Cain and Abel: Metaphor for conflict provoked by agricultural revolution

[jdl]

In Daniel Quinn's book Ishmael, he suggests that the biblical story of Cain and Abel is really just Semetic war propoganda, circa 4000 BCE (or some old date).

It goes like this:

- Semites (herders, hunters) living peacefully south of present day Iraq
- Agricultural revolution in Iraq grows population, causes expansion
- Expansion leads to territory conflict
- Semites attacked, tells kids how awful their norther farmer neighbors are through the use of allegory (mean farmer brother kills nice sheppard brother)
- Semites eventually adopt the agricultural lifestyle too
- Their decendents, the Hebrews, eventually write down the rather old Cain and Abel story into what becomes the Hebrew Bible
- Modern ears (agricultural societies like ours and even the Hebrew society of 2000 BCE that wrote down the oral stories) misunderstand the story of Cain and Abel because we never imagined it recounted an actual military conflict

Anyway, that's the synopsis. Has anyone heard this theory before? The timing seems to be right. Any other writers talk about this?

[Guy Propski]

I've heard several things like it (there's a really interesing version of it told in one of the "Sandman" graphic novels).

Another way to look at it is as a metaphor for a passing lifestyle, and the conflicts it caused.. Hunter/gatherers had to move to follow the animals, so they had little concept of property rights. Once humans began growing food, they had to put down stakes long enough to harvest their grain. Since it was too much trouble to continue to relocate fields each year, tribes began to build settlements. The humans that remained hunter/gatherers, still needing to follow their food source (and not quite understanding this concept of land ownership). would often get into conflict with the stationary farmers.

It's not confined to pre-6000 BC Middle East; what I described also describes (to some extent) the Visigoth struggle with the Romans, the Mongolian invasions, and the Huns attacks on the West.

[Alessan]

Guy - I've heard that theory before. I've also read that teh Cain and Abel story was in fact an ancient prohibition against human sacrifice and cannibalism (the two practices being closely related). It seems as though one of the things that made the ancient Hebrews stand out from their fellow nations is that they refused to sacrifice human beings to their god, only animals - human sacrifice, in fact, was the norm among most religions in the ancient world. The story of Abrahams sacrifice of Isaac teaches us a similar lesson.

[barbitu8]

I read that theory too. Another theory espoused by Lloyd Graham in Deceptions and Myths of the Bible is that Cain is a retelling of the story of Adam, with Abel substituting for Eve. I'm not going into particulars now, but if any one is really interested, I'll give more details.

[jmullaney]

The Catholics believe these stories, while allegorical, are based loosely on historical events.

I had a thread on this in Great Debates way back when:

What is Original Sin, is it historical, and how do Christ's teachings relate? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=29149)