Gen 3:15 - SHE will crush?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Canto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Masoretic vowel markings versus the older ways of understanding the Hebrew text (as often preserved in the Septuagint, or in early Christian and Hebrew books).

The New Vulgate is written in Latin. The only difference between it and the old Vulgate, in this verse, is that the old Vulgate says “ipsa conteret”: the same (female) crushes/will crush – and the Nova Vulgata says “ipsum conteret”: the same (male, referring back to seed) crushes/will crush.

In Hebrew, my understanding is that, without vowel markings, there is no clear way of distinguishing between whether the crushing is being done by a “him” or a “her”, and whether in fact “the seed” is a him or a her, or whether “the seed” includes every descendant of Eve or just one special one. It’s written very simply and very ambiguously. (But hey, it’s a prophecy story. Very typical.)

This was not seen by Jews back then as a bug, but rather as a useful feature for interpreting God’s Word. In fact, it was often useful that so many words with different vowel pronunciations but the same consonants would appear exactly the same in written Hebrew, because it allowed for a lot of wordplay in interpreting the Law or understanding prophecies’ fulfillments. People knew what the Bible was supposed to say, where it could be read different ways, and where there were traditional disagreements.

The guys who put together the Masoretic vowel markings (and this was very late, well after Christianity had been around for centuries) were both providing an aid to reading, and explicitly controlling the interpretation of the text, determining for their followers exactly how each word was to be understood. Protestant Bible makers generally tended to go by the Masoretic text, mostly because it contradicted the Septuagint and thus the Vulgate (often on purpose, as the Masoretic text guys understandably wanted to keep Jews Jewish and keep them away from Christianity).

The problem for Catholic Bible makers of today is that you can’t include all the statutory ambiguities, so generally it’s better to go along with the Masoretic text to avoid scandal among believers; just as they go along with the newer chapter and verse numberings instead of the traditional Catholic ones. (Though as we have seen with NABRE, it is possible to go along too far with the Masoretic text and create scandal, too.)

But a lot of times the footnotes in scholarly versions of both Catholic and Protestant Bibles will go into all the alternate readings (which are still useful to Catholics and Protestants alike, and which come up a lot in early Christian writings especially).

You would think in this age of computers that somebody would put out a Bible incorporating ambiguous readings into the text of an e-Bible, but there you go.
 
I forgot to add that, back in the Roman Empire day, there was at least one Jewish “apocalypse” written as a prophecy about a guy claiming to be the Messiah, which had the Messiah guy’s mother being destined to lead the troops which took over the world, and basically being supposed to crush paganism under her heel.

So if I am remembering this correctly, the alternate reading of the “Proto-Evangelium” in Genesis died hard among Jews; even the Christians’ love for this interpretation didn’t stop people expecting the Messiah from also expecting his mommy to stomp the serpent/dragon/monster and his seed.

And… of course the other point is that, as Catholics and Christians, most of the time both or all possible readings of the Hebrew have a valid Biblical interpretation, and you can find plenty of olden days interpreters’ works which will explain them to you. So yes, we believe both that He will crush the Serpent, that she does (in Christ), and that we seeds of Eve do (in Christ, and when we use our free will for good).
 
the official bible of the Church has she? good enough for me.
 
NAB has “I will put enmity between you and the woman…”.

KJV has “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed…”

It would seem from the context of the passage that the word should be interpreted to be feminine rather than masculine. It does not make sense to jump back and forth in the exact same passage or to assume that the authors would have meant “He” when the rest of the passage was about Satan and “The Woman”.

But what the heck do I know?
 
jwinch2 said:
NAB has “I will put enmity between you and the woman…”.

KJV has “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed…”

It would seem from the context of the passage that the word should be interpreted to be feminine rather than masculine. It does not make sense to jump back and forth in the exact same passage or to assume that the authors would have meant “He” when the rest of the passage was about Satan and “The Woman”.

But what the heck do I know?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it really matters in the grand scheme of things. We know who crushed the head of Satan and we know how He got here. The passage is simply letting us know that there will be someone who will come along and fix things. Whether we interpret it to be Jesus (He) or ‘the seed of the woman’ (she giving rise to He), the result is the same.
 
I have always thought it was “She will crush” and hence our lady is pictured or sculpted with the serpent beneath her feet and standing on the moon - Rev 12:1

I wrote this before I watched the video. Came back and edited.
 
fermat said:
I don’t think it really matters in the grand scheme of things. We know who crushed the head of Satan and we know how He got here. The passage is simply letting us know that there will be someone who will come along and fix things. Whether we interpret it to be Jesus (He) or ‘the seed of the woman’ (she giving rise to He), the result is the same.
Click to expand...
It matters in the sense of whether you interpret the passage to mean that “The Woman” will crush the serpent ala Marian devotion and depiction or whether you interpret it as the “seed” of the woman will crush the serpent meaning Jesus as the new Adam.

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.

Traditionally, Catholics have interpreted “she” to mean Mary which is why she is often depicted in statue form with a snake under her foot. However, modern translations do not depict that passage the same way. A recent re-translation of the LXX text (the NETS Bible) translates it as “He” rather than “she”. Its also important to note that the statues which do depict Mary with a serpent under her foot do not depict her crushing the head but rather holding it there with the head out.

The Eastern Church to my understanding does not depict Mary in that way but they do make allusions to similar ideas. It is also my understanding that the Orthodox Church views the proper translation as “He” rather than “she” and that they use the LXX rather than MT for their Old Testament translations.

From the Akathist:

*Having shed the light of truth in Egypt, You expelled the darkness of falsehood; and unable to bear Your strength, O Saviour, her idols fell; and they that were set free from them cried to the Theotokos:

Rejoice, Uplifting of men. Rejoice, Downfall of demons.
Rejoice, you who trampled upon the delusion of error. Rejoice, you who censured the deceit of the idols.
Rejoice, Sea which drowned the symbolic Pharaoh. Rejoice, Rock which refreshed those thirsting for life.
Rejoice, Pillar of fire, guiding those in darkness. Rejoice, Protection of the world, more spacious than a cloud.
Rejoice, Nourishment, successor to manna. Rejoice, Minister of holy joy.
Rejoice, Land of promise. Rejoice, you from whom flows milk and honey.

Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride.
*
 
The first action Satan took to entice humanity away from God was against a woman.

In return, God the Father sent us His Son, through a woman, to save us from our sins.
 
Mintaka said:
Masoretic vowel markings versus the older ways of understanding the Hebrew text (as often preserved in the Septuagint, or in early Christian and Hebrew books).

…

You would think in this age of computers that somebody would put out a Bible incorporating ambiguous readings into the text of an e-Bible, but there you go.
Click to expand...
I’m as good with scripture as the average Christian and probably better than many but every once in a while a post comes along which shows me how little I really know. This is one of those posts.

Fascinating explanation. Thank you.

-Tim-
 
It is also interesting to note that the Nova Vulgata which to my understanding is the official translation for the Holy See renders that passage as “it” rather than assigning any gender at all.

To me, that creates a bit of confusion.
 
Mintaka said:
In Hebrew, my understanding is that, without vowel markings, there is no clear way of distinguishing between whether the crushing is being done by a “him” or a “her”, and whether in fact “the seed” is a him or a her, or whether “the seed” includes every descendant of Eve or just one special one. It’s written very simply and very ambiguously. (But hey, it’s a prophecy story. Very typical.)
Click to expand...
Since the subject of Hebrew verbs is indicated with a consonant, this has nothing to do with vowel markings at all. The “crushing” (probably a bit strong) is done by “you” in the Massoretic Text. It’s unambiguous, repeated via a pronoun and in the verb itself.
 
Maybe I have been wrong, but I always believed that the “she” was Mary. God brought life into the world through a woman (Eve), but she “messed up.” So, he fixed it all with Mary!!
 
Dave_Noonan said:
Note that Voris doesn’t mention what those Hebrew texts are.
Click to expand...
He also does not mention that the Greek Septuagint OT uses “HE” instead of “SHE”. In addition, he does not mention that the Nova Vulgata which I believe is the current official Bible translation of the Holy See, uses “IT” instead of either he or she.
 
jwinch2 said:
He also does not mention that the Greek Septuagint OT uses “HE” instead of “SHE”. In addition, he does not mention that the Nova Vulgata which I believe is the current official Bible translation of the Holy See, uses “IT” instead of either he or she.
Click to expand...
True. I know I’ve looked that up before (LXX) on a similar thread.

IF Michael Voris is accurate about the Hebrew texts, then they would have to be later than the Massoretic text since this verse is not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
 
I don’t know if any of the video links herein mention this but…

From the article How can Mary crush the serpent’s head? A look at Genesis 3:15 is this excerpt:First we begin with the term for “he/it/she” in question. Thompson notes that the Hebrew word is masculine and translated as “he” or “it.” Several Protestant translations do use the word “it” including the fairly literal King James Version. Catholic apologists such as Jimmy Akin or Robert Sungenis acknowledge the masculinity of the Hebrew word as well, which admits to “he” or “it.” There is an artistic sense in which the Hebrew word could be copied as feminine, and that is in the case of poetry, which the Jewish Encyclopedia states sometimes uses masculine and feminine interchangeably.

…

In what other way can the “he” or “it” term in Genesis 3:15 be understood to include Mary specifically? I think the following is perhaps the most compelling evidence.

The first woman described to “strike the enemy’s head” is Jael. In Judges 4:21 and Judges 5:26, she is described killing the oppressive king’s general Sisera by driving a tent peg into his head.

The second woman is Judith. In Judith 13:8-9, she is described cutting off the head of Holofernes, who is called later in the chapter the “leader of…enemies,” and whose name means "stinking in hell."So to see Mary as crushing the serpent’s head in Gen. 3:15 fits with the typological Marian figures of Judith and Jael. That is not to preclude Christ crushing the serpent through Mary, figure of the Church, but the context of the OT does show that Mary striking the serpent is befitting of the OT Marian figure.
 
Rejoice unwedded Bride?!? OY! The Virgin Mary was literally married to the Holy Spirit. The words of the Archangel Gabriel are a succinct version of the “Ancient Sacred Wedding Rite” with two “sacred strangers” acting as witnesses–God the Father; and the Archangel Gabriel. We see the Bridegroom approaching the Bride per the Genesis 2 marriage formula of the Bridegroom leaving His abode to approach the Woman, here used as the title Christ used of His Mother. “The Lord is with thee.” The wedding party has arrived.

The Ancient Sacred Wedding Rite formula is also seen in the bestowing of a divinely-granted child on Abraham and Sarah. The two witnesses are the two angels, messengers who later lay waste to the anti-marriage towns of Sodom and Gomorrha. This is nicely explained by Hebrew scholar Savinah Teubal in her book (unfortunately titled by her publisher) Sarah the Priestess. In it Teubal explains about, not the priestess, but the EN, meaning “grace.” As a staunch Hebrew, Teubal was less than enthusiastic when I posited that the Virgin Mary, “Full of Grace,” fulfills this queenship, the Genesis 3:15 Woman who, with her “Seed” (a collective term nicely describing the Body of Christ) crushes Lucifer and his seed.

This makes marriage the centerpiece sacrament, first confected between Adam and the Woman, Abraham & Sarah, the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit, and the final bridal union of divinity with humanity when Christ leaves His heavenly abode and returns for His Bride, the Church. He/she is the appropriate translation of Genesis 3:15. “He/she will crush your head…” because the power and authority to conquer Satan and his minions is given to and derives through her to her Seed. We are her “other” children mentioned in Apocalypse 12, this “woman clothed with the Sun.”

And of course the default interpretation of “she will crush” is appropriate because God is, after all, cursing Lucifer with the Woman; and cursing his seed with her Seed. Lucifer is cursed; the Earth is cursed to bring forth thistles when cultivated; and nowhere are Adam and the Woman cursed. They are given the consequences of their sin. Death comes into the world and the Earth will give her fruits only at the sweat of Man’s brow. Painful birth will be the Woman’s lot, as with Eve “littering,” that is giving birth to twins Cain and Abel as it literally states. The consequences of sin are often confused with God’s dual curse upon Lucifer and the Earth. Nowhere is the First Man and First Woman cursed by God. All sin has consequences. Don’t confuse this with a curse, please, Tim Staples et alii.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
True. I know I’ve looked that up before (LXX) on a similar thread.

IF Michael Voris is accurate about the Hebrew texts, then they would have to be later than the Massoretic text since this verse is not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Click to expand...
I posed the question to him on Youtube where he typically responds. So far, he has not permitted my comment to be posted so I guess we will have to wait and see how he addresses it. The only English language translation of the Bible I can find that translates that passage with “she” is the D.R.
theologica.ning.com/forum/topics/who-crushes-satans-head-in?commentId=2124612%3AComment%3A265052

My take based on my current level of knowledge is that it is probably “He” rather than “she” or “it” and is likely referring to Christ rather than Mary. But, I am open to convincing arguments supported by evidence to the contrary…

biblescripture.net/First.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top