Story, Shaping and Scapegoat: The Influence of the Day of Atonement on the Narrative of Cain and Abel

Story, Shaping and Scapegoat: The Influence of the Day of Atonement on the Narrative of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1-16)*
Mark J. Johnson
10/30/05
While there have been more than a few studies on the origins of the Cain and Abel narrative in the book of Genesis, to the best of my knowledge, none have been able to account for the majority of details in the story. Many of these focus on the conflict between the two brothers, while others look at the possible reasons that Cain’s offering was rejected.1
This study suggests a different approach to the Cain and Abel narrative. I posit that the story of Cain and Abel is framed in such a way to reflect the duties of the Hebrew high priest, and in particular, the rituals involved in the Day of Atonement mentioned in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus. A look at the details of the story in light of the Day of Atonement and other priestly activities illuminates the story in some unique and unexpected ways. A quick look of the ritual performed on the Day of Atonement will be taken first. After, the elements of the Cain and Abel story will be considered in the context of priestly activity. It will be shown that the influence of the ritual elements of Leviticus, especially the scapegoat ceremony of the Day of Atonement is vital for the shaping and understanding of biblical brothers, starting with Cain and Abel.
The Day of Atonement
The Day of Atonement was the most important and holy day for the ancient religion of Israel. This was the only time the High Priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies in the Temple or Tabernacle and the only time that the otherwise unspeakable name of Yahweh was allowed to be spoken. This day was the day Israel’s sins were atoned for and the people were allowed to prosper in the land. The Day of Atonement was originally part of a larger festival complex called the Feast of Ingathering.2 This feast was the most important of the year for ancient, pre-exilic Israel, but in later years, it was broken down into the separate components of Rosh ha-Shanah (the New Year), Yom Kippor (the Day of Atonement) and Sukkot (the Festival of Tabernacles).
The ritual of the Day of Atonement began with the High Priest selecting (through the casting of lots) the goat of/for3 Azazel and the goat of/for the Lord. The High Priest then placed an incense burner through the veil in the Holy of Holies to fill the area with smoke to symbolize the presence of the Lord as if in a cloud, recalling the events of the exodus. After the Holy of Holies had been prepared, a bull was sacrificed for a sin offering. The
* I would like to thank Margaret Barker and Richard Harmston for their input with earlier drafts of this paper.
1 Typical are K. Craig, Jr., “Questions Outside Eden (Genesis 4.1-16): Yahweh, Cain and their Rhetorical Interchange” JSOT 86 (1999) pp. 107-128 and A. Kim, “Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy: A Study in the History of the Interpretation of Envy in Genesis 4.1-4” JSP 12.1 (2001) pp. 65-84
2 M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985) pp. 297-98
3 The Hebrew could signify either.
1
blood then was taken into the Holy of Holies. The goat for the Lord is also sacrificed and its blood is taken into the Holy of Holies. The bloods of these were sprinkled before the mercy seat in a ‘whipping’ motion. This is done seven times. The corners of the altar were then sprinkled. This sprinkling was to cleanse and purify the holy places, atoning for the sins of Israel.
After the cleansing, the High Priest transferred the sins of Israel to the goat for Azazel, also known as the scapegoat by laying his hands on the goats head and praying. The scapegoat was then demarcated with a strand of red wool tied around its horns4. This was to act as a protective marker designating it as the scapegoat, so no harm will come to it as it carries Israel’s sins to their final destination. Someone described as a ‘fit man’ by the texts is assigned to lead the scapegoat outside the city walls and into the wilderness. The goat is eventually led to the edge of cliffs, where the goat is cast over the edge to its death. Other features of the Day of Atonement include the offering of additional sacrifices outside the camp. The women of Israel would go into the vineyards to sing and dance in prayer circles while dressed in while linen as part of the ceremonies.5
The goat for the Lord is typical of the traditional sacrifices of the Levites. The goat for Azazel is a little more mysterious and needs a bit of elaboration. Azazel was an important character in Israelite mythology. He led the fallen angels of Genesis 6.1-4. According to Barker,
“1 Enoch 10 describes the first punishment of these fallen angels. The Most High, the Great and Holy One sent his archangels to rescue the world from the dominion of the evil ones, one of whom was Azazel. Since he was the first to be punished and was blamed for all evil (1 Enoch 10.9), Azazel was probably the chief of the fallen angels”.6
Azazel is often referred to as a demon in many extra-biblical texts.7 The name ‘Azazel’ itself signifies ‘one (that) is sent away’ or ‘cast out’.8 The definition fits both the fallen angel and the goat that was typified of him.
Many scholars have suggested that the Day of Atonement rituals are based as being a re-enactment of the banishment of the rebellious Azazel from heaven after he led his rebellion. This is alluded to in many texts from Genesis 6.1-4 to Revelation 20.1. The main text describing this is 1 Enoch 10:
And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks,
4 This detail is not included in Leviticus 16, but it is part of the description of the ceremony in the Talmudic writings (Babylonian Talmud Yoma 41b)
5 A. Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services updated ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994) p. 214
6 M. Barker, The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem (London, SPCK:1991), p. 42
7 D. Rudman, “A Note on the Azazel-goat Ritual” ZAW 116 no. 3 pp. 396-397
8 J. C.R. De Roo, “Was the Goat for Azazel Destined for the Wrath of God? The Enigma of the Expression ‘Azazel’” Biblica 81 (2000) pp. 233-242
2
and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgment he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.’
The scapegoat, in similitude of Azazel, was cast out to the camp by a ‘fit man’, possibly a representative of Raphael, and thrown over a cliff onto jagged rocks below. Barker notes that the cultic act of destroying the scapegoat was a ritual representation of the expulsion of Azazel according to the Enoch tradition.9
A broad look at the Cain and Abel narrative in light of priestly activity will be taken, followed by a closer comparison of Cain with Azazel and the Scapegoat.
Priestly Activities in the Cain and Abel Narrative
In the biblical narrative, one of the first things mankind is recorded as doing is performing a sacrifice to the Lord. While there has been much speculation and scholarship regarding the nature of these offerings and why one was rejected and one was accepted, the present study is merely concerned with how the biblical author portrayed these events. The fact that sacrifices were recorded so early in the primeval history demonstrates the importance of priestly activity to the biblical author. At the very least, the presence of sacrifice in the narrative represents the author’s view of the importance of the relation and interaction between Yahweh and mankind.
The following elements of the Cain and Abel story reflect the activities of Israel’s High Priest. 1. The Acceptance of Priestly Offerings 2. Removal of the Curse/ Restoring the Cosmic Order 3. Bearing the Sins of Israel 4. Serving the Lord in his Presence 5. The Shining Countenance.
The Acceptance of Offerings
It is the primary function of the high priest to offer sacrifice on behalf of Israel. These sacrifices varied in form and function. Offerings such as bullocks, sheep, birds and even grains and liquids were all offered on altars on behalf of the Lord. Sacrifice was at the heart of the Old Testament. Sacrifices for the Lord had to be of the highest quality. The also had to be costly. A sacrificial animal was often one that would have fed an Israelite family for some time. Leviticus 1.4 tells that sacrifices (particularly burnt offerings) had two general purposes. First, the sacrifice was something that was to be accepted of the Lord. Secondly, the offering was to make atonement. This will be dealt with in the next section. Important for this study is the notion of acceptance. Wenham notes that if the individual offering the sacrifice is accepted, then the offering is also accepted. It is only when acceptance is achieved, that the atonement can be made.10
9 Barker, The Gate of Heaven p. 43
10 G. J. Wehnam, Levicitus (Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans: 1979) p. 55 3
Just as the later high priests, Cain and Abel performed sacrifices of meat and grains on the altar for an offering to the Lord. Why would the author portray these two men as performing something that is regularly associated with the Levites, especially since animal sacrifice was (with this exception) unknown until after the flood?11 I hope to answer that below. For now, it is important to acknowledge that Cain and Abel were acting in the role that later belonged to Israel’s high priest. The main emphasis in Genesis 4 is the idea of acceptance. The Levitical influence here is manifest in Abel’s offering (v. 4), the rejection of Cain’s offering (v. 5) and the hope that Cain himself would be accepted if he does well (v. 7). Both the offering and the one who offers are dependent on the Lord’s acceptance.
Removal of the Curse/Restoration of the Cosmic Order
One of the very ancient themes in the Hebrew Bible is that of the Cosmic Covenant.12 This particular view of all creation has the universe having been salvaged from chaotic forces and elements. Through creation, God brings order to what was desolation. Light is separated from darkness, waters are separated from other waters, and here in this state of order, man is allowed to exist. This view of chaos and desolation is often represented by demons and by leviathans in the primordial deep. And perhaps most curiously, the balance between order and chaos was often influenced by the actions of mankind Lev 26.3-4, 14, 20). It was the wickedness and violence of mankind that disrupted the order of God’s ways and resulted in a release of the waters of the deep in the flood of Genesis 6-9. In other words, the order of creation was reversed and revoked with the flood. The sinful acts of mankind brought about a de-creation of the world.13
Citing D. J. Davies, Wenham notes the connection between the covenant and the sacrifices that kept the order in check:
Israelite sacrifice was concerned with restoring the relationships between God and Israel, and between different members of the same nation. The Sinai Covenant had created a fellowship characterized by life and order, harmony between God and man and between man and man. Outside the covenant and its institutions was the realm of death and disorder from which Israel had been redeemed. Anything that disturbed this order, e.g., death disease, or sin, was a potential threat to the whole community, and sacrifice was the principal means for remedying the disruption and
11 Cassuto notes that the offering of animal sacrifices here in Genesis does not automatically suggest the eating of the animal’s flesh. See U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. I. From Adam to Noah, (Genesis 1-6:8) (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1981), p. 206). Just as the introduction of animals to the sacrificial uses of man was added in this chapter, so is the actual consumption of animals. It would be tempting to see the purpose of the introduction of meat to man’s diet as a necessary part of those sacrifices.
12 See R. Murray, Cosmic Covenant: Biblical Themes of Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation (London: Sheed and Ward) 1992 also R. Murray, “The Cosmic Covenant” The Ecologist 30/1 (2000) p. 25-29 and J. Geyer, “Desolation and Cosmos” Vetus Testamentum 49 (1999) pp. 49-64
13 See W. Gage, The Gospel of Genesis (Winona Lake: Carpenter, 1984) p. 19, and J. Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Baker: 1997) pp. 114-117 4
restoring harmony into the community. Different types of disruptions were corrected by difference kinds of sacrifice.14
One of the functions of the Day of Atonement was the preservation of this Cosmic Covenant. The sacrifices and offerings performed by the high priest was to remove or cover (Hebrew: kapporeth) the sins of mankind and maintain order. The scapegoat was driven into the wilderness because the wilderness represented chaos.15 The wilderness was inhabited with wild beasts just as chaos and desolation was populated with leviathans and dragons.
This is important to the Cain’s punishment in two ways. First, Cain himself, just as the scapegoat, is driven into the wilderness and out of God’s presence. This is a literal demonstration of what is happening on a spiritual or metaphysical level. Cain had violated the order of God and was cast into desolation. The second item to note is that the punishment of the story in Genesis is that the Earth is now cursed against Cain. The ground would ‘not henceforth yield’ up its fruits for him (v. 12). This is in direct contrast with his previous career as a ‘tiller of the earth’ (v. 2). The fact that the earth is cursed against him is a direct reflection of the rites of the Day of Atonement, which rites and sacrifices are to preserve the fertility of the earth. Rogerson summarizes:
The most important passage in the story is that which describes how the shedding of innocent blood affects the fertility of the land (vv. 10-12). The created order is not a machine that functions regardless of the behavior of human beings…there is a link between human mortality and obedience to God, and the fertility of the land. Even crimes not noticed or detected by human beings are an affront to God, bringing punishment to the offenders and a loss of strength to the earth. The passage expresses the conviction of the Old Testament faith that to believe in creation is to believe in an order in which human relationships play their part. The action of Cain is, in effect, an undoing of creation.16
The Bearing of Sin
On the Day of the Atonement, the high priest wore the name of the Lord on his forehead. This gave him the authority to bear the sins of Israel for the purposes of making atonement. This was done in connection with his carrying the blood of the sacrificed goat and bullocks into the presence of the Lord and sprinkling it before the kapporeth. The sins are then transferred to the head of the scapegoat, a detail which we shall discuss momentarily. Noteworthy for our study is the mention of Cain bearing the punishment of the Lord. The word for ‘bear’ in Hebrew is נשא (neshah) and is the same word that is used in Lev 16.22. The same root is also behind the sins that were borne in the “Suffering Servant” song of Isaiah 53. The fact that one man should bear the sins is important in this priestly context. In contrast to the high priest who carried the sins of all of Israel into the tabernacle, Cain was unable to bear his own sins.
14 Wenham, Levicitus, p. 25-26.
15 D. Rudman, “A Note on the Azazel-goat Ritual” ZAW 116 no. 3 (2004) 399
16 J. Rogerson, Genesis 1-11 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) pp. 67
5
Admission into the Presence of YHVH
It was the privilege of the High Priest to work in the Presence of the Lord, or in other words, in a temple setting. In addition, the prophets also enjoyed the presence of the Lord in priestly literature. The accounts of Throne Theophanies and Merkavah Ascents result in the participant being in the Divine Presence.17 The Holy of Holies in the ancient Tabernacle as well as the temple of Solomon contained the Ark of the Covenant, which is described as the throne of God. The setting of the Cain and Abel story is in the Presence of God. Abel and Cain, at least before he is cast out, are acting in the Presence.
The Fallen Countenance
Another feature of the being in the presence of the Lord is that one is given a shining face. The high priest (following the lead of Moses) was filled with the glory of the Lord as he leaves the divine presence. This glory or transfiguration resulted in a glow comparable with the glory of the angels.18 The chief example of this is Moses coming off of the Mt. Sinai, the skin of his face radiated (Ex 34.30). The account mentions that the Israelites fled from his appearance in terror.
When seen in light of this tradition, the detail of Cain’s fallen countenance takes on additional significance. Cain, who was once in the presence of the Lord and as one who offered sacrifices, would have been cast out and instead of the glowing state that accompanies the face of the high priest, Cain’s countenance is darkened and fallen. The face of Moses on the one hand and Cain on the other makes a powerful contrast19.
Cain as the Goat of Azazel, Abel as the Goat of Yahweh
Abel and Cain are portrayed in the same terminology as the sacrificial goats. This portrayal is a natural route to take. One of the goats was slain, while the other was cast out into the wilderness. This is of course, the same situation as Cain and Abel. One bother was slain, while the other was cast out. These basic parallels lead the author of the Genesis story to cast the Cain and Abel narrative in the shape of the offerings of the Day of Atonement. This view will show that many of the seemingly unrelated details in Genesis tie together in unanticipated ways.
The most obvious place to look is the feature of the scapegoat bearing the sins of Israel. The scapegoat had the sins of Israel transferred to its head by the high priest (Lev 16.22). This goat was to carry the sins of Israel, removing them from the presence of the people. It was the high priest who transferred the sins not covered by the sacrificed goat
17 M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford) 1993 and N. Janowitz, The Poetics of Ascent: Theories of Language in a Rabbinic Ascent Text (Albany: State University of New York Press) 1989.
18 P. Schäfer, The Hidden and Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism; translated by Aubrey Pomerance (Albany State University of New York Press, 1992) p. 127
19 Due to an ambiguity of the text, the word for ‘shining’ has also been translated as ‘horns’ and numerous rabbinical commentaries have stated that Moses actually had horns when he came down from Sinai. It would be tempting to equate the shinning countenance and the alternate ‘horns’ with the horns of the goat. See S. Sanders “Old Light on Moses’ Shining Face” Vetus Testamentum 52:3 (2002) pp. 400-406 6
for Yahweh to the goat for Azazel. As I mentioned above, the word for bear is the same in the Genesis account as it is in Leviticus. The scapegoat bears the sins and carries them from the camp and into the wilderness. This is situation is perfectly suited for Cain. Before he was cast out from the presence of the Lord, he complained that his punishment was greater than he could bear.
The Talmud (Yoma 41b) reports a detail not contained in the Bible. The scapegoat, before it is cast out of the camp and lead to its destruction; was marked with a piece of red wool to signify its status as a scapegoat and to give it protection along the way from those seeking to kill it, whether it be a hunter or a predator. The use of a red thread for protection has other analogues in the biblical narrative. Rehab the harlot, for example, was protected by tying a bit of crimson cloth to her window.
This detail of the red thread has a direct parallel with the Genesis story. The text reports that a mark was placed on him for his protection, “lest any who came upon him should kill him”. (Gen 4.15)
If Cain can rightly be seen as a representative of the scapegoat, then Abel’s role falls right in place with that of the goat for the Lord. As mentioned above, the blood of the goat of the Lord is sprinkled in the presence of the Lord in the Holy of Holies. This blood was to cleanse and purify as the high priest made atonement. This sacrifice was to perpetuate the Eternal Covenant and to ensure the subjugation of Desolation. In other words, these sacrifices were supposed to prevent the Lord from cursing the ground and to restore order to the natural world. The slaying of Abel is portrayed in similar terms and the author evokes imagery typical of the Day of Atonement and the cosmic order.20 The blood of Abel is said to cry from the ground and the earth is now cursed for Cain’s sins. The result of Abel’s murder is that Desolation is pronounced upon the Earth.
Other Indicators
There are other textual clues which suggest the author has overlain a priestly template onto the narrative. Most telling is the phrase מקץ ימים (miqqetz yammim) which gives the setting of the events. The RSV translates this as “In the course of time…” This should be literally translated as “At the end of days”. Some scholars have suggested this should be understood as ‘At the end of the year’.21 The use of ‘At the end of days’ indicates more than the passing of time, it points toward a specific time, particularly the New Year and its accompanying festivals. Remember that the Feast of Ingathering took place just after the New Year began. This specific time frame assigned to the text opens the possibility for the events to take place during a festival day.22
The connection between Cain and Azazel also might shed light on another enigmatic verse in the Cain narrative. Commentators have long been puzzled by the reading of
20 Paul seems to equate the blood of sprinkling with the blood of Abel when he writes “And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” (Heb 12.24)
21 For instance, see Cassuto, From Adam to Noah p. 205
22 This fitting of a biblical event to a specific time frame seems akin to the methods employed in The Book of Jubilees. The author of Jubilees also was notorious for reworking events of Israel’s history to a fixed (sometimes ritual based) calendar. See J. VanderKam, An Introduction To Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans: 2001) p. 98 7
verse 7, where sin is said to be crouching at the door. The Hebrew for ‘crouching’ can also be translated as a ‘demon’ waiting for Cain. Since Azazel is also characterized as a demon, it might not be too much speculation to connect the demon of Genesis 4:7 with the fallen angel Azazel. The fallen angel would be the one who would desire to have Cain.23
Implications and Results
If these comparisons to the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement in the Cain and Abel narrative are justifiable, then this opens up a few unique possibilities about the nature and purpose of the text of Genesis 4.
One option is that Cain and Abel shared the duties of a high priest, because the text discusses the actions of Cain and Abel in terms often used in the temple and priestly context Sacrifice and offerings were nothing new in Israel’s history. Remember that men from Noah to Jacob all offered sacrifice before the time of Moses. Perhaps they had priestly duties of one form or another in that ancient environment.
Another option, and one that isn’t necessarily separate from the first, is that the narrative of Cain and Abel was crafted by an author familiar to the rites and customs of the Day of Atonement. By using and assigning the actions and verbiage of the scapegoat, the author hoped to draw a powerful allusion between the Cain narrative on the one hand and the scapegoat on the other. If the author paints Cain in the same light as the scapegoat, we see the author equating Cain to Azazel and give them a similar fate and judgment.
A further possibility is that the Cain and Abel story provided a basis for the rites of the Day of Atonement, with the ritual re-enacting the event in a symbolic way. This last option seems unlikely because of the parallels with the mythos of the Fallen Angels in the history of Israel. Due to the importance of the Azazel story in Israel’s myths, the connections to the fallen angels with the procedures of the Day of Atonement would seem a more likely parallel, regardless of the actual origin of the rites. In addition, while the Cain and Abel story seems to allude to the rites of the Day of Atonement, there is nothing in Leviticus narrative alluding to the Genesis story. The parallels only go one way.
This leaves the possibility that the Cain and Abel narrative was shaped to reflect and recount the rites of the Day of Atonement and by extension, reflects the story of Azazel and the Fallen Angels. This seems most likely as this version of the Cain and Abel story would have been composed of when the rites of the Day of Atonement were practiced. And if one accepts Mosiac authorship for the Pentateuch, it seems likely that the one who composed our received story of Cain and Abel also instituted or renewed the ordinances of the Day of Atonement.
This interpretation would also support the notion that Abel offered animal sacrifice in a time before animals were regularly sacrificed. Orlov notes that regarding Abel’s animal sacrifice, “these…did not establish any sacrificial pattern for future generations”.24 It wasn’t until the time of Noah that animal sacrifices were regularly offered. The Book of
23 See also the discussion in Cassuto, From Adam to Noah pp. 208-213
24 A. Orlov, "Noah's Younger Brother": The Anti-Noachic Polemics In 2 Enoch” Henoch 22.2 (2000) pp. 207-221 8
Jubilees even attests to this by ascribing the offerings made by Adam and later Enoch as incense offerings. If Abel’s offering seems out of place, it is because of a later interpolation which was to draw parallel with the later Levitical priests.25
The author of the Cain and Abel story chose the details and events of their early sacrifices, the murder and expulsion to show the figures of Cain and Abel as living in the same economy and surroundings of the priests of the Day of Atonement in ancient Israel.
Cain and Abel: A Paradigm
The Pentateuch is an amalgamation of various themes. It is a national epic, a dynamic legitimizing of Israel’s history. It is a story of nations set against a background of one family line. The story of the Pentateuch is the history of Israel. This carefully crafted and abridged history is to connect Israel to God by showing that Israel is the chosen people. And all of this is seen through the lens of the covenant with Abraham and the Law given to Moses on Sinai.
Thus we have two aspects of the chosen status. One part of being the chosen people is being among the children of Abraham. Through his faith and Good works, God had chosen Abraham to carry the blessings of the Eternal Covenant, previously held by men such as Noah (Gen 9.1-17). Abraham was promised that through his posterity would come the blessings of God’s covenant. Abraham begins the formal pattern of being of a chosen status. This process was demonstrated by having Abraham separate and distinguish himself from his sinful family. First Abraham separates himself from his father Terah and his brother Nahor, then later from his nephew Lot. Abraham chooses to follow God’s commands, while the other members of his family do not. The pattern continues with Abraham’s sons Isaac and Ishmael; with brothers Jacob and Esau, and later with Joseph and his brothers. One brother continues the covenant relationship with God while the other brother goes free of the sacred obligation.
Along with Abraham acting as one pillar stands Moses acting as the other. The context of the Pentateuch is the law given to Moses on Sinai. All the chapters and events of the Hebrew Bible are judged according to the Law, regardless of whether the participants lived before of after the events of Sinai. Indeed, the status of a brother being chosen over his brother was ultimately hinged on his obedience to the law.
Just as Abraham and Moses stand as two pillars in Israel’s religious history; the the dual aspects discussed above, i. e., diligence to the law and the continuance of the covenant by victory over a brother appear to be the two dominant themes of the Pentateuch, casting a very long shadow. Mary Douglas has shown that these two pillars are more closely related than one might realize. She insightfully notes that the ritual acts of the scapegoat in Leviticus 16 and that of the ‘scape-bird’ of Leviticus 14 are paralleled with the various brothers in the Old Testament, and in particular Isaac and Ishmael and Jacob and Esau.26 She notes that one from the pair of brothers was called to serve the Lord by covenanting with him, just as the animal selected for the Lord by Lot was chosen to be sacrificed. The other brother was selected to live outside of the covenant, or to
25 The cultic offerings of Leviticus would then explain why the more savory offering was accepted, Abel’s offering was an appropriate sacrifice for the occasion, while Cain’s was the wrong type and rejected. See also S. Levin, “The More Savory Offering: A Key of the Problem of Genesis 4:3-5” JBL 98/1 (1979) p. 85
26 M. Douglas, Leviticus as Literature (Oxford, Oxford University Press: 1999) pp. 247-251 9
escape free of its obligations and blessings, just as the scapegoat and ‘scape-bird’. The situation in these patriarchal narratives shows that the two brothers are two parts of a greater whole, just as the offerings of the Day of Atonement.27 The situation of the brothers reflects the sacrifices and the sacrifices are a type of the consecration and separation of the brothers. The narrative of Cain and Abel follows the same pattern and sets the stage for the pairs of brothers to come.
ABSTRACT
The actions of Cain and Abel in the book of Genesis bear strong resemblances to the activities of the high priest in Ancient Israel as well as rituals performed at the Day of Atonement as described in Leviticus 16 and other places. This study argues that the rituals and ceremonies of the Day of Atonement provided the narrative and rhetorical framework for the Cain and Abel story. The influence of priestly thought and procedure has telling ramifications for the periscope in Genesis 4.1-16 and portrays the biblical editors’ thoughts on the subject of sacrifice and atonement.
27 Douglas, Leviticus as Literature, 251. Also W. Brown, The Tabernacle: Its Priests and Services Updated Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996) pp. 139-140
10