The Origins of Violence

Cain and Able

By Robbert Veen © 2010, Huizen the Netherlands

WHAT WE LEARN FROM CHILDHOOD STORIES

We heard the stories read to us when we were children. If

we've been brought up in a Christian environment, we have
heard them read and explain to us. They were part of the stories
and traditions that shaped us as adults. Movies and songs
dealing with the same themes and ideas molded our
subconscious.

So now there are lots of things we believe, without knowing

we believe them.

E.g.

1
 • We think that the best (only) way to respond to
violence is to counter it with violence.
• We think that violence is necessary to maintain the
order in society
• We think that violence on a large scale can be
productive, e.g. in revolutions.
• We think that war is sad at a human level, but
necessary in politics.
• Violence is necessary to defend ourselves from a
ruthless and inhuman enemy
• In sum: we think that violence is a proper means of
achieving one's goals

Why do we believe that? It's not because we thought about it

or studied it. We just do.

2
 POPEYE

Let's take Popeye. A whole generation was brought up with

Popeye cartoons. One of its functions was to teach children that
spinach (yuck!) was good for you. It made you stronger. You
could be a hero like Popeye.
But the cartoons also made you think that:

• There is an easy (moral) division between good guys

and bad guys.
• Bad guys always resort to violence
• Bad guys cannot be reasoned or bargained with
• Good guys have to use violence to stop the bad guys
• Good guys will always win in the end - Popeye will
never run out of spinach.
• Bad guys will never stop to be bad guys
• The source of the conflict is something both sides
want
• Good guys and bad guys do not learn from their
experiences

(E.g. Brutus never learns how to use spinach, he will never

understand that everything is stacked against him, and Popeye
3
will never learn how to prevent the conflict erupting over and
over again. The victim never learns anything either: Olive Oil
keeps being seduced for a while by Brutus. The victim is not
simply innocent actually in this case.)

Now take John Rambo: his violence is provoked by a

provincial cop and he takes it to the limit.

Is he justified in doing that?

We think so! At least for as long as the movie is entertaining

us.

And we walk out of the theatre thinking (mostly

subconsciously) that violence can be all right after all.

4
 IT IS ACTUALLY CALLED
THE MYTH OF REDEEMING VIOLENCE

Now, is that really what we think?

I don't think so! Most humans find "real" violence, as opposed

to portrayed violence abhorrent.

• When you or your loved ones have been a victim of

violence
• When you happen to see violence on the street
• When you use your empathy to understand what a
victim of violence must feel
• When you watch images of soldiers fighting in the
street of Baghdad.

Nevertheless we are fascinated by such acts of violence at

the same time.

This fascination is the basis for our acceptance of violence

when

• It is used by the good guys

5
 • Helps save a victim (even if others get killed in the
process)
• Is only used as a means to a goal
• Is practiced reluctantly.

…then it is OKAY

But…who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

In the Myth of Redeeming Violence it is always very clear

what is going on. Just as in the Popeye stories.

• We can easily identify good guys and bad guys, "us"

and "them" e.g.
• We can always see that it is worthwhile to save the
victim.
• We never - ever - do the moral math to see that the
cost of violence is most often higher than the gains.

6
 CAIN AND ABLE

So let's go to Cain and Able. To see what this story tells us

about violence. Maybe the story wants to tell us something that
goes against the Myth of Redeeming Violence

Cain and Able is a myth portraying humankind. There are two

types of humanity:
Cain, ("blacksmith", forger) who is a tiller of the soil, a farmer
who enjoys the fruit of his hard labor.
Able ("lightness" or "vanity") is his brother. The story is
about "man and his brother."

Here it is in a modern somewhat paraphrasing translation:

1 Adam and Eve had a son. Then Eve said, "I'll name him
Cain because I got him with the help of the LORD."
2 Later she had another son and named him Abel. Abel
became a sheep farmer, but Cain farmed the land.
3 One day, Cain gave part of his harvest to the LORD,
4 and Abel also gave an offering to the LORD. He killed the
first-born lamb from one of his sheep and gave the LORD the
7
best parts of it. The LORD was pleased with Abel and his
offering,
5 but not with Cain and his offering. This made Cain so
angry that he could not hide his feelings.
6 The LORD said to Cain: What's wrong with you? Why do
you have such an angry look on your face?
7 If you had done the right thing, you would be smiling. But
you did the wrong thing, and now sin is waiting to attack you
like a lion. Sin wants to destroy you, but don't let it!
8 Cain said [this] to his brother Abel, "Let's go for a walk."
[That's not in the original text!!!] And when they were out in a
field, Cain killed him.
9 Afterwards the LORD asked Cain, "Where is Abel?" "How
should I know?" he answered. "Am I supposed to look after my
brother?"
10 Then the LORD said: Why have you done this terrible
thing? You killed your own brother, and his blood flowed onto
the ground. Now his blood is calling out for me to punish you.
11 And so, I'll put you under a curse. Because you killed
Abel and made his blood run out on the ground, you will never
be able to farm the land again.

8
 12 If you try to farm the land, it won't produce anything for
you. From now on, you'll be without a home, and you'll spend
the rest of your life wandering from place to place.
13 "This punishment is too hard!" Cain said.
14 "You're making me leave my home and live far from you.
I will have to wander about without a home, and just anyone
could kill me."
15 "No!" the LORD answered. "Anyone who kills you will
be punished seven times worse than I am punishing you." So
the LORD put a mark on Cain to warn everyone not to kill him.
16 But Cain had to go far from the LORD and live in the
Land of Wandering, which is east of Eden.
17 Later, Cain and his wife had a son named Enoch. At the
time Cain was building a town, and so he named it Enoch after
his son.

Nice story. Eh? In this translation however, everything is lost

that we need to understand what it wants to say. That happens
frequently in modern translation that try to be understandable
at the cost of being accurate. It's interesting though, because it
tells us how prejudices work in translations. What does the
story do in this version? Now we are left with the idea that:

9
 • It is about giving the proper sacrifice
• God did not like Cain's offering for some unknown
reason
• Cain became jealous and hated Cain for being
accepted
• He was warned by God that jealousy could get him
into trouble
• A power called "sin" could get control over him
• He didn't listen so he got angrier and angrier
• And out of this anger he killed his brother - by
attacking him from behind (the coward)
• Then he lied about it
• And was sent away as a wanderer, a tramp
• But God did spare his life
• And he was quite successful in founding the first city

It's obvious that Able is the simple good guy and Cain is the
bad guy.

Now would you say that violence is here portrayed as

something that is innate in human beings? When you are dealt
with like this, you hold a grudge. You are not dealt with fairly.
In a way Cain is right to feel jealousy. He can't help it, he can't

10
stop it. And the result is murder. Not a nice thing to do, surely,
but understandable in a way. Right?

That's how the translator feels about the story, because he

(they) was (were) a product of the Myth of Redeeming
Violence. And though the text does not condone murder, it still
seems to help us understand it. And to that degree justify it.
Okay, we should not kill each other, but if provoked by
injustice and without the means to get justice, what can one
expect? Should Cain have taken this insult without any
response?

11
 A DIFFERENT TRANSLATION

And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore
Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the
LORD.'
2 And again she bore his brother Abel. And Abel was a
keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
3 And in process of time it happened, that Cain brought of
the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and
of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect (looked at) unto
Abel and to his offering;
5 but unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect (did
not look at). And Cain was very angry, and his countenance
fell. (He looked at the ground)
6 And the LORD said unto Cain: 'Why are you angry? and
why is your countenance fallen?
7 If you do well, shall it not be lifted up? and if you do
not well, you lie at the door of sin. Unto you is his (Able's)
desire, and you should rule (=take care of) over him
(Able).'
8 And Cain spoke unto Abel his brother (telling him what
God had said to him). And it came to pass, when they were in
12
the field (talking about this) , that Cain rose up against Abel his
brother, and slew him.
9 And the LORD said unto Cain: 'Where is Abel your
brother?' And he said: 'I know not; am I my brother's keeper?'
10 And He said: 'What have you done? the voice of thy
brother's blood cries unto Me from the ground.
11 And now cursed you are from the ground, which has
opened her mouth to receive your brother's blood from your
hand.
12 When you till the ground, it shall not henceforth give to
you her strength; a fugitive and a wanderer shall you be in the
earth.'
13 And Cain said to the LORD: 'My guilt is greater than I
can bear.
14 Behold, You have driven me out this day from the face of
the land; and from Your face shall I be hid; and I shall be a
fugitive and a wanderer in the earth; and it will come to pass,
that whosoever finds me will slay me.'
15 And the LORD said to him: 'Therefore whoever slays
Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.' And the
LORD set a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him should
kill him.

13
 16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and
dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bore
Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city after
the name of his son Enoch.

14
 NOW WE HAVE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORY

• The sacrifice is a meeting of the brothers with God

• God is drawing attention to Able by looking toward
him
• Cain does not like the fact that his achievement is not
rewarded
• God reminds Cain that he has an obligation to take
care of his brother - it's part of his calling and the
selfevident principle of his profession

When they were presenting the sacrifice - the gift - , God

looked at Able. He was - that's the freedom of the author -
standing there between them. He was drawing Cain's attention
toward his brother Able. There is no indication of a "looking"
from above. God is portrayed as standing there on the earth, as
He is in tchapter 2, strolling through the garden.
Now why would God look away from the stronger brother
who could proudly present his achievement - look what I have
done! - to the weaker brother who had nothing to give from his
own achievements? He as just a shepherd, a fairly lazy
profession as compared to Cain's. Especially when you
15
consider that they would use milk and wool, but would not eat
the meat. Much later humanity was allowed to eat the meat,
after Noah, but not here.
Is it not because the story wants to tells us that God wants
Cain - the stronger - to look after his brother?
Is this not strengthened by verse 7?

16
 THE MAIN VERSE 17

If you take away the dust that gathered on top of it during the
ages, it should read:

7 If you do well, shall it not be lifted up? and if you do not

well, you lie at the door of sin. Unto you is his (Able's)
desire, and you should rule (=take care of) over him
(Able).'

It is saying this: if you act like you are supposed to act, like a
brother, taking care of your brother, why look at the ground?
Why be angry? (Looking at the ground would be an attempt to
hide the disappointment that the sacrifice is not about
achievement.) But if you do ntot act with compassion and care
toward your brother, then you have taken a step close to sin,
you have already made the first step in the directionof violence.
Don't forget what you are: your brother looks up to you and
you are supposed to take care of him = rule him.
The basic idea of "desire" being: what I need I get from
someone else. I am dependent upon somebody else. It's the
same concept used for Eve: woman has a right to be treated
with care so the text states: her desire will be toward man.
17
 The basic idea of rule being: I have dominance over you in
orer to give you security and help you survive. It's the origin of
"hierarchy" based in care and mutual survival, and the origin of
social bonds (desire).

• Cain refuses to accept his role as caretaker of his

brother.
• Cain strives for autonomy based on his own ability to
survive by his own merit.
• The strong desires to be on his own.

18
 SO THERE'S THE ORIGIN OF VIOLENCE!

Violence comes from the refusal to be our brother's keeper.

Violence is not the great means of survival, but it is the result

of ignoring one's calling as a human being to care for the
brother, especially if he's weak.
Social bonds imply the - mutual - duty to take care of others.
It is directly opposite the instinct for autonomous freedom.
People know that instinctively. That is why we need this
identification of the bad guy, the enemy, the stranger, the
demon, for people to break this bond and accept violence
against someone else. If the cop in the Rambo movies had been
a sympathetic guy, just following orders etc, we would not
have sympathized with Rambo. He had to be shown to be
obsessed with getting at Rambo, he acts like a moron, enjoins
rules and regulations too much etc. He had to become an
unsympathetic bad guy in order for us to be involved in the
story.

[That same idea is behind many interpretations that depict Able as

not just a victim, but as the instigator of the attack. Why was Able
"in the field"? Was he searching for Cain because he wanted to
attack him? A pre-emptive strike? Many have thought so, including
19
some the ancient rabbinic commentaries. Then it is understandable
that we read: Cain rose against him - he was struck down, lay on the
ground and now he had to get up in order to defend himself. His
defense went too far - the violence was not balanced response. This
defensive violence is under scrutiny in the story then. Able is NOT a
pure victim as he was made out to be. Which makes the story even
more interesting because we loose the simple schematics of good
guy - bad guy.]

Cain becomes a murderer because he does not want to be

bound by this loyalty to his brother - i.e. fellow-man.
The "jealousy" that Cain feels is this denial of responsibility
and solidarity with Able. It makes him an opponent of Able a
competitor for the ultimate goal: the acknowledgment of his
existence by God. (Which may be taken symbolically for
"making it in life", to be truly human.)

Now many more things can be said about the story. We

haven't dealt with the response to Cain's murder, the idea of
'wandering" in the land of Nod (the land of confusion and
homelessness.) I had to make some choices.

20
 The main thing at the end is this:

The life in the City is essentially the life of wandering

individuals, striving for autonomy, in a context that will allow
them to attain this only by letting go of two basic connections:
first, the connection to the earth - implying an economic
system that makes farmers "serve" the needs of the city. Social
hierarchy and division of labor lead to a society where power
and violence are necessary to maintain order.
And secondly the connection between brothers. In the City in
principle one is alone.

Now all of this doesn't mean that we need to look at it exactly

like the author sees things. One might argue that he has a bleak
vision of city life, and that modern social institutions have
improved beyond the cities of antiquity - Nineveh, Babylon
and Rome being the bad examples the Bible refers to when
something has gone awfully wrong. I'm not presenting the text
as inspired truth but as literature - as an ancient text that
matters.

We know the story as it was presented to us by many

generations of teachers. It underlines the Myth of Redeeming
21
Violence. In this presentation I wanted to show that the story is
actually highly critical of that myth. It condemns violence. And
it shows us where violence begins: when we do not
acknowledge the responsibility to take care of others. All
others in principle.

And for those of you who might have heard of Immanuel

Lévinas, the French philosopher and ethicist, this does not
really come as a surprise. An ancient text can be reread in the
light of our modern knowledge and experience. And the story
can again be retold,. But now to counteract the pervading Myth
that says that Violence is the origin of many wonderful things,
cannot be avoided as long as there are bad guys out there, and
is just an instrument of politics.

2010 © Robbert A. Veen

22