Genesis 3:15

[BeeSweet]

The Douay Rheims reads:

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.

The Revised Standard Version reads:

I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."

I’m curious if anyone knows when and why the language was changed as it was in this particular verse.

 

[Genesis315]

The DRV footnote:

15 “She shall crush”… Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.

 

[Franciscan]

The DRV footnote:

15 “She shall crush”… Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.

I have a feeling this question was made for you.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Beesweet,

The Douay follows the Vulgate, where a mistake was introduced early in the text. The Hebrew original, refers to the seed, that is her descendant(s).

The fact that many Fathers used this text to emphasize the predominant role of Mary in our salvation is a strong witness to their belief, but not a strict interpretation of the Bible.

Verbum

 

[BeeSweet]

Hi Beesweet,

The Douay follows the Vulgate, where a mistake was introduced early in the text. The Hebrew original, refers to the seed, that is her descendant(s).

The fact that many Fathers used this text to emphasize the predominant role of Mary in our salvation is a strong witness to their belief, but not a strict interpretation of the Bible.

Verbum

Great! So since the Vulgate originated around the late fourth century, when was it determined to be in error? Seems strange it wouldn’t be corrected, considering it is an error. Why’s that?

 

[sophie1]

Wow!! This is why I love CA forums so much! I never would have known about this subtle discrepancy* and would not have had the opportunity to reflect on it and enhance my understanding. Thanks so much!

• When I use the word discrepancy, I don’t mean to imply anything wrong. I think of it more as meaning like synoptic: seen from two points of view. Gives greater depth perception…

 

[MrS]

and thy seed and her seed

her seed…

Women do not have seed… This is actually a great verse for Catholic apologetics.

 

[LeahInancsi]

Anyone wonder why I’m screaming at the top of my lunges for quality Bible study in Catholic churches?

 

[Verbum]

Hi Beesweet,

Great! So since the Vulgate originated around the late fourth century, when was it determined to be in error? Seems strange it wouldn’t be corrected, considering it is an error. Why’s that?

Well, not many people knew Hebrew, and those who knew may not have trusted the manuscripts they could get hold of. It was only with modern scholarship methods that a 100% trustworthy text (critical text) could be established.

Verbum

 

[MrS]

. It was only with modern scholarship methods that a 100% trustworthy text (critical text) could be established.

Verbum

I think that is way too broad a statement…

Modern scholarship (like that of Raymond Brown and scholars who begin with an anti-Catholic bias) have corrupted many verses to the point of relativism and modernism.

A 100% trustworthy text is one declared as such by the magisterium… not modern scholars.

.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Mrs. S,

You wrong me, sister.

Read the post again. You will see that I am not talking about translations or interpretations. I am talking about the original text in Hebrew or Greek - what is called the critical text, determined after analyzing the “genealogy” of all extent manuscripts, ancient translations and testimonials. There is no controversy nowadays on the critical text of the Bible.

Verbum

 

[MrS]

Hi Mrs. S,

You wrong me, sister.

Read the post again. You will see that I am not talking about translations or interpretations. I am talking about the original text in Hebrew or Greek - what is called the critical text, determined after analyzing the “genealogy” of all extent manuscripts, ancient translations and testimonials. There is no controversy nowadays on the critical text of the Bible.

Verbum

You have proven my point… the text plays second fiddle to the interpretation of the text.

MrS stands for Mr S, and as such, I am no one’s “sister”… Your “modern” and “critical” understanding of the english language failed you …

but that is okay… no offense taken… it is not like my Mr S or MrS is inspired or anything.

 

[sophie1]

and thy seed and her seed

her seed…

Women do not have seed… This is actually a great verse for Catholic apologetics.

The ancient people who recorded scripture certainly believed that women did not have “seed”. They believed that the man planted the “seed” and the woman was just the soil, I guess. But science has shown us that women actually contribute as much to the “seed” as men – perhaps even more, given mitochondrial DNA. Was Genesis ahead of its time? …

 

[Genesis315]

I have a feeling this question was made for you.

Actually, I think “she” is more accurate. The Hebrew as written doesn’t have a vowel–it can be translated as he, she, or they. Most Christians translate it as “he” thinking of Christ. Jews translate it as “they.”

jtsa.edu/community/parashah/jpstext/bereshit.shtml

If we look at the rest of Scripture, it is never actually Christ crushing the head of the enemy, but someone else doing it by the Lord’s power.

Two other women called blessed among all women and predictd to be praised by all generation, Jahel and Judith, both by the power of God strike at the head of the chief enemy.

Judges 5:24 Blessed among women be Jahel the wife of Haber the Cinite, and blessed be she in her tent. 25 He asked her water and she gave him milk, and offered him butter in a dish fit for princes. 26 She put her left hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workman’s hammer, and she struck Sisara, seeking in his head a place for the wound, and strongly piercing through his temples.

Judith 13:17 Judith said: Praise ye the Lord our God, who hath not forsaken them that hope in him. 18 And by me his handmaid he hath fulfilled his mercy, which he promised to the house of Israel: and he hath killed the enemy of his people by my hand this night. 19 Then she brought forth the head of Holofernes out of the wallet, and shewed it them, saying: Behold the head of Holofernes the general of the army of the Assyrians, and behold his canopy, wherein he lay in his drunkenness, where the Lord our God slew him by the hand of a woman. 20 But as the same Lord liveth, his angel hath been my keeper both going hence, and abiding there, and returning from thence hither: and the Lord hath not suffered me his handmaid to be defiled, but hath brought me back to you without pollution of sin, rejoicing for his victory, for my escape, and for your deliverance. 21 Give all of you glory to him, because he is good, because his mercy endureth for ever. 22 And they all adored the Lord, and said to her: The Lord hath blessed thee by his power, because by thee he hath brought our enemies to nought. 23 And Ozias the prince of the people of Israel, said to her: Blessed art thou, O daughter, by the Lord the most high God, above all women upon the earth. 24 Blessed be the Lord who made heaven and earth, who hath directed thee to the cutting off the head of the prince of our enemies. 25 Because he hath so magnified thy name this day, that thy praise shall not depart out of the mouth of men who shall be mindful of the power of the Lord for ever, for that thou hast not spared thy life, by reason of the distress and tribulation of thy people, but hast prevented our ruin in the presence of our God. 26 And all the people said: So be it, so be it.

Likewise, St. Paul writing in Romans exhorts them to trample the serpent by the power of God. It’s never Jesus Himself, He’s always working through someone else.

Rom. 16:20 And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

I think the she refers to both Mary and the Church (Mary being the image and a precursor of the Church.). Just as Mary has already trampled Satan under foot, so will the Church by the power of her Seed tranmple him.

Plus, if we take into account private revelation (we which are not bound to of course), the renderon of “she” is pretty much a closed case–Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, Our Lady of Guadalupe and others all show Mary crushing the serpent.

 

[Nita]

Actually, I think “she” is more accurate. The Hebrew as written doesn’t have a vowel–it can be translated as he, she, or they. Most Christians translate it as “he” thinking of Christ. Jews translate it as “they.”

jtsa.edu/community/parashah/jpstext/bereshit.shtml

Thanks for the info Genesis315. I heard long ago that one of the languages (Hebrew or Greek) was indeterminate about gender - and then forgot which one.

It seems logical to me that it should be “she” who crushes the head of the serpent since the enmity established by God was between the woman and the serpent. The enmity established for “her seed” (Jesus) was with the seed of the serpent, rather than the serpent himself.

But I guess one could also consider that in the fall, Adam failed to defeat the serpent and therefore in the redemption it should be a man defeating the serpent.

One or the other, or both.

Nita

 

[BeeSweet]

If the “she” is more correct, then how is this verse the protoevangelium? If the seed is not Jesus Christ but rather us, then how is this verse fortelling of the coming of the Saviour?

 

[Nita]

If the “she” is more correct, then how is this verse the protoevangelium? If the seed is not Jesus Christ but rather us, then how is this verse fortelling of the coming of the Saviour?

Her seed is Jesus Christ.

Verse 15:
I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman
AND
your seed (his followers) and her seed (Jesus Christ)

Nita

 

[Stella_Matutina]

Here’s the answer from a trustworthy apologist, Jimmy Akin:

Who Will Crush the Serpent’s Head?

A noteworthy quote from this article:

"Therefore, though the she/her and he/his readings of Genesis 3:15 are different, both are true, and Catholics have long recognized this. A footnote provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner, in his revision of the Douay-Rheims version, state, “The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.”

Here’s another longer article by Jimmy:

The Woman, The Seed, The Serpent

I know sometimes it is hard to read Scripture, someone mentioned before about the need for good Catholic Bible Studies, but if you ever have a question~ it is usually easy to find info on the Catholic Answers website.

 

[porthos11]

The Hebrew is actually ambivalent or vague. The verse has the pronoun “huw” and can legitimately refer to the woman or her seed (seed is collective, but the Hebrew pronoun lends no support to which specifically it is attached). I am personally of the opinion that according to natural grammar, such pronouns attach to the nearest noun, hence I’m lean towards huw referring to the “seed”, and is most properly translated “they”. I can accept “it” if “it” is understood to be the human race as a whole (just like “money” is an “it”).

The Greek Septuagint has here “autos”, which, as a pronoun, is singular, masculine. This translates only as “he”. The “he” rendering in most Bibles stems from this, which reflects a Jewish messianic understanding of the prophecy.

It’s the Vulgate which has “ipsa”, apparently understanding “huw” to attach to the noun “woman.” It may have been a scribal error and is present only in the Latin.

If I were to translate, I would go with the Greek LXX and footnote the variant reading, noting the Hebrew and Vg.

 

[porthos11]

I think that is way too broad a statement…

Modern scholarship (like that of Raymond Brown and scholars who begin with an anti-Catholic bias) have corrupted many verses to the point of relativism and modernism.

A 100% trustworthy text is one declared as such by the magisterium… not modern scholars.

.

Raymond Brown doesn’t represent the ideal in scholarship as visualized by Pope Pius XII. The Pope in DAS does call for the use of critical scholarship and the use of the best available original-language manuscripts so as to purify the present editions of any glosses or errors through centuries of scribal transmission. That’s why the Nova Vulgata was commissioned and promulgated.

I do read R. Brown, especially in the NJBC, but I always do so with a big grain of salt.

Catholics should appreciate critical scholarship and not ditch it on the account of whack-jobs like Brown. Just use DAS as the standard and evaluate any research according to that.

MrS:

A 100% trustworthy text is one declared as such by the magisterium… not modern scholars.

Actually, no, the Magisterium doesn’t do this. The Church has left this matter to modern Biblical scholars; indeed in cooperation with separated brethren. She only declares whether an edition is error-free in faith and morals, but not in terms of translation accuracy, which is a matter of science.