Today we take a break from our regular synchronicity programming for a random bit of Bible criticism. (This was going to be a parenthetical aside in a post on my Book of Mormon blog, but it grew too big for its britches.)
And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him (Gen. 4:6-7).
Virtually all of the 50-some English translations available at Bible Gateway are unanimous on how v. 7 is to be interpreted. Here, for example, is the New International Version:
If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it [sin] desires to have you, but you must rule over it [sin].
I have never studied Hebrew and hesitate to contradict all the Bible translators in the world, but -- no, scratch that, I don't hesitate at all. Rushing in where learned fools fear to tread is what we do around here, and the universally accepted reading of this verse is flatly impossible. Here's the interlinear translation from Bible Hub:
The red squares I have added are to draw attention to the fact that the noun translated as "sin" is feminine, but that the KJV is correct in using the masculine pronoun and possessive in "unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." These words cannot possibly have "sin" as their antecedent.
I said virtually all Bible translations interpreted this verse the same way. The one exception is Young's Literal Translation -- which, as it says on the tin, goes with the literal reading even when its meaning is obscure:
Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and thou rulest over it.
Even the YLT sacrifices strict literalness here in order to emasculate "his" and "him" so that they can refer to a feminine noun. Another feature of the YLT was a eureka moment for me, though: not "sin" but "a sin-offering." I checked the Hebrew word in question in a concordance, and it does seem to mean "sin-offering" far more often than "sin." This reading also fits better with the verb immediately following, which Strong's glosses as "to crouch (on all four legs folded, like a recumbent animal)." The noun "sin-offering" refers to the animal itself -- e.g. "he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering" (Lev. 4:29). If the noun can mean either sin or a sacrificial animal, and the verb is one associated with four-legged animals, what's more likely? That Cain's sinful tendencies are being implicitly compared to an animal lying in wait for him, or that the Lord is talking about an actual animal?
It makes perfect sense. The Lord begins by saying, "Why are you so upset?" He's not warning or threatening Cain; he's comforting him. "Why are you so upset? If you do right, you will be accepted; and if you do something wrong, you can easily obtain forgiveness through a sin-offering."
As for the masculine possessive and pronoun, I think they can only refer to Abel. It's impossible not to notice the similarity of these two passages:
Unto the woman he said, . . . thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee (Gen. 3:16).
And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him (Gen. 4:7).
The first is always understood to mean that the woman is subordinate to her husband and subject to his authority. But when the same formula is used one chapter later, it means something completely different? No. I think the meaning of the Lord's words to Cain can be paraphrased like this:
Why are you so upset about your offering not being accepted? If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. And if you have done something wrong, you know the way to obtain forgiveness. And why should you be jealous of Abel? He's your younger brother and will always be subordinate to you and subject to your authority.
Joseph Smith, of course, had a very different interpretation from what I am proposing here. Connecting the masculine possessive and pronoun with "sin" as most people do, he understood it to mean that Satan wanted to have Cain:
If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. And thou shalt rule over him (Moses 5:23).
Adam Clarke's Bible commentary and its supposed influence on Joseph Smith is a trendy topic in Mormon studies circles these days, so I wondered if Clarke had interepreted that verse along the same lines as Smith. When I looked it up, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that, no, Clarke actually agrees with me! So now it's me and Adam Clarke against all the Bible translators in the world. Here's what Clarke has to say about v. 7:
If thou doest well - That which is right in the sight of God, shalt thou not be accepted? Does God reject any man who serves him in simplicity and godly sincerity? But if thou doest not well, can wrath and indignation against thy righteous brother save thee from the displeasure under which thou art fallen? On the contrary, have recourse to thy Maker for mercy; לפתח חטאת רבץ lappethach chattath robets, a sin-offering lieth at thy door; an animal proper to be offered as an atonement for sin is now couching at the door of thy fold.The words חטאת chattath, and חטאת chattaah, frequently signify sin; but I have observed more than a hundred places in the Old Testament where they are used for sin-offering, and translated ἁμαρτια by the Septuagint, which is the term the apostle uses, Co2 5:21 : He hath made him to be sin (ἁμαρτιαν, A Sin-Offering) for us, who knew no sin. Cain's fault now was his not bringing a sin-offering when his brother brought one, and his neglect and contempt caused his other offering to be rejected. However, God now graciously informs him that, though he had miscarried, his case was not yet desperate, as the means of faith, from the promise, etc., were in his power, and a victim proper for a sin-offering was lying (רבץ robets, a word used to express the lying down of a quadruped) at the door of his fold. How many sinners perish, not because there is not a Savior able and willing to save them, but because they will not use that which is within their power! Of such how true is that word of our Lord, Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life!Unto thee shall be his desire, etc. - That is, Thou shalt ever have the right of primogeniture, and in all things shall thy brother be subject unto thee. These words are not spoken of sin, as many have understood them, but of Abel's submission to Cain as his superior, and the words are spoken to remove Cain's envy.
Clarke doesn't mention the grammatical gender mismatch, but aside from that he says pretty much everything I have said in this post. Pretty smart guy, that Adam Clarke.
7 comments:
"But when the same formula is used one chapter later, it means something completely different? No. I think the meaning of the Lord's words to Cain can be paraphrased like this"
You should not compare Gen. 3:16 with Gen. 4:7. These are not, in fact, the same "formula." Neither the Hebrew word tshuwqah nor the Hebrew preposition el have an adversarial sense. We understand Genesis 4:7-8 on way because the context is adversarial. But, there is no similar context in Genesis 3:16. Hebrew is a context-heavy language. It's not enough to look at grammar and definitions.
The adversarial sense in the English translations of Genesis 3 is inferred from the usage in Genesis 4 (i.e. Genesis 4 determines Genesis 3). But the way you phrased this as the formula used one chapter later is the converse (i.e. Genesis 3 determines Genesis 4). That's either circular reasoning or affirming the consequent.
Also, the word should be translated as "turning" not "desire." Walter Kaiser in Hard Sayings of the Bible noted this fact:
"The Hebrew word teshuqah, now almost universally translated as “desire,” was previously rendered as “turning.” The word appears in the Hebrew Old Testament only three times: here in Genesis 3:16, in Genesis 4:7 and in Song of Songs 7:10. Of the twelve known ancient versions (the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Old Latin, the Sahidic, the Bohairic, the Ethiopic, the Arabic, Aquila’s Greek, Symmachus’s Greek, Theodotion’s Greek and the Latin Vulgate), almost every one (twenty-one out of twenty-eight times) renders these three instances of teshuqah as “turning,” not “desire.” Likewise, the church fathers (Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius and Jerome, along with Philo, a Jew who died about AD 50) seem to be ignorant of any other sense for this word teshuqah than the translation of “turning.” Furthermore, the Latin rendering was conversio and the Greek was apostrophē or epistrophē, words all meaning “a turning.”"
Derek, the desire or "turning" of whom or what? Do you agree that that the masculine possessive and pronoun cannot refer to feminine "sin"?
I'm not sure what you mean when you say the two verses are not the same formula, when they manifestly are -- as you seem to agree when you say one instance should be interpreted in the light of the other.
Yes, your observation of the masculine vs feminine pronoun is a strong argument. I'm not objecting to that observation.
No, I don't agree that they should both be interpreted in light of the other. They are separate, incompatible uses. That's why I disagreed with your objection against the idea that they could mean something completely different. Genesis 4:7 is adversarial in context, Genesis 3:16 is not. The context means there is no common formula, despite the grammatical similarity. Equating the two is a relatively modern phenomenon, an attempt to deal with the rarity of the word.
The word teshuqah means "turning." It does not mean "desire." For example, Genesis 3:16 could read "Your turning shall be toward your husband, and he shall rule over you." It emphasizes a change of direction, not desire. If anything, it calls to mind repentance (which is a change of direction).
As for how Genesis 4:7 should be interpreted in light of your primary observation and the meaning of "turning", I have not had time to think that through yet.
I hope you pardon my lengthy citations. Here is a comment by Matt Lynch on the ESV modification of Genesis 3:16b:
“Typically, the Hebrew preposition ’el means ‘to’ or ‘toward.’ All the major Hebrew lexicons agree on this. The adversative sense of the Hebrew preposition ’el does occur in some instances. However, even in those instances, the direction of action is still to or toward. So, for instance, ‘Cain rose up ’el Abel’ (Gen 4:8). Cain’s action of rising up is obviously toward Abel, but the translation ‘against’ makes sense because of the hostile nature of his movement toward his brother. In other words, the preposition ’el in Gen 4:8 does not determine the contrariness of Cain’s action. Instead, it’s his hostile action that permits the translation ‘against’ for the sake of clarity in translation.”
It is a lexical misuse of a lexicon to import the lexical context of Genesis 4:8 into Genesis 3:16 in order to make the lexical value adversarial. It’s a category error. The English interpretation is only found in English because only in English is the English word against (found in Genesis 4) back-ported into Genesis 3. As stated in the comment above, in ancient and early texts prior to Jerome‘s Latin Vulgate, the word tshuwqah means turning.
The point is that in Genesis 4:7-8, the "desire" or "turning" is a struggle against something. In Genesis 3:16, the "desire" or "turning" is not a struggle at all. It lacks any negative connotation. So despite using the same grammar, the interpretation is quite different.
Okay, agree to disagree, I guess. We're discussing the Lord's words in v. 7, so I don't think the meaning of v. 8, where Cain kills Abel, is directly relevant. The fact that a "struggle" with Abel soon follows doesn't necessarily mean the Lord is also talking about a struggle. On the contrary, he seems to be trying to pacify Cain.
When the same part of the same document uses the same otherwise unique expression twice, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume there's a connection and that we are invited to understand each instance in light of the other.
Oh, I understand what you are saying now: if one doesn't agree with the traditional interpretation that Genesis 4:7-8 is adversarial, then Genesis 4:7 and Genesis 3:16 can, in fact, refer to the same thing. It disagrees with modern translations, but that's a given at this point.
So, let's consider this alternative candidate translation which removes the adversarial quality and the modern "desire."
“If you do well, you will be accepted. If you do not do well, at the door sin-offering crouching-one, it turns towards you, and you are to rule over it.”
What do you think?
The agent referent here is not sin, but the crouching one (as a substantival participle). In Hebrew when the grammatically feminine agent is personified (or left implied), it may use the masculine pronouns. A good example is in Isaiah 40:13, where ruach (“wind” or “spirit”) is a grammatically feminine noun but is used with a masculine verb because the agent is Yahweh (the noun of the prepositional phrase). In other words, the “Spirit [feminine] of Yahweh [masculine]” is a masculine subject, despite being grammatically feminine in terms of nominal subject-verb agreement.
Post a Comment