The Story of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1 to Genesis 5:1 a).
Genesis 4:1-16. The Sin of Cain TABLET III
It is quite clear that this section once existed separately from Genesis 2-3. The immediate and lasting change from ‘Yahweh Elohim' (Lord God) to ‘Yahweh' (Lord), after the almost pedantic use of the former in the previous narrative, suggests this, as does the rather abrupt way in which the connection is made between the two accounts. The account is in covenant form being built around two covenants, so that there were originally two ‘covenant' histories, that with Cain and that with Lamech, but as the former at least was in the days before writing it would have been remembered and passed down among the Cainites in oral form, not just as a story but as sacred evidence of a covenant with God. Later the covenant with Lamech would receive similar treatment. Thus the record in Genesis 4:1-16 originally stood on its own. Remembering this can be basic to its interpretation. It is too easy to read it as though it was simply a direct continuation of Genesis 3.
On the latter assumption it is regularly assumed that Cain and Abel (Hebel) were Adam's first two sons, but that assumption is made merely because of the position of the present narrative. There is no suggestion anywhere in the text that this is so, and had Cain been the firstborn this would surely have been emphasised. It demonstrates the reliability of the compiler that he does not say so.
Thus in another record we are told ‘when Adam had lived 130 years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters'. This is in ‘the histories of Noah' (see article, " ") (Genesis 5:1 to Genesis 6:9). We note that in this section there is no mention of Cain and Abel, even though Cain is still alive (for Seth was born after Abel - Genesis 4:25), and if we did not have Genesis 4 we would have assumed that Seth was the firstborn. The reason for this is that chapter 5 wishes to put the emphasis on Seth because he is the ‘father' of the line that leads up to Noah. All Adam's children other than Cain, Abel and Seth are always totally ignored, probably because no reliable information about them had been passed down.
Two points emerge. One is that Adam and Eve had ‘other sons and daughters'. Notice that that is a refrain that follows the birth of each son mentioned in the line. It is of course possible that each son mentioned in the line was a firstborn son, but there appears to be nothing apart from the phrase that suggests so. Probably, in the list in Genesis 11, Arpachshad is not the eldest son, for in Genesis 10:21-22 he is listed third out of five, yet the list in Genesis 11 gives no hint of this. Thus the phrase ‘had other sons and daughters' is stressing the patriarchs' fruitfulness, not saying that the patriarch in question had had no previous children before the one mentioned. In Genesis 5 it is the line leading up to Abraham that is being emphasised.
If Adam was 130 years old when he ‘bore' Seth (if we are to take the age literally, and even if not it certainly means ‘of good age'), it is extremely unlikely then that before that date he would only have had two sons (compare the fruitfulness of Cain in Genesis 4:17). It would therefore be reasonable to assume that before that date Adam and Eve also had other sons and daughters, and one of them may have been the firstborn.
The story of Cain and Abel specifically acts as the background to God's covenant with Cain, and speaks of the first shedding of man's blood. This is why it was recorded and remembered. But, as has been often noted, it does in fact assume the existence of daughters of Adam (Genesis 4:17) and of other relatives, for Cain says ‘whoever finds me will kill me' (Genesis 4:14). So Cain and Abel should be seen as two among many sons, mentioned simply because of the incident that occurred, not because of their priority. They were not the only ones on the earth at the time.
Furthermore it must also be considered that they (and Seth) may not actually have been direct sons of Adam and Eve. The Bible (and other ancient literature) often refers to someone as being ‘born of' someone when the former is a descendant rather than the actual son (this can be seen by comparing genealogies in the Bible, including the genealogies of Jesus). It could well be that the depiction is simply made in order to stress the connection of Cain and Abel with Adam by descent.
The ancients were not as particular in their definitions of relationship as we are. They would find no difficulty in saying ‘so and so bore so and so' when they mean ‘the ancestor of so and so'. Indeed, this narrative must have been originally put into Hebrew when Hebrew was a very primitive language, and words would have had an even greater width of meaning than they had later, and would not at that stage have been so closely defined. As T. C. Mitchell in the New Bible Dictionary (1st edition) entry on Genealogy comments - ‘the word ‘ben' could mean not only ‘son', but also ‘grandson' and ‘descendant', and in like manner it is probable that the verb ‘yalad' could mean not only ‘bear' in the immediate physical sense, but also ‘become the ancestor of ' (the noun ‘yeled' from this verb has the meaning of descendant in Isaiah 29:23)'. The main thing that militates against this interpretation here is Genesis 4:25 where Seth is regarded by Eve as replacing Abel, but even this may have been put on her lips as having been ‘said' by her through her descendant who bore Abel and Seth.
The account of Cain and Abel was very suitable for the purpose of following Genesis 3, for Cain's occupation caused him to wrestle with ‘the thorns and the thistles', the wrestling with which was the consequence of the curse (Genesis 3:18), whilst Abel as the cattle drover was able to provide the coats of skins with which man now covered himself (Genesis 3:21).
As the compiler of Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 11:27 (which probably once existed as an independent unit) had no other suitable information with which to link the expulsion from the Plain of Eden with the genealogy of Seth, and as he wished to depict the growth of sin, he used this narrative about Cain and Abel, which would have been especially preserved by the Cainite line because of the covenant. It was possibly the only one available to him which would enable him to emphasise the beginning of the new era, as well as to demonstrate how one sin leads to a worse one, until at last it results in murder. He has two strands in mind. The line of Adam's descendants up to Noah, and the growth of human wickedness from rebellion to murder, to further murder, to engaging in the occult, which result in the Flood.
We shall now look at the record in more detail (see the e-Sword verse comments)