Talk:Tubal-cain

American Jurisprudence

As revealed in the television program News Radio, because they are all members of a secret sect of Freemasons, all judges in the United States must find in favor of any party who says the word "Tubal-cain" in a court of law.  Mr JM  01:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As News Radio is a sitcom, and not a factual program, I don't believe that this comedy sketch was intended to be a reliable source of information. Regentswift (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Even so, this claim is commonly made about the Masons, and should be referenced in the main entry. The name is used as a kind of password in Masonic ceremonies. --Hugh7 (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason for that is because the Freemasons wish to validate their technological roots in the late 17th Century, particularly in the English Royal Society, and so claim a craft descent from anything scientific. The furthest they may be able to get back to is the arrival of Arabic texts in the 9th-14th Centuries, which were so seriously mistranslated and edited for dogmatic purposes as to render what little knowledge they did pass on unusable. The point is best dealt with in the disambiguation, as is the reference to a modern model engineer, who was almost certainly a Mason.

So then why do they have a special thing towards the name Tubal-Cain? You can't trace that person, if they even real, since even biblical scholars get different dates for those early people. I would think, if Tubal was real, was a genius in the Paleolith/Mesolith time period.137.118.102.246 (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Because, as the first artificer in metals and brass, he was the first craftsman, and Freemasons honour the traditions of generations of craftsmen, both as part of the building industry, and as preservers of trade secrets and knowledge generally.

Nuttyskin (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Vulcan

The etymology of Vulcan is indeed unclear, but no serious classicist (or Indo-Europeanist, or indeed Hebraist) would suggest it descended from Tubal-cain. This is really more of a religious belief than a philological one, so I've added the disclaimer shown. -Senori (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The way you phrased it is problematic - "This has been dismissed by most scholars" - because then anyone can say "Okay, please cite just ONE who has dismissed it" and then it turns out not a single one has dismissed it or even addressed it. If you make a claim like most scholars have dismissed it, you have to back it up with scholars who indeed dismissed it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. To be honest, I strongly doubt anyone has ever taken the suggestion seriously enough to dismiss it; not only is it etymologically implausible in the extreme, it requires cultural connections between two civilizations (the Etruscans and the Hebrews) who otherwise have no evidence for contact. That said, I'm not sure the best way to address your criticism; one could note that Henry Morris's work is heavily criticized by nearly everyone in academia (which can be cited) but that doesn't specifically address this claim about Vulcan. It might also be worth simply deleting the whole comment entirely as deeply implausible. -Senori (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Robert Cochrane and Traditional Witchcraft

I don't see any mention of this in the article and feel that it may be a useful addition. Cochrane's particular brand of witchcraft was often called the Clan of Tubal Cain and revered the blacksmith as their main god, who was also connected to other mythical smiths like Weyland. Given Cochrane's influence in the field of traditional witchcraft, I feel that it would be a relevant addition to the article.

I'm not sure what the best way would be to start this section. There are some primary sources, mainly letters from Cochrane himself, which have been collected in The Roebuck in the Thicket. I could try digging around to see if there are any reputable secondary sources talking about this. Alexander-Of-The-Monday (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Capitalisation

There is a weird divergence in the capitalisation of section titles. Jewish narrative has a lower-case n for the section title, but Christian Narrative has the capitalisation. What gives. Also I think Family tree should have "tree" without tha capitalisation... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. StAnselm (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)