Re: mtDNA Eve and the determination of humanity

 
> Like Glenn said, just moving these gaps around seems arbitrary with not really convincing evidence for
> them. Some problems with Phil's view as I see it is if Cain is ancient then who is Cain afraid of? And, I
> think the biblical language is clear that Cain is a neolithic figure, bronze age, and I have a lot of trouble
> making that stretch from early stone age to bronze age with Cain being symbolic of that line of people.
 
Hi Please see the reply that I just sent to Rich with the subject line "Use of symbolism/allegory in Genesis 1-4". I think the argument I laid out there clearly explains why there must be a gap, which is represented by the line of Cain. Cain's line is clearly not literal, but symbolic to represent the course of human history. The literary features of that passage lead to that conclusion, so this is not an arbitrary moving of gaps around to get concordance. I think we must see Cain's as symbolic from purely textual considerations.
 
To answer your challenges, I see Cain as representing the entirety of human pre-civilization ("wandering") until the construction of cities (in the representative person of Cain's son Enoch). I think this is a actually foregone conclusion once you accept the following:
 
(1) Adam is **implicitely** presented in the flow from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 as if he is the progenitor of all humans (in agreement with Glenn),
 
(2) Cain's Enoch is bronze age in Mesopotamia (in agreement with Dick).
 
Then you simply MUST see Cain as being a tremendous telescoping of human pre-history into one representative figure. This is not a wild idea. Every origins story from the near east begins with an tremendous telescoping of time. What makes the Bible's account unique among them is that the telescoping is arranged to match real anthropology through-and-through, and there is textual evidence that the author knew that this story was a construction for theological purposes, and that he presented it in a way so that his early listeners would get the point. (See my reply to Rich, again)
 
Again, getting back to the person of Cain, it would be trite for the Bible to tell us that an individual named Cain was afraid of being killed and hence God put a mark on him. That view provides very little theological message to us, and we can't even figure out what the mark is because we are so disconnected from it! Nothing in the Bible up to that point deals with anything so trite or individualistic. Everyting is one organic, vast, sweeping panorama of who we are and how we got to be that way, theologically and anthropologically. From the fall in the garden until the building of the first cities, it is all loaded with meaning. To call Cain an individual who was afraid and got a mark on his skin makes him out to be the exception in the text. But we needn't see the statement about Cain's fear as being an individual concern. If Cain represents the hunter-gatherer era of human history, then his fear makes perfect sense. He didn't have the protection of cities. He even
  says this explicitely to explain his fear. He does not say that his is afraid of retribution. No, he is afraid someone will kill him because he is a wanderer -- living without the protections of civilization. This really is speaking to the totality of the human condition prior to the invention of cities, not to the concerns of one individual.
 
Then we see the resolution of that era when "Cain" builds a city. You and I and the ancient Hebrews all know that one man cannot build a city. Again, we see telescoping in the meaning of "Cain". His name stands in to represent a group, just as we see done throughout the Bible. What this text is telling us is that "Cain", the primitive era of humanity, culminated in the invention of cities. It simply **must** mean this, because if Cain was an individual who was cursed to wandering, then he would not have been **able** to build a city. Being constrained to wander as an individual, he would have never been in the same place long enough to build a city. Trying to make Cain out to be an individual renders the text self-contradictory and meaningless. We can't see any meaning in Cain's wandering if just two verses later he is the founder of a city! An ancient Hebrew, being fully aware of the literary use of individuals to stand in for groups, would immediately realize that
 "Cain" was talking about a group which went from wandering (which was a curse on early man) and ended with city building (an innovation that had deep anthropological significance). And yet the text tells us that the curse only became worse after cities were built, as Lamech laments (7 times on Cain, 70 x 7 on Lamech). Man's best achievements are still affected by sin. Let's banish interpretations of the scripture that try to read meaningless little events into passages that are clearly telling us about the meaningful origins of humanity.
 
There is a way to test this theory: Does what we know about this era of human pre-history match the description of Cain?
 
Hunter-gatherers -- yes
Wandering (i.e., no civilization) -- yes
The land of nod = "land of wandering" could be anywhere -- OK
"East of Eden" means literally "in front of Eden", could be anywhere -- OK
No protection from city walls so he is afraid of being killed -- OK
First civilization following this era was in Mesopotamia -- yes
 
I hope that explains my position a little clearer.
 
God bless!
Phil
 
========================
Philip Metzger, Ph.D.
KSC Applied Physics Lab
YA-C3-E
NASA/KSC
321-867-6052
========================
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein are those of the sender and do not represent NASA, the Kennedy Space Center, or the U.S. Government.
 
 
 
 
Received on Wed Mar 1 10:14:14 2006