QuestionMark

According to a book called "Bible" there was a man named Cain.

Cain was one of the two sons of Adam and Eve.

What was the "Mark of Cain" and why was it needed?

QM?

Toto

Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

Short answer: no one knows. It was a warning to others not to harm him, after he killed his brother and was expelled from his home and had to wander among strangers, but what it consisted of, or why YHWH was suddenly so compassionate - not clear.

QuestionMark

"was expelled from his home and had to wander among strangers"


WHAT!!!


Strangers????


Where the f&&K did the strangers come from?

Let's see: Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel.


Now strangers!!!


Very strange!!


QM?

show_no_mercy

I always thought that the Genesis story of Adam and Eve would make more sense if A&E were the first Jews created, and not the first humans. But then again, it's mythology... trying to make sense of the insensible just leads to madness (also called YEC )

aa5874

And then the authors would not have to claim that God killed everyone in a flood, leaving only Noah and his family.

Toto

QM: No need to shout. It's just a story. Don't take it so seriously.

PhilosopherJay

Hi QM,

If the later part of a narrative directly contradicts an earlier narrative premise, we may justifiably suppose that the earlier part was changed. In this case, there is no reason to believe that God, the owner/farmer, in the Garden of Eden story actually created Adam and Eve in the original story. The story works better if the farmer, merely ordered his son Adam to take care of the garden. Eve would have been the farmer's wife. That would explain their expulsion when found together. Whoever changed the story from an incest tale into a creation story did not bother to change the rest of the narrative to reflect the change made in the beginning.

We may further suppose that Abel would have been a son that Eve had with the farmer/landlord, while Cain would have been a son that she had with Adam. Cain is the evil son from an incestuous relationship. The evil son Cain kills the landlord's legitimate good son Abel. The landlord's mark on Cain would have been the landlord's way of now legitimizing Cain. It would have meant that the landlord accepts Cain as a member of his family and as a legitimate son. So the mark is a mark of legitimacy, perhaps circumcision, but maybe not.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Joan of Bark

The idea that the first creation story concerns the gentiles while the second involves the creation of the Jews has been suggested before by theologians. But as aa points out, the flood would have negated the differences anyway.

It's more likely that the two myths were so popular and well-known that both had to be included in the canon, despite the obvious contradictions. After all, the Bible is an anthology, not a novel.

premjan

If there is a precise geneology of this story that would shed light on it.

Doug Shaver

What Toto said. Nobody knows.

There has been plenty of speculation, but so far as I'm aware, there is zero evidence for any of it. One guess is as good as another, and they're all good for nothing.

According to the story, Yahweh didn't want anyone to kill Cain.

If you next question is why not, see previous answer.