Analysis of the marriage pattern reveals that Cain married the daughter of a ruler named Enoch. She named her first born son Enoch, after her father. This is a trait of the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the Horite Hebrew and it makes it possible for us to trace ancestry through multiple generations in the Bible. This trait is called the “cousin bride’s naming prerogative.” Enoch the Elder would have been a contemporary of Adam, the founder of the Horite Hebrew ruler-priest caste who were described as having a red skin/hair tone. The science of kinship analysis is reliable. It is an empirical approach to the biblical text and is repeatable with the same results, regardless of who does the analysis.
@Alice_Linsley has a biblical anthropology site on facebook. It is fascinating as she explains the bible using real anthropology and real anthropological artifacts. What is intriguing is that it is aligning with the ancient genome data that is coming out on ancient people of the region. What I have learned from Alice is that the stories in the bible were written by intelligent writers with a purpose in mind. And that purpose was vastly different than how the bible has been interpreted by Christians in the past and today. It really is amazing, as the Genesis Adam and Eve are the founder of the Horite Hebrew ruler-priest caste who were described as having red skin/hair tone. Ancient genome studies can confirmed this group and population and the genes that they had. Swamidass’ GA can be historical and this GA can be scientifically confirmed. Won’t that be a kick in the head for AiG. Evolutionary science and anthropology confirms Adam and Eve as Horite Hebrew ruler-priest caste founders. And Genesis is just an ancient story about the exploits of the ruler/king.
Thanks, but this doesn’t seem to describe anything about the post I was asking about. I’m not on Facebook either, so apparently won’t be able to look up her publications and find her citations.
@Alice_Linsley we have a lot of folks at PS who would enjoy interacting with you and learning about your work. Can you make yourself available for some interactions?
@Alice_Linsley has just posted one of the most concise breakdowns of the Kain/Cain legacy using text critical tools… which assumes the the Bible editors would rather Judaize an existing story from another tradition than to fictionalize a brand new one!
@John_Harshman, you yourself can carry it one step further than Alice’s comfort zone by pointing out:
1] (e)N(o)K is another form of (e)NK(i) … as is Noah/Noach; and
2] the picture of Seth’s generations is more or less a re-working of the rival Cainite generations! The Cainite legacy was probably based on the idea that they descend from (e)NK(i) - - aka, Enki.
You surprise me! You are taking on the usual Biblicist apologia… that the Bible has NOTHING to do with Pagan traditions … despite the objective 3rd party can see it dripping with pagan legacies.
The Enki hypothesis is not widely accepted, but it is based on the idea that Genesis comes from elsewhere and superficial similarities are actually intentionally crafted to help co-opt rival priestly traditions.
I’m saying nothing of the sort. Why do people around here keep taking “You have provided no evidence for X” as “I reject the possibility of X”? I demand some sort of solid evidence before I will accept a claim. That’s all.
First of all, @John_Harshman, i described the hypothesis as more extreme than, and (probably) beyond Alice’s comfort zone. I also said (later) that it is not a popular hypothesis.
So i find that im in the unenviable position of trying to offer a subtle and skeptical text-critical scenario to a man who not only doesnt find Biblicists credible… but also doesnt find credible those who would criticize Biblicists for not being skeptical enough!
I am only generally familiar with the arguments that assert the Yahweh cult is built, in part, on Ea/Enki literature harvested in Exile by priestly editors.
This topic is not suited to these boards … so i dont think i have anything more that might interest you. The topic came up because you didnt seem familiar with some of the text-critical methods Alice had employed.
The best way to avoid triggering that response is to sound a little less defiant when you encounter a new idea. Most of us here are trained by experience that a strong initial statement of skepticism is not usually a prelude to acceptance of one’s position (either broadly or narrowly).
What I don’t find credible is a hypothesis presented as fact without also presenting any evidence for that hypothesis. This is true regardless of the hypothesis.
I’m still not familiar, because nobody has enlightened me so far. You could help by answering the questions I began with.
Sorry, but that’s how science works. I’m assuming that you intend something like science. Skeptical != defiant. Anyway, “you have provided no evidence for X” is an invitation to provide evidence for X.
I am able to share with you the kind of conclusions that text-critical tools can dig out from the Bible.
Both Alice and I pointed to how some assessments are made. I understand that they are more vague than you prefer.
Go to the Wiki discussions on Text Criticism… you will learn more there than i can impart.
As for your skepticism of even skepticism… yes, your position is perfectly rational… for a man who likes his ideas concrete and his words to have only one meaning.
But i find i have gone further with the following idea: if as a skeptic someone generally rejects the idea that Yahweh is a literal God … then one is left with the idea that Yahweh came from SOMEWHERE, based on SOME thing.
If this is one’s premise … sometimes all you can do is find the most reasonable answers… in the face of inadequate answers.
If that’s true, I was unable even to recognize them as explanations.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Yahwism has historical, pre-Yahwist roots. I can’t see any other rational possibilities, absent divine revelation. What I don’t see is how either you or Alice has reached particular conclusions about those roots.
There is only one man in tge whole bible named Aaron. Amazingly enough, the Hebrew consonants for Aaron are practically the same as the word for Ark.
These are examples of the hypotheses this fact might trigger:
it is a complete coincidence.
Aaron was a real person but a scribe named him after the ark to demonstrate he was ordained from birth to have a divine connection.
Aaron was a fictional person given a sound-alike name to explain the phrase “Sons of the Ark”.
A conversation with a rabbi was quite interesting. Faced with these choices, he immediately picked option (2)… because he thought it was too coincidental… but didnt think
it was likely that Aaron could have been his real name!
Perhaps you could try to relate your baby steps more closely to the actual matter at hand? I see no reason to choose “Aaron” as an example rather than the Cain story I was asking about. That way we would come closer to a real discussion of the evidence, whatever it may be.
George is an interesting mix of iconoclast and social “watchdog.” I am concerned for his penchant to try to raise controversy with “the usual Christian apologia,” but enjoy sorting out his arguments.
They are in the same class as those that brought us the newly-discredited documentary hypothesis. But, then, I enjoy a penchant for Christian apologia.
Gentlemen,
I dont think i can add anything more to this dead-end topic.
@John_Harshman, lets pretend i never brought it up to begin with. You dont appear to relish the high-altitude thrills of pure [i.e., basesless?] speculation - - unless, I suppose, it is completely on your own terms. In any case, nothing good will come of my spending more time on something so clearly outside the mission of PeacefulScience.Org.
@Guy_Coe, you correctly see that these excursions of analysis do relate to the kinds of assessments found in the documentary hypothesis.but
