Talk:Cain and Abel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:The Cain Tradition)
Jump to: navigation, search

Adam and Eve's offspring[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

If Abel and Cain were the only sons of Adam and Eve, that means that Eve was still the only female on the planet. Then with whom did Abal and Cain have sex to produce more humans?

Although I know the answer to this question, I don't believe that Wikipedia is the place to discuss this because a good encyclopedic editor should already have a basic understanding of Adam's offspring if editing such content. Wikipedians do not philosophize on Wikipedia. If you wish to philosophize this subject, I would suggest you either go to a local Judaism center and ask a rabbi, or go to a local Christian church and ask a minister. If you wish to edit on Wikipedia, I would suggest you pursue a theology degree or go to a local library and research it. :/ Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 15:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I would rather advise the editor to read Genesis more carefully. There's no need to go to a religious authority to realize that Cain and Abel were not the only sons of Adam, and that Eve was not the only female, because Adam 'begat sons and daughters' (Genesis 5:4). - Lindert (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
It is not the place of a Wikipedian editor to answer this sort of question. The person who raised this question should research it for themselves. Pointing to Genesis does not advance the Wikipedian editor because that is using a wp:primary source to interpret that question. If the person wishes to edit such content, they must have a proper understanding of an wp:independent WP:THIRDPARTY wp:reliable source that can be wp:verifiable. Genesis 5:4 does not qualify under these policies and cannot be used in an encyclopedic edit without a wp:reliable source, otherwise we would be promoting wp:original research. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 16:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources or original research do not apply to talk pages. Your own suggestion to ask a rabbi doesn't pass the WP:RS criterion either. I never suggested using purely primary sources for the article. Clearly the OP was asking a question from the perspective of the book of Genesis. I don't see any problem with pointing out some things that he/she may have overlooked. - Lindert (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The OP may have inadvertently asked a question that could have led Wikipedian's to philosophize on this talk page which could have led to unnecessary heated discussions. His local rabbi/minister can point out what he might have overlooked. It should not involve Wikipedia. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 16:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The form of the question itself is illogical. It's like saying, "because A+B=C, then D must equal F. There is no logical connection between what is being inferred in the question itself. First it makes an inaccurate assumption (that Cain and Abel were the only sons of Adam and Eve, or for that matter, that Adam and Eve were the only humans that God created), to leap to an illogical conclusion (that Eve was the only female on earth at the time that Cain and Abel were seeking mates). I do, however, agree with both of you that the talk page of this article is the wrong place to seek the answers. The talk page is solely for the purpose of improving the article. The answers one receives to these questions will also depend not only on where one seeks the answers (rabbi, priest, scripture, etc.) but also on how one interprets the sources of information. I would encourage seekers to avoid the Literalists or the answers given may prove more laughable than the question. Instead consider that Scripture was never intended to be taken literally or we Christians would all be of the viewpoint that dinosaurs co-existed with Man, that Creation and Evolution are mutually exclusive theories, and that the Earth is just a few thousand years old. Garth of the Forest (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Thus, philosophizing...   — Jason Sosa 06:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
You were right, I think we can agree to close this thread. - Lindert (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mythical mythical?[edit]

I know that all the religious articles have their own version of the "mythical" argument (as I see it, the "believers" are constantly trying to remove the word from the article while the "non-believers" treat it as though it were absolutely required in every religious article). Regardless, I think the first sentence of this article has reached an unfortunate extreme. It employs the phrase "mythical sons of mythical...." That reads really poorly! Do we seriously need the word mythical used two times within four words? Can't the sentence be revised to read more fluidly? I know a percentage of wikipedians just have to see the word mythical in the first sentence of every religious article, but this is getting ridiculous. It's almost worse than lawyers always using the word egregious in every sentence. The last time I removed the word mythical from a religious article everyone freaked out (though I only removed it from the first sentence--I left all other uses of it in the article!). So I won't make this edit until everyone agrees that the phrase "mythical sons of mythical...." is really poor sentence structure. --wiki user MorbidAnatomy (not signed in right now). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.82.215.201 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the lead sentence doesn't read well as of now, and the previous version was better IMO. I do not object to the use of 'mythical' if it serves a purpose. I don't think it currently does. The edit summary that was given for the current version was It's ancient myth, not fact, so say so. However, stating that Cain and Abel were, according to the Book of Genesis, two sons of Adam and Eve, is not implying that they really were. The best way to retain a neutral POV, I think is to clearly use attribution. I don't think the exact verses need to be mentioned in the lead sentence. I've now edited the sentence accordingly, any suggestions (or disagreements) are welcome. - Lindert (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of the previous change. The wording which you used certainly reads much more smoothly. If somebody feels they need the word mythical in there I'm not going to argue it, I just didn't like seeing it used twice in four words. It's just bad writing. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Eten and Emesh[edit]

Cain and Abel is related to "Eten and Emesh."

It should be mentioned.--85.104.53.19 (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You may have meant Enten instead of 'Eten'. Anyway, it cannot be included unless reliable sources are provided supporting your assertion. - Lindert (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So did Adam only has two sons- ABEL & CAIN and where did SETH appeared ?[edit]

I want to ask the justice of your case on the write up here. SO who is SETH ?

I hope before you edit this toipc on wiki, please consult ad Orthodox Rabbi- on Abel, Cain and SETH ? Do you know that the scripture said 'that Adam begets sons and daughters.:-)~ This is a plural noun.

So are Abel and SETH , the same person, or a third person ( among his brother Cain & Abel )

Please take note : never in my Jewish text that we omitted the text like you did here in the wiki- Adam was blessed with "SONS and DAUGHTERS "

Cain settled in ,Nod East of Eden , punished for 7 generation and his generation of children, his first born Enoch bu succession in the fashion mentioned below :

1. Enoch - the city builder ( the first born of CAIN) 2. Irad 3.metujael 4. methushael ( NO METHUSALAH as many of you get these personalities confused, Note -Methusalah of of the lineage of SETH. ) 5. Lemech

Note. Cain , Abel and Seth are sons of Adam, as to his daughters (no info recorded) if you have please let me know : -)~ Thanks. Note . the Lineage of the Hebrews are Patriarchal not matriarchal, though both the male and female are created in the LIKENESS of G-d, a little less than the Angels.

It is from the lineage of SETH derived the shoots of enos,cainan.mahalaleel.Jared,Enoch, methusalah..Lamech to PROPHET NOAH .

And Noah had three Sons - Ham ,Shem and Japhrth.

And through Ham came the Cush,Mizraim ,Phut and CANAAN. ( latet dowm the era of the Judges and Kings of the Hebrews , the lands were claimed by the Children of Shem ).

And the son Japheth were Gomer, Magog.Madai,Javan,Tubal,Tiras.Meshech and tiras.

It is these three Peopel of Hamm Shem and Japheth that buid the 'TOWER of BAble "

So we have :

1. the Hamitic ( Africa and Arabian )

2. Semitic (Assyria UR, Persians,Chaldeans,Aremenians,Syrians... that derived AGRAH, ISAAC,Jacob/ Israel and the twelve tribes.Reuben.Simeon,Levi,Judah,Issachar,Zebulon,Joseph'Benjamin,Dan,Naphtali,Gad.Asher all went to slavely into EGYPT.. tehn you got Moses,Joshua,The ear of the Judges,King Saul, King David, King Solomon-then the revolt Jeroboam and Rehoboam - the Northern Kingdom and Kingdom of Judah.

3. Japhetic. __________________________________________________________________________________________

Note : The Northern Kingdom and Southern Kingdom consist of 10 TRIBES of Israel.

1. The Northern Kingdom ( ten Tribes- their capitol is Samaria. taken captive by ASSYRIA 2. The Southern -Two Tribes = Judah and Benjamin. :-)Taken Captive by Babylon. 3. The Southern Kingdom is recorded in EZRA,NEHEMIAH,HAGGAI,ZECHARIAH,AND MALACHAI. 4. After Malachi, The Persian Period,The Greek period, the period of Jewish Independence.The Roman Period, the Maccabees revolt.

So you see it is through Adam- SETH you see the flow of the whole lineage of Israel that you see in ISRAEL TODAY .

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Prophets of the Northern Kingdom  :

1. Ahijah 2. Elijah 3. Micaiah 4.Elisha 5.Jonah 6. Hosea 7. Amos. 8.Oded

The Prophets of Southern Kingdom -JUDAH :-)


1, Semaiah 2. Iddo 3.Azariah 4.Hanani 5.Jehu 6. Eliezer 7.jahaziel 8.Zechariah 9.Isaiah. 10.Micah 11. NaHUM. 12 jOEL 13.jEREMIAH 14.hABAKKUK 15.zEPHANIAN 16. eZEKIEL 17.dANIEL 18.oBADIAH 19.hAGGAI 20. zECH 21. mALACHI

tHANKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.179.147 (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Most of this is not really relevant, this article is not about all the sons, daughters and descendants of Adam, but only about Cain and Abel. However, I would agree that the opening sentence currently suggests that they were Adam and Eve's only sons, so I'll remove the "the". - Lindert (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

French interlanguage link[edit]

The best corresponding French article is fr:Caïn. I was trying to add the link to that article to the interlanguage links, but I get the following message:

An error occurred while trying to perform save and because of this, your changes could not be completed.

Clicking on "Details gives me further:

Edit not allowed: Site link [[frwiki:Caïn]] already used by item [[Q205365]].

This message gives the editor no idea what to do about it. Despite the appearance, Q205365 is of course not an article, and can not be reached by entering it like an article name in the search box. Since I don't have the time now to further investigate this, I'll just post it here. — Sebastian 16:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that multiple interwiki links cannot point to the same article. fr:Cain and Able already links here so fr:Cain cannot also link here. That has the answer I got at the help desk. Hope that helps. meshach (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there ever has been an article with that mixture of French and English text - and at least now fr:Caïn et Abel is only a short dab, with no iw links whatsoever. On the other hand, fr:Caïn indeed seems to be the best reference here - and it iw-links to the Cain section in this article, bypassing the new iw links system. This seems as one of the occasions where the new iw linkage system isn't totally suitable. JoergenB (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is written to make the story appear non-fiction.[edit]

Examples: "Cain was the first human born and Abel was the first human to" "Known for: First murderer in human history" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.18.51 (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The "mythology" notice was removed from the first sentence, in order to make the article more neutral (vide supra). The idea is that that first sentence clearly expresses the context - the narrative in Genesis - and leaves to the reader to decide whether this is a myth and/or facts. However, I fully agree that the text under the picture, declaring him to be the first murderer in history, is rather biased in the other direction. It clearly elevates the Genesis narrative to be considered as covering factual history. In the text proper, similar formulations are not such a great problem; it should be clear from the context that it is the narrative that is described, not the actual independently verified facts.
I'll try to npow the text in the image box. JoergenB (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove paragraph?[edit]

Can we remove the following passage? It seems to have been written by someone who was fighting a losing battle with the English language: "In a narrative 'How the hope arise', which is one of the three theological virtues, is reported: 'The heavenly roses and all the birds and butterflies asked: 'Where is a new bloom which pacifies so gorgeously ?"" and furthermore a song for Awan, who later became the wife of Cain, is narrated: 'On the mountain is a small house, in which are two windows. She sits in one of it and waits for her favorite. You're a heavenly flower, the world loves you. I love you and nobody else. Awan, Awan soul and heart I love you and nobody else. And she herself, that mother did not know, picked flowers and gave it to her beloved. And these flowers will never wither what dear gave as a gift to beloved'." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.235.212.17 (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem! However, please sign contributions to talk pages, by pushing the "signature" button (if your editor has one), or by writing four 'twiddles' in a row (like this: ~~~~)!
The text was added approximately a month ago, here. As you note, it is written in very poor English. (The contributer is living in Austria, according to the user page.) The text also is unsourced. However, it is not self-evident that it should be removed; if the English is improved and adequate sources added, it could well be a good article contribution.
There is also the question of where to put the text. The editor refers to Christian virtues, but inserted the text in a section about the narrative in the Jewish Midrash.
Either you or I (or someone else) could improve the language - provided there is an adequate source to the passage. Thus, in the first place, we should ask for sources, The most efficient way to do that is by means of a template. JoergenB (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Removed. The insertion broke up the flow of the sourced material, was itself unsupported by sourcing, and was unrelated to the material it was injected into.
Cheers. —Telpardec  TALK  05:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Cain's response to his curse[edit]

I looked through this page and the page on the curse and mark of Cain, and in neither place did I see any reference to Cain's response to God's sentence which led to his being marked. This should appear at least in one of the articles if not both as it is a big point in the story: God placed a mark or sign on Cain in specific response to Cain's fear that anyone who met him would kill him. One particular point is that the word Cain used when he said his punishment is too great can mean both punishment and transgression, leaving uncertainty as to whether Cain was simply complaining that his sentence was unbearably severe or saying that the guilt and weight of his crime is more than he can bear. This has been questioned by theologians, and is a part of the debate as to whether the mark of Cain was meant as a further sign of condemnation to a sinner, or graceful protection to one who repented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.50.240 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Even God would not kill Cain, that is why he was held as one of the animals on Noah's Ark. A blessing and a curse? Gnostics (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Cain as Noah's ancestor[edit]

Genesis 4:17-18 - Cain and his wife had a son and named him Enoch. Then Cain build a city and named it after his son (Erech/Uruk/Unuk(sumerian)). Enoch had another son named Irad...

ok, so this passage and those that follow indicate that Cain is the ancestor of Noah, not Seth... it also states that Cain founded Erech, or modern day Iraq...

although, it doesn't specifically mention Noah as the son of Enoch in this passage, it can be inferred from history and is completely contrary to the account of Genesis 5.

the lineage is as such in each case:

Adam/Eve > Cain > Enoch > Irad > Mehujael > Methushael > Lamech > Noah (lifts the curse on the land brought about by Cain)

Adam/Eve > Seth > Enosh > Kenan > Mahalalel > Jared > Enoch > Methuselah > Lamech > Noah

history has been altered/fabricated in the Genesis 5 account... it completely rewrites the Genesis 4 account...

either: Seth (the son Eve never had) is simply a metaphor for Abel... and later Enosh...

or: Cain is simply a metaphor (and the son Eve never had)... this explanation seems unlikely...

why? because we have the entire history of Cain, the founding or Erech, etc... but we have nothing on Seth... no history what so ever...

also, neither do we have a history for Methushael (Genesis 4 version), but we have one for Methuselah (Genesis 5 version)...

70.48.210.219 (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem very confused. Enoch the son of Cain could not be the same Enoch, as Enoch the son of Jared. And your new theory is original research and thus is not to be considered here per site policy, only what sources say can be attributed to those sources here. 71.246.158.36 (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's original research, unless you can find a reliable (secondary, academic) source making this exact argument. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Digging further (and modifying the Generations of Adam article accordingly), it appears that the Cainite lineage was in the Jahwist source and the Sethian was a modified duplication in the Priestly source modeled after the Sumerian King List. The Cainite lineage probably did not feature Noah, however, being modeled after Ziusudra. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Can you say whose theory that is? 71.246.158.36 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be a single person, but lots of people. Pretty much anyone connected to Form criticism, as well as Fritz Hommel and Thomas Kelly Cheyne, though the latter two are not the originators of this but merely two notable proponents I found. The idea even appears in more recent but pious commentaries, asserting that the duplication between the lists is meant to show common culture between the two (with members of one line naming their children after cousins from the other line), explain the apparent relationship between the Hebrews and the (not too bad) Kenites, snub the Sumerian king list, or claim that the Sumerian king list was really a corruption of the Sethite lineage. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I support merging Cain tradition to Cain and Abel. It would be a short paragraph there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I will go ahead and merge. It was proposed before and there were no objections then either, but nothing was done. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"Ghosts of Vesuvius"[edit]

I don't how Charles R. Pellegrino's writings have any bearing on the subject. Not to mention how ludicrous that statement is seeing how there were no neanderthals left in the Bronze Age. 67.204.235.22 (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubious: Ethnic imagery in medieval art?[edit]

Presently a passage reads: "In medieval Christian art, particularly in 16th century Germany, Cain is depicted as a stereotypical ringleted, bearded Jew, who killed Abel the blonde, European gentile symbolizing Christ." It is accompanied by an image from 15th century Germany image depicting a bearded Cain and unbeared Abel. The source for this is supposed to be a Dutch dictionary of symbols and imagery. This may be dubious. While such depictions are common enough in later centuries, I can't find an examples medieval Christian art. The accompanying image, which I take it is supposed to substantiate the passage, does not look like a "Jew" killing a "European" but an older brother slaying a younger one. Furthermore "medieval Christian art" from "16th century Germany" is arguable oxymoronic since the medieval period is almost always deemed to end before the 16th century. A better source or at least a single unambiguous medieval example would seem to be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.218.2 (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Family Tree[edit]

The section entitled "Family Tree" gives a family tree that includes a variety of characters taken from both biblical and extra-biblical texts. For several members of the tree, a variety of alternatives are possible. As it stands, the Family Tree could give the impression that it includes an undisputed family tree. I suggest deleting it or else adding footnotes at the relevant points indicating alternate traditions. I'm not sure what the norms are on Wikipedia for something like this, and I'm not sure how I'd go about adding footnotes, because the Family Tree is based on a template (is that the right word?). Any suggestions for how to fix this are welcome. Alephb (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of Holman Christian Standard Bible[edit]

I'm not really happy about using this version. Why not something like the NRSV? Doug Weller talk 14:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see how it's better to use one than the other. At present, the HCSB is more popular than the NRSV. StAnselm (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Outside of academic settings, maybe. But I'd bet dollars to donuts that if you pick a random university not specifically associated with the Southern Baptist convention and sit in on random biblically-oriented classes, that you'd see someone quote from the NRSV before the HCSB. The NRSV was produced by a group of scholars from a wide range of religious backgrounds. The HCSB is a specifically Southern Baptist production. I'm going to go off to JSTOR and see if I can get some rough data to confirm or deny my instinct on this.Alephb (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
P.S. The link you've got there is from an evangelical booksellers association. For the most part, those aren't the people who buy NRSVs. NIV, NLT, followed by KJV are the top three they list. Outside of specifically evangelical contexts, academics usually won't quote any of those three at present.Alephb (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I see the Holman Bible is sold in various versions aimed at various groups of people. I don't know if that helps their sales or not. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
All right here's what JSTOR gives when you search various terms related to the NRSV and HCSB. “New Revised Standard Version” (550 hits). “Holman Christian Standard Bible” (10 hits). “Christian Standard Bible” (11 hits). “Holman Bible” (12 hits). NRSV (1326 hits). HCSB (21 hits). So while I personally tend to like a lot of what I see in Holman (especially compared to the NIV or NLT), it does look like its position is marginal in the academic world. Alephb (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
And I have to be honest, @StAnselm:, so far as I know you're an inerrantist so you've got an interest in this that I don't. And are all Bibles published by the EPCA? Because your link only lists those they publish. The KJV seems to be the most popular US Bible. Bible translations into English but that shouldn't sway us as this isn't a US site. We need one that is as much as possible not biased towards a particular religious group. And given Alephb's search, I still say NRSV. Do you have a strong objection to it? Doug Weller talk 21:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, lots of things here:
  1. Alephb's search was just HCSB vs. NRSV: in terms of popularity of modern English translations, the NIV dwarfs both of them, and would be a more sensible choice.
  2. The NIV is not as well regarded in the academy - e.g. when I did theology exams, we had a choice between RSV, NRSV, and ESV.
  3. If I understand correctly, the usual practice here on WP has been to leave Bible translation to editorial discretion.
  4. There have been questions raised about copyright violations in relation to quoting large chunks of the Bible. I don't know if there has been any consensus on this issue, but this article quotes a block of seven verses, seemingly unnecessarily.
  5. The other problem is that there are two Bible quotes, and they are different translations: HCSB and KJV.
  6. I'm not sure the mention of the Septuagint of Gen 4:7 adds anything to the article
StAnselm (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify, StAnselm, the search I did was of JSTOR, so it was comparing academic use of HCSB vs. NRSV. If you add the NIV to that mix, it doesn't "dwarf them both." Total book sales might, but in JSTOR mentions a quick search shows NRSV and NIV running neck-and-neck, depending on what exact search parameters you use. And while I can't give you hard numbers on this, the first page of search results for each do show an interesting pattern. Searching for "New Revised Standard Version" mostly turns up results in journals that look like academic biblical scholarship. Searching for "New International Version" shows a bit more randomness: first, a journal called "Social Justice," an entry in the British Medical Journal, another entry in the British Medical Journal, the Accounting Historians Journal, a journal called Leonardo, Political Theory, BioScience, and some articles specifically dedicated to reviewing the NIV. Now, don't get me wrong, there's actual academic biblical scholarship showing up in both searches. But, as far as I can see, the results more or less agree with your observation about theology exams. The NRSV looks like it's preferred in academic settings that study the Bible specifically, while it looks the the NIV leans somewhat in the direction of being the Bible that happens to be handy when a doctor happens to quote a Bible verse in a medical journal article.Alephb (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
"a journal called "Social Justice,"" That is probably Social Justice (journal), a political science journal covering various aspects of social justice. I do not think it has any connection to Social Justice (periodical), the defunct Roman Catholic periodical published by Charles Coughlin. Dimadick (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

no sisters?[edit]

Currently, the article has this: "The motive for Cain's crime is typically assumed to be jealousy, but the narrative never states this, nor does it provide a reason for God's rejection of his sacrifice, nor does it explain where he found a wife (later commentators decided she must have been his sister, although Genesis mentions no sisters).[2]" However, Genesis does in fact mention sisters of Cain and Abel (Genesis 5:4). Nevertheless, I didn't want to overwrite what is in a cited source on the basis of my own reading of the Bible, so I went and read the relevant reference (John Byron). It turns out Byron does not go as far as to say that the Bible doesn't mention Cain's sisters. So, because that part of the sentence is unreferenced and at odds with a pretty clear reading of the Bible, I'm going to remove the claim that the Bible doesn't mention Cain's sisters. Alephb (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me :) PiCo (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

My recent partial revert[edit]

I want to thank User:Camino1 for an edit which partially improved the article, and then explain why I did a partial revert. A few edits ago, the second sentence in the Origins section read:

Like almost all the persons, places and stories in the Primeval history (the first eleven chapters of Genesis), they are mentioned nowhere else in the Bible, a fact that indicates that the History is a late composition attached to Genesis to serve as an introduction.[5] The source cited was making an argument about the date of the Primeval History on the basis of the fact that the rest of the Hebrew Bible was unaware of it. Unfortunately, "Bible" means different things to different people.

User:Camino1, noticing that the New Testament does in fact refer to to these two, changed the text to:

Like almost all the persons, places and stories in the Primeval history (the first eleven chapters of Genesis), they are mentioned in Matthew, 1 John, Jude and Hebrews. It is possible that the History is a late composition attached to Genesis to serve as an introduction.[5] This corrected was seemed like a mistaken claim, but obscured the argument being made by the Wikipedia article. So I changed the text again, to this more accurate reading that reflects the reasoning in the source cited. Camino1 then noticed that he'd accidentally introduced a faulty claim into the text and revised again:

They are mentioned in Matthew, 1 John, Jude and Hebrews. It is possible that the History is a late composition attached to Genesis to serve as an introduction.[5]

However, I think we can restore the previous state of the text as long as we are careful to disambiguate what "Bible" is being referred to, in order to more clearly reflect what Sailhamer, the cited source, is getting at. So I changed the text partially back to the original form, but incorporated Camino1's insight about the previous text being not quite right:

Like almost all the persons, places and stories in the Primeval history (the first eleven chapters of Genesis), they are mentioned nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, a fact that indicates that the History is a late composition attached to Genesis to serve as an introduction.[5] Alephb (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's restore some older material (then keep improving)[edit]

Hello all,

The article at present seems, to me, very deficient—lacking in classical commentary on this vitally important story. I was gathering some sources to make additions when I checked the history and saw that User:PiCo deleted several sections in a single edit on 23 February 2017. Respectfully, I disagree with such a sweeping deletion of relevant sourced material and propose to restore most if not all of the former text.

Admittedly some things in the old text could be improved. One crucial addition should be the oft-suggested connection between Cain (קין) and get/obtain (קנה) in Genesis 4:1. This and other ideas about the name of Cain are part of the tradition and belong on this Wikipedia article—maybe even more than do the Indigo girls. I hope people will agree that it's worth trying to get this right, even if the former version was not perfect.

Also, the presentation of the text of Genesis 4 could be improved.

  • Currently, the section contains translations of verses 1–9 and 15–17, with verses 10–14 summarized. (It's been this way for a while.) Why not give the whole translation uninterrupted? Why not maybe even present the whole thing side by side with the Hebrew? The whole thing is short enough and important enough to justify giving our readers the best possible presentation.
  • The notes from Robert Alter interspersed with the text are more distracting than helpful. For example he's probably right that "האדם" should not be translated as a proper name but does it really make sense to call the reader's attention to this fact three words into the passage, and without other points of view to compare? I'm not against using this translation but maybe these notes could be gathered together with the first footnote which goes to Alter 2008. And the issues they address should be discussed at greater length in the article. (Restoring the earlier material is the first step.)

Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

As for האדם, what other points of view are there? Are there seriously any mainstream qualified scholars of Hebrew who think it should be translated as a proper name here? Alephb (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
For reasons unclear to me, Christian bibles mostly use "Adam". Most other translations from Hebrew I've seen use "the man". A web search indicates that Alter is not alone in using "the human". I hope it is clear from my comment that I am not objecting to use of the latter translation.
An ideal version of the article would, I think, enlighten the reader about such nuances of translation, different etymological possibilities, and other ideas which connect closely to the original text. groupuscule (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, gotcha. My personal opinion would be to leave the haadam note alone unless we can find any reliable commentators (as opposed to translations) that hold to a proper name interpretation (I don't think there will be any). In general, I'd lean towards restoring at least some of the deleted material as well, although I'd be interested to see what PiCo says about the deletion. PiCo does a lot of shortening articles, and in some cases that's been a godsend, because some articles get really excessively long and disorganized. In this specific case, though, I'd be interested to see things like the etymologies of the names included in the article. As to why the whole translation isn't given uninterrupted, I wonder if that might have something to do with copyright. I'm not sure where exactly Wikipedia draws the line on long quotations. Alephb (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a worthy goal would be a Wikipedia-native translation side-by-side with Hebrew and with textual commentary from multiple sources. Just throwing it out there.
To expand a little on the content of the deleted text: The old version encompassed both "Cain" and "Abel" as solo identities (each with an infobox, which is like ensoulment on Wikipedia ;-) ). They're just about the only major characters in Genesis lacking their own private Wikipedia pages, so they should at least get their own sections and artwork describing them individually. Also essential is the theme of agricultural vs. nomadic conflict which is pervasive in the secondary literature and ought to be elaborated further. groupuscule (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I can see a case for adding individual sections back in. But I'm guessing that the Wikipedia-native translation with textual commentary would turn into a real swamp. Wikisource has a project along those lines [1], and it needs all sorts of work still. Especially given the WP:RS and WP:V policies, we'd need to source all the claims made in those notes. Alephb (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Alephb here. Doug Weller talk 09:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for the link to the wiki-bible. Very interesting if a little weird in parts. I would still recommend quoting the whole passage (verses 1–18), and including line numbers (which Alter does have, in the margin, in his original version). As far as the Alter footnotes go maybe there is a way to include them right at the bottom of the blockquote so its clear to readers that they're part of the quotation. Meanwhile I've restored the old material with minimal editing, grouped under "Jewish and Christian interpretations". Clearly a lot more could be done, and maybe some of the material which is currently in the long "Cain" section actually belongs at the top of the Interpretation section. groupuscule (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

The Body of Abel Found by Adam and Eve by William Blake, 1826

What's wrong with the picture I addded?The New Classic (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

So, so much! It only shows one of them for a start. It isn't very clear, and shows an obscure subject from Blake's personal mythology. Why do you always think Blake the best choice for lead pic? Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but it clearly shows BOTH of them, and no it does not show an obscure subject from Blake's mythology, it shows the Biblical scene of Cain fleeing from the Garden if Eden after his murder.The New Classic (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Or have I misinterpreted the picture? Could you please explain?The New Classic (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)y
No, I did not. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. All your arguments are nonesense, as anyone with clear sight can detect. For this reason, I will put the picture backThe New Classic (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Abel is a corpse at the time, not clearly shown and largely hidden by his parents. The lead image should show the best-known moment, the fight. I have moved the Blake lower down. This mania for inserting Blake images at the top of articles will continue to lead you into trouble if you persist. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
TNC, I cannot fathom your urgency to keep this image on the page, after two editors have reverted your change and asked you nicely to discuss it here. If you are right that the image belongs, why not convince them that you're right? Haste may prove counterproductive for your own ends.
That being said, I must admit to agreeing that the Blake illustration belongs here, and indeed to considering it the best of the images currently on the page. It has all four characters (no twin sisters, though) and it depicts more of the story, showing the body and the grave from the murder, as well as Cain's fear and subsequent flight.
By the way, there are many artistic representations of Cain and Abel and in my opinion it would not hurt the page to display a tastefully curated gallery of them somewhere in the cultural portrayals department. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)God
Thanks for both the advice and support, groupuscule.The New Classic (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Johnbod, ost editor shere agree that it is best to keep it on the talk page. The New Classic (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Johnbod, why move it down to Etymology? it has nothing to do with etymology, and it Abel being a corpse is not a hindrance or a negative quality, like, at all. The New Classic (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, anyone can see that he is not hidden by his parents, he is in front of them.The New Classic (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The only parts of Abel that are hidden are the ones covered by arms, and they barely cover him.The New Classic (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm a great fan of Blake, but the Rubens painting seems better for the lead pic since it shows the struggle.
The Blake is now appropriately in the section "Jewish and Christian interpretations," which is exactly what it is--a Christian interpretation of the aftermath of the slaying. YoPienso (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, with User:Finnusertop's edit summary (22 May), we now have 3 editors who don't believe it belongs at the top, one who does (User:The New Classic), and groupuscule, who likes the picture, but expresses no view on the right position. So I hope this is finally settled. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with both the above editors, even though, were it up to me personally as grand vizier of the Cain and Abel Wikipedia page, I might have chosen to use Blake's illustration in the lead. Actually I hope that even as grand vizier I would have the sense to respect the judgment of others in cases like these. It's partly a matter of taste — and it's not that big a deal — and placing the image in the Interpretations section seems like an excellent compromise. TNC, you are clearly a passionate and intelligent person, and I hope you will direct your energies into some more harmonious and fruitful Wikipedia editing activities. Sincerely, groupuscule (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks groupuscule, I promise I will.The New Classic (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The mormon wild cain[edit]

I was also puzzled by this recent addition then noticed that the article already included some information on the Master Mahan, with only the primary source "Moses 5:31". On the other hand the article itself has more sources. I still think that having one of the rare images of the article dedicated to this would be undue, thus I agree with Doug Weller about the revert. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Cultural portrayals and references[edit]

Someone has recently added actors to some tv-series/film here. I think this is not needed, that info is in those articles, and the popculture-section needs to be kept small-ish. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Got impatient, trimmed section [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, probably the right call. I'd say, let the trivia sections grow indiscriminately, and then when they start looking too long, cut 'em by 2/3. Alephb (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I might try to change this from list to text (but there´s not a lot I want to cut), similar to Otto_Skorzeny#In_fiction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)