Sorry Brigham, but we’re all the children of Cain!

Last updated on: December 16, 2013 at 10:35 pm by RT

Sorry Brigham, but we’re all the children of Cain! 2013-12-16T22:35:49-05:00 RT

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

With the recent statement disavowing aspects of Mormonism’s tangled history with racism, attention has turned to Bro Brigham and his legacy of the priesthood ban. As is well known, Young believed in line with many of his contemporaries and modern LDS scripture that the mark of Cain mentioned in the Bible was black skin and that Cain’s descendants could be identified with people of African ancestry. As such, they were a lineage under God’s malediction and unworthy of the priesthood, in contrast with those descended from Seth (the rest of humanity).

I think it hardly needs to be said that this theological interpretation has had tragic and lasting consequences and fortunately the LDS community is beginning to come to grips with the extent to which various forms of racism have found space in Mormon scripture, thought, and theology. No longer does the church accept and teach the notion that “black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse” or that “blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.”

But even though the doctrine of the curse of Cain is no longer officially promulgated, and contemporary Latter-day Saints are generally much less concerned with sacred lineages and racial distinctions than were their forbears, it is worth pointing out that modern biblical scholarship has an important contribution to make to the whole discussion of the scriptural origins of the ban per Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. And I’m not speaking here merely of the fact that a close reading of the biblical narrative shows that the sign [Hebrew ‘ot] that God gave to Cain had nothing to do with black skin or that it even applied to his descendents, and nor am I referring to the fact that Joseph Smith misread the biblical account when he conflated the descendents of Cain with Canaanites (cf. Moses 7:8, 22) or interpreted the curses placed on Cain, Ham, and Canaan as having any relation to the social, religious, and political fortunes and status of modern peoples of African descent. I am rather speaking of the literary evidence that in the earliest version of Genesis Cain was not featured as the ancestor of a disfavored segment of humanity set against the favored lineage of Seth, but was the ancestor and father of humanity as a whole.

Biblical scholarship has come to recognize that underlying the present form of the book of Genesis are two narrative documents treating the primeval history of Israel’s world that at some point were conflated together into a redacted whole. These documents include a narrative reflecting priestly concerns and theology, or what is called the Priestly source, and another narrative that we may call non-P.

For our purposes, what is important to note is that each of these sources contain their own distinctive genealogy connecting the first man Adam all the way down to Noah and that in their original literary contexts these genealogies would have stood independent from one another. In the non-P version the genealogy included Adam, Cain, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech, and Enosh (Gen 4:1-26), while in P Adam was linked to Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Yared, Enoch, Methushelah, and Lamech (Gen 5:3-28).

Looking at these genealogies, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that somehow they are related to one another. Even without training in biblical Hebrew, one can recognize that many of the transliterated names sound very similar. And when examined more closely in the Hebrew, a pattern of linguistic parallels and correspondence emerges.

Adam ——— Adam

Cain (qayin) ——— Kenan (qenan)

Enoch ——— Enoch

Irad ——— Yered

Mehuyael ——— Mahalalel

Metushael ——— Metushelah

Lamech ——— Lamech

Enosh ——— Enosh

[See further David Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches, 68]

The P source uses many of the same names or close equivalents to the non-P narrative, but in a different sequence and genealogical form. In P the genealogy moves from Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Yared, Enoch, Methushelah, to Lamech, whereas in non-P the genealogy moves from Adam, Cain, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech, to possibly Enosh.

The fact that these lists of ancestors are are so closely parallel and yet are found in drastically different sequences suggests that they were probably originally constructed to stand independent from one another (though I think it is also very likely that the P author used the names of the non-P source to develop his version of the genealogy from Adam to Noah). In each case there is a linear genealogy tracing from father to son with Adam and Eve having only one son to carry on the family lineage. In non-P, what is likely the earliest version of the primeval history, there was no Seth as an alternative lineage to that of Cain. There was only Cain. Although there is a brief reference to Seth in a non-P context in Gen 4:25-26, this passage is likely a late redactional bridge attempting to blend and harmonize the two P and non-P genealogies (note how far removed this passage is from the story of Adam and Eve and the birth of Cain and its conspicuous appearance immediately before P in chap 5).

The ironic upshot of this analysis is that according to the earliest author of Genesis, we are all descended from Cain! There is no curse of Cain that applies to only one segment of humanity. That idea is actually a product of later biblical redaction and then subsequent post-biblical interpretation. Rather, in the spirit of the original non-P biblical author, it would be more appropriate to say that all of us have participated in the curse of Cain and earned its bitter fruits when we have acted violently or unjustly to our brother or sister, as Cain did.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 30, 2013

The Book of Mormon and the Late War: Direct Literary Dependence?

Next Post

December 16, 2013 Even Christ's Body Has an A**hole

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2013 Scriptures Administrative Apologetics Atonement Bible Book of Mormon Book Review BYU Doctrine Extra-Biblical Literature Family Feminism Guests History LDS Church History Leadership Marginalia Metaphysics Mormon Culture Mormon Studies Personal Issues Political Philosophy Politics Scripture Sexuality Speculation Spotlights Studying Religion Ten Tidbits The Tenure Track Theology Tips on Applying Series Tips on Being an Independent Scholar Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 July 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz