genesis

Many commentators note that the lineage of Cain in Genesis 4 is followed by a genealogy of Seth in Genesis 5 and compare the two lines, treating Cain’s line as godless and Seth’s line as godly. This particularly appears, for …

In Genesis 4:19-22, we read a short account of some of Cain’s decendents:

Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes. Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.

It’s noticeable right away that this line is very inventive. They’re seemingly credited for:

• Nomadic herding
• Stringed instruments and pipes
• Bronze and iron working

Possibly also the line is the first to build a city (Cain v. 17) and take two wives (Lamech, v. 19).

Given that the line starts with Cain who murdered his brother and who lives under a curse, and ends in this section with Lamech who is also a murderer, what is the author’s purpose in noting the inventions that came from Cain and his decendents? Is the author trying to somehow ameliorate their reputation? Or perhaps tarnish the their inventions by linking them to their character? Simply recording the history of a few items? Or something else?

The account of the first six days of creation as found in Genesis 1 is highly stylized, though with variations. For instance, each day ends, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the (n)th day.”

One variation that jumps out pertains to the statement, “And God saw that it was good.” This phrase is present on each of the first six days, except that it is peculiarly absent on the second day. I do note that on the third day this statement appears twice, with its first appearance being after what feels like a continuation of the separation of waters begun on the second day. It’s absence is conspicuous enough, though, that it feels intentional on the part of the author. But what was the author trying to convey here? Why omit this otherwise repeated refrain?