[JSP 12.

1 (2001) 65-84]
ISSN 0951-8207
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX and
370 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA.





CAIN AND ABEL IN THE LIGHT OF ENVY:
A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION
OF ENVY IN GENESIS 4.1-16

Angela Y. Kim

Department of Theology, 130 Malloy Hall,
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA



Abstract

This article discusses the use of envy in the history of the interpretation of
Gen. 4.1-16. The theme of envy is given greater prominence in post-biblical
interpretations of the story of Cain and Abel than in the biblical narrative.
The magnication of envy is present in translation equivalents, character
revisions and the incorporation of legendary accretions. This magnication
of envy serves to deect attention away from God who chooses, in a capri-
cious way, one sacrice over another.


1. Introduction

Expansions and reworkings of a biblical text by ancient interpreters gen-
erally arise from a perceived peculiarity in the biblical text.
1
In the case of
Cain and Abel (Gen. 4.1-16), there are two problems in the narrative: the
rst problem exists on a theological level since it concerns Gods seeming
capriciousness in the rejection of one sacrice and not the other, and the
second problem exists on the narrative level and concerns the lack of con-
tact between the brothers (the lack of a murder motive).
2
These perceived

1. See J.L. Kugel, In Potiphars House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), pp. 247-51.
2. YHWH appears capricious if one considers the possibility that Cains sacrice
was comparable to Abels. This is suggested by H.B. Huffmon, Cain: The Arrogant
Sufferer, in A. Kort and S. Morshauser (eds.), Biblical and Related Studies Presented
to Samuel Iwry (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), pp. 109-13. Huffmon writes that
66 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
problems give rise to the creative expansion and reworking of the story by
later interpreters. One way of addressing this two-fold problem is to recast
the story in light of sibling rivalry and envy. By so doing, ancient inter-
preters introduce conict and simultaneously deect attention away from
the more troubling problem of YHWHs capriciousness. In this article, I
will demonstrate how these two problems are mitigated by the magni-
cation of envy which makes its entrance into the story through the use of
translation equivalents, characterizations and legendary accretions.


2. Sibling Rivalry and the Phenomenon of Envy

Stories of rivalry between siblings are common material in ancient myths
3

and nd a place in the Hebrew story of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4.1-16).

The
pattern of rivalry and its consequences in the Patriarchal narratives and
the Deuteronomistic History is best shown in a table of corresponding
events from biblical narratives selected ad hoc (see Fig. 1).
4

This table shows that narratives about the key heroes of Israels history
follow a general pattern of limited good, violent conict between brothers,
and resolution by physical separation. In the case of Cain and Abel, Abi-
melech and the 70 brothers, and Amnon and Absalom, the physical sepa-
ration between the brothers is death. While the Hebrew text does not tell
us the means by which Cain murdered Abel, it does state that Abel died a
bloody death and not a clean death by suffocation ( Myq(c Kyx) ymd lwq
hmd)h-Nm yl), Gen. 4.10). To a lesser extent, the threat of death is pre-
sent in each of the following instances: the land is unable to support both
Abraham and Lot, Jacob is tricked into thinking that Joseph was devoured
by wild animals and Esau consoles himself with the thought of Jacobs
death. The primary resolution of conict is physical separation, the most
extreme form of which is death. Cain and Abel should be understood in

Cain had an expectation that YHWH would accept his sacrice as well. On the storys
lack of a murder motive, see J.L. Kugel, Cain and Abel in Fact and Fable: Genesis
4:1-16, in R. Brooks and J.J. Collins (eds.) Hebrew Bible or Old Testament? Studying
the Bible in Judaism and Christianity (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity, 5; Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), pp. 176-79.
3. The Egyptian Story of Two Brothers, in ANET, I, pp. 12-16, and the Roman
legend of Romulus and Remus are two non-Israelite examples of sibling rivalry in the
ancient world.
4. See also the discussion by M. McEntire, The Blood of Abel: The Violent Plot in
the Hebrew Bible (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1999), which decribes the
story line of violence in the Hebrew Scriptures.

P
a
t
t
e
r
n

G
e
n
e
s
i
s

4
.
1
-
1
6

G
e
n
e
s
i
s

2
7

2
8

G
e
n
e
s
i
s

3
7

J
u
d
g
e
s

9

A
m
n
o
n

a
n
d

A
b
s
a
l
o
m

B
r
o
t
h
e
r
s

C
a
i
n

a
n
d

A
b
e
l

J
a
c
o
b

a
n
d

E
s
a
u

J
o
s
e
p
h

a
n
d

h
i
s

b
r
o
t
h
e
r
s

A
b
i
m
e
l
e
c
h

a
n
d

t
h
e

7
0

b
r
o
t
h
e
r
s

A
m
n
o
n

a
n
d

A
b
s
a
l
o
m

L
i
m
i
t
e
d

G
o
o
d

G
o
d

s

f
a
v
o
r

B
i
r
t
h
r
i
g
h
t

a
n
d

b
l
e
s
s
i
n
g

J
a
c
o
b

s

f
a
v
o
r

K
i
n
g
s
h
i
p

S
i
s
t
e
r

s

v
i
r
t
u
e

C
o
n

i
c
t

R
e
j
e
c
t
e
d

s
a
c
r
i

c
e

J
a
c
o
b

d
e
c
e
i
v
e
s

I
s
a
a
c

a
n
d

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
s

t
h
e

b
i
r
t
h
-
r
i
g
h
t

a
n
d

b
l
e
s
s
i
n
g

i
n
-
t
e
n
d
e
d

f
o
r

E
s
a
u

J
o
s
e
p
h

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
s

c
o
a
t

a
n
d

a

d
r
e
a
m

a
b
o
u
t

h
i
s

f
a
v
o
r
e
d

s
t
a
t
u
s

o
v
e
r

h
i
s

b
r
o
t
h
e
r
s

a
n
d

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

A
b
i
m
e
l
e
c
h

g
a
i
n
s

f
a
v
o
r

o
f

t
h
e

l
o
r
d
s

o
f

S
h
e
c
h
e
m

A
m
n
o
n

r
a
p
e
s

T
a
m
a
r

V
i
o
l
e
n
c
e

F
r
a
t
r
i
c
i
d
e

T
h
r
e
a
t

o
f

d
e
a
t
h

B
l
o
o
d
y

r
o
b
e

F
r
a
t
r
i
c
i
d
e

F
r
a
t
r
i
c
i
d
e

R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

C
a
i
n

k
i
l
l
s

A
b
e
l

J
a
c
o
b

e
e
s

t
o

H
a
r
a
n

J
o
s
e
p
h

i
s

s
o
l
d

i
n
t
o

s
l
a
v
-
e
r
y
.

J
a
c
o
b

i
s

t
o
l
d

t
h
a
t

J
o
s
e
p
h

i
s

d
e
a
d

A
b
i
m
e
l
e
c
h

k
i
l
l
s

t
h
e

7
0

b
r
o
t
h
e
r
s

A
b
s
a
l
o
m

k
i
l
l
s

A
m
n
o
n


F
i
g
u
r
e

1
.

S
i
b
l
i
n
g

R
i
v
a
l
r
y
:

C
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g

E
v
e
n
t
s

f
r
o
m

B
i
b
l
i
c
a
l

N
a
r
r
a
t
i
v
e
s

68 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
this context of conict, physical separation and violence, even though
envy itself is not presented as the explicit motive for the murder.
A variation of this pattern occurs in stories which describe the founding
of a civilization on the heels of fratricide.
5
This is represented in the myth
of Romes origins with Romulus and Remus and it is this pattern that
emerges in the Cain and Abel story. According to Gen. 4.17, Cain founded
a city after the murder. Rivalry and the rst urban center are not unrelated
phenomena. It is possible that Israels story of the rst fratricide may be
understood as a variation of the myth of founding civilization on a murder.
6

Rivalry and fratricide are linked to a struggle to possess resources, or an
envy over limited goods.
The concept of limited goods presumes that all desirable goods are in
short supply.
7
Within social groups of limited goods, conict springs from
the envy of another persons possessions, either material goods or status.
Aristotle writes, they envy those who are near [to them] with respect to
time, place, age, and status. Thus it was said, the kinsman knows how to
envy .
8
Sociological studies tell us the following about envy:
9
(1) it

5. R. Girard, Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (trans. S. Bann and
M. Meteer; Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987) cites other myths which
link the origins of a people or civilization to a founding murder. See also J.G. Williams,
The Bible, Violence, and the Sacred: Liberation from the Myth of Sanctioned Violence
(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), who applies Girards work to the Bible.
6. Sociologically, this type of permanent separation is a way of alleviating the stress
upon the environment when the kin-group becomes too large. The pattern of envy and
sibling rivalry is symptomatic of the human condition and sociologically functions as a
way of ensuring survival. When a group grows to a certain size, the environment is no
longer able to sustain life for all of its members. This stress upon the environment leads
to a conict and ssion in the community at which point the splinter group seeks to
establish itself in a different locale. See A.H. Goodman, Health, Adaptation, and Mal-
adaptation in Past Societies, in H. Bush and M. Zvelebil (eds.), Health in Past Socie-
ties: Biocultural Interpretations of Human Skeletal Remains in Archaeological Contexts
(BARev International Series, 567; Boston: Tempus Reparatum, 1991), pp. 31-38. Good-
mans article talks about the different ways humans adapt to the environment and other
biological stressors such as disease. Goodman writes, Cultural systems are generally
effective in buffering environmental constraints and stressors, or removing the indivi-
duals in a society from contact with the stressor (p. 31).
7. See the classic formulation of the concept of the limited good in G.M. Foster,
Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good, in J.M. Potter, M.N. Diaz and G.M.
Foster (eds.), Peasant Society: A Reader (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1967), pp. 304-
10.
8. See Aristotle, Art of Rhetoric [hereafter Rhetoric] 2.10.5. He goes on to say,
KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy 69
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
occurs naturally in familial situations as a struggle over a limited good, (2)
it is a violent and destructive emotion,
10
and (3) it is aggravated by close
proximity.
11
The typical resolution of conict is physical separation and in
the case of Gen. 4.1-16, the rival is permanently eliminated.


3. The Problem of Gods Capriciousness and
Cains Motivation for Murder

a. The Problem of Gods Capriciousness
The biblical story about the rst fratricide is problematic because it pro-
jects a troubling picture of YHWH. By accepting the sacrice of one brother
and rejecting the sacrice of the other, YHWH appears to act capriciously.
Feldman writes the following:

towards those of them who endeavor for the same things, it is necessarily the case that
they feel the most envy towards them (Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.10.6). In his treatise Broth-
erly Love, Plutarch advises brothers to pursue distinct professions in order to avoid
sibling rivalry.
9. Much of the information on envy relies upon the following work by H. Schoeck,
Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1987). Schoeck writes
as a comparative ethnographer who demonstrates the existence of envy in present day
societies, frequently including data from Pacic cultures. According to Schoeck, the
phenomenon of envy is rst learned through direct experience of it within the primary
social group of the family. He writes, comparative ethnology leaves no room for doubt
as to the universality of sibling jealousy (p. 78). See also the study by G.M. Foster,
The Anatomy of Envy, Current Anthropology 13 (1972), pp. 165-86, whose analysis
compares the attitudes towards the possession and consumption of food in various cul-
tures. More recently see A.C. Hagedorn and J.H. Neyrey, It was out of envy that they
Handed Jesus Over (Mark 15.10): The Anatomy of Envy and the Gospel of Mark,
JSNT 69 (1998), pp. 15-56. See also the model of envy described in J.H. Neyrey and
R.L. Rohrbaugh, He must increase, I must decrease (John 3:30): A Cultural and So-
cial Interpretation, forthcoming in CBQ.
10. A corollary of the rivalry over limited goods is violence. According to Schoeck,
the fear of violent envy between siblings is the motivation behind their separation in
various cultures. See Schoeck, Envy, p. 79, where he writes that the Dobuans in the Pa-
cic practice the separation of brothers and do not permit post-pubescent boys to sleep
together because of the belief that poisonous blood would pass from one to the other
and thus lead to fratricide.
11. Sociological studies have demonstrated that close proximity between brothers
aggravates rivalry and envy between them. See Schoeck, Envy, p. 85, who writes that
among the aborigines of Central Australia, potential feelings of sibling rivalry are
assuaged by eating alternate offspring, thereby ensuring proper spacing between the
children.
70 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

One of the difculties in the biblical text, pointed out by such non-believers
as the Emperor Julian (Contra Galilaeos 346E-347C) and Hiwi al-Balkhiis
that G-d is apparently capricious in accepting the sacrice of Abel while
rejecting that of Cain (Genesis 4:4-5).
12


The narrative projects the theologically troubling possibility that God is
capricious insofar as the reader is given no explanation for his rejection of
Cains sacrice. The murder of Abel casts further shadows upon YHWHs
justice since he does nothing to prevent it. This is aggravated by the fact
that YHWH decides to let Cain, the murderer, live in exile with a mitigated
punishment (a protective sign).
In later Patristic writings, however, the story is cited as a classic exam-
ple of the evil of envy, with very little trace of the problem of YHWHs ca-
priciousness. Genesis 4.1-16 is offered as the classic example of envy by
Patristic writers in moral exhortation against that emotion.
13
Both Basil
14

and Cyprian
15
point to Cain and Abel as the prime illustration of the de-
structive consequences of envy. Augustine uses the story as his interpretive
lens in his discussion of the fratricide that lies at the mythic origins of
Rome and he too reads the story as a case of envy.
16
Furthermore, Jacob
of Edessa includes envy among the seven transgressions of Cain in his
exegesis of Gen. 4.15.
17
Christian interpretations of Gen. 4.1-16 are riddled

12. See L. Feldman, Studies in Josephus Rewritten Bible (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998),
p. 8. Feldman goes on to describe Josephus apologetic approach to the Cain and Abel
story with some corroborating references to Philo as well.
13. The moralizing tendency of Christian interpreters may also be a direct conse-
quence of texts like Mt. 23.35 and 1 Jn 3.10-12 which identify Cain as wicked or
evil. While these New Testament references to Gen. 4.1-16 do not explicitly cite
envy they do however contribute to the overall negative characterization of Cain in
patristic writings. See Kugel, Cain and Abel in Fact and Fable, pp. 181-84.
14. In his treatise Concerning Envy (in Ascetical Works [trans. M.M. Wagner;
Fathers of the Church, 9; New York: Fathers of the Church, 1950], pp. 465-66), Basil
writes that envy corrodes the soul.
15. In his treatise Jealousy and Envy (in Treatises [trans. R.J. Defarrari; Fathers of
the Church, 36; New York: Fathers of the Church, 1958], pp. 96-297), Cyprian (third
century CE) cites Cain as the envious brother who acts unjustly and he urges his readers
to beware of so great an evil destructiveness.
16. See Augustine, The City of God (in Writings of Saint Augustine [trans. G.G.
Walsh and G. Monahan; Fathers of the Church, 14; 17 vols.; New York: Fathers of the
Church, 1952], VII, p. 420).
17. See D. Kruisheer, Reconstructing Jacob of Edessas Scholia, in J. Frishman
and L. van Rompay (eds.), The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian
KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy 71
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
with the notion that it was Cains envy that led to the murder of Abel.
18
It
is interesting that almost no trace of the problem of YHWHs capricious-
ness remains in these later patristic interpretations.

b. Cains Motivation for Murder: The Moment of Conict
Despite these later associations between Gen. 4.1-16 and envy, the word
itself ()nq) does not appear in the Hebrew text. Nor is it the case that the
story exhibits any explicit rivalry over common resources. Perhaps fol-
lowing advice similar to that given by Plutarch in his treatise, Brotherly
Love, Cain and Abel pursue distinct professionsone brother becomes a
farmer and the other a shepherd.
19
Implicitly, it is possible to conclude that
Cain was envious of his brother because Abels sacrice was pleasing to
God; however, this is never explicitly stated in the Hebrew text. The sug-
gestion that Cain was governed by envy is a natural association from an
etymological interpretation of Cains name, Nyq, which was thought to
derive from the root for )nq (envy) or hnq (acquire).
Even if one assumes that Cain is driven by envy on account of his failed
sacrice, it does not necessarily follow that he should kill Abel who is not
directly responsible for the failure of his sacrice. The narrative itself does
not suggest that Cain offered a awed sacrice.
20
One might expect Cain
to complain to YHWH over the unjust rejection of his sacrice, perhaps in
a manner like that found in the book of Job.
21
The crime however seems
to be disproportionate to the events of the narrative.
The brevity of the Hebrew text and the absence of an explicit murder
motive contribute to the problem of Gods capriciousness in Gen. 4.1-16.

Interpretation: A Collection of Essays (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 5; Leuven: Peeters,
1997), pp. 187-96 (192), where he notes Jacobs philological basis behind his exegesis.
18. Others, not mentioned above, include John Chrysostom, Didymus of Alexan-
dria, Basil of Seleucia, Cyril of Alexandria, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Narsai, Jacob of
Serugh, Symmachus. See J.B. Glenthj, Cain and Abel in Syriac and Greek Writers
(4th6th Centuries) (CSCO, 567; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), pp. 146-47.
19. See J.D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Trans-
formation of Child Sacrice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1993), p. 73, who correctly criticizes the over-simplication of the Cain and Abel
story to the dichotomy of pastoral nomad and agriculturalist.
20. See, for example, the discussion found in Levenson, The Death and Resurrec-
tion, pp. 71-73.
21. See the parallel between Gen. 4.7 and Job 11.13a, 15a, and Gen. 4.7 and Job
11.14, pointed out by W.M. Clark, The Flood and the Structure of the Pre-Patriarchal
History, ZAW 83 (1971), pp. 184-211 (199 n. 6).
72 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
The narrative escalates to the climactic killing scene which is described
with a paucity of detail. Genesis 4.8 is a key verse in the story where the
events change from bad to worse; Cain changes from an angry brooding
man with a gloomy face to the rst murderer. In v. 8, the Hebrew narrative
is problematic because no words are supplied even though it is written,
and Cain said to Abel his brother (wyx) lbh-l) Nyq rm)yw).
No explicit motive is given in the narrative for the ensuing murder.
22

Even if Cains anger is ignited by YHWHs preference for Abels sacrice,
Abels murder remains problematic because there is no explicit conict
between the two. There is no open hostility between Cain and Abel, nor
do they engage in lengthy conversation. According to the MT, the only
introduction of dialogue between the two in v. 8a (lbh l) Nyq rm)yw
wyx)) is left in the lurch, abruptly followed by the phrase, while they were
in [the] eld (hd#& Mtwyhb). While other ancient translations provide
some variation of let us go to the eld, the Hebrew text tells us that no
words were exchanged between the two.
23
Furthermore, Cains words, let
us go to the eld are an invitation and not argumentative. Even if the nar-
rative originally included the words let us go to the eld, the subsequent
fratricide is disproportionate to the level of interaction between the brothers.
There are two possibile explanations for the reading found in MT: either
it preserves the more original reading or the words were lost through scribal
error. It is possible to understand the Hebrew of Gen. 4.8 is as a case of
lectio difcilior preferenda est. Perhaps the words found in LXX, SP and
Syr are secondary to the tradition preserved in the MT for it is easier to
insert a quotation and more difcult to explain why it would have been
removed. It is probable that the ancient scribes and translators read the
Hebrew and assumed that something was missing. It would be logical for
them to reconstruct the missing words as let us go to the eld given the
subsequent phrase, while they were in [the] eld.
24
As we shall see,

22. See Kugel, Cain and Abel in Fact and Fable, pp. 176-79, where he describes
the lack of Cains motive. In what is otherwise a primarily psycho-analytic article
written from a seemingly sympathetic view towards Cain, M.I. Gruber, in The Tragedy
of Cain and Abel: A Case of Depression, JQR 69 (1978), pp. 89-97 (96), points out
that Gen. 4.8 suggests that there was no explicit motive for the murder which was
something out of the blue, something totally irrational.
23. The LXX preserves the phrase let us go to the eld, which is mirrored in the
Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) and Old Latin.

A variation of this appears in the Syriac
Peshita (Syr) which states, )tOQPL )drN (let us go down to the valley). See
S.P. Brock, Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources, JJS 30 (1979), pp. 216-17.
24. See such a suggestion in J.L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible
KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy 73
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
other ancient authorities attest the early existence of the shorter Hebrew
text.
The shorter Hebrew text was the received text of Jerome who claims
that the LXX and the Samaritan are secondary:

Et dixit Cain ad Abel fratrem suum. Subauditur, ea quae locutus est Domi-
nus. Superuum ergo est, quod in Samaritanorum et nostro volumine [LXX]
reperitur: Transeamus in campum.
25


Similarly, the scholion based on information from Origen states that the
LXX clause let us go down to the eld, is a secondary accretion to the
Hebrew original.
26
This suggests that there is some evidence for a shorter
Hebrew text. The reading found in MT is attested in 4QGen
b
as well
27
and
it is very likely that this was the Hebrew textus receptus for Jerome and
others. In other words, the shorter reading was an authoritative version in
the ancient world and this reading would have been available to ancient
interpreters of the story. The lack of any dialogue between Cain and Abel
that we see in the Hebrew text of Gen. 4.8 very likely generated a number
of ancient interpretations.
It is also possible that the ancient interpreters associated the consonantal
form rm)yw in Gen. 4.8 with notions of haughty or arrogant behavior. The
root rm) carries the connotation of arrogant or haughty behavior in many

as it Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1998), pp. 160-61.
25. See Origenis Hexapla. I. Prolegomena, GenesisEsther (ed. F. Field; 2 vols.;
London: Clarendon Press, 1875), p. 18 n. 15.
26. This scholion reads, Ev o Epoi|o o it_tv uo ou Koiv po, ov
Ati ou ytypooi, |oi oi tpi A|uiov ttiov oi tv oo |puo ooiv oi
Epoioi |tiooi ouo tvouo |oo qv ov O t|o_qv; roughly translated as,
in the Hebrew, the utterance from Cain to Abel was not written. And those [notations]
around Aquila also show that the Hebrews say to propose this [is] there by means of an
apocryphal source according to the transmission by those of the LXX (Origenis
Hexapla, p. 18). In a footnote, Field writes that the scholion based on information from
Origen was mistranslated by a previous editor of the Hexapla, D. Bernardus de
Montfaucon (1713), who wrote that Aquila has the extra words found in the LXX. The
following clause, oi tpi A|uiov ttiov, was mistranslated by a former editor of the
Hexapla as Aquila tamen exhibet (however Aquila shows). In his editorial note,
Field writes, cum potius sonent, id quod etiam docet Aquilae versio (when these
words rather mean, that which Aquilas version also shows, i.e. that the Hebrew also
did not have the extra words) (Origenis Hexapla, p. 18 n. 16).
27. J.R. Davila, Qumran Cave 4. VII. Genesis to Numbers (DJD, 12; Oxford: Clar-
endon Press, 1994), pp. 31-78.
74 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
Semitic languages.
28
Thus, the ancient interpreters may have understood
the consonants wyx) lbh-l) Nyq rm)yw as Cain acted arrogantly towards
Abel his brother. This rendering of the Hebrew consonants makes the
shorter text intelligible without the direct quotation found in LXX, SP and
Syr. Furthermore, it is tting given the interpretations of Cain as envious
by nature.
For the purposes of this paper, the discussion over whether or not the
shorter Hebrew text of Gen. 4.8 is more original does not mitigate the fact
that the level of interaction between the brothers is disproportionate to the
ensuing fratricide. The lack of interaction between the brothers under-
scores the abrupt and unsettling account of the murder in Gen. 4.8b, and
Cain rose up against his brother and he killed him. Whatever dissatisfac-
tion Cain felt towards God or his brother is not expressed fully. The reader
can only infer that Cains violent action arose from an envious anger.
The Palestinian Targums present one way of coping with this two-fold
problem of Gods capriciousness and the lack of conict prior to the mur-
der. The Targums expand the basic narrative plot by including a lengthy
and heated theological dispute between the brothers after the words, and
Cain said to Abel his brother (wyx) lbh-l) Nyq rm)yw) in Gen. 4.8. The
Palestinian Targums of Pseudo-Jonathan and Neoti I as well as the
Fragment Targum and the Targum from the Cairo Geniza all include a
theological dispute between Cain and Abel on the justice and mercy of
God in the world.
29
It is important to note that the Targums supply a mo-
ment of conict which is not present in the biblical story; they present the
murder as the unfortunate consequence of a heated dispute.
30
The Targums

28. I would like to thank Professor J. Kugel (Harvard) for this suggestion.
29. In the dispute, Abel afrms the orthodox stance that God is both just and merci-
ful while Cain assumes the heterodox position that God is not just. For a convenient
synoptic reading of this theological debate, see G. Vermes, The Targumic Versions of
Genesis 4:3-16, in idem, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (SJLA, 8; Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1975), pp. 92-126; B. Chilton, A Comparative Study of Synoptic Development: The
Dispute Between Cain and Abel in the Palestinian Targums and the Beelzebul Contro-
versy in the Gospels, JBL 101 (1982), pp. 553-62; J.M Bassler, Cain and Abel in the
Palestinian Targums: A Brief Note on an Old Controversy, JSJ 17 (1986), pp. 56-64.
The dispute is also discussed in J.H. Neyrey, Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy: A
Study in Stereotypes, in D.L. Balch et al. (eds.), Greeks, Romans, and Christians:
Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1970), pp. 130-
33; idem, The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter, JBL 99 (1980), pp.
412-14.
30. Vermes writes, [t]he aim of the midrash is to explain that the murder of Abel
KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy 75
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
recast Abels death in a scenario which is primarily a murder of fraternal
conict, thereby minimizing YHWHs responsibility for the death of Abel.
There are other ways of coping with the problems of Gods capricious-
ness and the disproportionate lack of interaction between the brothers
prior to the murder. Later interpreters attempt to resolve the problems that
are generated by the brevity of the Hebrew text by magnifying elements of
sibling rivalry and envy between the brothers. By so doing, they deect
attention away from the more serious problem of YHWHs capriciousness.


4. Methods of Incorporating Rivalry into the Relationship
between Cain and Abel

a. Translation Equivalents
The most logical way to anchor rivalry into the relationship between Cain
andAbel is in the episode of the sacrices. Envy can be secured quite
easily into the story by suggesting that Cain was envious of Abels supe-
rior sacrice.
31
The MT gives no indication that YHWH held Abels sacri-
ce in higher regard. The MT merely states that the Lord regarded (h(#)
Abels sacrice but not Cains.
32
Some ancient interpreters use this part of
the text as an opportunity to emphasize envy and the LXX facilitates such
interpretations.
The interpretation that Abels sacrice was superior arises naturally
from the LXX, which uses different translation equivalents for the Hebrew
hxnm.
33
This suggests that Cains sacrice was different either qualita-
tively or substantially.
34
According to the narrative, the brothers are each

was the outcome of a theological dispute (The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:3-16,
p. 114). See also Kugel, Cain and Abel in Fact and Fable, pp. 177-78.
31. In Gen. R. 22.5, we nd that Cains sacrice was awed. It states that Cains
sacrice was from the worthless matter and that Cain was like the evil farmer who
used to eat the rst fruits and pay homage to the king with the stunted fruits.
32. The means by which Cain knew that his sacrice was not accepted is unclear.
There is a tradition that maintains that Abels sacrice was consumed by re and Cains
was not. This probably goes back to Theodotion who associated the verb, (#yw with #),
producing the translation, and the Lord consumed with re, see S. Brock, The Syriac
Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications,
1987), p. 3.
33. Both are presented as comparable offerings (hxnm) even though the cursing of
the ground (hmd)) stated in Gen. 3.17, is a plausible suggestion for why Cains offering
was not accepted.
34. See Philo, Sacr. 52, and Heb. 11.4. In Sacr. 52-54, Philo gives another reason
76 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
capable of offering up a sacrice to YHWH. There is no indication that the
animal sacrice was more precious than the grain sacrice and it should
be noted that both are required according to cultic laws of the Temple.
The LXXs distinction between the sacrices of the brothers most likely
generated the kind of interpretation found in Philo. Philo introduces the
notion that Cain did not offer a qualitatively good sacrice because the
biblical text does not specify that he offered up the rst fruits of his har-
vest. Because the LXX distinguishes between Cain and Abels sacrices, it
facilitates the interpretation that Cains sacrice was awed, thus Cain
was envious of Abels superior sacrice. More importantly, such an inter-
pretation mitigates the more serious problem of Gods capriciousness for
it provides a justication for YHWHs rejection of Cains sacrice.
There are additional places where the Greek translation equivalents of
the Hebrew reect an interpretive bias. In Gen. 4.5, the Hebrew reads
wynp wlpyw d)m Nyql rxyw (and it angered Cain very much and his face
was downcast).
35
In the LXX, we nd the following: |oi tiuqotv ov
Koiv ii ov |oi ouvttotv o poooo (and it grieved Cain very much
and his countenance was fallen). There is a one to one correspondence to
the Hebrew words in the LXX translation. The Greek equivalent for the
Hebrew rcyw (and it angered) brings the Hebrew text more in line with a
motive of envy. The waw-consecutive verb rxyw (hrx) is well attested
in the Hebrew Bible, with a general sense of burn or kindle and fre-
quently appears as a metaphor for anger. The LXX word tiuqotv is not
the stereotypical translation of the Hebrew hrx.
36
Of the 67 occurrences
of either hrx or rxyw, a translation of some conjugation of or derivation
from the Greek uoooi is given 27 times and, with comparable fre-
quency, opyiooi appears in 24 occurrences. Instances of iuto and its
derivations are relatively rare with 7 attestations. In Aristotles Rhetoric,
iuq is a term used in conjunction with envy. He writes:


for Cains awed sacrice; he writes that sometime later (Gk tqtpo,, Heb. Mymy
Cqm) is an indication of Cains tardiness.
35. See Gruber, The Tragedy of Cain and Abel, pp. 94-97, where he suggests that
Gen. 4.5b-8 describe a case of depression. What is interesting about Grubers interpre-
tation is that it is more sympathetic to Cain.
36. See E. Hatch and H. Redpath (eds.), A Concordance to the Septuagint and Other
Greek Versions of the Old Testament (2 vols.; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1998 with index [1897]), p. 889, where possible retroversions for iutiv are listed as:
lb), #$pn Mg), #$)b, ywd, hrx, b)k, bc( (niphal [twice]), Ppq (qal, hithpael), zgr, dwr
(hiphil), ((r (hiphil), (r.
KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy 77
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
titp toiv o ovo, iuq i, ti tupoyoi oivotvq ov tipqtvov
oyoov tpi ou, ooiou,. (Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.10.1)

While the term tiuqotv is not the stereotypical retroversion for rxyw, in
the context of Gen. 4.1-16 it provides a tting translation which makes the
motive for the murder more explicit. Cain murdered Abel because he was
envious of Abels sacrice. While it is not possible to demonstrate that the
LXX scribe was motivated by Aristotles particular understanding of tiu
qotv within a context of envy, it is demonstrable that such an association
would have inuenced later interpreters.

b. Characterization: Conict from Birth
The connection of tiuqotv (LXX Gen. 4.5) with envy facilitates what
naturally arises from the etymological associations of Cains name. Accord-
ing to the Hebrew text, Cains name (Nyq) is explained by Eves announce-
ment, I have aquired a man with the [help of] Lord (t) #$y) ytynq
hwhy).
37
Another etymological connection with Cains name is envy ()nq).
Etymology allows ancient interpreters and scribes to secure envy into the
Cain and Abel story through the stereotypical characterization of the two
brothers.
38
In addition to the etymological suggestion that Cains name is
related to )nq (envy), hints of Cains dubious nature may be seen in Gen.
4.7 as well. Here YHWH urges Cain to do well and from this it is possible
to infer the opposite, that Cain is not good or is not doing well. This infer-
ence from v. 7 as well as the associations of Cains name with the acquisi-
tion of possessions (hnq) or with envy itself ()nq) generate a stream of
ancient interpretations which fuse envy and wickedness with the very
nature of Cain. Through the characterization of Cain, the ancient interpret-
ers were able to establish animosity between the two brothers, thus explain-
ing the murder without having to explain the capriciousness of YHWHs
rejection of Cains sacrice.

37. It is also possible to read I have created a man with YHWH, but this is less
likely since it relies upon a secondary meaning of hnq.
38. The discussion of character-analysis by J. Vaccaro, Early Jewish and Christian
Interpretations of the Character of Isaac in Genesis 22 (unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion; University of Notre Dame, 1998), pp. 7-54. Of particular interest is the distinction
made between character-analysis and personality analysis, the former places an em-
phasis on agency, particularly moral agency and the latter elicit[ing] something of an
empathetic response from [the] reader (p. 20). See also the discussion of stereotypes
found in Neyrey, Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy, pp. 129-33.
78 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
Character revision was a common practice in the writing of ancient biog-
raphies.
39
The revision of Cains character as envious and wicked from
birth is an attempt to synthesize adult achievements with childhood into
one unied personality. The LXX follows the Hebrew etymology (hnq) of
Cains name by the use of the verb, t|qooqv. Following the Hebrew
and Greek etymology, to acquire, Josephus gives the etymology of Cains
name as acquisition (|qoi,)
40
and he adds a character analysis in his
gloss, Cain had been thoroughly wicked, looking only to gain (o |tp-
oivtiv) (Ant. 1.53). The words o |tpoivtiv have clear associations
with greed.
41
Josephus goes on to state that Cain killed Abel because he
was angry over the fact that YHWH accepted Abels sacrice (Ant. 1.55).
In the same vein, Philo describes the etymology of Cains name in the
following manner: Cain is called Possession, because he thinks he
possesses all things.
42
This type of negative characterization emerges in
full form in the relatively late text of Exod. R. where we nd the following:

It is written: He that has an evil eye hastens after riches (Prov 28:22). This
refers to Cain, who wanted to possess the whole world without delay. When
he was with his brother, as it is written: And it came to pass, when they were
in the eld (Gen 4:8) one said to the other: Let us divide the world. Cain said:
You take the movable property and I will take the immovable property.
After they had divided [the world], and after Abel had taken the movable
property and Cain the immovable property, Cain thought about removing
Abel from this world. When Abel was walking around on the earth, Cain
pursued him and shouted: Get off my property! When he was walking on
the hills, Cain shouted: Get off my property! Until he nally rose up against
him and slew him (ibid.). A proof that he that has an evil eye hastens after
riches (Prov 28:22) refers to Cain, whose eye was evil upon his brother.
(Exod. R. 31.17)

This midrash brings into sharp focus the full expression of this charac-
terization. It also severs any connection between the murder and YHWHs

39. See C. Pelling, Childhood and Personality in Greek Biography, in C. Pelling
(ed.), Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1990), pp. 213-44.
40. Josephus seems to have confused the root of Cains name )nq with the root hnq
since both are weak roots. Josephus, Ant. 1.52.
41. See Feldman, Studies in Josephus Rewritten Bible, p. 9. He writes, [i]t was
characteristic of the Stoics in antiquity to seek etymologies of proper names.
42. Philo, Sacr. 1.2. See also L.L. Grabbe, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpreta-
tion: The Hebrew Names in Philo (BJS, 115; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 31.
KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy 79
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
capriciousness by presenting the murder exclusively as a consequence of
Cains greed over possessions.
Like Cain, Abel undergoes a similar transformation in the history of in-
terpretation. No explicit etymology is given for Abels name, the root of
which, lbh, means vanity or futility, and it seems likely that such a
name functioned apotropaically. Philo writes that his name means sorrow
(Migr. Abr. 13), however, this etymology probably arises from a root
confusion over the rst radicals in lbh and lb). A similar etymology is
given in Yashar Bereshit 9a as well.
43
Unlike Cain, Abel receives little
attention in Gen. 4.1-16 and he engages in conversation neither with Cain
nor YHWH. The biblical text discloses very few details about Abel other
than (1) he was Cains younger brother (v. 2a), (2) he was a shepherd by
occupation (v. 2b), (3) his offering was regarded by YHWH, and (4) he
was murdered by his brother.
44

If the wickedly envious nature of Cain is present from the very begin-
ning through the etymological link between envy and possession, Abels
character becomes magnied into a tragic hero in later interpretations. We
see that righteousness was ascribed to Abel in several ancient sources: 1
En. 22.7; Josephus, Ant. 1.53; T. Ben. 7.4; T. Abr. 13.2-3.
45
For example,
Josephus writes that the etymology of Abel is outv (nothing) but then
he goes on to describe him as the embodiment of Stoic virtues, namely
justice and piety.
46
The righteous characterization of the slain brother is
described in the New Testament typological interpretations. Abel is pre-
sented as the rst actual exemplar of faith in the Old Testament,
47
and
Christ is interpreted through the typology of Abel in the Letter to the He-
brews. Both Abel (by profession) and Christ (in metaphor) are shepherds.
The plural form of Md (Kyx)-ymd, Gen. 4.11), most likely led to the New
Testament exegesis of Abel as the typological precursor to Christ since
the plural form suggests both Abels blood and the blood of his righteous

43. See Ginzburg, The Legends of the Jews: From the Creation to the Exodus (7
vols.; repr., Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 [1925]), V, p.
135.
44. See E. van Woldes article, The Story of Cain and Abel: A Narrative Study,
JSOT 52 (1991), pp. 36-38, where she highlights the rhetorical effect of the information
about Abel.
45. See Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, p. 151.
46. Josephuss etymology for Abel is found in Ant. 1.52. On Abel as the embodiment
of Stoic virtues, see Feldman, Studies in Josephus Rewritten Bible, p. 9.
47. H. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), p. 316.
80 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
progeny.
48
The interpretation that the blood of Abel lives even after his
death is linked to the use of the present participle form, Myq(c (Gen.
4.11) instead of the perfect form.
49
Among Christian interpreters, this was
then taken to be a sign of the life after death; the resurrection of Christ.
50

The shedding of blood as an expiation for sins is exegetically linked to the
murder of Abel with the interpretation that Abel is the prototypical martyr.
Such an interpretation appears in Heb. 11.4, which records a distinguished
list of ancient ancestors that begins with Abel and continues with Enoch,
Noah, Abraham and Moses,
51
and escalates to Jesus himself. In many ways
the character of Abel takes on an apologetic function for the author of
Hebrews since Abel demonstrates that it is not unprecedented for Gods
chosen and favored one to die an undeserved and unjust death; it is tting
that salvation history both begins and ends with such unjust deaths.
Abels righteousness and Cains wickedness become stereotypical char-
acterizations in many ancient interpretations which serves an exegetical
function of deecting attention away from the issue of the sacrices and
YHWHs seeming capriciousness. The murder becomes a consequence of
a conict between good and evil and is no longer presented as the conse-
quence of Cains anger over YHWHs rejection of his sacrice.

c. Legendary Accretions
According to sociological studies, the closer two siblings are in age, the
greater the rivalry between them. Some ancient interpretations locate the
motive for the murder of Abel within a context of sibling rivalry over
goods that are not related to the issue of sacrice.

48. The Targums also contain the interpretation that Abels death includes his own
and the death of his future progeny and testies to the belief that a murderer is guilty,
not only of the death of one just man, but also of the denial of life to all his righteous
posterity, see Vermes, The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:3-16, p. 117.
49. The Rabbis interpreted this as a sign that it was not just Abel who perished, but
also all of his unborn progeny. See Gen. R. 22.9.
50. See T. Kronholm, Motifs from Genesis 111 in the Genuine Hymns of Ephrem
the Syrian With Particular Reference to the Inuence of Jewish Exegetical Tradition
(ConBOT, 11; Uppsala: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1978), pp. 145-49; J. Frishman, Themes on
Genesis 15 in Early East-Syrian Exegesis, in J. Frishman and L. van Rompay (eds.),
The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of
Essays (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 5; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), pp. 171-86.
51. Hebrews 11.32-40 then goes on to mention briey Gideon, Barak, Samson,
Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets and others.
KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy 81
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
The proximity in age between Cain and Abel is not explicitly stated in
the Hebrew text. The biblical text does, however, emphasize the familial
relationship between the two through the repeated use of the word x)
(brother).
52
The births of Cain and Abel are brought into close proximity
by later Jewish interpreters and scribes. Their proximity in age is recorded
in Jubilees
53
and in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which states, she went
on to bear from Adam, her husband, his twin sister and Abel.
54
Josephus
makes no explicit time distinction between the two and writes simply,
two male children were born to them (livovoi t ouo oit oppt-
vt uo).
55
Some interpretations explicitly present Cain and Abel as having
been born at the same time. In Genesis Rabbah it is written that,

wytwmw)t yt#$w lbhw wtmw)tw Nyq h(b#$ wdryw Myn#$ h+ml wl(

A pair went to bed and emerged as seven: Cain and his twin sister and Abel
and his two twin sisters. (Gen. R. 22.2)

The tradition that Cain and Abel were of close proximal age creates a situa-
tion that would have aggravated the rivalry between the two according to
sociological studies.
56

In addition to their closeness in age, rivalry over a woman explicitly
introduces the theme of envy by providing a limited good element. Since
the begetting of children is not a solitary enterprise, and given the genea-
logical record from Gen. 4.17-22 of Cains descendants, ancient interpret-
ers felt that it was necessary to account for Cains wife and reproductive
partner.
57
The author of Jubilees writes, In the third week in the second

52. The word x) appears seven times in Gen. 4.1-16 with six references in the
verses which deal with the fratricide and its aftermath (Gen. 4.8-11).
53. Jubilees 2.61, translated by J.C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (CSCO,
511, Scriptores Aethiopici, 88; Leuven: Peeters, 1989).
54. Translation taken from J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An
Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1969), p. 132.
55. Josephus (Ant. 1.52) agrees with MT which states that Cain was older.
56. Once again, see Schoeck, Envy, p. 79, where he describes the practice among
the Sioux Indians of creating a barrier of time between the birth of one child and the
next as proof of that childs favored status. The rationale is that a greater separation in
age will assuage feelings of rivalry among siblings and thus close proximity in age
aggravates feelings of rivalry.
57. For a complete listing of the twin traditions related to Cain and Abel, see Glen-
thj, Cain and Abel in Syriac and Greek Writers, p. 4. Not all of them will be treated in
this article for obvious reasons. While the twin tradition also appears in PRE 21,
82 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
jubilee [years 64-70], she gave birth to Cain; in the fourth [71-77] she
gave birth to Abel; and in the fth [78-84] she gave birth to his daughter
Awan (Jub. 4.1). Since only one daughter was born to Adam and Eve prior
to Abels murder, the author of Jubilees seems to have assumed that the
murder arose as a consequence of Cains struggle to possess Awan, the
sole mate available. Pseudo-Philo, usually dated at approximately 70 CE,
58

also contains the tradition that Adam and Eve had only one daughter, but
she is named Noaba in this source.
59

After the death of Abel and the removal of the rival for the only repro-
ductive mate available, Jubilees records that in the sixth week Eve gave
birth to another daughter who was named Azura (Jub. 4.8). It seems likely
that this detail gave rise to the tradition that each brother was born with a
twin sister. Later interpreters harmonize Azura with the rst daughter. The
tradition of a twin sister for both Cain and Abel is preserved in many
sources. In addition to Josephus (Ant. 1.52) and Genesis Rabbah, the
Western Recension of the Syriac Cave of Treasures states that there were
twin sisters for both Cain and Abel. In this text, the murder of Abel di-
rectly follows from this tradition of twin sisters:

And she conceived and gave birth to Cain and Lebudah his sister with him,
twins in one womb. And again she conceived and gave birth to Abel and
Qelimata his sister, in one womb. And when the youths grew up, Adam said
to Eve, Let Cain take Qelimata who was born with Abel [as a wife] and
Abel, Lebudah who was born with Cain. But Cain said to his mother, I am
taking my sister, and Abel is taking his sister because Lebuda was amaz-
ingly striking in her beauty and appealing and desirable in her appearance
And it happened that when they went up, Adam the rst priest and Cain and
Abel to the top of the mountain, Satan entered into Cain so that he should
kill his brother on account of Lebudah. (Cave of Treasures 5.19-22, 27)
60


according to Glenthj, the twin tradition is a Jewish phenomenon which never flour-
ished in Christian literature.
58. Whether it was written before or after the destruction is somewhat disputed. See
G.W.E. Nickelsburg, The Bible Rewritten and Expanded, in M. Stone (ed.), Jewish
Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT, 2; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1984), p. 109.
59. See Pseudo-Philo, LAB 1.1, in H. Jacobsen, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philos
Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: With Latin Text and English Translation (2 vols.;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), I, p. 282. Jacobsen suggests that this may be a corruption of
hm(n and that harmonization has occurred with Cains sisters name and the name of
the biblical sister of Tubal-Cain (Gen. 4.22).
60. My translation. For the critical edition of Cave of Treasures, see S. Ri, La
KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy 83
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

In Genesis Rabbah we nd another expression of this motif of envy over a
woman. According to this tradition, the murder was triggered by a struggle
to possess one of the twin sisters.

According to R. Huna, an extra twin was born with Abel. This one says
[Cain], I will take her because I am the rst born! And the other says, I
will take her for she was born with me! and in the midst of it all, Cain rose
up against his brother and killed him. (Gen. R. 22.7)
61


A similar explanation found in the Testament of Adam states, a Flood is
coming and will wash the whole earth because of the daughters of Cain,
your brother, who killed your brother Abel out of passion for your sister
Lebuda (T. Adam 3.5).
62

These interpretations illustrate that the twin tradition was an attempt by
early interpreters to anchor envious conict between Cain and Abel apart
from the issue of their sacrices. The twin sister becomes the commodity
that Cain struggles to possess and his envious nature drives him to kill his
rival brother, Abel. The limited good changes from YHWHs favor in the
biblical narrative to the possession of a woman in the twin legends.
The function of these twin legends is to deect attention away from
Gods seemingly capricious decision to regard Abels sacrice and to
refuse Cains sacrice. If envy and rivalry are heightened by a close prox-
imity, the twin legends provide a situation of conict and envy by intro-
ducing a close proximate age for the two brothers. If rivalry occurs between
a perceived limited good, then the twin legends also provide a limited
commodity for the brothers to rival, namely the twin sisters.


5. Tentative Conclusions

Genesis 4.1-16 exhibits continuity with the pattern of fratricide and
rivalry that has its origins in the human condition and experience of envy.
The narrative poses two major problems to the reader: Gods capriciousness

Caverne des Trsors: Les deux recensions syriaques (CSCO, 207; Leuven: Peeters,
1987), p. 42.
61. This text is a source for many early interpretations of the book of Genesis. It is
said that this work received its nal redaction around the end of the fourth century CE.
On the issue of twin sisters, it contains a number of different traditions, one of which
states that, two came up on the bed and went down as seven: Cain and his twin sister
and Abel and his two twin sisters (Gen. R. 22.2).
62. Here following the translation appearing in OTP, I, p. 994.
84 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.
and the absence of interaction between the brothers. Ancient interpreters
introduce elements to resolve theological problems that are implied by
YHWHs rejection of Cains sacrice. Ancient exegetes magnify elements
of sibling rivalry and envy in order to provide the necessary situation of
conict between the brothers. By so doing, the ancients deect attention
away from YHWH and the problem of Gods capriciousness. Through trans-
lation techniques, characterizations and the incorporation of legendary
accretions, the story is reshaped by the magnication of envy during the
post-biblical period and emerges anew as a tale of envious rivalry between
good and evil. The grave theological problem of Gods capriciousness
diminishes as rivalry and envy between the brothers is magnied.