Genesis 3:15

[CountrySteve21]

From the Douay-Rheims

 

 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.

 

 

From the RSV-CE

 

I will put enmity between you and the woman,

    and between your seed and her seed;
he shall bruise your head,[a]
    and you shall bruise his heel.

 

 

From the NABRE

 

I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and hers;

They will strike at your head,

while you strike at their heel

 

 

So my question is why they are all different? Which translation is more accurate here? 

 

 

Pax

[Basilisa Marie]

Because the translations are different, and there's no exact match for the word in the Hebrew or Greek. 

 

From this essay, which notes the Hebrew word you're talking about: 

 

 

ךָשׁוּפְ Ö°×™ -- Qal imperfect, third person masculine singular with second person singular masculine suffix, 

from שׁוף with the accusative, to crush, snap or snatch at, bruise, seize

 

 

[truthfinder]

I have always heard it taught as the woman - ie Mary, being the correct understanding. I'd go with the Douay, the RSV seems incredibly off, and the NABRE just sounds like it was attempt gender-neutral.  Hopefully someone will chime in who know the Greek or Hebrew or something.

[SilentJoy]

It's the Woman's offspring, specifically. I think it could be read either way; she crushes the serpent personally, or she crushes it via her offspring.

[Basilisa Marie]

The RSVCE is better for exegesis, the DR is just trying to sound fancy, and the NABRE is meant to be more readable for spiritual meditation (which is why we use that one at mass). 

[CountrySteve21]

Because the translations are different, and there's no exact match for the word in the Hebrew or Greek. 

 

From this essay, which notes the Hebrew word you're talking about: 

 

Thanks! 

[Amppax]

The RSVCE is bestter for exegesis, the DR is just trying to sound fancy, and the NABRE is meant to be more readable for spiritual meditation (which is why we use that one at mass).

 

FIFY! :like: 

[Credo in Deum]

If by "trying to sound fancy" you mean accurate and amazing? then yes.  Yes it is!

 

[CountrySteve21]

If by "trying to sound fancy" you mean accurate and amazing? then yes.  Yes it is!

 

 

 

As much as I love the Douay, its not the most accurate. From the introduction of my RSVCE

 

" Thus for example, in the case of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), the Latin, on which the DOuay Version is based, is notably longer than the REvised Standard Version which is based on the Greek. It is generally agreed that the Greek underlying the RSV is better than the recension underlying the Latin. On critical principles therefore we should accept the RSV text as preferable to the Douay.  It is admitted today that the decree of Trent declaring that Catholics must accept the books contained in the Latin Vulgate with all their parts does not oblige us to accept passages which have been judged, according to the best critical principles, not to be part of the original text."  

 

 

 

Its a pity though that no modern translation is translated as beautifully as the Douay.