out. Every attempt to extract a meaning from the v. is
more or less of a tour de force, and it is nearly certain that
the obscurity is due to deep-seated textual corruption (v.i.).—8.
And Cain said] (
Hebrew characters) never being quite synonymous
with (Hebrew characters), the sentence is incomplete: the missing words,
Let us go to the field, must be supplied from Vns.; see below
(so Ew. Di. Dri. al.). That Cain, as a first step towards
reconciliation, communicated to Abel the warning he had
just received (Tu. al.), is perhaps possible grammatically, but
psychologically is altogether improbable.—the field] the open
country (see on 25), where they were safe from observation
satisfying, though both are cumbered with the unnatural metaphor of
sin as a wild beast couching at the door (of what?), and the harsh
discord of gender. The latter is not fairly to be got rid of by taking
(Hebrew characters) as a noun ('sin is at the door, a lurker': Ew. al.), though no doubt
it might be removed by a change of text. Of the image itself the best
explanation would be that of Ho., who regards (Hebrew characters) as a technical
expression for unforgiven sin (cf. Dt. 2919). Jewish interpreters explain
it of the evil impulse in man ((Hebrew characters)), and most Christians similarly of
the overmastering or seductive power of sin; 7b being regarded as
a summons to Cain to subdue his evil passions.—7b reads smoothly
enough by itself, but connects badly with what precedes. The antecedent
to the pron. suff. is usually taken to be Sin personified as a wild
beast, or less commonly (Calv. al.) Abel, the object of Cain's envy.
The word (Hebrew characters) is equally unsuitable, whether it be understood of the
wild beast's eagerness for its prey or the deference due from a younger
brother to an older; and the alternative (Hebrew characters) of G and S (see on 316)
is no better. The verbal resemblance to 316b is itself suspicious; a
facetious parody of the language of a predecessor is not to be attributed
to any early writer. It is more likely that the erroneous words
were afterwards adjusted to their present context: in S the suff. are
actually reversed ((Syriac characters)).—The
paraphrase of TO affords no help, and the textual confusion is probably
irremediable; tentative emendations like those of Gu. (p. 38) are of no
avail. Che. TBI, 105, would remove v.7 as a gloss, and make 8a
(reading (Hebrew characters)) Cain's answer to v.6.
8. (Hebrew characters), in the sense of 'speak,' 'converse' (2 Ch. 3224), is excessively
rare and late: the only instance in early Heb. is apparently Ex. 1925,
where the context has been broken by a change of document. It might
mean 'mention' (as 4327 etc.), but in that case the obj. must be indicated.
Usually it is followed, like Eng. 'say,' by the actual words
spoken. Hence (Hebrew characters) is to be supplied with [E]GSV, but not Aq.
(Tu. De.: see the scholia in Field): a Pisqa in some Heb. MSS, though
