D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
OK, thanks. It will be interesting to see whether he replies.
- Status
J
jwinch2
Guest
Ha! Yes it will. So far, he has not approved my comment for posting… I will put the response here should he comments on my questions.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
I’m not sure I understand this argument. It sounds like, “we realize that the verb is masculine, but we prefer to read it as feminine because of feminine figures in other parts of the Bible.” I’m also not sure why one would argue this verse is poetry, but I’m open to being convinced. Also, I would need to see some similar examples of this verbal gender switching in the Hebrew Bible–particularly in a text that’s primarily (or arguably all) prose.
J
jwinch2
Guest
I was thinking the same thing but couldn’t figure out how to articulate it properly.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Romans 16:20 seems to refer to the same concept but uses “they” rather than He or She. This seems to refer to the Church rather than either Christ or Mary.
And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
N
nordskoven
Guest
God informs the serpent he will put enmity between the serpent and the woman. This is reinforced by the second part of the sentence, “between your offspring and hers.” The Hebrew word זֶרַע - zera - is the same for “offspring” and “seed”, accounting for the difference in English translations, but in both cases the word is masculine.
The second sentence begins with a personal pronoun. The word may refer either to the “woman”, or may refer to the offspring or seed of the woman. Thus the beginning of the second part of Genesis 3:15 is translated primarily in two ways. Both the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims translations convey this passage as “she will crush your head, while you strike at his heel “… whereas the King James version, the Revised Standard Version, and the NIV read “he will crush your head…”* **In view of the epicene personal pronoun (one form to indicate both male and female sex) as described above, both are correct! ***1
The second sentence begins with a personal pronoun. The word may refer either to the “woman”, or may refer to the offspring or seed of the woman. Thus the beginning of the second part of Genesis 3:15 is translated primarily in two ways. Both the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims translations convey this passage as “she will crush your head, while you strike at his heel “… whereas the King James version, the Revised Standard Version, and the NIV read “he will crush your head…”* **In view of the epicene personal pronoun (one form to indicate both male and female sex) as described above, both are correct! ***1
N
nordskoven
Guest
Epicene: Having but one form to indicate either sex.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Since Biblical Hebrew doesn’t have non-gendered personal pronouns, your argument doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps you could elaborate.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Found this, which I thought was interesting.
Liturgiam authenticam No. 37 makes the Nova Vulgata “the point of reference as regards the delineation of the sacred text” and requires that in the case of “varying manuscript traditions, the liturgical translation must be prepared in accordance with the same manuscript tradition that the Nova Vulgata has followed.” No. 41a applies the same principle to choosing among possible translations.
This would suggest that we ought to consider interpreting the phrase as saying “it” instead of "he’ or “she” or “they” since this seems to be a situation where there are multiple disputed translations. To me, use of the word “it” rather than “she” or “he” seems to suggest that the seed of The Woman, rather than The Woman herself will be the one stomping on the serpent.
Thoughts?
Liturgiam authenticam No. 37 makes the Nova Vulgata “the point of reference as regards the delineation of the sacred text” and requires that in the case of “varying manuscript traditions, the liturgical translation must be prepared in accordance with the same manuscript tradition that the Nova Vulgata has followed.” No. 41a applies the same principle to choosing among possible translations.
This would suggest that we ought to consider interpreting the phrase as saying “it” instead of "he’ or “she” or “they” since this seems to be a situation where there are multiple disputed translations. To me, use of the word “it” rather than “she” or “he” seems to suggest that the seed of The Woman, rather than The Woman herself will be the one stomping on the serpent.
Thoughts?
P
perro_sarnoso
Guest
J
jwinch2
Guest
The Nova Vulgata which I believe is the official bible of the Holy See, says “it” rather than “she”.
Catholic Encyclopedia:
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
My understanding of Liturgiam authenticam is that if there are manuscript differences, the Vulgate (Nova Vulgata) “wins” for purposes of liturgical texts. But then I’m not Catholics so others would probably know more about this.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Thanks! Your article from the Catholic Encyclopedia was VERY interesting as I have often found this to be a feature of the text–the Vulgate seems to be a fairly “free”/“loose” (or as the article said “interpretive”) translation. I will keeps this idea in mind when reading the Vulgate.
For example, the Hebrew (MT) of the very text we are discussing, Genesis 3:15, uses the exact same verb to describe the action of the serpent (“bruise”) and the action of the masculine subject–sort of a measure-for-measure response–head gets bruised; heal gets bruised.
The Nova Vulgata has two different verbs: illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius–“contero” (bruise/crush) and “insidior” (to lie in wait). There’s nothing about lying in wait in the Hebrew text and thus has always struck me as very different from bruising/wounding.
J
jwinch2
Guest
My understanding of how it works is similar to what you described. If there are situations where multiple texts disagree, translators are to follow the same rules that were used to translate the Nova Vulgata. And, if there is no clear winner in terms of proper translation,they are to go with the word used in the Nova Vulgata. I’m paraphrasing here of course, but I believe that is the gist of what the document says on the subject.
B
BerhaneSelassie
Guest
A few months ago Matt Slick was mocking the Catholic Church in a chatroom I was in because of one of the translations of Genesis 3:15 reads “she will crush.” He insisted this translation was wrong.
Anyway, I then asked a Jewish scholar (non Christian, anti if anything) about it that’s spoken Hebrew his whole life. He he said the passage should be read “they will stomp” the serpent. I asked him if the “they” includes the woman, and he said “yes.” He then said if anyone says otherwise to ask them from who and where did they learn Hebrew.
Anyway, I then asked a Jewish scholar (non Christian, anti if anything) about it that’s spoken Hebrew his whole life. He he said the passage should be read “they will stomp” the serpent. I asked him if the “they” includes the woman, and he said “yes.” He then said if anyone says otherwise to ask them from who and where did they learn Hebrew.
J
jwinch2
Guest
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Your friend is partially correct but mostly incorrect. The verb could possibly be read “they” (“they will bruise”) simply because we have so few examples in Biblical Hebrew of verbs ending with vowels with added second person object suffixes. I would have expected an “u” vowel between the verb and the suffix (there’s no vowel in the Massoretic Text–or what some people call a “silent shewa”)–but we can’t necessarily know what really “should be there” because it’s just not well attested. But remember that this is a possibility and not something that’s definitive.
But the major problem with “they” is that preceding the verb is the masculine pronoun “he” which would need to be accounted for in some way in the translation. Simply ignoring the pronoun “he” does not demonstrate good principles of translation–everything needs to be accounted for in some way.
Also keep in mind that there are many differences between Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew, so expertise in one doesn’t guarantee expertise in the other–and it works both ways.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
The point of noting the poetry is that there is a precedent for seeing a pronoun as not necessarily united to its gender. But that is indeed the weaker part of the argument and isn’t necessary to keep if you want to nix it.
But the pronoun is not masculine. It is ambiguous. If you follow the link you will see a number of translations use “it.” One of my Franciscan professors taught this as well, and you can find other sources online in addition to the numerous Bibles that translate “it.”
The article concedes “he” or “it” will be granted as the best translations for the purposes of the apologetic. The point of showing that Mary could be referenced by whatever the pronoun is, is to see the typology of other parallel events. I think Jael and Judith are strong Marian types, and both of them strike the enemy’s head. We should not discount interpreting a passage in light of the rest of Scripture. In fact, that is one of the Church’s rules set forth TO interpret Scripture. And since “it” is a valid understanding of the term there, the meaning can well include Mary, Jesus, the Church (cf. Rm 16:20), etc…
In Catholicism, interpretation of a passage is not exhausted once you find a good one. So we would not say “It’s Jesus—therefore it can’t be Mary!! It can’t be the Church! It can’t be St. Michael the Archangel!!” I am saying that Mary as the one who crushes the serpent’s head is a valid and sound interpretation of the text, particularly in light of reading that passage alongside the Judith and Jael accounts. You have to admit the parallel is there, no?
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
I understand the argument about poetry, I’m just not understanding what features of this particular verse qualify it to be referred to as Biblical Hebrew poetry.
Pronouns are not gender-ambiguous in Biblical Hebrew and I think you may have misunderstood your Franciscan professor. Masculine pronouns are used when referring to males or to male-gendered inanimate objects. Feminine pronouns are used when referring to females or female-gendered inanimate objects.
Similarly to the way many languages work–but not English for the most part–nouns in Biblical Hebrew have genders. (However there is no neuter gender like in say, Greek, Latin or German.) For example the word for stone in Biblical Hebrew (even) is feminine. In English we would translate the feminine pronoun used to refer to a stone as “it” instead of “she.” But if we wanted to refer to a stone in Biblical Hebrew using a pronoun you have to use the the feminine pronoun. Because pronouns can refer to inanimate objects, sometime the pronoun will be translated as “it.” This doesn’t mean you can use whatever pronoun you want regardless of the antecedent. Further, there are also separate gendered plural pronouns for the second and third person–both singular and plural (e.g., “they”–women versus “they”–men).
Regardless, the verb doesn’t allow for a feminine gendered subject. A masculine verb AND a masculine pronoun make the translation pretty unambiguous.
In summary, in Biblical Hebrew, masculine pronouns cannot be used to refer strictly to females or feminine objects in Biblical Hebrew. But you have any examples whatsoever of this occurring elsewhere (masculine pronouns used to refer to strictly feminine-gendered antecedents), I’d love to see them.
C
codeyrolley
Guest
These are just my observations, just learning out loud and do not mean to imply any bad theology. Correct me at your pleasure if you seen any fault in me.
Leaving it as is since there could be more than one meaning in ‘she will crush,’ as she could be Mary, the Church or something else at the same time.
Although I don’t know Hebrew very so I must trust in Him to guide me, it is unfortunate that in places like this to much energy is spent on the gender. It bothers me that in some places where it had seem obvious that gender neutral advocates are too liberal making it more inclusive, but then where it would have been understood to mean inclusiveness involving man and woman by the Hebrew and Greek scribes, seems over looked. For various persons it seems both liberal and formal that love the Truth can still appear to be projecting theology into the text. From what I understand is the particular word for ‘he’ in Hebrew means ‘he’ and in certain context may mean ‘us’ with no particular gender implied. Instead for zera there is ‘your seed’ and ‘her seed.’
Maybe ‘our heal’ but not sure?
I really don’t think that this is a translation matter as it is from seeing something in a particular point of view, not even a Catholic one either. For example the CJB reads ‘I will put animosity between you and the woman, and between your descendant and her descendant; he will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel."’ You don’t need to be Catholic to draw a picture in your mind of either Mary or Christ fulfilling what seems to be a fairly evident prophecy.
Something that just came to my mind is the woman could be the Kingdom of God and it’s descendant’s is the he. Something I have learned about Hebrew is that it can often play on words a lot in a way modern translators and scholars don’t always fully understand, and a dot or stroke can have various layers of meaning. This acts like the light from the light house so anyone who has the love for His word can be guided through the storm.
I don’t know why but the more I read about this grain of passage the more mind blowing it is. I think any push to water it down is just an attempt more to attack a particular theology instead of getting to the bottom of it. At least this is what I read all over is some kind of Catholic conspiracy. It’s a common pattern for some to seem something in the bible they don’t like then attempt to ‘correctly translate’ to show a difference in how they think versus what the Church says. Which is good because it give me a chance to learn and to re examine.
Leaving it as is since there could be more than one meaning in ‘she will crush,’ as she could be Mary, the Church or something else at the same time.
Although I don’t know Hebrew very so I must trust in Him to guide me, it is unfortunate that in places like this to much energy is spent on the gender. It bothers me that in some places where it had seem obvious that gender neutral advocates are too liberal making it more inclusive, but then where it would have been understood to mean inclusiveness involving man and woman by the Hebrew and Greek scribes, seems over looked. For various persons it seems both liberal and formal that love the Truth can still appear to be projecting theology into the text. From what I understand is the particular word for ‘he’ in Hebrew means ‘he’ and in certain context may mean ‘us’ with no particular gender implied. Instead for zera there is ‘your seed’ and ‘her seed.’
Maybe ‘our heal’ but not sure?
I really don’t think that this is a translation matter as it is from seeing something in a particular point of view, not even a Catholic one either. For example the CJB reads ‘I will put animosity between you and the woman, and between your descendant and her descendant; he will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel."’ You don’t need to be Catholic to draw a picture in your mind of either Mary or Christ fulfilling what seems to be a fairly evident prophecy.Something that just came to my mind is the woman could be the Kingdom of God and it’s descendant’s is the he. Something I have learned about Hebrew is that it can often play on words a lot in a way modern translators and scholars don’t always fully understand, and a dot or stroke can have various layers of meaning. This acts like the light from the light house so anyone who has the love for His word can be guided through the storm.
I don’t know why but the more I read about this grain of passage the more mind blowing it is. I think any push to water it down is just an attempt more to attack a particular theology instead of getting to the bottom of it. At least this is what I read all over is some kind of Catholic conspiracy. It’s a common pattern for some to seem something in the bible they don’t like then attempt to ‘correctly translate’ to show a difference in how they think versus what the Church says. Which is good because it give me a chance to learn and to re examine.
- Status