Who were the Kenites

Abstract

This article examines the Kenite tribe, particularly considering their \nimportance as suggested by the Kenite hypothesis. According to this \nhypothesis, the Kenites, and the Midianites, were the peoples who \nintroduced Moses to the cult of Yahwism, before he was confronted \nby Yahweh from the burning bush. Scholars have identified the Cain \nnarrative of Gen 4 as the possible aetiological legend of the Kenites, \nand Cain as the eponymous ancestor of these people. The purpose of \nthis research is to ascertain whether there is any substantiation for \nthis allegation connecting the Kenites to Cain, as well as contemplating \nthe Kenites’ possible importance for the Yahwistic faith. \nInformation in the Hebrew Bible concerning the Kenites is sparse. \nTraits associated with the Kenites, and their lifestyle, could be \nlinked to descendants of Cain. The three sons of Lamech represent \nparticular occupational groups, which are also connected to the \nKenites. The nomadic Kenites seemingly roamed the regions south \nof Palestine. According to particular texts in the Hebrew Bible, \nYahweh emanated from regions south of Palestine. It is, therefore, \nplausible that the Kenites were familiar with a form of Yahwism, a \ncult that could have been introduced by them to Moses, as suggested \nby the Kenite hypothesis. Their particular trade as metalworkers \nafforded them the opportunity to also introduce their faith in the \nnorthern regions of Palestine. This article analyses the etymology of \nthe word “Kenite,” the ancestry of the Kenites, their lifestyle, and \ntheir religion. The research leads to the conclusion that the Kenites \ncould be linked to Cain, and also supports the Kenite hypothesis, \nthereby suggesting that they introduced the faith of Yahwism to \nMoses, and thus indirectly to the Israelites.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.