Comparing Jonathon Sacks Interpretation Of Cain And Abel

The story of Cain and Abel from Genesis 4, can be understood in various ways; Ron Hansen, a British Rabbi, and Jonathon Sacks, a novelist, both hold their own interpretations. The two authors have very different occupations which gives the reader a variety of narratives to open up to. Even though the two interpretations focus on different parts of the story, they both show the reader that the story is still relevant today. Sacks’ interpretation of Cain and Abel included conveying both Cain and Abel equally and used the Hebrew translation to strengthen his interpretation of the characters, purpose, and significance of the story; Meanwhile, Hansen neglected to convey the character of Abel, instead ensuring that Cain’s character is relatable to any type of reader, this causing his interpretation to appear close minded since he minimally

This is one of the most significant differences between the two interpretations because unlike Sacks, Hansen adds Cain’s emotion to the story, which influences readers to connect with his character. In addition, Hansen does not elaborate Abel’s emotions or even his part of the story. This makes connecting with Abel’s character impossible for the audience because they are barely given any insight to him. In addition, Hansen conveyed Abel as a perfect person, “Abel is all piety and rectitude, too good to be true.” (Ron Hansen, The Story of Cain) This quote from his interpretation expresses how Abel is not the brother the audience should relate to because no human is perfect. When speaking of Abel being killed Hansen stated, “must have been more than a few in the audiences who felt a forbidden pleasure at seeing him laid out”, (Ron Hansen, The Story of Cain) this supports how determined Hansen is for making the audience think of him as the antagonist of the story instead of the protagonist he really is. He is portraying Abel’s death as not being a tragic