Mythology

lived on the borders of the settled fertile lands, and were continually attempting to enter them. The myth has also acquired an aetiological character as an explanation of the origin of the blood-feud. The suggestion sometimes put forward that the myth is intended to explain Yahweh’s preference for animal sacrifices is not satisfactory, since, in the Levitical sacrificial code, such a preference does not appear, but both animal and vegetable offerings have their appointed place. The second part of the myth, which, in its present form continues the adventures of Cain, is from an entirely different source, and represents a totally distinct tradition. It is most probably a fragment of the early tradition of the Kenite clan, of whom we are told various details in the history of the Hebrews. But it would also appear that the fragment of Kenite tradition which forms the nucleus of the second part of the Cain and Abel myth has become mixed with other elements foreign to the Kenite tradition. The Kenites were always nomads or half-nomads, tent-dwellers, [11] but the ancestor of the Kenite clan is depicted in this part of the myth as a city-builder, a settled inhabitant of a land which cannot be identified geographically. He is represented as the founder of a line from whence spring the various elements of civilized life. When we compare the genealogy of Cain given by the Yahwist in 4:17-I8 with the Priestly genealogy of Seth given in 5:I-30 it is clear that the two genealogies are parallel forms of the same tradition about the descendants of the first man. This may best be seen if the two are placed side by side : [Insert Pic tb127] If these two lists are compared it will be seen how close is the parallel between them. First, the father of Kenan in P’s list is Enosh; but this is merely another Hebrew word for ‘man’ and a synonym for Adam, the first man. Kenan is another Hebrew form of Cain, so that in the original form of both lists the first man was the father of Cain. Then Irad is the same as Jared; Enoch occurs in both lists; for Mehujael the Septuagint has Maleleel, i.e., Mahalalel, and for Methushael it has Mathusala, i.e., Methuselah; and, finally, Lamech occurs in both lists. Hence it cannot be doubted that we have two different versions of the same list, and that I’s list of Cain’s descendants is really the genealogy of the first inhabitants of the earth, and the second part of the myth is really the account of the origin of the various elements of early civilization. We have, therefore, three distinct elements which the Yahwist either wove together into a connected narrative and linked up with the Paradise story, or found already brought together in traditions of the Kenite clan and made use of for his special religious purpose. The long- standing connexion of the Kenites with the Hebrews goes back to the saga of Moses, who is represented as having married into the Kenite clan (cf. Judges 4:II where ‘brother-in-law’ should be ‘father-in-law’, as in Revised Version margin), and this may explain why the Yahwist could find and make use of Kenite traditions in his story of the origins of Israel. It may be added that the fragment of ancient poetry preserved in 4:23-4 where the desert code of blood revenge is greatly intensified and referred back to the ancestor of the Kenites, supports the view that it was from Kenite traditions that the Yahwist drew the material for ‘this part of his story. The three elements thus preserved, transformed, and woven into a continuous narrative, are: first a ritual myth describing a ritual slaying and the subsequent ritual banishment; second, an aetiological myth explaining the origin of the blood-feud practised by a nomad community; and third, an ancient genealogical list embodying one of many traditions concerning the origin of civilization among the early Semites. This myth of Cain and Abel

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