Catholic Encyclopedia admits to changing Scripture?

[wyam]

Sorry if this is a duplicate, but I thought I posted it once, but don’t see it here.
This is a post I got from a non-catholic christian, claiming that the Church admits to changing Genesis:

Here are a few more tidbits from the catholic encyclopedia. It is very interesting to see how they twist the Scriptures. I was so shocked and they actually admit that they changed it from what the Old Latin reads!

"The Old Testament refers to Our Blessed Lady both in its prophecies and its types or figures. This is only true in relation to giving birth to Messiah

Genesis 3:15

The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the very opening chapters of the Book of Genesis (3:15): “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” This rendering appears to differ in two respects from the original Hebrew text:

(1) First, the Hebrew text employs the same verb for the two renderings “she shall crush” and “thou shalt lie in wait”; the Septuagint renders the verb both times by terein, to lie in wait; Aquila, Symmachus, the Syriac and the Samaritan translators, interpret the Hebrew verb by expressions which mean to crush, to bruise; the Itala renders the terein employed in the Septuagint by the Latin “servare”, to guard; St. Jerome [1] maintains that the Hebrew verb has the meaning of “crushing” or “bruising” rather than of “lying in wait”, “guarding”. Still in his own work, which became the Latin Vulgate, the saint employs the verb “to crush” (conterere) in the first place, and “to lie in wait” (insidiari) in the second. Hence the punishment inflicted on the serpent and the serpent’s retaliation are expressed by the same verb: but the wound of the serpent is mortal, since it affects his head, while the wound inflicted by the serpent is not mortal, being inflicted on the heel.

(2) The second point of difference between the Hebrew text and our version concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the servant: our version agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading “she” (ipsa) which refers to the woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu’ (autos, ipse) which refers to the seed of the woman. According to our version, and the Vulgate reading, the woman herself will win the victory; according to the Hebrew text, she will be victorious through her seed. In this sense does the Bull “Ineffabilis” ascribe the victory to Our Blessed Lady. The reading “she” (ipsa) is neither an intentional corruption of the original text, nor is it an accidental error; it is rather an explanatory version expressing explicitly the fact of Our Lady’s part in the victory over the serpent, which is contained implicitly in the Hebrew original. The strength of the Christian tradition as to Mary’s share in this victory may be inferred from the retention of “she” in St. Jerome’s version in spite of his acquaintance with the original text and with the reading “he” (ipse) in the old Latin version.

Any insight into this would be appreciated.
Thanks

waym

 

[Nate]

wyam:

(2) The second point of difference between the Hebrew text and our version concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the servant: our version agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading “she” (ipsa) which refers to the woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu’ (autos, ipse) which refers to the seed of the woman. According to our version, and the Vulgate reading, the woman herself will win the victory; according to the Hebrew text, she will be victorious through her seed. In this sense does the Bull “Ineffabilis” ascribe the victory to Our Blessed Lady. The reading “she” (ipsa) is neither an intentional corruption of the original text, nor is it an accidental error; it is rather an explanatory version expressing explicitly the fact of Our Lady’s part in the victory over the serpent, which is contained implicitly in the Hebrew original. The strength of the Christian tradition as to Mary’s share in this victory may be inferred from the retention of “she” in St. Jerome’s version in spite of his acquaintance with the original text and with the reading “he” (ipse) in the old Latin version.

Hi Waym,

Although the Catholic approved NAB uses " He" in the text (instead of the DR “she”) it has a footnote that says: "Since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring the more accurate rendering would be 'they will will strike , at their heels. ’

My own lowly opinion is that the antecedent is the woman because there are two separate enmities spoken of. The serpent and the woman, and between their respective seeds. If you are going to use “your” in reference to the serpent, it is obviously appropriate to use “she” for the person designated his antagonist by the Scriptures. So I believe Jerome was correct.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

wyam:

Sorry if this is a duplicate, but I thought I posted it once, but don’t see it here.
This is a post I got from a non-catholic christian, claiming that the Church admits to changing Genesis:

Here are a few more tidbits from the catholic encyclopedia. It is very interesting to see how they twist the Scriptures. I was so shocked and they actually admit that they changed it from what the Old Latin reads!

"The Old Testament refers to Our Blessed Lady both in its prophecies and its types or figures. This is only true in relation to giving birth to Messiah

Genesis 3:15

The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the very opening chapters of the Book of Genesis (3:15): “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” This rendering appears to differ in two respects from the original Hebrew text:

(1) First, the Hebrew text employs the same verb for the two renderings “she shall crush” and “thou shalt lie in wait”; the Septuagint renders the verb both times by terein, to lie in wait; Aquila, Symmachus, the Syriac and the Samaritan translators, interpret the Hebrew verb by expressions which mean to crush, to bruise; the Itala renders the terein employed in the Septuagint by the Latin “servare”, to guard; St. Jerome [1] maintains that the Hebrew verb has the meaning of “crushing” or “bruising” rather than of “lying in wait”, “guarding”. Still in his own work, which became the Latin Vulgate, the saint employs the verb “to crush” (conterere) in the first place, and “to lie in wait” (insidiari) in the second. Hence the punishment inflicted on the serpent and the serpent’s retaliation are expressed by the same verb: but the wound of the serpent is mortal, since it affects his head, while the wound inflicted by the serpent is not mortal, being inflicted on the heel.

(2) The second point of difference between the Hebrew text and our version concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the servant: our version agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading “she” (ipsa) which refers to the woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu’ (autos, ipse) which refers to the seed of the woman. According to our version, and the Vulgate reading, the woman herself will win the victory; according to the Hebrew text, she will be victorious through her seed. In this sense does the Bull “Ineffabilis” ascribe the victory to Our Blessed Lady. The reading “she” (ipsa) is neither an intentional corruption of the original text, nor is it an accidental error; it is rather an explanatory version expressing explicitly the fact of Our Lady’s part in the victory over the serpent, which is contained implicitly in the Hebrew original. The strength of the Christian tradition as to Mary’s share in this victory may be inferred from the retention of “she” in St. Jerome’s version in spite of his acquaintance with the original text and with the reading “he” (ipse) in the old Latin version.

Any insight into this would be appreciated.
Thanks

waym

I’m unclear on how this is an admission of the Church.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[JimG]

Keep in mind that translators of scripture are not inspired. Neither are the translations. Only the original writers were inspired, and at this date, I don’t think we have any of their original manuscripts.

JimG

 

[metal1633]

wyam:

Sorry if this is a duplicate, but I thought I posted it once, but don’t see it here.
This is a post I got from a non-catholic christian, claiming that the Church admits to changing Genesis:

Here are a few more tidbits from the catholic encyclopedia. It is very interesting to see how they twist the Scriptures. I was so shocked and they actually admit that they changed it from what the Old Latin reads!

"The Old Testament refers to Our Blessed Lady both in its prophecies and its types or figures. This is only true in relation to giving birth to Messiah

Genesis 3:15

The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the very opening chapters of the Book of Genesis (3:15): “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” This rendering appears to differ in two respects from the original Hebrew text:

(1) First, the Hebrew text employs the same verb for the two renderings “she shall crush” and “thou shalt lie in wait”; the Septuagint renders the verb both times by terein, to lie in wait; Aquila, Symmachus, the Syriac and the Samaritan translators, interpret the Hebrew verb by expressions which mean to crush, to bruise; the Itala renders the terein employed in the Septuagint by the Latin “servare”, to guard; St. Jerome [1] maintains that the Hebrew verb has the meaning of “crushing” or “bruising” rather than of “lying in wait”, “guarding”. Still in his own work, which became the Latin Vulgate, the saint employs the verb “to crush” (conterere) in the first place, and “to lie in wait” (insidiari) in the second. Hence the punishment inflicted on the serpent and the serpent’s retaliation are expressed by the same verb: but the wound of the serpent is mortal, since it affects his head, while the wound inflicted by the serpent is not mortal, being inflicted on the heel.

(2) The second point of difference between the Hebrew text and our version concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the servant: our version agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading “she” (ipsa) which refers to the woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu’ (autos, ipse) which refers to the seed of the woman. According to our version, and the Vulgate reading, the woman herself will win the victory; according to the Hebrew text, she will be victorious through her seed. In this sense does the Bull “Ineffabilis” ascribe the victory to Our Blessed Lady. The reading “she” (ipsa) is neither an intentional corruption of the original text, nor is it an accidental error; it is rather an explanatory version expressing explicitly the fact of Our Lady’s part in the victory over the serpent, which is contained implicitly in the Hebrew original. The strength of the Christian tradition as to Mary’s share in this victory may be inferred from the retention of “she” in St. Jerome’s version in spite of his acquaintance with the original text and with the reading “he” (ipse) in the old Latin version.

Any insight into this would be appreciated.
Thanks

waym

I dont see how this shows The “Church” as twisting or changing scripture. This is a matter of which is the correct translation. Hebrew does not translate well into English, split-words, semi,spilt words, words with multible meanings depending on vowels and context. All these things effect the meaning. The passages refered to is a problematic passage which is clearly difficult to translate as evidenced by the differances of opinion held by numerous ancient authorities.

On top of THAT we have to contend with the LXX which the Jews translated themselves. From Hebrew to Greek. Quite a number of readings are very differant and yet it seems that the Jews at least thought it accurately expressed the meaning of the sacred text.

 

[BayCityRickL]

If we were smart enough, we’d all read the scriptures in the original languages.

There are tradeoffs in translating scripture.

1. I think the translators don’t want to infringe copyrights, so we never seem the get the best combinations of translations. I like the wording of the King James Version, at times.
2. Some versions shoot for the literal as much as possible, but a direct translation does not always convey what the other language said.
3. It’s tough to translate when a word is used only once in scripture.
4. The KJV does the courtesy of italicizing words that are added to clarify the text. Whereas, the New American Bible and other versions do not extend that courtesy.
5. Some modern translations are paraphrased translations. The New American Bible (Catholic) and New International Version are examples. These step over the difficulty of literal translation and attempt to convey the idea of the original. You have to trust these translators a lot and check their notes.
6. Some “Bibles” are really paraphrased – attempting to modernize the translation for contemporary readers.
7. The same difficulties arise in attempting to translate the Bible into languages for which there is no corresponding word, in the first place.
8. this is not an exhaustive list of translation problems. Vatican II documents encourage scholars to study the scripture in the original.
9. I had a priest recently say that the translations are inspired, too. That is a dead end, as far as I am concerned.
10. The Church long held to the Vulgate as the authoritative and “modern” translation of the ancient language versions. And, protestants be unhappy, the Church somewhat resisted translating that into common languages for sake of a loss of commonality in reading scripture. obviously, the Church has repented on this matter.

Hosanna in the highest