Talk:Lamech (descendant of Cain)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bible Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Ancient Near East Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Lamech, descendant of Cain article says the two Lamechs are the same. Should this be a redirect?--Cuchullain 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not necessarily the same person. The redirect is extremely unfortunate and should be reverted to the what this article was before. Critical scholarship and Grammatical scholarship are two different views. --Ep9206 22:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should remain discussing both Lamechs. It does not say they were the same necessarily, it merely discusses what the Bible has to say about both of them. I merged them together because originally, the Lamech, descendant of Cain was the only developed one; the other Lamech was only mentioned on an unneccessary disambiguation page. There isn't enough information on Lamech, descendant of Seth to warrant his own article, but he needs to be discussed. Would putting this page in Category:Multiple people satisfy you?--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are countless traditions about both Lamechs. Personally, I think if we can find enough information about each through traditions, they should be listed on seperate articles. mikey 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have enough about Noah's father to justify splitting them now. If you can add more, please do, and we can see about the merits of a split then.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought tubal cain was a sperate person ??? redirect???JUBALCAIN 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree, a dash to google suggests that Tubal-Cain was "the son of Lamech and Zillah, 'an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron' (Genesis 4:22; R.V.)". The argument about different translations of the names is not clear, and does not say that Tubal-Cain was the SON of one of the Lamechs, and therefore deserves a separate page. There should not be a REDIRECT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.167.69 (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Patristic and Medieval Tradition held that both Lamechs were the same person, a tradition of nearly a thousand years. I'll put up info on this when I have gathered it sufficiently, because the Hebraic traditions dominate the page.

This medieval Christian tradition lends support to the idea that the wiki-page should be about both Lamechs together. Sure, some scholars and rabbis have insisted they are separate figures, but others equally "valid" historically, have held that they are only one person. You cannot "disambiguate" something so totally ambiguous! What we have to construct is a page that discusses the curious "Lamech phenomenon" of being simultaneously two people and one, and that clearly separates the different traditions and approaches (rabbinic, patristic, grammatical, genealogical). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.167.69 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You need to cite the source for this or take it out. I've been studying Bible in Hebrew and Jewish classics for 30 years and so far found no reference to this.

This article spends too little time on the plain meaning of the Bible text and surrounding context, and too much time on legendary stories about the text. I've studied Genesis extensively and never heard of "song of the sword" either, nor any of the legends mentioned in this article. Many things about this text are very clear, but you wouldn't know it by reading this article. The main message of the text is that men began taking more than one wife, and violence was increasing. It was sort of a prelude to the Flood. Back then if you had sex with a woman, that was your wife (even if her father wasn't standing there with a shotgun). Marty8

Cuchullain, given that there is so much discussion on the name and to whom the name refers, it seems to me that it is relevant that the Old English Genesis A chooses 'Lameh' for the one and 'Lamech' for the other--especially if this clarification occurs in what is surely an 'authorized' translation of scripture. As for my note being unsourced, I did provide a source in response to your deletion, and again I note that not a single bit of the other information on the page has a source listed. You also mention that the OE poetic translation of Genesis is late--that may be so, but it is a whole lot earlier than the reference to Mormon sacred text found on the bottom of the page, which would make the Mormon reference a lot more questionable in terms of its relevance. Thank you. 24.214.249.82 (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, the fact that nothing else is sourced does not mean this one statement is off the hook. Perhaps the Old English version warrants a mention here, but note that the Mormon interpretation is in a separate section - where you had placed this bit of information, it looked as if may have had some influence in the development of the Lamech story, which is is not the case. If it is to be kept, it should be in a different section.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's footnoted in some bibles the NIV study bible for one, that Lamech of the line of Cain being the 7th generation from Adam (7 symbolicaly meaning completeness) was complete evil, as opposed to Enoch of the line of Seth and also 7th from Adam was completely good, walked with god, was taken up to heaven, etc. For example Lamech not only boasted of himself taking vengence,(an act of wanton murder but also denying god his due; Deut 32:35 "It is mine to avenge;I will repay"), he was the first polygamist; going against the divine intention of monogamy. His self-reliance was an act of rebellion and prideful independence from god; thinking by his own achievements and that of his sons they would redeem themselves from the curse on the line of Cain. Bloodkith (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, while reading this article, one the passages had caught my attention. In the section titled Names, it has a chart which displays the names of subject of the article Lamech alongside the names of his wives and children in both English and Hebrew. Which, in my opinion (being a person who is kind of obsessed with names, meanings, and translations across languages), is a great additional.

However, one small detail in the chart has been bothering me (or, maybe more accurately, driving me insane) for the past couple hours. It says in the passage for Tubal-Cain's name that in older versions of the Septuagint he is simply called Thobel. To me, that was particularly interesting. However, there is no source sited for this in the article so I spent quite some time trying to any possible source(s) that could reiterated this information; which was, admittedly, a largely fruitless undertaking.

I know, big surprise; obscure information on an obscure character in an obsolete version of an ancient and extinct language's translation of a book which is archeologically difficult to keep a chronological record of is hard to come by over 2,222 years later after the fact on a largely unactive "low importance" article. Wow, no way! Who'd've thunk?

I guess this is all in-hindsight, but I suppose it just shows my dedication as an eager learner.

But that begs the question, is this passage accurate? As mentioned above, at most there are very few people who would be able to verify this information.

There are also a few other things that I would like to mentioned but I think this comment is longer than it needs to be. Also, I do apologize if this message has broken any of the Wikipedia guidelines for discussing topics, it has been maybe a year since I read through them. I am largely just a browser here and this is the first time I have done anything like this. Though I do hope that this was in some way "amusing" or "refreshing" to read. I may make updates at a later date.

Adieu. Man-of-Embrace (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I think I solved it. Sorry (but also not sorry) that this was sooner than I was expecting to. So what I think happened is that the author of the passage used a source that claimed that in the Septuagint, Tubal-Cain's name was shortened/simplified to Tubal (Tubal-Cain without the "-Cain", in case that was not obvious). Then in addition to that information the author or the source used a different (and arguably more accurate) transliteration of the name from the Hebrew spelling (תּוּבַל); or alternatively, the older version of the Septuagint referenced in the passage had transliterated the original Hebrew spelling turning the tav with a dagesh (תּ) from the first part of the name to spell [th] (or more accurately, [θ], the Greek alphabet's equivalent of [th]) instead of the more "standard" [t] (which the other sources I was referencing were using).

Then, Hebrew being an abjad (thus no written vowels), the Greek translators at the time placed an [o] and [e] between the constants, which--though I am guessing here--may have been more accurate to the way Hebrew was spoken in Greece at the time (or specifically the region of Greece the Septuagint belonged to; likely in Alexandria, Egypt considering the Jewish population). All amounting to spell "Θοβελ" (maybe, this all a hypothesis based on a couple of clues and intuitions). If that is true, it would be important to mention and explain this within an updated version of the passage. I would also highly encourage a source and details of the specific translations which had this spelling or something that can back up the information.

As a person who likes learn, this experience was strangely enlightening on struggles of researching and gathering reliable information.

I have decided to exclude the other things I mentioned in my previous text. Instead I will create a different topic for them. However, I believe I am sufficiently Wiki-ed out for the day. In the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, "I'll be back."

[you hear the sound of a car in the distance] Man-of-Embrace (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ralfkannenberg You should know that the powers of WP:OR are against you. There is no way for the English Wikipedia to accept unsourced theological claims.

Wikipedians aren't interested in what you know, they are interested in what you can WP:CITE.

Anything resembling WP:OR performed upon the WP:PRIMARY source called the Bible will be knee-jerk rejected.

And gotquestions.org is a self-published website publishing the opinions of anonymous amateur theologians. Fails thus WP:SPS. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently provides interpretation of the Midrash and rabbinical tradition which result in a misleading interpretation of the roles of Lamech's two wifes.

I fully agree to provide this secondary literature as an addition to the article, but beforehand the best possible interpretation provided from the bible itself should be mentioned as well. In this case it is the translation from Hebrean language.

Thus on 18 March 2023, 22:16, I have added following section which has been reverted:

"The name of Lamech's first wife is Adah meaning "Ornament" which might be an indication that she was the real wife of Lamech. The name of Lamech's second wife is Zillah meaning "Shadow" in the sense "(The Lord) is Shadow" to be understood in the meaning "(The Lord) is Shelter". In the time of Patriarchy, unmarried women were hardly protected and had a high risk to be abused in slavery or prostitution. In these days a man was considered to be upright if he ensured shelter to another woman besides his wife. Lamech is the first mentioned polygamist in the bible and the naming Zillah is a strong indication that Lamech wanted to provide shelter to her."

I do not claim that the wording is ideal as English is not my mother tongue, so I appreciate any better wording or any better translation from Hebrean language as well. Ralfkannenberg (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the best possible interpretation provided from the bible itself—you don't realize that you're opening a whole can of worms, do you?

Thousands of people were killed just because they read and interpreted the Bible differently. E.g. Michael Servetus was burned at stake by John Calvin. And Isaac Newton escaped that fate by keeping mum about his own religion, for his whole life. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Secondary WP:RS first, then content. Without that, the Bible is only good for MOS:PLOTSOURCE, I have encountered editors who don't even think it's good for that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Fully support those wanting RS. Per BURDEN I cleaned up a lot of the unsourced OR/SYNTH mess on this page (see edit summaries). V IS RS are absolutely needed, along with FRINGE, WEIGHT and PROPORTION. There are still three paragraphs that failed V, I marked them. As far as I'm concerned can be RM at any time, but since they had a ref, others can check it out.  // Timothy :: talk  13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]