The serpent will strike at *whose* heel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Savagedds
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Savagedds

Guest
Hi all,

The RSV translation of Genesis 3:15 reads thus:

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 have heard that in the oldest Hebrew copies of Genesis, that the implication was that it would be the woman who would crush the head of the serpent. Is this true? How about the Vulgate below?

inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius

Thanks for your help,

Jim
 
*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."
**
Isn’t this something to do with the original hebrew words (in the place indicated by red) not having a gender. The gender is inferred by the context.

He or she and his or her are valid in those positions so the context is important.

“you shall bruise…” is directed at the serpent and not the serpents seed.

likewise “…shall bruise your head” is referring to the woman, not the womans seed.

Otherwise you get “her seed shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise her seeds heel.” but that doesn’t balance with “between your seed and her seed”

I’m sure someone can word it better than me.
 
This footnote from the approved New American Bible might prove helpful:

3 [15] He will strike . . . at his heel: since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring, i.e., all the descendants of the woman, a more exact rendering of the sacred writer’s words would be, “They will strike . . . at their heels.” However, later theology saw in this passage more than unending hostility between snakes and men. The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because “the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman’s offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.
 
John_19_59 said:
*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."
**
Isn’t this something to do with the original hebrew words (in the place indicated by red) not having a gender. The gender is inferred by the context.

He or she and his or her are valid in those positions so the context is important.

“you shall bruise…” is directed at the serpent and not the serpents seed.

likewise “…shall bruise your head” is referring to the woman, not the womans seed.

Otherwise you get “her seed shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise her seeds heel.” but that doesn’t balance with “between your seed and her seed”

I’m sure someone can word it better than me.
Click to expand...

From the Hebrew–“He (masculine, the seed of the woman) shall bruise (crush) thy (masculine singular, directed at the serpent) and thou (masculine singular, the serpent) shalt strike his (masculine singular, referring to the seed) heel.”

There are no feminine pronouns or verbs in this section, once we get past "…and between thy seed and her seed…"

DaveBj
 
40.png
DaveBj:
DaveBj
“Omnipapism–a result of the Reformation, by which the belief that all individuals have the authority to interpret Scripture for themselves leads them to believe that they can become their own popes.”
Click to expand...
Just an interesting aside…
The Russian theologian Khomiakov has a small explanation of the meaning of the word “catholic” (from Greek kata holon - according to the whole.)

He divides Christianity into three strands…
  1. Catholic - kata holou - according to the whole - Orthodoxy
  2. Kata-monou - according to one man - the Pope
  3. Kata-ekastou - according to every individual - Protestantism (your omnipapism)
"The Apostolic Church is not the Church *kath’hekastou *(according to the understanding of each individual) as the Protestants teach,

"It is not the Church *kata tou episkopou tes Romes *(according to the understanding of the bishop of Rome) as the Latins preach;

“She is the Church *kath’holou *(according to the understanding of all within her unity), the Church as it was before the Western schism and as it is now for all whom the Lord has preserved from schism; for, I repeat, this schism is a heresy against the dogma of the unity of the Church.”
 
Fr. Ambrose, Am I seeing a hijack in progress? I do no understand what any of that has to do with the topic of the language in Genesis. Let me refer you to the rules of the forum
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2

"Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.

Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread. "
 
this discussion has been done to death. the notes for all these versions of the bible make it clear that Christ strikes the head of the serpent.
 
40.png
pnewton:
Fr. Ambrose, Am I seeing a hijack in progress? I do no understand what any of that has to do with the topic of the language in Genesis. Let me refer you to the rules of the forum
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2
Click to expand...
Sorry! Old age and old brain. When I saw DaveBj’s signature line about omnipapism, my response just popped into my head. Mea culpa. I should try to follow the rules.
 
40.png
asquared:
this discussion has been done to death. the notes for all these versions of the bible make it clear that Christ strikes the head of the serpent.
Click to expand...
The Greek Septuagint has the pronoun as masculine - autos - which refers back to the seed of the woman, as it does in Hebrew. So it refers to Christ and it is a christological verse pointing to the Messiah, Christ as the new Adam. Because the Septuagint is the official Old Testament of the East, all Eastern Churches (Greek, Russian, Georgian…) have this translation and this interpretation.

The Latin Vulgate slipped up (providentially?) and translated it with a femine pronoun -ipsa- which makes it refer back to the women and not to her seed. So it becomes a mariological verse, with Mary as the new Eve. Since the time of the Latin Vulgate Catholic translations have followed this.

Hope this contribution makes amends for the attempted hijacking 🙂
 
The Latin Vulgate slipped up (providentially?)

Ummm!

I heard St Jerome translated from Greek AND Hebrew and knew exactly what he was doing.

I am yet to be convinced that the hebrew word where he/she is placed has a gender. I have always understood that it’s correct translation was “the former” ie. it is context dependant on a previous singular.

Could someone point me to somewhere that explains the Hebrew word(s) in question.
 
John_19_59 said:
The Latin Vulgate slipped up (providentially?)

Ummm!

I heard St Jerome translated from Greek AND Hebrew and knew exactly what he was doing.

I am yet to be convinced that the hebrew word where he/she is placed has a gender. I have always understood that it’s correct translation was “the former” ie. it is context dependant on a previous singular.

Could someone point me to somewhere that explains the Hebrew word(s) in question.
Click to expand...

Hebrew: Huu y’shuufkha ro’sh v’attah t’shuufenuu `aaqev.

Huu = he. Feminine pronoun would have been hii
y’shuufkha: y’ = 3rd person masculine verbal prefix (feminine would have been t’); -kha = second person masculine pronominal suffix, indicating direct object. Total meaning = “he bruises thee” (Hebrew has no true future tense).
ro’sh = head
v’ = and
attah = second personal singular pronoun, “thou”
t’shuufenuu: t’ = second personal masculine verbal prefix; *-uu]/I] = third personal masculine pronominal suffix, indicating direct object (feminine would have been -a, maybe -ah). I’m not sure what the -n- is; I think it’s there because the suffix is just a vowel Total meaning = “thou bruisest him.”
aaqev* = heel (As an aside, from the Hebrew of this word you can see a hint of Jacob's name: *yaaqov, “heel-catcher.”)

Incidentally, in an above post I translated the second “bruise” as “strike.” It’s the same word in Hebrew; I should have used the same word in English. My bad–I was following another translation

DaveBj*
 
40.png
pnewton:
Fr. Ambrose, Am I seeing a hijack in progress? I do no understand what any of that has to do with the topic of the language in Genesis. Let me refer you to the rules of the forum
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2

"Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.

Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread. "
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that was at all necessary. Judging from your other smart-aleck comments directed at priests, you seem to have your own agenda.

But I could be wrong.
 
Barrister, his comments were valid, regardless of any previous condition (which you could certainly be misrepresenting). In any event, the priest in question is validly ordained but is a member of a schismatic religion. I wonder how sympathetic you would be to a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X or Society of Saint Pius V…

Interestingly enough, my signature is relevant for two reasons: 1) the previous aside was brought about because of someone’s signature and 2) the Council of Florence was the Council at which the East and West were reunited until the people decided that the Bishops were wrong and would not allow them to maintain unity to the True Church (for political reasons). In any event, it seems that the “Orthodox” (read: Eastern Schismatics) are also following the omni-papism insofar as the authority of the faithful have overridden the authority of the Bishops, at least in the case of the Council of Florence and the events thereafter. God bless.
 
Hi John 19:59,

I read your link with interest… I think the authors make a good case.

What about all the head-crushing women in the OT, like Jael (Judges 4:21), Judith, and the millstone-wielding woman who killed Abimelech in Judges 9?

Pax,

Jim
 
40.png
amarkich:
In any event, it seems that the “Orthodox” (read: Eastern Schismatics) are also following the omni-papism insofar as the authority of the faithful have overridden the authority of the Bishops, at least in the case of the Council of Florence and the events thereafter. God bless.
Click to expand...
Sidetrack comment…

it seems you are now replacing catholic (Kata-holou, according to the whole, according to the pleroma, the fulness of the Church) with Kata-episkopon, according to the bishops.

The Orthodox Church has no “Magisterium” as does the Roman Catholic Church. Truth lies with *all *the faithful. Truth is Catholic (belonging to ALL the Church - bishops and faithful) Councils achieve their validity by the subsequent approval of the entire Church of all the baptized. The process takes some time but history shows that it works. The Ecumenical Councils were recognized as true by the faithful and accepted as such. Other “robber councils” were rejected.

Therefore, accordng to the Orthodox understanding of catholicity as being the Church of ALL the baptized and chrismated faithful, they were quite correct to reject the false union at Florence and tto reject the bishops who acquiesced. In the same way they were right to reject arianism even though a majority of the bishops had fallen into the heresy.

C.at.h.o.l.i.c — according to the whole,

NOT according to a segment, whether just one man or a magisterium (Roman Catholicism) Nor omnipapism, according to the individual (Protestantism)

Back to the regular programme…
 
40.png
amarkich:
Barrister, his comments were valid, regardless of any previous condition (which you could certainly be misrepresenting).
Click to expand...
Thank you. He most definitely was lying about me attacking priest. I have 600+ posts and I have never been disrespectful toward any priest (or anyone from middle earth for that matter). Do I believe in adhering to the rules? Of course. Anything else is unethical. Before anyone else jumps quickly to judgement, then give me the benefit of the doubt and scan my other posts.
 
40.png
Savagedds:
Hi all,

The RSV translation of Genesis 3:15 reads thus:

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 have heard that in the oldest Hebrew copies of Genesis, that the implication was that it would be the woman who would crush the head of the serpent. Is this true? How about the Vulgate below?

inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius

Thanks for your help,

Jim
Click to expand...
In latin the gender is a little ambiguous sometimes because the same word can mean he or she. What I have been taught is that unless it is expressed that it is feminine then you are supposed to assume it is the masculine.
 
40.png
amarkich:
In any event, it seems that the “Orthodox” (read: Eastern Schismatics)
No one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. -Ecumenical Council of Florence (infallible)
Click to expand...
Dear Amarkich,

Would you mind clarifying? In the light of this “infallible” quote from the “Ecumenical Council of Florence” are you saying that the “Eastern Schismatics” cannot be saved? Do you believe that all the Orthodox are bound for hell?

Phew… the Orthodox would not make any such statement about the Roman Catholics, nor about the Anglicans, the Quakers, the Lamas of Tibet or the Bantu Pigmies. All may be saved, as Saint Paul teaches in Romans since Christ on His return will judge those who do not have the Faith on the basis of how they have kept the law which God has inscribed in their hearts.**

But… all the Orthodox going to hell… I know this is not Catholic teaching. Why are you propounding it as if it were?

** “For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, on the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.” Roman 2:14,etc.
 
Fr Ambrose:
The Greek Septuagint has the pronoun as masculine - autos - which refers back to the seed of the woman, as it does in Hebrew. So it refers to Christ and it is a christological verse pointing to the Messiah, Christ as the new Adam. Because the Septuagint is the official Old Testament of the East, all Eastern Churches (Greek, Russian, Georgian…) have this translation and this interpretation.

The Latin Vulgate slipped up (providentially?) and translated it with a femine pronoun -ipsa- which makes it refer back to the women and not to her seed. So it becomes a mariological verse, with Mary as the new Eve. Since the time of the Latin Vulgate Catholic translations have followed this.

Hope this contribution makes amends for the attempted hijacking 🙂
Click to expand...
This is wrong, ipsa is not feminine. It can be feminine, masculine or nueter. As I previously said, in latin you are supposed to assume the masculine unless the feminine is expressed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top