And just shows why I dislike the DR and prefer the King James.
And no, only one reading with a bias will see “anti-Catholicism” in the KJV’s John 3:16. It’s a fine translation of the Greek.
The KJV does in fact show a bias against Catholic teaching and practice in its choice of words.
Acts 15, 2
When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
- KJV
And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question.
- DRB
The Greek word used for “elders” is πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous) which literally means ‘elders’ - properly, “a mature man having seasoned judgment”. However, Catholics have understood the word πρεσβύτερος to mean a priest subordinate to a hierarch, who is ordained to offer sacrifice under the direction of a chief priest. It doesn’t mean a lay governor of the church, such as a Protestant elder. The Catholic position is consistent with NT usage, where “chief priests and elders (πρεσβύτερος” - Matt 21:23 KJV) refers to two levels of ordained hierarchy in Judaism, both of whom are involved in the sacrificial temple worship. Luke acknowledges that the term was applied by the nascent church to those men who were chosen by the bishops (overseers) to assist them by administering the sacraments to congregations where they could not be physically present. Protestants chose to ignore or overlooked this dual characteristic and capacity of the ancient Jewish elder זָקֵן = πρεσβύτερος as opposed to the primary function of the temple priest כֹהֵן = ἱερεὺς and, so, reduced their πρεσβύτερος to mere advisors and teachers, having had eliminated sacrifice from their religious worship. The altar had been replaced by the pulpit as the focal point of worship. An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology without any consideration given to its historical meaning or application.
Genesis 3, 15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
- KJV
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.
- DRB
Catholic scholars and apologists in favour of Jerome’s translation of the Hebrew OT inform us that the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo (c. A.D. 40) preferred the ipsa reading, having argued from the Hebrew poetic technique known as parallel poetry (chiasmus). This form of poetry comprises about 76% of the OT, most commonly in the Book of Proverbs and the Psalms. We also find it in Genesis 1. Although the Book of Genesis is a historical narrative written in prose, parallel poetry (the expression of one idea in two or more different ways, or the idea of one line following the idea of another line) is a literary technique that is also used when recording a spoken prophecy. Genesis 3:15 is the first Messianic prophecy ever uttered, and it was by God Himself. Let us examine some examples of parallelism found in the OT. For example, Isaiah 6:10:
A. Make the [heart] of this people [fat]
B. and make their [ears] [heavy]
C. and [shut] their [eyes]
C1. lest they [see] with their [eyes]
B1. and [hear] with their [ears]
A1. and [understand] with their [heart], and return, and be healed
[cf. Hebrew Parallelism, by Jeff A. Benner]
Now in Genesis 3:15, a couplet (distich) parallel a following couplet:
A1. I shall put enmities between [thee] and the [woman]
B1. and between [thy seed] and [her seed]
A2. [She] shall crush [thy head]
B2. and [thou] shalt lie in wait for [her heel]
We see that line A1 corresponds with line A2, and line B1 with B2. The “woman” in line A1 refers to “she” in A2. Thus to make the subject of line A2 ‘he’ or ‘it’, and to say it relates to the seed in line B1, is obviously bad Hebrew poetry. Clearly the “he” or “it” readings ruin the synonymous parallelism of this verse and so are more likely to be at variance with the author’s intention. According to the sacred text, it is the woman who is at enmity with the serpent, while the woman’s seed is at enmity with the serpent’s seed. If we accurately observe the parallelism here, we should reasonably conclude from the first enmity announced between the woman and the serpent that the subsequent pronouns refer to the first protagonist, the woman, and the first antagonist, the serpent. The pronoun ipsa thereby refers to the female protagonist who, because of the serpent’s antagonism and her opposition against it, victoriously crushes its head. A radical shift to the woman’s seed certainly does violence to the rhythm of the passage from a literary perspective, though theologically there is no conflict. Jerome consulted with Jewish Biblical scholars while he translated the Hebrew into Latin in Bethlehem. So he could have taken this literary device into account in his choice of pronouns.
I believe the translators of the KJV intentionally removed the female pronoun in the second clause because it didn’t square with the Protestant doctrine of
sola Christo but rather with the Catholic doctrine of human merit in the economy of salvation.
:heaven:
