Literary-Historical
Though the Cain and Abel story has its roots within the Hebrew Bible, it has been adopted by different faiths as well. The interpretations and translations of this story generally conform to the beliefs and laws of respective religions.
The most basic retelling of the biblical story of Cain and Abel is very simple and leaves a lot of room for interpretation and imagination. The idea of having just enough details to understand the story but a lot of missing information is parallel with the original version in the New Revised Standard Version With the Apocrypha. Cain and Abel were children of Adam and Eve. The brothers each had their own tasks- Cain was in the fields and Abel tended to the animals. Both boys sacrificed their resources but Abel’s sacrifice seemed to be more genuine because it was his best sheep. God preferred Abel’s sacrifice and Cain couldn’t handle this and became extremely jealous. To put an end to this rage and jealousy, Cain killed Abel. God told Cain that he would never again have a fruitful farm but he would protect him from others. This is just enough information to understand the true message and themes of Cain and Abel but leaves a lot of room for interpretation. This room for interpretation has been an outlet for several new details and embellishments of the original story. This idea is in line with the thesis where the original and most popular retelling has very limited themes and direction. Many authors and theologians from here on out will take this limited information and create their own versions which many people could interpret as the true version. (Saddleback Kids)
Dr. Vermeulen, professor of literature at the University of Antwerp, transcribes different syntactical understandings of the Hebrew Bible in The Journal of Biblical Literature. In this article, she analyzes Cain and Abel from a rabbinic perspective. In particular, the article takes into account pronunciation and syntax used in the story from the original Hebrew. The piece serves to highlight multiple discrepancies and to analyze them as they relate to the present understand of the story of Cain and Abel. The first instance seems to come from Abel’s name and its origin. There doesn’t seem to be any direct lineage to his name, as Vermoulen notes, “The omission of the name’s explanation in the case of Abel can be a so-called argumentum e(x) silentio… the silence or omission is deliberate and meaningful.”1As a result, even the nomenclature in Cain and Abel plays a phonetic role in the story and this is seen by the fact that Abel’s name. The purposeful omission of Abel’s name shows how his character is limited, while Cain’s is fully fleshed out. In addition, Cain’s name also possesses a meaning as Vermoulen states here, “After having completed an action as is the case in the etiology of Cain, a buyer or a builder owns something. Therefore, Cain is Eve’s possession, while Abel is not.”2 Cain’s name involves being bound and unfree, while in contrast Abel’s name does not have that quality (Implying freedom). As a result, the this could be a possible reason as to why Cain killed Abel, out of jealousy of Abel’s freedom from his mother.3 It is this jealousy implied through literal meaning that so thoroughly indicates to the sin that Cain would eventually commit. This type of criticism sheds new light on the story implying that there are multiple dimensions through which it was written. Even in the syntax of the story, there lies an underlying meaning that articulates the point of the story and reinforce its overall meaning of betrayal and jealousy.
Robert C. Gregg, too, focuses on the story of Cain and Abel through his book, which summarizes the relationship of Cain and Able from the standpoint of sibling rivalry, as well as provides evidence for the idea that not only this Bible story, but all aspects of the Bible can be interpreted in different ways by different people based on their background, religion, and upbringing. One of his interesting points can connect to the idea of sibling rivalry, as he discusses how important it is to find brotherly love, but how competition makes this a difficult thing to attain. This is clearly exhibited in Cain and Abel’s relationship, as preference of their father figure hinders the development of their brotherly love and causing them to strike against one another. This shows how intense love for God can be and touches on many important aspects that the Bible holds such as covenants and righteousness. Another interesting aspect of Gregg’s account is the multiple perspectives that he offers the story from. Jewish, Muslims, and Christians all offer different accounts of the same story of the first murder. Some present it as a story told through a dialogue between the two brothers, and other accounts tell it as a story from an outside third party. This idea relates back to our thesis in a sense that the Bible and everything in it is all about interpretation. There are so many stories that so many people look at in different ways, and draw different key aspects out of them. It is a major aspect of religion as a whole and it would not be the same if everyone saw everything in the same way . For example, there are many ways to interpret how intensely a covenant with God should be carried out, with everything to keeping God in your thoughts always or sacrificing for him everyday.
|
The conflicting narrative of Cain and Abel results in multiple interpretations of the story. Youjin Chung explores this concept in his work, Conflicting Reading in the Narrative of Cain and Abel by focusing on Eve’s words following the birth of Cain as it appears in the Bible. Eve states, “I have produced a man with the help of the Lord” (Genesis 4:1). While this remark of Eve’s could be well received by the reader it could also suggest Eve’s arrogance. Some individuals could see Eve’s outlook on Cain’s birth as reflecting her enthusiastic gratitude towards God for making her a mother and attributing Cain’s birth as a blessing from God. Through this interpretation, Chung suggests readers could believe that “God is represented as the surrogate father so to speak” (Chung 242). In contrast, Eve’s remarks may not be as well received by other interpreters. Because the translation of Eve’s remark uses the word “produce,” this could imply that she is comparing herself to God. Putting herself on the same level of God implies the Eve’s boastful perspective on the event of Cain’s birth. In addition to this point in the text, the narrative of the offering of Cain and Abel has also been subject to varying interpretations. Although God provides a clear response to Cain and Abel’s sacrifices, his explanation is absent from the text. The only explanation given is that, “the lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering but on Cain with his offering he did not look with favor” (Genesis 4:4). While Cain sacrificed vegetables and Abel sacrificed animals, there is no clear reason behind why God did not accept Cain’s sacrifice seeing as though he was a tiller while Abel was a Shepherd. Cain offered what he had available to him. Chung references the theory of sacrifice and emphasizes the superiority of animal sacrifice over vegetable offerings. John Skinner, a biblical scholar suggests that “living beings differ from soulless beings by nature” (Chung 244). Perhaps God did not accept Cain’s gift because they were “offerings” and not technically “sacrifices.” Because the narrative of Cain and Abel does not offer an explanation for God’s reaction after receiving the sacrifices, readers of the text have flexibility for interpretation. The ambiguous narrative of this text have resulted in conflicting understandings of the story.