commonly answered (in accordance with Lv. 924, 1 Ki. 1838 etc.), that fire descended from heaven and consumed Abel's offering (Θ. Ra. IEz. De. al.). Others (Di. Gu.) think more vaguely of some technical sign, e.g. the manner in which the smoke ascended (Ew. Str.); while Calv. supposes that Cain inferred the truth from the subsequent course of God's providence. But these conjectures overlook the strong anthropomorphism of the description: one might as well ask how Adam knew that he was expelled from the garden (324). Perhaps the likeliest analogy is the acceptance of Gideon's sacrifice by the Angel of Yahwe (Ju. 621).—Why was the one sacrifice accepted and not the other? The distinction must lie either (a) in the disposition of the brothers (so nearly all comm.), or (b) in the material of the sacrifice (Tu.). In favour of (a) it is pointed out that in each case the personality of the worshipper is mentioned before the gift. But since the reason is not stated, it must be presumed to be one which the first hearers would understand for themselves; and they could hardly understand that Cain, apart from his occupation and sacrifice, was less acceptable to God than Abel. On the other hand, they would readily perceive that the material of Cain's offering was not in accordance with primitive Semitic ideas of sacrifice (see RS2, Lect. VIII.).
From the fact that the altar is not expressly mentioned, it has been
inferred that sacrifice is here regarded as belonging to the established
order of things (Sta. al.). But the whole manner of the narration
suggests rather that the incident is conceived as the initiation of
sacrifice,—the first spontaneous expression of religious feeling in
cultus.[1] If that impression be sound, it follows also that the narrative
proceeds on a theory of sacrifice: the idea, viz., that animal sacrifice
alone is acceptable to Yahwe. It is true that we cannot go back to
wrongly (
Greek characters); so S. On impers. const., see G-K. § 144 b; cf.
1830. 32 3136 347, Nu. 1615 etc. The word is not used by P.—For (Hebrew characters), S
has (Syriac characters) (lit. 'became black').
- ↑ It may be a mere coincidence that in Philo Byblius the institution of animal sacrifice occurs in a legend of two brothers who quarrelled (Pr. Ev. i. 10). Kittel (Studien zur hebr. Archäol. 1031) suggests that our narrative may go back to a time prior to the introduction of the fire-offering and the altar.
