22

I have a multi-part question.

  • Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest?

Genesis, Chapter 4 tells us about Cain and Abel.
Genesis, Chapter 5 tells us about Seth and "other sons and daughters".

I highly doubt that our species began with many acts of incest (not just for religious/legal/moral reasons but biological reasons as well), so how did humanity continue?

As a Christian, am I obliged to accept one of the following?

  1. Adam and Eve's progeny mated with descendants from another lineage that the Bible (through no apparent malice) failed to describe.
  2. The story of Adam and Eve is just that - A story. It is a story that was passed down by way of oral tradition. It was never meant to describe actual historical events.
Mawia
  • 16,108
  • 29
  • 78
  • 138
Jim G.
  • 2,154
  • 8
  • 29
  • 56
  • 4
    possible duplicate of If adam was the first man, and eve the first woman, them where did cain's wife come from – warren Dec 22 '11 at 03:53
  • 4
    also a duplicate of Is incest a sin? – warren Dec 22 '11 at 03:53
  • 2
    Related: Who did Cain marry? – Jon Ericson May 21 '12 at 04:39
  • 1
    The accepted answer has been deleted by the moderators as it does not view their view of an acceptable answer. –  Dec 15 '15 at 23:05
  • 5
    @user27239 That is not true. It was (correctly) deleted because it didn't answer the question asked. The question is not "why is incest bad from a scientific point of view" but rather "did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest?" – ThaddeusB Dec 16 '15 at 01:54
  • 1
    user27239 is referring to a series of events that are being discussed on meta: Why even bother posting on this board? | What policies do or could make a site like this "successful"? –  Dec 16 '15 at 08:29
  • 1
    The question still appears to be off-topic - the Bible doesn't appear to provide enough evidence to decide the question in itself, and it's possible that different groups would have different teachings on the issue (or none). I would have closed as "primarily opinion-based", however. – Matt Gutting Dec 17 '15 at 18:55
  • @MattGutting: Ha! And yet every Christian needs to answer this question for himself/herself. Thanks, Matt. You'd make a great parish priest. – Jim G. Dec 17 '15 at 19:39
  • 1
    Needs to answer? That's something we could discuss in chat. I don't think they necessarily do; I was just saying that given the (possibly myriad) teachings on the topic, there's no single definite statement that can be made. – Matt Gutting Dec 17 '15 at 20:23
  • 1
    That's such a great question! I've wondered this for so many years and was going to ask it here myself but found that it's been asked multiple times. Perhaps you could rephrase the question, since you're question seems unanswerable (except to say, "nobody knows except God"). Perhaps you could change it to, "what did the early Christian scholars conjecture about the incest or probable incest of the immediate progeny of Adam? I'm of the opinion that they did commit incest and God was OK with it.. – Johan88 Aug 01 '19 at 16:27
  • .. Only at a later date did it become genetically unclean and God prohibited it -- not that man obeyed Him, I expect. God forbade polytheism right from the get go: hasn't stopped mankind to this day. But: ask me to explain that scientifically: I can't. Not in a million years. I don't understand genetics at all, let alone could I conjecture on the evolution of genetics back to a time when this could somehow be genetically "clean". I just see that as being necessary since they would have to have committed incest (unless, for example, every one of them got their own Eve made out of a rib). – Johan88 Aug 01 '19 at 16:34
  • @JimG. But I agree with Matt Gutting. This is not something every Christian has to question for his or herself, let alone answer. One could say that about every single question of doctrine and metaphysics and all science. No one has to ask this question, Christian or otherwise. But it is a great question that I myself would love to investigate, but don't have the time. Anyone know early Christian speculation on this matter? What did Aquinas say if anything? – Johan88 Aug 01 '19 at 16:37
  • And perhaps if you rephrase it according to the site rules the question can be reopened again. Would love if some people familiar with classical scholarship could chip in on this matter. – Johan88 Aug 01 '19 at 16:51
  • 1
    @Johan88 Thank you for your feedback! I did in fact ask this question with the best of intentions; and unfortunately it got closed. At some point, I may act on your recommendation and rephrase my question. But in the meantime, I will certainly embrace any revision that you make as well. – Jim G. Aug 01 '19 at 16:59
  • @JimG. Awesome. Dunno if I'm up for writing any revisions, and I don't even know the exact rules of this Stack (or any others that I use, except Latin and Chemistry which I was forced by my own necessity to read). Yeah, it's a great question, but because of the nature of Stack Exchange we have to phrase them just right so they are answerable and bring out the best answers. Lovely resource Stack Exchange is though! – Johan88 Aug 01 '19 at 17:04

3 Answers3

31

There is a third option -

The prohibition on incest didn't come about until the covenant in Leviticus & Deuteronomy, and to accuse Cain, Abel, and Seth of incest is to accuse them ex post facto.

As an aside, a Young Earth Creationist would date the Creation to 4004 BC, and the Exodus (and hence the Covenant) to about 1440BC. As such, you would be accusing them of a crime that wasn't mandated for nearly 2600 years.

If you want to say, "but surely the law goes back further than the covenant," you get into territory of, "So when did it become a law?" Incest is prohibited in most secular cultures today because it weakens the gene pool. Over time, the level of closeness has gotten wider in order to ensure a wider mixing. In modern times, a first or second cousin is off-limits. If I remember correctly in Leviticus, immediate family was prohibited, but I believe that cousins were ok. If you follow the trajectory backwards, you'd probably arrive at a date at which it was ok even for family members to procreate together, societally speaking.

An objection has been raised worth noting:

regardless, biology hasn't changed. legally incest wasn't "wrong" yet but humanity does not tend to survive well on inbreeding.

My response stands, however:

Agreed that humanity doesn't tend to survive well on inbreeding, but it fares even more poorly if the first of the species refrain from procreation altogether

Affable Geek
  • 64,044
  • 28
  • 189
  • 354
  • 1
    +1: Thanks. FWIW: I wasn't particularly concerned about the sinfulness of the possible incest. I was interested in the feasibility and ramifications of the narrative. – Jim G. Dec 22 '11 at 04:04
  • 5
    "off limits" is probably over-stating it; "discouraged", certainly, but generally legal (but varies with local law). For example, it is legal in the UK, although not particularly common (it is much more common in some immigrant communities that have a previous cultural bias towards cousin marriage) – Marc Gravell Dec 22 '11 at 08:59
  • 4
    Even if you interpret Nephilim to be non-human creatures that can cross-breed (which is debated) trying to apply that possibility as a solution to this problem creates far more problems than you started with and causes God's judgement to be inconsistent. – Caleb Dec 22 '11 at 10:16
  • 2
    Agreed - I don't like Option 4 at all. Just trying to give ones I've heard before. – Affable Geek Dec 22 '11 at 15:14
  • 3
    regardless, biology hasn't changed. legally incest wasn't "wrong" yet but humanity does not tend to survive well on inbreeding. – jchaffee Dec 22 '11 at 15:52
  • 8
    Agreed that humanity doesn't tend to survive well on inbreeding, but it fares even more poorly if the first of the species refrain from procreation altogether. – Affable Geek Dec 30 '11 at 16:52
  • 1
    I think option #3 is likely. After all, Abraham’s marriage to Sarah would have been forbidden by Leviticus 18:9; she was his half-sister. But the Law of Mozes didn’t exist back then, so they couln’t possibly be breaking it. – user2428118 Aug 17 '13 at 19:21
  • "In modern times, a first or second cousin is off-limits." That depends on where you're from... My in-law's Mom and Dad are first cousins, second cousins are fair game here, and I hear first cousins are still ok nowadays as long as you don't have kids... I have no idea how they regulate that though. Laws get weird when you have lots of small religious farming colonies that aren't very inclusive to other religions or ways of life... (Hutterites, etc...) – ShemSeger Dec 03 '14 at 16:57
  • @user2428118 That's a great observation ! I also tend towards the third opinion. I expect it would not have had the negative genetic consequences it does today, but to explain that in science I can't. An interesting question, of course, would be if incest could have possibly been forbidden before the flood, an event that would've narrowed the genetic pool very substantially. So substantially that I can't see how it would be forbidden before the flood or even soon thereafter. – Johan88 Aug 01 '19 at 16:24
  • @user2428118 This is another good example that we do not need God to be "consistent in His judgements." After all, according to mainstream Christian doctrine: the prohibition on pork was removed. So God adds and removes prohibitions according to His own judgements, and He's in a better position to know and understand. – Johan88 Aug 01 '19 at 16:26
  • @Caleb Please, what do you mean by Gods judgement being consistent? Isn't His judgement inconsistent, and changing? Eg. Pork forbidden previously, then allowed under Paul. Polygamy allowed before (eg. Abraham, Jacob), but forbidden under Paul? I don't see God being consistent but, rather, changing. Nor do I see why we need Him to be consistent. He knows what we do not, and judges correctly, not 'consistently', I think. ?? – Johan88 Aug 01 '19 at 17:15
9

Yes, according to those that hold a literal view of Genesis, they did commit incest, but it wasn't a problem at the time.

The reason why incest is medically bad is because it makes genetic birth defects more likely. Most genetic defects are recessive. If two people who both have the gene have children, the childrenm may inherit the gene from both parents, and it will materialize. But if someone with the bad gene marries someone without the gene, then their children have one good gene and one bad gene, and -- assuming it's receissive -- they will not manifest the defect.

Bad genes are mutations, that is, DNA damaged by toxic chemicals, radiation, etc. Adam and Eve were presumably created with no bad genes. It took time for mutations to accumulate. So incest was not a medical problem for the first generations.

Incest also has social implications, the confusion of roles of "sister" and "wife" or "brother" and "husband". That would have been less of an issue before the Flood, when people lived longer. If Eve lived to be circa 900 years old like Adam, and if she was fertile for the same percentage of her life as a modern woman. That is, if a modern woman is fertile from mid teens to mid 40's, circa 30 years or 1/2 to 1/3 of her life, then if Eve lived to be 900, she might have been fertile for 300 years. She could have had children decades or centuries apart, who would not have been raised together.

And by the way, if Eve was fertile for several hundred years, she could have had dozens or even a hundred or more children in her life. And none of them ever called.

David Stratton
  • 43,923
  • 9
  • 129
  • 233
Jay
  • 7,787
  • 23
  • 25
  • 2
    The complexity of the additional types of family members would be rough. "Brosband" isn't too bad, but "sife" or "wister"? :-) – Brian Knoblauch Mar 08 '12 at 15:07
  • 5
    You're assuming that the Western notions of "sister," "brother," "wife," and "husband" hold true universally. The ethnographic record is quite clear that it doesn't. – Steely Dan May 21 '12 at 00:16
  • 1
    @Steely My point was that these roles would not have been perceived in the same way. – Jay May 22 '12 at 03:27
  • 4
    They're already not perceived in the same way across the world. – Steely Dan May 23 '12 at 00:16
4

Maybe it's an allegory and not intended to be taken as literal as we often do.

I've always thought that there were 'others' with whom Cain mated. Within the known history of the world outside of the Bible, I speculate that the first humans were Adam and Eve. That is, they were the first intelligent beings who's children mated with the Neanderthals.

It is scientifically speculated that Homo Sapiens came out of Africa where they encountered the Neanderthals, who were stronger and better hunters (implying warriors) than the Homo Sapiens. The Homo Sapiens retreated back into Africa for years and then came back north, but this time for some unknown reason (I believe that it's the fruit of knowledge of good and evil) this time they had an enlarged brain. The rest as they say is history.

Further reading about this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova/2010/05/did-neanderthals-mate-with-modern-humans.html

This would also explain why Cain was fearful of the others killing him when he was sent away.

  • 1
    If we take our translations too literally, we'll put horns on statues of Moses. –  Dec 22 '11 at 14:41
  • 2
    ? Sorry, don't understand the comment. – Affable Geek Dec 22 '11 at 15:13
  • 4
    FYI, Walter Brueggemann would be your reference here. He says "There is no way you can over-allegorize the first 12 chapters of Genesis." Personally, I do think these things actually happened, so, I'm not going down that road, but if you'd like to support your answer a bit more, his commentary of Genesis would be the best place to start. – Affable Geek Dec 22 '11 at 15:17
  • 4
    Because of a mistranslation, there are horns on Moses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_%28Michelangelo%29 –  Dec 22 '11 at 16:11
  • 1
    RE horns on Moses: I don't know any Biblical literalist who says we should take TRANSLATIONS as inerrant. We say that the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS were inerrant. My faith in the authority of the word of God is not shaken because some printer made a typo, or some cultist misquotes scripture. – Jay Feb 21 '14 at 16:45
  • Just a couple of points. It is not speculated by scientists that Homo Sapiens came out of Africa. The evidence is quite solid and they are certainly not speculating. It could be overturned in the future but it is not speculation based but evidence based. The first two "intelligent people" who then bred with Neanderthals has many issues but I'll just point out (i) the NOVA documentary does not suggest that Adam and Eve came out of Africa and bred with Neanderthals, (ii) it goes against modern findings as we would have mostly Neanderthal genes in this scenario and we have close to 0 or even 0. –  Dec 13 '15 at 15:08
  • @user13599 Update: Don't we have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA? I'm wondering if they were just other races of humans, rather then subhuman species that evolved before Homo Sapiens or alongside it. And I'm not a scientist, don't massacre me if that's impossible. Just wondering. Don't know about these things much myself. – Johan88 Aug 01 '19 at 16:48