Every religion has its leaders, usually self-appointed guardians of morality who have had some form of indoctrination either by other leaders or by books. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have the greatest number of illiterates acting as leaders in their respective cults. The worse offenders are the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox bishops especially in the USA where the new crop are appointed by a marginal scholar, the German-born pope (Josef Ratzinger), and in the land of Slavs by the criminal/cigarette selling billionaire patriarch Kirill of Moscow. The are joined by the Ayatollahs of Iran whose knowledge of ancient Arabic is minimal (to be as generous as possible) and the illiterate imams in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Iraq and other Arab nations (but with less lethargy in debates in Egypt and no scholarship prevalent in Somalia, Nigeria or Uganda that merely regurgitates what the current crop of poorly edited Qur’an state and students are required to memorize as if they were successors to Muhammad’s Memorizers).
In each of these cults there are accounts, to varying degrees of a rather erotic story that is redefined, reglossed, and redacted into the mythology of two brothers known as Cain and Abel. Neither existed, but are references to actions.
“Cain” is an old Gaelic word that became Hebrew in time as קַיִן. It is a word that went from a marginal comment to being incorporated into ancient scripts. Originally, it meant a rent paid in the form of a subsidy of crops and other agricultural and animal raising enterprises; the crop was usually wheat, but at times corn and various root crops, none of which were special.
It is depicted throughout the history of art as a man bundling wheat or other grains).
The idea that Cain was a warrior or a man given to battle and murder comes from ancient Celtic legends that made their way south and into Babylonian legends that ultimately flowered in Apiru/Hebrew mythology.
Scot and Irish scribes glossed from marginalia into the corpus of texts. The ancient Hebrew word is Qayin and means “created one”. It has been found in some ancient scrolls and translates as “to rise up” or in ancient Akkadian it means “to strike” with a special antecedent from the earliest Apiru from India who joined the Akkadians as mercenaries in the service and pay of the rulers of Egypt.
The Akkadian and Egyptian Qayin (הֶבֶל) actually refers to a fertility ritual involving sodomy for both females and males at the instruction of deities (known as Satis, Sati, Amaunet, and Isis, who was a part of all world religions including the faith devoted to Pachamama of Perú) and was a part of the ancient Egyptian Trinity that Constantine I ultimately would refashion into the Christian Trinity) who spoke through their priests.
It was known as “Ésotérisme Mon étrange pouvoir” that made the priests more valuable than the worshippers. Males were retained in the temple to assure fertility but were subordinate to the female who carried the seed and was the instigator of the act. It is not until much later, with the rise of rabid patriarchy that the male asserts dominance–in part because of the Code of Qadesh (The Rules for Ritual Sodomy in Honor of the Goddess) that they became active but then required the recipient to lay on the ground, leading to the rank and vain plagiarized insertion by Apiru warriors into the Book of Leviticus.
The actual statement in Leviticus is not the rejection of the act but the importance of the act in worshipping and recognizing foreign gods of both genders (לא יהיה־לך אלהים אחרים על־פני Exodus 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7) with an overt effort establishes the exclusive nature of the relationship between the emerging nation of Israel and its god, Yahweh (one of the bull gods of ancient Egypt as the God of Israel) by marrying the agricultural deity to the Canaanite goddess of fertility Asherah.
While the various writers of Deuteronomy and Leviticus commanded the people “of Israel” to turn from “pagan [country or foreign] gods”, few did. The majority rejoiced in the old ways and practiced polytheism. The people of Israel did not, reluctantly, embrace monotheism until the Babylonian Captivity.
Part of the confusion is because of a misunderstanding and bad translation of the word Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֔ים that is interchangeable with אלוה and אֱל) all of whom were war lord, murderers, and highly sexual beings. The Hebrew text uses Elohim for “gods”, a noun that is notably used both as a plural; however, later redactors and revisionists labored at making this plural noun a singular noun (that would be El: אֱל) when it was necessary to speak of the god of Israel (cf. van der Toorn, K.; Becking, Bob; van der Horst, Pieter Willem, editors (1999), Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible (revised 2nd edition, Leiden [u.a.]: E. J. Brill, 1999, p. 274, 352-3). There is no linguistic justification for this absurdity (cp. Mark S. Smith (2008). God in translation: deities in cross-cultural discourse in the biblical world. vol. 57 of Forschungen zum Alten Testament, Tübingen, Deutschland : Mohr Siebeck, p. 19). It is but a nationalistic ploy in an effort to unite a divided people of various cultures into one.
What the later Hebrews and early Christians did was to embrace fertility rites but with love added, and commitment required, following the Shema. The Shema and its accompanying blessing/ curse reveals the intent of the commandment to include love for the one, true God and not only recognition or outward observance, as seen graphically in Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (cf. Wylen, Stephen M. (2000). Settings of Silver: an introduction to Judaism. New York, NY: Paulist Press) This was even the message of Jesus of the New Testament (Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27. Ref. “Shema”, in HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, 1996, Achtemeier Paul J., ed., New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers) and found in the canonical Gospels approved by the Emperor Constantine I before he destroyed the writings of Arius and other Gospels at his Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.
What is noteworthy for its absence in this reused tale of the past is that there is no reference to either Cain or Abel wearing clothes (in Arabic, Cain and Abel are always known as the Two Brothers and are cited jointly: ابني آدم, while neither one is mentioned by name). Clothing was a sign of sin and denial, as seen in the account in Genesis where Adam sewed aprons for himself and Eve (the helpmeet, not helpmate) after they were expelled from the garden. The absence of information indicates that both males were nude, and their body structure being different, leading Abel to parade arrogantly in front of his brother, as his name
indicates, and thus bring jealousy (a sin) into the scenario. Artists have traditionally captured the two “youth” as nude (naked implies arousal and sinful acts), thus cementing the attack being upon pride, and it could have resulted in Abel’s toying refusal to worship the gods in the manner of the Babylonians (who settled the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that run through Iraq–the center of Eden) who practiced Qadesh (ritual sodomy).
The vilification of Cain comes only with the writers who composed the various texts (letters or epistle) of Paul (Saul of Tarsus). In these cases the writers of the works ascribed to Paul make the landlord of Gan Eden (the garden of Eden) a vengeful, lustful and demanding people (elohim, where the word gods is regulated with temporal leaders who took on the trappings, appearance and
title of gods) who played favorites. This is clearly seen in the “offering”. While Cain’s gift to the Great Lords was “of the fruit of the ground.” This is a direct reference to the alleged origin of Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם, Arabic: آدم, Syriac: ܐܵܕ݂ܵܡ and found in all Abrahamic myths) is a word that translates as “red earth” or “dust” and “dirt” and even “handsome” (Gesenius, Wilhelm & Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1893). Genenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons. p. xiii.); it also has the meaning of “the one who is closest to the soil being formed from the soil” and thus the recipient of a superior person (Eve) who could induce fertility. Paulinity, the successor to primitive Christianity, gave the story a different twice: Abel’s sacrifice was “more excellent” (it is found only in Hebrews 11:4; there were numerous questions in the fourth century church created by Constantine as to whether or not Hebrews was even authentic or significant) than Cain’s, and was accepted by God.
The problem with Cain’s gift, by later redactors and used especially by scandalous sixteenth century scholars passionate for their own interpretations is the fact that Cain’s offering symbolized the resolute debate with the Great Advocate (the serpent: the god of wisdom, that in Babylonian languages and later incorporated into ancient Hebrew as Satan, means Advocate, and one who was favored by the gods in Job 2:1) around the Tree of Knowledge, but never a Snake. In the earliest days of recorded history, the snake stood for knowledge and useful wisdom. It was frequently portrayed as a woman, and represented her tongue and vagina. Later with the advance of patriarchy, the snake became male and represented the tongue and the penis that would enter the celibate, chaste, saved, and enslaved to the gods. To this end it must be argued that Cain was offering a challenge to the gods (elohim) and debating their monopoly on wisdom and insight, as the deities in Gan Eden were not considered to be at all omniscient (all-knowing), and even
omnipotent (all-powerful), nor omnipresent (everywhere). At best the gods were selfish, arrogant, haughty and vengeful, as seen in the repeated verbal ejaculatory exclamations that “vengeance is mine” (Psalm 6:1; Psalm 90:7; Hosea 13:11; Mark 9:43-48; Romans 2:8; Romans 12:19-21; Hebrews 10:30; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). In every case the gods are טהומוס or θεμος (themos) and וגרה (ogre, or dragon δράκοντας), beyond contempt and frightening. If we used the most ancient interpretations of the snake and the offering, it was Abel who attempted to beguile Cain with his tongue, either by singing or using it sexually, and either inviting or rejecting anal penetration.
As for Abel (הבל also pronounced Havel), it is from Hebhel that became Hebrew. It actually translates as “vanity” but can be translated as “breath” and is indicative of ancient Egyptian deities who “breathed” upon dirt to create life, much in the same manner as the gods of what is today’s Iraq: ancient Babylon. Abel also translates as “futility”: attempting to take credit for what another did thus arousing jealousy, animosity, and hatred. In the oldest Hebrew Bible, Abel translates as “elusive” and indicates a tease or toying individual who like to frustrate others deliberately–not exactly god-like qualities nor those of a son of any god or prophet. It is a better reference point for the myth of the slaughter of the brother.
Abel (Genesis 4:2, 4, 8-9, 25) is called a “righteous” man only in the New Testament (Matthew 23:35). His innocence appears only in a redaction (Luke 11:51). His gift to the lords or gods of the garden were considered meritorious only in the writings of those who created the letters of Paul (Hebrews 11:4), with the absurd notion that Abel had blood equal to that of the Jesus of the New Testament (Hebrews 12:24) that had curative powers and could eliminate sin from others. None of this appears in the Torah.
Modern translators recognize the errors in these definitions, for as I Samuel 6:18 points out, Abel is a word for a great stone on which the Ark landed (Cain, it was thought, through his wife and their descendants, were responsible for the Great Flood, but his death was allowed to enter the Ark so he could suffer so that others could live), or was put around the necks of the accused to sink into deep waters to test the gods judgment on them as to whether or not they were innocent (they would rise above the water) or guilty (they would drown)–a misuse of justice that lasted throughout the Middle Ages and even found its way into Colonial America in the form of the dunking stool.
Abel was killed because of his boasting, bragging, vanity, and selfishness. When it was first written in cuneiform the story tells us of a braggart that constantly bullied his brother rousing his brother to take his life by stoning.
What people do not know, commonly, is the first actual Biblical record of Cain and Abel and the alleged fratricide does not appear until the first century CE and then is a part of the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Dead Sea Scrolls were inspected using infra-red photography and published by Jim R Davila as part of his doctoral dissertation in 1988. See: Davila, Jim R (1988). Unpublished Pentateuchal Manuscripts from Cave IV Qumran: 4QGenExa, 4QGenb-h, j-k. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University). Unfortunately over the years, and with the determination of the first Constantine (emperor of the East), many of the original scrolls were burned in an effort to “purify” Constantine’s newly established “catholic [universal] church”. (Some scholars argue today that Constantine either had most scrolls with this fable burned or that a few escaped to the Dead Seas by various small communities of chrestianos and christianos.) To do this required a total rewriting of approved biblical works that the Arian bishop Eusebius of Caesarea did so well years later. There is no mention of “brevity” in Abel in any early scrolls; on the contrary he was seen as a lecherous individual and who enjoyed cuckolding Cain, as an exegete in a Midrash suggests when it was written noting that Abel teased Cain about their marriage to twin sisters, with Abel demanding the most beautiful woman: Aclima (Brewer, E. Cobham (1978 (reprint of 1894 version) and Cain having vaginal intercourse (the act of marriage) with Luluwa). The Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Edwinstowe, England: Avenel Books. p. 3).
Contrary to Maggie Gallagher (National Organization for Marriage) and Bryan Fischer (American Family Association), marriage was never between one man and one woman who were not related anywhere in the Bible. This was common practice in ancient civilizations, and the sexual escapades were popular in more than a few of the tribes thus Abel hastened his own death in keeping with the period of the time to become a “god” (he is referred to as a saint in the early Christian religions, and oddly enough styled a prophet in Islam).
The influence of ancient Egyptian theology, practiced and written thousands of years before any Hebrew writing, brings strong bearing on the Cain and Abel myth. According to Coptic Christianity (that was far older than either Roman Catholicism or Greek Orthodoxy, the latter two not being established until 325 CE, while Coptic Christianity actually can be dated to 100 BCE or
later) and the Coptic Book of Adam and Eve (2:1-15), and the Syriac Cave of Treasures, Abel’s body was placed within the cave after many days of mourning. Most of the important Christian writings were preserved by the Coptics, despite repeated efforts of Roman Emperors, patriarchs and popes to have them destroyed.
The first parents, Adam and Eve, along with their descendants (detailed briefly in Genesis 5), offered their prayers over the unblemished and perfectly maintained cadaver of Cain whom everyone kissed from head to foot. The Sethite line of the Generations of Adam swear by Abel’s blood tosegregate themselves from the unrighteous, but there is no record of any blood being retrieved but only that it went into the soil (Genesis 4:10, redacted in Hebrews 12:24) but in much the same way as the blood that went to the goddess Maat attempted to summon justice.
In the extra-biblical Book of Enoch (22:7), one not sanctioned by Constantine I at Nicaea or anywhere else, the soul of Abel is described as having been appointed as the chief of martyrs. These martyrs were neither witnesses nor saints, but zombies crying for vengeance and demanding the destruction of the seed of Cain (on zombies in the Bible, read Zechariah 14:12, Ezekiel 37: 1-14, Isaiah 26: 19-20, Deuteronomy 22:4-8, Matthew 12:11; 17:7; 27:51-53; Luke 1:69, etc.). This view is repeated in the Testament of Abraham (A:13 / B:11), where Abel has been raised to the position as the judge of the souls. It is of ancient Egyptian origin in the manner of the chief god of the Trinity: the Lord Osiris, known as Lord of Lords, King of Kings, and most importantly: God of gods (a common claim
made by religious that claim to be superior to others or who have the only way, but here it was the pharaoh who was also murdered by his brother: the god Seth. Seth cut him into fourteen pieces and scattered them to the winds. Osiris’ sister-wife (much like the sister-wife Sarah joined with Abram/ Abraham) ultimately found all fourteen pieces and bound them up thereby creating mummification (but only after impregnating herself with Osiris penis (that had to be rescued from the stomach of a crocodile) so that she could give birth to a savior son: Horus (text is in the Egyptian Book of the Dead)