BT Vol. 63, No.4: 185-191 CROUCHING DEMON, HIDDEN LAMB: RESURRECTING AN EXEGETICAL FOSSIL IN GENESIS 4.7 L. MICHAEL MORALES
[email protected] The author is professor of Old Testament/Hebrew at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, Florida, U.S.A. It would not be surprising if a paleontologist, on discovering some exquisite fossil remains, were to allow his mind to imagine how the ancient creature may have appeared in the days when those bones had sinews and flesh. At other times, no doubt, hope turns to disappointment as the “fossils” turn out to be no bones at all—just oddly shaped rocks buried in the dirt. With both such enthusiasm and disappointment I read John de Jong’s article in this journal, “A ‘Sin Offering’ Crouching at the Door? Translation Lessons from an Exegetical Fossil in the Judson Bible” (2010), in which he considered the once widely accepted translation of hattat in Gen 4.7 as “sin offering.” Although this intriguing translation was thought to have become extinct, I would like to revisit the excavation site in this article and examine the fossil once more, asking: “Can these bones live?” In his article, de Jong noted how Adoniram Judson (1788–1850), Adam Clarke (1762–1832), and Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown (1877) all translated hattat as “sin offering,” with Matthew Henry (1662–1714) recognizing the validity of both translations, “sin” and “sin offering.” Young’s Literal Translation (1862), though not mentioned by de Jong, also used “sin offering” for hattat in Gen 4.7. His article goes on to suggest that “sin offering” may have been the “conservative” rendering at the time, while it was the more “progressive” or “liberal” section of the church that ultimately went with the translation that has “stood the test of time,” namely hattat as “sin.” Other than to disqualify Judson’s translation graciously as one that, in its own time, was conservative and widely held, de Jong never asks why such a translation was once widely held. Neither, for example, does he ask how a translation that deviated from the Authorized Version could have ever become “conservative” (an unhelpful label in any case). Another useful question would relate to why the “sin offering” translation ever got buried in the first place. Did arguments from context or grammar contribute toward favoring the “progressive” translation? In raising each of these questions, we are merely suggesting the possibility, acknowledged by de Jong himself, that we too are “children of our time” and that a previously held translation might shed light into the scholarly fog of our own age. Needless to say, the test of time should not 185 Studying the original languages of the Bible. as suggested by several commentators. To be sure.26. scholars have recognized a particular cultic context for the Eden narratives. Now to you will be his desire but you must rule over him. and the key to interpretation is context. will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well. we will restrict our consideration to three major problems created by this translation.” Gen 2. 18. the personification of sin as something like a crouching demon.” The NRSV is a typical representative: “If you do well. especially given the translation under consideration. Eden’s eastward orientation.” What door does it refer to? Is it the door of Cain’s tent.15) that are used together in describing the work of Levitical priests (Num 3. 4 (october 2012) be defined merely by the current generation’s judgment—we must also consider the wide history of interpretation. sin is lurking at the door. the suffixed pronouns rendered “its desire” and “rule/master it” presumably refer back to “sin. Second. however. namely.” “rule him”). our conclusions will also help to support de Jong’s main point. serve” and shamar “keep. increasingly. such as the description of YHWH’s walking in Eden. another puzzling feature. its desire is for you. 63. 8. watch.” Hattat. ongoing translation. no. In light of these truths it is significant that. While our own goal here will be simply to suggest several reasons why “sin offering” may be the preferred translation for hattat in this passage. de Jong’s article drew some helpful lessons for both Bible teaching and translation. and the cherubim guarding the entrance to Eden. We begin with some of the grammatical and contextual problems which must be faced by the common rendering of Gen 4. Further.186 the bible translator vol. All translation is interpretation. Other parallels could . is feminine while the pronominal suffixes are masculine (“his desire. Yet all of the drama becomes focused upon Cain’s relationship to this other “him”—to this alleged demon that has upstaged Abel. that while the word of God is infallible our translations are not. First. at the door a sin offering is lying down. then why do no other examples of such an expression occur in the Hebrew Bible? Let us turn now to consider the alternative translation and try to demonstrate how it best resolves the difficulties just mentioned: If you do well will not [your countenance] be lifted? If you do not do well. 8. with hattat translated as “sin. guard. or of his heart? If we are to take the whole phrase as idiomatic.7.6-7).” Briefly. So too the masculine participle often translated “crouching” or “lurking” (robets) presents a difficulty—and in this case. but you must master it. the feminine hattat must be its subject. is not entirely convincing. Third. Gordon Wenham (1986). A vast amount of literature now supports the idea that the garden is depicted as an archetypal sanctuary. nor does one show up again. and (perhaps chiefly) humility are all needed for this endeavor. No such concept or character has been introduced into the narrative previously. noted many parallels between the garden and the later tabernacle/temple of Israel. the description of Adam’s labor uses verbs (abad “work.7 passage itself was used merely as an illustration.7. for example. is the presence of a “door. and the Gen 4. I have argued elsewhere (Morales.” Precisely this picture of a lamb or goat (or any animal) lying down tranquilly is the most common image in places where this verb is used throughout the Old Testament. The last sentence is in fact a verbless clause. we still have to face the problem that this participle is masculine while hattat is feminine. the same root as the participle in Gen 4. the difficulties of the alternative personification vanish.7 Revisited 187 be mentioned as well. With Leviticus at its heart and Sinai’s shadow cast from Exod 19 through Num 10. a lamb or goat ready to be sacrificed—that is “lying down” in the doorway.) understood Eden to be the holy of holies (see 8. and bring their sacrifices. We will return to this point shortly. . readers may be surprised to discover that in the psalmist’s reflection upon YHWH as shepherd in Ps 23. It is a sin offering (hattat hu)” (author’s translation). In the tabernacle system. Here the Shekinah glory was manifested as God came down to hold communion with them. is not so severe when hattat is rendered “sin offering. forthcoming) that the expulsion from Eden is the catalyst which sets the biblical drama of redemption in motion. it is possible then for masculine pronouns to be used with it. And the cherubim placed there correspond to the ancient Near Eastern idea that this guarded entryway is a temple gate. but for now we note that the outcome of the narrative for Cain is that he is driven away from the Presence of YHWH. . This affirms the idea that the previous Eden narrative(s) are contextually relevant for Gen 4. As an example of a more ancient understanding of the text that affirms Wenham’s analysis.7 refers to Eden’s entrance (Gen 3.7 is used in v.” since when that offering refers particularly to a male sin offering. in their sinful state they are no longer able to meet with God face to face in the Garden.24). worship Him. and Abraham. A similar case is found in Exod 29. Davidson (2000. the sacrifices of Abel. you shall burn with fire outside the camp.14 where we read: “But the flesh of the bull. Noah. Indeed. . then. The Gate of the Garden becomes the Sanctuary where Adam and Eve and their descendants were to meet with God. 112) thus appears correct in his general portrayal of the primal family’s cultic ritual: After Adam and Eve are expelled. It explains the logic and necessity of the Israelite system of worship and sacrifice. with its skin and its dung. which matches the feminine hattat with the . however. the “door” served as the place where Israelites would come to present their offerings. the author of the book of Jubilees (around 200 B. “Sin Offering” IN GENESIS 4. 2: “he makes me lie down (rbts) in green pastures.16). The narrative in question. As soon as we understand that it is the sin offering—in other words.C. described as farther “east of Eden” (Gen 4. is thoroughly cultic in nature—how this guides our translation will become clear shortly.19). each climaxing with a sacrifice of great significance. it is reasonable to suppose that the “door” of Gen 4. the Pentateuch’s cultic context must be appreciated throughout the extent of its pages. Richard M. like the presence of the source of abundant waters. This difficulty. Nevertheless. Furthermore. Wenham (1995) has also noted that the structure of Genesis divides human history into three periods. Returning to our proposed translation. 1). by repentance expressed through sacrificial worship. point: Abel brought the “firstborn” (bekor) of his flock. Because rebellion may result in the loss of the right of the firstborn (see 1 Chr 5. First. 14). Instead. As a side note. as desiring his brother’s blessing. at the door a sin offering is lying down” refers to YHWH’s revelation to Cain of a remedy for his failure—the same remedy later revealed to Israel. then. Lev 4. in their relationship as brothers. YHWH is here (Gen 4. in Gen 4 a sinful act has disrupted another human relationship—that of the two main human characters. in their marital relationship. In the book of Leviticus. To summarize the logic of our translation so far. no. and often neglected.24-25.” we make the following brief points. Someone might question whether this portrayal of Abel. “Your desire shall be for your husband.2). but he shall rule over you. And when we recognize that Cain and Abel are the only characters about whom YHWH speaks (and no crouching demon is introduced). “If you do not do well. Admittedly. most scholars have acknowledged that this is a close parallel to Gen 3.” However. 4 where we notice a small. in fact.188 the bible translator vol.. then the referent becomes obvious and so this difficulty is by no means insurmountable. many of the other narratives in Genesis show a continuing concern for this theme. Jacob and Esau.16 where YHWH says to the woman. lamb or pigeon—is “to be offered at the door of the tabernacle of meeting before YHWH” (see Lev 1. e. 63. we read regularly that for all offerings.18-29). Such a biblical and ancient Near Eastern cultic context must weigh heavily when we read of a hattat lying down at the door—especially when the doorway of an archetypal temple has recently been alluded to. our understanding of issues relating to the rights of the firstborn (and consequent translation of the text) is hindered by a wide cultural gap. a sinful act had disrupted a human relationship— that of the two main human characters. 23-24). and Joseph and his brothers (and likely also among Noah’s sons in Gen 9.g. is central to the stories of Isaac and Ishmael. Turning to the second part of the translation. the animal—whether bull or goat. Cain murders his rival. and this holds for sin offerings as well (4. 3. we suggest. namely “and to you will be his desire. he may reclaim the blessing. 5. it could be this theme is already hinted at in v. However. At the heart of this brotherly relation is the right of the firstborn.4. Adam and the woman.3. Once again. however. The main issue is the absence of Abel’s name as the male person referred to by the phrases “his desire” and “rule over him. YHWH provides Seth as a replacement for Abel who had indeed inherited the rights of the firstborn. but you must rule over him. Cain and Abel. forfeited by Cain (Gen 4.3). The rivalry between brothers over the rights of the firstborn. this translation is not entirely free from difficulty. It functions as something of an explanation for the rivalry between . this difficulty is much less a problem than the difficulties facing the traditional translation.21. and this is our second point. Yet it is helpful here to note that the statement about his desire is both future-oriented and general. is legitimate. As the narrative unfolds.” In Gen 3.7) instructing Cain on how. 4 (october 2012) masculine pronoun hu because the sin offering is particularly a male offering (see also. So also. Now given that Cain is without question being addressed in Gen 4. whatever Hebrew text it may have been based on. it is not apparent in the narrative itself) and general. we should also note that. and by considering the ancient Near Eastern background. Returning to our fossil illustration. Interpretation of the biblical text. with a reflection on why the proposed translation. after all. these bones had already been uncovered and “made to live” by Joaquim Azevedo in a persuasive article entitled “At the Door of Paradise: A Contextual Interpretation of Gen 4. namely. namely. In addition. serving as an explanation for the rivalry evident in marriage universally. also has the advantage of addressing two themes that are developed methodically through the rest of Genesis and the Pentateuch. his recourse is to you. Here. Cain and Abel are continually being contrasted throughout the narrative. For example. “Sin Offering” IN GENESIS 4. Similarly. YHWH addresses Cain and once more refers to a third person—not a demon.” and v. may have become buried to begin with. a decade before de Jong’s article. and the second half of the verse as related to his brother. The next scene. places Cain back in contrast to his established rival. Alternatively. Moreover. and the significance of this fact should be kept in mind in relation to v. 8 begins immediately with: “Now Cain spoke to Abel his brother.16 is both future-oriented (that is. the last word (particle) of v. as mentioned earlier.” Afterwards. while space does not allow a review of the history of interpretation. readily acknowledging the high probability of proposing false causes. as he rises up to kill Abel.). the second person of this already established duo.7 Revisited 189 brothers universally and in the rest of the book of Genesis. but “your brother” (vv. and you will rule over him” (NETS). it may be helpful to include here the Septuagint translation (from about the third century B. We round off this article. then. finally. context. A translation such as the one we are suggesting.7” (1999).7. that of the cultic approach to YHWH and that of the rivalry between brothers.C. involves the . 7 is the enigmatic “him. History is rarely simple. the Septuagint marks the first part of the verse as related to Cain’s (albeit previous) sacrifice. Indeed. it would be quite odd for this pair to be replaced by that of Cain and personified sin. the basis of all translation. it would be most natural to presume that the contrasting his/him refers to Abel. Azevedo suggests that it was the fact that Cain did not perform the ritual duty at the door of paradise that led to his loss of the firstborn right. YHWH accepted Abel and his offering while he rejected Cain and his offering. Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground while Abel brought of his flock. Yet our subject pushes us to reflect on what is perhaps both the greatest obstacle and the greatest asset to proper interpretation. grammatical and syntactical analysis. Using discourse linguistics. which reads: “If you offer correctly but do not divide correctly. then. the woman’s “desire” in Gen 3. once common enough. 9-10). have you not sinned? Be still. Any attempt at explanation must of course be both cautious and tentative. Paralleling these two dialogues between YHWH and Cain supplies Abel as the most likely person being referred to in the first exchange. Abel was a keeper of sheep while Cain was a tiller of the ground. 7. for the people of Myanmar). 2009. This usually went along with an attitude that viewed the strand identified as the Priestly (P) source as less valuable or important. 2010. 156) and that the temple and its rituals have been “the great repressed of biblical studies” (Carden 2009. Crispin.7. we cannot help but wonder if these fossils belong to the primal ancestor of a creature still alive.” Biblische Notizen 100: 45-59.” The Bible and Critical Theory 5.1-2: 102-19.7. The scholarship of this era was—and to a large extent still is—characterized by the source-critical division of the biblical material. 63. thought to have come from a time before the post-exilic decline of Israelite religion into the cultic ritualism of P. no. as noted earlier. perhaps. It could be. “Cosmic Metanarrative for the Coming Millennium. 1999.15.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11.) Fletcher-Louis. and this recognition became part of a turning tide in biblical studies—a double triumph of renewed interest in cultic ritual and of openness to cultic concerns in non-P material. Jamieson.190 the bible translator vol. “Atonement Patterns in Biblical Narrative: Rebellious Sons. Michael. Carden. that a prevalent anti-cult atmosphere in our own context had blinded us to the proper interpretation (and translation) of Gen 4. So it is a distinct possibility that this itself has misled our own translation of Gen 4. and Judson 2005. led by the work of Julius Wellhausen.1: 4. Joaquim. 4. Davidson. References Azevedo. However. 2006.” The Bible Translator 61. John. among the people of Myanmar.1-4. 2000. “Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1. that “the priesthood has been marginalized in modern biblical studies” (Fletcher-Louis 2006. and (3) that of the culture one is translating the text into (in Judson’s case. “At the Door of Paradise: A Contextual Interpretation of Gen 4. Fausset. (Reference this article’s bibliography on Clarke 1977. if threatened and endangered—a species still dwelling. It is worth noting now that the context of biblical studies (2) underwent a major revolution in the twentieth century. . De Jong. It could be argued that interest in cultic studies now dominates scholarship. This attitude has led later scholars to acknowledge. Brown 1993. for example.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 4. Gordon Wenham’s article on the sanctuary symbolism of Eden (1986).7. 4 (october 2012) interface of three cultural contexts: (1) that of the biblical world itself. “A ‘Sin Offering’ Crouching at the Door? Translation Lessons from an Exegetical Fossil in the Judson Bible. (2) that of the translator’s own culture. Richard M. Henry 1991. Scapegoats and Boy Substitutes. then. like some childlike paleontologist.2: 155-75. Both of these aspects of twentieth-century scholarship are relevant to our particularly cultic translation since the Eden narratives had been assigned to the non-cultic Jahwist (J) source.1). So far our study has tried to show how the biblical context (1) might favor our suggested translation. clearly showed that J contained significant cultic aspects and concerns.2: 89-92. and Near Eastern Ritual. 2007. Michael. and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Wright. Wenham. ——. Leuven: Peeters. Robert.7 Revisited 191 Morales. Consisting of the Old and New Covenants. New York: Oxford University Press. Jewish. NETS: A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 1862.” Pages 19-25 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. “The Akedah: A Paradigm of Sacrifice. “Sin Offering” IN GENESIS 4. Law. Forthcoming. The Holy Bible. “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story. and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. Gordon J. 1995. Young. Translated According to the Letter and Idioms of the Original Languages. L. Wright. The Tabernacle Prefigured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus. Edited by David P. . and Avi Hurvitz. Edinburgh: George Adam Young & Co.” Pages 93-102 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical. Division A: The Period of the Bible. 1986. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. David Noel Freedman.