CAIN ŞI ABEL

Wenham, Gordon J.: Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 1-15. Dallas : Word,
Incorporated, 2002 (Word Biblical Commentary 1), S. 100-110.

1–2 These verses constitute the opening of the genealogy of Adam via Cain which
continues in 17–26 after the digression about the murder of Abel in vv 3–16. Like chap.
3, the new episode opens with a circumstantial clause. The word order with the subject
preceding the verb marks a new beginning, not a special emphasis on the man (e.g.,
Cassuto, Gispen). Nor does it justify translating “knew” as a pluperfect “had known”
with the implication that Adam “knew” his wife before he left the garden of Eden (e.g.,
Rashi, Jacob). Though he may have done, this construction does not require such an
interpretation.
1 “Man knew.” Like English “know,” Hebrew ‫ ידע‬is a very broad term. Primarily, it
covers knowledge acquired through the senses, experience that can be passed on to
others, and practical knowledge. Here it is euphemistic for sexual intercourse, a usage
common to the OT and other Semitic languages (e.g., 4:17; 19:5, 8; 24:16, etc.; Akk. idû,
lamādu; Arab. ˓arafa), and though some have maintained that this special use of the
word is a key to its usual meaning, this is unlikely (see W. Schottroff, THWAT 1:682–701,
pace Speiser, Westermann). For the sequence “know, conceive, give birth” cf. 4:17; cf.
also 16:4, 11; 19:35–38; 21:2; 29:32–35; 30:3–5, 16–19; 38:2–5.
“Cain … I have gained a man.” This translation aims to draw attention to the
assonance in the Hebrew between “Cain”/qayin and “I have gained”/qānîtî. Other key
phrases in the story also seem to make phonetic allusions to the name Cain—“Cain
arose” ‫ויקם קין‬, v 8 (cf. yqm//qyn); “… Cain will be punished/avenged sevenfold,”
‫תים‬
ַ ‫קין יקם שב‬
ַ v 15; and similarly, v 24). Echoes of Cain’s name reverberate
through this story, just as in other passages names of the leading characters are often
alluded to in the narratives about them (cf. Adam in chap. 2; Abram in chap. 12, etc.;
Strus, Nomen-Omen, 172–74).
The etymology of Cain’s name offered in the text is “poetic,” as there is no intrinsic
connection between ‫ קין‬and ‫קנה‬. In this respect it resembles the etymologies of Seth,
4:25; Noah, 5:29; Levi, 29:34; Judah, 29:35, etc. (Strus, Nomen-Omen, 65–67). The
historical etymology of Cain is obscure. It has often been explained as “smith,” or
“metalworker” on the basis of Arabic qaynun and Aramaic ‫( קינאה‬cf. “Qenan,” Gen
5:12–14). In support of this derivation, v 22, which speaks of Tubal-Cain as the father of
metalworkers, and 2 Sam 21:16, where the Hebrew word ‫ קין‬means “a lance,” i.e.,
“something worked in metal,” are appealed to. Arguing in a slightly different direction,
Cassuto thinks the proper name “Cain” must mean “something worked, i.e., a creature.”
But really, as Westermann says, there is too little information to be sure about the
original meaning of the name.
OT Old Testament
THWAT Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. E. Jenni and C.
Westermann (Munich: Kaiser, 1971)
 ‫“ קניתי איש את יהוה‬I have gained a man with the LORD’s help.” “Every word
of this little sentence is difficult” (von Rad, 103). First, there is the problem of the
meaning of ‫“ קנה‬gain.” Then, it is peculiar to call a baby boy “a man.” Finally. the last
phrase, ‫את יהוה‬, is very strange. Is ‫ את‬the definite object marker? In that case we
ought to translate “I have acquired a man the LORD.” Or is it a preposition that normally
means “with,” as our translation assumes?
‫ קנה‬means “acquire, buy” (e.g., 25:10; 33:19) more commonly than “to create”
(e.g., 14:19, 22). Given the preoccupation of Gen 1–3 with creation, the rarer meaning
would seem more appropriate here. However, the existence of second-millennium names
such as itti-ili ašāmšu (“I bought him from God”) gives the edge to the other
translation as it also explains the problematic preposition ‫את‬, though ‫“ מאת‬from”
would have been more idiomatic Hebrew (R. Borger, VT 9 [1959] 85–86). Nevertheless,
connections with the earlier story cannot be eliminated. ‫“ איש‬man” is used nowhere
else to describe a baby boy. Its use here is most probably to be explained as an allusion to
2:23, “from a man she was taken.” Building on this and other links with the preceding
narratives and on the interpretation of ‫ קנה‬as “create,” Cassuto and Westermann
interpret Eve’s remark as a shout of triumph at putting herself on a par with Yahweh as
creator: “I have created a man equally with the LORD.” Westermann admits, though, that
if this was Eve’s meaning, she should have said “as [‫ ]‍‍כ‬the LORD.” On the other hand, it
is also unparalleled for ‫ את‬to mean “with the help of.” So some have suggested
repointing it ‫את‬ ֹ “sign of” and translating “I have gained a man the sign of the LORD,”
(e.g., P. A. H. de Boer, NedTT, 31 [1942] 197–212). Some read it as the object marker and
translate “I have gained a man, the LORD,” i.e., Cain is the son of God promised in 3:15
(so Luther and early Lutheran exegetes [T. Gallus, Die “Frau” in Gen 3:15, 31–32]). Yet
the majority of commentators have argued that since it is a regular feature of the promises
to the patriarchs that God will be with them, implicitly to help them, it is justified here to
translate ‫“ את‬with the help of” (cf. 21:20; 26:3, 24; 28:15; 31:3; 39:2).
For these reasons it seems more likely that Eve meant “I have gained a man with the
LORD’s help” than “I have created a man as the LORD (has done).” Nevertheless there is an
ambiguity about her expression which may suggest that she coyertly compared her
achievement with Yahweh’s greater works and hoped that he would be with her son.
2 This verse nicely links the genealogy of Adam (vv 1, 17 f.) to the story of Cain and
Abel (vv 3–16). In particular, the definitions of the brothers’ tasks (using present
participles), “shepherd of the flock/tiller of the land,” link this verse with vv 17, 20, 21.
Simultaneously the chiastic construction “became Abel: Cain became” integrates it with
the string of similarly constructed clauses in vv 3–5 (cf. Notes). The description of the
birth of Esau and Jacob follows a similar pattern to this verse.
Birth of 4:1, 2a 25:24–26
two sons
Naming of 4: 1b 25:15b, 26b

VT Vetus Testamentum
NedTT Netherlands theologische tijdschrift
 son(s)
Calling of 4:2b 25:27
sons
However, there is no indication that Cain and Abel, unlike Esau and Jacob, were twins.
Certainly Abel is the younger brother, a significant theological point.
“Abel” (Hebrew ‫)הבל‬. Unlike the case with Cain, no explanation of his name is
given by his mother. It is improbable that it was derived from Akk. aplu, “son.” Probably
its meaning was too obvious to warrant comment. ‫ הבל‬means “breath” or “vanity”
(Eccl 1:2). “Man is a like a breath, his days are like a passing shadow” (Ps 144:4; cf. Job
7:16). Abel’s name thus alludes unwittingly to the fate in store for him, that his life will
be cut short. His junior status and the remark that “he became a shepherd” may also
adumbrate the Lord’s preference for him. For although Adam was appointed to till the
ground (2:15), the elect patriarchs’ preferred profession was shepherding (47:3) as
David’s was later (1 Sam 16:11). Though the eldest son had certain legal privileges (see,
e.g., 25:32; 27:1–40; Deut 21:15–17), the biblical narratives regularly show God’s choice
falling on the younger brother (e.g., Isaac, not Ishmael; Jacob, not Esau; Ephraim, not
Manasseh; David, the youngest son of Jesse). Already in this verse, then, there are hints
that Abel is the elect younger brother.
2b–5 These verses constitute the first scene in the Cain and Abel story. Like the final
scene (15–16), it is pure narrative. But whereas in the first scene Cain and Abel are the
principal actors and God is in the background, in the last scene, Cain is passive and God
is the sole actor. The chiastic linkage between clauses in this scene is remarkable. Abel-
Cain: Cain-Abel : Abel-Cain; see Notes on vv 2–5.
3 To link this verse chiastically with the preceding, Cain’s offering is mentioned first.
Westermann sees the opening phrase “After a year” (which, with most commentators, he
translates “after some time”) as a clear indicator that the story of Cain and Abel has been
inserted from another story that related some previous episode in their careers. This may
well be so, but it must remain conjecture.
“After a year,” ‫ ימים‬.‫ויהי מקץ ימים‬, lit., “days,” can refer to an indefinite
period, short or long (see, e.g., 24:55; 40:4) or specifically to a year (Lev 25:29; 1 Sam
1:21, etc.). It seems slightly more natural with Jacob, Junker, and a few rabbinic
commentators to take it in its precise sense “a year” in this context. Nearly always the
introductory phrase “after” (‫ )ויהי מקץ‬is followed by a precise period of time (as, e.g.,
in 8:6; Exod 12:41). Second, it seems natural to suppose that at the end of the agricultural
year sacrifices would have been brought. As soon as their labors had borne fruit they
brought appropriate offerings.
“Brought” (‫)ויבא‬: often used in cultic texts for the offering of sacrifice, e.g., Lev
2:2, 8. “Offering” (‫ )מנחה‬is a term in secular texts for gifts used to win the favor of the
great (e.g., 32:14, 19; 43:11). In cultic texts it usually denotes grain offerings as opposed
to animal sacrifice (e.g., Lev 2), though it occasionally covers the latter as well (e.g., 1
Sam 2:17, 29). Though the narrower sense aptly suits Cain’s offering, the following verse
uses it in the wider sense to describe Abel’s offering of animals.
4 Abel’s offering corresponds to his vocation as a shepherd. It may not be
coincidence that Adam’s second son offers firstlings (first-born animals) whereas Cain,
the older son, offers neither firstlings nor firstfruits. Note the association of the first-born
with firstlings in Exod 22:28–29 [29–30]; 34:19–20. The law is insistent that all firstlings
must be offered in sacrifice or redeemed. The first-born by right belong to God. So
human first-born must be redeemed. Israel as a nation is described as God’s first-born
(Exod 13:2, 12–15; 4:22; M. Tsevat, TDOT 2:121–27). In all animal sacrifices the fat was
burnt, because it too belonged to the LORD, being regarded as the choicest part of the
animal (Lev 3:16; Deut 32:38; Ps 147:14; G. Münderlein, TDOT 4:391–97). The very
positive connotations of “firstlings” and “fat” in the OT support the view of Keil,
Delitzsch, Cassuto, Speiser, Kidner, and rabbinic commentators that Abel offered the
pick of his flock to the LORD.
‫“ וישע‬Paid attention to”; cf. Akk šeû “look closely into,” Speiser; “seek,
recognize” (poetic), AHW 1224–25; used also in Exod 5:9; Ps 119:117. How Cain and
Abel recognized divine approval is unclear. As early as Theodotion (who translates
‫ וישע‬ἐπυaρισεν “he burnt”) it has been understood that divine fire burnt up Abel’s
offering but not Cain’s (cf. Lev 9:24; Judg 6:21; 1 Kgs 18:38). This explanation is as
good as any, but Genesis is more interested in the fact of divine approval than in how it
was shown.
5 “But to Cain and his offering he paid no attention.” The verse begins with the final
member of the chiastic chain, “Cain and his offering,” corresponding to “Abel and his
offering” in v 4b.
“Cain was very angry.” “Very” indicates the intensity of Cain’s passion; being “very
angry” is often a prelude to homicidal acts (cf. 34:7; 1 Sam 18:8; Neh 4:1; cf. Num
16:15; 2 Sam 3:8). “His face fell”: cf. v 6 and for a similar expression using the hiphil,
Job 29:24; Jer 3:12.
Why Cain’s offering should have been rejected while Abel’s was accepted has
occasioned much perplexity. At least five different types of explanation have been
offered. (1) God prefers shepherds to gardeners (Gunkel). This seems improbable in the
light of 2:15 where Adam was appointed to till the soil. (2) Animal sacrifice is more
acceptable than vegetable offerings (Skinner, Jacob). While blood sacrifices were
obviously regarded as more valuable, every stratum of the law recognizes the propriety
and necessity of grain offerings as well. (3) God’s motives are inscrutable: his preference
for Abel’s sacrifice reflects the mystery of divine election (von Rad, Vawter, Golka, and
apparently Westermann). Clearly the preference for Abel does anticipate a frequent
pattern in Genesis of the choice of the younger brother (cf. Jacob/Esau, Isaac/Ishmael,
etc.), but this type of explanation should only be resorted to if the text gives no other
motives for divine action. (4) Inspired by Heb. 11:4, “By faith Abel offered to God a
more acceptable sacrifice than Cain,” some commentators (e.g., Calvin, Dillmann,
Driver, König) suggest that it was the differing motives of the two brothers, known only
to God, that accounts for their different treatment. (5) The commonest view among
commentators, ancient and modern, is that it was the different approach to worship that

TDOT Theological Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. E. Jenni and C.

Westermann or G. Botterweck adn H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.)
AHW W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (3 vols.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1965, 1972, 1981)
 counted and that this was reflected in the quality of their gifts. Whereas Cain offered
simply “some produce of the land,” Abel offered the choicest animals from his flock,
“firstlings” and “their fat portions.” The sacrificial law underlines frequently that only
perfect, unblemished animals may be offered in sacrifice (Lev 1:3; 22:20–22, etc.). “I
will not offer burnt offerings to the LORD … that cost me nothing” (2 Sam 24:24). Since
this is the first account of sacrifice in the OT we might well expect an allusion to this
fundamental principle in this story.
6–7 The second scene corresponds to the fourth (vv 9–14) and consists of dialogue
between God and Cain. Both scenes open with God asking two questions, and both close
with two divine statements about Cain’s fate. They differ in that in the second scene
Cain’s responses are not recorded.
6 “Why are you angry and why has your face fallen?” God’s questions, echoing v 5,
are somewhat like the snake’s in 3:1 in character. In both cases the questioners know the
answer to their own question, but whereas the snake’s was designed to lead man into sin,
God’s were intended to provoke a change of heart.
7 “Is there not forgiveness.” “The most obscure verse in Genesis” (Procksch).
Because of its grammatical improprieties and its unusual terminology, commentators are
forced to choose between emendation and positing a rare meaning for ‫“ רבץ‬crouching.”
To compound the problems, other words are of uncertain meaning. Of the various
suggestions the following present the least difficulty:
Ben Yashar (BMik 7 [1963] 116–19; ZAW 94 [1982] 635–37) suggests new meanings
for the nouns ‫“ שאת‬forgiveness” and ‫“ פתח‬door.” The former he translates “first-
born’s dignity” (cf. 49:3), and the latter, “first-born”; cf. the phrase “to open the womb”
(29:31; 30:32). So he translates the whole verse: “Is it not this way? If you do well, there
is the honour due to the first-born. If you do not do well, sin crouches [reading ‫] תרבץ‬
for the first-born.” In other words, Cain, the first-born, has special responsibilities,
especially in worship. If he carries them out, he will enjoy the privileges associated with
his primacy.
Though this interpretation is quite compatible with biblical thinking, it seems
precarious in that it postulates new meanings for two words and a textual emendation (
3 ‫ תרבץ‬fem. sg impf. for ‫)רבץ‬. Then Ben Yashar maintains that “His/its urge … you
must rule over him/it” refers to Cain dominating Abel, which does not seem to follow on
very easily from the previous clauses.
Ramaroson (Bib 49 [1968] 233–37) observed that the present formulation of the
divine speech is rhythmically unbalanced as well as grammatically unsound (see Notes).
It falls into three lines:
“Is there not forgiveness, if you do well?” 3 beats
“And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door” 5 beats
“Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it” 4 beats
BMik Beth Mikra
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
fem. feminine
sg singular or under
impf. imperfect
Bib Biblica
Ramaroson suggests that a scribe has by accident transposed sin from the first to the
second line. Originally it read:
‫םתיטיבשאת‬ ‫“ הלא א ־‬Is there not forgiveness of sin, if you do well?”
‫חטאת‬
‫“ואם לא תיטיב לפתח‬If you do not do well, the croucher (demon) is at the door.”
‫רבץ‬
‫“ואליך תשוקתו ואתה‬Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”
‫לבו‬
‫תטש ־‬
On this rearrangement, there are now four beats per line; the “it(s)” in the third line must
refer to “the croucher” (masculine participle) and not to sin which is feminine; and the
lack of concord between sin (f) and crouching is eliminated. In adopting the translation
“croucher, demon” from Akk. rābiṡu for ‫רבץ‬, Ramaroson is following a suggestion
first proposed by Lenormant in 1880 and subsequently adopted by many commentators
(cf. AHW, 935b).
Substantially similar interpretations of the verse’s syntax and meaning are offered by
Cassuto, Speiser, Westermann, Gispen, and Vawter, but without rearranging the word
order. These commentators argue that ‫ רבץ‬is a masculine noun to which the suffixes ‫ו‬
“it(s)” in the final line refer. However, if the sentence is not rearranged á la Ramaroson,
the meaning of ‫“ שאת‬forgiveness” becomes uncertain. The word comes from the root
‫“ נשא‬to lift up,” which is a broad term whose precise meaning can only be determined
by the context. Here it may refer to (1) God’s forgiving Cain (Tg. Onq.); (2) God’s
receiving Cain and his offering (Vg, S, SV, SEB, Calvin, König, Kidner) or (3) Cain’s
R

subjective feelings, i.e., exaltation as opposed to his fallen face (vv 5–6; so Speiser,
Delitzsch, Keil, Dillmann, Driver, yon Rad, Westermann) or (4) Cain’s posture—
“upstanding,” not crouching like sin; so Cassuto. In that the primary contrast in the divine
interrogation is between ‫ שאת‬and ‫חטאת רבץ‬, the traditional interpretations (1 and
2), referring ‫ שאת‬to God’s forgiveness or acceptance of Cain, seem more probable
than a mere reference to Cain’s feelings or posture. Nevertheless, there may be a
secondary allusion to v 6, “Why has your face fallen?” for if Cain were forgiven or
accepted, he might well have felt exalted too.
“Sin is crouching.” ‫“ רבץ‬crouching” is frequently and plausibly identified with Akk
rābiṡu, denoting various officials and also demons, especially those that guard entrances
to buildings. Here then sin is personified as a demon crouching like a wild beast on
Cain’s doorstep.
“Its urge is for you, but you must rule over it”; cf. 3:16 and Comment there.
8 This is the central scene, with Cain and Abel the only actors. The awefulness of the
deed is accentuated by the stark brevity of the description and the twice-repeated “his

Tg. Targum Onqelos

Vg Latin Vulgate (as published in Weber’s edition)
S Syriac
r SV Revised Standard Version (NT 1946, OT 1952, Apoc 1957)
brother.” “Cain said to his brother”: whether by accident or design, Cain’s words to his
brother are unrecorded. They may have dropped out through homoeoteleuton (see Notes)
or been deliberately suppressed so as to focus complete attention on the action. Some
commentators accept the originality of SamPent, “let us go out into the field”; others have
emended or reinterpreted ‫“ ויאמר‬and (Cain) said,” to eliminate the need for any words
to follow. Gunkel proposes the emendation ‫וימר‬, and Golka (C. Westermann FS, 63)
proposes ‫“ ויתמרמר‬and (Cain) was angry.” Cassuto cites a cognate Arabic root to
show ‫ ויאמר‬here means “and (Cain) made a rendez-vous” with Abel. Dahood (Bib 61
[1981] 90–91) compares Ugaritic ˒amr and Akkadian amāru “to see” and translates
“Cain was watching for his brother Abel.” It is as easy to suppose that Cain’s words were
never included: the terseness conveys the feel of the story hastening to its climax; cf.
3:22–23.
“When they were in the field.” ‫“ שדה‬field, plain.” On this term see 2:5. In the law
the circumstance that a crime is committed “in the field,” i.e., out of range of help, is
proof of premeditation; cf. Deut 22:25–27. “Cain rose up”: note the assonance in Hebrew,
wayyāqom qayin.
“Killed him” ‫ הרג‬is used particularly of ruthless violence by private persons, BDB,
247; cf. H. F. Fuhs, TDOT 3:447–57.
9–14 The fourth scene, like the second, is a dialogue between the LORD and Cain. But
whereas in vv 6–7 Cain’s replies are unrecorded, here they are given in full. The divine
interrogation of Cain and the subsequent pronouncement of curses resemble the similar
treatment of Adam. (Cf. 4:9//3:9; 4:10//3:13; 4:11//3:14, 17; 4:12//3:17–19). Many of the
key words of chap. 3 reappear here too: ‫“ ידע‬know,” ‫“ שמר‬guard,” ‫“ ארור‬cursed,”
‫“ אדמה‬land,” ‫“ גרש‬drive” (cf. Hauser, JETS 12 [1980] 297–305).
9 God’s opening question, “Where is Abel your brother?” like 3:9, is essentially
rhetorical, for God knows where Abel is (v 10). It invites Cain to acknowledge his
responsibility for his “brother.” Note again how the story repeatedly draws attention to
the fraternal relationship.
When Adam was challenged, he at least told the truth if not the whole truth (3:10),
but Cain tells a bare-faced lie, “I do not know,” and follows it up with an impertinent
witticism, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Since Abel kept sheep and ‫ שמר‬is a term for
shepherds (cf. Exod 22:6, 9; 1 Sam 17:20) Cain’s reply could be paraphrased “Am I the
shepherd’s shepherd?” It may well be that Cain is overstating his responsibility toward
his brother in order to deny it completely, for no man is called on in the OT to act as
another’s keeper (so P. A. Riemann, Int 24 [1970] 482–91). “To keep” a man would

SamPent Samaritan Pentateuch, Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, ed. A. F.

von Gall. Giessen: Verlag von Alfred Topelmann, 1918.
FS Festschrift, volume written in honor of
BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs (eds.), Hebrew and English Lexicon of the
Old Testament (Oxford/New York: Clarendon/OUP, 1907; reprints with corrections,
1955; corrected ed., 1962)
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Int Interpretation
involve keeping an eye on him all the time, which could be somewhat intrusive. Yet
biblical law expects a man’s brother to be the first to assist him in time of trouble (Lev
25:48). Cain might not have expected to “keep” Abel, but as his brother he certainly
should have been ready to act as redeemer and to avenge iris blood when he was
murdered (Num 36:12–28). His outright denial of responsibility shows he is “much more
hardened than the first human pair” (von Rad, 106).
10 With God’s pronouncement of Cain’s guilt the narrative reaches its real climax.
Though the external events climax in the murder, “the narrator has portrayed the deed so
tersely that he has succeeded in shifting the real weight of the action to [this] sentence”
(Westermann, 1:305).
“What have you done?”: cf. 3:13.
“Listen,” ‫קול‬, literally, “voice of.” Used similarly in Isa 13:4; 52:8; Jer 10:22;
50:28.
“Your brother’s blood is crying to me.” The four Hebrew words used hardly require
comment. Compressed into them is a whole theology whose principles inform much of
the criminal and cultic law of Israel. Life is in the blood (Lev 17:11), so shed blood is the
most polluting of all substances. Consequently, unatoned-for murders pollute the holy
land, making it unfit for the divine presence. To prevent such a catastrophe, the cities of
refuge were established (Num 35:9–34; Deut 19:1–13). In cases where the murderer
could not be traced, the rite prescribed in Deut 21:1–9 had to be carried out. Because man
is made in God’s image, homicide must be avenged (Gen 9:5). Here Abel’s blood is
pictured “crying” to God for vengeance, ‫“ צעק‬cry” is the desperate cry of men without
food (Gen 41:55), expecting to die (Exod 14:10), or oppressed by their enemies (Judg
4:3). It is the scream for help of a woman being raped (Deut 22:24, 27). It is the plea to
God of the victims of injustice (Exod 22:22[23], 26[27]). The law, the prophets (Isa
19:20; cf. 5:7), and the psalms (34:18[17]; 107:6, 28) unite with narratives like this (cf. 2
Sam 23; 1 Kgs 21) to assert that God does hear his people’s desperate cries for help.
11 “And now” ‫( ועתה‬cf. 3:22) generally introduces an ethical consequence of a
preceding statement (cf. K. A. Brongers, VT 15 [1965] 289–99).
“You are cursed from the land.” The parallel with 3:14 prompted Tg. Onq., Ber. R.,
Rashi to translate “you are more cursed than the land.” Most modern commentators
suggest that it means you are cursed away from the land, i.e., you are banished from the
cultivated area (‫ )אדמה‬that was man’s original home (cf. 2:5) to the uncultivated
steppe. Cassuto prefers to give the phrase the same sense as in v 10. As the blood of Abel
cried from the ground, so the curse arises from the ground to convict Cain. It may be that
both ideas are reflected in the phrase (cf. Jacob). In Gen 3 man is not cursed, only the
ground and the serpent, so cursing Cain is a serious development. Certainly there is an
element of mirroring punishment in the curse pronounced on Cain: “Cain had tilled the
land. He had offered the fruit of the land, and given the land his brother’s blood to drink:
but from the land the blood cries against him, for which the land refuses him its fruit, so
he is banned from the land” (Gunkel, 45).
“The land which has opened its mouth”; cf. the description, of the earth swallowing
up Korah (Num 16:30, 32; Deut 11:6) or vomiting out the Canaanites for their sins (Lev
18:28). Cassuto suggests that “the land” is here a name of the underworld, Sheol, often
pictured as swallowing the dead (cf. Isa 5:14; Hab 2:5).
 12 Whereas 3:17–19 warned of the hard labor that man would face in tilling the soil,
“When you till the land, it will no longer give you its strength” (cf. Job 31:39) implies
that its yields would be minimal for Cain.
His lack of success as a farmer may have been one reason why Cain became a
“wandering vagrant.” Only here and in v 14 are these two similar-sounding participles
paired together, literally, “wandering” (cf. Ps 109:10; Lam 4:14–15) and “fluttering”
(Prov 26:2). Cain is not being condemned to a Bedouin-like existence; the terminology is
too extreme to describe such a life-style. Rather it seems likely that the curse on Cain
reflects the expulsion from the family that was the fate in tribal societies of those who
murdered close relatives. Normally murders were avenged by the nearest male relative
(cf. Num 35:9–28), but where fraternal loyalties conflicted, expulsion was an alternative
punishment (cf. 2 Sam 13:34–14:24; cf. H. M. Y. Gevaryahu, BMik 13 [1967] 29–31).
“To be driven away from the land” (cf. v 14) is to have all relationships, particularly with
the family, broken. Moreover, it is to have one’s relationship with the LORD broken
(Coats, 65).
13 “My punishment is too great to bear.” Though G, Vg, Jacob, Cassuto translate “my
iniquity is too great to be forgiven,” this does not appear to be the meaning of the phrase
‫נשא עון‬, literally, “to carry iniquity/punishment” (Lev 16:22), when applied to
ordinary men. When men “bear iniquity,” they must pay the penalty for their sin
whatever it may be (e.g., Lev 5:1, 17; Num 5:31). However, when God bears iniquity,
that means forgiveness for the sinner; hence the translation “forgiving iniquity” (Exod
34:7; Hos 14:3). When priests and Levites “bear iniquity” (Num 18:1, 23), they may be
paying the price of their own failings or those of the people. But in the case of Cain it
seems clear that he is referring to the consequences of his iniquity, which he finds
intolerable (cf. Golka, C. Westermann FS, 67–68).
14 “Since you have today driven me from the surface of the land and I must hide
from your face and become a wandering vagrant.” These words sum up what Cain finds
intolerable about his fate. The first three clauses repeat the divine curses on Cain, slightly
modifying the phraseology of v 12. Cain introduces clear echoes of chap. 3 as he likens
his expulsion (‫ )גרש‬from the face of the ground to Adam and Eve’s expulsion from
Eden (3:24). Like them he must “hide” (different Hebrew roots) from the face of the LORD
(3:8). He seems to be Suggesting that he is being driven even further from the divine
presence symbolized by the garden than his parents were. As a perpetrator of a homicide,
he would have liked to have returned to Eden, for if it may be regarded as the archetype
of later sanctuaries, he could have taken refuge there (Exod 21:14; 1 Kgs 2:28). It may be
too that there is an analogy in Absalom’s action in going to sacrifice at Hebron when he
returned from exile after killing his brother Amnon (2 Sam 15:7–9). It might have been
expected that he should have paid his vow at the national sanctuary in Jerusalem, but he
went to Hebron instead. Gevaryahu (BMik 13 [1967] 34) has noted that in Greece
murderers were prohibited from worshiping in their home shrine.
Alienation from God leads to fear of other men (cf. Job 15:20–25). Certainly it is the
fear of retribution that is the heart of Cain’s complaint “Anyone who finds me will kill
me.” Whom he feared has perplexed commentators, since according to the Genesis

G Greek translation: as published in Septuaginta, LXX ed. A. Rahlfs, 1935. In Daniel, G

includes both OG and Th, as published in J. Ziegler’s ed., 1954.
account there was no one else around but his parents. This may indicate that the story of
Cain and Abel was originally independent of the stories in chaps. 2 and 3. However, it is
unlikely that the editor was unaware of the problem created by juxtaposing chaps. 3 and 4
in this way (cf. Westermann, Gunkel). Most probably he envisaged other descendants of
Adam seeking to avenge Abel’s death.
15–16 In this the final scene God is active and Cain passive. The LORD reaffirms the
sentence on Cain to a wandering existence away from Eden, but Cain is reassured that he
will be protected from blood vengeance himself. Indeed, a premature death would cut
short his sentence, so it is hardly right to see these verses as a lightening of it (Jacob, and
Golka, C. Westermann FS, 58–73 are to be followed here).
“Whoever kills Cain shall be punished sevenfold.” For this type of case-law
construction, cf. Exod 22:18 [19] (cf. also 21:12, 15–17; G. J. Wenham, “Legal Forms in
the Book of the Covenant,” TB 22 [1971] 95–102). The root “punish,” ‫נקם‬, may be used
for retaliatory killing (e.g., Exod 21:20–21).
“Sevenfold.” This could mean that Cain’s killer and six of his relatives will die, but
this seems unlikely with God as its agent. Another suggestion first made in Tg. Onq. (and
taken up by Rashi, Ibn Ezra) is that it means to the seventh generation from Adam (i.e.,
Lamek; cf. v 24) or the seventh from Cain, i.e., Tubal-Cain and the flood (Jacob,
hesitantly). Most probably it is a poetic turn of speech meaning full divine retribution; cf.
Ps 12:7[6]; 79:12; Prov 6:31. Seven is of course a sacred number frequently used in OT
rituals.
“The LORD placed a sign for Cain.” The nature of Cain’s sign or mark has been the
subject of endless inconclusive speculation (cf. Westermann’s excursus, 1:312–14, and R.
Mellinkoff, The Mark of Cain). Signs (cf. F. J. Helfmeyer, TDOT 1:167–88) are typically
given to men to assure them of God’s goodwill toward them and take a variety of forms
(e.g., rainbow, circumcision, a fulfilled prophecy or miracle: 9:12; 17:11; Exod 3:12; Isa
7:11), so various suggestions have been made along these lines to identify the sign given
to Cain. In this case the sign deters would-be attackers, and this has led the majority of
writers to conclude that the mark of Cain must be something about him that shows he has
divine protection, e.g., a tattoo, special hairstyle, or the like. Ber Rab. 22:12 ingeniously
combines both ideas of the meaning of “sign” by suggesting that the sign for Cain was a
dog which accompanied him on his wanderings: the dog served to reassure Cain of God’s
protection and scared off any assailants! But for this idea there is as little proof as for any
of the other suggestions. The simplest suggestion is that of P. A. H. de Boer (NedTT 31
[1942] 210) that the sign for Cain is simply his name (qayin), which sounds somewhat
like yuqqam “shall be punished”; cf. Notes on v 1. His very name hints at the promise
of divine retribution on his attackers. It could be objected that quite a different
explanation of the name Cain has already been given at his birth, but renaming or
reinterpreting an existing name is a regular feature of Hebrew narrative (17:5, 15).
Nevertheless, the text here gives barely a hint that this was the writer’s intention. So the
precise nature of the sign remains uncertain, but its function is clear. As the clothing
given to Adam and Eve after the fall (3:21) served to remind them of their sin and God’s
mercy, so does the mark placed on Cain: “As a protective device against potential
enemies it may stay death; in that sense, the anticipated punishment is softened. But at

TB Tyndale Bulletin
the same time it serves as a constant reminder of Cain’s banishment, his isolation from
other people” (Coats, 65).
16 The story that began with the attempt by Cain and Abel to draw near to God
through sacrifice ends in Cain’s “leaving the LORD’s presence” and living “east of Eden,”
presumably even farther from the garden of “delight” from which his parents had been
expelled. Like the account of the fall (chap. 3), this story concludes by underlining the
truth that sin separates man from God and that God’s judgments are carried out. Cain
lives in a land whose very name (‫ נוד‬nod means “wandering”) reminds him of the
divine sentence that he would become a “wandering vagrant.” It is uncertain where the
Hebrews located this land, but that is immaterial to the story and its interpretation.

Reyburn, William David ; Fry, Euan McG.: A Handbook on Genesis. New York :
United Bible Societies, 1997 (UBS Handbook Series), S. 103-119.

Genesis 4.1.
The opening part of the new story concerns the birth of two sons, Cain and Abel, who
are born to Adam and Eve.
Now Adam knew Eve his wife: Now translates the Hebrew connective, which here
serves to open a new development in the story. EV says “Then.” It may also be translated
T

“Later, After some time, Sometime later.” Adam has the article in Hebrew and so is
translated “the man” by many versions. However, in the context of the name Eve, it is
appropriate to name the man too. See comments on 1.26.
Knew Eve his wife is the literal Hebrew. Knew in Hebrew is used figuratively to
mean “had sex with.” Interpreters stress that the word means “to experience someone,”
but that expression does not convey in English and in many other languages the sexual
union necessary to have a child.
In translation it is important to select a term or expression for sex between spouses
that can be read in public and in a mixed group without feelings of embarrassment,
shock, or amusement. This may require the use of an inoffensive expression that only
indirectly refers to the sexual act. For example, RCL says “from her union with Adam,”
F

PCL “The man joined himself with his wife,” ECL “Adam slept with his wife.” Other
S G

expressions used are “to sit on the bed together,” “to cover themselves,” or “to lie down
together.” Some languages will find it more natural to refer to the couple “living
together,” with the child being born as a matter of course; for example, “Adam stayed
with his wife, until the woman became pregnant.”
The birth process is said to occur in three steps: sexual union, conception or
pregnancy, and childbirth. And she conceived means “she became pregnant” (TEV). And
bore Cain: that is, gave birth to Cain or gave birth to a son, as in TEV. For a discussion of
Cain’s name, see the next paragraph.

t EV Today’s English Version

f RCL French common language version
SPCL SPANISH COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION
GECL GERMAN COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION
 I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord: this shows Eve rejoicing in the same
way as Adam did in 2.23. As the SV and TEV notes show, there is a similarity in sound
R

between the verb “to get” and the name Cain, and so this is the joyful mother’s
explanation of the name. In some societies Cain’s name would be called a birth-event
name, meaning that something said or done at the birth becomes one of the names of the
child. Gotten translates a form of the Hebrew verb qanah, meaning “get, acquire,” as in
Exo 15.16 “purchased,” and Psa 78.54 “Had won”; but this verb also means “create” in
Gen 14.19, 22; Deut 32.6, and so it is not certain if Cain’s mother is referring to “getting”
or “creating.” EB says “I have brought a man into being,” FRCL “I have created a man,” AB
N N

“I have produced a man.” Either “got” or “created” is acceptable. However, in some

languages “create” will not be a natural expression, and so it may be better to say, for
example, “I have gotten …” or “I have given birth to ….” If necessary a footnote may be
added, as in TEV “This name sounds like the Hebrew for ‘gotten.’ ” We should note that
the words associated with Cain’s name are only similar in sound to the Hebrew form of
Cain’s name. Cain is not derived historically from the word meaning “get, acquire.”
A man translates the Hebrew ’ish, which is used also in 2.23. The word refers to a
human male adult. The mother is using the word man in a figurative sense, perhaps
because she got him with the help of the Lord, which is literally “with Yahweh.” The
sense of “with Yahweh” may be “together with Yahweh.” FRCL translates with the verb
“create” and says “I have created a man thanks to the Lord.” However, most translations
retain some form of with the help of the Lord.
There are some languages in which the word “man” is naturally used for a male
person of any age; however, in many languages it will be inappropriate to say “I have
gotten, created, given birth to a man.” Some languages use the expression “little man”
for a baby boy, and EB and JV translate “male child.” TEV and GECL have “son,” and this
R N

can serve as a model for many languages.

The help of is more naturally expressed by a verb form in many languages: “The
Lord helped me.” And there are different ways of linking this help with the birth of the
son; the full sentence has been translated “Because the Lord helped me I have given birth
to a son,” “Thanks to the Lord I have now got a son,” or “The Lord has helped me, and so
I have given birth to a son.” For some languages simply linking the two events by “and”
means that the second event happened as a result of the first: “The Lord helped me and I
gave birth to a son.”
Genesis 4.2.
And again, she bore his brother Abel: And again translates the common Hebrew
connective and a verb meaning “do again, continue.” These words serve to indicate a
repetition of a previous act. Bore is the same word as in verse 1. His refers to Cain the
older brother. Instead of his brother TEV says “another son.” However, most translations
retain a reference to Cain as the brother. In some languages it may be necessary to say,
for example, “She gave birth to Abel, Cain’s younger brother” or “She gave birth to
Cain’s younger brother, Abel.”

r SV Revised Standard Version

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE
NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE
REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE
NJV NEW JEWISH VERSION
 The name Abel is written hebel in Hebrew and means “breath” or “vapor.”
However, this does not explain the original meaning nor the reason he was called by this
name. The lack of explanation of Abel’s name gives the first hint that Abel plays a
passive role in the story that follows. He is referred to in verses 2, 8, 9, 10, and 11 as
Cain’s brother. Furthermore, apart from verse 25 Abel does not figure again in the
genealogy, and his name does not occur in the Old Testament outside this narrative.
Now Abel was a keeper of sheep jumps the story from birth to manhood. TEV
provides for a bit of transition with “became a shepherd.” In translation it may be
necessary to make the transition from birth to adult occupation clearer by saying, for
example, “When they grew up,” “When they became adults,” or “After a long time had
passed.”
Keeper of sheep refers to someone who pastures, tends, raises sheep. The focus here
is upon the activity of caring for sheep. In areas where sheep raising is not practiced or is
even unknown, it may be necessary to provide a note to explain the meaning of keeping
sheep. In some areas sheep are well known, but they live in and around villages picking
up scraps of food, and are not herded and pastured as our text suggests.
Cain a tiller of the ground: tiller is a form of the verb used in 2.5, 15; 3.23. In being
a tiller Cain is carrying on the occupation God gave to Adam in 2.15 and 3.23. Tiller of
the ground may be rendered “one who plants and digs the soil” or “one who raises
crops.” In some languages such a person is called “a hoer of the dirt.”
Many languages have set expressions for the occupations and habitual activities of
people, like the “man bilong wokim gaden” of the Pacific creole languages. Such
expressions may focus on the person being expert in a particular activity or being
constantly engaged in it. So Abel may be described as a “person who [habitually or
expertly] looks after sheep, and Cain as a “person who [habitually or expertly] makes a
garden.” In many areas of the world, the term “farmer” is applied to both growing crops
and raising livestock, and so it is not appropriate in this context.
The reference to the birth and occupations of Cain and Abel follows a pattern used in
other parts of the Old Testament. Compare, for example, the birth and occupations of
Jacob and Esau in Gen 25.24–27. Although the different occupations are given, the
narrative that follows does not focus on the conflict of occupations between crop-farmer
and herder. The conflict concerns the sacrifices and the attitudes of the persons who
present them.
Genesis 4.3.
It is at this point that the story proper begins. The information given in verses 1 and 2
gives something of the setting for the action, and in particular it serves to introduce the
main characters. In many languages the normal structure of a story requires that the
participants be named and certain information about them be given at the beginning; and
the details about the birth, relationship, and occupations of Cain and Abel fit very well
into such a structure. All translators are encouraged to mold the information given in
verses 1 and 2 into the most appropriate form of story opening in their own languages.
In the course of time is literally “And it happened at the end of days,” which is
idiomatic and marks the beginning of an activity after an indefinite lapse of time. Since
this is the beginning of the story action, what is required is a story- or episode-opening
expression; for example, “One time,” or “A long time passed and then one day.”
Examples from some existing translations are “After they had been working for some
time …,” “They were doing that for some time, then …,” and “When some seasons had
passed ….”
Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground: fruit translates
the same word used throughout chapter 1, and also in chapter 3, where it referred to the
fruit of the trees in the garden. Here fruit of the ground refers to “some produce,” “part
of the crop,” “some food he had grown.” Offering translates a word used later in Lev 1.2
to mean a “grain offering.” However, the sense is general here and refers to a gift given
to honor a superior. The text does not say how the gift was offered; it may have been
burned on an altar, but this is not certain.
In languages that have a word for “sacrifice,” that term may be acceptable here.
However, Cain’s offering, which was part of his crop, may often not be suitably
described as a “sacrifice.” In such cases it may be necessary to say, for example, “Cain
brought to the Lord a gift that was part of his crop.” Some translations focus on the
feature of harvesting: “Cain harvested food from his land [garden], and brought some of
it as a gift to the Lord.” Some also express in words the element of worship that is part of
the meaning of offering: “… gave it to the Lord to worship him.”
Genesis 4.4.
And Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock: the text does not indicate how much
time passed before Abel presented his offering. TEV has “Then,” which suggests a later
event without indicating how much later; the most likely sense of the Hebrew is “At the
same time” or “Shortly afterward.” Brought is as in verse 3; in verse 3 the offering is
brought “to the Lord,” but that is not stated here. Hebrew has “he also,” referring to Abel.
The first part of this verse does not repeat “an offering,” which is to be understood.
Firstlings translates a word that means the first lamb (or kid) born to a sheep (or
goat). The word is plural as in RSV. Flock refers to both sheep and goats, and therefore the
young are either “lambs” or “kids.” The use of the plural here is most often taken to mean
some of the first born, but of the firstlings may also be understood as singular, as in TEV.
Of the firstlings may be translated “some lambs that were the first to be born to the
sheep” or “one of the first lambs born.” In one translation this is expressed as “a nice fat
lamb—it was the first lamb the mother gave birth to.” Since goats are probably more
widely known throughout the world than are sheep, some languages will find it preferable
to speak of “some firstborn kids.” In the event that no term for sheep or goat is known,
not even a loan word, it may be possible to say “Abel gave the Lord a gift from some of
the first animals born that he raised.” However, since sheep and sheep herding is such an
integral part of the biblical scene, translators should make every effort to familiarize
readers with these animals through notes and illustrations.
And of their fat portions: fat portions translates a word that is also used in Num
18.12, 27–29 in reference to new oil, wine, and grain, in which the sense is “the choicest
or best”; but here, as in Lev 3.3 (there translated simply “fat”), it refers to the highly
prized parts of the animal that were offered as a sacrifice. FRCL says it well: “Abel for his
part brought as sacrifice some first born lambs from his flock; from these he offered the
Lord the best parts.” TEV, which translates “best parts,” also makes clear that the animal
must first be killed before anything can be offered. This is also necessary in many
languages other than English. TEV may be adapted to say, for example, “Then Abel gave
to the Lord some of the lambs that were the first lambs born to his sheep. He killed them
and gave the best parts of them as a sacrifice.”
 And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering: had regard for translates
Hebrew “to look at,” which in this context is “to look at with favor” or “to look favorably
on.” TEV says “was pleased with,” and FRCL “The Lord accepted favorably Abel and his
offering.” This clause may also be translated, for example, “Abel and his gift pleased the
Lord” or “The Lord was pleased with Abel and the gift he had given him.” One
translation says idiomatically “The Lord desired Abel and his gift, but he didn’t want
Cain ….” In order to avoid repeating the words for gift or giving too many times, another
translation has “The Lord was glad with Abel’s behavior, but he was not glad with
Cain’s.”
Genesis 4.5.
But for Cain and his offering he had no regard: but marks a strong contrast
between God’s acceptance of Abel and his rejection of Cain. TEV makes the contrast
effective with “but he rejected Cain.” He [the Lord] had no regard is the same verb as
used in verse 4. Interpreters offer many reasons why God may have rejected Cain’s
offering; however, the narrator is silent on this matter.
So Cain was very angry: So translates the usual Hebrew connective, which here
marks a consequence. Angry translates a word whose verb form means to burn. In
English it is similar to saying “he became inflamed with anger.” The reason for Cain’s
heated reaction was that God rejected him and his offering. Cain is apparently envious of
his brother’s acceptance, but the story does not reveal how Cain knew about that. Many
languages have figurative expressions for being angry. For example, “So Cain’s insides
burned,” “So Cain became hot,” or “Therefore Cain’s innermost boiled up.”
And his countenance fell: countenance means “face.” The whole expression is an
idiom meaning “he put on a sad face” or “he took on an ugly look.” TEV has “he scowled
in anger.” Idioms similar to the Hebrew are quite common in other languages; examples
of their use here are “his face changed [its appearance]” or “his face became bad.”
Genesis 4.6.
The Lord said is followed by two questions and so will often need to be expressed as
“The Lord asked Cain.” However, these questions may be taken as rhetorical, and in that
case “said” may be more appropriate.
Why are you angry and why has your countenance fallen? Angry and
countenance fallen are the same as in verse 5.
Genesis 4.7.
This verse is difficult to interpret, as can be seen by comparing different translations.
The questions in verse show that the Lord does not approve of Cain’s reaction, and so he
goes on to advise Cain what he should do.
If you do well means “If you behave, conduct yourself in the right way.” Will you
not be accepted? is a rhetorical question in RSV that expresses the consequence of the
condition; that is, “If you do what is right, you will certainly be accepted,” or “I will
surely accept you,” “I will not at all reject you.” Be accepted is literally “[there will be]
lifting up.” It is possible that the expression “lifting up” in Hebrew refers to the
countenance or “face” that has fallen in verses 5 and 6, and so the meaning may be
“lifting up the face,” or as TEV says, “you would be smiling.” NEB has “accepted” in the
text and “You hold your head up” in the footnote. JB translates “You ought to hold your
N

head high,” FRCL “You will get the upper hand again.”
NJB New Jerusalem Bible
 The first part of the verse appears to give Cain a warning that it is up to him to mend
his ways. The second part seems to give the alternative of what will happen if he fails to
correct his attitude. TEV translates the first “if” clause as past time: “If you had done ….”
The Hebrew form of “do well” is in the imperfect, which is more commonly translated
here as present: “If you do well” (RSV, NEB and others), “If you do what is right” ( IV). In
N

many languages the passive form Will you not be accepted? must be changed to the
active: “Will I not accept you?” “I will not reject you,” or “I will accept you.”
The second part of the verse begins with the alternative if you do not do well, and the
reader expects a word to follow that balances with “lifting up” in the first part. However,
no such word follows in Hebrew. Instead there is the figurative expression sin is
couching at the door. The meaning of this expression is not entirely clear. It appears that
sin is here pictured as an animal stretched out in rest at the entrance of its den. Although
the Hebrew verb translated couching refers mainly to an animal lying at rest, sin is not
passively resting, because its desire is for Cain. Accordingly sin is pictured as the animal
waiting for its victim. Couching is an archaic English word referring to an animal lying
at rest or in concealment ready to spring. It is in the latter sense that TEV and others use
“crouching.”
In some languages it will be necessary to adjust sin is couching to say “sin is like a
wild animal crouching at your door.” The image of sin lying in wait for its victim
suggests that sin is hiding, and consequently it may be necessary to say “crouching
behind your door.” SPCL avoids the image of sin crouching at the door and says “sin is
waiting”; it then combines the following clause, its desire is for you, to say “sin is
waiting for the moment to dominate you.” Because we are translating a figurative
expression, we are forced to ask what the door represents. The image may refer to the
entrance to a dwelling, but it may equally well be taken as a reference to the heart, mind,
thoughts of Cain. In either event it is possible that in some languages it will be necessary
to shift to a simile and say, for example, “Sin is like an animal lying in wait for you at
your door,” “… lying in wait at your heart’s door,” or “… lying in wait to catch you.”
One translation that retains the picture of an animal in this verse says “… your bad
behavior will be like a wild animal waiting close to the door ready to bite [or eat] you.”
Another translation that avoids the picture has “… if you do what is wrong, then sin is
ready to destroy you.”
Its desire is for you: desire translates the same word used in 3.16, speaking of Eve’s
longing for her husband. The sense is that “sin wants to be your master” or, as in TEV, “It
wants to rule you.” Its desire refers to the desire that sin has to master Cain (like an
animal in ambush). If the translation of the preceding clause is “sin is like an animal …,”
its will refer to the “sin … animal.” It is also possible to translate desire … you as an
extension of couching at the door; for example, “Sin is like an animal crouching behind
your door wanting to dominate you.”
But you must master it: that is, “you must overcome sin,” “you must rule over it,”
“you must not let sin rule you.” In some languages sin cannot be the object of such verbs
as “overcome” and “rule.” Furthermore sin is sometimes not expressed as an abstract
noun but only as a verb phrase. Therefore some adjustments may be required. For
example, we may say negatively, “You must not let the evil things you do be a chief for

NIV New International Version

you,” “You must say ‘No’ to the bad things you do,” “You must not obey your desire to
do evil things,” or “You must command yourself so that you do not do what is evil.”
Genesis 4.8.
A new episode in the story begins here, which translators will often need to mark in a
way that is appropriate in their own languages. And in order to translate the text
naturally, a clear picture of the action will be required, with certain details that the text
itself does not provide or which are unclear in the text as we have it. What was it that
Cain said to Abel? Was he already planning to murder Abel when he spoke to him? How
long was it between the time of the conversation and when they went away from the
settlement? Where in fact did they go? How long was it from when they got there until
Cain murdered his brother? Where was Cain when the Lord spoke to him? And how long
was that after the murder? These details may not all have to be incorporated in the story;
but many or all of them will have a bearing on the way the story is told.
Cain said to Abel his brother: brother must often be translated by a special term
designating “younger brother.”
“Let us go out to the field”: these words are found in some ancient versions but not
in the Hebrew text. See footnotes of RSV and TEV. Many interpreters believe that
something similar to these words must have dropped out of the Hebrew text. OTTP is of
H

the opinion that the ancient versions attempt to change or modify the words of the
Hebrew text. Accordingly HOTTP suggests this clause be translated “Cain talked to Abel
his brother, and it happened that …,” or “When Cain had talked to Abel his brother, it
happened …,” and that the words “Let us go out to the field” be placed in a footnote. This
suggestion is in line with JV, “And Cain talked with his brother Abel: and it came to pass,
K

when they were in the field ….” It is also possible, and may be clearer, to follow RSV and
TEV, including the footnote.
Most translators will realize that the decision taken about what Cain said to Abel will
have a strong influence on the story line of the narrative in this verse as a whole. If we
decide to follow the ancient versions, as RSV, TEV, and others do, most readers will
understand that Cain had already determined to kill his brother, and that this was the
beginning of his plan to do it. The words of Cain tell us straight out that the brothers went
away from where other people were, and then, either immediately or after a period of
time, Cain killed his (unsuspecting) brother.
If we decide to follow the advice of HOTTP, however, and reject the words put in
Cain’s mouth by the ancient versions, we must still try to guess what it was that Cain said
to his brother. And in some languages we may even have to put this into words.
(1) One possibility is that Cain said something angry or abusive to his brother; this
would be in keeping with verse . If this is the case, it is also quite possible that Cain
killed his brother immediately after speaking, in that very place; the place where they
made their offerings could very well have been “in the field.” Alternatively some time
may have passed between Cain’s angry outburst against his brother and the time when
they were “in the field” and the murder was done.
(2) It is also possible that Cain reported to Abel what the Lord had said to him (in
verses 4.6–7). In this case we have to understand that Abel was not present when the
Lord was speaking with Cain. And we probably also have to assume that there was a time

HOTTP Hebrew Old Testament Text Project

KJV KING JAMES VERSION
interval before the brothers were together “in the field,” which would have to be
indicated in translation by some transitional expression such as “Then later on, when they
were ….”
(3) Yet another possibility is that what Cain said to Abel had nothing to do with the
situation arising from the offerings; and this could provide an explanation of why the
Hebrew text does not give any words. The story line would then be that Cain spoke in a
friendly way to his brother at the time, but later on, when they were by themselves “in the
field,” he got angry again, or he took the opportunity he had been waiting for, and killed
him.
In some languages what Cain said can be expressed indirectly; for instance, “Later
Cain asked his brother Abel to go to the bush with him.” In this case the statement also
has the function of relocating the participants in the story to where the next action takes
place. The Hebrew text does not say directly that Cain and Abel “went” from where they
were when Cain spoke to another place where the murder was done. As noted above, it is
possible that there was no change of location; but if the story line does involve a move,
this may need to be stated directly in some languages.
And when they were in the field: field is the same term used in 2.5, 19, 20; 3.18.
The reference is either to the field in contrast to the house, as in TEV “out in the fields,” or
to the countryside in contrast to the place where people live and farm, as in TEV Australian
edition “the countryside,” and REB “the country.” In a number of languages this is most
naturally translated as “the bush,” since this term is naturally used to refer to the
countryside away from where people live, and it is also often where people make their
food gardens. In some translations the term “grassland” is used in a similar sense.
There is no indication in the Hebrew about the interval of time between when Cain
spoke with Abel and when he killed him. And how this is handled in translation will
depend on the strategy of the story which the translator is following. In one type of
strategy, in which the anger of Cain is the dominant emotion, the events may follow one
another very quickly. But in other ways of understanding the story, there may be quite
long periods of time between the events; one translation, for instance, reflects the habit of
people to go away to the bush for gardening as an expedition lasting several days, and
says “One day, while they were there in the bush, Cain ….”
Rose up against means “attacked, assaulted.” It does not mean that Cain was sitting
or lying down before he attacked. TEV says “Cain turned on his brother,” and NEB “Cain
attacked his brother.” Killed him translates a term that means to cause the death of
someone, and to do it with evil intent and by violent means. The definition given in DB is
B

“with ruthless violence.” NEB has “murdered him.” The text does not say what means or
weapon Cain used to murder Abel.
Some languages have an idiom very similar to that in Hebrew and naturally use “rise
up” or “get up” in the sense of becoming angry or hostile against a person. Other
translators may need to use a term or expression that means “to attack” or “to go for.” In
some languages care will also need to be taken in the choice of a term for killing: where a
number of terms are available, it seems most likely that Cain struck or hit Abel, either
with a weapon or with his bare fists, and it is clear that his action was intentional, not
accidental. In cases where the term for “kill” is a more general word for “strike” or “hit,”
it will be necessary to make clear that the victim actually died as a result.

BDB BROWN, DRIVER, AND BRIGGS

Genesis 4.9.
Then the Lord said to Cain: Then moves the action forward to the next episode, in
which the Lord speaks with Cain. Again there is no precise indication of the time after
the murder when this took place, or of where Cain was then; but it seems most likely that
we should assume a change of scene. And this will really be necessary in some languages
to make the story believable. In some translations there is no term or expression to mark a
transition, and the result of this is an impossible picture of Cain standing by Abel’s body
with the Lord asking him the question, “Where is your brother?” and Cain replying, “I
don’t know.” Simple transition markers that are often used here are “Afterward” and
“Later.”
“Where is Abel your brother?” is a question similar to the question God asked
Adam in the garden in 3.9. With this question God again assumes the role of judge, as he
did in the crime and punishment episode in 3.9–19. Cain replies falsely, I do not know,
and then adds a rhetorical question, Am I my brother’s keeper? The purpose of this
question is not to get information but rather to make a negative statement: “I am not my
brother’s keeper.” Keeper translates a noun related to the verb meaning “to watch over,
care for.” Some translations express it as a verb; for example, FRCL has “Is it up to me to
look after my brother?” TEV and GECL “Am I supposed to be taking care of my brother?”
and SPCL “Is it my responsibility to watch over him?”
In translating Cain’s rhetorical question translators should be trying to express not
only the actual meaning of the negative statement that he is making but also the emotion
that he is feeling. Many languages have particular forms of the expressions “Why?” and
“What?” that are used to express emotions such as anger. And it is also quite common to
begin a strong denial with words such as “Do you think that …?” Examples from actual
translations are “Why? Do you think I’m here just to look after my brother?” and “What
do you mean? [literally What perhaps?] Am I the taking-care-of person for my brother?”
Genesis 4.10.
The Lord’s rhetorical question What have you done? is similar in wording and intent
to the question put to Eve in 3.13. The trial continues with the judge pointing to the
evidence of Cain’s guilt. Since the question is really demanding that Cain explain his
behavior, the literal form of the Hebrew will not be appropriate in some languages. A
“why?” question will often be better; for example, one translation has “Why have you
done this bad thing?” A number of translations also add a term or expression such as
“Listen!” which demands the attention of a person while an accusation is made.
When it comes to the actual accusation that the Lord makes against Cain, the Hebrew
words translated literally will not be direct enough in many languages. The plain meaning
of your brother’s blood is that Cain has killed his brother, and many translations state
this directly. For example, “Listen! Your brother is dead. His blood flowed onto the
ground, and now it is calling out ….” In another case the direct statement is placed at the
beginning of the next verse: “Now I’ve got a strong talk for you like this: you killed your
brother, and the ground drank up his blood; so now ….”
The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground: blood in
Hebrew is grammatically plural here, and this form generally refers to large amounts of
blood or to the blood of a murdered person. See 2 Kgs 9.26; Job 16.18; Isa 26.21; Ezek
24.7–8. According to Num 35.19–21 the “avenger of blood,” or as TEV says, “the dead
man’s nearest relative” (Hebrew go’el hadam), has the responsibility of putting the
murderer to death. However, when the nearest relative could not or would not perform his
duty, God did it, as the citations above show.
Blood in the expression voice of your brother’s blood is pictured as a person,
someone who is crying out for revenge or for justice. In many languages this kind of
expression must be changed to a simile; for example, “Your brother’s blood is like a
person crying out to me from the ground” or “… like a voice crying out for me to take
revenge for him.” See TEV “like a voice calling for revenge.” Although the Hebrew text
does not indicate what the blood is calling out for, many languages will need to include
this. Revenge or justice are the most likely things being called for, and these will often be
expressed in verbal forms. Two examples are “… calling out to me to pay back this
wrong” and “… calling me to straighten out [this crime].”
Genesis 4.11.
Verses 11 and 12 take up the punishment of Cain. And now marks a consequence of
Cain’s action.
You are cursed from the ground: the opening words in Hebrew are in the form of
the recognized formula seen in 3.17 for the beginning of a curse against someone. In
Adam’s case the ground was cursed, although the effect of the curse was directed against
Adam himself; however, in this case it is Cain who is cursed directly. Many languages
have curse formulas that are equivalent to the Hebrew “cursed [are] you” and which are
suitable here. From the ground means that the soil will not produce crops for Cain. TEV
has made this thought clear by saying “You are placed under a curse and can no longer
farm the soil.” It is also possible to interpret from the as meaning “more than,” and so
the expression can mean “You are cursed more than the ground was cursed.” However,
the first part of verse 12, as well as verse 14, makes it probable that the first interpretation
is to be preferred. This whole clause may also be translated “I curse you, and nothing you
plant in the soil will grow” or “I put a curse on you so that the soil will produce no more
food for you.”
Which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood: its mouth refers to
the mouth of the ground. This poetic figure is also used of Sheol in Isa 5.14. TEV
translates “soaked up you brother’s blood” and then adds a simile, “as if it had opened its
mouth to receive it.” In some languages it may be better to translate this clause as a
separate sentence; for example, “This is the soil that has soaked up your dead brother’s
blood.” In some languages it may be possible to retain the force of the metaphor by
saying, as in SPCL, “that has drunk the blood of the brother you killed.” If such expressions
are not possible, it may be adequate to translate, for example, “It is the ground on which
your brother’s blood has fallen” or “… which was wet with your brother’s blood.”
From your hand refers to the hand of Cain used to murder his brother and cause him
to bleed. This expression is one in which a part of the body actually stands for the whole
person, and it emphasizes Cain’s responsibility for his brother’s death: “You did it!” This
is well translated by TEV “… you killed him,” and NEB “… blood which you have shed.”
This verse may need to be restructured in some languages. The reason or basis for the
curse on Cain is hidden away at the end in the expression your brother’s blood from
your hand; but this may come more naturally at the beginning, or immediately following
the opening curse formula. Examples from two translations are: “Because you killed your
brother and his blood flowed down onto the ground, big trouble will take hold of you:
…” and “This is the strong word I have for you: you killed your brother and made the
ground drink his blood; so now I am putting a taboo on the ground against you ….”
Genesis 4.12.
The first part of this verse extends the meaning of the curse, while the second part
adds something more to the curse.
When you till the ground: till is as in 2.5. No longer yield to you its strength
means “it [the ground] will not produce or grow anything.” According to Speiser this is a
poetic use of strength for “produce”; REB has “its produce” and NIV “its crops.” TEV
combines both of these senses: “… crops, the ground will not produce anything.”
Negatively we may say “the soil will be sterile, infertile, unproductive.” One good
example from an existing translation says “The ground will withhold its goodness, and
food will not be able to grow in it.” Another says “The ground will not fruit its fruits for
you any more.”
You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth: a fugitive and a wanderer
translates two similar-sounding Hebrew participles linked by “and,” a construction that
suggests, according to some, a single idea, and so “homeless wanderer” (TEV and Speiser).
Others treat the two words as separate ideas. For example, REB “a wanderer, a fugitive on
the earth.” Fugitive here suggests fleeing or escaping from God and from people. The
word rendered wanderer refers in other contexts to a person’s unstable movements, as in
“to totter” or “to stagger.” On the earth refers to the whole world and emphasizes the
extent of Cain’s punishment: he will have no home anywhere, and he will have to wander
everywhere. This part of the curse means that Cain will be cut off from his family and
relatives. FRCL says “You will be uprooted, always roaming over the earth.” This may also
be translated “You will be without a home and always drifting everywhere.”
In trying to express the meaning of this Hebrew phrase, many translations include
three elements:
(1) Cain will have no place or home of his own;
(2) he will be a “traveler,” always on the move;
(3) he will keep on going round and round, all over the world or to every place in
the world.
Genesis 4.13.
Cain shows no remorse for having killed his brother, but now he complains that the
sentence given to him by God is too severe.
My punishment: that is, “the punishment you have given me.” Punishment
translates what is literally “my iniquity”; however, the focus is not on what Cain has done
wrong but rather on its consequences, and so my punishment is appropriate. For a
similar use of “iniquity” in the sense of punishment and translated in that way, see 1 Sam
28.10. Greater than I can bear means “more than I am able to take,” “greater than I can
endure.” This verse may be translated, for example, “You are punishing me so severely
that I will not be able to take it” or “This punishment is harder than I can stand.”
Genesis 4.14.
This verse is a lament or complaint. Cain directs his complaint against God, a
complaint about the punishment imposed on him, and against his potential enemy.
Translators should try to use whatever features their own language has to bring a
complaining or whining tone into their rendering of Cain’s words. Behold is the same
term as used in 3.22, but in this context it is one of the features that mark the words that
follow as a lament. One recent translation has focused on this feature and used an
equivalent local expression “You look!” to make Cain’s words easy for all readers to
recognize as a complaint.
Thou hast driven me this day …: driven translates a verb meaning “to send away,
banish, expel” and is the same verb used in 3.24, “drove out.” This day refers to the time
when Cain is lamenting; that is, “today.” TEV “you are driving me …” makes the action
present time, and so “today” can be omitted. Away from the ground refers back to the
words of the curse in verse 11, “cursed from the ground.” See verse 11 for comments. In
translation this expression should point clearly to the land that is worked to produce food.
In English “off the land” (TEV, REB) expresses this well. We may also say, for example,
“away from the fields [or gardens] where we grow food” or “away from being a farmer.”
And from thy face I shall be hidden: face [of God] is an idiomatic expression
meaning “from God’s presence” or “from the place where God is.” Some scholars have
argued that Cain refers here to the home of the Kenite tribe, and that the ground refers to
the land of Canaan. However, this view presupposes that the narrative is set in Canaan
when the people of Israel are settled there. This is very unlikely.
Some interpreters understand that face [of God] in from thy face I shall be hidden
refers to God’s anger; but in the context of a lament, it is more likely that Cain is
complaining that he will be cut off from God’s blessing and kindness, or that he is being
banished from God’s protecting presence, and so exposed to death by revenge. TEV has
“away from your presence.” FRCL says “I shall have to hide myself far from you,” which
is a good translation model.
A fugitive and a wanderer on the earth are the same words as in verse 12.
Whoever finds me does not suggest that people will be actively pursuing or looking for
Cain, but rather that people will happen to meet him wherever he is wandering. The NEB
rendering “Anyone who meets me” gives the sense. TEV has “anyone who finds me” here,
but “anyone who met him” where the same verb is used in verse 15. This has also been
translated “if someone sees me …” in the sense of the person recognizing Cain as a
fugitive from justice. In one other translation Cain’s emotion and the tone of lament are
brought out at this point by saying “I am afraid, lest anyone who meets me ….”
Slay me translates the same verb used in verse 8. The narrator is not concerned that,
according to the information so far in his story, there is no one else around who could
murder Cain.
Genesis 4.15.
Not so is God’s reply to Cain according to RSV, which says in a footnote that it is
following the ancient versions. However, HOTTP says that the Hebrew means, among other
possibilities, “No, and therefore …,” and so it is not necessary to appeal to the ancient
versions. This response on the part of the Lord shows that he takes note of Cain’s
complaint. In English and many other languages, a simple “No!” taken with the words
that follow is sufficient for readers to understand that the Lord has taken note of Cain’s
complaint. Some other translations open the Lord’s words with “Truly …,” which serves
to mark what follows as an additional provision in the light of Cain’s complaint. In the
last translation referred to in the previous verse, the Lord’s words open by answering
Cain’s lament: “You don’t have to be afraid ….”
If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold: slays again
translates the word “to murder” used in verses 8 and 14. Translators should note that the
Lord is addressing Cain directly, and so TEV replaces Cain with “you.” Vengeance shall
be taken translates the passive form of the verb “to take vengeance, get even, repay.”
Sevenfold means “seven times as many” and refers to killing seven members of the
murderer’s family. As one translation has it, “If one man kills you, seven men will die as
a result.” The unnamed agent is the Lord himself; and if it is necessary to express the
thought with an active verb, we may say, for example, “I will kill seven other people in
revenge” or “I will take revenge by killing seven others.” Recognizing that the expression
“seven times” is really figurative, some translations say simply “If anyone kills you, I
will punish that person with very great violence.”
And the Lord put a mark on Cain: mark translates a word meaning “a sign or
symbol” that was visible to others. The purpose of the mark was to protect Cain from
being attacked and killed. Numerous guesses have been made as to the nature of this
mark, but since the narrator did not give any leads, it is futile to speculate. It seems that
the mark placed on Cain had to be visible and meaningful to those who would see him.
Accordingly translators may be able to use a term that means “sign of ownership,” if such
marks or signs are known. Another possibility for translators in some areas is the kind of
taboo mark that is often put on property and places, and sometimes on people, meaning
“Don’t touch!”
Lest any who came upon him should kill him: lest has the same sense in this
construction as in 3.3, 22, although the Hebrew word is different here. It means “to
prevent anyone who found him …” or “so that anyone who came upon him would not kill
him.” Came upon him translates the same word rendered “finds” in verse 14. TEV has
“anyone who met him,” and REB “anyone who happened to meet him.” See comments on
verse 14.
Genesis 4.16.
This verse closes and rounds off the story of Cain. The significant theme that it
features is the destiny of Cain rather than his punishment.
Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord: Then serves to bring the
curse episode to a close. Went away from has the sense of “left, departed from.”
Presence of the Lord is the same as in verse 14. It is not advisable to translate “from the
worship place of the Lord.”
And dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden: dwelt means “to reside, live.” Land of
Nod, as the RSV footnote shows, means “land of Wandering.” TEV avoids using Nod, since
land of Nod in English suggests a place for sleeping. The same Hebrew word is used in
the description of Cain as a “Wanderer” in verses 12 and 14. No such geographical name
is known. For east of Eden see 3.24.
Some translations have preferred to give a rendering of the meaning of Nod, seeing
that it relates to an important term used in the story; this is a regular feature of story
conclusions in some languages. Two examples are “… a place called ‘Wandering
Around’ ” and “… a place called Nod, which means ‘Place where people can’t settle
down.’ ”
Languages are different in the ways they use to bring a narrative to conclusion. But in
many cases a statement like “So Cain went away from the family of Adam …” or “That
is what happened to Cain in the end …” can form the basis for a satisfying conclusion,
with the other details of the text fitting around it.
 The line of the descendants of Cain is still to be given, in verses 17–24. But Cain’s
story really concludes here at verse 16, and the ongoing story of the descendants of Adam
is picked up again at verse 25 with the chosen line, whose main qualification is that they
are worshippers of yhwh, “the Lord.”

Skinner, John, 1851-1925: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. New

York : Scribner, 1910, S. 101.

1–5. Birth of Cain and Abel: 1. ‫ ]והאדם ידע‬A plup. sense (Ra.) being unsuitable,
their occupation, and the peculiar order of words is difficult to explain; see on
sacrifice.—1. On the naming 3:1, and cf. 21:1. Sta. (Ak. Red. 239) regards it as a proof
of the child by the mother, see
Benzinger, Archæol.2 116. It of editorial manipulation.—The euphemistic use of ‫ידע‬
is peculiar to the oldest strata is peculiar to J in the Hex. (7 times): Nu. 31:17, 18, 35 (P :
(J and E) of the Hex.,. and is cf. Ju. 21:11, 12) are somewhat different. Elsewhere Ju.
not quite consistently 11:39, 19:22, 25, 1 Sa. 1:19, 1 Ki. 1:4, —all in the older
observed even there (4:26, historiography, and some perhaps from the literary school
5:29, 25:25f., Ex. 2:22): it of J.—‫קין[ √ קין‬ ַ (Ar. ḳāna). In Ar. ḳain means
may therefore be a relic of the ‘smith’; = Syr.‫ܘܝܢܝܐ‬, ‘worker in metal’ (see 4:22, 5:9).
matriarchate which was N
öldeke’s remark, that in Ar. ḳain several words are
giving place to the later
custom of naming by the combined, is perhaps equally true of Heb. ‫קין‬ ַ (EB, 130).
H
father (P) at the time when Many critics (We. Bu. Sta. o. al.) take the name as
these traditions were taking eponym of the Ḳenites (‫ני‬ ִ ‫קי‬ַ ,‫קין‬
ַ ): see p. 113 below.
shape.—The difficult sentence —‫תי‬ ִ ‫ני‬
ִ ‫ק‬
ָ ] All Vns. express the idea of ‘acquiring’
‫איש אֶתי־ ַהְֶוה‬ ִ ‫תי‬ִ ‫ני‬
ִ ‫ק‬
ָ (ἐκτησάμην, possedi, etc.). The sense ‘create’ or
connects the name ‫קין‬ ַ with ‘originate,’ though apparently confined to Heb. and
subordinate even there, is established by Dt. 32:6, Pr.
the verb ‫נה‬ ָ ‫ק‬
ָ . But ‫ קנה‬has
two meanings in Heb.: (a) to 8:22, Ps. 139:13, Gn. 14:19, 22.—‫ ]את‬Of the Vns. TO
alone can be thought to have read ‫את )מן קדם‬
(create, or) produce, and (b) to ֵ ‫מ‬
ֵ ); one
acquire; and it is not easy toanonymous Gr. tr. (see Field) took the word as not. acc.
determine which is intended (ἄνθρωπον κύριον); the rest vary greatly in rendering
here. (as was to be expected from the difficulty of the phrase),
The second idea would seem but there is no reason to suppose they had a different text:
more suitable in the present G
διὰ τοῦ θ., Σ σὺν κ., Ὁ Ἑβρ. καὶ ὁ Σύρ.: ἐν θ., V
connexion, but it leads to a
per Deum, S ‫ܠܡܪܝܐ‬. Conjectures: Marti (Lit. Centralbl.,
forced and doubtful construction
of the last two words. (a) To 1897, xx. 641) and Zeydner (ZATW, xviii. 120): ‫איש‬ ִ
render ‫את‬ ֵ ‘with the help of’ ( i. ‫את י ַהְֶוה‬
D
ֹ = ‘the man of the Jahwe sign’ (v. 15); Gu.
J Yahwist, or Jahwistic Narrative
E Elohist, or Elohistic Narrative
P The Priestly Code.
Di. Die Genesis. Von der dritten Auflage an erklārt von A. Dillmann (6th ed. 1892). The
work embodies frequent extracts from earlier edns. by Knobel: these are referred to
and most) is against all analogy. ‫תאֶוה‬
ְ ֶ‫איש א‬
ִ = ‘a man whom I desire.’
It is admitted that ‫ את‬itself
nowhere has this sense (in 49:25
the true reading is ‫אל‬ֵ ְ ‫ו‬, and Mic
3:8 is at least doubtful); and the
few cases in which the synonym
‫עם‬ ִ can be so translated are not
really parallel. Both in 1 Sa.
14:45 and Dn. 11:39, the ‫עם‬
denotes association in the same
act, and therefore does not go
beyond the sense ‘along with.’
The analogy does not hold in this
v. if the vb. means ‘acquire’; Eve
could not say that she had
acquired a man along with
Yahwe. (b) We may, of course,
assumed an error in the text and
read ‫את‬ ֵ ‫מ‬
ֵ = ‘from’ (Bu. al.
after TO). (c) The idea that ‫ את‬is
the sign of acc. (TJ, al.), and that
Eve imagined she had given
birth to the divine ‘seed’
promised in 3:15 (Luther, al.)
may be disregarded as a piece of
antiquated dogmatic exegesis.—
If we adopt the other meaning of
‫קנה‬, the construction is
perfectly natural: I have created
(or produced) a man with (the

below as “Kn.-Di..”
T The Targum of Onkelos [2nd cent. A.D.] (ed. Berliner, 1884).
ZATW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (1881–).
S The Syriac Version (Peshittȧ).
V The Vulgate.
Σ̠Greek Translation of Symmachus.
G The Greek (Septuagint) Version of the OT (ed. A. E. Brooke and N. M’Lean,
Cambridge, 1906).
Field Origenis Hexaplorum quœ supersunt; sive Veterum Interpretum Grœcorum in
totum V.T. Fragmenta (1875).
Ho. Genesis erklärt, von H. Holzinger (1898).
Nöldeke
Th. Nöldeke, Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft (1904).
Untersuchungen zur Kritik des AT (1869).
√ Root or stem.
T The Targum of Jonathan [8th cent. A.D.] (ed. Ginsburger, 1903).
cooperation of) Yahwe (cf. Ra.:
“When he created me and my
husband he created us alone, but
in this case we are associated
with him”). A strikingly similar
phrase in the bilingual
Babylonian account of Creation
(above, p. 47) suggests that the
language here may be more
deeply tinged with mythology
than has been generally
suspected. We read that “Aruru,
together with him [Marduk],
created (the) seed of mankind”:
Aruru zí-ír a-mí-lu-ti it-ti-
šu ib-ta-nu (KIB, vi. 1, 40f.;
King, Cr. Tab. i. 134 f.). Aruru, a
form of Ištar, is a mother-
goddess of the Babylonians (see
K
AT3, 430), i.e., a deified
ancestress, and therefore so far
the counterpart of the Heb. ‫וה‬ ָ ‫ח‬
ַ
(see on 3:20). The exclamation
certainly gains in significance if
we suppose it to have survived
from a more mythological phase
of tradition, in which Hawwah
was not a mortal wife and
mother, but a creative deity
taking part with the supreme god
in the production of man. See
C
heyne, TBI, 104, who thinks it
“psychologically probable that
Eve congratulated herself on
having ‘created’ a man.”—That
‫איש‬ ִ is not elsewhere used of a
man-child is not a serious
objection to any interpretation
(cf. ‫בר‬ֶ ֶ ‫ ג‬in Jb. 3:3); though the
thought readily occurs that the
etymology would be more
appropriate to the name ) ‫אנוש‬ ֳ
4:26) than to ‫קין‬
ִ .
2. And again she bare,
Ra. Rabbi Shelomoh Yizhaki († 1105).
KIB Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ed. by Eb. Schrader (1889–).
KAT Die Keilinschriften und das AT. Third ed., by Zimmern and Winckler (1902).
Cheyne, T. K. Cheyne, Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel (1907).
etc.] The omission of the verb
‫רה‬ָ ָ‫ ה‬is not to be pressed as
implying that the brothers
were twins, although that may
very well be the meaning. The
O
T contains no certain trace of
the widespread superstitions
regarding twin-births.—The
sons betake themselves to the
two fundamental pursuits of
settled life: the elder to
agriculture, the younger to the
rearing of small cattle (sheep
and goats). The previous story
of the Fall, in which Adam, as
representing the race, is
condemned to husbandry,
seems to be ignored (Gu.).
The absence of an
etymology of ‫בל‬ ֶ ֶ‫ ה‬is
remarkable (but, cf. v. 17), and
hardly to be accounted for by the
supposition that the name was
only coined afterwards in token
of his brief, fleeting existence
(Di.). The word ( = ‘breath’)
might suggest that to a Heb.
reader, but the original sense is
unknown. Gu. regards it as the
proper name of and extinct tribe
or people; Ew. We. al. take it to be

OT Old Testament.
Gu. Genesis übersetzt und erklärt, von H. Gunkel (2nd ed. 1902).
Ew.
H. Ewald, Ausfürliches Lehrbuch der hebrdischen Sprache des alten Bundes (8th ed.
1870).
History of Israel [Eng. tr. 1871].
Antiquities of Israel [Eng. tr. 1876].
We.
J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des AT
(2nd ed. 1889).
De gentibus et familiis Judœis quœ 1 Chr. 2. 4 enumerantur (1870).
Reste arabischen Heidentums (2nd ed. 1897).
Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (6th ed. 1905).
Skizzen und Vorarbeiten.
Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (1871).
a variant of ‫בל‬ָ ָ ‫י‬, the father of
nomadic shepherds (4:20); and
Cheyne has ingeniously
combined both names with a
group of Semitic words denoting
domestic animals and those who
take charge of them (e.g. Syr.
‫‘ = ܰܗܳܒܳܠܐ‬herd’; Ar. ˒abbāl
= ‘camel-herd,’ etc.): the
meaning would then be
‘herdsman’ (EB, i. 6). The
conjecture is retracted in TBI, in
the interests of Yeraḥme˒el.
3. An offering] ‫חה‬ ָ ְ ‫מנ‬
ִ , lit. a
present or tribute (32:14ff,
33:10, 43:11ff., 1 Sa. 10:27
etc.): see below. The use of this
word shows that the ‘gift-
theory’ of sacrifice (RS2, 392
ff.) was fully established in the
age when the narrative
originated.—of the fruit of the
ground] “Fruit in its natural
state was offered at Carthage,
and was probably admitted by
the Hebrews in ancient times.”
“The Carthaginian fruit-
offering consisted of a branch
bearing fruit, … it seems to be
clear that the fruit was offered
at the altar, … and this, no
doubt, is the original sense of
the Hebrew rite also” (RS2, 221
and n. 3). Cain’s offering is
thus analogous to the first-fruits
(‫רים‬ ִ ‫בכו‬ִ : Ex. 23:16, 19,
34:22, 26, Nu. 13:20 etc.) of
Heb. ritual; and it is arbitrary to
suppose that his fault lay in not
selecting the best of what he
had for God.—4. Abel’s
offering consisted of the
firstlings of his flock, namely
(see G-K. § 154a, N. 1 (b)) of
EB Encyclopœdia Biblica, ed. by T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black (1899–1903).
3. ‫ימים‬ ‫ ]מקץ‬After some time, which may be longer
(1 Sa. 29:3) or shorter (24:55). To take ‫ ימים‬in the
definite sense of ‘year’ (1 Sa. 1:21, 2:19, 20:6 etc.) is
unnecessary, though not altogether unnatural (IEz. al.).—
‫ביא‬ִ ֵ‫ ]ה‬the ritual use is well established: Lv. 2:2, 8, Is.
1:13, Jer. 17:26 etc. —‫חה‬ ָ ְ ‫מנ‬
ִ : Ar. minḥat = ‘gift,’
‘loan’: √ manaḥa. On the uses of the word, see Dri.
*
D
B, iii. 587b. In sacrificial terminology there are perhaps
three senses to be distinguished: (1) Sacrifice in general,
conceived as a tribute or propitiatory present to the deity,
Nu. 16:15, Ju. 6:18, 1 Sa. 2:17, 29, 26:19, Is. 1:13, Zeph.
3:10, Ps. 96:8 etc. (2) The conjunction of ‫ מנחה‬and
1) ‫בח‬ ַ ֶ ‫ ז‬Sa. 2:29, 3:14, Is. 19:21, Am. 5:25 etc.) may
show that it denotes vegetable as distinct from animal
oblations (see RS2, 217, 236). (3) In P and late writings
generally it is restricted to cereal offerings: Ex. 30:9, Nu.
18:9 etc. Whether the wider or the more restricted
meaning be the older it is difficult to say.—4.
‫הן‬
ֶ ֵ ‫חל ְב‬ ֶ ‫מ‬ֶ ‫ ]ו‬On Meth., see G-K. § 16d. We might point
as sing. of the noun (‫הן‬
ֶ ְ ‫חל ְב‬
ֶ , Lv. 8:16, 25; G-K. §
@
91c); but has scriptio plena of the pl. —.‫ומחלביהן‬
‫ ]וישע‬G καὶ ἔπιδεν (in v. 5 προσέσχεν); Aq.
έπεκλίθη; Σ. έτέρφθη; Θ ένεπύρισεν (see above);
ὁ Σύρ. εὐδόκησεν; V respexit; S ‫ ;ܘܐܨܛܒܝ‬TO
‫והות רעוא קדם יי‬. There is no exact parallel to the
meaning here; the nearest is Ex. 5:9 (‘look away [from
their tasks] to’ idle words).—5. ‫ ]חרה‬in Heb. always of
mental heat (anger); G wrongly έλύπησεν; so S. On
their fat-pieces] cf. Nu. 18:17. impers. const., see G-K. § 144b; cf. 18:30, 32, 31:36,
Certain fat portions of the 34:7, Nu. 16:15 etc. The word is not used by P.—For
victim were in ancient ritual ‫נפל‬, S has ‫( ܐܬܟܡܪܝ‬lit. ‘became black’).
reserved for the deity, and
might not be eaten (1 Sa. 2:16
etc.: for Levitical details, see
D
ri.-White, Lev., Polychr. Bible,
pp. 4, 65).—4b, 5a. How did
Yahwe signify His acceptance
of the one offering and
rejection of the other? It is
commonly answered (in
accordance with Lv. 9:24, 1 Ki.
18:38 etc.), that fire descended
from heaven and consumed
Abel’s offering (Θ. Ra. IEz. De.
al.). Others (Di. Gu.) think
more vaguely of some technical
sign, e.g. the manner in which
the smoke ascended (Ew. Str.);
while Calv. supposes that Cain
inferred the truth from the
subsequent course of God’s
providence. But these
conjectures overlook the strong
authropomorphism of the
description: one might as well
ask how Adam knew that he
was expelled from the garden
(3:24). Perhaps the likeliest
analogy is the acceptance of
Gideon’s sacrifice by the Angel
of Yahwe (Ju. 6:21).—Why
was the one sacrifice accepted
and not the other? The

G-K. Gesenius’ Hebräische Grammatik, völlig umgearbeitet von E. Kautzsch (26th ed.
1896) [Eng. tr. 1898].
Dri.
S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the OT (9th ed. 1913).
Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (1890).
A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew (3rd ed. 1892).
Θ̠Greek Translation of Theodotion.
IEz. Abraham Ibn Ezra (†c. 1167).
De. F. Delitzsch, Neuer Commentar über die Genesis (5th ed. 1887).
Str. Die Genesis übersetzt und ausgelegt, von H. L. Strack (2nd. ed. 1905).
Calv. Mosis Libri V cum Joh. Calvini Commentariis. Genesis seorsum, etc. (1563).
distinction must lie either (a) in
the disposition of the brothers
(so nearly all comm.), or (b) in
the material of the sacrifice
(Tu.). In favour of (a) it is
pointed out that in each case
the personality of the
worshipper is mentioned before
the gift. But since the reason is
not stated, it must be presumed
to be one which the first
hearers would understand for
themselves; and they could
hardly understand that Cain,
apart from his occupation and
sacrifice, was less acceptable to
God than Abel. On the other
hand, they would readily
perceive that the material of
Cain’s offering was not in
accordance with primitive
Semitic ideas of sacrifice (see
RS2, Lect. VIII.).
From the fact that the altar is
not expressly mentioned, it has
been inferred that sacrifice is here
regarded as belonging to the
established order of things (Sta.
al.). But the whole manner of the
narration suggests rather that the
incident is conceived as the
initiation of sacrifice,—the first
spontaneous expression of
religious feeling in cultus.* If that

Tu. Fr. Tuch, Commentar über die Genesis (2nd ed. 1871).
* It may be a mere coincidence that in Philo Byblius the institution of animal sacrifice
occurs in a legend of two brothers who quarrelled (Pr. Ev. i. 10). Kittel (Studien zur hebr.
Archäol. 1031) suggests that our narrative may go back to a time prior to the introduction
of the fire-offering and the altar.
Aq. Greek Translation of Aquila.
@ԠThe Samaritan Recension of the Pent. (Walton’s ‘London Polyglott’).
DB A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by J. Hastings (1898–1902).
* Some, however, derive it from ‫‘ = נחה‬direct’; and Hommel (AHT, 322) cites a
Sabæan inscr. where tanaḥḥayat (V conj.) is used of offering a sacrifice (see
Lagrange, Études, 250). If this be correct, what was said above about the ‘gift theory’
would fall to the ground.
impression be sound: it follows
also that the narrative proceeds on
a theory of sacrifice; the idea, viz.,
that animal sacrifice alone is
acceptable to Yahwe. It is true that
we cannot go back to a stage of
Heb. ritual when vegetable
offerings were excluded; but such
sacrifices must have been
introduced after the adoption of
agricultural life; and it is quite
conceivable that in the early days
of the settlement in Canaan the
view was maintained among the
Israelites that the animal offerings
of their nomadic religion were
superior to the vegetable offerings
made to the Canaanite Baals.
Behind this may lie (as Gu. thinks)
the idea that pastoral life as a
whole is more pleasing to Yahwe
than husbandry.
5b. Cain’s feeling is a
mixture of anger (it became
very hot to him) and dejection
(his face fell: cf. Jb. 29:24, Jer.
3:12). This does not imply that
his previous state of mind had
been bad (Di. al.). In tracing
Cain’s sin to a disturbance of
his religious relation to God,
the narrator shows his profound
knowledge of the human heart.
6–12. Warning, murder, and 7. The difficulties of the present text are “the curt and
sentence.—7. The point of the ambiguous expression ‫את‬ ֵ ‫ש‬ְ ; further, the use of ‫טאת‬
ָ ‫ח‬
ַ
remonstrance obviously is that as masc., then the whole tenor of the sentence, If thou
the cause of Cain’s doest not well …; finally, the exact and yet incongruous
dissatisfaction lies in himself, parallelism of the second half-verse with 3:16” (Ols. MBBA,
but whether in his general 1870, 380).—As regards 7a, the main lines of
temper or in his defective
sacrifice can no longer be interpretation are these: (1) The inf. ‫את‬ ֵ ‫ש‬ְ may be
made out. Every attempt to complementary to ‫תיטיב‬
ֵ as a relative vb. (G-K. § 120,
extract a meaning from the v. 1), in which case ‫ ש׳‬must have the sense of ‘offer’
is more or less of a tour de sacrifice (cf. 43:34, Ezk. 20:31). So (a) G οὐκ ἐὰν
force, and it is nearly certain ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς, ὀρθῶς δὲ μὴ διέλῃς,
that the obscurity is due to
deep-seated textual corruption ἥμαρτες; ἡσύχασον (reading ‫תח‬ ַ ַ ‫ ל ְנ‬for ‫תח‬
ַ ֶ ‫ל ַפ‬,
(v.i.). —8. And Cain said] and pointing the next two words ‫בץ‬
ַ ְ‫ר‬ ָ‫טאת‬
ָ ‫ח‬
ָ ) = ‘Is it
‫מר‬ַ ‫ א‬never being quite
synonymous with ‫בר‬ ֵ ‫ד‬
ִ , 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 2:5),
where they were safe from
observation (1 Ki. 11:29).—9.
Yahwe opens the inquisition,
as in 3:9, with a question,
which Cain, unlike Adam,
answers with a defiant
repudiation of responsibility.
It is impossible to doubt that
here the writer has the earlier
scene before his mind, and
consciously depicts a terrible
advance in the power of sin.—
10. Hark! Thy brother’s blood
is crying to me, etc.] ‫עק‬ ַ ָ‫צ‬
denotes strictly the cry for
help, and specially for redress
or vengeance (Ex. 22:22, 26,
Ju. 4:3, Ps. 107:6, 28 etc.).
The idea that blood exposed
on the ground thus clamours
for vengeance is persistently
vivid in the OT (Jb. 16:18, Is.
not so—if thou offerest rightly, but dost not cut in pieces
rightly, thou hast sinned? Be still!’ Ball strangely follows
this fantastic rendering, seemingly oblivious of the fact
that ‫תח‬ַ ַ ‫( נ‬cf. Ex. 29:17, Lv. 1:6, 12, 1 Ki. 18:23, 33 etc.)
—for which he needlessly substitutes 15:10) ‫תר‬ ֵ ַ ‫—)ב‬
has no sense as applied to a fruit-offering.—(b) Somewhat
similar is a view approved by Bu. as “völlig befriedigend”
(Urg 204 f.): ‘Whether thou make thine offering costly or
not, at the door,’ etc. [‘Whether thou offerest correctly or
not,’ would be the safer rendering].—(2) The inf. may be
taken as compressed apod., and ‫ ת׳‬as an independent vb.
= ‘do well’ (as often). ‫ ש׳‬might then express the idea of
(a) elevation of countenance ( = ‫ש׳ פנים‬: cf. Jb. 11:15,
22:26): ‘If thou doest well, shall there not be lifting up?’
etc. (so Tu. Ew. De. Di. Dri. al.); or (b) acceptance (‫ש׳‬
‫ פ׳‬as Gn. 19:21, 2 Ki. 3:14, Mal. 1:8, 9): so Aq.
ܲ
(ἀρέσεις), Θ. (δεκτόν), S (‫)ܲܩܒܠܬ‬, V (recipies); or
(c) forgiveness (as Gn. 50:17, Ex. 32:32): so Σ (ἀφήσω),
TO Jer. and recently Ho. Of these renderings 2 (a) or 1 (b)
are perhaps the most 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
‫בץ‬ֵ ‫ר‬ֹ 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 ‫בץ‬ ֵ ָ ‫ ר‬as a technical expression for
unforgiven sin (cf. Dt. 29:19). Jewish interpreters explain
it of the evil impulse in man (‫רע‬ ַ ָ‫צר ה‬ֶ ֵ ‫)י‬, 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.)

v.i. vide infra Used in references from commentary to footnotes, and vice versa.
Ols. J. Olshausen.
MBBA Monatsberichte der königl. preuss. Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin.
Continued in Sitzungs-berichte der k. p. Ak. … (1881–).
Ball C. J. Ball, The Book of Genesis: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text printed in
colours … with Notes (1896).See The Sacred Books of the OT, a crit. ed. of the Heb. Text
printed in Colours, under the editorial direction of P. Haupt.
26:21, Ezk. 24:7, 8, 2 Ki. Abel, the object of Cain’s envy. The word ‫קה‬ ָ ‫תשו‬ ְ is
9:26): see RS2;, 4175. In this equally unsuitable, whether it be understood of the wild
passage we have more than a beast’s eagerness for its prey or the deference due from a
mere metaphor, for it is the
blood which is represented as younger brother to an older; and the alternative ‫בה‬ ָ ‫תשו‬ ְ
drawing Yahwe’s attention to of G and S (see on 3:16) is no better. The verbal
the crime of Cain.—11. And resemblance to 3:16b is itself suspicious; a facetious
now cursed art thou from (off) parody of the language of a predecessor is not to be
the ground] i.e., not the attributed to any early writer. It is more likely that the eye
earth’s surface, but the of a copyist had wandered to 3:16 in the adjacent column,
cultivated ground (cf. v. 14, and that the erroneous words were afterwards adjusted to
and see on 2:5). To restrict it their present context: in S the suff. are actually reversed (
to the soil of Palestine (We. ‫ܐܢܬ ܬܬܦܢܐ ܠܘܬܗ ܘܗܘ ܢܫܬܠܛ‬
Sta. Ho.) goes beyond the ‫)ܒܟ‬.—The paraphrase of TO affords no help, and the
necessities of the case.— textual confusion is probably irremediable; tentative
which has opened her mouth, emendations like those of Gu. (p. 38) are of no avail. Che.
etc.] a personification of the TBI, 105, would remove v. 7 as a gloss, and make 8a
ground similar to that of Sheol
in Is. 5:14 (cf. Nu. 16:32). The (reading ‫ )אחי‬Cain’s answer to v. 6.
idea cannot be that the earth is 8. ‫מר‬ַ ‫א‬, in the sense of ‘speak,’ ‘converse’ (2 Ch.
a monster greedy of blood; it 32:24), is excessively rare and late: the only instance in
seems rather akin to the early Heb. is apparently Ex. 19:25, where the context has
primitive superstition of a been broken by a change of document. It might mean
physical infection or ‘mention’ (as 43:27 etc.), but in that case the obj. must be
poisoning of the soil, and indicated. Usually it is followed, like Eng. ‘say,’ by the
through it of the murderer, by actual words spoken. Hence ‫דה‬ ֶ ‫ש‬ָ ּ ַ‫כה ה‬
ָ ְ ‫ נ ֵל‬is to be
the shed blood (see Miss
Harrison, Prolegomena, 219 supplied with @GSV. TJ but not Aq. (Tu. De.: see the
ff.). The ordinary OT scholia in Field): a Pisqa in some Heb. MSS, though not
conception is that the blood recognised by the Mass., supports this view of the text. To
remains uncovered (cf. Eurip. emend ‫מר‬ ֹ ‫ש‬
ְ ִ ‫( ו ַי‬Ols. al.) or ‫מר‬
ַ ֵ ‫ ו ַי‬,‫מר‬
ֶ ָ ‫( ו ַי‬Gk.) is less
Electra, 318 f.). The relation satisfactory.—9. 10—.‫יה‬
ֵ ‫א‬ @ [‫אי‬
ֵ . On the
of the two notions is obscure.
—12. The curse ‘from off the interjectional use of ‫קול‬, see G-K. § 146 b; Nö. Mand.
ground’ has two sides: (1) The Gr. p. 482. —‫צעק‬ @ [‫קים‬
ִ ‫ע‬
ֲ ‫צ‬
ֹ , agreeing with ‫קול‬
ground will no longer yield its
strength (Jb. 31:39) to the
‫מן‬
ִ . . . ‫ ארור‬.11—.(?)] pregnant constr., G-K. §
murderer, so that even if he 119 x, y, ff. This sense of ‫מן‬
ִ is more accurately expressed
wished he will be unable to by ‫על‬ַ ‫מ‬
ֵ in v. 14, but is quite common (cf. esp. 27:39).
resume his husbandry; and (2) Other renderings, as from (indicating the direction from
he is to be a vagrant and which the curse comes) or by, are less appropriate; and the
wanderer in the earth. The
compar. more than is impossible.—12. ‫סף‬ ֵ ‫ת‬
ֹ ] juss. form
second is the negative
consequence of the first, and with ‫לא‬
ֹ (G-K. § 109 d, h; Dav. §§ 63, R. 3, 66, R. 6);
need not be regarded as a followed by inf. without ‫( ל‬G-K. § 114m).—‫נד‬
ָ ָ‫ו‬ ‫נע‬
ָ ] an
Dav. A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax.
separate curse, or a symbol of alliteration, as in 1:2. Best rendered in anon. Gr. Vns.
the inward unrest which (Field): σαλευόμενος καὶ ἀκαταστατῶν; V vagus
springs from a guilty et profugus; G (incorrectly) στένων καὶ τρέμων.
conscience.
13–16. Mitigation of Cain’s 13. On ‫עון‬ ָ (√ ġawaʸ = ‘go astray’: Dri. Sam. 134 f.) in
punishment.—13. My the sense of punishment of sin, see the passages cited in
punishment is too great to be B
borne] So the plea of Cain is DB, s.v. 3. ‫נשא ע׳‬, in the sense of ‘bear guilt,’ seems
understood by all modern peculiar to P and Ezk.; elsewhere it means to ‘pardon
authorities. The older iniquity’ (Ex. 34:7, Nu. 14:18, Ho. 14:3, Mic. 7:18, Ps.
rendering: my guilt is too 32:5). This consideration is not decisive; but there is
great to be forgiven (which is something to be said for the consensus of anc. Vns. (G
in some ways preferable), is ἀφεθῆναι; V veniam merear, etc.) in favour of the
abandoned because the sequel second interpretation, which might be retained without
shows that Cain’s reflexions detriment to the sense if the sentence could be read as a
run on the thought of suffering question.—14. ‫תי‬ ִ ‫א‬ ֹ ] instead of suff. is unlike J. In the
and not of sin; see below.— next v. ‫אתו‬ ֹ after inf. was necessary to avoid confusion
14. from Thy face I shall be
hidden] This anguished cry of between subj. and obj.—15. ‫כן‬ ֵ ָ ‫ ]ל‬οὐχ οὕτως (GΣΘ)
Cain has received scant implies ‫כן‬
ֵ ‫לא‬ ֹ : so SV; but this would require to be
sympathy at the hands of followed by ‫רג ק׳‬ ֵ ‫ה‬
ֹ ‫—כ ָל־‬.‫כי‬ ִ ] see G-K. § 116w; cf.
comm. (except Gu.). Like that
of Esau in 27:34, it reveals Ex. 12:15, Nu. 35:30, 1 Sa. 2:13, 3:11 etc.—‫קם‬ ַ ֻ ‫ ]י‬The
him as one who had blindly subj. might be ‫קין‬ ַ (as v. 24) or (more probably) impers.
striven for a spiritual good,— (Ex. 21:21), certainly not the murderer of Cain.—
as a man not wholly bad who
7‘ = [‫תים‬ ַ ‫ע‬ָ ְ ‫שב‬ִ times’: G-K. § 134 r. Vns.: G ἑπτὰ
had sought the favour of God
ἐκδικούμενα παραλύσει; Aq. ἑπταπλασίως
with the passionate
ἐκδικηθήσεται; Σ. ἑβδόμως ἐκδίκησιν δώσει; Θ.
determination of an ill-
regulated nature and missed it: διʼ ἑβδομάδος ἐκδικήσει; V septuplum punietur; S
one to whom banishment from ‫ ;ܚܕ ܒܫܒܥܐ ܢܬܦܪܠ‬T ‫לשבעא דרין‬
O

the divine presence is a ‫( יתפרע מיניה‬hence the idea that Cain was killed by
distinct ingredient in his cup
of misery.—every one that Lamech the 7th from Adam [see on v. 24]).—16. [‫נוד‬
findeth me, etc.] The object of ‫@ נד‬, G Ναϊδ (‫ )?ניד‬with variants (see Nestle, MM, p.
Cain’s dread is hardly the 9).—ΣΘV (habitavit profugus in terra) [T ?] take the word
vengeance of the slain man’s as a participle; but the order of words forbids this.—
kinsmen (so nearly all ‫ ]קדמת‬see on 2:14. ‘In front of E.’ and ‘East of E.’
comm.); but rather the lawless
would here be the same thing (3:24).
state of things in the desert,
where any one’s life may be
taken with impunity (Gu.).
That the words imply a
diffusion of the human race is
an incongruity on either view,
and is one of many indications
that the Cain of the original
story was not the son of the
first man.
This expostulation of Cain,
with its rapid grasp of the
situation, lights up some aspects
of the historic background of the
legend. (1) It is assumed that
Yahwe’s presence is confined to
the cultivated land; in other
words, that He is the God of
settled life, agricultural and
pastoral. To conclude, however,
that He is the God of Canaan in
particular (cf. 1 Sa. 26:19), is
perhaps an over-hasty inference.
(2) The reign of right is
coextensive with Yahwe’s sphere
of influence: the outer desert is
the abode of lawlessness; justice
does not exist, and human life is
cheap. That Cain, the convicted
murderer, should use this plea
will not appear strange if we
remember the conditions under
which such narratives arose.
15. What follows must be
understood as a divinely
appointed amelioration of
Cain’s lot: although he is not
restored to the amenities of
civilised life, Yahwe grants
him a special protection,
suited to his vagrant existence,
against indiscriminate
homicide.—Whoso kills
Ḳayin (or ‘whenever any one
kills Ḳ˒), it (the murder) shall
be avenged sevenfold] by the
slaughter of seven members of
the murderer’s clan. See
below.—appointed a sign for
Ḳayin] or set a mark on Ḳ.
The former is the more
obvious rendering of the
words; but the latter has
analogies, and is demanded by
the context.
The idea that the sign is a
pledge given once for all of the
truth of Yahwe’s promise, after
the analogy of the prophetic
‫אות‬, is certainly consistent with
the phrase ְ ‫ ל‬. . . ‫שים‬ ִ : cf.
e.g. Ex. 15:25, Jos. 24:25 with
Ex. 10:2 etc. So some authorities
in Ber. R., IEz. Tu. al. But Ex.
4:11a proves that it may also be
something attached to the person
of Cain (Calv. Ber. R., De. and
most); and that ‫ אות‬may denote
a mark appears from Ex. 13:9, 16
etc. Since the sign is to serve as a
warning to all and sundry who
might attempt the life of Cain, it
is obvious that the second view
alone meets the requirements of
the case: we must think of
something about Cain, visible to
all the world, marking him out as
one whose death would be
avenged sevenfold. Its purpose is
protective and not penal: that it
brands him as a murderer is a
natural but mistaken idea.—It is
to be observed that in this part of
the narrative Ḳayin is no longer
a personal but a collective name.
The clause ‫דג ק׳‬ ֵ ‫ה‬
ֹ ‫( כ ָל־‬not
‫רג‬
ֹ ֲ‫מי י ַה‬
ִ , or ‫שר י׳‬
ֶ ֲ‫ )א‬has
frequentative force (exx. below),
implying that the act might be
repeated many times on members
of the tribe Ḳayin: similarly the

Ber. R. The Midrash Bereshith Rabba (tr. into German by A. Wünsche, 1881).
Dri. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (1890).
BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT
(1906).
Nestle, E. Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien (1893).
T The Targum.
sevenfold vengeance assumes a
kin - circle to which the murderer
belongs. See, further, p. 112.
16. and dwelt in the land
of Nôd] The vb. ‫שב‬ ַ ָ ‫ י‬is not
necessarily inconsistent with
nomadic life, as Sta. alleges
(see Gn. 13:12, 1 Ch. 5:10
etc.). It is uncertain whether
the name ‫ נוד‬is traditional
(We. Gu.), or was coined from
the participle ‫נד‬ ָ = ‘land of
wandering’ (so most); at all
events it cannot be
geographically identified. If
the last words ‫קדמת עדן‬
belong to the original
narrative, it would be natural
to regard Ḳayin as
representative of the nomads
of Central Asia (Knob. al.);
but the phrase may have been
added by a redactor to bring
the episode into connexion
with the account of the Fall.
The Origin of the Cain Legend.—The exposition of 4:1–16 would be incomplete without
some account of recent speculations regarding the historical or ethnological situation out of which
the legend arose. The tendency of opinion has been to affirm with increasing distinctness the
view that the narrative “embodies the old Hebrew conception of the lawless nomad life, where
only the blood-feud prevents the wanderer in the desert from falling a victim to the first man who
meets him.”* A subordinate point, on which undue stress is commonly laid, is the identity of Cain
with the nomadic tribe of the Ḳenites. These ideas, first propounded by Ew.,† adopted by We.,‡
and (in part) by Rob. Sm.,§ have been worked up by Sta., in his instructive essay on ‘The sign of
Cain,’|| into a complete theory, in which what may be called the nomadic motive is treated as the
clue to the significance of every characteristic feature of the popular legend lying at the basis of
the narrative. Although the questions involved are too numerous to be fully dealt with here, it is
necessary to consider those points in the argument which bear more directly on the original
meaning of vv. 1–16.
1. That the figure of Cain represents some phase of nomadic life may be regarded as certain.
We have seen (p. 110) that in v. 13ff. the name Cain has a collective sense; and every descriptive
touch in these closing vv. is characteristic of desert life. His expulsion from the ‫ אדמה‬and the

* Smith, KM2, 251.

† JBBW, vi. 5 ff.
‡ Comp.2 10f.
§ l.c.
|| Ak. Reden, 229–73.
phrase ‫נע ונד‬, express (though not by any means necessarily,—see below) the fundamental
fact that his descendants are doomed to wander in the uncultivated regions beyond the pale of
civilisation. The vengeance which protects him is the self-acting law of blood-revenge,—that
‘salutary institution’ which, in the opinion of Burckhardt, has done more than anything else to
preserve the Bedouin tribes from mutual extermination.* The sign which Yahwe puts on him is
most naturally explained as the “sharṭ or tribal mark which every man bore in his person, and
without which the ancient form of blood-feud, as the affair of a whole stock and not of near
relations alone, could hardly have been worked.Ӡ And the fact that this kind of existence is traced
to the operation of a hereditary curse embodies the feeling of a settled agricultural or pastoral
community with regard to the turbulent and poverty-stricken life of the desert.
2. While this is true, the narrative cannot be regarded as expressing reprobation of every form
of nomadism known to the Hebrews. A disparaging estimate of Bedouin life as a whole is, no
doubt, conceivable on the part of the settled Israelites (cf. Gn. 16:12); but Cain is hardly the
symbol of that estimate. (1) The ordinary Bedouin could not be described as ‘fugitives and
vagabonds in the earth’: their movements are restricted to definite areas of the desert, and are
hardly less monotonous than the routine of husbandry.‡ (2) The full Bedouin are breeders of
camels, the half-nomads of sheep and goats; and both live mainly on the produce of their flocks
and herds (see Meyer, INS., 303 ff.). But to suppose Cain to exemplify the latter mode of life is
inconsistent with the narrative, for sheep-rearing is the distinctive profession of Abel; and it is
hardly conceivable that Hebrew legend was so ignorant of the proud spirit of the full Bedouin as
to describe them as degraded agriculturists. If Cain be the type of any permanent occupation at
all, it must be one lower than agriculture and pasturage; i.e. he must stand for some of those rude
tribes which subsist by hunting or robbery. (3) It is unlikely that a rule of sevenfold revenge was
generally observed amongst Semitic nomads in OT times. Among the modern Arabs the law of
the blood-feud is a life for a life: it is only under circumstances of extreme provocation that a
twofold revenge is permissible. We are, therefore, led to think of Cain as the impersonation of an
inferior race of nomads, maintaining a miserable existence by the chase, and practising a
peculiarly ferocious form of blood-feud.—The view thus suggested of the fate of Cain finds a
partial illustration in the picture given by Burck. and Doughty of a group of low-caste tribes called
Solubba or Sleyb. These people live partly by hunting, partly by coarse smith-work and other
gipsy labour in the Arab encampments; they are forbidden by their patriarch to be cattle-keepers,
and have no property save a few asses; they are excluded from fellowship and intermarriage with
the regular Bedouin, though on friendly terms with them; and they are the only tribes that are free
of the Arabian deserts to travel where they will, ranging practically over the whole peninsula
from Syria to Yemen. It is, perhaps, of less significance that they sometimes speak of themselves
as decayed Bedouin, and point out the ruins of the villages where their ancestors dwelt as owners

* Bedouins and Wahabys, 148.—The meaning is that the certainty of retaliation acts as a
check on the warlike tribesmen, and renders their fiercest conflicts nearly bloodless.
† Smith, l.c.—It may be explained that at present the kindred group for the purpose of the
blood-feud consists of all those whose lineage goes back to a common ancestor in the
fifth generation. There are still certain tribes, however, who are greatly feared because
they are said to ‘strike sideways’; i.e. they retaliate upon any member of the murderer’s
tribe whether innocent or guilty. See Burck. 149 ff., 320 f.
‡ Nö. EB, 130.
Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, von E. Meyer, mit Beiträgen von B.
Luther (1906).
Burck Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys. Travels in Syria and the Holy
Land.
of camels and flocks.* The name ‫קין‬ ַ , signifying ‘smith’ (p. 102), would be a suitable eponym for
such degraded nomads. The one point in which the analogy absolutely fails is that tribes so
circumstanced could not afford to practise the stringent rule of blood-revenge indicated by v. 15.
—It thus appears that the known conditions of Arabian nomadism present no exact parallel to the
figure of Cain. To carry back the origin of the legend to pre-historic times would destroy the
raison d’être of Sta.’s hypothesis, which seeks to deduce everything from definite historical
relations: at the same time it may be the only course by which the theory can be freed from
certain inconsistencies with which it is encumbered.†
3. The kernel of Sta.’s argument is the attractive combination of Cain the fratricide with the
eponymous ancestor of the Ḳenites.‡ In historical times the Ḳenites appear to have been
pastoral nomads (Ex. 2:16ff, 3:1) frequenting the deserts south of Judah (1 Sa. 27:10, 30:29), and
(in some of their branches) clinging tenaciously to their ancestral manner of life (Ju. 4:11, 17,
5:24, Jer. 35:7 cpd. with 1 Ch. 2:55). From the fact that they are found associated now with Israel
(Ju. 1:16 etc.), now with Amaleḳ (Nu. 24:21ff., 1 Sa. 15:6), and now with Midian (Nu. 10:29),
Sta. infers that they were a numerically weak tribe of the second rank; and from the name, that
they were smiths. The latter character, however, would imply that they were pariahs, and of that
there is no evidence whatever. Nor is there any indication that the Ḳenites exercised a more
rigorous blood-feud than other Semites: indeed, it seems an inconsistency in Sta.’s position that
he regards the Ḳenites as at once distinguished by reckless bravery in the vindication of the
tribal honour, and at the same time too feeble to maintain their independence without the aid of
stronger tribes. There is, in short, nothing to show that the Ḳenites were anything but typical
Bedouin; and all the objections to associating Cain with the higher levels of nomadism apply with
full force to his identification with this particular tribe. When we consider, further, that the
Ḳenites are nearly everywhere on friendly terms with Israel, and that they seem to have
cherished the most ardent attachment to Yahwism, it becomes almost incredible that they should
have been conceived as resting under a special curse.
4. It is very doubtful if any form of the nomadic or Ḳenite theory can account for the rise of
the legend as a whole. The evidence on which it rests is drawn almost exclusively from vv. 13–
16. Sta. justifies his extension of the theory to the incident of the murder by the analogy of those
temporary alliances between Bedouin and peasants in which the settled society purchases
immunity from extortion by the payment of a fixed tribute to the nomads (cf. 1 Sa. 25:2ff.). This
relation is spoken of as a brotherhood, the tributary party figuring as the sister of the Bedouin
tribe. The murder of Abel is thus resolved into the massacre of a settled pastoral people by a
Bedouin tribe which had been on terms of formal friendship with it. But the analogy is hardly
convincing. It would amount to this: that certain nomads were punished for a crime by being
transformed into nomads: the fact that Cain was previously a husbandman is left unexplained.—
Gu., with more consistency, finds in the narrative a vague reminiscence of an actual (prehistoric)
event,—the extermination of a pastoral tribe by a neighbouring agricultural tribe, in consequence
of which the latter were driven from their settlements and lived as outlaws in the wilderness. Such
changes of fortune must have been common in early times on the border-land between

* Burck. 14 f.; Doughty, Arabia Deserta, i. 280 ff.

† An interesting parallel might be found in the account given by Merker (Die Masai, p.
306 ff.) of the smiths (ol kononi) among the Masai of East Africa. Apart from the
question of the origin of the Masai, it is quite possible that these African nomads present
a truer picture of the conditions of primitive Semitic life than the Arabs of the present
day. See also Andree, Ethnogr. Parall. u. Vergl. (1878), 156 ff.
‡ The tribe is called ‫קין‬
ַ in Nu. 24:22, Ju. 4:11; elsewhere the gentilic ‫ני‬ִ ‫קי‬
ֵ is used (in 1
Ch. 2:55 ‫נים‬
ִ ‫קי‬
ֵ ).