The legacy of Cain (Possession1)
If I, and my people, claim descent from the father Cain, I rather think I should know what that means. I am aware that there is no way on this planet that a literal lineage can be claimed, or can I even prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he existed. And then I need to consider that even mythopoetically to claim to be of the blood of Cain, is in itself explosive as everyone knows the tale of the first murderer. So I ask myself, by giving my allegiance to the line of Cain, what does that mean to me and my tribe?
Therefore in this exploration I choose not to prove whether Cain lived or not; as this matters little. Nor do I wish to clear his name, although whilst digging I may do so. I intend to simply uncover what this allegiance means, and how this affects my very being. I won’t be looking at the nature of Cain as the first agriculturalist; I will leave that till another time. This introductory article will be the first in a series investigating what it means to be the offspring of Cain, and what I and my people have inherited.
To begin at the beginning, as the saying goes; and which suggests to me trawling in the depths of the large sea of creation myths; so logically I will start with the one I know best, the tale found In the Genesis account, the first book of the Bible. It is from this springboard that I intend to propel myself toward the other tales least known to me at this moment in time. However I am sure that in a little while we will become the very best of friends.
It is Genesis 4 of the Bible that tells us the story of the firstborn son of the first couple, Adam and Eve. The narrator begins by saying, (A.V) ‘And Adam knew Eve his wife and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, “I have gotten a man from the LORD.” Already we see something interesting, it appears that Eve, understandably felt the Creator God of the Bible had a hand in this marvel. At that time nothing else but a miracle would have transpired in the creation of another human. However it could be read that Eve felt this child was part deity, a son of God. And it was the ‘LORD’ and not Adam that played the main part here.
And then there have been many who feel that this ‘LORD’ could be someone else entirely. When we consider the words of John at 1 John 3, 12 this is understandable. Here he states that ‘Cain was of the evil one.’(English Standard Version)And I am not presuming John meant the ‘LORD’ or Adam for that matter. It does appear to read on the surface that Cain was a child of someone else. However the trouble with this argument, if you are looking to only Genesis 4 v 1 as evidence, the Hebrew translation of the word ‘LORD’ as presented in ‘biblehub.com’ clearly shows the Tetragrammaton, those famous four letters commonly translated as Yahweh.
Yes I do realise that John could be referring negatively to Cain’s action. Nevertheless It does become interesting to consider what ideas John and his cohorts would have been exposed to by the time John was writing. Luckily we can look at a lot of the material said to date from between the time of the Hebrew exile in Babylon, or the collation of the first books of the Bible, and the first century AD. So let’s consider some of the ideas that may have been oozing around in Palestine at the time of Johns’ writing.
One of these thoughts according to Robert Graves and Raphael Patai, (p64)
‘That God made Adam perfect, although liable to be mislead by a wrong exercise of free will, is the main moral of these myths and glosses. It deprives man of an excuse to sin, and justifies God’s command to Abraham: “I am almighty God, walk before me and be perfect!” Nevertheless the origin of evil continued to puzzle the sages. They invented a myth of Eve’s seduction by Samael, who begot Cain the murderer on her, though Genesis specifically makes Adam father Cain as well as Abel.’
So it appears that a later date texts were penned to resolve the nature of the roots of evil and sin. Another idea in circulation between the date of the exile in the 6th century BCE and the first century AD.
‘Some say that Samael disguised himself as the Serpent and after vengefully persuading man to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, fathered Cain upon Eve thus defiling all the offspring of her subsequent union with Adam.” (Ch 14, a)(Hebrew Myths)
To our modern sensibilities this is a rather disturbing idea. However it is interesting to follow this thought for a little longer. The online Jewish Encyclopaedia indicates that Samael is the prince of the demons, the accuser seducer and destroyer. His name literally translates as “the venom of god” he is equated with the angel of death, and appears to get the blame for many of mankind’s misdemeanours. So we are still looking for a reason for Cain to have done something, which on the surface, appears to wrong. So as a way round this Cain’s paternity is brought into question. And to add further interest to the can of worms I have just opened, the ‘Fourth Book of Maccabees’ indicates that there was a popular belief that snakes desired intercourse with women. (Graves;Patai) The Book of Maccabees is generally considered to date from between the 1st Century BCE and the 1st AD. So it does become possible that John knew of these ideas such as these as the work known as the First Epistle of John was penned during 98 or 99 AD.
Furthering this point Graves and Patai indicate on p 86 that;
‘An alleged desire of divine serpents to impregnate mortal women appears in many mythologies. Sacred serpents kept in Egyptian temples acted as the god’s procreative agent. The second Tanis Papyrus contains a list of sacred given to such beneficent serpents housed in the larger temples. Among the Greeks too, barren women would lie all night on the floor of Asclepius’s temple, hoping that the god would appear in serpent shape and impregnate them during sleep. At the Phrygian Mysteries of Sabazius, women ritually married the god by letting live snakes, or golden replicas, slide between their breasts down to their thighs.
Another creation myth where sin sexuality and serpents appear to entwine around each other is found in a ‘Gnostic Hokhma-myth which originated in Jewish circles and was hypothetically reconstructed as follows:’
Out of the primeval Chaos God created the seven archons through the intermediacy of his Wisdom, which was identical with the “dew” of “light”. Wisdom now cast her eidolon, or shadow-image, upon the primeval waters of the Tohu wa-Bohu, whereupon the archons formed the world and the body of man. Man crawled about on the earth like a worm, until wisdom endowed him with spirit. Satan, in the shape of the serpent, had intercourse with Eve who thereupon bore Cain and Abel. Thus sexuality became the original sin. After the fall, the sons of Seth fought the sons of Cain. When the daughters of Cain seduced the sons of Seth, Wisdom brought the flood upon the Earth. Later, in her efforts to help mankind sent seven prophets, from Moses to Ezra, corresponding to the seven planets. In the myth Wisdom, acting loke a female deity, clearly resembles the Gnostic concept of the anima mundi, the “world soul.” (Patai; The Hebrew Goddess)
So it appears that the idea that Satan had sex with Eve in the ‘shape of a serpent’ was not considered too diabolical to consider. And it does give Jesus’ words in Mathew 23, 33 a rather different slant where he accuses the scribes and Pharisees of being ‘snakes; and ‘offspring of vipers’ (English Revised Version)
Back to Cain’s birth, and leaving serpents and snakes aside for a moment; in ‘The Book of Adam and Eve from VITA ADAE ET EVAE’ Eve appears to be pregnant, she cries out to Adam to intercede on her behalf, he calls for help, or to be more precise ‘And Adam entreated the Lord for Eve.’ As a result a rather excessive cavalry of twelve angels and two “virtues” attended either side of Eve.
‘Michael was standing on the right; and he stroked her on the face as far as the breast and said to Eve: “Blessed art thou, for Adam’s sake. Since his prayers and intercessions are great, I have been sent that thou mayst receive our help. Rise up now and prepare thee to bear.” And she bore a son and he was shining; and at once the babe rose up and ran and bore a blade of grass in his hands and gave it to his mother, and his name was called Cain.’ (The Lost Books of the Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden) (The name Cain is also said to mean ‘stalk’.[Hebrew Myths])
Interesting but not necessarily relevant, the “virtues” are ‘known as the Spirits of Motion, and control the elements. They are sometimes referred to as “the shining ones.” They govern all nature; control over the seasons, stars, moon, and even the sun is subject to their command. They are also in charge of miracles, courage, grace, and valour. (Catholic Online)
It does appear that I cannot escape the serpent for too long as the afore mentioned shining one becomes an echo from an earlier Bible verse as the ‘serpent’ of Genesis 3, v 1, (International Standard Version) is translated here as ‘the shining one’. The reason for this is that direct translation of the Hebrew word ‘Ha-Nachash’ is ‘the Shining One, or the Diviner, i.e. the one who falsely claims to reveal God’s word; or the Serpent.’ (I.S.V, footnotes) So it is also possible to see a link between angelic beings, and serpents.
The history of snakes in religious practises is an interesting one. Although snakes play a part in the legacy of the inheritors of the mark of Cain I have not time to delve too deeply on the subject here. But however we choose to consider the myth; we have a tale of a man whose roots come from a divine non-human line, a firstborn, tribal father, priest and king.
Following the birth of Cain in Genesis we are told that Eve ‘gave birth also to Abel’, no mention of the Lord here, which may mean a lot, or very little. We need to build our picture to a greater depth to get a clearer view of this.
Next,the Genesis account tells how Cain tilled the soil, and Abel was a keeper of sheep. So some time must have past from the moments of expulsion from the garden, where all had been provided without the need of excessive ‘sweat of the brow.’ Man has learnt to cultivate and keep herds, a big leap from a hunter gatherer. In fact according to Joseph Campbell Joseph ‘the great Paleolithic caves of Europe are from circa 30000 B.C.; and the beginning of agriculture 10000 B.C. or so and the first substantial towns about 7000. Rather large jumps in time here, worth taking into consideration. Or more logically, we are not examining historical facts, but a myth that has withstood the sands of time, because it still has relevance today. The next statement supports this ‘And in process of time it came to pass;’ inevitably time has passed, we don’t know how many other children would have been born. Apparently we have rather long lived children and they are brothers and sisters to boot, going forth and multiplying. ‘That is a sin’, I hear you shout, although compared to sex with serpents it appears almost respectable. But remember that in this context Cain is a child of the Lord, which makes him a rather different breed, so putting completely human laws upon such beings in this context is illogical. And then these are myths, and how many other myths can you find where brothers and sisters mate?
So ‘Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, an offering unto the LORD,’ And what of his brother Abel, ‘he also brought of the firstling of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect for Abel and to his offering:’ it does feel as if Cain and Abel are the chiefs of two tribes. Cain and Abel appear as chiefs and priests, and they have the role of making the sacrifice on the part of others. I will add a bit more evidence to this theory in a moment.
Following this, as we know the ‘LORD’ had ‘not respect’ for Cain and his offering. ‘And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.’ or as the Young’s Literal Translation indicates “and it is very displeasing to Cain.” This translation puts a rather different slant on things. To be ‘very angry’ or ‘very wroth’ is very different to something displeasing to one. The difference in these two positions is obvious, if something is displeasing to me I become upset, and would want to put it right. Rather different to angry and wanting vengeance. So Cain became displeased that his offering wasn’t good.
Then the LORD, asks ‘what’s up with you Cain?’ (My translation obviously) Even though he must know, or should know the answer. At this time it appears that Cain doesn’t answer; if he does it is not deemed important enough to record. However the LORD replies with a statement open to interpretation. “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.”
Clarke’s commentary on the Bible at Biblehub.com indicates that the Hebrew translation of the word ‘sin’ here, literally translates as ‘a sin-offering’. Therefore we read; “Have recourse to thy maker for mercy, a sin-offering lieth at the door.” Clarke argues that the word that is here translated sin, is also translated over a hundred times in the old testament where a sin-offering is indicated.
An interesting thought has been circulated by many, (S.H. Hooke being one of them) which examines the word translated, ‘lieth’ or ‘croucheth’ which it appears as the same word as the Akkadian word or ‘the evil croucher’ awaiting the sacrifice. This figure was a familiar one in Babylonian magical texts. So basically Cain needs to do it again, another sacrifice is needed as the one before didn’t do the job.
The next verse indicates that Cain talked with Abel. Again according to Clarke, this translation of ‘talk’ is misleading; it appears that there was a conversation when there wasn’t. Clarke indicates, ‘not talked, for this construction the word cannot bear without great violence to analogy and grammatical accuracy. But why should it be thus translated? Because our translators could not find that anything was spoken on the occasion; and therefore they ventured to intimate that there was conversation’. Some texts translate this as ‘Let us walk out.’ Or ‘Let us walk out into the field.’
However, as we know, ‘Cain rose up against his brother Abel and slew him.’ So was this the first murder or a blood sacrifice? Perhaps a sacrifice performed by a King-Priest who needed a blood sacrifice to atone for the sins of the tribe. Which is why the ‘earth opened her mouth to receive thy brothers blood.’ (Gen 4.11) Note the earth here is ‘her’. Maybe ‘She’, the earth, received the sacrifice.
Now the ‘LORD’ asks yet another rather daft question for an all seeing deity, and not for the first time in the book of Genesis. He asked something similar of Adam and Eve, an ‘I know what you have done but I need you to confess’ type question. ‘Where is Abel thy brother?’ then comes one of the pieces of scripture that everyone knows. Cain’s reply; ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’
As we know, Cain was then cursed by the ‘LORD’ because “the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.” Some suggest that perhaps Cain had buried the body. However if we cross reference to Hebrews 12, 24 it states; “And to Jesus the mediator of the New covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, and speaketh better things than that of Abel.” Interestingly Clarke links this verse in Hebrews to ‘the sprinkling of the blood of the sin-offerings before the mercy-seat.’ Although I must admit that Clarke in his commentary infers that this verse in Hebrews refers to Abel’s sacrifice. I read ‘that of Abel’ as the blood of Abel himself, and not his sacrificial animal. The italics are obviously added at a later date to slant the meaning. Therefore this text is referencing the atonement value of Abel’s blood in comparison with Jesus’.
Holding onto that thought it is also interesting to spend a moment considering the Hebrew rite of atonement; Yom Kippur. In this cleansing ceremony two goats were used. Lots were cast to decide which one would be ritually sacrificed, and the other sent off as an outcast (“For Azazel”) into the wilderness to meet its death, carrying the weight of the sins of the nation with it. (Leviticus 16 8-10)) Many bible translations here render Azazel as scapegoat if one checks the interlinear translation at Biblehub.com, the name Azazel is clearly there. Whatever argument Bible commentators put forward as an explanation for this; it is interesting to note that in the Book of Enoch Azazel is named as one of the leaders of the watchers.
Going off at a tangent for a moment, one of the things that has always fascinated me is that the angelic being said to have instructed mankind in the use of metals and weapons is also the one who educates mankind in the making and use of cosmetics. Yet these arts are not mutually exclusive especially when considering what went, and goes, into cosmetics; these ingredients were known to have included oxidised copper, different coloured copper ores, lead and ochre. In the first book of Enoch we are told that Azazel taught the uses of antimony; which is a lustrous grey metalloid used in cosmetics among other things. If applied to the face it would make the face appear as ‘shining’. And it is from antimony we get kohl; a most ancient of cosmetic, which I still use in modern form daily to make my eyes appear more ovoid and ‘serpent like’.
Many things have been written on the subject of the scapegoat that I can’t go into here but I do want to suggest that the goat could not be considered to be a sinner, but a sinless vehicle for the removal of sin. William Holman Hunt’s image of the scapegoat shows the goat as being weighed down by the sins of the nation; which highlights the consideration by some Christians that this goat represents Jesus. So by symbolic expression it can be considered that “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood – to be received by faith.” Romans 3. 25 (N.I.V) However it does appear that the goat whose blood is shed may make a better sacrament to represent Jesus, and the other goat that is sent into the desert, Azazel his brother. It is also interesting that a bull was chosen to represent the sins of Aaron and his family, yet it was the goat that was chosen for Azazel. By medieval times Azazel was being linked to Samael which take us back to the serpent.
Returning to the thought of a sacrifice of atonement; Hooke points out that the agricultural Babylonian New Year festival saw a sacrificial priest and an exorcist, set to task purifying the shrine of Marduk’s son Nabu. Having covered the walls of the shrine with the blood of a slain sheep,this they went into the desert until after the festival as by this act they were defiled.’
So as sacrifice, and sacrificer, Cain becomes defiled, but not for long However, although Genesis states that Cain ends up with a punishment “worse than he can bare” which includes becoming a vagabond, as ‘When thou tillest the ground, it shall henceforth not yield unto thee her strength.’ It doesn’t last. And then what is Cain worried about? After all you would think his crime would warrant death. However this would not apply if his guilt was communal and not individual. It is worth considering that he was not a common murderer, but his act was for the good of the community
Now Cain voices a concern; “every one that findeth me shall slay me.” You can see why earlier I indicated that Cain and Abel were not the only ones around. Apparently all those living are not listed; only those who bore a relation to the lineage. But remember that we have two separate lines here, and therefore two separate communities, so he would still be in fear of those to whom the sacrifice did not apply. He would have been cut off from his tribe, and from the face of his deity.
We can see this when we consider that the Lord doesn’t turn round and say ‘don’t be silly, there are only your mum and dad left,’ but says; “therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken of him sevenfold.’ And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.’ I won’t waste space looking at Sir James Frazer’s solution that this could have been the ghost of Abel that would want to kill, him. But will swiftly move on to the mark.
I would suggest that this ‘mark’ was put there so that others would know what he was. By that I mean that he was a priest who had just performed a ritual killing for the good of others. So the mark he was given would then signify his priestly status., and protect him from the death penalty. As we know a marking placed on the body was commonly worn outward sign of this status. We know from Ezekiel 9 that marks were put upon those warranting salvation. The 144,000 of Revelation 14, bears the mark ‘of their Father’s name written in their forehead.’ And then further down the same chapter, v 9 the third angel gets the job of marking those worshipping the beast, with his mark on their forehead or hand. In Cain’s case, this mark was a mark of salvation.
Cain; then settled ‘East of Eden in the land of Nod’. So he wasn’t a ‘vagabond’ for the rest of his life. We are told he had a son called Enoch and may no longer have been a tiller of the field. After all he was told that this was not a good idea as the ground was no longer going to ‘give thee her strength’. So in the meantime he would have to learn new skills. Note again that the ‘ground’ was again ‘her’ in some of the bible translations. However this is a rather interesting to note that It was She who received the blood of Abel and from Her grace that Cain was banished whilst he carried the weight of the sins.
After this short period of time he was amazingly successful for a ‘cursed’ man; we next read that he ‘builded a city’ and named it ‘Enoch.’ Seems like a rather large transformation went on here, a tiller of the ground became a builder of a city, in what was considered to be a nomad, agricultural community. He was also successful in fathering offspring, his genealogy is listed leading to Tubal-cain and his sister Naamah; a subject for future development. As a little side note, you would think that the punishment from an all powerful god would be to prevent further offspring of such a sinful seed, if that is the case, or am I just putting a cruel gloss on a ‘LORD’ who wipes out whole nations; babes and all, a little later on?
The Book of Jubilees tells us that Cain died in the same year as Adam. ‘for his house fell upon him and he died in the midst of his house, and he was killed by its stones, for with a stone he had killed Abel,’. Considering this book is of a much later date to the Genesis account, it may be a case of a ‘let’s make this story work for us,’ idea. However there is an alternative view of Cain’s mode of demise. It is here indicated that Lamech, Cain’s descendent; killed Cain. The tale is told by Graves and Patai, (p108)
‘This Lamech was a mighty hunter, and like all others of Cain’s stock married two wives. Though grown old and blind he continued to hunt, guided by his son Tubal-Cain. Whenever Tubal Cain sighted a beast, he would direst Lamech’s aim. One day he told Lamech “I spy a head peeping over yonder ridge.” Lamech drew his bow; Tubal Cain pointed an arrow which transfixed the head. But on going to retrieve the quarry, he cried. ‘Father you have shot a man with a horn growing from his brow! Lamech answered, “alas it must be my ancestor Cain!” and struck his hands together in grief, thereby inadvertently killing Tubal Cain also. ‘
Neither tales can be supported however it does become intriguing to note that “the hunter and the hunted are but one” 2
Now there is another side to this tale that should be examined. Although I indicated at the beginning that Cain means possession according to the Bible Dictionary, there is also a valid argument for the name Cain as qyn. If you take a look at the interlinear text of Genesis 1 as seen in Biblhub.com you can clearly see the word is spelt ‘qayin’. Bearing in mind the lack of vowels in the Hebrew text, you can see how this is arrived at, and this does put a rather different slant on things. The online ‘Jewish Virtual Library’, under the heading ‘Kenite’ indicates that a Kenite is ‘a large group of monadic clans engaged chiefly in metal working. The root qyn has the same meaning in cognate Semitic languages,’ “tinsmith” “metalsmith” and “craftsman”. The article goes onto say that ‘In the Bible the word kayin (qayin) is a weapon made of metal, probably a spear (2 Samuel 21 16)’ and that ‘Tubal-Cain who forged all tools of copper and iron” (Genesis 4, 22) is a compound name in which the second noun indicates the trade.’
Interesting stuff; it does bring three thoughts to mind. Could Cain have been the first worker in metal? Could he have killed Abel with a metal spear? If so does this suggest a rather later date in the prehistory of mankind. Again, as we have seen there were other people around who may want to kill Cain. The same article goes on to say that ‘Among primitive tribes to the present day there are clans of coppersmiths and tinsmiths whom it is considered a grave offense to harm.’ Perhaps Abel was killed with the implement that Cain used in his work as ‘a tiller of the ground.’ or perhaps he had a ritual implement. After all, Abel had just sacrificed one of his flock before. It is worth asking oneself what he is supposed to have used to do so. It does seem that his name indicates he already had knowledge of smithcraft, and therefore was able to tame and use fire water and air. But then all this is just an interesting mythical journey, if all we have left is the flood, and the destruction of Cain’s line, and all that meant to this priestly class and their descendants was to be deluged by forty days and forty nights of rain.
The bible tells us that Eve had a child to replace Abel, and his name was Seth. Again it becomes very intriguing. We are presented with two lines of descent, both leading from the Sons of Adam and Eve, down to the flood of Noah. Both lines show sons with identical, or similar sounding names., very strange if there are meant to be the only people on the earth at that time you would think a bit more variety would be a good idea, especially as one line was chosen, and one damned. Hooke makes an interesting point that becomes evident in comparison. Seth’s firstborn is Enosh, and Enosh, is ‘merely another Hebrew word for ‘man’ and a synonym for Adam,’ then comes Kenan, the ‘Hebrew form of Cain.’ Both lines lead down to Lamech, of whom we mentioned previously. It does appear that someone was trying desperately to make a story fit the audience it was intended for. Not something unknown these days is it? Try taking verse 25 and 26 of chapter 4 and the whole of Genesis 5 out of the way and the story becomes very different. And then looking at the other references to Seth to be found, we can see that the one in Chronicles is repeating the Genesis account, Luke 3 also traces this genealogy, then we look at The Book of Jubilees and The Book of Adam and Eve, there are only 3 mentions in The Book Of Enoch, all these citations are of a much older date. It does appear strange that the book of Enoch doesn’t make more of a point of the lineage. It appears that a yarn was woven together to produce a fabric that supported a religious purpose.
Therefore it does appear that the addition of Seth’s line becomes a necessary piece of spin used to wipe out any influence of the Watchers from the face of the earth, and clear the way for a pure race. However it is evident that if we were to argue that the flood destroyed the inhabited world at the time. The myths still indicate that this information survived, tucked up tight upon a large vessel that bobbed away on the waters until it could alight upon a mountain top, and be brought into action once again for the benefit of mankind.
So it seems we can learn a lot from these tales; to bear the mark of Cain we seek the right to be of a priestly class. And being so we can freely seek the knowledge we have a right to. This knowledge, the knowledge is the knowledge of the watchers which I will turn my attention to at another date. And by this exploration pursuing the thought that there could be a link between Cain and Azazel?
And then there is the other woman mentioned in the Genesis account apart from Eve. This woman is Naamah, who is she, and why was she thought so important that she should get such a mention that grabs ones attention?
1 Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary (1912)The John C Winston Company, Chicago, Philadelphia,
2Robert Cochrane, see Tubelo’s Green Fire p152
Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis, Graves, R. Patai, R. (1966) McGrew-Hill book company, New York
Middle Eastern Mythology, Hooke, S.H, (1963) Penguin Books, Middlesex,
Myths To Live By,(1973) Campbell, J , A Bantam Book, Viking Penguin. Inc
Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary (1912)The John C Winston Company, Chicago, Philadelphia,
The Book of Jubilees, also known as the little Genesis, (1913) Charles, R.H. Oxford Clarendon Press.
The Palestine Pictorial Bible, The Holy Bible, (Authorized Version) The Scripture Gift Mission, The Strand London, Oxford University Press.
The Hebrew Goddess, Patai, R, (1990) Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan
Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis, (1966) Graves, R; Patai, R. McGraw-Hill Book company, New York.
The Lost Books of the Bible, and The Forgotten Books of Eden, translated Lightfoot, J.B and Charles, R.H (1913) published (1926) Rutherford H Platt, edited and republished by E.C. Marsh (2010)
The Star Crossed Serpent Volume 1, Jones, E, J. & Oates, S. (2012) Mandrake of Oxford, Oxford.
The Cross In Modern Art,(1916) Rev John Linton M.A. Duckworth and Co, London.
Tubelo’s Green Fire, Oates, S. (2011) Mandrake Of Oxford. Oxford.
Catholic Online https://www.catholic.org/saints/angels/angelchoir.php