Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 (2001) 65-84]
ISSN 0951-8207
Abstract
This article discusses the use of envy in the history of the interpretation of
Gen. 4.1-16. The theme of envy is given greater prominence in post-biblical
interpretations of the story of Cain and Abel than in the biblical narrative.
The magnification of envy is present in translation equivalents, character
revisions and the incorporation of legendary accretions. This magnification
of envy serves to deflect attention away from God who chooses, in a capricious way, one sacrifice over another.
1. Introduction
Expansions and reworkings of a biblical text by ancient interpreters generally arise from a perceived peculiarity in the biblical text.1 In the case of
Cain and Abel (Gen. 4.1-16), there are two problems in the narrative: the
first problem exists on a theological level since it concerns Gods seeming
capriciousness in the rejection of one sacrifice and not the other, and the
second problem exists on the narrative level and concerns the lack of contact between the brothers (the lack of a murder motive).2 These perceived
1. See J.L. Kugel, In Potiphars House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), pp. 247-51.
2. YHWH appears capricious if one considers the possibility that Cains sacrifice
was comparable to Abels. This is suggested by H.B. Huffmon, Cain: The Arrogant
Sufferer, in A. Kort and S. Morshauser (eds.), Biblical and Related Studies Presented
to Samuel Iwry (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), pp. 109-13. Huffmon writes that
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX and
370 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA.
66
problems give rise to the creative expansion and reworking of the story by
later interpreters. One way of addressing this two-fold problem is to recast
the story in light of sibling rivalry and envy. By so doing, ancient interpreters introduce conflict and simultaneously deflect attention away from
the more troubling problem of YHWHs capriciousness. In this article, I
will demonstrate how these two problems are mitigated by the magnification of envy which makes its entrance into the story through the use of
translation equivalents, characterizations and legendary accretions.
2. Sibling Rivalry and the Phenomenon of Envy
Stories of rivalry between siblings are common material in ancient myths3
and find a place in the Hebrew story of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4.1-16). The
pattern of rivalry and its consequences in the Patriarchal narratives and
the Deuteronomistic History is best shown in a table of corresponding
events from biblical narratives selected ad hoc (see Fig. 1).4
This table shows that narratives about the key heroes of Israels history
follow a general pattern of limited good, violent conflict between brothers,
and resolution by physical separation. In the case of Cain and Abel, Abimelech and the 70 brothers, and Amnon and Absalom, the physical separation between the brothers is death. While the Hebrew text does not tell
us the means by which Cain murdered Abel, it does state that Abel died a
bloody death and not a clean death by suffocation ( Myq(c Kyx) ymd lwq
hmd)h-Nm yl), Gen. 4.10). To a lesser extent, the threat of death is present in each of the following instances: the land is unable to support both
Abraham and Lot, Jacob is tricked into thinking that Joseph was devoured
by wild animals and Esau consoles himself with the thought of Jacobs
death. The primary resolution of conflict is physical separation, the most
extreme form of which is death. Cain and Abel should be understood in
Cain had an expectation that YHWH would accept his sacrifice as well. On the storys
lack of a murder motive, see J.L. Kugel, Cain and Abel in Fact and Fable: Genesis
4:1-16, in R. Brooks and J.J. Collins (eds.) Hebrew Bible or Old Testament? Studying
the Bible in Judaism and Christianity (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity, 5; Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), pp. 176-79.
3. The Egyptian Story of Two Brothers, in ANET, I, pp. 12-16, and the Roman
legend of Romulus and Remus are two non-Israelite examples of sibling rivalry in the
ancient world.
4. See also the discussion by M. McEntire, The Blood of Abel: The Violent Plot in
the Hebrew Bible (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1999), which decribes the
story line of violence in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
Genesis 4.1-16
Fratricide
Violence
Resolution
Threat of death
Judges 9
Sisters virtue
Fratricide
Fratricide
Joseph is sold into slav- Abimelech kills the 70 Absalom kills Amnon
ery. Jacob is told that brothers
Joseph is dead
Bloody robe
Kingship
Joseph and his brothers Abimelech and the 70 Amnon and Absalom
brothers
Genesis 37
Genesis 2728
Rejected sacrifice
Conflict
Brothers
Pattern
68
69
70
71
with the notion that it was Cains envy that led to the murder of Abel.18 It
is interesting that almost no trace of the problem of YHWHs capriciousness remains in these later patristic interpretations.
b. Cains Motivation for Murder: The Moment of Conflict
Despite these later associations between Gen. 4.1-16 and envy, the word
itself ()nq) does not appear in the Hebrew text. Nor is it the case that the
story exhibits any explicit rivalry over common resources. Perhaps following advice similar to that given by Plutarch in his treatise, Brotherly
Love, Cain and Abel pursue distinct professionsone brother becomes a
farmer and the other a shepherd.19 Implicitly, it is possible to conclude that
Cain was envious of his brother because Abels sacrifice was pleasing to
God; however, this is never explicitly stated in the Hebrew text. The suggestion that Cain was governed by envy is a natural association from an
etymological interpretation of Cains name, Nyq, which was thought to
derive from the root for )nq (envy) or hnq (acquire).
Even if one assumes that Cain is driven by envy on account of his failed
sacrifice, it does not necessarily follow that he should kill Abel who is not
directly responsible for the failure of his sacrifice. The narrative itself does
not suggest that Cain offered a flawed sacrifice.20 One might expect Cain
to complain to YHWH over the unjust rejection of his sacrifice, perhaps in
a manner like that found in the book of Job.21 The crime however seems
to be disproportionate to the events of the narrative.
The brevity of the Hebrew text and the absence of an explicit murder
motive contribute to the problem of Gods capriciousness in Gen. 4.1-16.
Interpretation: A Collection of Essays (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 5; Leuven: Peeters,
1997), pp. 187-96 (192), where he notes Jacobs philological basis behind his exegesis.
18. Others, not mentioned above, include John Chrysostom, Didymus of Alexandria, Basil of Seleucia, Cyril of Alexandria, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Narsai, Jacob of
Serugh, Symmachus. See J.B. Glenthj, Cain and Abel in Syriac and Greek Writers
(4th6th Centuries) (CSCO, 567; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), pp. 146-47.
19. See J.D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1993), p. 73, who correctly criticizes the over-simplification of the Cain and Abel
story to the dichotomy of pastoral nomad and agriculturalist.
20. See, for example, the discussion found in Levenson, The Death and Resurrection, pp. 71-73.
21. See the parallel between Gen. 4.7 and Job 11.13a, 15a, and Gen. 4.7 and Job
11.14, pointed out by W.M. Clark, The Flood and the Structure of the Pre-Patriarchal
History, ZAW 83 (1971), pp. 184-211 (199 n. 6).
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
72
73
other ancient authorities attest the early existence of the shorter Hebrew
text.
The shorter Hebrew text was the received text of Jerome who claims
that the LXX and the Samaritan are secondary:
Et dixit Cain ad Abel fratrem suum. Subauditur, ea quae locutus est Dominus. Superfluum ergo est, quod in Samaritanorum et nostro volumine [LXX]
reperitur: Transeamus in campum.25
Similarly, the scholion based on information from Origen states that the
LXX clause let us go down to the field, is a secondary accretion to the
Hebrew original.26 This suggests that there is some evidence for a shorter
Hebrew text. The reading found in MT is attested in 4QGenb as well27 and
it is very likely that this was the Hebrew textus receptus for Jerome and
others. In other words, the shorter reading was an authoritative version in
the ancient world and this reading would have been available to ancient
interpreters of the story. The lack of any dialogue between Cain and Abel
that we see in the Hebrew text of Gen. 4.8 very likely generated a number
of ancient interpretations.
It is also possible that the ancient interpreters associated the consonantal
form rm)yw in Gen. 4.8 with notions of haughty or arrogant behavior. The
root rm) carries the connotation of arrogant or haughty behavior in many
as it Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1998), pp. 160-61.
25. See Origenis Hexapla. I. Prolegomena, GenesisEsther (ed. F. Field; 2 vols.;
London: Clarendon Press, 1875), p. 18 n. 15.
26. This scholion reads, En tw Ebraikw to lexqen upo tou Kain proj ton
Abel ou gegraptai, kai oi peri Akulan edeican: oti en apo kruyw fasin oi
Ebraioi keisqai touto entauqa kata thn twn O / ekdoxhn; roughly translated as,
in the Hebrew, the utterance from Cain to Abel was not written. And those [notations]
around Aquila also show that the Hebrews say to propose this [is] there by means of an
apocryphal source according to the transmission by those of the LXX (Origenis
Hexapla, p. 18). In a footnote, Field writes that the scholion based on information from
Origen was mistranslated by a previous editor of the Hexapla, D. Bernardus de
Montfaucon (1713), who wrote that Aquila has the extra words found in the LXX. The
following clause, oi peri Akulan edeican, was mistranslated by a former editor of the
Hexapla as Aquila tamen exhibet (however Aquila shows). In his editorial note,
Field writes, cum potius sonent, id quod etiam docet Aquilae versio (when these
words rather mean, that which Aquilas version also shows, i.e. that the Hebrew also
did not have the extra words) (Origenis Hexapla, p. 18 n. 16).
27. J.R. Davila, Qumran Cave 4. VII. Genesis to Numbers (DJD, 12; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp. 31-78.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
74
75
76
35. See Gruber, The Tragedy of Cain and Abel, pp. 94-97, where he suggests that
Gen. 4.5b-8 describe a case of depression. What is interesting about Grubers interpretation is that it is more sympathetic to Cain.
36. See E. Hatch and H. Redpath (eds.), A Concordance to the Septuagint and Other
Greek Versions of the Old Testament (2 vols.; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1998 with index [1897]), p. 889, where possible retroversions for lupein are listed as:
lb), #$pn Mg), #$)b, ywd, hrx, b)k, bc( (niphal [twice]), Ppq (qal, hithpael), zgr, dwr
(hiphil), ((r (hiphil), (r.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
77
eiper estin o fqonoj luph tij epi eupragai yainomenh twn eirhmenwn
agaqwn peri touj omoiouj. (Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.10.1)
While the term e0lu&phsen is not the stereotypical retroversion for rxyw, in
the context of Gen. 4.1-16 it provides a fitting translation which makes the
motive for the murder more explicit. Cain murdered Abel because he was
envious of Abels sacrifice. While it is not possible to demonstrate that the
LXX scribe was motivated by Aristotles particular understanding of e0lu&
phsen within a context of envy, it is demonstrable that such an association
would have influenced later interpreters.
b. Characterization: Conflict from Birth
The connection of e0lu&phsen (LXX Gen. 4.5) with envy facilitates what
naturally arises from the etymological associations of Cains name. According to the Hebrew text, Cains name (Nyq) is explained by Eves announcement, I have aquired a man with the [help of] Lord (t) #$y) ytynq
37
hwhy). Another etymological connection with Cains name is envy ()nq).
Etymology allows ancient interpreters and scribes to secure envy into the
Cain and Abel story through the stereotypical characterization of the two
brothers.38 In addition to the etymological suggestion that Cains name is
related to )nq (envy), hints of Cains dubious nature may be seen in Gen.
4.7 as well. Here YHWH urges Cain to do well and from this it is possible
to infer the opposite, that Cain is not good or is not doing well. This inference from v. 7 as well as the associations of Cains name with the acquisition of possessions (hnq) or with envy itself ()nq) generate a stream of
ancient interpretations which fuse envy and wickedness with the very
nature of Cain. Through the characterization of Cain, the ancient interpreters were able to establish animosity between the two brothers, thus explaining the murder without having to explain the capriciousness of YHWHs
rejection of Cains sacrifice.
37. It is also possible to read I have created a man with YHWH, but this is less
likely since it relies upon a secondary meaning of hnq.
38. The discussion of character-analysis by J. Vaccaro, Early Jewish and Christian
Interpretations of the Character of Isaac in Genesis 22 (unpublished doctoral dissertation; University of Notre Dame, 1998), pp. 7-54. Of particular interest is the distinction
made between character-analysis and personality analysis, the former places an emphasis on agency, particularly moral agency and the latter elicit[ing] something of an
empathetic response from [the] reader (p. 20). See also the discussion of stereotypes
found in Neyrey, Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy, pp. 129-33.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
78
Character revision was a common practice in the writing of ancient biographies.39 The revision of Cains character as envious and wicked from
birth is an attempt to synthesize adult achievements with childhood into
one unified personality. The LXX follows the Hebrew etymology (hnq) of
Cains name by the use of the verb, e0kthsa&mhn. Following the Hebrew
and Greek etymology, to acquire, Josephus gives the etymology of Cains
name as acquisition (kthsij)40 and he adds a character analysis in his
gloss, Cain had been thoroughly wicked, looking only to gain (to kerdainein) (Ant. 1.53). The words to kerdainein have clear associations
with greed.41 Josephus goes on to state that Cain killed Abel because he
was angry over the fact that YHWH accepted Abels sacrifice (Ant. 1.55).
In the same vein, Philo describes the etymology of Cains name in the
following manner: Cain is called Possession, because he thinks he
possesses all things.42 This type of negative characterization emerges in
full form in the relatively late text of Exod. R. where we find the following:
It is written: He that has an evil eye hastens after riches (Prov 28:22). This
refers to Cain, who wanted to possess the whole world without delay. When
he was with his brother, as it is written: And it came to pass, when they were
in the field (Gen 4:8) one said to the other: Let us divide the world. Cain said:
You take the movable property and I will take the immovable property.
After they had divided [the world], and after Abel had taken the movable
property and Cain the immovable property, Cain thought about removing
Abel from this world. When Abel was walking around on the earth, Cain
pursued him and shouted: Get off my property! When he was walking on
the hills, Cain shouted: Get off my property! Until he finally rose up against
him and slew him (ibid.). A proof that he that has an evil eye hastens after
riches (Prov 28:22) refers to Cain, whose eye was evil upon his brother.
(Exod. R. 31.17)
This midrash brings into sharp focus the full expression of this characterization. It also severs any connection between the murder and YHWHs
79
80
progeny.48 The interpretation that the blood of Abel lives even after his
death is linked to the use of the present participle form, Myq(c (Gen.
4.11) instead of the perfect form.49 Among Christian interpreters, this was
then taken to be a sign of the life after death; the resurrection of Christ.50
The shedding of blood as an expiation for sins is exegetically linked to the
murder of Abel with the interpretation that Abel is the prototypical martyr.
Such an interpretation appears in Heb. 11.4, which records a distinguished
list of ancient ancestors that begins with Abel and continues with Enoch,
Noah, Abraham and Moses,51 and escalates to Jesus himself. In many ways
the character of Abel takes on an apologetic function for the author of
Hebrews since Abel demonstrates that it is not unprecedented for Gods
chosen and favored one to die an undeserved and unjust death; it is fitting
that salvation history both begins and ends with such unjust deaths.
Abels righteousness and Cains wickedness become stereotypical characterizations in many ancient interpretations which serves an exegetical
function of deflecting attention away from the issue of the sacrifices and
YHWHs seeming capriciousness. The murder becomes a consequence of
a conflict between good and evil and is no longer presented as the consequence of Cains anger over YHWHs rejection of his sacrifice.
c. Legendary Accretions
According to sociological studies, the closer two siblings are in age, the
greater the rivalry between them. Some ancient interpretations locate the
motive for the murder of Abel within a context of sibling rivalry over
goods that are not related to the issue of sacrifice.
48. The Targums also contain the interpretation that Abels death includes his own
and the death of his future progeny and testifies to the belief that a murderer is guilty,
not only of the death of one just man, but also of the denial of life to all his righteous
posterity, see Vermes, The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:3-16, p. 117.
49. The Rabbis interpreted this as a sign that it was not just Abel who perished, but
also all of his unborn progeny. See Gen. R. 22.9.
50. See T. Kronholm, Motifs from Genesis 111 in the Genuine Hymns of Ephrem
the Syrian With Particular Reference to the Influence of Jewish Exegetical Tradition
(ConBOT, 11; Uppsala: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1978), pp. 145-49; J. Frishman, Themes on
Genesis 15 in Early East-Syrian Exegesis, in J. Frishman and L. van Rompay (eds.),
The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of
Essays (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 5; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), pp. 171-86.
51. Hebrews 11.32-40 then goes on to mention briefly Gideon, Barak, Samson,
Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets and others.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
81
The proximity in age between Cain and Abel is not explicitly stated in
the Hebrew text. The biblical text does, however, emphasize the familial
relationship between the two through the repeated use of the word x)
(brother).52 The births of Cain and Abel are brought into close proximity
by later Jewish interpreters and scribes. Their proximity in age is recorded
in Jubilees53 and in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which states, she went
on to bear from Adam, her husband, his twin sister and Abel.54 Josephus
makes no explicit time distinction between the two and writes simply,
two male children were born to them (Ginontai de autov paidev arrenev duo).55 Some interpretations explicitly present Cain and Abel as having
been born at the same time. In Genesis Rabbah it is written that,
wytwmw)t yt#$w lbhw wtmw)tw Nyq h(b#$ wdryw Myn#$ h+ml wl(
A pair went to bed and emerged as seven: Cain and his twin sister and Abel
and his two twin sisters. (Gen. R. 22.2)
The tradition that Cain and Abel were of close proximal age creates a situation that would have aggravated the rivalry between the two according to
sociological studies.56
In addition to their closeness in age, rivalry over a woman explicitly
introduces the theme of envy by providing a limited good element. Since
the begetting of children is not a solitary enterprise, and given the genealogical record from Gen. 4.17-22 of Cains descendants, ancient interpreters felt that it was necessary to account for Cains wife and reproductive
partner.57 The author of Jubilees writes, In the third week in the second
52. The word x) appears seven times in Gen. 4.1-16 with six references in the
verses which deal with the fratricide and its aftermath (Gen. 4.8-11).
53. Jubilees 2.61, translated by J.C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (CSCO,
511, Scriptores Aethiopici, 88; Leuven: Peeters, 1989).
54. Translation taken from J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An
Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1969), p. 132.
55. Josephus (Ant. 1.52) agrees with MT which states that Cain was older.
56. Once again, see Schoeck, Envy, p. 79, where he describes the practice among
the Sioux Indians of creating a barrier of time between the birth of one child and the
next as proof of that childs favored status. The rationale is that a greater separation in
age will assuage feelings of rivalry among siblings and thus close proximity in age
aggravates feelings of rivalry.
57. For a complete listing of the twin traditions related to Cain and Abel, see Glenthj, Cain and Abel in Syriac and Greek Writers, p. 4. Not all of them will be treated in
this article for obvious reasons. While the twin tradition also appears in PRE 21,
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
82
jubilee [years 64-70], she gave birth to Cain; in the fourth [71-77] she
gave birth to Abel; and in the fifth [78-84] she gave birth to his daughter
Awan (Jub. 4.1). Since only one daughter was born to Adam and Eve prior
to Abels murder, the author of Jubilees seems to have assumed that the
murder arose as a consequence of Cains struggle to possess Awan, the
sole mate available. Pseudo-Philo, usually dated at approximately 70 CE,58
also contains the tradition that Adam and Eve had only one daughter, but
she is named Noaba in this source.59
After the death of Abel and the removal of the rival for the only reproductive mate available, Jubilees records that in the sixth week Eve gave
birth to another daughter who was named Azura (Jub. 4.8). It seems likely
that this detail gave rise to the tradition that each brother was born with a
twin sister. Later interpreters harmonize Azura with the first daughter. The
tradition of a twin sister for both Cain and Abel is preserved in many
sources. In addition to Josephus (Ant. 1.52) and Genesis Rabbah, the
Western Recension of the Syriac Cave of Treasures states that there were
twin sisters for both Cain and Abel. In this text, the murder of Abel directly follows from this tradition of twin sisters:
And she conceived and gave birth to Cain and Lebudah his sister with him,
twins in one womb. And again she conceived and gave birth to Abel and
Qelimata his sister, in one womb. And when the youths grew up, Adam said
to Eve, Let Cain take Qelimata who was born with Abel [as a wife] and
Abel, Lebudah who was born with Cain. But Cain said to his mother, I am
taking my sister, and Abel is taking his sister because Lebuda was amazingly striking in her beauty and appealing and desirable in her appearance
And it happened that when they went up, Adam the first priest and Cain and
Abel to the top of the mountain, Satan entered into Cain so that he should
kill his brother on account of Lebudah. (Cave of Treasures 5.19-22, 27)60
according to Glenthj, the twin tradition is a Jewish phenomenon which never flourished in Christian literature.
58. Whether it was written before or after the destruction is somewhat disputed. See
G.W.E. Nickelsburg, The Bible Rewritten and Expanded, in M. Stone (ed.), Jewish
Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT, 2; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1984), p. 109.
59. See Pseudo-Philo, LAB 1.1, in H. Jacobsen, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philos
Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: With Latin Text and English Translation (2 vols.;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), I, p. 282. Jacobsen suggests that this may be a corruption of
hm(n and that harmonization has occurred with Cains sisters name and the name of
the biblical sister of Tubal-Cain (Gen. 4.22).
60. My translation. For the critical edition of Cave of Treasures, see S. Ri, La
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
83
84