Translation notes for different versions of the Bible?

Question

I was looking at the Greek of 1 John 3:12 - and I noticed how different versions translate the passage differently. Some say that Cain murdered his brother, while others state that he killed / slew his brother. While the Greek permits all of these - choosing to call Cain a “murderer” instead of a “killer” or “man slaughterer” has implications for how we interpret Gen 4.

Personally I would argue that Cain was judged like a man slaughterer and not as a murderer (which the Law demands death for); see Numbers 35.

The translators are thus pushing an interpretation of Gen 4 on us as if as though the author of James was giving us this interpretation. While it maybe justified, I currently don’t see how.

Examples of versions that say Cain murdered his brother include the NASB and the NIV. On the other hand, the KJV says that Cain slew his brother.

To help me settle the matter, I would like to know why the translator’s of the NASB and NIV (among others) gave us the translation they did. Is there a good resource or set of resources that can give us insight into translation decisions that were made for select passages by various versions of scripture?

Answer 1

It is true that the word being questioned in 1 John 3:12 has been variously rendered, 'murdered', 'slew', 'slaughtered', 'killed'. It is also true that differentiation is made in the Old Testament between murder and sanctioned warfare, where the carnage of killing enemies deliberately is not put alongside premeditated murder. There is a matter of legality here.

Of course, there was no 'war' going on between Cain and his brother Abel. There was no sanctioning of any action resulting from the jealous brother. Indeed, God warned Cain (knowing the hatred in his heart), giving Cain time to turn away from the outcome of harbouring such hatred.

By today's Western standards Cain might be judged to be a man-slaughterer, instead of a murderer, for the 'only' witness to the crime was God. Yet predetermined actions took place; not spur-of-the-moment loss of control, nor due to antagonism on the victim's part. Cain chose the location and the time, with no witnesses present to see him carry out what he planned to do. Yet 'murder' is a judicial term to be applied after a legal judgment about a case has been made. Is that why it would be wrong for any translation to pronounce 'murder' when there were no witnesses, and God never said 'murder'?

Nobody should be surprised at the NIV (and other translations) saying in 1 John 3:12 that Cain murdered his younger brother. However, the Greek word is σφάζω sphazo, which only occurs here and in Revelation 5:6, 9, 12; 6:4, 9; 13:3, 8 & 18:24. This word means 'kill, slay, wound'. The word sphage means 'slaughter'.

This is where the NIV Bible Commentary (1986 edition) is helpful. Up until at least 1987 the NIV said 'murder'. The relevant part of the explanation states:

"In Cain is seen the horrifying nature of hatred: he murdered, and that his brother. And why did he murder him? ...The apostle has no time for moral sluggishness which refuses to see ultimate principles; and brushing aside all possible secondary and contributory causes he declares that the sin was Cain's. Cain could not bear the contrast of his brother's righteous actions with his own actions which were evil, and the first murder became a monument to self-love." NIV Bible Commentary, p. 1580, article by R.W. Orr (1986 ed)

This certainly has implications for what Genesis 4 states. But, 'interpretation'? Here is the NIV Commentary again, on saying 'murder':

"As was said on 3:7, the first effects of sin were seen in the family, and it is entirely consistent with this that the first murder is fratricide... No suggestion of previous tension between the brothers is mentioned... We should not import any redemptive meaning into the brothers' sacrifices, cf. 8:20; they were the recognition of Yahweh's lordship. Both gave of what they had... The reason for the rejection is suggested in vs. 6, 'If you do what is right'. The probability is that he resented having to accept God's lordship (cf. v.13).

The Hebrew of v.7 is difficult, but we need not doubt that the general sense has been given by NIV when it sees sin personified as a ravenous beast. Speiser's rendering, 'sin is a demon at the door', is worth mentioning.

8. Cain said to Abel 'Let's go out to the field': i.e. the open country. The addition to the Hebrew text is necessitated by Hebrew linguistic usage, and is in all the versions. It suggests that the murder of Abel was premeditated... Abel's blood was crying to God for vengeance (v.10) and therefore it was not the responsibility of others to take vengeance." (Ibid. pp.118-9)

This is why the NIV gives 'murder' both in Genesis 4 and 1 John 3. And the Apostle John, writing his first epistle, did not need to 'interpret' anything with regard to stating what the crime of Abel was. He did not have 21st century ideas about such matters, as the rest of his surrounding verses show. Indeed, John quoted the words of Jesus, heard with his own ears,

"Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer" [Matthew 5:21-22], and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. [Galatians 5:20-21 & Revelation 21:8] 1 John 3:15 NIV

Answer 2

Abel should have sensed that his brother was acting weird, for the first time his brother is asking him to accompany him to the fields, why didn't he do so yesterday or the day before? Abel heard that voice but ignored it because that voice from our instinctive conscious is always expressed in weakness, this idea must have been pushed aside by other thoughts such as He is going to teach me some cool farming techniques, and then to his surprise Cain shows him his true intention.

Cain murdered his own brother because you can see how he plots to lure him to the fields where Adam and Eve are not watching, then he slows down a little to let Abel lead the way, then he pulls out the jawbone of an ass and hits him at the back of the head.

Murder is always direct, manslaughter is always indirect, the perfect example of manslaughter is the case of a doctor who knows ignoring a certain patient will lead to his death and he does it anyways, the doctor has not touched the patient but his action of ignoring him results in the death of that patient unlike the case of a doctor who injects a lethal substance into a patient. The earlier is indirect, the later is direct.

The versions that create the meaning of murder are the correct ones.

Answer 3

First, in English,

• "murder" is any illegal killing
• "slaughter" usually means the butchering of animals for food, or, (when applied to a human) the violent killing of a person.

Thus, when applied to a person, the difference in meaning is very slight to almost insignificant.

Now, the meaning of the Greek verb, σφάζω (sphazo) means (BDAG) "slaughter". In the NT it only occurs in 1 John 3:12, and Rev 5:6, 9, 12, 6:4, 6:4, 9, 13:3, 8, 18:24 - a total of 10 times. It consistently means to put to death by violence.

Such an act 9when done to a human) is obviously "murder" in modern English. Thus, the word could be legitimately rendered, kill, slay, mortally wound, kill by violence, slaughter, etc.

That Cain's act of killing his brother was definitely an illegal "murder" is evidenced by the fact that he was strongly reprimanded by God for the act and severely punished as recorded in Gen 4.