Smoodock's Blog

First of all, I believe it is quite disingenuous of any scholar to conclude that his scholarship is the only way in which scripture could correctly be understood. I have learned to appreciate critical scholarship,[1] but to say **it** rather than orthodox or devotional scholarship is the best way to understand the scriptures goes a bit too far, in my opinion. There is more than one way to force fit the Bible to “determine what it is allowed to say and what it is not allowed to say,” and critical scholarship seems to be blind to this perspective, because it has its own way of “allowing” and “disallowing.” For example, forcing the Bible to say the author of Genesis 4 doesn’t know what the authors of Genesis 1-3 and 5-6 conclude is presumptuous, in my opinion. Dan doesn’t know that, but that is what he concludes to be so. So, let’s get into it.

Were Adam and Eve the only two humans on earth prior to chapter 4 of the Book of Genesis? Well, yes, if we are to believe Genesis 3:20, which claims Eve is the mother of all living. The question before us is: does chapter 4 agree with chapter 3’s conclusion? What does chapter 4 really say, and does it contradict chapter 3?

According to Genesis 4:1, Adam and Eve copulated and gave birth to Cain and Able. A Jewish tradition concludes they were twins, but this doesn’t have to be so, but notice what the scripture says: “Adam knew Eve, his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain.” It goes on to say in verse-2 that she (Eve) again gave birth to his brother, Able. This conflicts with a point that Dan later tries to make, namely, that Adam “knew” his wife only twice in chapter 4, once in verse-1 and next in verse-25 with the birth of Seth. Thus, according to Dan, there must have been others besides Adam and Eve in the world, a contradiction of Genesis 3:20, if Cain was able to take a wife (Genesis 4:17). Nevertheless, according to a simple reading of the text, Adam knew his wife and she gave birth to Cain. She must have “known” Adam again, when she gave birth to Able (Genesis 4:2), unless we want to say they’re twins, but the text doesn’t explicitly say, which is so. Nevertheless, a simple reading of the text seems to imply Able’s birth came sometime after Eve’s pregnancy with Cain. If, indeed, a second copulation took place, it would make Dan’s conclusion about Genesis 2:25 wrong.

One may point out that Dan claims Adam “knew” his wife for both Cain and Able, so the next time he “knew” her would have been verse-25, according to the text. However, my point is: yes, Adam “knew” his wife and Cain was born, but the words: “Adam knew his wife” are not repeated for the birth of Able, which is important to Dan’s conclusion about verse-25. If it can be understood that Adam “knew” his wife for Abel, which isn’t explicitly said, but is correctly presumed, then what prevents us from “presuming,” according to Genesis 3:20, that Adam “knew” his wife often and produced many more sons and daughters (cp. Genesis 5:3-4), among whom Cain could have taken his wife (Genesis 4:17)? If this is so, what does Genesis 4:25 mean, when it says: “God has given me another child, instead of Abel, whom Cain slew?”

According to Dan, this means Seth is Eve’s third child, but this is not necessarily so. Remember, the record of Abel’s birth gives room for speculation that Adam “knew” Eve quite often between the births of Able and Seth. The fact that Seth’s birth is announced with the words: “God has given me another child, instead of Abel, whom Cain slew,” implies that Abel’s death had only recently occurred. None of the sons, who may have been born between the births of Able and Seth, could be considered to take the place of Able. They would already have been born. Only the next birth after Able’s death, if a son, could be considered to be a gift from God to take the place of Able, whom Cain slew. Moreover, a strict reading of the text doesn’t have to mean that Seth was born after Cain was a grandfather. He could have been born prior to Cain’s taking a wife. What the text does show is, Cain taking a wife, and a record of his descendants is given prior to the text beginning to speak of Seth. Doing so, does not make Seth’s birth occur after Cain’s marriage, and the births of his son and his son’s son etc. Such a reading is forced upon the text at least as much as Dan’s claim that orthodox scholarship’s interpretation is forced.

Finally, Dan tries, unsuccessfully, to make a point that the genealogy of Genesis 4 (Cain’s descendants) is the same as the genealogy of Genesis 5 (Seth’s descendants), which he uses to say the Genesis Flood could never have occurred, according to Genesis 4, whose author doesn’t know anything about the Flood. How could anyone in Genesis 4 “know” about the Flood, when the genealogy of Genesis 4 goes only to the 7^th generation. Seth’s genealogy in Genesis 5 has Enoch as his seventh genealogical descendant. After him came three more: Methuselah, Lamech and Noah. Why would Dan believe the genealogy of Genesis 4 excludes the Flood? The fact is the record doesn’t go as far as the Flood! Therefore, the point is moot

_______________________________________

[1] I intend this study to be a reply to Dan McClellan’s YouTube video: Where Did Cain Get His Wife? Dan is a scholar of the Bible, and he is becoming one of my favorite critical scholars. I appreciate his work very much, but appreciating doesn’t mean I believe everything he says. I agree with lots of his stuff, but not all, and this study is an example of that.