To crush his head!

  • Thread starter Thread starter super64
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

super64

Guest
Hello to all,
My wife is going thru RCIA and has asked:
“Why are there different translation of this verse? One says ‘she’ and the rest say ‘he’.”

I’m sure this has been addressed before, if so please refer to a quick link.

Gen 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall cursh thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
1899 Douay-Rheims

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmitie betweene thee and the woman, and betweene thy seed and her seed: it shal bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heele.
King James Bible, 1611

Gen 3:15 I will make you and the woman hate each other; her offspring and yours will always be enemies. Her offspring will crush your head, and you will bite her offspring’s heel."
GOOD NEWS BIBLE

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
English Standard Version
the

thank you,
Scott and Kim( 🙂 not the Hahn’s)
 
The Douay-Rheims is based on the Latin Vulgate. It appears that reading of “she” instead of “he” was the result of a copyist’s error in the copy of the Latin Vulgate on which the Douay-Rheims is based.

In A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. by Bernard Orchard, pub. by Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953, on page 186, it says in part:It can hardly be doubted that the feminine pronoun had its origin in the error of an early copyist of Vg [the Latin Vulgate]. In his Lib. Quaest. Heb. in Gen. St Jerome quotes the Old Latin version of this text with the masc. (ipse) and translates the Hebrew with the same, PL 23, 943, and ipse is the reading of various Vg MSS [Vulgate manuscripts]. It is therefore highly improbable that he translated ipsa here;
 
Todd,

Gen 3:15 inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius
Latin Vulgate
St Jerome quotes the Old Latin version of this text with the masc. (ipse) and translates the Hebrew with the same, PL 23, 943, and ipse is the reading of various Vg MSS [Vulgate manuscripts]. It is therefore highly improbable that he translated ipsa here;
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information, that makes a lot more sense.

Scott
 
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel." *
Genesis 3:15 NAB
  • 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.
 
I heard on Catholic Answers Live last week Jimmy Akin (or Tim Staples?) say something about this. If I remeber he said the Hebrew word used there can be he or she.
 
40.png
super64:
Hello to all,
My wife is going thru RCIA and has asked:
“Why are there different translation of this verse? One says ‘she’ and the rest say ‘he’.”

I’m sure this has been addressed before, if so please refer to a quick link.

Gen 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall cursh thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
1899 Douay-Rheims

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmitie betweene thee and the woman, and betweene thy seed and her seed: it shal bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heele.
King James Bible, 1611

Gen 3:15 I will make you and the woman hate each other; her offspring and yours will always be enemies. Her offspring will crush your head, and you will bite her offspring’s heel."
GOOD NEWS BIBLE

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
English Standard Version
the

thank you,
Scott and Kim( 🙂 not the Hahn’s)
Click to expand...
Here is the best explanation I have found for this:

She Shall Crush Your Head
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Ignore the ludicrously funny site of trth_skr. Here is the best explanation:
“and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel” (Genesis 3:15). The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
 
40.png
trth_skr:
My site contains the same information as yours, it just explains, among other things, why Jerome CHOSE “she” instead of “he”, “it”, or “they”.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
How on earth is THIS the same information
The reason St. Jerome is right, and all modern translations are WRONG is because he clearly understood the meaning of CONTEXT of the passage. The context is that there is an enmity between the WOMAN and the SERPENT - and only ONE can rightfully be permitted to CRUSH HIS HEAD. The choices are 1) the woman, or 2) all of her combined offspring designated by the term “it”. If there is anything CERTAIN, it is that the OFFSPRING is not a SINGULAR case. Only the WOMAN can be used in the singular case. Therefore, “the former” that the scripture is referring to is, as Jerome accurately translated it, is the woman.
Click to expand...
as what I posted or what is found in the Catholic Encyclopedia article.

Lawrence Boadt has this to say:

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 wordswould 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 (Wis 2, 24; Jn 8, 44; Rv 12, 9; 20, 2),whose eventualdefeat 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 Jn 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.

(CSB, 7)

Eugene H. Maly has this to say:

In the ensuing struggle, man (i.e. the woman’s seed) will gain the clearer victory (“your head” and “his heel”). The optimism of J, a constant of his history and based on his conviction of the saving acts of God in Israel’s behalf, conditions his composition throughout (cf. 3:21, 4:7c). Later revelation will confirm this first vague message of victory and specify the manner in which the victory will be attained.

(JBC, 13)
 
40.png
EtienneGilson:
How on earth is THIS the same information as what I posted or what is found in the Catholic Encyclopedia article.

Lawrence Boadt has this to say:

He will strike…at his heel: since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring, …

Eugene H. Maly has this to say:

In the ensuing struggle, man (i.e. the woman’s seed) will gain the clearer victory (“your head” and “his heel”). …
Click to expand...
I did not go to your link. I was referring to what you quoted only.
40.png
EtienneGilson:
…and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically…
Click to expand...
Sounds like a similar explanation to Rick Salbado’s. All translations are somewhat interpetative due to the ambiguity of the passage. Rick Salbado gave his view as to why Jerome’s choice made the most sense.

What do you have against Rick Salbado’s explanation (i.e., calling it, or at least the site, "ludicrously funny ")?

Are we fighting?:hmmm:

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
The article you quoted says that St Jerome was right and everyone else wrong. The CE states that St. Jerome’s translation cannot be defended. All other scripture scholars dismiss it is an error of translation or direct interference in the Bible. There is no way of reconciling the two views. Sorry bu Rick is Wrong.
40.png
trth_skr:
What do you have against Rick Salbado’s explanation (i.e., calling it, or at least the site, "ludicrously funny ")?
Click to expand...
Rick’s explanation is wrong when it comes to critical question…that is what I have against the explanation. It is a classical case of bending the truth to defend the faith and it lowers the level of intellectual discussion between Catholics and other groups.

But I called the website ludicrously funny because a cursory glance at it reveals such funny passages as:
THE 9-11 ATTACK BY WHO?
Click to expand...
On live television the world watched as two commercial airlines hit the twin towers of the Trade Center. Then something impossible happened - both buildings imploded all the way to the ground and took 5 other buildings with it. How could two airlines implode these buildings? It is not possible, but not one person in the New Media asked the question. In fact, no one even investigated it. How is it that a commercial airline hit the Pentagon and no airplane was found in the debris, not even an engine? Why was only 3000 people killed in 7 buildings that hold 50,000 in peek hours. Why was no one killed in the Pentagon? Could terrorists fly around the USA for over an hour without a single American Defense System seeing them? Not possible - but no one is asking any questions
Click to expand...
unitypublishing.com/Government/ElectionWar.htm
There are absolutely NO historical documents in existence that suggest that men inhabited the earth before 5000 B.C. The most ancient hieroglyphics do not predate the year 3200 B.C.
Click to expand...
unitypublishing.com/prophecy/martyrology.htm

or simply blaming the Armenian genocide, the Soviet purges, the Cultural revolution in China, WWII and many other such things on gun-control laws: unitypublishing.com/Newsletter/GunControl.htm

Sorry but unity publishing is not a reliable resource and Mr Rick Salbato is far from a scholar.
 
40.png
EtienneGilson:
The article you quoted says that St Jerome was right and everyone else wrong. The CE states that St. Jerome’s translation cannot be defended. All other scripture scholars dismiss it is an error of translation or direct interference in the Bible. There is no way of reconciling the two views. Sorry bu Rick is Wrong.
…
Click to expand...
Rick did not say Jerome was right and everyone else is wrong. He said he sided with Jerome, but admits that any translation has a problem due to the ambiguity of the passage. He also explains that using “he” is a very non-literal translation. Some people use the non-literal as a means of getting around the ambiguity. He also states that the use of “it” by the KJV is more justified than “he”, at least in terms of a literal translation. Finally, he concludes that Jerome’s translation is likely the best considering all the issues which he discusses, but throughout admits, as the CE does, that it is not perfectly clear.

As for the rest of the site, I have not spent much time on it. Occasionally I use it for information about Marian apparitions. It appears pretty orthodox.

I would recommend anyone to read his article and consider it independently of EtienneGilson’s somewhat cynical and angry view.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
trth_skr:
Rick did not say Jerome was right and everyone else is wrong.
Click to expand...
He didn’t? The reason St. Jerome is right, and all modern translations are WRONG is because he clearly understood the meaning of CONTEXT of the passage. unitypublishing.com/SheWillCrush.htm
As for the rest of the site, I have not spent much time on it. Occasionally I use it for information about Marian apparitions. It appears pretty orthodox.
Click to expand...
That is encouraging. As for the apparitions, at least he seems critical of those that have been condemned, though he seems to obsess over Fatima which is reminiscient of the Fatima crusader, a schismatic publication.
I would recommend anyone to read his article and consider it independently of EtienneGilson’s somewhat cynical and angry view.
Click to expand...
Well I am not particularly angry over anything but his (probably well meaning) distortions of the truth and your insistence that he is a good resource are saddening and disappointing.
 
40.png
EtienneGilson:
He didn’t? The reason St. Jerome is right, and all modern translations are WRONG is because he clearly understood the meaning of CONTEXT of the passage. unitypublishing.com/SheWillCrush.htm

…
Click to expand...
That is his conclusion, as I said:
40.png
Mark:
He said he sided with Jerome, but admits that any translation has a problem due to the ambiguity of the passage.
Click to expand...
Rick Salbado and David Hughes (I have neglected to mention David Hughes, previously) say:
Rick Salbado and David Hughes:
…There is indeed a valid hermeneutic dispute that can be raised about the passage from Genesis 3:15 concerning whether or not it is the woman, or her seed, that will crush the head of the serpent. …

…
If one chooses to dispute with St. Jerome about his interpretation of this passage, it must be acknowledged that the Hebrew does not provide a clear solution linguistically. If one DEMANDS a forced “literal” translation, to an isolated phrase, removed from context, one is not far off - to use the term “it”. – But this literal translation uses the word “it” - precisely because the “it” does not point to either the woman, or to one of her off-spring. – “It” can only be used to designate “the former”. …
Click to expand...
Amongst other concessions to other viewpoints.

Rick Salbado and David Hughes End with:
Rick and Dave:
This question is not one to belabor, because a man convinced against his will - is of the same opinion still. The ENMITY starts with the very question of the subject at hand. A Protestant, or a well intentioned Catholic translator - can no more convince a Knight of the Immaculate against that Knight’s will - than can the Knight convince the Protestant - or the well meaning Catholic translator - of the true intention of this passage. What IS certain - is that SOMEONE or SOME THING does NOT want it to be circulated - that "the woman shall crush thy head."

This is an argument best left for the end of the world, because based on the PURE LINGUISTICS of the sentence OUT OF CONTEXT - there is no clear answer.

Our opinion is that St. Jerome, and 1940 years of Catholic translations had it right. But, this is only our opinion - because we are Knights of the Immaculata. Our interpretation of this translation is demonstrative of our loyalty to our oath as Knights of the Immaculate, and to our fidelity to the intentions of St. Maximillian Kolbe.
Click to expand...
Which I think is far from overly rigid. Personally, I think the analysis is an excellent one. You are free to disagree.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Here is a note pertaining to Gen: 3:15, straight out of the Navarre Bible - Pentateuch Commentary.

Victory over the devil will be brought about by a descendant of the woman, the Messiah. The Church has always read these verses as being messianic, referring to Jesus Christ; and it has seen in the woman the mother of the promised Saviour; the Virgin Mary is the new Eve. “The earliest documents, as they are read in the Church and are understood in the light of a further and full revelation, bring the figure of the woman, Mother of the Redeemer, into a gradually clearer light. Considered in this light, she is already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise of victory over the serpent which was given to our first parents after their fall into sin. Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with Irenaeus in their preaching: ‘the knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith’ (St. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3,22,4) Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her ‘Mother of the living’ (St. Epiphanius, Adv. haer. Panarium 78, 18) and frequently claim: ‘death through Eve, life through Mary’ (St. Jerome, Epistula 22, 21; etc.)” (Vatican II, Lumen gentium, 55-56).

So, woman is going to have a key role in that victory over the devil. In his Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, St. Jerome in fact reads the relevant passage as “she [the woman] shall bruise your head”. That woman is the Blessed Virgin, the new Eve and the mother of the Redeemer, who shares (by anticipation and pre-eminently) in the victory of her Son. Sin never left its mark on her, and the Church proclaims her as the Immaculate Conception.

My copy of the Douay Version, Translated from the Latin Vulgate (Douay, A.D. 1609: Rheims, A.D. 1582) has the following for Genesis 3:15 “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.”

God Bless…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top