Slaughter, Fratricide and Sacrilege Cain and Abel Traditions 531 because of their participation in killing fellow Israelites (Moses, 1.314; Drunkenness, 66-67) (17). This presents a paradox for Philo because the priests are supposed to stay free of pollution (a[go"), yet they incur this pollution through their act of fratricide in the golden calf incident. And it is his perplexity over the Levites’ actions that points to the relationship Philo sees between acts of fratricide and becoming impure. Philo connects a[go" with fratricide terminology (ajdelfoktovno") when he describes how the Greeks and Persians killed one another to secure their kingdoms (Spec. Laws, 3.16, 18) as well as in his portrayal of how the sons of Jacob almost killed their brother Joseph (Joseph, 13). Even when fratricide terminology does not actually occur, in those contexts in which it is intended, Philo labels the act as a[go". Thus Philo considers the killing of an emperor by another family member as an act that makes one impure (Embassy, 30, 66). More important to the current topic is how Philo portrays Cain. As noted above, Philo gives Cain the epithet of fratricide ten out of the total of fourteen times he uses ajdelfoktovno". In addition, Philo labels Cain as a[go" five times, four of which are connected to the epithet of fratricide (Worse, 96; Posterity 49; Husbandry, 21; Virtues,199) (18). This means that for Philo the principle example of fratricide was Cain and that Philo interpreted Cain’s murderous act as incurring a form of pollution that was most often understood as that which prevents one from being ritually pure. Cain was accursed by God. When considered in light of how fratricide was viewed in antiquity and how Philo viewed Cain, the distinction between Christ and Cain in 1 John 3 becomes even more pronounced. Although Cain is never said to be a[go" in 1 John 3 it can be implied by the mention that believers should be pure just as Jesus is pure (aJgnov"). The Cain illustration stands in direct contrast to Christ. Acts of fratricide were seen by both Jews and Gentiles as potentially defiling and Cain’s murder of Abel would have contrasted with Christ’s own act of self-sacrifice. Readers were exhorted to be pure like Christ rather than brother-haters and fratricides like Cain who was impure. 3. Sacrificial Slaughter The final section to be examined is the Cain illustration in 3,12. As noted above, there is a lack of detail in the illustration including God’s seemingly capricious acceptance of one sacrifice over another which is a major part of the Genesis 4 story. The only reason 1 John gives for Cain’s murderous act is that he was from the evil one while his brother was righteous. Both of these descriptions are part of well-established interpretive traditions (19). But once more the choice of terminology may communicate more than is sometimes appreciated. The term used to describe Cain’s murderous action is sfavzw, (17) There is one note of inconsistency in Philo, however. Although he claims at one point that the Levites became impure as a result of their participation in the golden calf incident, he later contradicts himself and says that they did not become impure (Spec. Laws 3.127). (18) The only instance when a[go" is not paired with ajdelfoktovno" to refer to Cain’s murderous act is in QG1.77. (19) See my “Living in the Shadow of Cain: Echoes of a Developing Tradition in James 5:1-6”, NovT 48.3 (2006) 261-274.