Abel and His Flock

The following questions arise from a reading of Genesis 4:1-5Background: Questions: These people are supposed to be vegetarians until after Noah's flood; and if the animals are not being raised for food, then what?db

And it would seem that you sir, are still fond of not-so-subtle insults. Which calls to mind my second question, which you have elected to ignore.What would the LORD want with the best of Abel's flock?It was, I suspect, this LORD who set Abel up with his flock in the first place and thus Abel's sacrifice was a matter of repayment. To you perhaps, but I am not convinced that this sacrifice was "symbolic" at all. There is no mention of anyone else sacrificing sheep at the time. If it were a matter of religion, then Adam, the head of the family should be performing blood rituals. But there is no mention of Adam in such a context, and there is no mention of religious ritual. It appears to be a simple straightforward sacrifice. Abel simply gives this guy the best of his flock. That sounds like payment to me.db

Suspicion is not necessarily based on "chapter and verse" evidence. Yes. They do not necessarily refer to the same entity. Quite right. My impressions are my impressions. If I had persuasive evidence I would not be saying, "I suspect," or "sounds like."Why demand proof where none exists? Why not simply consider the opinion and offer a better alternative, if you have one?db

Actually Brad, this is quite off topic. I appreciate your response, but I had no intention of considering genetic implications here and see no opening for that. It is clear that you do, however, and if anyone finds it worth exploring I suggest you open a thread to that effect.db

I like that but the translations I study most read differently. The King James Version reads, "I have gotten a man from the LORD." Revised Standard Version reads, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD. Living Bible reads, "With God's help I have created a man!" I see none of these, including the one you quote, as blasphemous. It reminds me of the earliest religions, in which it is the goddess who creates all life. That idea is more reasonable than the one where a male deity gives birth to sons without the benefit of a female. Many translations say, "firstlings" of the flock. The New English Bible renders it "first-born," and the Living Bible gives it as, "his best." That is, of course, reasonable but it leave me wondering why YHWH is interested in animal fat, or whole carcasses. Reasonable, but it presumes a pagan-style religion is already in place, a religion based on blood sacrifice; but I see nothing in the text which suggests that this is a religious thing. The word 'offering' given here (minchah) is elsewhere translated 'present' in the context of gifts given to appease kings. On more than one occasion YHWH proudly declares that he is a "great King." It follows that kings are given 'presents,' and 'gifts,' or payments and taxes. Please note that this delineation of the sacrificial system comes approximately two millenia later; and considering how much that system evolved in the subsequent two millenia, I am inclined to suspect that it had evolved considerably during the previous two. Most religious ceremonies begin as timely and relevant practices, which, over time, evolve into something entirely different; something which may be characterized as meaningless ritual. This is how many Jews (AKA Christians) came to view the rituals of animal 'sacrifice.' Even so, see no persuasive evidence that Abel was practicing a Mosaic-style Judaism.db

First, I do not consider Eve's statement blasphemous. She and Adam did indeed create (produce) another human being. That the mechanism of creation was not their own design seems irrelevant to the outcome.It is interesting but I'm not sure why you belabor the meaning of Cain's name. Is there something about it which throws light on our subject?I have no significant investment in the interpretation of "firstling." As you suggest, it could well have a significance other than birth order.You mention burning of the carcase but I see no suggestion of that in the text. My impression from the reading is that the 'sacrifice' was simply a matter of Abel's giving up something of value. It is not until Noah leaves the ark that we read of how YHWH likes the smell of burning flesh. Indeed. I am glad you see that.
Assuming that Abel's 'gift' of butchered sheep was a simple gift, or payment, unadorned with ritualistic rigamarole and 'spiritual' significance; and comparing that to the complexities of Mosaic law regarding blood rituals: I see Noah's simple act of burning animals as a sort of midpoint in the evolution of a religion which may have begun with the simple and practical matter of paying a debt and then, over thousands of years, evolved into the virtually meaningless ceremonies which Saint Paul attempted to spin out of existence.Christians, following the 'reasoning' of Saint Paul, tell us that the blood sacrifices were important because they pointed forward to one very significant human sacrifice. In the case of Abel, that sacrifice was scheduled some four thousand years in the future. I say that this is merely a continuation of the sort of Pagan thinking which attached itself to Abel's simple business deal with some unknown god-king of Mesopotamian antiquity.My opinion, of course.db

I said this based on two pieces of evidence. 1) How the editor(s) of Genesis put "Jehovah" (YHWH) in the mouth of those patriarchs; whilst YHWH (the LORD) himself indicates that it is erroneous:

quote:

---

"And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not know to them." Exodus 6:2,3 King James Version.

---

And 2) Their clearly NON-Mosaic way of life; (which you have already recognized).The editor(s) have 'fudged' to the extent of misquoting the prayers of those patriarchs. I cannot in good conscience expect that they would not otherwise 'layer upon' them whatever hindsight seemed appropriate to the aims of their 'history.'Such an opinion would have seemed blasphemous to me when I was a ministerial student but then: some of my more righteous professors encouraged us to hold truth above tradition; and that is what I perceive myself to be doing. Despite my current lack of confidence in the editor(s) I am pleased that they appear to have been surprisingly honest in many ways. The problem is, I cannot be sure to what extent that is so, or to what degree they were willing to exercise editorial license.I find your awareness of the Egyptian influences quite refreshing and suspect you are more aware of its extent than I. Have you considered the possible Egyptian origin of the term Adon? Adon is one of the alternative transliteration of the sun-god: Aten, AKA Aten, or Adon.Hmmmm. (Trying to recall whether you were party to a thread discussing not so very long ago.)db

As far as I know, there is no evidence either way. It doesn't really matter which it is, however, because whether it was erroneous tradition or editorial license, the effect upon its veracity is the same. I cannot be sure how much of it is accurate.db

I have noticed similarities to the federal law of Assyria. To the crux of the matter! My sentiments exactly.db