Tony\'s God (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 17:34 (4751 days ago) @ DragonsHeart

Dhw: God had shown his preference for the blood of innocent lambs over the hard-won, bloodless fruits of Cain’s labours.

CASEY (DragonsHeart): Hard won? Hardly. They were essentially the leftovers after Cain took the first fruits(generally considered to be the "best") for himself. Genesis 4:3-5 clearly shows the difference..."And it came about at the expiration of some time that Cain proceeded to bring some fruits of the ground as an offering to Jehovah. But as for Abel, he too brought some firstlings of his flock, even their fatty pieces. Now while Jehovah was looking with favor upon Abel and his offering, he did not look with any favor upon Cain and upon his offering." If Cain had offered the hard won fruits of his labor, he would have offered the best, and it would have been noted, as Abel's was. I know that if I am baking, and am taking some of what I bake as a gift to someone, I am going to take the ones that came out the best, not the burnt ones that I wouldn't even eat.

Your Honour, this is a travesty! The Counsel for the Prosecution is fabricating evidence! Here is the context of her quotation: “Now Adam had intercourse with Eve his wife and she became pregnant. In time she gave birth to Cain and said: “I have produced a man with the aid of Jehovah.” Later she again gave birth, to his brother Abel. And Abel came to be a herder of sheep, but Cain became a cultivator of ground. And it came about at the expiration of some time that Cain proceeded to bring some fruits….etc.”

In time she gave birth…later…at the expiration of some time…Is it not self-evident, Your Honour, that it would take time for Kid Cain and Baby Aby to grow up, then to become shepherd and cultivator, and then to produce fruits and firstlings? That is what the text tells us. Time passed, that’s all. So where, oh where does it tell us that Cain offered God the leftovers, and that he took the best fruits for himself? Can you find one word to support this outrageous accusation?

But here’s an interesting point for the jury to ponder. Why does the narrator use the co-ordinating conjunction “but” before describing Cain’s profession. Why not “and”? Could it be that the narrator has some sort of prejudice against ground-cultivators? And could it be that God shared that prejudice, which is why he did not look with any favour upon Cain as a person or upon Cain and his fruit? (Note that in both cases, the narrative separates person and offering.) This interpretation is merely a suggestion, but it does have the virtue – unlike the prosecution’s testimony – of being based on words in the text.

Your Honour, I’m not defending Cain’s murder of Abel, which is indefensible. But with regard to his taking the best fruit and handing the leftovers to God, may I suggest that the prosecutor henceforth call herself Y, because it is evident that she has no Case.

******

Thank you for the additional information about Thomas Love Peacock, and many apologies for my tactless comment about pithy rhyme! Incidentally, I once played the part of Raven the Butler in a dramatization of Nightmare Abbey. It was great fun!