7 June 2008
Was Cain Fathered by the Devil? No, Wait — Extraterrestrials
Posted by MSH under: Jesus Bloodline; Laurence Gardner; Sitchin; Wacky Bible Interpretation .
I’ve gotten more emails on this topic than I can shake a stick at, so I’ve decided to blog it and then just direct people to this post in the future. I don’t know who started this on the internet-probably one of those “I found secret knowledge about the Bible” people who start followings in cyberspace. At any rate, he wasn’t anyone who knew anything about the Bible, the Dead Sea scrolls, or the other material I’ll touch on.
Cain Fathered by Satan or a Demon?
Though there are by no various expressions of it online, the nonsense goes something like this.
What really happened in Eden (Genesis 3) was that Eve was seduced by the serpent (whose name was Sammael), they had sex, and produced Cain (Genesis 4). This is why Cain was “marked” by God later on-God hated him since the serpent was his father. The Bible covers all this up since its editors removed it. Thankfully, the Dead Sea Scrolls preserve it. That’s just one reason the scrolls were kept from the public for so long.
Hogwash.
Here’s the truth about this particular web gem. I’ll unpack each point briefly.
1. Genesis 4:1 was NOT found among the textual remains of the Hebrew Bible among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is important to realize that much of the biblical material from Qumran is partial and fragmentary. Only the book of Isaiah can be said to be virtually complete (99% of it was found at Qumran). There are portions and scraps of every other OT book except Esther. Genesis 4:1, the account of Can’s birth, is not in the Dead Sea Scroll material. The closest you get is Genesis 4:2-11, which is 4QGenb or 4Q2 (read, Qumran, Cave 4, Genesis “b” – that was the name given to the fragment – also called Qumran, Cave 4, no. 2 by other researchers). This fragment was published in volume 12 (pp. 36-37) of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (DJD) series (Oxford University Press – the official publisher of scrolls material). The fragment is IDENTICAL to the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible used today. Therefore, the Dead Sea scrolls don’t preserve this weird view of Cain’s lineage. Readers can check on what I’m saying through two relatively inexpensive sources:
- David L. Washburn, A Catalog of Biblical Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Sbl – Text-Critical Studies, 2) (Sbl – Text-Critical Studies, 2)
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002) – this resource lists all biblical passages found among the scrolls, in the order of the Hebrew canon, so it’s easy to use.
- Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English
(Harper, 1999). You need only turn to Genesis 4 to see the first verse is missing. Marty and Peter, two of the editors, are friends of mine (we live near each other, and both have been down here to my office). They are Dead Sea scroll experts.
2. Since we already know the name doesn’t occur in the biblical scrolls (the point above), I thought I’d look for it among the other scrolls material – sometimes the other material has commentaries on the biblical material. A computer search for “Sammael” (or the alternate spelling Samael) yields ZERO occurrences in the non-biblical texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is more proof that this “account” is not only absent in the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls; it isn’t present in the scrolls that covered other subjects besides copying and commenting on the Hebrew Bible. You can watch a video of me doing this search so you know I’m not making it up. (Turn your speakers up and use high speed – it’s 29 MB).
3. I knew that I wouldn’t find the name Sammael or Samael in any of the scrolls. The name does occur among the Pseudepigrapha. The video I made above includes this search and its results. Sorry, no sex between the serpent / Sammael and Eve. Boring, I know. Outside the name Sammael/Samael, n some pseudepigraphic material (4 Maccabees 18:8) the serpent gets blamed for all sexual sin, but that’s a lot different than fathering Cain.
4. Some rabbinic material does have the devil fathering Cain. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has this idea. Here’s a brief video of me looking this up an explaining the reading [You can check my translation by consulting the English translation of Targum Pseudo-Joanathan at this link. This translation, though, does NOT have the variant that includes Samael]. The other Targums do not have this reading. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is dated by Aramaists at roughly the sixth century A.D., or between 1500-2000 years AFTER Genesis was written (the date range depends on when one thinks Genesis was written). The Talmud relates a story that Yonatan ben Uziel, a student of Hillel (roughly contemporary with Jesus), fashioned an Aramaic translation of the Prophets. That translation is considered by some to be Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. However, the story makes no mention of any translation by him of the Torah, and so it cannot be argued that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Genesis 4:1 is as old as Jesus’ day. The sixth century A.D. is all the evidence allows. Targums can be very elastic translations, adding material quite freely with no Hebrew manuscript evidence at all. Everyone who does Aramaic knows this about the Targums-they can play pretty fast and loose with the text of the Bible; they INSERT all kinds of things into the translation, without regard to any prior textual manuscript history for support. IN plain language, the Targums often add made up material to the biblical text. Having Samael in Genesis 4:1 is a classic example – it was added at least 1500 years after the fact, and no other prior ancient Jewish material supports it.
Cain Fathered by Extraterrestrials?
Laurence Gardner, that pseudo-ancient text researcher of Jesus bloodline nonsense fame, wants Eve and Yahweh to be the ones having sex-or, “more realistically” in his mind, to have the extraterrestrial god known as Yahweh (who is really Sumerian Enki) genetically implant his DNA in her. In an online lecture on this topic Gardner (largely parroting Zecharia Sitchin) says:
Conventional teaching generally cites Cain as being the first son of Adam and Eve – but he was not; even the book of Genesis tells us that he was not. In fact, it confirms how Eve told Adam that Cain’s father was the Lord, who was of course Enki the Archetype. Even outside the Bible, the writings of the Hebrew Talmud and Midrash make it quite plain that Cain was not the son of Adam . . . Around 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve . . . were purpose-bred for kingship by Enki and his sister-wife Ninkhursag. This took place at a ‘creation chamber’ which the Sumerian annals refer to as the House of Shimta (Shi-im-tA meaning ‘breath – wind – life‘ ). Adam and Eve were certainly not the first people on Earth, but they were the first of the alchemically devised kingly succession. Nin-khursag was called the Lady of the Embryo or the Lady of Life, and she was the surrogate mother for Adam and Eve, who were created from human ova fertilized by the Lord Enki. 1
In regard to how the book of Genesis tells us Cain was not the son of Adam and Eve, Gardner has this quotation in his book about the birth of Cain. Let me go on record as saying this is one of my favorite Gardner quotations, only because it’s a crystal clear example of how Gardner DELIBERATELY misleads his readers, likely because he hates Christianity so much:
“In the opening verse of Genesis 4, it is written that Hawah [Eve] said, I have gotten a man from the Lord’. Other variations are I have got me a man with the Lord’ and I have acquired a man from the Lord’.”2
Gardner’s quotation creates the distinct impression for his readers that Genesis 4:1 contains ONLY this line about Eve saying she “got a man from/with the Lord.” It’s an incomplete citation, though-and you’ll see right away why Gardner wouldn’t give you the rest of the verse in his book. Here’s the whole verse in Hebrew and English (I have given the English and the Hebrew matching colors so you can follow the translation):
It’s easy to see here how Gardner only gave his readers the second half of the verse – omitting the part that explicitly says that ADAM “knew” Eve (a common sexual euphemism in the Bible) and so fathered Cain. How convenient. How self-serving. How dishonest.
Again, it’s just PaleoBabble.
26 Comments so far...
Debra Says:
11 June 2008 at 2:24 PM.
There is a website devoted to the “prophet” William Branham, the main proponent of the “Serpent Seed” doctrine. The website is visually appealing (uh-oh) and addresses several OT and NT subject areas– incl. but not limited to: e-schatology. You might want to give it a look-see…just because. Googling the words ‘believe’ and ’sign’ will surely lead you to the miasma it is. Trivia piece: Mr. Branham’s detractors could number near those of Mr. Sitchin?
MSH Says:
12 June 2008 at 12:53 AM.
Debra: “Thanks” – nice word, “miasma”! Just perfect.
Chet Silvermonte Says:
12 June 2008 at 3:23 PM.
While you are right that dating targumic material is tricky, isn’t 1 John 3:12 a pretty good indication that the belief that Cain was “from the evil one” could have dated to the 1st century A.D.? Certainly the late 2nd century Greek Protevangelium of James, 13:1 can talk of the serpent not only deceiving but also defiling Eve. And Tertullian (2nd-3rd century), in Against Heresies 2, can talk of a belief circulating that Cain and Abel were both conceived by angels, even if Tertullian himself didn’t believe this.
Could this sordid interpretation of the Fall colour Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 2:14-15?
MSH Says:
13 June 2008 at 12:16 AM.
Chet: In order: (1) I would like to think readers of 1 John 3:12 would actually go back and look at Genesis 4. If they did, they’d note the ABSENCE of the evil one in the narrative of Cain’s conception and birth. But then again, how many people really go check at what the Bible actually says (or doesn’t say)? I guess it’s possible someone could look at 1 John 3:12 and come up with such a wacky over-reading, as long as they didn’t care what Genesis 4 said. (2) Yes, these sources can put the idea (or at least its ingredients) in these early centuries after Christ (and of course, a good 1200-1300 years after source critics would date the early Pentateuchal sources – even later for those who reject JEDP). I didn’t dispute that, though.
Dale Gervais Says:
11 December 2009 at 9:51 PM.
I’ve noticed you continually point the questioner to gen 4 insinuating that people don’t read it.I read in Gen 3 where the sin actually takes place,that Eve replies to God that”the serpent beguiled me and I did eat”she is speaking of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden.If you do not believe that she is speaking of being seduced by the “nachash”,please explain what fruit could have the effect as written in verse 7″the eye’s of them both were opened,they knew they were naked and they sewed fig leaves together and made aprons.”Aprons cover what part of the human anatomy?also in verse 15 of ch 3 God states clearly that he will place enmity between The seed of the “nachash” and the seed of the woman.If there is no serpent seed or Cain is not the seed of the “Nachash” then how could he possibly do this?No sex between eve and the serpent means no seed to place enmity between.AS far as I know nowhere else in the bible is the Nachash written of in relationship to a human female.How is this seed created?Maybe you should read the bible more as a story being told and less as something that needs microscopic translation.Too much time in the microscope can lead to the big picture being missed.
Dale Gervais Says:
11 December 2009 at 10:20 PM.
I would also like to reply to your rather dismissive answer to Chet”if they did they’ed note the ABSCENCE of the evil one in the narrative of Cains conception and birth”.Well to you sir I can only reply that if you would only read chapter 5 of Gen you would note the ABSCENCE of Cain in Adams Geneological record.The abscence of Abel is easily explained he was murdered by someone Adam didn’t father.!
MSH Says:
12 December 2009 at 12:57 PM.
@Dale Gervais: pretty simple – this isn’t how the NT sees the passage, and the text never claims fatherhood for Cain in terms of the nachash. My approach is simple: I stick to what’s in the text. Maybe you should, too.
MSH Says:
12 December 2009 at 1:02 PM.
@Dale Gervais: The genealogies are selective in who they include — I suppose, though, that you’ll argue anyone omitted at any time has the nachash as a father. Whatever. Eve says she had Cain with the help of YHWH, not the nachash. Cain isn’t in Gen 5 because he wasn’t the father of Enosh, Seth was. It’s simply tracing a specific lineage; it’s not tracing every child / parent in every line.
MSH Says:
16 December 2009 at 12:07 PM.
@Grey: thanks
Dale Gervais Says:
22 December 2009 at 12:13 PM.
First i’d like to apologise for my tone,it was immature and gets us nowhere in a healthy debate.I do agree that the text does not claim the serpent fathers Cain outright.It also doesn’t claim Adam is Cain’s father.We have a problem.God plainly states that there are two seedlines,there must be to place enmity between them.Please could you explain whose seedlines?I read the serpents seedline and the womans Gen 3v15.there are only two lines that come out of Genesis3-6 adam/seth ????/cain I beleive as do many others that the serpent is the father of Cain.Proving that he isn’t is harder than proving he is.
MSH Says:
23 December 2009 at 9:16 PM.
@Dale Gervais: First some preliminary observations. There is no indication that the two seedlines are literal in terms of “hybrids” (i.e., the text says that there would be a seed of the woman and a seed of the nachash — not a seed of the nachash+woman). There is also no indication that the seedlines must arise in the very next generation. The NT interprets the seed who would undo the curse as Christ, who was millennia removed from the original promise. His line of course is traced through Seth and Adam. Lastly, if the serpent was the father of Cain, it makes little sense that God would protect Cain from death (and so his lineage; Gen 4:14-15). That has God preserving the evil line that would oppose his son, Eve’s seed. It’s incoherent.
My view is that the seed of the nachash = any who would oppose the people and plan of God. This is the way the idea is used later in the OT (Isa 14.29) and in the NT (John 8:44; Matt. 3:7; 12:34; 23:33; Luke 3:7)
Ed Roberts Says:
30 January 2010 at 2:20 PM.
I just heard another interpretation of this verse which I thought was novel and I would pass on… it has to do with the use of the work “ish” instead of the word “adam” for man in the verse in Gen 4:2… “ish” is also used for husband, whereas I do not believe the generic word “adam” ever is… and this interpreter said that Eve was saying that she recognized Adam was a husband to her (i.e. give her children)… so the verse would read “I have gotten a husband from the Lord”… husband referring to Adam rather than the child she birthed… Dr. Heiser, your comments?
MSH Says:
31 January 2010 at 11:17 PM.
@Ed Roberts: It makes little sense. It really makes Eve sound clueless. Since she and Adam were the only two people in the story, did she really need to learn this? I’d also want to know what this view does with Gen 2:25; 3:8, 3:20 and others where ‘adam and iyshah are both in the same verse and woman is “possessed” by the 3rd person suffix pronoun (i.e., the man and HIS woman – which means ‘adam is a husband there). In fact, in the very same chapter – Genesis 4:1, we have this same set of conditions: ‘adam and HIS wife. I’d say this has no legs at all.
oscar Says:
5 July 2010 at 1:14 AM.
The “sin” was not found neither in Eve’s mouth nor her hands taking the fruit, was it? Genesis 3:15 says a curse and when dealing with Eve there’s an increase in the pain. The sin was placed in the euphemistic “hips” which had to be covered. God didn’t consider the leaves were proper so gave them animal skin. All these suggests the sin was related to sex, uncommon sex. I guess the writers in the New Testament DID know something when they wrote about Cain’s SEED. There’s no sense of thinking God is blaming them for normal sex.
I ignore if the opening of the eye was a singular eye or plural eyes but it was after Eve got in contact with the hanashah. The whole episode of the birth of Cain was after the sin, like a consequence.
God accuses the snake “because you have done that”…What it did exactly? Snake/dragon said half truth. He said they would be like gods knowing god and evil and they did. Hence verses later God ADMITS that “they became like us” (ok ok it’s mayestic plural but the issue is the same). Then God goes on like saying “well, now they are going to get the (OTHER) fruit of everlasting life” and kicks them out of greenhouse Eden. I say half truth because snake also said they would live forever as something “per se” and we know that depended on obedience. So the snake said a lie through the truth.
Now, please if I am wrong, try not to be so hepatic in your replies rising your ego to stratosphere and just write the proper answer, mainly WHY is incorrect according to your opinion. Too much obliged.
oscar Says:
5 July 2010 at 1:16 AM.
BTW, Isaiah mentioned Lillith and goatmen creatures and Judaism links Lillith with Sammael or am I mistaken?
oscar Says:
5 July 2010 at 5:05 AM.
I guess it’s tough NOT to spin our view trying to fit it based upo we’ve learned since youth. Even for a scholar must be hard to get out of the brain cage with objectivity. Not only we ought to understand “Hebrew” but also check the proper translation of it but you won’t unless you know something of ENGLISH and other languages as well. There’s a feast translated IN THE SAME BOOKS as Chanuka or Hanukah. The reader is led to guess if that CH sounds as K as in chemistry, cherubim or CH as in cheese, achieve or H as in hot, ahead: 2 translations and 3 different sounds (phonema). Unless of course the reader SUSPECTS the book just repeated from another which was based upon askenazi or Medieval German in which the CH sounds like English H, Spanish J, Portuguese RR and Russian & Greek X. Do you follow me?
There’s something very weird in Genesis genealogy. When you read a certain name is translated as if “Jared” while other is so similar but “Irad” you won’t suspect anything. Unless you know that “J” was invented about 1.600 years after so-called “Jesus” by a French humanist named Pierre de la Ramée. You couldn’t ever suspect that letter “j” (jota) still has a dot like “i” (iota) because in the Middle Ages the people turn the tail of the “i” like a “j” and therefore it was put after that letter in the alphabet (..f,g,h,I,J). Hence how would you know the real reason why Jews whenever they please use the letter ‘yod’ and others ‘iod’.
When you check Genesis genealogy I suspect there’s something a member of the Christian churches won’t ever know unless he goes beyond his sCHeme. The names of the fathers in Cain’s lineage is almost the same as Seth’s fathers but inverted. There are names that you wonder if it’s ENOCH, ENOK, ENOC OR ENOSH or is it the same? We have a couple of Lamech, Lamek? One lives 777 years while the other from the other list is avanged with a number 77 or 77 generations or whatever explanation. This is a code playing letter numbers that Jews won’t share it so easily.
Even Spielberg knows Yahweh is using Greek letter Ypsilon and Indiana Jones shouldn’t ever use Jehovah either. That H was Greek HETA the sound like ETA as in set, let, wet) but how would you suspect if that letter in your glorious English is not mute? Hmm? First a Hebrew scholar needs to explain the conundrun in English: why ISrael and ISaiah use the letters I and S with the same sound as in Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and so on while the EGYPTIAN goddess ISis sounds like Aysees?
In a nutshell: the gebealogy is important here because it deals with the curse given to the specific seed of the WOMAN related with the other one cursed with her, THE SNAKE. It was the snake the one who did something with her related to pregnancy, pain and euphemistic hips. Trying to deny that is like putting a finger to cover the sun.
And I have to confess it was aweful for me to accept the evidence because the churches give you superficial explanations.
MSH Says:
5 July 2010 at 3:20 PM.
Eve’s sin wasn’t “placed” anywhere – where does the text say such a thing?
MSH Says:
5 July 2010 at 3:20 PM.
no, but Isaiah wasn’t quoting Genesis, nor was he talking about Eden, Eve, Adam, or Cain. Simple to look that up.
MSH Says:
5 July 2010 at 3:22 PM.
there is absolutely no textual proof for this idea. I could care less what some rabbis said when they were tripping out on who knows what, or what some French esotericist says. The text is the source, and it’s absolutely silent (actually, opposed) to this idea.
oscar Says:
5 July 2010 at 4:33 PM.
I don’t know if I made myself understood or you’re a bit beating around the bush. When I talked about SIN is implicit because to sin is miss the target, the account is about something the hanashash did with Eve (beguield) and the NAKEDNESS was somewhere in the body, right? She became AWARE of her nudity. Where in the body was that nudity? Indeed in the “hips”. C’mon, can’t you recognize the relationship between nudity, hips, preganancy, increased of pain and the covering of “their” parts? It was not “just” about “eating” the fruit. The ‘fruit’ itself is other thing.
You haven’t answered me if Eve’s opened eye is singular or plural in this text. That could be revealing.
Of course Isaiah was not talking about Cain nor Adam. Yet my question was about the link between Lillith and Samael. Lillith was not mentioned in Genesis either but you know there’s a link with her as a sucubus and Sammael. I mentioned this because your argument was that Samael is not mentioned in the Bible but Macabeus and somewhere else. Now, whenever it pleases you I have read your do comments about other appocrypha so I don’t think we can ignore this.
The French Pierre de la Rameé was not esoterist, he was humanist. When you say the text is “silent” I don’t understand what you mean. The text is translated into languages like English or French. And when dealing with NAMES they have to be translated accurate. Whe you talk about the snake it’s written “hanashash” but when you speak it, the sound is not silent. For some reasons you have accepted you pronounce that SH (like Enosh) with a K so the question remains the same:> why on earth they aren’t clear and translate hanakash? It’s the same with the names of the genealogist, switching names of Seth and Cain lineage just to obscure the meaning in the translation. Why? Was it the mother’s side? The cursed one who had sex with Samael related with that Lilith Isaiah talks about?
Why would Rabbies invent something like this? Perhaps you need to open a discussion not about Leviticus 16 regarding the scapegoat left in the desert but Lillith identity, after all Sitchin is wrong and says she was a “lulu” mixed hairy combo.
oscar Says:
5 July 2010 at 4:55 PM.
About the Rabbies, well maybe they triped under the same Mamre trees where Abraham saw 3 angels and they kept using the same trees for centuries. Or perhaps was with the same Moses’ burning bush that could be gas plant Fraxinella with purple trees or perhaps not and was hallucinogenic Acacia (he learned in Egypt, right? the same place where the priests used blue lily imported from Greece or perhaps that “qanah” used with the incense taught from “above”…
oscar Says:
5 July 2010 at 5:14 PM.
I ignore what happened with my other comment. I am not rude in my comments, I try to be objective and I hope I am treated with respect with the knowledge of someone like you instead of short whatever answers. I said apostle Paul clearly said Eve’s mind was corrupted. My question remains: how come that mind was affected? What part of the brain? Is Eve’s mind singular or plural in Hebrew in Genesis? If this comment is deleted, well, that would be the best answer you can provide.
MSH Says:
5 July 2010 at 7:15 PM.
This is sophistry. Give me the verse that says Eve and the serpent had sex. It’s simple. Otherwise, you’re reading the text through a filter that has been placed on it. Adam also understood he was naked after the two of them had sinned. Did the serpent have sex with him, too? Again, you’re imposing something on the text; show me where the text says Eve and the serpent had sex. it ain’t there, and anyone who’s read the account will see that.
MSH Says:
5 July 2010 at 7:16 PM.
more revisionist (read: imposed imagination) trash. You simply approach the text, remakes it as you want, and then ask others to see the profundity.
MSH Says:
5 July 2010 at 7:18 PM.
“eyes” are plural in the text. Are you going to say eyes were another part of her body (I can hardly wait) that she had in the plural? And Adam’s eyes were also opened (also plural). “eyes” do not refer to parts of the brain (I’ll ask you for a verse on that, but you haven’t shown much interest in citing the text as it is).
