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
Sources
Biblehub.com/commentaries
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
