Genesis 3:15

[Sword_Brethren]

On another site a protestant stated this, “and please dont use (Genesis 3:15). The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.”

Any Catholic have any information on this?

 

[sedonaman]

On another site a protestant stated this, “and please dont use (Genesis 3:15). The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.”

Any Catholic have any information on this?

Dare I say,

In grammar, an antecedent is a noun, noun phrase, or clause to which an anaphor refers in a coreference. For example, in the passage “I did not see John because he wasn’t there”, “John” is the antecedent of the anaphor “he”; together “John” and “he” are called a coreference because they both refer to the same thing (in this case, a particular person). The word “antecedent” begins with the prefix “ante-”, meaning “before”, because almost always the antecedent occurs before the anaphor. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_%28grammar%29

…or did Vatican II invent a new rule?

 

[SonCatcher]

Modern Catholic translations are not based on the Vulgate. So what is he talking about?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Here’s a case for how Genesis 3:15 can exegetically refer to Mary crushing the serpent regardless of whether or not the word there is “she.”

See also this thread on Gen. 3:15 and the issue of the language of the text, especially posts 54-60 or so.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

I think I’ll go to that website and say “and please don’t say sola scriptura the Bible speaks nowhere of it and it cannot be defended critically.”

 

[Dave_Noonan]

On another site a protestant stated this, “and please dont use (Genesis 3:15). The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.”

Any Catholic have any information on this?

I would rate this statement as mostly correct. Wherever the “she” in the Vulgate’s translation of Genesis 3:15 comes from, it almost certainly does not come from Jerome. This can be determined by looking at what amounts to Jerome’s translation notes on Genesis, which can happily be found here, translated into English:

amazon.com/Jeromes-Questions-Genesis-Christian-Studies/dp/0198263503/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1330632901&sr=8-3

(Simply flip to his discussion of Genesis 3:15).

Thus, the “she” must be a later interpolation, which would more than likely have occurred after the fourth century since Jerome himself died in the early fifth century.