This was a comment from Adam (under Drew's post) that I think everyone might like to read:
In 4:1 Sailhamer translates Eve's response to Cain's birth as "I have created a man equally with the Lord" and he says this is more likely since her response to Seth's birth is very different "God has appointed for me another offspring..." As if she understands her place now. She was a little cocky the first go around, perhaps thinking she had created the seed of Gen 3:15 but then realizes "he" can only come God's way.
Secondly, he says Cain's mark is actually the city of Nod which was a place of refuge where Cain could not be "attacked". This sounds like a prototype of the cities of refuge in the Pentateuch. Pretty interesting...Before this he says Cain's response to God's punishment was not so much a complaint but actually a repentant statement, "My iniquity is too great to forgive" (4:13). This changes the outlook on Cain quite a bit. any thoughts?
In regards to Lamech, Sailhamer says his response about killing a man for wounding him (4:23)is appealing to a system of justice. I don't have the book in front of me so I don't want to misquote his ideas but it made me look at Lamech quite different as well.
Anyway, just some thoughts. I know these are side issues and not necessarily in keeping with the canonical theme but I am interested to see if those who have read Sailhamer are in agreement.
As a final note, I apologize for bringing Sailhamer into this discussion if indeed his name is forbidden in this blog. If you must, replace all use of Sailhamer with Susan B. Anthony. I can only respond like my brother Adam, "That woman whom you gave me..." (3:12) Luchky
Hey Adam, hope you are doing well! Since I'm a ginormous Sailhamer fan I thought I might weigh in.
ReplyDeleteFirst, though his understanding of Eve is certainly possible, I'm not sure if it is necessary. He very clearly observes that it seems like Eve's motives change in her response to Cain's birth, versus Seth's. However, it seems that Eve thought that her firstborn was going to be the one through whom the battle between the serpent would be fought. Instead of fighting the serpent, though, Cain fought Abel. Death comes, not by divine justice, but by human sinfulness. Interestingly, throughout the rest of Genesis the line never travels through the firstborn. Also, his interpretation is driven by his translation of 4:1 as "equal to the Lord," when it could just as equally be translated "with the help of the Lord".
Second, I think his interpretation of Cain's response to his judgment is very insightful. It offers a solution to a very difficult passage, as we usually understand it. Does God reward the complaints of the unrighteous? The rest of Scripture doesn't paint that picture, so I think his understanding of this passage fits well within a biblical theology of repentance.
Third, his interpretation of Lamech is driven by his interpretation of Cain. This has its benefits, but also has some negatives. Beneficially, he tries to incorporate this new look at Cain with the cities of refuge drawn up from Sinai, and the parallels are striking. However, Cain's lineage is clearly contrasted with Adam's lineage in chapter 5. That contrast paints a negative portait of Lamech that is hard to reconcile with Sailhamer's interpretation. I hate to disagree with him, but here is one place I do.
Hope that helps, aw