Douay-Rheims Bible- This has to be wrong, no?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Art321
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Art321

Guest
In the Douay-Rheims Bible, I believe there is an error although I may be wrong. It is in Book Of Genesis around 3:15 where is says…

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.

I thought that it was Chirst who crushed the head, wasn’t it???

I’m a bit confused.:confused: Please help!
 
Art321 said:
In the Douay-Rheims Bible, I believe there is an error although I may be wrong. It is in Book Of Genesis around 3:15 where is says…

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.

I thought that it was Chirst who crushed the head, wasn’t it???

I’m a bit confused.:confused: Please help!
Click to expand...
The belief is that the woman is Mary. Your bible is accurate
 
Its right it refers to the blessed virgin. The Hebrew word for her is actually means ‘the former’. And it is obvious it refers to the woman mentioned earlier in the paragraph. So st jerome translated it ipsa.
Pax
 
Actually it is wrong; it is a mistranslation. It should be “her seed” i.e. Jesus. Cardinal Newmann explains this in “Mary, The Second Eve.”
 
Art321 said:
In the Douay-Rheims Bible, I believe there is an error although I may be wrong. It is in Book Of Genesis around 3:15 where is says…

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.

I thought that it was Chirst who crushed the head, wasn’t it???

I’m a bit confused.:confused: Please help!
Click to expand...
this will explain it .from Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9709chap.asp
 
The Hebrew is ambiguous. St. Jerome translated the Hebrew, and of course, had the viewpoint of the Western tradition (nothing wrong with that), so of course the DR would use the feminine pronoun here.
 
SugarMagnolia said:
Actually it is wrong; it is a mistranslation. It should be “her seed” i.e. Jesus. Cardinal Newmann explains this in “Mary, The Second Eve.”
Click to expand...
From Cardinal Newman:
  1. Further still, what light these passages cast on two texts of Scripture. Our reading is, “She shall bruise thy head.” Now, this fact alone of our reading, “She shall bruise,” has some weight, for why should not, perhaps, our reading be the right one? But take the comparison of Scripture with Scripture, and see how the whole hangs together as we interpret it. A war between a woman and the serpent is spoken of in Genesis. Who is the serpent? Scripture nowhere says till the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse. There at last, for the first time, the “Serpent” is interpreted to mean the Evil Spirit. Now, how is he introduced? Why, by the vision again of a Woman, his enemy—and just as, in the first vision in Genesis, the Woman has a “seed,” so here a “Child.” Can we help saying, then, that the Woman is Mary in the third of Genesis? And if so, and our reading is right, the first prophecy ever given contrasts the Second Woman with the First—Mary with Eve, just as St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian do.
Click to expand...
 
AmbroseSJ said:
From Cardinal Newman:
Click to expand...
Thanks for that wonderful insight from Cardinal Newman! 😃 I love learning these new things about my Catholic faith! It’s a beautiful connection between Genesis and Revelation that I didn’t notice before. The saints of the Church are so instructive!
 
No problem. its all about helping each other come to the truth and this forum most definitely helps that cause.
Pax
 
SugarMagnolia said:
Actually it is wrong; it is a mistranslation. It should be “her seed” i.e. Jesus. Cardinal Newmann explains this in “Mary, The Second Eve.”
Click to expand...
“she shall crush thy heel” I think the verse stands the way it was written. No disrespect to the Cardinal.
 
Art321 said:
In the Douay-Rheims Bible, I believe there is an error although I may be wrong. It is in Book Of Genesis around 3:15 where is says…

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.

I thought that it was Chirst who crushed the head, wasn’t it???

I’m a bit confused.:confused: Please help!
Click to expand...
Art, the Douay-Rheims and the Vulgate translates it as “she”; most Protestant Bibles though read “he.” Anyway if you’ll notice, many statues and images of Mary have her standing on a serpent.
 
There’s actually an issue with the pronoun used there. The pronoun can actually be correctly translate as he, she or it.

It’s one of the passages that cause traditionalist to not like the Nova Vulgata because it uses the neuter “ipsum” instead of the feminine “ipsa”.

There’s even some question if the original Vulgate had “ipsa”, Jerome himself is recorded refering to the passage as “ipse” the neuter. So there is a bit of a question as far as which scribes got it wrong.

The Catechism seems to support the neuter reading as the victory no belonging to Mary but to her offspring.

And of course you have the case where Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus uses the passage in proclaiming the Immaculate Conception.

In the end, I would think the correct position is not to really hang too many hats on the pronoun. Normal rules of grammar would have it refer to the offspring, the usage of it seems to have changed a bit over time and so on.
 
Jolly_Joe said:
There’s actually an issue with the pronoun used there. The pronoun can actually be correctly translate as he, she or it.

It’s one of the passages that cause traditionalist to not like the Nova Vulgata because it uses the neuter “ipsum” instead of the feminine “ipsa”.

There’s even some question if the original Vulgate had “ipsa”, Jerome himself is recorded refering to the passage as “ipse” the neuter. So there is a bit of a question as far as which scribes got it wrong.

The Catechism seems to support the neuter reading as the victory no belonging to Mary but to her offspring.

And of course you have the case where Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus uses the passage in proclaiming the Immaculate Conception.

When the words of St Jerome are changed , you are changing the intention of the bible. Their is no proof as what St Jerome intended other than his published writings. That is the problem with Luther and his positions which have continously driven a wedge between the Catholics and Lutherans.
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his ( Pauls) epistiles: speaking in them of these things in which
are certain things hard to be understood: which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their utter destruction."
Click to expand...
 
Nothing I said had anything to do with Luther, mostly I was quoting Catholic sources. Sources that are not in agreement on the issue.

I thought the Vulgate only position had been pretty well abandoned by Catholics?
Especially since it’s another case where textual problems leave some question as to what exactly the original Vulgate text is.

St Jerome’s published writings have both “ipsa” and “ipse”.
 
Jolly_Joe said:
Nothing I said had anything to do with Luther, mostly I was quoting Catholic sources. Sources that are not in agreement on the issue.

I thought the Vulgate only position had been pretty well abandoned by Catholics?
Especially since it’s another case where textual problems leave some question as to what exactly the original Vulgate text is.

St Jerome’s published writings have both “ipsa” and “ipse”.
Click to expand...
The revised standard version has the same text. The Vulgate has not been abandoned.
Here is a Catholic source “The seed of the devil are all those who are born in sin and give themselves over to sin. The seed of the woman is the divine Saviour who as Man was decended from her. She, therefore , would tread on the tread on the head of satin, would
trample him under foot and overcome him, taking away from him his power over man.”
Rev. Justus Knecht D.D (bishop)
I am always suspicious when words are twisted , however the intentions, and used
Luther as a example. When someone takes the position contrary to catholic teachings
we are called to answer. I am not looking for a quarrel, yet I believe the quote from THE BIBLE is accurate.
 
thomas_jd said:
The revised standard version has the same text. The Vulgate has not been abandoned.
Here is a Catholic source “The seed of the devil are all those who are born in sin and give themselves over to sin. The seed of the woman is the divine Saviour who as Man was decended from her. She, therefore , would tread on the tread on the head of satin, would
trample him under foot and overcome him, taking away from him his power over man.”
Rev. Justus Knecht D.D (bishop)
I am always suspicious when words are twisted , however the intentions, and used
Luther as a example. When someone takes the position contrary to catholic teachings
we are called to answer. I am not looking for a quarrel, yet I believe the quote from THE BIBLE is accurate.
Click to expand...
If you check here, a link that was already posted in this thread, you will see a very clear explanation of exactly what the pronoun ipse “it” is referring to. In that very clear explanation, it is emphasized that the pronoun should most likely be “it”, but can certainly infer “she” but under NO circumstances, can it be the masculine singular “he.”

In that explanation, St. Jerome is vindicated in using “she” and as has already been posted in this thread. Many other Church authorities prefer “she” as well.

Currently, in the NAB we agree with the Protestants. 🤷 But under no circumstances can it be said that St. Jerome was wrong, or that the D/R had it wrong. We may disagree with that translation, just as we may disagree with the NAB translation, but that is strictly an opinion. 😉
 
AmbroseSJ said:
If you check here, a link that was already posted in this thread, you will see a very clear explanation of exactly what the pronoun ipse “it” is referring to. In that very clear explanation, it is emphasized that the pronoun should most likely be “it”, but can certainly infer “she” but under NO circumstances, can it be the masculine singular “he.”

In that explanation, St. Jerome is vindicated in using “she” and as has already been posted in this thread. Many other Church authorities prefer “she” as well.

Currently, in the NAB we agree with the Protestants. 🤷 But under no circumstances can it be said that St. Jerome was wrong, or that the D/R had it wrong. We may disagree with that translation, just as we may disagree with the NAB translation, but that is strictly an opinion. 😉
Click to expand...
I have read that link by David Hughes and Rich Salbato. I have also read 4/5 bibles that I have access to . In each verse the words are SHE not HE! Many footnotes describing ipsa, the woman conforming to the latin or the hebrew which indicates her son or decendants.The NAB says HE and They in the footnotes but the published verse is she.
I always urge caution when discussing Mary and the references that appear pointed to Her. Footnotes are a explanation by a particular source. I Have read Holy Scripture by Bishop Knecht and found him to be a wonderful source of research.
The New American Bible changes the words of the angel to Mary from "Hail full of grace " “to o favoured one” which used to be a footnote in the preceding renditions.
That is why I use the Douay/Rheims for personal clarification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top