피터 엔스의 가인 이해

피터 엔스 교수님의 구약 이해에 대해서 늘 주시하면서 읽고 있습니다. 에스 교수께서 가인을 어떻게 이해 하고 계시는 지 이탤릭체로 변환시키고 밑줄쳐서 제가 다시 제시한 부분을 중심을 따라가면서 그의 논의를 생각해 보십시오. 원문은 http://biologos.org/blog/genesis-creation-and-ancient-interpreters-some-final-thoughts-on-cain/에 있습니다.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Some Final Thoughts on Cain

March 8, 2011
Category: BioLogos Features

 

"Science and the Sacred" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Today's entry was written by Pete Enns. Pete Enns is Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.

 

 

As we have seen for the past several weeks (see sidebar), ancient interpreters produced some inventive interpretations of the story of Cain. The story is ambiguous in places, and some of those ambiguities could be theologically objectionable if left to themselves. So, early interpreters fleshed out the story where needed to clarify what was unclear and to make theologically palatable what was potentially theologically objectionable. This week I want to end our discussion of the story of Cain by listing three other issues that early interpreters felt needed to be addressed.

What Weapon Did Cain Use to Kill Abel?

Some early interpreters specified that Cain used a stone to kill Abel (e.g., Jubilees 4:31: “He [Cain] killed Abel with a stone”). The biblical author clearly has no interest in supplying his readers with this information. But ancient interpreters assumed that clues were hidden in the text, and that attentive reading—which is the only worthy posture for reading Scripture—will reveal these clues eventually.

Some interpreters saw in Genesis 4:8 a clue revealing the implement used. Cain killed Abel “in the field,” and so he must have used something that he could have readily found in the field: a stone. Although such details do not typically interest modern readers, we, too, commonly make inferences about what biblical texts do not say in light of what they do say.

Where is Abel?

In Genesis 4:9-11, God comes to Cain and asks him “Where is Abel, your brother?” and then a second time “What have you done?” What troubled ancient interpreters is that God needed to ask. Was he not omniscient? Of course, throughout the Old Testament, God is presented as a character in the story who acts in (perhaps surprisingly) “human” ways. In the flood story God “regrets” that he made humanity; in Genesis 22 God tests Abraham, and the outcome was not certain from God’s point of view (see v. 12); in Exodus 32:11-14, Moses debates God and convinces him to relent from his intention to destroy the rebellious Israelites.

 

As a general rule, these human presentations of God (anthropomorphisms) did not sit well with early interpreters, and so they sought ways to ease the theological tension. So, in this case, some interpreters stressed that God knew exactly what happened. He only questioned Cain in order to expose further his culpability. For example, Philo (Questions in Genesis 1:68) says that by asking the question, Cain would reveal his guilt or innocence by his answer. If Cain killed Abel “through necessity,” then Cain would confess. If he denied it, he would be declaring his own guilt. Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 1:55-56) inserts into the biblical scene a period of interrogation, where God already knew of Cain’s guilt but through “persistent, inquisitive meddling” was able to charge Cain openly with murder.

 

Modern interpreters commonly read this same episode and conclude, as did the ancient interpreters, that God’s question “Where is Abel?” is not genuine but rhetorical. The ancient interpreters just go a little further and insert some details.

Cain Repented of his Sin

The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, necessitated by the influence of Greek on the Holy Land in the wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great in 332 B.C. It is called “Septuagint” (70) because, as legend has it, it was miraculously translated by 72 scribes over a 70 day period. Targums are Aramaic translations of the Old Testament, which became necessary after the return from exile (539 BC) when Aramaic was the dominant language of the Israelites. The Vulgate is the official Latin translation of the entire Bible done in the late 4th as Latin became the official language of the Western Church.

 

God banishes Cain to a life of wandering, and Cain complains that this will leave him open to retaliation (v. 14). Verse 13 is typically translated, “My punishment is too great to bear,” but the Hebrew also allows for, “My sin is too great to forgive.” Three translations of antiquity— the Septuagint, a Targum (Aramaic), and the Latin Vulgate —actually chose to translate v. 13 to reflect this idea of forgiveness.

Early interpreters were fond of seeing examples of repentance in other biblical characters who exhibited no such repentance in the biblical stories. Not unlike some modern day preachers, ancient interpreters looked for “preaching points” in the text—opportunities to hook a desired lesson to a biblical text. In this example, we are reminded that theological concerns can sometimes affect translations themselves. Virtually no English translation today is free from the criticism that the translation committee’s decisions were sometimes driven by a desire to conform to the needs of the target audience (think of the issues surrounding gender neutral translations).

 

Seeing how people of faith throughout history handled sacred Scripture humbles contemporary readers who feel that biblical interpretation is an easy matter. But it also encourages us to know that we are not the first to engage the text with care and diligence in order to understand better God’s story.

Filed Under:

Cain, Abel, Genesis, God, interpreters, Scripture, sacrifice, faith, omnipotence

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

고대 해석의 시사점들에 따라서 가인의 회개 가능성을 시사해 보려는 엔스 교수님의 생각은 흥미롭기는 하지만 석연치 않은 점이 있다. 다른 글에 비해서는 강하게 나가지 않았지만 항상 어떤 의도를 품고 게신 글이기에 늘 조심해서 읽어야 할 것이다.