Mythology

accepted. In anger at the rejection of his own offering and jealousy because of the acceptance of his brother’s, Cain kills his brother. The myth goes, on to relate the curse pronounced upon Cain by Yahweh, his flight from the scene of the slaying, and the protective mark placed upon him by Yahweh. Cain then settles in the land of Nod, builds a city, and becomes the ancestor of descendants to whom the origins of civilization are attributed. A careful examination of the myth in the form in which it appears in the Biblical narrative shows that it is made up of various strands of myth and saga which were originally distinct, and none of which had any connexion with the Paradise myth. In the setting in which the Yahwist has placed the episode, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, are the only living persons in existence. But the myth supposes that Cain goes in fear of human vengeance; he says, ‘Every one that finds me shall slay me.’ The ritual of sacrifice is assumed, and a stage of civilization has been reached which implies the building of cities and a knowledge of metalworking and the construction of musical instruments. All this is quite incompatible with the beginnings of life upon the earth after the expulsion from Paradise. Analysis of the myth reveals that three different strands of tradition have been woven together, either by the Yahwist, or in the sources which he is using. (a) The first of these strands reflects the ancient feud between the desert and the sown land, between the settled tiller of the soil and the pastoral nomad. We have already seen that this theme is the subject of the Sumerian myth of Dumuzi and Enkimdu, where Dumuzi the shepherd-god and the Enkimdu the farmer-god contend with offerings for the favour of Ishtar. In this form of the myth, however, there is no tragic ending. (b) The second strand contains the outline of a ritual myth which has been much worked over. It has no connexion with the Paradise myth, but implies a developed stage of society, with established religious institutions. Cain and Abel represent two different types of community, each carrying out its regular ritual of sacrifice. The rejection of the agriculturist’s offering implies a failure of crops, and this calls for some form of expiatory ritual. The necessity for such a ritual explains the obscure conversation between Cain and Yahweh in 4:6-7. The Hebrew text has suffered considerable corruption in the course of transmission. Its form seems to suggest that the agriculturalist, whose sacrifice has failed to secure its object, has consulted the oracle to inquire what is to be done, and has received a reply saying that he knows what the proper ritual is, and that there is a robes, a hostile demonic power waiting to be propitiated. The word translated ‘lies’ or ‘crouches’ is the same as the Akkadian rabisu, ‘the evil croucher’, who lies in wait for his offering, and is frequently mentioned in Babylonian magical texts. The next step is introduced by a significant phrase which is omitted in the Hebrew text but is supplied by the Septuagint, and is given in the Revised Version margin. It says, ‘And Cain said unto Abel his brother, Let us go into the field.’ This detail is also found in the Sumerian myth just referred to, where the farmer-god invites the shepherd-god to bring his sheep and let them pasture in his, the farmer-god’s, fields. It is in the field, the tilled soil, whose infertility has brought about the situation, that the slaying of the shepherd takes place, and the suggestion is that the slaying was a ritual one; it was not an impulsive one instigated by jealousy, but a communal ritual killing intended to fertilize the soil by drenching it with the blood of the victim; in the words of the narrative, ‘the earth has opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood.’

Note: If you are looking for good and high quality web space to host and run your jsp application check Lunarwebhost jsp web hosting services