-4

This article is expressing that "Qayin" derived from the 1st millenium BC South Arabic word Qyn, and that Cain is not a name old enough in Bible times of the 2nd millenium. Is it plausible that this is in fact a correct approach?

Passage:

Hess was able to identify qyn as an "administrator's title" in Old South Arabic inscriptions, it appearing in Sabaean and Qatabanian inscriptions of the 1st millennium BCE. He also noted that epigraphic sources for the Old South Arabian inscriptions do not exist for 2d millennium BCE times. On the basis of the present evidence, Hess concluded that Cain (Hebrew qyn) if derived from South Arabic qyn, ( qyn meaning a "metal smith" in later South Arabic) indicated that Genesis' Cain could be no older than the mid-first millenium BCE.

[....]

A third suggestion derives from the lexica of Old South Arabic. This is the qyn root used for the title of an administrator. The term appears both in Sabaean and in Qatabanian. A root qyn has been found in personal names in Old South Arabic inscriptions, including a qynw who appears as a Qedarite ruler in a 5th century BC Aramaic inscription from Tell el-Maskuteh at the entrance to Wadi Tumilat."

and lastly

"Studies have placed Cain in particular geographical and chronological contexts in the Ancient Near East. The figure of Cain has been associated with the region south of ancient Israel, i.e., the modern Negev and the Arabian peninsula. In part, this is because (as noted above) the qyn root occurs in names of persons in South Arabian tribes of the first millenium. It does not occur in the second millennium. Both the geographical and chronological parameters on this name should allow us to locate specifically in first millennium South Arabia."

  • 2
    Is this the most impressive piece of bible criticism you've ever seen that you decided to bring it here? – user6591 Dec 24 '14 at 2:47
  • 1
    @user6591 Halevai that should be the most impressive piece of bible criticism... That website also contains "an irrefutable proof" against the divinity of the bible: David was made king despite being descendent from a Moabite – הנער הזה Dec 24 '14 at 5:26
  • 1
    FWIW, I don't think this question deserves the close votes for the specific off-topic reason chosen -- it has to do with understanding the Torah. It is, however, based on many questionable assumptions, which is a reason to downvote. – Shokhet Dec 24 '14 at 6:48
  • Yanova -- I've lightly edited your question, to make it clearer which parts of the question belong to you, and which to your source. I've also removed a completely separate question about Nimrod, which had no basis in your sources. If you'd like to know about Nimrod, you may ask a new question. – Shokhet Dec 24 '14 at 6:50
6

…that Qayin derived from the 1st millenium BC South Arabic word Qyn, and that Cain is not a name old enough in Bible times of the 2nd millenium. Is it plausible that this is in fact a correct approach?

No, it's implausible, as Cain lived well before that and even the Torah that mentions him was given us before that.

1

The Torah clearly explains why Chava chose this name for her oldest kid:

וְהָאָדָם יָדַע אֶת חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ וַתַּהַר וַתֵּלֶד אֶת קַיִן וַתֹּאמֶר קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת ה'

"Chaya gave birth and called him Cain; [Hebrew for] I have created [Konithi] a person with Gcd".

Why would you think it's plausible that Chava named him something else? What would that name be?

If Arabic was invented 3,000 years after Cain was born, why would anybody think it's relevant to this discussion.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .