Genesis 4:8 Let us go into the field Scripture or not?

Genesis 4:8 Let us go into the field? 

 

In Genesis 4:8, just before Cain kills his brother Abel, we find a textual variant.

Genesis 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. KJV 

However, the NIV reads:

Genesis 4:8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. NIV 

 

Here we can see that the NIV includes the words “Let’s go out to the field.”. These words are not included in the KJV 

 

So we must ask, should the words be included in the text? Are the words scripture or not? 

As is usual when it comes to textual variants, modern versions are not in agreement over the authenticity or the non authenticity of these words. 

Versions that do not include the words as scripture include the ESV, NASB and the ASV.

Versions that do include the words as scripture include the NLT (although it uses the plural fields) NET and the NRSV. 

The CEV has the rather peculiar reading “lets go for a walk”. 

Genesis 4:8 Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go for a walk.” And when they were out in a field, Cain attacked and killed him. CEV

This reading is not found in any manuscript and is simply a made up reading. 

Some versions such as the LSV have put these words into brackets. 

 

Genesis 4:8 And Cain says to his brother Abel, [[“Let us go into the field”;]] and it comes to pass in their being in the field, that Cain rises up against his brother Abel, and slays him. LSV

 

So when it comes to modern versions the authenticity of these words and their inclusion as scripture depends on which modern version you just happen to be reading or which modern version you accept as being correct. If you use a ESV then these words are not included in scripture while if you use a NIV they are……

 

In an online debate on the issue of the KJV, is the KJV superior to modern versions,  between Rob Rowe and Nick Seyers, Rob makes the claim that the Masorete who produced the Masoretic Text at this point “skipped a line” excluding the words at this point of the text. He claims that it should read as the ISV, which includes the words.

He states:


“It should read, as the ISV puts it eloquently, because the Dead sea scrolls gives the fuller reading here”

 

So, Rob asserts that the words “when they were in the field” as the ISV reads, are the “fuller” reading and that the words are found in the dead sea scrolls. 
(around the 34 minute mark of the video) 

 

This is simply false. The words are NOT found in the dead sea scrolls at all. 

The Scroll where this part of Genesis can be found is scroll number 4Q2 Genesisb

 

You can see the translation of the scroll in the below link.

http://dssenglishbible.com/genesis%204.htm

 

Rob is either simply mistaken in his claim or he is deliberately misrepresenting the reading of the scroll. Either way he is wrong. The words “when they were in the field” , in Hebrew נלכה השדה, are not found in the DSS. In fact, it should also be further highlighted that the text of this scroll is almost identical to the Masoretic text. 

 

The skipping a line, as Rob asserts, by the scribe is also the postulation of Dan Wallace of the NET Bible.

 

A textual note found in the NET Bible states: 

 

Likely Genesis 4:8 originally included two consecutive clauses that end with the expression “in(to) the field” (בַּשָׂדֶה; bassadeh). It is most likely that the scribe’s eye skipped over the earlier expression ending with the expression “into the field” to the same word in the second instance; therefore, accidentally omitting the quotation. 

 

At around the 32.50 minute mark of the debate,  Rob also states :

“I jump between the ISV and the ESV”. 

As we have already seen the ESV does not include these words while the ISV does. 

Interestingly at the point of Rob, demonstrating that the words are meant to be scripture, accidentally goes to the ESV, where they are not found and then has to open the ISV instead in order to support his claim. Thus, Rob actually demonstrated that the authority of the words, even for him during the debate, depended on which of his own preferred versions that he used in order to support his claim. 

 

As Rob proceded to demonstrate the authority of the words, he further stated:

“Because the ISV is a newer translation (than the ESV, which he had just mistakenly used). “

 

Rob’s own argument here simply defeats itself. 

 

The basis on which Rob asserted the words were authentic was that the words were included in the DSS. While the assertion is false, the point is moot anyway. While the KJV translators in 1611 did not have access to the reading of the DSS as they had not yet been discovered, the translators of the ESV DID have access to this reading. The ESV was translated in 2001. It is irrelevant as to whether or not the ISV is newer than the ESV because no new evidence has been found. The evidence for the reading was the same for both the translators of the ESV and the ISV. While it could have been a valid point between modern versions (ISV, ESV) and the KJV, if the reading of the DSS read differently than that of the Masoretic text here, that the ISV is a newer translation and based on newer evidence, the point is not valid between the ISV and the ESV.
 
Again, what is considered scripture is dependent on which modern version Rob wishes to use and his own 2 preferred versions disagree at this point. Rob could just as well have used his own preferred Bible version, the ESV, to argue that the words are not authentic and are not part of scripture. This is nothing new for those that use modern versions, simply flipping between whatever version reads as they wish it to read and which version supports that reading.  

 

The full debate can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SnM3QbWlK8

 

The words, as found in the NIV and ISV are, however, found in the LXX. 

 

Genesis 4:8 And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go out into the plain; and it came to pass that when they were in the plain Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. Brenton Septuagint 

 

The words are also found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta. The Samaritan Pentateuch is, in fact, the only Hebrew witness to the words. 

 

It may be, that even the Peshitta, which includes the words, is not, in fact, evidence for the inclusion of the words after all.
U. Cassuto, claims, in a commentary on the book of Genesis, that the Peshitta has the reading “let us go into the open country”

(A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1 [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961], p. 214 

This is incorrect. The Peshitta actually reads ‘let us travel to the valley’ (ܢܪܕܐ ܠܦܩܥܬܐ [nrd’ lpq’t’])

This fact actually demonstrates that the reading of the Syriac has not come from the Hebrew but rather the Greek. 

 

While the Greek πεδιον means plain, the Syriac translator has mistranslated the Greek as “Valley”. 

It would seem that the translator has used the Greek rather than the Hebrew. If the translator was using the Hebrew and the Hebrew had read נלכה השדה then they  they would have used the Syriac ܚܩܠܐ which is the word for field, just as they did later on the exact same verse where we find “field” used again. 

 

As the Syriac is translated mainly from Hebrew, this would seem to suggest that the words נלכה השדה were not in the Hebrew and that the translator went with the Greek at this point of the text. 

 

When it comes to the reading of the LXX,  we actually get into even more issues with the modern versions. Notice that Brenton’s Septuagint includes the words “and it came to pass”. These words are also found in the KJV. 

However, the NIV, which includes the words “Let’s go out to the field.” omits the words “and it came to pass”. This is translated from the Hebrew word וַֽיְהִי֙ way-hî meaning to become/to come to pass/to happen. 

Neither of Rob’s preferred versions include the words although Rob does not make any reference to these words or lack of. 

So where his preferred versions include words that are found in the LXX they also exclude words that are found in the LXX…..in the SAME verse…..

These words “and it came to pass”  are also included in the LSV that has “Let’s go out to the field.” in brackets (although translated as “it comes to pass”.)    These words are not bracketed.

Genesis 4:8 And Cain says to his brother Abel, [[“Let us go into the field”;]] and it comes to pass in their being in the field, that Cain rises up against his brother Abel, and slays him. LSV 

 

The New heart English Bible also has included the words “Let’s go out to the field. And also included “and it came to pass”, although it has created its own translation of the Hebrew and has “It happened”. 

Genesis 4:8 Cain said to Abel, his brother, “Let’s go into the field.” It happened when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and killed him. NHEV

 

What’s more, if we look at verse 7 in Brenton’s Septuagint, we find it reads “Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it?” 

 

Genesis 4:7 Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it? be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt rule over him.

 

This reading, just one verse before the verse in question,  is not adopted by any of the main modern versions including the ESV, ISV or the NIV. So the readings of “the” Septuagint, that are accepted or rejected as scripture will depend on what version you happen to be holding at the time.  

 

It is also asserted that the Hebrew text itself supports the inclusion of the extra words “Let’s go out to the field.” This is based on the Hebrew word וַיֹּ֥אמֶר way-yō-mer, which is a construct of the Hebrew verb אָמַר Amar (to say). While the KJV translates this as “talked”, it is asserted that if this is rendered as “said”,  Cain “said” to his brother, instead of talked, then this would require the inclusion of the words that Cain had said in order to be grammatically correct, and thus the Hebrew demands that the words that Cain had said, namely “Let’s go out to the field.” must be original.

However, this simply is not correct. The inclusion of what was said would ONLY be required if the use of the verb Amar was always followed by what was said. This just is not the case. Although it is correct that it is usually followed by what is or has been said, there are occasions when the verb is not followed by what is or has been said. 

 

Will Kinney on his website Brandplucked noted 2 such occasions

https://brandplucked.webs.com/genesis48nivlxx.htm

I will look at both examples and expand further. 

 

For example, we find the verb in Job 8:10

Job 8:10 Shall not they teach thee, and tell thee, and utter words out of their heart? KJV

The words of what would be told do not follow the verb here.

“Tell” is also the translation of the NIV

Job 8:10 Will they not instruct you and tell you? Will they not bring forth words from their understanding?

Also rendering the verb “tell” is the ESV and the ISV. 

 

We can also find another example in Jonah 2:10 where the LORD spoke to the whale.

Jonah 2:10 And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.

 

Again, we find no inclusion of any words that the LORD spoke following the verb.

The Hebrew here is וַיֹּ֥אמֶר way-yō-mer, the exact same construct as found in Genesis 4:8 

 

Both the ESV and the ISV render the verb spoke. 

 

Here I shall add a couple more examples. 

 

The first is found in Exodus 19:25. In this verse we are told that Moses, after speaking with God,  went down and spake to them (the Israelites).

Exodus 19:25 So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them. KJV 

 

This again is the Hebrew וַיֹּ֖אמֶר way-yō-mer . However, there is no continuation of the text with the words that Moses spoke. The context of the verse indicates as to what Moses said unto the people. 

What is important to note here is that there are no extra words in this verse found in the Septuagint, Vulgate, Samaritan Pentateuch nor in the Syrian text. Again demonstrating that the words are not specifically required in Genesis 4:8 to make it grammatically correct. 

 

 There is also another example found in 2 Chronicles 1:2, where we find that Solomon spake unto Israel without the inclusion of the words that he spoke.

2 Chronicles 1:2 Then Solomon spake unto all Israel, to the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and to the judges, and to every governor in all Israel, the chief of the fathers KJV 

 

So we can see that the verb Amar does not demand the inclusion of what was said. 

We also have examples of where the verb Amar is used within the text but then a secondary clause is used after the verb to specifically refer to what was said. 

 

Genesis 9:8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,

Notice here we have God spake unto Noah. This is the Hebrew וַיֹּ֖אמֶר way-yō-mer. But this is not immediately followed by what God said. We actually get a second clause in the verse, “saying”, which is the Hebrew  לֵאמֹֽר׃ lê-mōr, which is another construct of the verb Amar. 

So while what God spake is found after the verb Amar (in verse 9) there are actually 2 clauses and 2 uses of the verb. The first clause, the first usage of the verb, is not followed by what was spoken.

 

This double usage of the verb is also found elsewhere, I shall give just one more example. 

 

Genesis 21:22 And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phichol the chief captain of his host spake unto Abraham, saying, God is with thee in all that thou doest:

Here we have Abimelech and Phichol speaking to Abraham. However, the verb וַיֹּ֣אמֶר way-yō-mer,  is again not followed by that what is said. A secondary clause and use of לֵאמֹ֑ר lê-mōr, is used. 

 

The first clause stands alone. It is a complete clause. What is actually spoken is dependent upon the second clause which itself is a stand alone clause. The two clauses complete the text, one states that someone spoke and then the second details what was spoken. 

 

Exodus 1:15 and 16 is another perfect example of this:

Exodus 1:15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:

Here the King of Egypt spoke and we are told to whom he spoke using the Hebrew וַיֹּ֖אמֶר way-yō-mer.

 

It is in the next verse that we are then told as to what he spake. 

 

Exodus 1:16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

 

“And he said” is a second clause which is also the Hebrew וַיֹּ֖אמֶר way-yō-mer.

 

These examples disprove any claim that the verb Amar must then be followed by the recording of what is said. 

 

It is also possible that we do not need the words of Cain because the context would indicate what was said. 

 

Let’s look again at Exodus 19. When we go back to verse 24 we see what God had told Moses. 

 

Exodus 19:24 And the LORD said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the LORD, lest he break forth upon them.

 

Exodus 19:25 So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.

 

We can therefore derive that Moses told the people what God had said to him, that he and Aaron would go back up the mountain but that the priests and the people should not. 

 

When we look at the context of Genesis 4:8 we do not need the words that Cain spoke unto Abel, as the context would indicate that Cain had suggested going into the field as the text tells us that’s what came to pass. 

 

Genesis 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. 

 

It must be noted that 2 witnesses to the inclusion of the words can be found amongst the Targums. Both Targum Pseudo Jonathan and the Jerusalem targum include the words. However, we should not put too much weight on the words inclusion in these targums as the targums are not literal or direct translations. In many instances they add to the text in order to expound upon the text itself and include non scripture wording in order to fuller explain the text. The targums themselves are a commentary of the text. 

 

Both Targums also add a whole conversation between the two brothers at this point also. 

 

“Kain answered and said to Habel, I perceive that the world was created in goodness, but it is not governed (or conducted) according to the fruit of good works, for there is respect to persons in judgment; therefore it is that thy offering was accepted, and mine not accepted with good will.

Habel answered and said to Kain, In goodness was the world created, and according to the fruit of good works is it governed; and there is no respect of persons in judgment; but because the fruits of my works were better than thine, my oblation, before thine, hath been accepted with good will. Kain answered and said to Habel, There is neither judgment nor Judge, nor another world; nor will good reward be given to the righteous, nor vengeance be taken of the wicked. And Habel answered and said to Kain, There is a judgment, and there is a Judge; and there is another world, and a good reward given to the righteous, and vengeance taken of the wicked.” Genesis 4:8  Targum Jonathan


“Kain answered and said to Habel his brother, There is neither judgment nor Judge, nor another world; neither is a good reward given to the righteous, nor will vengeance be taken of the wicked. Nor was the world created in goodness, nor in goodness is it conducted. Therefore it is that thy oblation was accepted with good will, and mine not accepted with good will. Habel answered and said to Kain, There is a judgment, and there is a Judge: there is another world, and a good reward is given to the righteous, and vengeance taken of the wicked. And in goodness was the world created, and in goodness is it conducted. But according to the fruit of good works is it conducted. Because my works were better ordered than thine, my offering was accepted with good will, and thine was not accepted with good will” Genesis 4:8 Jerusalem Targum 

 

These words are not included in any version and neither is it asserted that they should be part of the text simply because they are found in the targums. They are quite obviously the targumists expoundations of the actual scriptures in order to offer an explanation of the story that preceded the killing of Abel by Cain not found within the scriptures themselves. 

 

Targum Onkelos, neither includes the extra words nor does it offer any expansion of the dialogue between the two brothers and simply reads:

Genesis 4:8 And Kain spake with Habel his brother; and it was in their being in the field that Kain arose against Habel his brother, and killed him. Targum Onkelos

So, based on the evidence presented, rather than a scribe skipping over a line as asserted by Rob Rowe and Dan Wallace, it is my contention that a scribe, seeing that there seemingly should be more information given in the verse,  added the line just as the targums have done,  in order to give a more elaborate reading. 

 Whether one accepts the inclusion or not of these words, what has been demonstrated in this study is that the arguments for their inclusion can be countered and that they do not in any way demand their inclusion.

Neither Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaticus contain the original reading of Genesis 4:8 as the pages have been lost. Vaticanus contains pages added in the 15th Century.

Brentons Septuagint is based upon the reading of Codex Alexandrinus at this point.

 

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Join our Patreon membershiphere