Vulgate, Genesis 4, 7

Latin after CDLXXVI
Post Reply
ClassyCuss
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:10 pm

Vulgate, Genesis 4, 7

Post by ClassyCuss »

Greetings,

Cain offers God fruits of the earth and Abel sacrifices two lambs. God prefers Abel's sacrifice. God says to Cain, why do you look so glum and down in the mouth? (dixitque Dominus ad eum quare maestus es et cur concidit facies tua). And then:

nonne si bene egeris recipies sin autem male statim in foribus peccatum aderit sed sub te erit appetitus eius et tu dominaberis illius
Jerome, Saint; Challoner, Richard. The Parallel English - Latin Vulgate Bible: With Latin Dictionary References (p. 28). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.

I don't know whether this is a good translation from the Hebrew into Latin by Jerome, but it seems like it leaves enormous leeway for interpretation. Is the following translation feasible?
Isn't it so that if you do well, you will receive, but if you do ill, sin will come knocking at your door immediately, but the lust for sin is beneath you and you should rise about it (or "tame it").
Metaphorically, that would mean: you have done ill (presumably by offering me the fruits of the earth) and now you will be tempted to sin (presumably by kiiling Abel) but that urge is beneath you and should rise above it.

That interpretation makes more sense to me than the Douay-Rheims translation (which I admit I don't understand at all):
If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it.

The NHV "sin is crouching at the door" version" isn't clear to me either.

Any opinions?

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5042
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Vulgate, Genesis 4, 7

Post by mwh »

I’d query your “lust for sin is beneath you.” Isn’t the appetite sin’s, i.e. eius a possessive genitive? As I read it, sin is imaged at a ravenous wild beast trying to get in, a big bad wolf at the door, slavering and licking its chops. But (sed) Cain will combat and vanquish its appetite (“beneath you” as in victoriously trampling it underfoot, not in a morally superior sense)—a "happy ending"? But I don’t try to make larger sense of this stuff.

ClassyCuss
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:10 pm

Re: Vulgate, Genesis 4, 7

Post by ClassyCuss »

That's certainly possible, but it doesn't say much for the omniscient Jahweh's predictive powers since Cain immediately proceeds to snuff out Abel.

- Why did you do it? Because you could?
- No, because i was not Abel.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5042
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Vulgate, Genesis 4, 7

Post by mwh »

Sure, Cain snuffs out Abel, but then he’s safeguarded against being snuffed out himself, and proceeds to found civilization. So, a happy ending (or rather non-ending) after all? But it’s all a horrid jumble of traditions.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5479
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Vulgate, Genesis 4, 7

Post by jeidsath »

nonne si bene egeris recipies sin autem male statim in foribus peccatum aderit sed sub te erit appetitus eius et tu dominaberis illius

Jerome doesn't seem at all influenced by the LXX Greek here, and seems to be going from his understanding of the Hebrew. The LXX tries hard to give an explanation of why God didn't like Cain's sacrifice:

οὐκ, ἐὰν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς, ὀρθῶς δὲ μὴ διέλῃς, ἥμαρτες; ἡσύχασον·
Haven't you sinned if you contribute correctly but do not divide correctly? Shut up about it.

The last part syncs up with Jerome's Latin, surprisingly:
πρὸς σὲ ἡ ἀποστροφὴ αὐτοῦ, καὶ σὺ ἄρξεις αὐτοῦ.

You can compare Gen. 3:16 καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου to understand why πρὸς σὲ ἡ ἀποστροφὴ αὐτοῦ is "its longing is for you"

The intention of the last bit is the hard part, if we don't accept the idea of words simply being farted out onto the page here, which I don't. My understanding is that the original concept must have meant something like "captivate". The Greek could also mean "lead [in chase]". Cain is being imagined as an object of prey that captures the attention of its hunter. Or as a woman captivating her man. I can't tell whether Jerome was trying to express this with dominaberis or not. The English translations seem generally clueless about a real meaning, including the Jerome-influenced KJV, though I have yet to look at Robert Alter.

Cain doesn't "found civilization". He founds cities in the Land of Nod ("wandering"). Other descendants of Adam and Eve are to be imagined as the parents of the Jewish people here. Although probably the author is not as hung up on the precise details of the Eden/Flood population bottlenecks as we are, perhaps not taking those stories quite so seriously and literally as all the internet Fedora-wearing atheist types.

There's clearly a Farmer/Pastoralist competition at play in the Cain/Abel story, but it's hard to say whether the story's resolution is meant to be speaking clearly about it.

EDIT: Alter's note says that "the first clause of verse 7 is particularly elliptic in the Hebrew, and thus any construction is no more than an educated guess."
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
persequor
Textkit Fan
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:25 pm
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

Re: Vulgate, Genesis 4, 7

Post by persequor »

"Will receive" is better understood as "will be accepted" or "approved of". Recipio can also have those meanings. DMLBS (Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources), Logeion Latin and Greek Dictionaries site (U. Chicago), https://logeion.uchicago.edu/recipere, meanings 11a, 11c.
Dewayne Dulaney
Devenius Dulenius
Carpe diem!-Poēta Rōmānus Horātius, Carmina (Odes), a.C. XXIII/DCCXXXI A.U.C.
Blogus meus: https://letancientvoicesspeak.wordpress.com/

ClassyCuss
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:10 pm

Re: Vulgate, Genesis 4, 7

Post by ClassyCuss »

persequor wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 2:46 pm "Will receive" is better understood as "will be accepted" or "approved of". Recipio can also have those meanings. DMLBS (Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources), Logeion Latin and Greek Dictionaries site (U. Chicago), https://logeion.uchicago.edu/recipere, meanings 11a, 11c.
I thought about "will be accepted/approved" because "réception" in technical French is often translated as "acceptance [testing]" and "you will receive" without any follow-up sounds strange (like you're gonna get it, Jethro!)

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5042
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Vulgate, Genesis 4, 7

Post by mwh »

Just a couple of points.
1. It seems clear that there were (at least) two Greek versions of Gen.4.7, quite different from one another. And I very much doubt that the same Hebrew underlies each of them.

2. I don't see any real difficulty with "won't you receive?" tout court as the apodosis of "If you do well." For the non-specificity cf. e.g. "Ask and it'll be given you" (Mt.7.7). [persequor’s reference to logeion recipere 11 doesn't hold water: recipies is active, not passive, and could not mean “you'll be accepted.”]

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5479
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Vulgate, Genesis 4, 7

Post by jeidsath »

I suspect that Greek is a typo for "two Hebrew versions"? (Rahlfs gives no indication of LXX variants). That could be, but look at Alter's note that I quoted.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Jean Putmans
Textkit Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: Vulgate, Genesis 4, 7

Post by Jean Putmans »

The hexapla (Field) has different greek readings in Gen 4:7

https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/v ... a&page=128

The Cambridge Maior LXX also has these Hexapla readings (A pitty, archive.org is down; one might try pdf drive: brooke maclean old testament … legal?)

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5479
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Vulgate, Genesis 4, 7

Post by jeidsath »

There were multiple Greek versions of every verse in the hexapla (as Jerome had it). The hexapla had four Greek translations of the Hebrew, but only one of those was the LXX. I see no LXX variants in your link, though a Latin author is quoted as saying how different the LXX version is from the Hebrew.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
persequor
Textkit Fan
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:25 pm
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

Re: Vulgate, Genesis 4, 7

Post by persequor »

mwh is technically correct: recipies is indeed active. However, when translating into English, we often change such things for better style or to fit current usage. For a long time now, the norm has been to prefer active voice in narrative. In some cases, however, it sounds better to use the passive. So it is here. A number of modern English Bibles use the passive here.

I should have clarified this and used the above in my comment. Apologies if I caused any confusion about the Latin form.

As a side note, I would point out that the Latin is not a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew, which simply says "uplifting", שְׂאֵת (sʾet). See NET (New English Translation), fn 18, at Bible.org. If it was okay for Jerome to use an idiomatic rendering, it is not wrong for us to do so.
Dewayne Dulaney
Devenius Dulenius
Carpe diem!-Poēta Rōmānus Horātius, Carmina (Odes), a.C. XXIII/DCCXXXI A.U.C.
Blogus meus: https://letancientvoicesspeak.wordpress.com/

Post Reply