BT Vol. 63, No.

4: 185-191

CROUCHING DEMON, HIDDEN LAMB:

RESURRECTING AN EXEGETICAL FOSSIL IN GENESIS 4.7
L. MICHAEL MORALES
[email protected]

The author is professor of Old Testament/Hebrew at Reformation Bible College in Sanford,

Florida, U.S.A.

It would not be surprising if a paleontologist, on discovering some exquisite

fossil remains, were to allow his mind to imagine how the ancient creature may
have appeared in the days when those bones had sinews and flesh. At other times,
no doubt, hope turns to disappointment as the fossils turn out to be no bones
at alljust oddly shaped rocks buried in the dirt. With both such enthusiasm and
disappointment I read John de Jongs article in this journal, A Sin Offering
Crouching at the Door? Translation Lessons from an Exegetical Fossil in the
Judson Bible (2010), in which he considered the once widely accepted translation
of hattat in Gen 4.7 as sin offering. Although this intriguing translation was
thought to have become extinct, I would like to revisit the excavation site in this
article and examine the fossil once more, asking: Can these bones live?
In his article, de Jong noted how Adoniram Judson (17881850), Adam
Clarke (17621832), and Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown (1877) all translated
hattat as sin offering, with Matthew Henry (16621714) recognizing the
validity of both translations, sin and sin offering. Youngs Literal Translation
(1862), though not mentioned by de Jong, also used sin offering for hattat in
Gen 4.7. His article goes on to suggest that sin offering may have been the
conservative rendering at the time, while it was the more progressive or
liberal section of the church that ultimately went with the translation that has
stood the test of time, namely hattat as sin. Other than to disqualify Judsons
translation graciously as one that, in its own time, was conservative and widely
held, de Jong never asks why such a translation was once widely held. Neither, for
example, does he ask how a translation that deviated from the Authorized Version
could have ever become conservative (an unhelpful label in any case). Another
useful question would relate to why the sin offering translation ever got buried
in the first place. Did arguments from context or grammar contribute toward
favoring the progressive translation? In raising each of these questions, we are
merely suggesting the possibility, acknowledged by de Jong himself, that we too
are children of our time and that a previously held translation might shed light
into the scholarly fog of our own age. Needless to say, the test of time should not
185

186

the bible translator vol. 63, no. 4 (october 2012)

be defined merely by the current generations judgmentwe must also consider

the wide history of interpretation. To be sure, de Jongs article drew some helpful
lessons for both Bible teaching and translation, and the Gen 4.7 passage itself
was used merely as an illustration. While our own goal here will be simply to
suggest several reasons why sin offering may be the preferred translation for
hattat in this passage, our conclusions will also help to support de Jongs main
point, namely, that while the word of God is infallible our translations are not.
Studying the original languages of the Bible, ongoing translation, and (perhaps
chiefly) humility are all needed for this endeavor.
We begin with some of the grammatical and contextual problems which must
be faced by the common rendering of Gen 4.7, with hattat translated as sin. The
NRSV is a typical representative: If you do well, will you not be accepted? And
if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must
master it. Briefly, we will restrict our consideration to three major problems
created by this translation. First, the suffixed pronouns rendered its desire and
rule/master it presumably refer back to sin. Hattat, however, is feminine
while the pronominal suffixes are masculine (his desire, rule him). So too the
masculine participle often translated crouching or lurking (robets) presents
a difficultyand in this case, the feminine hattat must be its subject. Second,
the personification of sin as something like a crouching demon, as suggested by
several commentators, is not entirely convincing. No such concept or character
has been introduced into the narrative previously, nor does one show up again.
Yet all of the drama becomes focused upon Cains relationship to this other
himto this alleged demon that has upstaged Abel. Third, another puzzling
feature, especially given the translation under consideration, is the presence of a
door. What door does it refer to? Is it the door of Cains tent, or of his heart? If
we are to take the whole phrase as idiomatic, then why do no other examples of
such an expression occur in the Hebrew Bible?
Let us turn now to consider the alternative translation and try to demonstrate
how it best resolves the difficulties just mentioned:
If you do well will not [your countenance] be lifted? If you do not do
well, at the door a sin offering is lying down. Now to you will be his
desire but you must rule over him.
All translation is interpretation, and the key to interpretation is context. In light
of these truths it is significant that, increasingly, scholars have recognized a
particular cultic context for the Eden narratives. A vast amount of literature now
supports the idea that the garden is depicted as an archetypal sanctuary. Gordon
Wenham (1986), for example, noted many parallels between the garden and the
later tabernacle/temple of Israel, such as the description of YHWHs walking in
Eden, Edens eastward orientation, and the cherubim guarding the entrance to
Eden. Further, the description of Adams labor uses verbs (abad work, serve
and shamar keep, watch, guard, Gen 2.15) that are used together in describing
the work of Levitical priests (Num 3.7, 8; 8.26; 18.6-7). Other parallels could

Sin Offering IN GENESIS 4.7 Revisited

187

be mentioned as well, like the presence of the source of abundant waters. As

an example of a more ancient understanding of the text that affirms Wenhams
analysis, the author of the book of Jubilees (around 200 B.C.) understood Eden to
be the holy of holies (see 8.19). I have argued elsewhere (Morales, forthcoming)
that the expulsion from Eden is the catalyst which sets the biblical drama of
redemption in motion. It explains the logic and necessity of the Israelite system
of worship and sacrifice. With Leviticus at its heart and Sinais shadow cast from
Exod 19 through Num 10, the Pentateuchs cultic context must be appreciated
throughout the extent of its pages. Furthermore, Wenham (1995) has also noted
that the structure of Genesis divides human history into three periods, each
climaxing with a sacrifice of great significance, the sacrifices of Abel, Noah, and
Abraham. The narrative in question, then, is thoroughly cultic in naturehow
this guides our translation will become clear shortly.
Returning to our proposed translation, it is reasonable to suppose that the
door of Gen 4.7 refers to Edens entrance (Gen 3.24). And the cherubim placed
there correspond to the ancient Near Eastern idea that this guarded entryway is
a temple gate. In the tabernacle system, the door served as the place where
Israelites would come to present their offerings. We will return to this point
shortly, but for now we note that the outcome of the narrative for Cain is that
he is driven away from the Presence of YHWH, described as farther east of
Eden (Gen 4.16). This affirms the idea that the previous Eden narrative(s) are
contextually relevant for Gen 4. Richard M. Davidson (2000, 112) thus appears
correct in his general portrayal of the primal familys cultic ritual:
After Adam and Eve are expelled, in their sinful state they are no longer able to
meet with God face to face in the Garden. ... The Gate of the Garden becomes
the Sanctuary where Adam and Eve and their descendants were to meet with
God, worship Him, and bring their sacrifices. Here the Shekinah glory was
manifested as God came down to hold communion with them.
As soon as we understand that it is the sin offeringin other words, a
lamb or goat ready to be sacrificedthat is lying down in the doorway, the
difficulties of the alternative personification vanish. Indeed, readers may be
surprised to discover that in the psalmists reflection upon YHWH as shepherd
in Ps 23, the same root as the participle in Gen 4.7 is used in v. 2: he makes me
lie down (rbts) in green pastures. Precisely this picture of a lamb or goat (or any
animal) lying down tranquilly is the most common image in places where this
verb is used throughout the Old Testament. Nevertheless, we still have to face the
problem that this participle is masculine while hattat is feminine. This difficulty,
however, is not so severe when hattat is rendered sin offering, since when that
offering refers particularly to a male sin offering, it is possible then for masculine
pronouns to be used with it. A similar case is found in Exod 29.14 where we
read: But the flesh of the bull, with its skin and its dung, you shall burn with fire
outside the camp. It is a sin offering (hattat hu) (authors translation). The last
sentence is in fact a verbless clause, which matches the feminine hattat with the

188

the bible translator vol. 63, no. 4 (october 2012)

masculine pronoun hu because the sin offering is particularly a male offering (see
also, e.g., Lev 4.21, 23-24).
To summarize the logic of our translation so far, If you do not do well, at
the door a sin offering is lying down refers to YHWHs revelation to Cain of a
remedy for his failurethe same remedy later revealed to Israel. In the book of
Leviticus, we read regularly that for all offerings, the animalwhether bull or
goat, lamb or pigeonis to be offered at the door of the tabernacle of meeting
before YHWH (see Lev 1.3; 3.2), and this holds for sin offerings as well (4.4,
14). Such a biblical and ancient Near Eastern cultic context must weigh heavily
when we read of a hattat lying down at the doorespecially when the doorway
of an archetypal temple has recently been alluded to.
Turning to the second part of the translation, namely and to you will be his
desire, but you must rule over him, we make the following brief points. First,
most scholars have acknowledged that this is a close parallel to Gen 3.16 where
YHWH says to the woman, Your desire shall be for your husband, but he shall
rule over you. In Gen 3, then, a sinful act had disrupted a human relationship
that of the two main human characters, Adam and the woman, in their marital
relationship. So also, we suggest, in Gen 4 a sinful act has disrupted another
human relationshipthat of the two main human characters, Cain and Abel, in
their relationship as brothers. At the heart of this brotherly relation is the right
of the firstborn, and this is our second point. Once again, our understanding of
issues relating to the rights of the firstborn (and consequent translation of the
text) is hindered by a wide cultural gap. However, many of the other narratives in
Genesis show a continuing concern for this theme. The rivalry between brothers
over the rights of the firstborn, in fact, is central to the stories of Isaac and
Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, and Joseph and his brothers (and likely also among
Noahs sons in Gen 9.18-29). Because rebellion may result in the loss of the
right of the firstborn (see 1 Chr 5.1), YHWH is here (Gen 4.7) instructing Cain
on how, by repentance expressed through sacrificial worship, he may reclaim
the blessing. Instead, Cain murders his rival. As the narrative unfolds, however,
YHWH provides Seth as a replacement for Abel who had indeed inherited the
rights of the firstborn, forfeited by Cain (Gen 4.24-25; 5.3). As a side note, it
could be this theme is already hinted at in v. 4 where we notice a small, and often
neglected, point: Abel brought the firstborn (bekor) of his flock.
Admittedly, this translation is not entirely free from difficulty. The main
issue is the absence of Abels name as the male person referred to by the phrases
his desire and rule over him. However, this difficulty is much less a problem
than the difficulties facing the traditional translation. And when we recognize
that Cain and Abel are the only characters about whom YHWH speaks (and no
crouching demon is introduced), then the referent becomes obvious and so this
difficulty is by no means insurmountable. Someone might question whether
this portrayal of Abel, as desiring his brothers blessing, is legitimate. Yet it is
helpful here to note that the statement about his desire is both future-oriented
and general. It functions as something of an explanation for the rivalry between

Sin Offering IN GENESIS 4.7 Revisited

189

brothers universally and in the rest of the book of Genesis. Similarly, the womans
desire in Gen 3.16 is both future-oriented (that is, it is not apparent in the
narrative itself) and general, serving as an explanation for the rivalry evident in
marriage universally. In addition, Cain and Abel are continually being contrasted
throughout the narrative, and the significance of this fact should be kept in mind
in relation to v. 7. For example, Abel was a keeper of sheep while Cain was a
tiller of the ground; Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground while Abel
brought of his flock; YHWH accepted Abel and his offering while he rejected
Cain and his offering. Now given that Cain is without question being addressed
in Gen 4.7, it would be most natural to presume that the contrasting his/him
refers to Abel, the second person of this already established duo. Alternatively,
as mentioned earlier, it would be quite odd for this pair to be replaced by that of
Cain and personified sin. The next scene, after all, places Cain back in contrast to
his established rival, as he rises up to kill Abel. Indeed, the last word (particle) of
v. 7 is the enigmatic him, and v. 8 begins immediately with: Now Cain spoke
to Abel his brother. Afterwards, YHWH addresses Cain and once more refers
to a third personnot a demon, but your brother (vv. 9-10). Paralleling these
two dialogues between YHWH and Cain supplies Abel as the most likely person
being referred to in the first exchange.
Returning to our fossil illustration, we should also note that, a decade before
de Jongs article, these bones had already been uncovered and made to live
by Joaquim Azevedo in a persuasive article entitled At the Door of Paradise:
A Contextual Interpretation of Gen 4.7 (1999). Using discourse linguistics,
grammatical and syntactical analysis, and by considering the ancient Near Eastern
background, Azevedo suggests that it was the fact that Cain did not perform
the ritual duty at the door of paradise that led to his loss of the firstborn right.
A translation such as the one we are suggesting, then, also has the advantage
of addressing two themes that are developed methodically through the rest of
Genesis and the Pentateuch, namely, that of the cultic approach to YHWH and
that of the rivalry between brothers. Moreover, while space does not allow
a review of the history of interpretation, it may be helpful to include here the
Septuagint translation (from about the third century B.C.), whatever Hebrew text
it may have been based on, which reads: If you offer correctly but do not divide
correctly, have you not sinned? Be still; his recourse is to you, and you will rule
over him (NETS). Here, then, the Septuagint marks the first part of the verse as
related to Cains (albeit previous) sacrifice, and the second half of the verse as
related to his brother.
We round off this article, finally, with a reflection on why the proposed
translation, once common enough, may have become buried to begin with.
Any attempt at explanation must of course be both cautious and tentative,
readily acknowledging the high probability of proposing false causes. History
is rarely simple. Yet our subject pushes us to reflect on what is perhaps both
the greatest obstacle and the greatest asset to proper interpretation, namely,
context. Interpretation of the biblical text, the basis of all translation, involves the

190

the bible translator vol. 63, no. 4 (october 2012)

interface of three cultural contexts: (1)that of the biblical world itself; (2)that
of the translators own culture; and (3)that of the culture one is translating the
text into (in Judsons case, for the people of Myanmar). So far our study has
tried to show how the biblical context (1) might favor our suggested translation.
It is worth noting now that the context of biblical studies (2) underwent a major
revolution in the twentieth century, led by the work of Julius Wellhausen. The
scholarship of this era wasand to a large extent still ischaracterized by the
source-critical division of the biblical material. This usually went along with
an attitude that viewed the strand identified as the Priestly (P) source as less
valuable or important. This attitude has led later scholars to acknowledge, for
example, that the priesthood has been marginalized in modern biblical studies
(Fletcher-Louis 2006, 156) and that the temple and its rituals have been the
great repressed of biblical studies (Carden 2009, 4.1). Both of these aspects of
twentieth-century scholarship are relevant to our particularly cultic translation
since the Eden narratives had been assigned to the non-cultic Jahwist (J) source,
thought to have come from a time before the post-exilic decline of Israelite
religion into the cultic ritualism of P. It could be, then, that a prevalent anti-cult
atmosphere in our own context had blinded us to the proper interpretation (and
translation) of Gen 4.7.
Gordon Wenhams article on the sanctuary symbolism of Eden (1986),
as noted earlier, clearly showed that J contained significant cultic aspects and
concerns, and this recognition became part of a turning tide in biblical studiesa
double triumph of renewed interest in cultic ritual and of openness to cultic
concerns in non-P material. It could be argued that interest in cultic studies now
dominates scholarship. So it is a distinct possibility that this itself has misled
our own translation of Gen 4.7. However, like some childlike paleontologist, we
cannot help but wonder if these fossils belong to the primal ancestor of a creature
still alive, if threatened and endangereda species still dwelling, perhaps, among
the people of Myanmar.
References
Azevedo, Joaquim. 1999. At the Door of Paradise: A Contextual Interpretation of Gen
4.7. Biblische Notizen 100: 45-59.
Carden, Michael. 2009. Atonement Patterns in Biblical Narrative: Rebellious Sons,
Scapegoats and Boy Substitutes. The Bible and Critical Theory 5.1: 4.1-4.15.
Davidson, Richard M. 2000. Cosmic Metanarrative for the Coming Millennium.
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11.1-2: 102-19.
De Jong, John. 2010. A Sin Offering Crouching at the Door? Translation Lessons
from an Exegetical Fossil in the Judson Bible. The Bible Translator 61.2: 89-92.
(Reference this articles bibliography on Clarke 1977; Henry 1991; Jamieson,
Fausset, Brown 1993; and Judson 2005.)
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin. 2006. Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1. Journal
for the Study of the Historical Jesus 4.2: 155-75.

Sin Offering IN GENESIS 4.7 Revisited

191

Morales, L. Michael. Forthcoming. The Tabernacle Prefigured: Cosmic Mountain

Ideology in Genesis and Exodus. Leuven: Peeters.
NETS: A New English Translation of the Septuagint, and the Other Greek Translations
Traditionally Included under That Title. 2007. Edited by Albert Pietersma and
Benjamin G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wenham, Gordon J. 1986. Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story. Pages
19-25 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A:
The Period of the Bible. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies.
. 1995. The Akedah: A Paradigm of Sacrifice. Pages 93-102 in Pomegranates
and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and
Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by David P. Wright, David Noel
Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Young, Robert. 1862. The Holy Bible, Consisting of the Old and New Covenants;
Translated According to the Letter and Idioms of the Original Languages.
Edinburgh: George Adam Young & Co.