In the Beginning Read online

  130. Here is another indication of a primitive polytheism that the Biblical writers somehow let stand.

  131. The serpent had told Eve that if she ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, she would become like a god, and here God himself seems to agree.

  132. This would seem to be the most primitive portion of the entire tale of the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were, presumably, immortal before they ate the fruit of the tree, but they were no threat to God then, for they lacked wisdom. Even after they gained wisdom and became “as one of us,” they were still no threat to God for they were now mortal.

  If, however, having gained wisdom, they also ate of the fruit of the tree of life and regained their immortality, they would, perhaps, become a threat. Wisdom and immortality together would be too much, and we have an odd picture of a timorous God.

  It might be argued that God was not afraid of even a wise and immortal human being but merely did not want Adam to become immortal and override God’s edict of mortality for him. In that case, we have the equally odd picture of a God who can be overridden.

  However interpreted, this part of the story must date back to an earlier time when gods were much more human and possessed human failings (like the gods in Homer’s epics) and before the priestly writers of the Babylonian period had drawn the picture of a transcendent and omnipotent God.

  23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

  24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, 133 and a flaming sword which turned every way 134 to keep the way of the tree of life.135

  133. The entities serving as guardians are, in the singular, “cherub.” The Hebrew method of forming a plural is to add the suffix -im, so that more than one cherub are cherubim. The King James Version adds the English plural “-s” suffix, making a double plural out of it. The Revised Standard Version has it simply “cherubim.”

  The Biblical writers do not define cherubim nor do they describe them. They are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, and about all we can obtain clearly is that they are winged and probably fearsome creatures.

  It may be that the cherubim are symbolic of storms and might be viewed as storm demons. Early man found storms fearsome and threatening (as we do today) and was all too prone to view storms as the direct activity of an angry and raging deity. The wind is invisible and has a superhuman strength, and both are godlike attributes.

  The “Spirit of God” referred to in Genesis 1:2 is a visualization of God as a wind stirring the waters of chaos. If God were angry, the wind that represents him might be come a raging storm.

  Thus, in Psalms 18:615, the anger of God is visualized as a convulsion of nature: earthquakes, volcanoes, and storms. The tenth verse reads: “And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind.”

  134. If the cherubim are storm demons then the flaming sword which turned every way might well be the lightning.

  135. The implication is that the Garden of Eden, or the “Earthly Paradise,” as some call it, still exists, but that it is shrouded and hidden behind perpetual storm clouds and that anyone approaching would be struck down by lightning.

  It was common in many ancient mythologies to sup pose that some land or island existed in some unknown and distant spot where all troubles ceased and happiness reigned supreme. The Elysian Fields of the ancient Greeks was one such place. The Isle of Avalon in the legends of King Arthur is another.

  In medieval times, the Earthly Paradise took on the aspects of such a place, and it seemed easy to suppose it to be still existing in some far corner of the globe—so little of which was known to medieval Europeans. Dante, in his Divine Comedy, put it at the top of the mountain of Purgatory, which he located at that point on the globe directly opposite to Jerusalem. (The point opposite to Jerusalem is, actually, located in the South Pacific at a point about 800 miles northeast of the northern tip of New Zealand.)

  Now that Earth has been thoroughly explored, it is clear that the Earthly Paradise does not exist upon its surface. Still, to those who do not choose to abandon it, it would not be difficult to maintain that it has been spirited to another planet, or to Heaven—or even that it exists on Earth but is, thanks to the guardian cherubim, invisible to human sight.

  Chapter 4

  1 And Adam knew 136 Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, 137 and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.138

  136. his is a Biblical euphemism for sexual relations. The Bible is full of euphemisms. The use of “Lord” in place of “Yahveh” is a euphemism, for that matter.

  137. The name Cain (Kayin in Hebrew) means “smith.” In the early days of civilization, the use of metals was introduced, and the new materials became exceedingly important both in ornamentation and in the manufacture of tools and of weapons for hunting and warfare. Men who could prepare the metals and work them into the necessary shapes were important and highly regarded artisans. To be a smith and to be called one was a matter of pride and honor, and to this day Smith is a common surname among English-speaking peoples.

  138. To explain the name, the Biblical writers sought for some similar-sounding Hebrew word and found it in kanah, meaning “to get.”

  2 And she again bare his brother Abel. 139And Abel was a keeper of sheep, 140 but Cain was a tiller of the ground.141

  139. No derivation is given for the name Abel (Hebel or Hevel in Hebrew). The Hebrew word means “nothingness,” and this is taken usually to represent the briefness of Abel’s life. The actual derivation, however, may be aplu, which is an Akkadian word for “son.”

  140. Since human beings were as yet allowed to eat only vegetable life, one might wonder why Abel kept sheep. Presumably, only for the production of wool and the fashioning of garments therefrom. If so, this is not likely to match actual history. As far as we know, the first herdsmen used their animals as a food supply in addition to any other uses involved.

  141. Farming and herding grew up together in the early days of civilization, but since plants can be grown more thickly than animals, end since more calories per acre can be produced in the form of cultivated grain than in the form of domesticated animals, farming communities were more thickly populated than herding communities.

  The larger population of agricultural societies offered more opportunity for specialization and for technological advance, so that the use of metals (as well as of other luxuries) was more associated with the settled and populous farming communities than with the roaming, sparsely peopled herding tribes. It is rather appropriate, therefore, that the farmer should be named Cain (“smith”).

  3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.142

  142. This is the first example of a sacrificial rite in the Bible. The word “sacrifice” is from the Latin, meaning “to make sacred,” that is, to set aside something for the use of a god. Because one deprives one’s self in order to set aside something for the gods, “sacrifice” has gained its present meaning.

  Originally, the motivation that led to the sacrifice may well have been analogous to that which leads to the bringing of a gift to a king. It is a sign of devotion and loyalty-and also a way of putting him into a good mood or even inspiring him with a feeling of friendship and gratitude. It’s the apple-for-the-teacher gambit.

  Quite likely, the original notion was that gods ate, too. If food is burned, the rising smoke would carry the essence of the food upward to where the gods were thought to live, and in grateful exchange the gods would grant a good harvest or victory over one’s enemies.

  In later times, of course, the reasons for sacrifice were made more lofty, but the practice was eventually abandoned just the same.

  4 And Abel he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.143 And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering.

  143. Presumably Abel killed the firstborn lambs
(“first lings”) for the sacrifice, which would seem to indicate that though human beings had been directed to be vegetarians, God himself remained carnivorous.

  5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. 144 And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

  144. The Bible does not say at this point in what way God showed respect or why he favored Abel over Cain. Later commentators maintained that Cain was wicked, that he offered his sacrifices reluctantly, that he chose undesirable portions of the harvest-while Abel was good, chose the best lambs, and offered them gladly. Or, as is stated in the New Testament (see Hebrews 11:4). Abel had faith and Cain did not and therefore Abel’s sacrifice was superior.

  The story in Genesis says none of these things, how ever, and the most direct interpretation might be that the sacrifice of animals was superior to that of grain. In a way, this makes sense, since animal food was more ex pensive than plant food (and still is, as you know) and therefore would represent a more valuable sacrifice. Besides that, animals were regarded as living and plants were not, and so living things were a more valuable gift to God than nonliving things could be. (In many forms of primitive worship, the most valuable sacrifice of all was that of a human being.) This would make it look as though God favored Abel over Cain because Abel offered the greater bribe, so to speak.

  On the other hand, the story of Cain and Abel is an old legend that the Israelites may well have told when they were still nomadic herdsmen wandering in the Arabic borderlands and before they had settled down in the land of Canaan. Abel the shepherd would naturally be the hero of the tale, and Cain the farmer would be the villain. Herding ways would be considered superior to farming ways, and the sacrifices of the herdsman superior to those of the farmer.

  6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

  7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sinlieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. 145

  145. This verse in the King James Version is rather obscure. The Revised Standard Version has the verse read: “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

  This seems to recognize the wickedness in Cain, but it is the conditional that is used-the possibility that Cain will do something wrong in the future. It may be considered as implying that he has already done something wrong in the past, and that was why God lacked respect for his sacrifice—but the Bible doesn’t say so.

  This is the first verse in which the word “sin” is used. “Sin” is a translation of a Hebrew word that can mean “deviation from the terms of an agreement” or “rebellion.” If Cain puts himself into an ugly frame of mind, the temptation of rebelling against the dictates of God will arise, and he must master that temptation.

  8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.146

  146. From the earliest days of farming, there was war between the settled agricultural communities and the nomad tribes on the fringes.

  As time went on, agricultural communities gathered in surpluses of food, ornaments, tools, weapons; and herds-men, condemned to travel constantly in search of fresh pasture for their animals, could not do so. The wealth of the settled communities was a standing temptation for the nomadic herdsmen.

  As a consequence, settled communities were forever fighting off “barbarian raids.” The last and greatest of these, which founded the relatively short-lived Mongol Empire, devastated various parts of Asia from 1225 to 1265. Eastern Europe was overrun in 1240 and 1241.

  Histories are usually written by the intellectuals of settled societies. It’s no surprise, then, that the nomads are pictured as cruel, destructive, and murderous. And yet it is usually the nomads who get the worst of it and suffer the more.

  The Settled agricultural communities have the more advanced weapons and can hide behind city walls. In general, the armies of civilization are more numerous and better armed, and when well led they can usually destroy the barbarians. (After the Mongol invasions, the coming of gunpowder put the weight of strength permanently on the side of civilization, and the nomads were permanently crushed.)

  Nomads sometimes do successfully invade a civilized region and take it over, but this happens only at times when, for one reason or another, the civilized region has decayed or has disintegrated into civil war. The story of Cain and Abel is one of the very few well-known literary fragments in western literature that tell the tale from the viewpoint of the nomad who, in the long run, was destroyed by the farmer.

  9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am 1 my brother’s keeper?

  10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood 147 crieth unto me from the ground.

  147. Primitive societies quite reasonably attach a great deal of importance to blood. It could be argued that it represented a principle of life as important as that of the breath. If an animal’s throat is cut so that it bleeds freely, it weakens as it bleeds and eventually dies, as though life left it along with the blood; as though life and blood were the same. This equivalent of life and blood is specifically stated in various verses of the Bible.

  The Bible does not say just how Cain slew Abel. Had it been by strangulation or by a blow on the head, life would have departed without blood having been spilled. (The fact that death may come without the loss of a single drop of blood is an argument against the absolute equation of life and blood.)

  The implication here, however, is that blood seeped into the ground, and it seems logical to suppose that Cain, the “smith,” used a spear, an arrow, a knife-some penetrating, cutting weapon that would signify the superior technology of the Civilized man as against the no-mad.

  In that case, life would not so much be lost as transferred. The blood, still alive by its very nature, would from the ground call out to God.

  11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;

  12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.148

  148. This is apparently another ancient tradition that has been grafted onto the preceding one, because this one also involves nomads.

  In the first Story, the tale of the hostility of farmers and nomads is told from the nomad viewpoint. The wicked farmer kills, without cause, the virtuous shepherd.

  Now we have an explanation, however, from the farmer’s point of view, of what nomads are and how they came to be. Cain is now forced to cease being a farmer and to become a nomad. The implication is that nomads are what they are because they are criminals by nature and incapable of forming part of a decent, law-abiding, settled society.

  13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

  14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one 149 that findeth me shall slay me.

  149. Who is the “every one”? If we have been following the tale of Adam and Eve and accept the common assumption that they were the only living human beings at the time of the Garden of Eden, then the total population of Earth at the time of the murder of Abel was three: Adam, Eve, and Cain.

  Could it be that Adam and Eve had many children, who have gone unnamed and unmentioned but now populate the world? Could it be a reference to the various animals, some powerful and predatory, that exist in the world?

  Could it be that the Creation-myths of the P-document and the J-document refer to two different sets of the works of God? Perhaps God created human beings, male and female, many of them on the sixth day of Creation, and they filled the Earth. Afterward, it may be, he create
d Adam and Eve, alone in the Garden, as the progenitors of a particular family. Thus, Cain would now fear death at the hands of any of the numerous “pre-Adamites.”

  None of this is made plain by the Bible. It may be that the tale of Adam and Eve (“how death came into the world,” we might call it) ends with the expulsion from Eden. What follows next would be various legends dealing with primeval history and the birth of Civilization, all of which are linked together, rather clumsily, by the Biblical writers.

  There is one story of how crime came into being, and a second dealing with how the nomadic way of life came into being. Both presuppose a world full of people and it is only the attachment to the Adam and Eve tale, by making, Cain and Abel their sons, that creates confusion.

  15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, 150 lest any finding him should kill him.

  150. It doesn’t seem to make sense to protect Cain so zealously after the unprovoked murder he committed unless we suppose that a life of exile and wandering is greater punishment than immediate death. On the other hand we are now into the primeval history tale, and this verse may be intended to account for the habit of some nomadic tribes of marking themselves with characteristic tattoos.

  Agricultural societies eventually develop a more or less complex system of laws that are finally committed to writing and a complex judicial system to interpret and enforce those laws. The simpler society of the nomads, however, lacks such a written law and must do without.

  Where laws are not carefully defined and their exact wording is not available, there is less security. Where there is not a set and proper machinery for dealing with lawbreakers, the law of the vigilante is put into motion. Summary justice at the hands of a mob becomes the rule.

  Thus, if a member of a tribe is murdered by an outsider, the rest of the tribe is duty-bound to hunt down the murderer and kill him. Presumably, the sure knowledge that murder will bring down retaliation upon the murderer is a powerful incentive against such crimes of violence.