NAB and DRB

  • Thread starter Thread starter da_xavier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

da_xavier

Guest
Gen 3:18

NAB Version

… He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

DRB Version

… she shall cursh thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

I don’t understand why those two Catholic Versions differs. Can somebody help me?
 
da_xavier said:
Gen 3:18

NAB Version

… He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

DRB Version

… she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

I don’t understand why those two Catholic Versions differs. Can somebody help me?
Click to expand...
First off it is Gen3:15

In my Hebrew/Greek Interlinear it reads like the NAB. I don’t know why they are different. Maybe that it is the seed , Jesus, of the woman, Mary., that will crush the head and the DRB transaltors thought the use of the word she was more logical to use then the word he.
Just my opinion for what it is worth.,

Ver. 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. (Challoner) — The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus. Whether the Jewish editions ought to have more weight with Christians, or whether all the other manuscripts conspire against this reading, let others inquire. The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and hence we may argue with probability, that the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin. We believe, however, with St. Epiphanius, that “it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure.” We know that all the power of the mother of God is derived from the merits of her Son. We are no otherwise concerned about the retaining of ipsa, she, in this place, that in as much as we have yet no certain reason to suspect its being genuine. As some words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Sixtus V. and others, by Clement VIII. so, if, upon stricter search, it be found that it, and not she, is the true reading, we shall not hesitate to admit the correction: but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine. (Haydock) Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far, when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, &c. mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood. Christ crushed the serpent’s head by his death, suffering himself to be wounded in the heel. His blessed mother crushed him likewise, by her co-operation in the mystery of the Incarnation; and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestions of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin. (St. Bernard, ser. 2, on Missus est.) “We crush,” says St. Gregory, Mor. 1. 38, “the serpent’s head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power.” The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. (Haydock)

Jeanne
 
da_xavier said:
Gen 3:18

NAB Version

… He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

DRB Version

… she shall cursh thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

I don’t understand why those two Catholic Versions differs. Can somebody help me?
Click to expand...
The NAB is based on the Greek, which reads “he” or “it”. The DRB is based on the Latin, which reads “she”.
 
da_xavier said:
Gen 3:18

NAB Version

… He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

DRB Version

… she shall cursh thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

I don’t understand why those two Catholic Versions differs. Can somebody help me?
Click to expand...

The reference should be Gen. 3.15 🙂​

“She shall crush” translates the Latin ipsa conteret.

Ipse conteret, “He shall crush”, is accurate, unlike the other rendering; & the textual tradition of the Vulgate, as well as the witness of the other ancient versions & the meaning of the Hebrew, favours it. The familiar but mistaken reading, which misrepresents the Hebrew, is explicable as a scribal error, which - as is often the way of scribal errors - was perpetuated in the tradition of the manuscript text. And from there, it was adopted into the printed editions, including the Sixtino-Clementine Vulgate of 1590-92. The 1979 Neo-Vulgata corrects it.

Hope that helps 🙂
 
Dear all, thank you for the explanation!

I’m sorry. Yes, the reference should be Gen 3:15.

Peace.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:
“She shall crush” translates the Latin ipsa conteret.

Ipse conteret, “He shall crush”, is accurate, unlike the other rendering; & the textual tradition of the Vulgate, as well as the witness of the other ancient versions & the meaning of the Hebrew, favours it. The familiar but mistaken reading, which misrepresents the Hebrew, is explicable as a scribal error, which - as is often the way of scribal errors - was perpetuated in the tradition of the manuscript text. And from there, it was adopted into the printed editions, including the Sixtino-Clementine Vulgate of 1590-92. The 1979 Neo-Vulgata corrects it.
Click to expand...
The pronoun in question is in the nominative case. The Nova Vulgata actually reads ipsum conteret. I believe i*psum* in singular use is masculine only in the accusative case. It is neuter in the nominative case. Therefore the Nova Vulgata is actually being impartial on the he/she question.
 
The mistranslation into Latin had a huge impact in how Latin Catholics thought of the BVM, since they tended to read her into the passage.
 
Cranch said:
The pronoun in question is in the nominative case. The Nova Vulgata actually reads ipsum conteret. I believe* i**psum* in singular use is masculine only in the accusative case. It is neuter in the nominative case. Therefore the Nova Vulgata is actually being impartial on the he/she question.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the - extremely important - correction. That’s what comes of relying on memory & not checking the text :eek: My apologies to anyone who was misled as a result.​

I don’t understand how the you conclude that the NV is being “impartial”, though - it doesn’t support the feminine reading either time, & both of its readings are possible as renderings of the Hebrew: the feminine reading is the one reading the Hebrew won’t allow.

Thanks again for clearing that up.
 
Hesychios said:
The mistranslation into Latin had a huge impact in how Latin Catholics thought of the BVM, since they tended to read her into the passage.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately. Bad exegesis is almost unavoidable if a dud reading is followed & not altered when it becomes clear that it is a dud.​

Another way she might be read into the passage is by seeing her as implied in the part of the so-called Protevangelium that mentions the seed of the woman - for the “seed” has to come from some origin, which historically = the BVM; and Revelation 12, even if not Marian, can be read in a way which makes that possible, since it echoes Gen. 3.15.

This is on the assumption that the Gen. 3.15 is meant as a prediction of Christ, & that it does not describe the continual enmity between snakes & men; an interpretation which may seem tame, but may be more accurate than a Christological one.
 
Cranch said:
The pronoun in question is in the nominative case. The Nova Vulgata actually reads ipsum conteret. I believe* i**psum* in singular use is masculine only in the accusative case. It is neuter in the nominative case. Therefore the Nova Vulgata is actually being impartial on the he/she question.
Click to expand...
Gottle_of_Geer said:
I don’t understand how the you conclude that the NV is being “impartial”, though - it doesn’t support the feminine reading either time, & both of its readings are possible as renderings of the Hebrew: the feminine reading is the one reading the Hebrew won’t allow.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the delay in responding. What I’m trying to say is the NV’s ipsum is without gender in this sentence, being in the nominative case. I think it therefore might be properly translated “it” as in the King James Version. Also in this verse, NV’s eius (modifying calcaneum, heel) is the genitive case of the pronoun is which can mean he, she or it. I don’t know from Hebrew. 🙂
 
DRB by far. I would trust it trust it. This translation is nearly 400 years, which is follows a translation that is 1200 years older. Most everyone here will tell you that the neither RSV-CE is correct
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. To me bruise, strike and crush are three different ways. When I say most everyone will tell you RSV-CE is correct, is because they believe the manuscripts that were used to translate the RSV-CE were better and more accurate. They severely put the NAB down because of inclusive language. I am still waiting proof, such as a website to prove that those manuscripts that were used in the translation of the RSV-CE are better and more accurate. I would by far recommend the Douay-Rheims instead of the NAB, but that is me. IF the NAB helps you understand better then go with the NAB. I don’t feel the NAB is a bad translation. Here it is gets plenty of criticism as certain other translations. I, myself would not recommend the the RSV-CE. Stick to your guns on this one
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top