Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 08-11-2002, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nick Riviera:
Reasonable, I was infact requesting an explanation, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with whatever explanation is put forth ...

Thanks for the response.

hinduwoman · 08-11-2002, 04:35 PM

Me, I always thought that this was during a time when animal sacrifices to Jehovah was the custom. so Abel's offerings was accepted, while Cain who tried to cheat on his dues by meanly giving corn was cast as the bad guy.
?

Ether · 08-11-2002, 08:36 PM

Cain has 10 horses and Abel has only 1 horse. God tells them to offer something to him, so they both offer from what they have. Cain gives God 2 horses and Abel gives God the only horse he had.

God accepted Abel's offering and refused to accept Cain's offering.

It is not about how much you give or the quality of your offering. It is about how much you have left when you give. The less the better.

Good Day

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Ether ]

ShottleBop · 08-12-2002, 02:06 PM

This sets out both the traditional interpretation of the Cain and Abel story, and a more modern interpretation positing that perhaps God's response to the two sacrifices was purposely unreasonable (from <a href="http://www.kolel.org/pages/reb_on_the_web/kayins_sacrifice.html" target="_blank">Reb on the Web</a>):

Quote:

Q: Dear Reb on the Web:

My wife and I was discussing the other day, the story about Kayin and Hevel, Bereshit 4:3-5. Neither of us can understand WHY God rejected Kayin's offering. He was a farmer, he gave what he had, as did Hevel, who was a shepherd. It seems unfair, almost as if God is setting Kayin up to fall victim to his own anger. Please explain this passage.

Sincerely

Bear

A: Dear Bear:

It's actually a very great compliment in Jewish study to be told that your question has already been asked by previous generations- it means that you're noticing things that the great Torah commentators also noticed. So let me compliment you by saying that some very great Torah commentators have explicitly asked this very question. For example, the 16th century scholar Moshe Alschich forms a question very similar to yours:

Seeing that Kayin and Hevel brought gifts representative of their vocations, why did God discriminate against Kayin?

What is the meaning of the words gam hu [he also] in the verse reporting Hevel's offering? [I.e., these words seem to be unnecessary.]

Why does the Torah not simply say "to Hevel and his offering," instead of "to Hevel and to his offering?" [Again, what's up with the apparently extra word?]

Before we discuss possible approaches to this question, let's look at the relevant passage:

The man knew his wife Eve. She conceived and gave birth to Cain. She said, 'I have gained a man with God.' She gave birth again, this time to his brother Abel. Abel became a shepherd, while Cain was a worker of the soil. An era ended. Cain brought fruit of the ground as an offering to God. Abel, he also offered some of the firstborn of his flock, from the fattest ones. God paid heed to Abel and to his offering, but to Cain and his offering, God paid no heed. Cain became very furious and depressed. (Genesis 4:5-1, slightly modified Aryeh Kaplan translation.)

The standard traditional explanation for God's apparent rejection of Kayin's sacrifice picks up on the difference between the descriptions of Kayin's and Hevel's offerings. Note that Hevel offered from the "first-born" and the "fattest" of his flock- Rashi and others take this to imply that Kayin brought only leftover offerings of inferior quality.

Alshich, answering his own questions, further speculates that the extra "he also" in the verse describing Hevel's offering means that Hevel put more of himself, as it were, into the offering, whereas Kayin just did it after Hevel did, in a perfunctory manner. The commentators note also that Kayin offered plain ol' "fruit of the ground," whereas Hevel offered from his flocks, again seeing a hint that Hevel's offering was more reverent and personal. (The rabbis also assume that Kayin went second, and Hevel initiated the act of offering, from the verb forms in the two verses. It's a grammar thing.)

I do agree with the commentators that there is textual evidence that Hevel was the more religiously aware and reverent of the two brothers, but maybe there is more to the story than a lesson in God's sacrificial preferences. Maybe the point of the story is not in the logic of God's apparent rejection of Kayin's offering, but precisely in its apparent unpredictability. Life will inevitably result in moments when a human being feels rejected, feels worthless, feels abandoned, feels like the "universe is conspiring against me." It seems to me that the story of Kayin and Hevel is a story about the very basic human tendency to take our inner feelings, especially the negative ones like loneliness and rejection, and project them outward onto others, often with violence and hostility.

There are three actors in the drama of Kayin and Hevel: the two brothers, and God. When Kayin's offering was not accepted, he seems to blame everybody but himself, and projects his rage and disappointment onto his brother. That's a very common human reaction, and it seems to me that this story is warning us about the capacity of human beings- especially men, I think- to resort to violence rather than introspection when faced with an emotional crisis. One might consider that the rest of the book of Genesis deals with this basic question: how can I live with my brother [or sister, or fellow human being] when life just isn't fair sometimes?

That question remains very much on our minds.

NJL

Note the unself-conscious reference to the interpretations of the passages as constituting "speculation." Where the Bible does not expressly give information, the most anyone can do is speculate. There is speculation, however, and there is wild-eyed guessing.

lcb · 08-12-2002, 05:42 PM

pastor yoda: understand not, the parallel types and shadows, they do.... abels' sacrifice is a pre-figuration of jesus christ's sacrifice, which requires the shedding of blood, cain's sacrifice is (as a type and shadow) incomplete, an example of mankind's effort to become god like/righteous on his own merits. (according to the dude at wittengenstein's net-Glenn)

ShottleBop · 08-12-2002, 05:48 PM

Like I said, there's informed speculation, and then there's wild-eyed guessing . . ..

Kosh · 08-13-2002, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lcb:
pastor yoda: understand not, the parallel types and shadows, they do.... abels' sacrifice is a pre-figuration of jesus christ's sacrifice, which requires the shedding of blood, cain's sacrifice is (as a type and shadow) incomplete, an example of mankind's effort to become god like/righteous on his own merits. (according to the dude at wittengenstein's net-Glenn)

Is this what the Christians at your school say?

You seem to have many dogs in the fight now, lcb.

Kosh · 08-13-2002, 06:21 AM

Perhaps a better question about this would be:

Why would God even care about meat and vegetables? I mean, he doesn't need to eat, right? Don't give me any crap about testing his worshippers loyalty. This God is supposed to be omniscient, remember?

lcb · 08-13-2002, 09:17 PM

you sure seem fixated on this non-existant God Kosh.

Jayhawker Soule · 08-14-2002, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lcb:
you sure seem fixated on this non-existant God Kosh.

Did you have anything relevant to say?

08-11-2002, 08:36 PM	#13
Ether Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: United States Posts: 70	Cain has 10 horses and Abel has only 1 horse. God tells them to offer something to him, so they both offer from what they have. Cain gives God 2 horses and Abel gives God the only horse he had. God accepted Abel's offering and refused to accept Cain's offering. It is not about how much you give or the quality of your offering. It is about how much you have left when you give. The less the better. Good Day [ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Ether ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-11-2002, 04:35 PM	#12
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Me, I always thought that this was during a time when animal sacrifices to Jehovah was the custom. so Abel's offerings was accepted, while Cain who tried to cheat on his dues by meanly giving corn was cast as the bad guy. ?

08-12-2002, 05:42 PM	#15
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	pastor yoda: understand not, the parallel types and shadows, they do.... abels' sacrifice is a pre-figuration of jesus christ's sacrifice, which requires the shedding of blood, cain's sacrifice is (as a type and shadow) incomplete, an example of mankind's effort to become god like/righteous on his own merits. (according to the dude at wittengenstein's net-Glenn)

08-12-2002, 05:48 PM	#16
ShottleBop Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 77	Like I said, there's informed speculation, and then there's wild-eyed guessing . . ..

08-13-2002, 06:21 AM	#18
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	Perhaps a better question about this would be: Why would God even care about meat and vegetables? I mean, he doesn't need to eat, right? Don't give me any crap about testing his worshippers loyalty. This God is supposed to be omniscient, remember?

08-13-2002, 09:17 PM	#19
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	you sure seem fixated on this non-existant God Kosh.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.