Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/209

 out. Every attempt to extract a meaning from the v. is more or less of a tour de force, and it is nearly certain that the obscurity is due to deep-seated textual corruption (v.i.).—8. And Cain said] never being quite synonymous with, 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

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 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 as a technical expression for unforgiven sin (cf. Dt. 29$19$). Jewish interpreters explain it of the evil impulse in man, and most Christians similarly of the overmastering or seductive power of sin; $7b$ being regarded as a summons to Cain to subdue his evil passions.—7b reads smoothly enough by itself, but connects badly with what precedes. The antecedent to the pron. suff. is usually taken to be Sin personified as a wild beast, or less commonly (Calv. al.) Abel, the object of Cain's envy. The word is equally unsuitable, whether it be understood of the wild beast's eagerness for its prey or the deference due from a younger brother to an older; and the alternative of G and S (see on 3$16$) is no better. The verbal resemblance to 3$16b$ is itself suspicious; a facetious parody of the language of a predecessor is not to be attributed to any early writer. It is more likely that the erroneous words were afterwards adjusted to their present context: in S the suff. are actually reversed .—The paraphrase of T$O$ affords no help, and the textual confusion is probably irremediable; tentative emendations like those of Gu. (p. 38) are of no avail. Che. TBI, 105, would remove v.$7$ as a gloss, and make $8a$ (reading ) Cain's answer to v.$6$.

8., in the sense of 'speak,' 'converse' (2 Ch. 32$24$), is excessively rare and late: the only instance in early Heb. is apparently Ex. 19$25$, where the context has been broken by a change of document. It might mean 'mention' (as 43$27$ etc.), but in that case the obj. must be indicated. Usually it is followed, like Eng. 'say,' by the actual words spoken. Hence is to be supplied with [E]GSV, but not Aq. (Tu. De.: see the scholia in Field): a Pisqa in some Heb. MSS, though