Cain's Anger, Cain's Grief

 

I ran across a small puzzle today when reading the first half of Gen 4. When Cain realizes that the LORD did not look with favor upon his offering of produce from the Earth, most English translations follow the Hebrew verb, a clear indication of anger, given the roots association with burning. Thus, the NRSVUE reads, “… so Cain was very angry and his countenance fell.” (4:6) The LXX, however, makes an interesting move in translating this text to Greek. Instead of communicating anger or burning (and thus destructive consumption, the LXX translator chose a verb communicating sadness: ἐλύπησεν. In fact, God’s warning that comes next in verse 6 exaggerates the sadness when God asks, “ἵνα τί περίλυπος ἐγενου”. Now, this exaggeration may be due to the modifier in v 5 (λίαν in the LXX) communicating that Cain became exceedingly saddened, but the choice of περίλυπος does a bit more work than simply exaggerating the emotional state. While λυπέω can have connotations of vexing, annoying, harassing, etc. and thus potentially inflaming, περίλυπος moves the semantic field away from these. Instead, it brings the semantic field into the realm of grief. 

    Now, it is not as if the LXX cannot translate this particular Hebrew verb into an appropriately angry semantic field. The next use of the verb in Hebrew comes in Gen 18 when Abraham questions God as to whether or not God would destroy Sodom should smaller and smaller numbers of righteous people be found there. Abraham politely and subserviently says to God, “Oh, do not let my Lord be angry if I speak…” (Gen 18:30, NRSVUE). The Hebrew verb is the same here as in Gen 4:5, but the LXX does not use λυπέω. Instead, the translator here chooses the appropriate ἀπόλλυμι, which carries with it the appropriate connotations of destruction. 

    Thus, we may ask why? Why does the LXX color Cain as saddened, grieved even, in discovering that God did not look with favor on his offering? And why, moreover, do the English translations ignore this divergence rather than acknowledge the difference in a footnote? My hunch on the latter is that the interpretive tradition that connects how Cain acts in the middle of the story (murdering his brother in a field) to his emotional state post-sacrificial discovery is so strong that the LXX here is simply nonsensical to us. Anger to murder makes sense. Deep grief to murder? That’s uncomfortable for us to consider. I invite you then, dear reader, to meditate with me today on the power of sadness and grief to move us to unthinkable acts as much if not more than anger. I also invite you to consider how you imagine God’s own emotional reaction to the crucifixion. Had not God offered something great that then humanity did not look upon with favor, in parallel to Cain’s offering to God? What is your instinct about God’s emotional state at the crucifixion: burning anger or deep grief?