (apospendo) to the gods from the phiale”; “We have seen a lettered cup of that sort dedicated (anakeimai) to Diana in Capua in Campania”; “Theophrastus in his treatise On Drunkenness says that the cup called the rhyton is rendered (apodidomi) only to the heroes”; “With a filled skypphos I drank it out (ekpino) to the white crested Erxion.”  Again, all relate to the giving of a toast.

The thirty four (34) remaining instances occur in the genitive case and as with the above, all relate to the giving of a toast. There is one (1) instance where the reference is to “the name of” – “He brandished a large metaniptris over which the name of Hygieia was pronounced”. There are four (4) instances of a lettered cup. Examples: “There were eleven [letters] weren’t there, in gold dedicating it to Saviour Zeus? (Dios Soteros has eleven letters); “The tragic poet Achaeus in Omphale, also mentions a lettered cup and represents the satyrs saying this about it: ‘The cup of the god has long been inviting me’”.   There is one (1) reference to a cup described as an instrument of a god – the cup called a therikleios is described as “the tool of Zeus Saviour”.

Often the expression used is an idiomatic one (see some of the examples above) where reference to a cup is taken as a reference to the wine in the cup. (In English we often use a similar idiomatic expression.)  (The cup itself can be spoken of as either diluted or undiluted.) There are a number of such instances in the remaining twenty eight (28) cases.  In some however, the idiomatic usage could be understood as going a step further.  The actual reference is to what is drunk, but the cup, used as a toast to a deity, should probably be understood as a “to a deity cup”.  Occasionally, there is not even mention of a cup, whatever its type.

Examples: “Everyone raised a large Zeus Saviour akatos” (or a large akatos to Zeus Saviour); “The undiluted Good Deity[2] phiale (or the undiluted phiale to the Good Deity) that I downed, finished me off completely”; “Fill for him a Hygieia metaniptris (or a metaniptris to Hygieia”); “Gulping down a Good Deity metaniptris (or a metaniptris to the Good Deity)”; “I’ve had enough of eating but I can accept the handles (of the cup understood) of a Good Deity”; “You jumped up and left without first taking a Good Deity or a Zeus Saviour”.  (Remember, all twenty eight (28) instances have the deity in the genitive case.)  Some of these expressions could be understood as a reference to a cup designated, perhaps by lettering, for exclusive use in the toast of a specific deity, though the evidence is not explicit.

In the majority of cases, where the genitive is used, it is arguable that an adequate English translation would employ the word, “to” or the phrase “in honour of” or something similar.  Examples: “It is the custom they say, when undiluted wine is served during a meal to greet it with the words, ‘To the Good Deity’ but when the cup is passed around after the meal diluted with water, to cry out, ‘To Zeus, Saviour’”[3]; “I have drunk respectfully to King Ptolemy from a chutridion”;  “After dinner most of the guests called for a cup to the Good Deity, some to Zeus, saviour, others to Hygieia, one selecting one deity, another, another”;  “From a very large lepaste she drinks up undiluted wine in honour of the Good Deity”; “Archilochus, accept this metaniptris in honour of Zeus Saviour and the Good Deity”; “The undiluted wine offered after dinner, which they refer to it as a drink in honour of the Good Deity, is taken only in small quantities”.

---

[1]Most translations are dependent to some extent on those of C. B. Gulick.  His work is entitled, “Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists” and occurs in seven volumes in the LOEB Classical Library series.   Books xi and xv, being the ones consulted, are to be found in volumes V and VII respectively.  However to some extent I have tried to independently assess the Greek text.

[2]A more literal translation of the deity would be “Good Demon” – a way of referring to Dyonisus.  Since however, the reference to a demon was not necessarily a reference to an evil being, but a common way of referring to a god, I will use “Good Deity” as it is less misleading.

[3] In the forty five instances examined, the “Good Deity” and “Zeus” are by far the most common deities mentioned.

The Cup of the Lord?

The Cup of the Lord? (Part 1)

Traditionally, in protestant circles, the phrase translated “the cup of the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 10: 21 has been understood to refer simply to “the cup” used in what is translated, “The Lord’s Supper” in 1 Corinthians 11: 20.  Unfortunately this is a mistaken notion and in two important respects.  However in this mini-series I will refer to only one of these and focus on the phrase, “the cup of the Lord”.

Firstly, the Greek for this phrase knows of no definite articles and unless there is a strong reason to the contrary, the definite article should not appear in the translation.  There is a case for “the” appearing in connection with “Lord” since “Lord” is a proper noun.  However, unless it can be established that “cup” in association with “the Lord” forms a phrase which takes on the character of a formal designation, then the translation should refer to, “a cup”.

An examination was carried out on forty five (45) Greek texts, dating from the 4^th century BC until the 3^rd century AD, referring to a cup, of one sort or another, in association the mention of a god, gods, “the heroes” or the name of a human being. The points of interest were (i) the grammatical case assigned to the god, gods, “the heroes” or the named person, (ii) the context, and (iii) where relevant, any verb used in close association with the cup or the beings to which reference is made.

Most of the examples were related to a god, and the vast majority came from an early 3^rd century AD work by Athenaeus, entitled Deipnosophistai (The Deipnosophists).  The lengthy work, originally consisting of fifteen books, feigns to be a record by Athenaeus of a series of banquet conversations.  In his account he cites numerous (over 700) Greek authors of prior times and a very large number of Greek writings (around 2, 500).  All of the texts examined came from books xi and xv.  Some are closely related.  They are related in terms of their proximity to each other in the text or in terms of the same text being cited more than once but in a different form.

When reading Athenaeus one is reminded of the considerable part played by the drinking of wine in Greaco-Roman formal dinner gatherings.  Such occasions were common amongst various groups of people, particularly the “middle” and “upper” classes and for a variety of reasons. One of the many interests of Athenaeus was to describe various types of cups (he names about 100 in book xi) and their use.

Science and Genesis 3 verse 1 to verse 24 (Full Series PDF)

Here is the full series