Talk:Cain and Abel

What's the deal with the Alan C. Myers reference?

There's a section that argues against the bible's (or, rather, Eve's) own etymological explanation for Cain's name, with a cryptic reference to Alan C. Myers. Why isn't this reference properly footnoted? 80.178.116.193 13:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to avoid duplication with Cain and Abel. I suggest merging them all here for the time being. Martin --70.100.232.83 19:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC) i love lauren ashley masaitis.

Also, like... Cain and Abel have slightly greater importance than just what the good Reverend Moon has to say about them, eh? The Abel article is very complete. I think there is enough to be said about each of them separately that they warrant their own articles, but mayhap this should be the main article to discuss the slaying. Graft

• I agree with Graf... Ammended article to reflect the story, reflecting the text as known to most, minus distortions. IZAK 09:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why the {} sign/s?

Why were one or more of these sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} signs placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning? (And why create a redundant category Category:Bible stories that is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories?) IZAK 07:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what the hell does the story means?

In the book Demian, the story of Abel & Cain is told as if Cain was the starter of humankind, as he had "the sign", wich distinct him from the others, making everyone to respect and be afraid of him. But could this sign mean that god is against the death penalty?, as he protected the assasin ( also we must not forget that the son of god, when he was on the death penalty, he invited the 2 thieves to heaven with him). The bibble, specially the criptic and obscure passages, contradicts itselves too much. I wish someone would give a good explanation of what the story really means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.28.199.54 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 18 November 2004 (UTC).

The sign is an indication of God's sovereign power. That is, God claims the exclusive right to judge and punish, and forbids others to take the right to judge and punish into their own hands. This principle applies to all judicial authority - no properly constituted state will allow vigilante action, double jeopardy, or other departures from the principle of exclusive jurisdiction. But the mark of Cain has an addition significance because Cain represents civil society. So God is really saying that even though civil society is founded on an act of violence ("frozen violence") people must accept the institutions of civil society in their midst... see www.understandinggenesis.com

Not only that, but death, while something we instinctively avoid, would be an instant end to Cain's deserved punishment (he obviously believes in God, so up he goes), and is therefore denied him ~as~ his punishment.

qur'an reference

i must point out that the qur'an makes no mention of the brothers' betrothal nor of one's desire for the other's wife. and i am also reasonably certain that there is no mention of either brother's name (as Habil is given in this article). now the traditions, or sunnah, may contain these things, but the qur'an does not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.46.0.13 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

The above is essentially correct. The Qur'an makes NO mention of "desire of women" nor mentions the names.

5:28 And relate to them with truth the story of the two sons of Adam, when they each offered an offering, and it was accepted from one of them and was not accepted from the other. The latter said, `I will surely kill thee.' The former replied, `ALLAH accepts only from the righteous;

5:29 `If thou stretch out thy hand against me to kill me, I shall not stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee. I do fear ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe;

5:30 `I wish that thou shouldst bear the punishment of the sin against me as well as of thine own sin, and thus be among the inmates of the Fire, and that is the recompense of those who do wrong.'

5:31 But his evil self induced him to kill his brother, and so he killed him and became one of the losers.

5:32 Then ALLAH sent a raven which scratched in the ground, that HE might show him how to hide the corpse of his brother. He said, `Woe is me ! Am I not able to be even like this raven so that I may hide the corpse of my brother ?' And then he became remorseful.

5:33 On account of this, WE prescribed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land - it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. And our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, Yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land.

Agriculturalists and shepherds

A very interesting interpretation on the story of Cain and Abel comes from award winning author Daniel Quinn, who in his work "Ishmael" gives a new way to understand the biblical stories like Cain & Abel, Adam & Eve, the fall, and others. The basic premise is that the story is ungraspable to us because it comes from a culture very different from ours, most importantly, it doesnt come from Our culture, instead it comes from a culture talking about us.

The outline is that Cain, the tiller of the soil kills his brother Abel, who is a shepherd. During the time of the storys genesis there was one new emerging culture and we call the place where it emerged the "cradle of civilization". Since people lived in tribes then, the story can be interpreted as a story of two tribes that collide, or rather civilization and other cultures. Where one culture kills or seeks to kill the other. Since Cain was an agriculturalist and a city builder it makes sense to think of his tribe as the one who is beginning to build the civilization.

So who wrote the story? If our ancestors would have written it, it wouldnt make much sense at all. Why would God favour Abel and not Cain who did something "useful" like doing agriculture and building cities? And why did Cain kill Abel in the first place? And why would God punish Cain for this?

But if Abel was the author, the reason why God favours his offering becomes more clear. If Cain is the emergence of the civilization (agriculture), then Abel are all those cultures that made their livelihood by being shepherds or similar. Thus Quinn suggests that this story is ancient war propaganda. God favours Abel, who lives righteously being a shepherd, and hates the murderous aggressor Cain.

So how can this make sense to us in the modern world? As well known, civilization has had a history of conquering and expansion. This is still a function of the civilization. And the ones that has to suffer for it are the people who stand in the way of its form of ever expanding agriculture, wich Quinn calls "totalitarian agriculture".

I think that Civilized man has no real connection with the land or any "roots" and this is what makes him a "wanderer" while Abel, who represents the native cultures are those who belongs somewhere, belongs to a place wich civilized man never really felt that he does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bongoman1 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

The pastoral/arable conflict theme is actually subordinate to the theme of conflict between religious and civil society represented by Abel and Cain respectively. We can be fairly sure that the story was written by the proponents of religion, rather than those of civil society, but the point is a well-considered one, i.e. if civil society destroys religion, then civil society will enter into a spiritual void (the land of Nod) - but will never-the-less retain its civil authority (the protective "mark of Cain"). See www.understandinggenesis.com

—==Popular culture== I trimmed down the pop culture section to take out all references not specific to Cain and Abel. I accidentally marked it as a minor edit.--Cúchullain t / c 08:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

On Cain and Abel in the Matrix

Cain and Abel were both vampires, Matrix Exiles, old, rogue programs that did the dirty work in the employ of the Merovingian. Persephone, the Merovingian's wife shot and killed Abel with a silver bullet leaving Cain to "wonder" in the Matrix world alone forever. Sxzblu 68.63.210.24 08:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Apparent" is a presumptuous word...

This article cites: "God's apparent inability to identify the corpse of Abel." I'm guessing this is a conclusion made from the fact that God asks Cain where his brother is. However, the context of the conversation seems to indicate that God knew Cain was dead and asked the question rhetorically, giving Cain a chance to admit what he had done. The point, however, is simply that "God's apparent inability to identify the corpse of Abel" isn't apparent at all and should be rephrased or deleted.--Metricdatabase 21:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree.Guille 18:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What's more, there's precedent. God had just gotten done asking Adam and Eve why they were hiding, knowing full well why (and mentioning it to them 2 lines later). That guy definitely likes his rhetorical questions.

Cain and Abel birth time

There is a serious mistake in the article and it should be corrected. Cain and Abel were born BEFORE the Fall of Man. This is accepted and conventional rabbinic position based on thorough Torah translation from Hebrew original. Classic Rashi commentary says on Genesis 4:1 : This had already (occured) before the previous narrative (i.e.), before he sinned and was exiled from Gan Eden. This is also (true of) the conception and birth. Had it said וידע אדם it would imply that after he was exiled children were born to him. 12:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be clarified that this is the rabbinic POV, and not presented as if common to everyone else. As usual, this argument is not derived from anything whatsoever in the actual text of Genesis, but only from the later Rabbinical and Talmudic writings. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As I understood Rashi, it derives from actual Hebrew text, from the language grammar. Another argument follows from subsequent Torah chapters, which tell us about Cain tribe and Seth tribe and thus make conclusion about their different descent undoubtful. 16:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

interwiki problem

Currently most of the interwikis are doubled, ex. ca:Abel and ca:Caïm. What's the best solution, removing them and leave only the ones that's about both Cain and Abel --Ugur Basak 11:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism Reference

I would like to see the note that Mormonism adds that Cain made the sacrifice because Satan told him to removed. Being of the faith, I am not aware of this being true. If the author wants to later provide a verifiable source for this comment then it can stay, but I know of no such place where this is said. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does hold that Cain was listening to Satan in the murder of Abel, giving in to the temptation that he might murder and get gain for it, but that is as far as it goes to my knowledge.

     someone new: This is unclear, the Book of Mosus reads: "And Satan said unto Cain: Swear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die; and this that thy father may not know it; and this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands." 

It could be that Satan told Cain to do it, and that was how he delivered Abel into his hands, or it could be that Cain wanted Able daed, and Satan told him how to do it.

Who is Abel?

In Genesis 3:17-19 God say's to Adam "Cursed is the ground for your sake, in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both Thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you. And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground. For out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.

Is this God's punishment for Adam specifically or all of mankind? If so how does God favor Abel who is a shepherd and brings meat over Cain who is an agriculturist and brings the toil of the land? Is God Contradicting himself? Is Abel the son of Adam, or maybe the son of God? Just a conspiracy

God favours Abel because Abel is "spirit" whereas Cain is a "smith" who is one with the earth, in other words with the material world. Abel's flock consist of living beings or spirits (note the symbolic system familiar to us in the New Testament). So naturally God favours Abel, but note that he also moves to protect Cain. In other words God recognises that humankind is both material and spiritual, and that the religious (spiritual) and civil (material) aspects of our nature must co-exist. See www.understandinggenesis.com

It is assumed (and explicitly stated as well?) that people were not eating meat at the time, having just graduated from eating-bits-of-plants-that-doesn't-kill-the-plant to raising and harvesting plants, therefore as a rancher, all Abel was doing was providing the family with some milk and possibly plow animals. ~Food~ still came out of the ground and was a struggle to raise, as surely animals were a struggle as well. The emphasis was on how hard it'd be to live from now on, to have to work hard in order to live. I think the distinction made between the work the two did is kind of overstated.

Arabic version in first line

Talib 72 added "(Arabic: قابيل و هابيل)" to the first sentence of the article. Isn't that only done when the original name was in arabic? Andjam 23:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, it should be in Hebrew. On the other hand, Muslims believe that the Koran is the literal (and therefore authoritative) word of God - and that word came in Arabic. Since this story appears also in the Koran, it would make sense from that point of view to include these names in Arabic, since that's how they say God spoke them to Mohammed. Rklawton 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cain and Abel as allegory

There are a number of conflict themes in the Cain and Abel story: the conflict between arable and pastoral farmers; between older and younger siblings; and between religion and worldiness. The name Abel references "spirit", and the shepherd is the Biblical "type" for spiritual leadership, a connection which survives to this day in the title of church "pastor". The older/younger brother rivalry is another common Biblical theme, and almost invariably it is the younger brother who is the chosen one of God (recent work by F.J. Sulloway on sibling order effects is relevant). Thus while the story can be read on at least three levels, the most fundamental for the purposes of this text is the conflict between religion, symbolised by Abel the shepherd, and civil society, symbolised by Cain, variously arable farmer, smith, and founder of cities. God favours the spiritual sacrifices of Abel (living creatures having spirit or breath) over the material sacrifices of Cain (inanimate produce of the earth). Cain as representative of civil society then kills Abel. The balance of the story is concerned with God's argument to Cain about his duty to protect (keep) his brother Abel (signifying civil society's "duty to protect" the institution of religion) and God's own decision to protect the civil institutions (Cain) from arbitrary violence (the mark of Cain). The mark, an ancient sign of possession and protection applied to bonded servants, indicates that notwithstanding its own violent origins, civil society functions under God's authority. A detailed allegorical analysis may be found at http://www.understandinggenesis.com

Others?

If Adam and Eve were the first humans with Cain and Abel as their sons then who is Cain afraid of? He says the others will kill him... what others?

In reply: You will only make sense of the Book of Genesis by reading it as it was intended to be read, that is as allegorical comment on, and explanation of, the human condition. If you want some pointers to the interpretation of the Cain and Abel story in particular, visit http://www.understandinggenesis.com

Or to continue with the literal interpretation, surely Cain assumed there would be more people eventually. When you live for nearly a millennium, waiting 15 years or so for more adult humans to show up on the planet isn't beyond the scope of your thinking-ahead-process.

That and the fact that it never states -explicitly- that there weren't other people around at the time. By this point, they could have dozens of siblings in little villages all over the greater Iraq area. Also, I think the mark covered him against animal attack too, to make sure he lived with his guilt instead of escaping it by dying.

Vegetarians vs Meat eaters

The story of Cain and Abel and its interpretations, has triggered some thoughts on me and I can't help it but think of vegetarias vs meat eaters. Cain dealt mostly with vegetables, since he was the farmer and Abel with meat, since he was the shepperd. Cain kills abel, it can be interpreted, because he feels jealous of his brother for offering God something that pleased him more. God appreciated the milk or fat of the lamb and rejected the vegetables. God is being depicted in this story as someone who preffers the product of an animal to vegetables. If we think of Cain as the vegetarian whose food is rejected by others and Abel as that whose food is accepted by most and by God himself, we can start making parallels with the struggles of vegetarians to have their food accepted. The condemnation of some vegetarians and vegans of those who eat animal food has come to extremes in modern society, where the formers have become intolerant of the latters in many cases. If there is a god, I hope for it to be a vegetarian so that no life is taken in the name of vegetables. Pedro Reyna (pedro@thebigtable.net)

Sorry, not accurate though. God did not give license to eat meat until Genesis 9. (Specifically Gen 9:3 - "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.") Before then it was all fruits and vegetables (see Genesis 3.) While Abel raised sheep, they used the milk and wool. But they didn't eat the critters. SunSw0rd 20:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation

cain & abel is also a famous security tool http://www.oxid.it/cain.html

Romulus and Remus

I can't find sources for this, but is there not an evident connection to the Romulus and Remus story of ancient Rome?

Consider this a divorce

What were the names of the proposed wives? Are they known? Palimony 20:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Cain, Abel and the half-truth.

As half-truths go, this is possibly a great example of an unrelated truth, a red herring.'

After Cain kills Abel, God approaches him, and Cains response, "Am I my brothers keeper ?"

Well we all know he was his brothers killer, yet he asks a question of God to deflect his guilt.

Not only is this the first murder, but also a lie of sorts.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In culture section.

Tunnels of Set: Not that this is a major issue, but I for one would support adding the RPG Vampire reference back. Unlike most of the other references I removed that were along the lines of "Well, somebody mentions the word Cain once in this book!," I can attest that Caine is a major part of the mythology in Vampire, and Vampire: The Masquerade is a reasonably significant source.

I can't speak to the importance of the comics entry that you also removed, but knowing how zealous some of the comics types are on Wikipedia, I suspect it will be added back shortly. I considered removing it myself as well, but I thought that having one somewhat over-long entry might deter people from adding anything more, perhaps. I suppose we'll see. SnowFire 02:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It belong in the article about the RPG, unless you can find a reputable third-party reference about this particular detail. The game itself cannot be used as a source, except in its own article. Please see WP:V. All this trivia does not belong, unless it has been discussed as significant elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia. It reports on what's been said by others. Does any other encyclopedia give a list of useless trivia in every entry? Tunnels of Set 02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Um. As for the trivia argument, you'll have no objections from me. The inclusions of such sections at all is questionable at best and tends to attract the wrong kind of edits, though there are times in which they are reasonable, and sometimes they can provide interesting details to be merged into the rest of the article later or at least fodder for an article like "X in popular culture." I noticed that you didn't nuke the whole section either, so I presume you saw at least some merit. (If you check my history, you'll see that I have in fact done such nukings in the past when it's bad enough- see this Shadow diff for a recent example. I felt that enough stuff in Cain & Abel was relevant that it might be useful in the future, though.)

That said, I believe your statement about verifiability is incorrect. First-party sources are fine and in fact preferred when discoursing about the subject's text. As an example, saying that The Crucible concerns witch trials in colonial Massachusetts is fine, and you can cite The Crucible itself for it- it's right in the text. Saying that The Crucible was an allegory for the House Un-American Activities Committee and was intended to denounce strident anti-communism would require a source (albeit that would be incredibly easy to source, since the author pretty much said so later). I can cite the Vampire sourcebooks if you want, as it's not an allegory; the story is directly incorporated. SnowFire 03:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, in the article about the subject. Not in other articles. Sources can be found that discuss, for example, The Crucible, we all know that. We also know that there probably aren't such sources for RPG 3 based on Anime episode #13 based on Comic book X. Gotta figure out where to draw the notability line for such trivia. The burden of showing that some individual "factoid" should be considered noteworthy should fall squarely on the shoulders of the editor wanting to add it. They can't themselves assert notability of the factoid, but must show that some published work has found it noteworthy enough to discuss. Otherwise these trivia section will end up three times longer than the article. So, if an editor is persistent in adding, let's tag 'em with a citation request. No third party mention, why should it be mentioned here? Tunnels of Set 06:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Book of Wisdom?

is this a deuterocanonical book or vandalism?

who was going to kill him

if theres only supposed to be adam, eve and the kids, whos going to kill him

There are some extra-biblical accounts that say he (Cain) was eventually killed by one of his own descendants, sometimes this is said to be the Lamech who is decended from Cain. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cain's name

The Good News Bible (which I know has been accused of dumbing down) makes a point of the fact that Cain's name apparently sounds similar to a Hebrew word meaning "acquired". Is this true? Shouldn't we mention it in the section on names? RobbieG 21:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Origin Section

The "Origin" section is not as clear as it could be and could be better supported.