Douay Rehiems vs. King James

[patrick457]

The Douay Rheims is poetic, eloquent, and an easy read. Those that claims the contrary are only showing their lack of familiarity with the Douay Rheims.

I assume you mean the Challoner Revision here. The actual 1582 Rheims NT and the 1610 Douai OT are slavishly literal and borrowed a lot of words from the Latin (some of whom entered the English language today) that at the time it was published critics complained of its being hard to understand - that there were jokes about how the Catholic Church was forced to make a translation of its own but made it as difficult as possible to read it. The translators themselves were of the position that if the passage in question is difficult in the original, the translation should make no attempt to smoothen it out “for feare of missing or restraining the sense of the holy Ghost to our phantasie.” They in fact criticized the Geneva Bible (the primary Bible of the 16th century English Protestant movement before the KJV came out) for their policy of striving always for a rendering of the text in clear and understandable English.

1. This is the law of conſecration. When the daies, that by vow he had determined, ſhal be expired: he ſhal bring him to the doore of the tabernacle of couenant, 14. and ſhal offer his oblation to the Lord, a male lambe of a yeare old without ſpotte for an holocauſt, and an ewe lambe of a yeare old without ſpot for ſinne, and a ramme without ſpotte, for a pacifique hoſte, 15. a basket also of vnleuened breades that are tempered with oile, and wafers without leuen anointed with oile, and the libamentes of euerie one: 16. which the priest ſhal offer before the Lord, and ſhal offer as wel for ſinne, as for an holocauſt. 17. But the ramme he ſhal immolate for a pacifique hoſte to the Lord, offering withal the baſkette of azymes, and the libaments that by custome are dew. 18. Then ſhal the Nazareite be ſhauen before the dore of the tabernacle of couenant, from the buſh of the haire of his conſecration: and he ſhal take his haires, and lay them vpon the fire, that is put vnder the ſacrifice of pacifiques. 19. And a ſhoulder of the ramme boyled, and one cake without leuen out of the baſkette, and one wafer vnleuened, and he ſhal deliuer them into the handes of the Nazareite, after that his head be ſhauen. 20. And receiuing them againe from him, he ſhal eleuate them in the ſight of the Lord: and being ſanctified they ſhal be the Priestes, as the breast, which was commanded to be ſeparated, and the ſhoulder. After theſe thinges the Nazareite may drinke wine. 21. This is the law of the Nazareite, when he ſhal vow his oblation to the Lord in the time of his conſecration, besides thoſe thinges which his hand ſhal find, according to that which he had vowed in his minde, ſo ſhal he do to the fulfilling of his ſanctification.

† Therfore, as by one man ſinne entred into this vvorld, and by ſinne death: and ſo vnto al men death did paſſe, in vvhich al ſinned. † For euen vnto the Lavv ſinne vvas in the world: but ſinne was not imputed, when the law was not. † But death reigned from Adam vnto Moyſes, euen on them also that ſinned not after the ſimilitude of the preuarication of Adam, vvho is a figure of him to come. † But not as the offence, ſo alſo the gift. for if by the offence of one, many died: much more the grace of God and the gift, in the grace of one man IESVS Chriſt, hath abounded vpon many.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Quarles,

**You wrote: ** The Douay Rheims is poetic, eloquent, and an easy read. Those that claims the contrary are only showing their lack of familiarity with the Douay Rheims.
On the other hand, I believe that fundamentalist preachers prefer the KJV because of the arca[n]e language it uses which allows them to put a spin on the verses and their audience are slow to catch on.​

There is no need to “knock” the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.) like this out of preference for the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version. Concerning easy readability, the A.V. essentially (when one ignores canards about punctuation) is about as reader-friendly as the Challoner Bibe is. I admit that some sectarian preachers (e.g. Peter S. Ruckman) take old usages in the A.V. to proclaim odd meanings for them, to ignorant listeners, which the A.V. translators never would have abided, but this is due to such preachers’ trickery, not to failings of the A.V. itself.

Compared to the A.V.'s and Challoner’s primary school reading level, most modern versions, in fact, require high school or university reading level. I happily admit that Bp. Challoner, having done his superb revision(s) of the Douay-Rheims Version many decades later than the A.V. translators produced their version was able to avoid some of the occasional archaic words and usages that the A.V. perpetuates. However, both present the Bible in beautiful but majestically simple language which profits from the grammatically precise inflections of Tudor-Stuart English. As to which version of these two one uses the more from personal preference or other reasons, that is one thing, but a Catholic can profit from using both of them.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Quarles47]

There is no need to “knock” the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.)

First of all, let’s us get over some assumptions here. Being from the “Bible Belt” we see readily and available the King James Version of 1611. I assumed that when I mention the KJV I was in reference to the version of 1611 and not any of the “updated” versions.
My mistake.
In addition, when I stated, “I believe” I wasn’t necessary “knocking” as I was stating my opinion. Are not opinions allowed in this forum, in your opinion, Mr. Parker? I believe that I would have been guilty of “knocking” if I was to point out the nearly 3000 mistranslations of the KJV of 1611, (let’s be clear on which version I’m in reference to) plus it’s obvious additions and omissions as being far inferior to the Douay-Rheims.
However, going into such myriad details is not in the best interest of the scope of this forum, in my opinion.

To Patrick457:

Yes, you have assumed right. I was in reference to the Challoner Revision, since it must be next to impossible to see a copy of the original complice unless one has access to private collection or the rare books of the larger university libraries. So, have you in fact seen a pre Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims and have had time to study it or are repeating what some other scholar has printed without an actual verification?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Patrick457:

The actual 1582 Rheims NT and the 1610 Douai OT are slavishly literal and borrowed a lot of words from the Latin (some of whom entered the English language today) that at the time it was published critics complained of its being hard to understand - that there were jokes about how the Catholic Church was forced to make a translation of its own but made it as difficult as possible to read it.

To be fair, the primary complaints from critics of the 1582 NT (meaning C of E critics) were the notes and some latinisms. Being hard to read, or being slavishly literal is a more modern criticism, not a contemporary one. If one recalls that in 16th century Europe, Latin was still very much the language of the Universities, and of the educated i.e. those that could read, or who at least had enough education and wealth to afford books, the style of the 1582 NT was hardly the major complaint. What chafed more than anything was the marginal notes harshly critical of the Bishop’s Bible and Geneva Bible translations. (They were indeed tendentious and slanted in favor of Protestantism.)

The original D/R Bible was published at a time when English was still in some flux, and had not solidified to the point it had by the Classical era of Pope, Swift, Addison and Steele etc. It was at this time that the D/R was starting to look very dated, difficult to read and understand. It wasn’t until Bishop Challoner’s revision that English Speaking Catholics finally had a Bible that was as smooth, and clear as the constantly revised and updated KJV.

But my point is that the original D/R was well received by Catholics and much appreciated. At least it wasn’t the Catholics that were criticizing it back in its own time.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Quarles,

**You wrote: ** In addition, when I stated, “I believe” I wasn’t necessary “knocking” as I was stating my opinion. Are not opinions allowed in this forum, in your opinion, Mr. Parker? I believe that I would have been guilty of “knocking” if I was to point out the nearly 3000 mistranslations of the KJV of 1611, (let’s be clear on which version I’m in reference to) plus it’s obvious additions and omissions as being far inferior to the Douay-Rheims.​

Well, I am glad that you did not mean to “knock” the A.V./K.J.V., Quarles. I’ll conceded that a few modern versions serve a real need, e.g. the truly excellent Protestant E.S.V. with Apocrypha and the Second Catholic Edition of the R.S.V., despite their problems.

This nonsense, old and threadbare, that the A.V. has thousands of errors in it is from the hoary days when apologists and polemicists insisted that any divergence soever of the A.V. from the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version consisted of “error”. That standard of measure simply was not appropriate, so let’s drop that kind of Latinist invective, shall we? The A.V. is remarkably accurate and faithful to its own undertexts (mainly the Masoretic Hebrew O.T. and the T.R. Greek of the N.T.). The differences between the Challoner and A.V. Bibles offer rich grounds of comparison and mutual enlightenment.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Quarles:

So, have you in fact seen a pre Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims and have had time to study it

It’s available on line here

 

[colmcille1]

Very well put. I would think, that with today’s stress on where a Biblical Text actually originated, some publishers might consider republishing one of Challoner’s own original texts. For the duration of the 18th Century, the English preferred Challoner’s 1752 revision, whereas in the 19th Century a preference was given to the 1749 revision. But for today’s English reader, I would suspect either would be excellent. This is opposed to the version that is so often reprinted today, being the Haydock Bible using the McMahon hybrid version. McMahon’s editing of Challoner was not particularly felicitous either. Reprinting in full Challoner’s notes with that edition would also make it a special treat.

Hi AmbroseSJ,
It is, as another poster stated, an excellent concept. Although I derive great Scriptural instruction and reading pleasure from my copy of the Baronius Press edition of the D-R Bible,
I can’t help feeling that your proposal for an original Challoner text would be fruitful.
What is the official CC stance on this? Why is the New Jerusalem Bible the preferred text?
We are, as a community, missing out on the richness of the D-R Bible.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Colmcille,

*You wrote, in agreement with Ambrose: ** * I can’t help feeling that your proposal for an original Challoner text would be fruitful.​

Indeed so!

When I have gone trawling Amazon, especially Amazon.co.uk, I have found that such specific texts, especially his first one, of Challoner’s Bible or of its New Testament, have been published in the past in the earlier part of the 20th century.

So, this is nothing truly “new” – but an idea long overdue to revive in furthering the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[JesusC2709]

the Douay Rehiems bible is a twisted bible verison

Genesis 3:15 in the D-R version reads the following,

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
SHE will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

This is a false translation if you go back to the Hebrew Texts you will find that is should be translated HE, meaning the future Messiah Jesus. not the Virgin Mary. it is ment to be like this

And I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
HE will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."
Genesis 3:15

the Douay Rehiems also removes many other words of the Bible, adding things like 'penance" to fit the Catholic views

 

[patrick457]

the Douay Rehiems bible is a twisted bible verison

Genesis 3:15 in the D-R version reads the following,

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
SHE will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

This is a false translation if you go back to the Hebrew Texts you will find that is should be translated HE, meaning the future Messiah Jesus. not the Virgin Mary. it is ment to be like this

And I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
HE will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."
Genesis 3:15

Not a new one.

the Douay Rehiems also removes many other words of the Bible, adding things like 'penance" to fit the Catholic views

Seriously…

 

[patrick457]

To Patrick457:

Yes, you have assumed right. I was in reference to the Challoner Revision, since it must be next to impossible to see a copy of the original complice unless one has access to private collection or the rare books of the larger university libraries. So, have you in fact seen a pre Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims and have had time to study it or are repeating what some other scholar has printed without an actual verification?

Well, one of the wonders of the Internet is that a lot (not all) things are available with just a click of the mouse.

And, if you can, you can just call me Patrick. I have a number of people calling me with the 457 attached, and frankly, I’m still not used to it, even after a few years of posting here - yep, I know I attached that number on my username, but plain old 'patrick’s too boring, so I originally came up with 456 and then, 457.

 

[colmcille1]

Colmcille,

*You wrote, in agreement with Ambrose: ** * I can’t help feeling that your proposal for an original Challoner text would be fruitful.​

Indeed so!

When I have gone trawling Amazon, especially Amazon.co.uk, I have found that such specific texts, especially his first one, of Challoner’s Bible or of its New Testament, have been published in the past in the earlier part of the 20th century.

So, this is nothing truly “new” – but an idea long overdue to revive in furthering the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version.

Pax, Jerry Parker

Hi Jerry Parker,
Thank you for your reply. It’s amazing to think of the depth of wisdom and strength of verse of the D-R-C Bible just waiting to be “discovered”, as it were, by the Church authorities. If more of us used this great Bible could said usage in time create a groundswell of opinion to push for it’s official adoption?
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Colmcille,

**You wrote (reacting to a message of mine): ** Thank you for your reply. It’s amazing to think of the depth of wisdom and strength of verse of the D-R-C Bible just waiting to be “discovered”, as it were, by the Church authorities. If more of us used this great Bible could said usage in time create a groundswell of opinion to push for it’s official adoption?​

I did not even make an effort to seek out that particular kind of Douay-Rhiems-Challoner Bible, I just stumbled on it in a less specific search. Really, it is surprising what one can fine on Amazon’s various WWW sites (especially if one uses Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.fr, and Amazon.ca, and beyond, as well as Amazon.com) and the Internet sites of other dealers large and small, or just by Googling skillfully; keep alert to observe details carefully in what you turn up.

If Challoner’s historic texts have been published in the past, there is no reason why they cannot be printed up and sold again! As for “official adoption”, I doubt that the current Church, drunk as it is on modern versions from good to execrable, would be so interested. Perhaps a religious order or society within the Church, though, could adopt Challoner’s original text (or one of his own later ones) as its commended Bible version; that would be an help, at least!

Pax, Jerry Pakrer

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Jesus C-2709.

You wrote: *The Douay Rheims Bible is a twisted Bible verison.

Genesis 3:15 in the D-R version reads the following,

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
SHE will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

This is a false translation if you go back to the Hebrew Texts you will find that is should be translated HE, meaning the future Messiah Jesus. not the Virgin Mary. it is ment to be like this

And I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
HE will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."
Genesis 3:15

The Douay-Rheims-Challoner] also removes many other words of the Bible, adding things like 'penance" to fit the Catholic views.*​

Really, such passages as these are, indeed, very important, and it is because of such differences as Gen. 3:15 that I insist on using the A.V. (K.J.V.) Bible as well as the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version. However, it shows ill will to say that this great version rendered such a passage “to fit the Catholic views”. No, the D.-R.-C. version rendered it as it did because that is what it says in the Latin Vulgate, an important early source for the Bible that needs to be taken seriously to perpetuate its own separate and important textual witness, even if something more in accordance with the Greek is better in this case and most of the time! Some would destroy any ancient witness of one of the Ecclesiastical Texts (Greek, Syriac, Latin, and so on) because it does not tally with the Greek Ecclesiastical Text (that of the Complutensian Polyglot, so far as Catholics are concerned, and other manifestations of the Textus Receptus, which, by the way, I would consent to considering to be by far the best Greek text).

It is due to this kind of thing that I use in English BOTH the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version AND the A.V., giving preference overall to the latter of these, but cherishing and using both.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[colmcille1]

Colmcille,

**You wrote (reacting to a message of mine): ** Thank you for your reply. It’s amazing to think of the depth of wisdom and strength of verse of the D-R-C Bible just waiting to be “discovered”, as it were, by the Church authorities. If more of us used this great Bible could said usage in time create a groundswell of opinion to push for it’s official adoption?​

I did not even make an effort to seek out that particular kind of Douay-Rhiems-Challoner Bible, I just stumbled on it in a less specific search. Really, it is surprising what one can fine on Amazon’s various WWW sites (especially if one uses Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.fr, and Amazon.ca, and beyond, as well as Amazon.com) and the Internet sites of other dealers large and small, or just by Googling skillfully; keep alert to observe details carefully in what you turn up.

If Challoner’s historic texts have been published in the past, there is no reason why they cannot be printed up and sold again! As for “official adoption”, I doubt that the current Church, drunk as it is on modern versions from good to execrable, would be so interested. Perhaps a religious order or society within the Church, though, could adopt Challoner’s original text (or one of his own later ones) as its commended Bible version; that would be an help, at least!

Pax, Jerry Pakrer

Hi Jerry,
Thank you for your reply.
Having discussed the topic of a “gender-neutral” (even the very term is coldly clinical) Bible with my parish priest on a couple of occasions, I am convinced that what you say viz “the current church” is, sadly, very true.
It is a tragic scenario when the tyranny that is political correctness (IMO, an offshoot of moral relativism) can infect the very institution we look to for spiritual guidance.
Yes, your suggestion of a religious order’s adoption of Bp Challoner’s original text is a good one. A friend of mine is a member of just such an order. I think I’ll give him a call…!
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Colmcille,

**You wrote: *** Thank you for your reply. Having discussed the topic of a “gender-neutral” (even the very term is coldly clinical) Bible with my parish priest on a couple of occasions, I am convinced that what you say viz “the current church” is, sadly, very true.

It is a tragic scenario when the tyranny that is political correctness (IMO, an offshoot of moral relativism) can infect the very institution we look to for spiritual guidance.

Yes, your suggestion of a religious order’s adoption of Bp Challoner’s original text is a good one. A friend of mine is a member of just such an order. I think I’ll give him a call…!*​

It is encouraging, Colmcille (do I detect that “Colm” in your monicker stands for “Malcolm”?) that you find that idea worthwhile to pursue. I do not have any such contacts hereabouts (i.e. in northwestern Québec) with Anglophone religious orders. Male religious orders with a particularly stong liturgical vocation, e.g. the Benedictines, or for a vocation for preaching (e.g. the Dominicans) especially could make a real contribution to restoring the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version to active usage. Let’s hope that the groundswell among the laity and traditionalists will go further to revive for active use in the Church (especially in the liturgy) an authorised edition of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version of the Bible which conforms entirely to one (and only one) of Bp. Richard Challoner’s own editions of it.

Thankfully, in Canada (or, at least, in English circles of Québec) the Catholic Edition of the elegant New Revised Standard Version is officially commended for use in the Mass in English, rather than the dreadful and clutzy-sounding New American Bible. However, the N.R.S.V. does suffer in places from “gender neutral (or ‘inclusive’) language.” The worst of that is how inclusive language can dilute or ruin the Messianic intent of what should be prophecy, concerning our Lord, in the Old Testament. This kind of usage poses other problems, too, of course.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[patrick457]

Really, such passages as these are, indeed, very important, and it is because of such differences as Gen. 3:15 that I insist on using the A.V. (K.J.V.) Bible as well as the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version. However, it shows ill will to say that this great version rendered such a passage “to fit the Catholic views”. No, the D.-R.-C. version rendered it as it did because that is what it says in the Latin Vulgate, an important early source for the Bible that needs to be taken seriously to perpetuate its own separate and important textual witness, even if something more in accordance with the Greek is better in this case and most of the time! Some would destroy any ancient witness of one of the Ecclesiastical Texts (Greek, Syriac, Latin, and so on) because it does not tally with the Greek Ecclesiastical Text (that of the Complutensian Polyglot, so far as Catholics are concerned, and other manifestations of the Textus Receptus, which, by the way, I would consent to considering to be by far the best Greek text).

It is due to this kind of thing that I use in English BOTH the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version AND the A.V., giving preference overall to the latter of these, but cherishing and using both.

Pax, Jerry Parker

Let me quote from Jimmy Akin:

The essential difference between these two renderings – or at least the one people always ask about – concerning who will crush the serpent’s head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns – she and her – implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns – he and his – implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.

People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.

This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.

This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary’s heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:

“Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against – and a sword will pierce through your own soul also – that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed” (Luke 2:34b-35).

Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.

This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, “The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.”

 

[patrick457]

The 1610 Douai OT has the verse thus:

I wil put enmyties betwen thee & the woman, & thy ſeed and the ſeed of her: ſhe ſhal bruise thy head in peeces, & thou ſhalt lye in waite of her heele.

The annotation for this verse is rather good:

http://books.google.com/books?id=WI...g1RDGmNTC8_7UGcYB4lg&ci=31,346,905,692&edge=0

John Wycliffe also followed the Vulgate here:

Y schal sette enemytees bitwixe thee and the womman, and bitwixe thi seed and hir seed; sche schal breke thin heed, and thou schalt sette aspies to hir heele.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Patrick,

You wrote (quoting Jimmy Akin): * "The essential difference between these two renderings – or at least the one people always ask about – concerning who will crush the serpent’s head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns – she and her – implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns – he and his – implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.

People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.

This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.

This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary’s heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:

“Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against – and a sword will pierce through your own soul also – that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed” (Luke 2:34b-35).

Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.

This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, "The sense [of these two readings*​

A right interpretation can result from either reading, as found variously in English in the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.) and in the Douay-Rheims Version texts. However, the A.V. reading from the Greek is a lot less misleading. Since both readings in the ancient MSS. have their own important attestations, it is best to leave them in English as the source being used primarily for translatin gives them. Thus the A.V. reading should be left untampered, and the Douay-Rheims-Challoner reading also left unaltered.

As for all the Marian imagery, it has sufficient basis in the Apocalypse (Revelation of St. John the Divine) that there is no need to worry about relating it so specifically to the words in Genesis.

Pax, Jerry Parker*

 

[colmcille1]

Hi Jerry,
Thanks for your post.
Colmcille was a great Irish Saint of the 10th century.
I have not spoken with my good friend in the Dominicans but as soon as I sound him out on his views re the official adoption of the D-R-C Bible, I will get back to you.
He is an extremely busy priest and I am somewhat reluctant to trouble him.
However, I know that he respects another’s persistence in Faith as he, for me, is the very embodiment of said persistence.
God Bless,
Colmcille.