Has anyone ever figured out what this was? I know the LDS church taught for years that being black was the mark of Cain and restricted membership of anyone who could be considered black from any kind of priesthood. In 1978, they decided the time was right to end that restriction. (Honestly this ISN’T a religious argument; I’m simply citing one hypothesis.)
Other ideas are that it was literally some kind of physical mark place on him that everyone would recognize (and I don’t remember if the Bible says it would be placed on his descendants too).
I’ve always wondered about this so I’m hoping that a discussion of this will ensue that could enlighten me.
Here’s the story and it doesn’t say anything about what the mark was.
The reference to Cain’s descendants is in verses 23-24, and it is kind of obscure. The purpose of the mark of Cain was to protect Cain from being killed. There’s no reference to race.
The LDS church didn’t invent that idea. According to the wikipedia article, it goes back to the 5th century, and was a common protestant belief prior to the civil war (that’s probably where Joseph Smith got inspiration for it, as he investigated many churches). The article also lists other beliefs as to what the mark was.
The claims that it was a common protestant belief are all labeled “citation needed”. They appear to be pulled out of some anonymous editor’s nether regions.
I always conjectured it was a tattoo. Maybe I was even taught that, who knows for sure? The nun who might have taught me that likely didn’t have a citation, at the time, so where’m I gonna get one now?
At any rate, it kinda fits – tattoos are forbidden by Moasaic law. People have been making them since before recorded history. How would Hebrew priests explain that? Mark of Cain. Oh, God can do it, for a good reason, and the others, do it, for whatever reason they want to. But *we *don’t do it.
Unless a local prehistoric Cannanite tribe practiced facial tattooing. But even then, I’m just conjecturing that the connection was made and added to the Biblical narrative.
There is nothing said in Scripture about what the mark looks like. It only specifies that those who see Cain and his mark won’t kill him. Perhaps it is something that makes people want to keep a far distance from him - but then again, he did go on to have a family.
Daniel Quinn argues in Ishmael that it is the exact opposite. The mark is being white.
“The story is grounded in a historical context which is all the more elusive for being so specific. Abel is a “keeper of sheep” while Cain is a “tiller of the ground.” (Gen 4:2) This suggests the simplistic interpretation that the story is about a conflict between agriculturalists and pastoralists”.
(Not that I agree with Quinn, but it is a compelling POV)
I’m guessing the LDSer assume all the Bible folks were white, right?
It’s only compelling, IMHO, if you grant that the story is literally true (as in Cain actually existed, Abel actually existed and was murdered by Cain, and god literally interacted with Cain and gave him “the mark,” so presumably Adam, Eve, and the Garden actually existed too, and so on).
Otherwise, if we are to leave it as a sort of primordial myth/legend containing no special knowledge that was not routinely available to the Israelites or other Semitic people’s circa three thousand years ago, it would require ancient Israelites to have 1) known of lighter skinned white people (that’s at least possible, there’s evidence of at least sporadic trade and contact between Mediterranean cultures and peoples as far away as Britain to the north and west), and 2) have anticipated the phenomenon we would now describe as "white privilege"and yet viewed it as applying to other people, but not themselves, even as they viewed themselves as “God’s chosen people,” his most favored nation. I don’t think that’s at all likely.
Slavery was justified by the Curse of Ham, not the mark of Cain: “the narrative [of Ham’s transgression against his father Noah] was interpreted by some Christians, Muslims and Jews as an explanation for black skin, as well as a justification for slavery”
However the Curse and mark of Cain article says “The Curse of Cain was often conflated with the Curse of Ham”
The word used for the “mark” in the Hebrew original is 'ot, which also can mean “letter”.
Apparently, there are quite a few details in the original story which have been lost in various translations (or even were lost before it was translated): The Untold Story of Cain and Abel | AHRC
