Subject: Genesis 4:8

From: Huey Bahr <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 02:36:47 -0700

In Genesis 4:8 the KJV has

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.

the Douay has

And Cain said to Abel his brother: Let us go forth abroad. And when they
were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him.

At first glance I would say "Let us go forth abroad." should be
dismissed as an obvious
addition because (1) the reading given in the KJV is shorter, and in
general one should prefer the shorter reading. (2) the evidence for the
longer reading is based on 
the versions (LXX/Vulgate) where as the evidence for the shorter reading
is in the 
original language.

But I noticed the RSV and the NIV both follow the longer reading.  Are
they picking 
up on something I'm missing?

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 11:24:01 -0700

>up on something I'm missing?

It's a matter of translation technique. As I understand it (and I am
not a Hebraist), the MT actually reads "And Cain said to Abel his
brother. And they were in the field, and Cain...." In other words,
the MT offers a transitive verb ("said") with no object. Since
LXX and Vg (independent translations) *both* offer an object, the
reading with the object is to be preferred.

Two other notes I would add on the critical theory you use here:

1. "Prefer the shorter reading" has only a limited place in NT
   criticism, and even less of a place in TO criticism. (Consider
   all those nonsense short readings in MT Samuel.)

2. There are those, and I'm one of them, who consider LXX to be as
   strong a witness to the original Hebrew as is the MT. We *cannot*
   be content to just take the MT as it stands as long as it makes
   sense. The versions need to be considered at every point.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Huey Bahr <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 17:45:17 -0700

> the MT offers a transitive verb ("said") with no object. Since

The ASV, NAS, and JPS Tanakh also have the transitive verb without the 
object, which lends support to your statement. 

> reading with the object is to be preferred.

Couldn't the arguement be made that that these translators, finding 
the same situation in their Hebrew texts that we find in ours, supplied
the object based on the wording of the latter part of the verse?

>    all those nonsense short readings in MT Samuel.)

True, but what we have here is either accidental omission of the words,
or a delibrate supplying of them.  I just can't imagine someone making 
a conscious decision to delete the object of a transitive verb. I can
see
however, a translator supplying an object in order to make his
translation
readable. Do the words that would have to have been omitted resemble the 
surrounding text enough that accidental omission becomes likely?  

>    sense. The versions need to be considered at every point.

Agreed. But here the Hebrew makes no sense, which is why I am supporting 
it with such enthusiasm. 

Huey Bahr
[email-masked]
Did I say that?

---

From: ANDREW SMITH <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:50:41 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Huey Bahr wrote:

> ...what we have here is either accidental omission of the words,

In the transmission of text, omissions are as likely as additions.
Probably few would make a "conscious decision" to omit the direct object
of a transitive verb, but the accidental omission by a copyist is as
likely as an editorial addition.

Andrew C. Smith

---

From: Hubert Bahr <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:44:23 -0700

> likely as an editorial addition.

You're right, and an author who used a transitive verb 
most likely would have included the object, which is 
why the newer translations have the longer reading.

Thanks to all who answered my question, and patiently
endured my hard-headedness.

-- 
--Huey Bahr
[email-masked]

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:58:24 -0400 (EDT)

> Agreed. But here the Hebrew makes no sense, which is why I am supporting 

I don't think that there are any factors in the text that would lead to
homoioteleuton--simple accidental omission of a line seems the most likely
culprit.  One of the "rules" of textual criticism is that a nonsense
reading cannot be original, but it is an open question whether in the
present case the addition of "Let's go into the field" represents the
preservation of the original reading or an attempt (or attempts) to emend
a problematic text.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: Hubert Bahr <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:37:01 -0700

> ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

Thanks for your answer.  While I am not sure the LXX 
reading was original, I now see why it is a better 
reading than the Masoretic. 

-- 
--Huey Bahr
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (HILL R KAPLAN)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:35:35 EDT

On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 11:24:01 -0700 "Robert B. Waltz" 

>>But I noticed the RSV and the NIV both follow the longer reading.  
>>Are they picking up on something I'm missing?
>
You are correct in observing that the MT does not provide details of
what Cain said to Abel.  

Now, please explain why the highly probable **object ** ( ????) found
in the LXX an Vg should be preferred over the omission ?

In case you haven't noticed, the Hebrew Text is often so terse that
occasional expected phrases  are missing.

HILL KAPLAN

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:49:39 -0700

>occasional expected phrases  are missing.

This last statement is ambiguous, but I'll assume you mean that the
authors of the Hebrew text preferred brevity to clarity, and so
occasionally neglected to include clear language. (The other reading,
of course, is that portions of the text have been lost in transmission.)

Personally -- and I already said that I am not a Hebraist, so perhaps
it would have been better if you had reacted to someone else's comments
rather than mine -- I think that the Hebrew text *has* lost a lot
of pieces, and that we need to use all the evidence, not just the
MT, to reconstruct the original Hebrew.

But even if that weren't true, this is a special case. Both LXX and
the Vulgate support the longer reading. And these are two independent
translations. The Vulgate is translated from something very close to
the Masoretic Text. LXX is not. So, when they *agree* in a longer
reading, it has a strong chance of being original. Especially when
the MT looks defective. If MT looked defective, and LXX and Vg had
*different* corrections, we might suspect that the defect (if it is
one) preceded LXX. But here the defect clearly arose *after* LXX
was translated -- and perhaps even after the Vulgate was translated.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]