How come the Blessed Mother will crush the serpent's head?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kingsan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fragile said:
I’m having a hard time w/this idea of “Mary’s fiat”, that somehow that fate of the world hung in the balance of her consent…:confused:
Click to expand...
Well…this is actually a ancient belief though. St. Irenaeus, very early on, pretty much says because of her faith we have salvation. Did not the whole world hang in the balance in the first place because of Eve’s disobedience? If not Mary, than it would have been another woman…but since God granted Mary so many graces…most especially the gift of faith…we celebrate her as the Mother of God…and the New Eve.
 
Byzman said:
Well…this is actually a ancient belief though. St. Irenaeus, very early on, pretty much says because of her faith we have salvation. Did not the whole world hang in the balance in the first place because of Eve’s disobedience? If not Mary, than it would have been another woman…but since God granted Mary so many graces…most especially the gift of faith…we celebrate her as the Mother of God…and the New Eve.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Mary was created in a way to where there would have been another woman. It wasn’t simply a random encounter with one of God’s creatures that he rolled the dice to choose, Mary was created specifically for this moment in history. If not Mary… then we would be in trouble…
 
bmullins said:
I don’t think Mary was created in a way to where there would have been another woman. It wasn’t simply a random encounter with one of God’s creatures that he rolled the dice to choose, Mary was created specifically for this moment in history. If not Mary… then we would be in trouble…
Click to expand...
No… I completely agree…which is why I stated “graces.” It was most definitely going to be Mary…God chose her and graced her at her moment of conception. I was just showing Fragile that it was going to be a woman no matter what!
 
But I don’t believe it was possible for Mary to have not given consent, since this salvation was proclaimed in Genesis and all throughout scripture. It’s also inconceivable that Mary, “the handmaiden of the Lord”, would’ve refused the Lord!
 
But then I would have to say that it was not possible that Eve could not have disobeyed…hindsight is 20/20! 😃
 
Fragile said:
But I don’t believe it was possible for Mary to have not given consent, since this salvation was proclaimed in Genesis and all throughout scripture. It’s also inconceivable that Mary, “the handmaiden of the Lord”, would’ve refused the Lord!
Click to expand...
Agreed. My understanding also is that God is timeless, that He is not limited to time like we are. Therefore, He knows the end from the beginning and everything in between. With that line of thinking, while Mary had a choice because she had freewill, God knew back in the Garden of Eden that one day Mary, “the handmaiden of the Lord” would consent to become the Mother of His Son.
 
We also see when Zechariah wasn’t quite going along w/the program the angel just shut his mouth so he wouldn’t screw anything up!
 
MarcoPolo said:
I thought I explained this in the other thread that if Jesus is the primary stomper of the devil’s head, that doesn’t preclude Mary or the Church or St. Michael, etc. from also delivering a blow. In other words, the technical grammar is not an obstacle to the idea that Mary has a profound place in smiting the serpent’s head.

A loose analogy: Let’s say a female general lead the Nazi army into Turkey. And someone said of Hitler: “He invaded Turkey.” That masculine grammar would not eliminate the potentiality of a woman’s role in the event.
Click to expand...
No, you’re right. It’s just that it can’t be exclusively she.
 
Byzman said:
Or Jerome saw it fit enough to use the feminine pronoun…because “loosely” translated… it was only the woman who was tricked by the serpent…so should not the woman always be at enmity and should it not be the woman who will finally strike the serpent to redeem herself back?
Click to expand...
But my point basically is that you can’t attribute this “loose translation” to Jerome.
 
Byzman said:
Could you please specify what it says by providing a direct quote?
Click to expand...
I went to the library yesterday to copy the quote. The book was checked out so I recalled it and should have it in a week or so.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
I went to the library yesterday to copy the quote. The book was checked out so I recalled it and should have it in a week or so.
Click to expand...
So here’s the quote from Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis, trans. C.T.R. Hayward (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 33.

“15. * It shall watch your head, and you shall watch its heel*. More correctly it has in the Hebrew it will crush your head, and you shall crush its heel. For our footsteps are indeed shackled by the serpent, and the Lord shall crush Satan under his feet swiftly.”

To review, the Latin text of the Nova Vulgata is “inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius”

Jerome seems concerned to point out that the form of insidior(?) used in his translation is not part of Hebrew text. Otherwise he observes no other differences or problems.

For purposes of this discussion, Jerome’s rendering of the Hebrew text follows logically with the wording found in MT. He renders the subject of the verb “to crush” in the Hebrew Text as “it”–here it would be useful to have the Latin original–simply because English has ungendered pronouns. But no matter. What seems clear that Jerome reads “it” to be the antecedent (masculine in Hebrew) seed from the previous clause, which again follows the MT quite smoothly. Hayward’s rendering of the subject as “it” also follows smoothly, considering that “semen” is neuter (“it”) in Latin. “It” is the seed that crushes. Interpretively Jerome understands the seed to be “the Lord” based on his comments which follows, not the woman, or interpretively, the mother of the Lord.

Further, Jerome notes no oddities or difficulties with the Hebrew text (such as a perceived subject/verb disagreement).
 
Dave_Noonan said:
So here’s the quote from Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis, trans. C.T.R. Hayward (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 33.

“15. * It shall watch your head, and you shall watch its heel*. More correctly it has in the Hebrew it will crush your head, and you shall crush its heel. For our footsteps are indeed shackled by the serpent, and the Lord shall crush Satan under his feet swiftly.”

To review, the Latin text of the Nova Vulgata is “inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius”

Jerome seems concerned to point out that the form of insidior(?) used in his translation is not part of Hebrew text. Otherwise he observes no other differences or problems.

For purposes of this discussion, Jerome’s rendering of the Hebrew text follows logically with the wording found in MT. He renders the subject of the verb “to crush” in the Hebrew Text as “it”–here it would be useful to have the Latin original–simply because English has ungendered pronouns. But no matter. What seems clear that Jerome reads “it” to be the antecedent (masculine in Hebrew) seed from the previous clause, which again follows the MT quite smoothly. Hayward’s rendering of the subject as “it” also follows smoothly, considering that “semen” is neuter (“it”) in Latin. “It” is the seed that crushes. Interpretively Jerome understands the seed to be “the Lord” based on his comments which follows, not the woman, or interpretively, the mother of the Lord.

Further, Jerome notes no oddities or difficulties with the Hebrew text (such as a perceived subject/verb disagreement).
Click to expand...
First and foremost…you can’t use the Nova Vulgata in reference to original Latin…because this is the New Vulgate translated from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in which biblical scholars use today to translate other Bibles…as opposed to the Vetus Latina(Old Latin, probably the one Tertullian used), Latin Vulgate(Jerome’s translation), Clementine Vulgate(Late 1500s translation).

I also understand what you are saying…in regards to ungendered pronouns…but context shows God was speaking to the woman and the serpent…so one could make a argument that “she” is also a okay understanding of this verse.

As for me specifically I understand that Jesus…Mary…and the Church crushes the serpent’s head! I have a statue of Mary…and she is standing on the serpent’s head. I understand this as her reversing the role of Eve in bringing salvation to the world…through Jesus!

P.S. Oh yeah! good work on getting that quote…very interesting on what Jerome said!
 
Byzman said:
First and foremost…you can’t use the Nova Vulgata in reference to original Latin
Click to expand...
Yes, this is exactly my point. People point to the Nova Vulgata or other versions of the Vulgate and immediately equate it to Jerome’s work: “…Jerome saw it fit enough to use the feminine pronoun…” This is not necessarily the case. That was really my major objection—the attribution of “she will crush…” to Jerome, when “she” (ipsa) is a later change or interpolation.
Byzman said:
I also understand what you are saying…in regards to ungendered pronouns…but context shows God was speaking to the woman and the serpent…so one could make a argument that “she” is also a okay understanding of this verse.
Click to expand...
I think one could understand “she” as an “okay understanding” sure–absolutely. But I don’t think it words as a translation, which at least imo should follow the text as closely as possible. Maybe you are ok with something that is freer or more loosely translated and I guess we can agree to disagree on that.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
Yes, this is exactly my point. People point to the Nova Vulgata or other versions of the Vulgate and immediately equate it to Jerome’s work: “…Jerome saw it fit enough to use the feminine pronoun…” This is not necessarily the case. That was really my major objection—the attribution of “she will crush…” to Jerome, when “she” (ipsa) is a later change or interpolation.

I think one could understand “she” as an “okay understanding” sure–absolutely. But I don’t think it words as a translation, which at least imo should follow the text as closely as possible. Maybe you are ok with something that is freer or more loosely translated and I guess we can agree to disagree on that.
Click to expand...
Translation aside…are you against Mary crushing the serpent’s head through her reversal of Eve’s disobedience?
 
Byzman said:
So when God said this do you think it is safe to say that God had Mary and Jesus in mind?
Click to expand...
Personally, I don’t take this text as a literal locution of God, or a prophecy for that matter, so I wouldn’t speculate about the mind of God on the topic.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
Personally, I don’t take this text as a literal locution of God, or a prophecy for that matter, so I wouldn’t speculate about the mind of God on the topic.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the original author’s intention was not to prophesy that the serpent would have his head crushed?
 
The greatest enemy God has set up against satan is His Holy Mother Mary. She crushes his head by her humility, and Her love for Her Son!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top