Chapter IV: Beginnings of History and Civilisation (1)

_Critical Analysis._――Chapter 4 consists of three easily
separable sections: (a) the story of Cain and Abel (¹⁻¹⁶), (b)
a Cainite genealogy (¹⁷⁻²⁴),¹ and (c) a fragment of a Sethite
genealogy (²⁵ᐧ ²⁶). As they lie before us, these are woven into
a consecutive history of antediluvian mankind, with a semblance
of unity sufficient to satisfy the older generation of critics.²
Closer examination seems to show that the chapter is composite,
and that the superficial continuity conceals a series of
critical problems of great intricacy.

¹ Wellhausen unites verse ¹⁶ᵇ with ¹⁷⁻²⁴.

² _e.g._ Hupfeld, _Quellen_, 126 ff.

1. We have first to determine the character and extent of the
Cainite genealogy. It is probable that the first link occurs
in verse ¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, and has to be disentangled from the Cain legend
(so Wellhausen, Budde); whether it can have included the whole
of that legend is a point to be considered later (page 100). We
have thus a list of Adam’s descendants through Cain, continued
in a single line for seven generations, after which it branches
into three, and then ceases. It has no explicit sequel in
Genesis; the sacred number 7 marks it as complete in itself; and
the attempts of some scholars to remodel it in accordance with
its supposed original place in the history are to be distrusted.
Its main purpose is to record the origin of various arts and
industries of civilised life; and apart from the history of Cain
there is nothing whatever to indicate that it deals with a race
of sinners, as distinct from the godly line of Seth. That this
genealogy belongs to Yahwist has hardly been questioned except
by Dillmann, who argues with some hesitation for assigning it
to Elohist, chiefly on the ground of its discordance with verses
²⁵ᐧ ²⁶. Budde (page 220 ff.) has shown that the stylistic criteria
point decidedly (if not quite unequivocally) to Yahwist;¹ and
in the absence of any certain trace of Elohist in chapters
1‒11, the strong presumption is that the genealogy represents a
stratum of the former document. The question then arises whether
it be the original continuation of chapter 3. An _essential_
connexion cannot, from the nature of the case, be affirmed.
The primitive genealogies are composed of desiccated legends,
in which each member is originally independent of the rest;
and we are not entitled to assume that an account of the Fall
necessarily attached itself to the person of the first man. If
it were certain that 3²⁰ is an integral part of one recension
of the Paradise story, it might reasonably be concluded that
that recension was continued in 4¹, and then in 4¹⁷⁻²⁴. In the
absence of complete certainty on that point the larger question
must be left in suspense; there is, however, no difficulty in
supposing that in the earliest written collection of Hebrew
traditions the genealogy was preceded by a history of the Fall
in a version partly preserved in chapter 3. The presumption that
this was the case would, of course, be immensely strengthened if
we could suppose it to be the intention of the original writer
to describe not merely the progress of culture, but also the
rapid development of sin (so Wellhausen).

¹ יָלַד = ‘beget,’ ¹⁸; גם הוא, ²² (_in genealogies_, confined to
Yahwist, 10²¹ 19³⁸ 22²⁰ᐧ ²⁴ 4²⁶); ושם אחיו, ²¹ (compare 10²⁵);
compare ¹⁹ with 10²⁵ etc. (Budde _l.c._).

2. The fragmentary genealogy of verses ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ corresponds, so
far as it goes, with the Sethite genealogy of Priestly-Code
in chapter 5. It will be shown later (page 138 f.) that the
lists of 4¹⁷⁻²⁴ and 5 go back to a common original; and if the
discrepancy had been merely between Yahwist and Priestly-Code,
the obvious conclusion would be that these two documents had
followed different traditional variants of the ancient genealogy.
But how are we to account for the fact that the first three
names of Priestly-Code’s list occur also in the connexion
of Yahwist? There are four possible solutions. (1) It is
conceivable that Yahwist, not perceiving the ultimate identity
of the two genealogies, incorporated both in his document
(compare Ewald _Jahrbücher der biblischen Wissenschaft_, vi.
page 4); and that the final redactor (Redactorᴾʳⁱᵉˢᵗˡʸ⁻ᶜᵒᵈᵉ)
then curtailed the second list in view of chapter 5. This
hypothesis is on various grounds improbable. It assumes (see
²⁵ᵇ) the murder of Abel by Cain as an original constituent
of Yahwist’s narrative; now that story takes for granted
that the worship of Yahwe was practised from the beginning,
whereas ²⁶ᵇ explicitly states that it was only introduced
in the third generation. (2) It has not unnaturally been
conjectured that verse ²⁵ ᶠᐧ are entirely redactional (Ewald,
Schrader, al.); _i.e._, that they were inserted by an editor
(Redactorᴾʳⁱᵉˢᵗˡʸ⁻ᶜᵒᵈᵉ) to establish a connexion between the
genealogy of Yahwist and that of Priestly-Code. In favour of
this view the use of אדם (as a proper name) and of אלהים has been
cited; but again the statement of ²⁶ᵇ presents an insurmountable
difficulty. Priestly-Code has his own definite theory of
the introduction of the name יהוה (see Exodus 6² ᶠᶠᐧ), and it
is incredible that any editor influenced by him should have
invented the gratuitous statement that the name was in use from
the time of Enosh. (3) A third view is that verses ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ stood
originally before verse ¹ (or before verse ¹⁷), so that the
father of Cain and Abel (or of Cain alone) was not Adam but
Enosh; and that the redactor who made the transposition is
responsible also for some changes on verse ²⁵ to adapt it to its
new setting (so Stade) (see on the verse). That is, no doubt, a
plausible solution (admitted as possible by Dillmann), although
it involves operations on the structure of the genealogy
too drastic and precarious to be readily assented to. It is
difficult also to imagine any sufficient motive for the supposed
transposition. That it was made to find a connexion for the
(secondary) story of Cain and Abel is a forced suggestion. The
tendency of a redactor must have been to keep that story as
far from the beginning as possible, and that the traditional
data should have been deliberately altered so as to make it
the opening scene of human history is hardly intelligible. (4)
There remains the hypothesis that the two genealogies belong
to separate strata within the Yahwistic tradition, which had
been amalgamated by a redactor of that school (Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ)
prior to the incorporation of Priestly-Code; and that the second
list was curtailed by Redactorᴾʳⁱᵉˢᵗˡʸ⁻ᶜᵒᵈᵉ because of its
substantial identity with that of the Priestly Code in chapter 5.
The harmonistic glossing of verse ²⁵ is an inevitable assumption
of any theory except (1) and (2); it must have taken place after
the insertion of the Cain and Abel episode; and on the view we
are now considering it must be attributed to Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ.
In other respects the solution is free from difficulty. The
recognition of the complex character of the source called
Yahwist is forced on us by many lines of proof; and it will
probably be found that this view of the genealogies yields a
valuable clue to the structure of the non-Priestly sections of
chapters 2‒11 (see pages 3, 134). One important consequence may
here be noted. Eve’s use of the name אלהים, and the subsequent
notice of the introduction of the name יהוה, suggest that this
writer had previously avoided the latter title of God (as
Elohist and Priestly-Code previously to Exodus 3¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ and Exodus
6² ᶠᶠᐧ). Hence, if it be the case that one recension of the
Paradise story was characterised by the exclusive use of אלהים
(see page 53), 4²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ will naturally be regarded as the sequel
to that recension.

3. There remains the Cain and Abel narrative of verses ¹⁻¹⁶.
That it belongs to Yahwist in the wider sense is undisputed,¹
but its precise affinities within the Yahwistic cycle are
exceedingly perplexing. If the theory mentioned at the end of
the last paragraph is correct, the consistent use of the name
יהוה² would show that it was unknown to the author of verses
²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ and of that form of the Paradise story presupposed by
these verses. Is it, then, a primary element of the genealogy
in which it is embedded? It certainly contains notices――such
as the introduction of agriculture and (perhaps) the origin of
sacrifice――in keeping with the idea of the genealogy; but the
length and amplitude of the narration would be without parallel
in a genealogy; and (what is more decisive) there is an obvious
incongruity between the Cain of the legend, doomed to a fugitive
unsettled existence, and the Cain of the genealogy (verse ¹⁷),
who as the first city-builder inaugurates the highest type of
stable civilised life.³ Still more complicated are the relations
of the passage to the history of the Fall in chapter 3. On the
one hand, a series of material incongruities seem to show that
the two narratives are unconnected: the assumption of an already
existing population on the earth could hardly have been made
by the author of chapter 3; the free choice of occupation by
the two brothers, and Yahwe’s preference for the shepherd’s
sacrifice, ignore the representation (3¹⁹) that husbandry is
the destined lot of the race; and the curse on Cain is recorded
in terms which betray no consciousness of a primal curse resting
on the ground. It is true, on the other hand, that the literary
form of 4¹⁻¹⁶ contains striking reminiscences of that of chapter
3. The most surprising of these (4⁷ᵇ ∥ 3¹⁶ᵇ) may be set down to
textual corruption (see the note on the verse); but there are
several other turns of expression which recall the language of
the earlier narrative: compare 4⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹ with 3⁹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁷. In both
we have the same sequence of sin, investigation and punishment
(in the form of a curse), the same dramatic dialogue, and
the same power of psychological analysis. But whether these
resemblances are such as to prove identity of authorship
is a question that cannot be confidently answered. There
is an indistinctness of conception in 4¹⁻¹⁶ which contrasts
unfavourably with the convincing lucidity of chapter 3, as
if the writer’s touch were less delicate, or his gift of
imaginative delineation more restricted. Such impressions are
too subjective to be greatly trusted; but, taken along with
the material differences already enumerated, they confirm the
opinion that the literary connexion between chapter 3 and 4¹ ᶠᶠᐧ
is due to conscious or unconscious imitation of one writer by
another.――On the whole, the evidence points to the following
conclusion: The story of Cain and Abel existed as a popular
legend entirely independent of the traditions regarding the
infancy of the race, and having no vital relation to any part
of its present literary environment. It was incorporated in
the Yahwistic document by a writer familiar with the narrative
of the Fall, who identified the Cain of the legend with the
son of the first man, and linked the story to his name in the
genealogy. How much of the original genealogy has been preserved
it is impossible to say: any notices that belonged to it have
certainly been rewritten, and cannot now be isolated; but verse
¹ (birth of Cain) may with reasonable probability be assigned
to it (so Budde), possibly also ²ᵇ{β} (Cain’s occupation), and
³ᵇ (Cain’s sacrifice).――Other important questions will be best
considered in connexion with the original significance of the
legend (page 111 ff.).

¹ Compare יהוה, ¹ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶; ארור, ¹¹; לבלתי, ¹⁵; and
obsolete the resemblances to chapter 3 noted below: the
naming of the child by the mother.

² This uniformity of usage is not, however, observed in
LXX. In LXXᴬ Κύριος occurs twice (³ᐧ ¹³), ὁ θεός 5 times
(¹ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁶), and Κύριος ὁ θεός 3 times (⁶ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁵) (for
variants, see Cambridge LXX).

³ Even if we adopt Budde’s emendation of verse ¹⁷, and make
Enoch the city-founder (see on the verse), it still remains
improbable that that rôle should be assigned to the son of a
wandering nomad.

IV. 1‒16.
_Cain and Abel._

Eve bears to her husband two sons, Cain and Abel; the first becomes a tiller of the ground, and the second a keeper of sheep (¹ᐧ ²). Each offers to Yahwe the sacrifice appropriate to his calling; but only the shepherd’s offering is accepted, and Cain is filled with morose jealousy and hatred of Abel (³⁻⁵). Though warned by Yahwe (⁶ ᶠᐧ), he yields to his evil passion and slays his brother (⁸). Yahwe pronounces him accursed from the fertile ground, which will no longer yield its substance to him, and he is condemned to the wandering life of the desert (¹⁰⁻¹²). As a mitigation of his lot, Yahwe appoints him a sign which protects him from indiscriminate vengeance (¹⁴ ᶠᐧ); and he departs into the land of Nod, east of Eden (¹⁶).

=1‒5. Birth of Cain and Abel: their occupation, and sacrifice.=――=1.= On the naming of the child by the _mother_, see Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 116. It is peculiar to the oldest strata (Yahwist and Elohist) of the Hexateuch, and is not quite consistently observed even there (4²⁶ 5²⁹ 25²⁵ ᶠᐧ, Exodus 2²²): it may therefore be a relic of the matriarchate which was giving place to the later custom of naming by the father (Priestly-Code) at the time when these traditions were taking shape.――The difficult sentence קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת־יַהְוֶה connects the name קַיִן with the verb קָנָה. But קנה has two meanings in Hebrew: (a) to (create, or) produce, and (b) to acquire; and it is not easy to determine which is intended here.

The second idea would seem more suitable in the present
connexion, but it leads to a forced and doubtful construction
of the last two words, (a) To render אֵת ‘with the help of’
(Dillmann and most) is against all analogy. It is admitted
that את itself nowhere has this sense (in 49²⁵ the true reading
is וְאֵל, and Micah 3⁸ is at least doubtful); and the few cases
in which the synonym עִם can be so translated are not really
parallel. Both in 1 Samuel 14⁴⁵ and Daniel 11³⁹, the עם denotes
association _in the same act_, and therefore does not go beyond
the sense ‘along with.’ The analogy does not hold in this verse
if the verb means ‘acquire’; Eve could not say that she had
_acquired_ a man along with Yahwe. (b) We may, of course, assume
an error in the text and read מֵאֵת = ‘from’ (Budde al. after
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ). (c) The idea that את is the sign of accusative
(Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, al.), and that Eve imagined she had given
birth to the divine ‘seed’ promised in 3¹⁵ (Luther, al.) may be
disregarded as a piece of antiquated dogmatic exegesis.――If we
adopt the other meaning of קנה, the construction is perfectly
natural: _I have created_ (or _produced_) _a man with_ (the
co-operation of) _Yahwe_ (compare Rashi: “When he created me
and my husband he created us alone, but in this case we are
associated with him”). A strikingly similar phrase in the
bilingual Babylonian account of Creation (above, page 47)
suggests that the language here may be more deeply tinged with
mythology than has been generally suspected. We read that “Aruru,
together with him [Marduk], created (the) seed of mankind”:
_Aruru zí-ír a-mí-lu-ti it-ti-šu ib-ta-nu_ (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 40 f.; King, _The Seven Tablets of Creation_
i. 134 f.). Aruru, a form of Ištar, is a mother-goddess of the
Babylonians (see _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³,
430), _i.e._, a deified ancestress, and therefore so far the
counterpart of the Hebrew חַוָּה (see on 3²⁰). The exclamation
certainly gains in significance if we suppose it to have
survived from a more mythological phase of tradition, in which
Ḥawwah was not a mortal wife and mother, but a creative deity
taking part with the supreme god in the production of man.
See Cheyne, _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 104,
who thinks it “psychologically probable that Eve congratulated
herself on having ‘created’ a man.”――That אִישׁ is not elsewhere
used of a man-child is not a serious objection to any
interpretation (compare גָּבֶר in Job 3³); though the thought
readily occurs that the etymology would be more appropriate to
the name אֱנוֹשׁ (4²⁶) than to קַיִן.

* * * * *

=1.= והאדם ידע] A pluperfect sense (Rashi) being unsuitable,
the peculiar order of words is difficult to explain; see on
3¹, and compare 21¹. Stade (_Ausgewählte akademische Reden
und Abhandlungen_ 239) regards it as a proof of editorial
manipulation.――The euphemistic use of ידע is peculiar to Yahwist
in the Hexateuch (7 times): Numbers 31¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ³⁵ (Priestly-Code:
compare Judges 21¹¹ᐧ ¹²) are somewhat different. Elsewhere
Judges 11³⁹ 19²²ᐧ ²⁵, 1 Samuel 1¹⁹, 1 Kings 1⁴,――all in the
older historiography, and some perhaps from the literary school
of Yahwist.――קַיִן] √ קין (Arabic _ḳāna_). In Arabic _ḳain_ means
‘smith’; = Syrian (‡ Syriac word), ‘worker in metal’ (see 4²²
5⁹). Nöldeke’s remark, that in Arabic _ḳain_ several words are
combined, is perhaps equally true of Hebrew קַיִן (_Encyclopædia
Biblica_, 130). Many critics (Wellhausen, Budde, Stade,
Holzinger, al.) take the name as eponym of the Ḳenites (קַיִן, קַינִי):
see page 113 below.――קָנִיתִי] All versions express the idea of
‘acquiring’ (ἐκτησάμην, _possedi_, etc.). The sense ‘create’
or ‘originate,’ though apparently confined to Hebrew and
subordinate even there, is established by Deuteronomy 32⁶,
Proverbs 8²², Psalms 139¹³, Genesis 14¹⁹ᐧ ²².――את] Of the
versions Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ alone can be thought to have read מֵאֵת
(מן קדם); one anonymous Greek translation (see Field) took the
word as _notional accusative_ (ἄνθρωπον κύριον); the rest vary
greatly in rendering (as was to be expected from the difficulty
of the phrase), but there is no reason to suppose they had
a different text: LXX διὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, Symmachus σὺν κ., ὁ Ἑβρ.
καὶ Σύρ.: ἐν θ., Vulgate _per Deum_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word).
Conjectures: Marti (_Lit. Centralbl._, 1897, xx. 641) and
Zeydner (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,
xviii. 120): אִישׁ אֹת יַהְוֶה = ‘the man of the Jahwe sign’ (verse ¹⁵);
Gunkel אִישׁ אָתְאַוֶּה = ‘man whom I desire.’

* * * * *

=2.= _And again she bare, etc._] The omission of the verb הָרָה is not to be pressed as implying that the brothers were twins, although that may very well be the meaning. The Old Testament contains no certain trace of the widespread superstitions regarding twin-births.――The sons betake themselves to the two fundamental pursuits of settled life: the elder to agriculture, the younger to the rearing of small cattle (sheep and goats). The previous story of the Fall, in which Adam, as representing the race, is condemned to husbandry, seems to be ignored (Gunkel).

The absence of an etymology of הֶבֶל is remarkable (but compare
verse ¹⁷), and hardly to be accounted for by the supposition
that the name was only coined afterwards in token of his brief,
fleeting existence (Dillmann). The word (= ‘breath’) might
suggest that to a Hebrew reader, but the original sense is
unknown. Gunkel regards it as the proper name of an extinct
tribe or people; Ewald, Wellhausen, al. take it to be a variant
of יָבָל, the father of nomadic shepherds (4²⁰); and Cheyne has
ingeniously combined both names with a group of Semitic words
denoting domestic animals and those who take charge of them
(_e.g._ Syrian (‡ Syriac word) = ‘herd’; Arabic _’abbāl_ =
‘camel-herd,’ etc.): the meaning would then be ‘herdsman’
(_Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 6). The conjecture is retracted in
_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, in the interests of
Yeraḥme’el.

=3.= _An offering_] מִנְחָה, literally a present or tribute (32¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ 33¹⁰ 43¹¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 10²⁷ etc.): see below. The use of this word shows that the ‘gift-theory’ of sacrifice (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 392 ff.) was fully established in the age when the narrative originated.――_of the fruit of the ground_] “Fruit in its natural state was offered at Carthage, and was probably admitted by the Hebrews in ancient times.” “The Carthaginian fruit-offering consisted of a branch bearing fruit, ... it seems to be clear that the fruit was offered at the altar, ... and this, no doubt, is the original sense of the Hebrew rite also” (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 221 and _note_ 3). Cain’s offering is thus analogous to the first-fruits (בִּכּוּרִים: Exodus 23¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁹ 34²²ᐧ ²⁶, Numbers 13²⁰ etc.) of Hebrew ritual; and it is arbitrary to suppose that his fault lay in not selecting the best of what he had for God.――=4.= Abel’s offering consisted of _the firstlings of his flock, namely_ (see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 154 _a_, _N._ 1 (_b_)) _of their fat-pieces_] compare Numbers 18¹⁷. Certain fat portions of the victim were in ancient ritual reserved for the deity, and might not be eaten (1 Samuel 2¹⁶ etc.: for Levitical details, see Driver-White, _Leviticus_, _Polychrome Bible_, pages 4, 65).――=4b, 5a.= How did Yahwe signify His acceptance of the one offering and rejection of the other? It is commonly answered (in accordance with Leviticus 9²⁴, 1 Kings 18³⁸ etc.), that fire descended from heaven and consumed Abel’s offering (Theodotion, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, al.). Others (Dillmann, Gunkel) think more vaguely of some technical sign, _e.g._ the manner in which the smoke ascended (Ewald, Strack); while Calvin supposes that Cain inferred the truth from the subsequent course of God’s providence. But these conjectures overlook the strong anthropomorphism of the description: one might as well ask how Adam knew that he was expelled from the garden (3²⁴). Perhaps the likeliest analogy is the acceptance of Gideon’s sacrifice by the Angel of Yahwe (Judges 6²¹).――_Why_ was the one sacrifice accepted and not the other? The distinction must lie either (a) in the disposition of the brothers (so nearly all commmentaries), or (b) in the material of the sacrifice (Tuch). In favour of (a) it is pointed out that in each case the personality of the worshipper is mentioned before the gift. But since the reason is not stated, it must be presumed to be one which the first hearers would understand for themselves; and they could hardly understand that Cain, apart from his occupation and sacrifice, was less acceptable to God than Abel. On the other hand, they would readily perceive that the material of Cain’s offering was not in accordance with primitive Semitic ideas of sacrifice (see _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², Lecture VIII.).

From the fact that the altar is not expressly mentioned, it
has been inferred that sacrifice is here regarded as belonging
to the established order of things (Stade al.). But the whole
manner of the narration suggests rather that the incident is
conceived as the initiation of sacrifice,――the first spontaneous
expression of religious feeling in cultus.¹ If that impression
be sound, it follows also that the narrative proceeds on a
_theory_ of sacrifice: the idea, viz., that animal sacrifice
alone is acceptable to Yahwe. It is true that we cannot go
back to a stage of Hebrew ritual when vegetable offerings were
excluded; but such sacrifices must have been introduced after
the adoption of agricultural life; and it is quite conceivable
that in the early days of the settlement in Canaan the view was
maintained among the Israelites that the animal offerings of
their nomadic religion were superior to the vegetable offerings
made to the Canaanite Baals. Behind this may lie (as Gunkel
thinks) the idea that pastoral life as a whole is more pleasing
to Yahwe than husbandry.

¹ It may be a mere coincidence that in Philo Byblius the
institution of animal sacrifice occurs in a legend of
two brothers who quarrelled (_Præparatio Evangelica_
i. 10). Kittel (_Studien zur hebräischen Archäologie und
Religionsgeschichte_ 103¹) suggests that our narrative
may go back to a time prior to the introduction of the
fire-offering and the altar.

* * * * *

=3.= מקץ ימים] _After some time_, which may be longer (1 Samuel 29³)
or shorter (24⁵⁵). To take ימים in the definite sense of ‘year’
(1 Samuel 1²¹ 2¹⁹ 20⁶ etc.) is unnecessary, though not altogether
unnatural (Abraham Ibn Ezra al.).――הֵבִיא] the ritual use is well
established: Leviticus 2²ᐧ ⁸, Isaiah 1¹³, Jeremiah 17²⁶ etc.――מִנְחָה:
Arabic _minḥat_ = ‘gift,’ ‘loan’: √ _manaḥa._¹ On the uses of
the word, see Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 587b.
In sacrificial terminology there are perhaps three senses to be
distinguished: (1) Sacrifice in general, conceived as a tribute
or propitiatory present to the deity, Numbers 16¹⁵, Judges 6¹⁸,
1 Samuel 2¹⁷ᐧ ²⁹ 26¹⁹, Isaiah 1¹³, Zephaniah 3¹⁰, Psalms 96⁸ etc.
(2) The conjunction of מנחה and זֶבַח 1 Samuel 2²⁹ 3¹⁴, Isaiah 19²¹,
Amos 5²⁵ etc.) may show that it denotes vegetable as distinct
from animal oblations (see _Lectures on the Religion of the
Semites_², 217, 236). (3) In Priestly-Code and late writings
generally it is restricted to cereal offerings: Exodus 30⁹,
Numbers 18⁹ etc. Whether the wider or the more restricted
meaning be the older it is difficult to say.――=4.= וּמֵֽחֶלְבֵֿהֶן]
On Metheg, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 16 _d_. We might point as
singular of the noun (חֶלְבְּהֶן, Leviticus 8¹⁶ᐧ ²⁵; Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 91 _c_); but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
has _scriptio plena_ of the plural ומחלביהן.――וישע] LXX καὶ ἔπιδεν
(in verse ⁵ προσέσχεν); Aquila ἐπεκλίθη; Symmachus ἐτέρφθη;
Theodotion ἐνεπύρισεν (see above); ὁ Σύρ. εὐδόκησεν; Vulgate
_respexit_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ והות רעוא קדם יי.
There is no _exact_ parallel to the meaning here; the nearest
is Exodus 5⁹ (‘_look away_ [from their tasks] _to_’ idle
words).――=5.= חרה] in Hebrew always of _mental_ heat (anger);
LXX wrongly ἐλύπησεν; so Peshiṭtå. On impersonal construct, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 _b_; compare 18³⁰ᐧ ³² 31³⁶ 34⁷, Numbers
16¹⁵ etc. The word is not used by Priestly-Code.――For נפל,
Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac word) (literally ‘became black’).

¹ Some, however, derive it from נחה = ‘direct’; and Hommel
(_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the
Monuments_, 322) cites a Sabæan inscription where
_tanaḥḥayat_ (V conjecture) is used of offering a sacrifice
(see Lagrange, _Études_, 250). If this be correct, what was
said above about the ‘gift theory’ would fall to the ground.

* * * * *

=5b.= Cain’s feeling is a mixture of anger (_it became very hot to_ him) and dejection (_his face fell_: compare Job 29²⁴, Jeremiah 3¹²). This does not imply that his previous state of mind had been bad (Dillmann al.). In tracing Cain’s sin to a disturbance of his religious relation to God, the narrator shows his profound knowledge of the human heart.

=6‒12. Warning, murder, and sentence.=――=7.= The point of the remonstrance obviously is that the cause of Cain’s dissatisfaction lies in himself, but whether in his general temper or in his defective sacrifice can no longer be made out. Every attempt to extract a meaning from the verse is more or less of a _tour de force_, and it is nearly certain that the obscurity is due to deep-seated textual corruption (_v.i._).――=8=. _And Cain said_] אָמַר never being quite synonymous with דִּבֵּר, the sentence is incomplete: the missing words, _Let us go to the field_, must be supplied from versions; see below (so Ewald, Dillmann, Driver, al.). That Cain, as a first step towards reconciliation, communicated to Abel the warning he had just received (Tuch al.), is perhaps possible grammatically, but psychologically is altogether improbable.――_the field_] the open country (see on 2⁵), where they were safe from observation (1 Kings 11²⁹).――=9.= Yahwe opens the inquisition, as in 3⁹, with a question, which Cain, unlike Adam, answers with a defiant repudiation of responsibility. It is impossible to doubt that here the writer has the earlier scene before his mind, and consciously depicts a terrible advance in the power of sin.――=10=. _Hark! Thy brother’s blood is crying to me, etc._] צָעַק denotes strictly the cry for help, and specially for redress or vengeance (Exodus 22²²ᐧ ²⁶, Judges 4³, Psalms 107 ⁶ᐧ ²⁸). The idea that blood exposed on the ground thus clamours for vengeance is persistently vivid in the Old Testament (Job 16¹⁸, Isaiah 26²¹, Ezekiel 24⁷ᐧ ⁸, 2 Kings 9²⁶): see _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 417⁵. In this passage we have more than a mere metaphor, for it is the blood which is represented as drawing Yahwe’s attention to the crime of Cain.――=11.= _And now cursed art thou from_ (off) _the ground_] _i.e._, not the earth’s surface, but the cultivated ground (compare verse ¹⁴, and see on 2⁵). To restrict it to the soil of Palestine (Wellhausen, Stade, Holzinger) goes beyond the necessities of the case.――_which has opened her mouth, etc._] a personification of the ground similar to that of Sheol in Isaiah 5¹⁴ (compare Numbers 16³²). The idea cannot be that the earth is a monster greedy of blood; it seems rather akin to the primitive superstition of a physical infection or poisoning of the soil, and through it of the murderer, by the shed blood (see Miss Harrison, _Prolegomena to the study of Greek Religion_, 219 ff.). The ordinary Old Testament conception is that the blood remains _uncovered_ (compare Euripides _Electra_, 318 f.). The relation of the two notions is obscure.――=12.= The curse ‘from off the ground’ has two sides: (1) The ground will _no longer yield its strength_ (Job 31³⁹) to the murderer, so that even if he wished he will be unable to resume his husbandry; and (2) he is to be a _vagrant and wanderer in the earth_. The second is the negative consequence of the first, and need not be regarded as a separate curse, or a symbol of the inward unrest which springs from a guilty conscience.

* * * * *

=7.= The difficulties of the present text are “the curt and
ambiguous expression שְׂאֵת; further, the use of חַטָּאת as masculine,
then the whole tenor of the sentence, _If thou doest not
well..._; finally, the exact and yet incongruous parallelism of
the second half-verse with 3¹⁶” (Olshausen _Monatsberichte der
Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._,
1870, 380).――As regards ⁷ᵃ, the main lines of interpretation are
these: (1) The infinitive שְׂאֵת may be complementary to תֵּיטיב as a
_relative_ verb (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120, 1), in which case שׂ׳
must have the sense of ‘offer’ sacrifice (compare 43³⁴, Ezekiel
20³¹). So (a) LXX οὐκ ἐὰν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς, ὀρθῶς δὲ μὴ διέλῃς,
ἥμαρτες; ἡσύχασον (reading לְנַתַּח for לַפֶּתַח, and pointing the next
two words חָטָאתָ רְבַץ) = ‘Is it not so――if thou offerest rightly, but
dost not cut in pieces rightly, thou hast sinned? Be still!’ Ball
strangely follows this fantastic rendering, seemingly oblivious
of the fact that נַתַּח (compare Exodus 29¹⁷, Leviticus 1⁶ᐧ ¹²,
1 Kings 18²³ᐧ ³³ etc.)――for which he needlessly substitutes
בַּֽתֵּר (15¹⁰)――has no sense as applied to a fruit-offering.――(b)
Somewhat similar is a view approved by Budde as “völlig
befriedigend” (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 204 f.): ‘Whether
thou make thine offering costly or not, at the door,’ etc.
[‘Whether thou offerest _correctly_ or not,’ would be the safer
rendering].――(2) The infinitive may be taken as compressed
apodosis, and תּ׳ as an independent verb = ‘do well’ (as often).
שׂ׳ might then express the idea of (a) _elevation of countenance_
(= שׂ׳ פנים: compare Job 11¹⁵ 22²⁶): ‘If thou doest well, shall there
not be lifting up?’ etc. (so Tuch, Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann,
Driver, al.); or (b) _acceptance_ (שׂ׳ פ׳ as Genesis 19²¹, 2 Kings
3¹⁴, Malachi 1⁸ᐧ ⁹): so Aquila (ἀρέσεις), Theodotion (δεκτόν),
Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Vulgate (_recipies_); or (c)
_forgiveness_ (as Genesis 50¹⁷, Exodus 32³²): so Symmachus
(ἀφήσω), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Jerome, and recently Holzinger. Of these
renderings 2 (a) or 1 (b) are perhaps the most satisfying, though
both are cumbered with the unnatural metaphor of sin as a wild
beast couching at the door (of what?), and the harsh discord of
gender. The latter is not fairly to be got rid of by taking רֹבֵץ
as a noun (‘sin is at the door, a lurker’: Ewald al.), though
no doubt it might be removed by a change of text. Of the image
itself the best explanation would be that of Holzinger, who
regards רָבַץ as a technical expression for unforgiven sin (compare
Deuteronomy 29¹⁹). Jewish interpreters explain it of the evil
impulse in man (יֵצֶר הָרַע), and most Christians similarly of the
overmastering or seductive power of sin; ⁷ᵇ being regarded as a
summons to Cain to subdue his evil passions.――=7b= reads smoothly
enough by itself, but connects badly with what precedes. The
antecedent to the pronoun suffix is usually taken to be Sin
personified as a wild beast, or less commonly (Calvin al.) Abel,
the object of Cain’s envy. The word תְּשׁוּקָה is equally unsuitable,
whether it be understood of the wild beast’s eagerness for its
prey or the deference due from a younger brother to an older;
and the alternative תְּשׁוּבָה of LXX and Peshiṭtå (see on 3¹⁶) is no
better. The verbal resemblance to 3¹⁶ᵇ is itself suspicious;
a facetious parody of the language of a predecessor is not
to be attributed to any early writer. It is more likely that
the erroneous words were afterwards adjusted to their present
context: in Peshiṭtå the suffix are actually reversed (‡ Syriac
phrase).――The paraphrase of Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ affords no help,
and the textual confusion is probably irremediable; tentative
emendations like those of Gunkel (page 38) are of no avail.
Cheyne _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 105, would
remove verse ⁷ as a gloss, and make ⁸ᵃ (reading אחי) Cain’s
answer to verse ⁶.

=8.= אָמַר, in the sense of ‘speak,’ ‘converse’ (2 Chronicles 32²⁴),
is excessively rare and late: the only instance in early Hebrew
is apparently Exodus 19²⁵, where the context has been broken by
a change of document. It might mean ‘mention’ (as 43²⁷ etc.),
but in that case the object must be indicated. Usually it is
followed, like English ‘say,’ by the actual words spoken. Hence
נֵלְכָה הַשָּׂדֶה is to be supplied with _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate, but _not_ Aquila (Tuch,
Delitzsch: see the scholia in Field): a _Pisqa_ in some Hebrew
MSS, though not recognised by the Massoretic, supports this
view of the text. To emend וַיִּשְׁמֹר (Olshausen al.) or וַיָּמֶר, וַיֵּמַר
(Gesenius-Kautzsch) is less satisfactory.――=9.= אֵי] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ אַיֵּה.――=10.= On the interjectional
use of קוֹל, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 146 _b_; Nöldeke _Mandäische
Grammatik_ page 482.――צֹעֲקִים] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ צעק, agreeing with קוֹל (?).――=11.= אָרוּר ... מִן] pregnant
construct, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _x, y, ff._ This sense of מִן
is more accurately expressed by מֵעַל in verse ¹⁴, but is quite
common (compare especially 27³⁹). Other renderings, as _from_
(indicating the direction from which the curse comes) or
_by_, are less appropriate; and the comparison _more than_ is
impossible.――=12.= תֹסֵף] jussive form with לֹא (Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 109 _d_, _h_; Davidson §§ 63, _R._ 3, 66, _R._ 6); followed
by infinitive without ל (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 114 _m_).――נָע וָנָד]
an alliteration, as in 1². Best rendered in anonymous Greek
versions (Field): σαλευόμενος καὶ ἀκαταστατῶν; Vulgate _vagus
et profugus_; LXX (incorrectly) στένων καὶ τρέμων.

* * * * *

=13‒16. Mitigation of Cain’s punishment.=――=13.= _My punishment is too great to be borne_] So the plea of Cain is understood by all modern authorities. The older rendering: _my guilt is too great to be forgiven_ (which is in some ways preferable), is abandoned because the sequel shows that Cain’s reflexions run on the thought of suffering and not of sin; see below.――=14=. _from Thy face I shall be hidden_] This anguished cry of Cain has received scant sympathy at the hands of commentaries (except Gunkel). Like that of Esau in 27³⁴, it reveals him as one who had blindly striven for a spiritual good,――as a man not wholly bad who had sought the favour of God with the passionate determination of an ill-regulated nature and missed it: one to whom banishment from the divine presence is a distinct ingredient in his cup of misery.――_every one that findeth me, etc._] The object of Cain’s dread is hardly the vengeance of the slain man’s kinsmen (so nearly all commentaries); but rather the lawless state of things in the desert, where any one’s life may be taken with impunity (Gunkel). That the words imply a diffusion of the human race is an incongruity on either view, and is one of many indications that the Cain of the original story was not the son of the first man.

This expostulation of Cain, with its rapid grasp of the
situation, lights up some aspects of the historic background of
the legend. (1) It is assumed that Yahwe’s presence is confined
to the cultivated land; in other words, that He is the God of
settled life, agricultural and pastoral. To conclude, however,
that He is the God of Canaan in particular (compare 1 Samuel
26¹⁹), is perhaps an over-hasty inference. (2) The reign of
right is coextensive with Yahwe’s sphere of influence: the outer
desert is the abode of lawlessness; justice does not exist, and
human life is cheap. That Cain, the convicted murderer, should
use this plea will not appear strange if we remember the
conditions under which such narratives arose.

* * * * *

=13.= On עָוֹן (√ _ġawaʸ_ = ‘go astray’: Driver _Notes on
the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 134 f.) in the
sense of _punishment_ of sin, see the passages cited in
Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ 3. נשא ע׳, in the sense of ‘bear
guilt,’ seems peculiar to Priestly-Code and Ezekiel; elsewhere
it means to ‘pardon iniquity’ (Exodus 34⁷, Numbers 14¹⁸, Hosea
14³, Micah 7¹⁸, Psalms 32⁵). This consideration is not decisive;
but there is something to be said for the consensus of ancient
versions (LXX ἀφεθῆναι; Vulgate _veniam merear_, etc.) in favour
of the second interpretation, which might be retained without
detriment to the sense if the sentence could be read as a
question.――=14.= אֹתִי] instead of suffix is unlike Yahwist. In the
next verse אֹתוֹ after infinitive was necessary to avoid confusion
between subject and object.

* * * * *

=15.= What follows must be understood as a divinely appointed amelioration of Cain’s lot: although he is not restored to the amenities of civilised life, Yahwe grants him a special protection, suited to his vagrant existence, against indiscriminate homicide.――_Whoso kills Ḳayin_ (or ‘whenever any one kills Ḳ’), _it_ (the murder) _shall be avenged sevenfold_] by the slaughter of seven members of the murderer’s clan. See below.――_appointed a sign for Ḳayin_] or _set a mark on Ḳ_. The former is the more obvious rendering of the words; but the latter has analogies, and is demanded by the context.

The idea that the sign is a pledge given once for all of the
truth of Yahwe’s promise, after the analogy of the prophetic
אוֹת, is certainly consistent with the phrase שֵׁים ... לְ: compare
_e.g._ Exodus 15²⁵, Joshua 24²⁵ with Exodus 10² etc. So some
authorities in _Bereshith Rabba_, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Tuch, al.
But Exodus 4¹¹ᵃ proves that it may also be something attached
to the person of Cain (Calvin, _Bereshith Rabba_, Delitzsch, and
most); and that אוֹת may denote a mark appears from Exodus 13⁹ᐧ ¹⁶
etc. Since the sign is to serve as a warning to all and sundry
who might attempt the life of Cain, it is obvious that the
second view alone meets the requirements of the case: we must
think of something about Cain, visible to all the world, marking
him out as one whose death would be avenged sevenfold. Its
purpose is protective and not penal: that it brands him as a
murderer is a natural but mistaken idea.――It is to be observed
that in this part of the narrative _Ḳayin_ is no longer a
personal but a collective name. The clause כָל־הֹרֵג ק׳ (not מִי יַֽהֲרֹג, or
אֲשֶׁר י׳) has frequentative force (examples below), implying that the
act might be repeated many times on members of the tribe Ḳayin:
similarly the sevenfold vengeance assumes a kin-circle to which
the murderer belongs. See, further, page 112.

* * * * *

=15.= לָכֵן] οὐχ οὕτως (LXX, Symmachus, Theodotion) implies לֹא כֵן:
so Peshiṭtå, Vulgate; but this would require to be followed by
כִּי.――כָּל־הֹרֵג ק׳] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 116 _w_; compare Exodus 12¹⁵,
Numbers 35³⁰, 1 Samuel 2¹³ 3¹¹ etc.――יֻקַּםh] The subject might be
קַיִן (as verse ²⁴) or (more probably) impersonal (Exodus 21²¹),
certainly not the murderer of Cain.――שִׁבְעָתַיִם] = ‘7 times’:
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 134 _r_. Versions: LXX ἑπτὰ ἐκδικούμενα
παραλύσει; Aquila ἑπταπλασίως ἐκδικηθήσεται; Symmachus ἑβδόμως
ἐκδίκησιν δώσει; Theodotion δι’ ἑβδομάδος ἐκδικήσει; Vulgate
_septuplum punietur_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
לשבעא דרין יתפרע מיניה (hence the idea that Cain was killed by Lamech
the 7th from Adam [see on verse ²⁴]).

* * * * *

=16.= _and dwelt in the land of Nôd_] The verb יָשֶׂב is not necessarily inconsistent with nomadic life, as Stade alleges (see Genesis 13¹², 1 Chronicles 5¹⁰ etc.). It is uncertain whether the name נוֹד is traditional (Wellhausen, Gunkel), or was coined from the participle נָד = ‘land of wandering’ (so most); at all events it cannot be geographically identified. If the last words קדמת עדן belong to the original narrative, it would be natural to regard Ḳayin as representative of the nomads of Central Asia (Knobel al.); but the phrase may have been added by a redactor to bring the episode into connexion with the account of the Fall.

* * * * *

=16.= נוד] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ נד, LXX Ναϊδ
(ניד ?) with variants (see Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_,
page 9).――Symmachus, Theodotion, Vulgate (_habitavit profugus in
terra_) [Targum?] take the word as a participle; but the order
of words forbids this.――קדמת] see on 2¹⁴. ‘In front of Eden’ and
‘East of Eden’ would here be the same thing (3²⁴).

* * * * *

_The Origin of the Cain Legend._

The exposition of 4¹⁻¹⁶ would be incomplete without some account
of recent speculations regarding the historical or ethnological
situation out of which the legend arose. The tendency of opinion
has been to affirm with increasing distinctness the view that
the narrative “embodies the old Hebrew conception of the lawless
nomad life, where only the blood-feud prevents the wanderer
in the desert from falling a victim to the first man who meets
him.”¹ A subordinate point, on which undue stress is commonly
laid, is the identity of Cain with the nomadic tribe of the
Ḳenites. These ideas, first propounded by Ewald,² adopted by
Wellhausen,³ and (in part) by William Robertson Smith,⁴ have
been worked up by Stade, in his instructive essay on ‘The sign
of Cain,’⁵ into a complete theory, in which what may be called
the nomadic motive is treated as the clue to the significance
of every characteristic feature of the popular legend lying at
the basis of the narrative. Although the questions involved are
too numerous to be fully dealt with here, it is necessary to
consider those points in the argument which bear more directly
on the original meaning of verses ¹⁻¹⁶.

¹ Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 251.

² _Jahrbücher der biblischen Wissenschaft_, vi. 5 ff.

³ _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher
des Alten Testaments_² 10 f.

⁴ _l.c._

⁵ _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_, 229‒73.

1. That the figure of Cain represents some phase of nomadic
life may be regarded as certain. We have seen (page 110) that
in verse ¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ the name Cain has a collective sense; and every
descriptive touch in these closing verses is characteristic
of desert life. His expulsion from the אדמה and the phrase נע ונד,
express (though not by any means necessarily,――see below) the
fundamental fact that his descendants are doomed to wander
in the uncultivated regions beyond the pale of civilisation.
The vengeance which protects him is the self-acting law of
blood-revenge,――that ‘salutary institution’ which, in the opinion
of Burckhardt, has done more than anything else to preserve
the Bedouin tribes from mutual extermination.¹ The sign which
Yahwe puts on him is most naturally explained as the “_sharṭ_
or tribal mark which every man bore in his person, and without
which the ancient form of blood-feud, as the affair of a whole
stock and not of near relations alone, could hardly have been
worked.”² And the fact that this kind of existence is traced to
the operation of a hereditary curse embodies the feeling of a
settled agricultural or pastoral community with regard to the
turbulent and poverty-stricken life of the desert.

¹ _Bedouins and Wahabys_, 148.――The meaning is that the
certainty of retaliation acts as a check on the warlike
tribesmen, and renders their fiercest conflicts nearly
bloodless.

² Smith, _l.c._――It may be explained that at present the
kindred group for the purpose of the blood-feud consists
of all those whose lineage goes back to a common ancestor
in the fifth generation. There are still certain tribes,
however, who are greatly feared because they are said to
‘strike sideways’; _i.e._ they retaliate upon any member
of the murderer’s tribe whether innocent or guilty. See
Burckhardt 149 ff., 320 f.

2. While this is true, the narrative cannot be regarded as
expressing reprobation of every form of nomadism known to the
Hebrews. A disparaging estimate of Bedouin life as a whole is,
no doubt, conceivable on the part of the settled Israelites
(compare Genesis 16¹²); but Cain is hardly the symbol of that
estimate. (1) The ordinary Bedouin could not be described as
‘fugitives and vagabonds in the earth’: their movements are
restricted to definite areas of the desert, and are hardly less
monotonous than the routine of husbandry.¹ (2) The full Bedouin
are breeders of camels, the half-nomads of sheep and goats; and
both live mainly on the produce of their flocks and herds (see
Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 303 ff.). But to
suppose Cain to exemplify the latter mode of life is inconsistent
with the narrative, for sheep-rearing is the distinctive
profession of Abel; and it is hardly conceivable that Hebrew
legend was so ignorant of the proud spirit of the full Bedouin
as to describe them as degraded agriculturists. If Cain be the
type of any permanent occupation at all, it must be one lower
than agriculture and pasturage; _i.e._ he must stand for some of
those rude tribes which subsist by hunting or robbery. (3) It is
unlikely that a rule of sevenfold revenge was generally observed
amongst Semitic nomads in Old Testament times. Among the modern
Arabs the law of the blood-feud is a life for a life: it is
only under circumstances of extreme provocation that a twofold
revenge is permissible. We are, therefore, led to think of Cain
as the impersonation of an inferior race of nomads, maintaining
a miserable existence by the chase, and practising a peculiarly
ferocious form of blood-feud.――The view thus suggested of the
fate of Cain finds a partial illustration in the picture given
by Burckhardt and Doughty of a group of low-caste tribes called
Solubba or Sleyb. These people live partly by hunting, partly by
coarse smith-work and other gipsy labour in the Arab encampments;
they are forbidden by their patriarch to be cattle-keepers,
and have no property save a few asses; they are excluded from
fellowship and intermarriage with the regular Bedouin, though on
friendly terms with them; and they are the only tribes that are
free of the Arabian deserts to travel where they will, ranging
practically over the whole peninsula from Syria to Yemen. It
is, perhaps, of less significance that they sometimes speak of
themselves as decayed Bedouin, and point out the ruins of the
villages where their ancestors dwelt as owners of camels and
flocks.² The name קַיִן, signifying ‘smith’ (page 102), would be a
suitable eponym for such degraded nomads. The one point in which
the analogy absolutely fails is that tribes so circumstanced
could not afford to practise the stringent rule of blood-revenge
indicated by verse ¹⁵.――It thus appears that the known conditions
of Arabian nomadism present no exact parallel to the figure of
Cain. To carry back the origin of the legend to pre-historic
times would destroy the _raison d’être_ of Stade’s hypothesis,
which seeks to deduce everything from definite historical
relations: at the same time it may be the only course by which
the theory can be freed from certain inconsistencies with which
it is encumbered.³

¹ Nöldeke _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 130.

² Burckhardt 14 f.; Doughty, _Arabia Deserta_, i. 280 ff.

³ An interesting parallel might be found in the account given
by Merker (_Die Masai_, page 306 ff.) of the smiths (_ol
kononi_) among the Masai of East Africa. Apart from the
question of the origin of the Masai, it is quite possible
that these African nomads present a truer picture of the
conditions of primitive Semitic life than the Arabs of the
present day. See also Andree, _Ethnographische Parallelen
und Vergleiche_ (1878), 156 ff.

3. The kernel of Stade’s argument is the attractive combination
of Cain the fratricide with the eponymous ancestor of the
Ḳenites.¹ In historical times the Ḳenites appear to have been
pastoral nomads (Exodus 2¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ 3¹) frequenting the deserts south
of Judah (1 Samuel 27¹⁰ 30²⁹), and (in some of their branches)
clinging tenaciously to their ancestral manner of life (Judges
4¹¹ᐧ ¹⁷ 5²⁴, Jeremiah 35⁷ compared with 1 Chronicles 2⁵⁵). From
the fact that they are found associated now with Israel (Judges
1¹⁶ etc.), now with Amaleḳ (Numbers 24²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 15⁶), and
now with Midian (Numbers 10²⁹), Stade infers that they were a
numerically weak tribe of the second rank; and from the name,
that they were smiths. The latter character, however, would
imply that they were pariahs, and of that there is no evidence
whatever. Nor is there any indication that the Ḳenites exercised
a more rigorous blood-feud than other Semites: indeed, it seems
an inconsistency in Stade’s position that he regards the Ḳenites
as at once distinguished by reckless bravery in the vindication
of the tribal honour, and at the same time too feeble to maintain
their independence without the aid of stronger tribes. There
is, in short, nothing to show that the Ḳenites were anything
but typical Bedouin; and all the objections to associating Cain
with the higher levels of nomadism apply with full force to his
identification with this particular tribe. When we consider,
further, that the Ḳenites are nearly everywhere on friendly
terms with Israel, and that they seem to have cherished the most
ardent attachment to Yahwism, it becomes almost incredible that
they should have been conceived as resting under a special curse.

¹ The tribe is called קַיִן in Numbers 24²², Judges 4¹¹; elsewhere
the gentilic קֵינִי is used (in 1 Chronicles 2⁵⁵ קֵינִים).

4. It is very doubtful if any form of the nomadic or Ḳenite
theory can account for the rise of the legend as a whole. The
evidence on which it rests is drawn almost exclusively from
verses ¹³⁻¹⁶. Stade justifies his extension of the theory to
the incident of the murder by the analogy of those temporary
alliances between Bedouin and peasants in which the settled
society purchases immunity from extortion by the payment of
a fixed tribute to the nomads (compare 1 Samuel 25² ᶠᐧ). This
relation is spoken of as a brotherhood, the tributary party
figuring as the _sister_ of the Bedouin tribe. The murder of
Abel is thus resolved into the massacre of a settled pastoral
people by a Bedouin tribe which had been on terms of formal
friendship with it. But the analogy is hardly convincing. It
would amount to this: that certain nomads were punished for a
crime by being transformed into nomads: the fact that Cain was
previously a husbandman is left unexplained.――Gunkel, with more
consistency, finds in the narrative a vague reminiscence of an
actual (prehistoric) event,――the extermination of a pastoral
tribe by a neighbouring agricultural tribe, in consequence of
which the latter were driven from their settlements and lived
as outlaws in the wilderness. Such changes of fortune must
have been common in early times on the border-land between
civilisation and savagery;¹ and Gunkel’s view has the advantage
over Stade’s that it makes a difference of sacrificial ritual
an intelligible factor in the quarrel (see page 105 f.). But the
process of extracting history from legend is always precarious;
and in this case the motive of _individual_ blood-guilt appears
too prominent to be regarded as a secondary interest of the
narrative.

¹ Instances in Merker, _Die Masai_, pages 3, 7, 8, 14, 328,
etc.