Gen 3:15

[willguy]

Okay, most versions of Gen 3:15, including the NAB, have "he" (the seed) crushing the serpent's head. The Douay-Rheims has "she" (the woman) crushing the serpent's head. A note I saw said the Vulgate had "ipsa" meaning "she." I was wondering what the Hebrew says, or if perhaps the Hebrew is such that no gender is indicated for who does the crushing.

[cmotherofpirl]

New English Bible is plural they.

[Laudate_Dominum]

The Hebrew word that is used there (shucks I can't remember what it is right now) can be translated in either a masculine or feminine way. Technically it could be translated in a neuter way, but saying "it will crush your head" kind of sounds odd.

That's the simple way of answering your question. There are questions of the usage of that word in different time periods and the exact content of that passage in different extant fragments and manuscript traditions as well as the Jewish understanding of the passage in various secondary sources. Despite all this my short answer is nonetheless true.

I suppose in hindsight its kind of cool because we can see how inseperable is the Mother from the Son. I'm not proposing this as a translation, but as a meditation we could say He and She will crush thy head, since Christ is the New Adam and Mary is the New Eve and Christ associated Mary so intimately with His work of Redemption. They are as inseperable. I do rather enjoy considering the dual nature of that word whilst meditating upon mysteries such as the joint predestination of Jesus and Mary.

God bless.

P.S. Some hold that the feminine rendering of that word is the best one on the basis of the sentence structure.

Notice here:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed"

enmity = you (serpent) / woman

between = your (serpent's) seed / her (woman's) seed

"He/She shall crush your head, and you shall bruise his/her heal"

crush = he (seed) / your (serpent's)

bruise = you (serpent) / his (seed)

If we render the pronoun in the feminine it follows the form of the preceding line and is more logical. The masculine rendering switches the subject from the woman to the seed which introduces a certain tension in the passage since this is seen as a continuation of the enmity of the woman and the serpent. In other words if taken in a strictly literal sense and bracketed from any theological presuppositions the text is of God telling the serpent that He will put enmity between him (serpent) and the woman (Eve) and also between his seed (offspring) and her seed (offspring). So we have two parallel enmities, that of the woman and the serpent and then that of their offspring toward one another. So to then say that the pronoun should be rendered in such a way as to make the woman's offspring the crusher of the serpent (as opposed to his offspring) breaks the continuity of the passage.

Personally, neither of the renderings bother me, both have a certain validity especially in consideration of the full import of the text as a prophecy with multiple dimensions of meaning and fulfillment.

Edited February 26, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[willguy]

So basically we can't say for certain which interpretation is correct, b/c the verse is genderless?

[cmotherofpirl]

Either way Jesus born of Mary defeats Satan.

[phatcatholic]

this article may be helpful as well:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q105.htm

Q: Please explain to me how come the Douay-Rheims Gen 3:15 and the the New American Bible Gen 3:15 differ. I'm sure you know what I am talking about.

A: I certainly do. In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:

"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."

In the New American Bible, as in all other modern Bibles, it reads like this:

"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."

The essential difference between these two renderings -- or at least the one people always ask about -- concerning who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns -- he and his -- implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.

People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.

This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.

This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary's heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:

"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against -- and a sword will pierce through your own soul also -- that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34b-35).

Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.

This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, "The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."

For more information, see A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Bernard Orchard [New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953], p. 186

[Laudate_Dominum]

So basically we can't say for certain which interpretation is correct, b/c the verse is genderless?

I would say that both translations are equally valid (he or she) because the pronoun used there in the Hebrew can have a feminine or masculine meaning. There are ways in translation to know which gender to use. For example Hebrew literature from certain times periods tends to use this pronoun in an exclusively masculine sense. Other periods may use it in an exclusively feminine sense. If you know the tendency of the time period or of the author you can know which way to translate it. Also the context can indicate the most appropriate rendering. I gave an argument in my last post for the feminine rendering based on the context. I believe the arguments for the masculine translation tend to be based on the philological approach. Either way I think there is no definitive way of translating it although the feminine (Marian) rendering is more traditional since the Vulgate of St. Jerome which the Church used for most of it's history uses this translation.

So yes, I do not believe we can say for certain which translation is correct b/c the verse is genderless. But in my opinion I think both are correct if you look at it from a certain point of view. If you do not seperate the role of the woman (Mary) from that of her Son (the Messiah, Jesus). The feminine/masculine duality of that passage suggest to me the total union of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

[Laudate_Dominum]

this article may be helpful as well:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q105.htm

Q: Please explain to me how come the Douay-Rheims Gen 3:15 and the the New American Bible Gen 3:15 differ. I'm sure you know what I am talking about.

A: I certainly do. In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:

"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."

In the New American Bible, as in all other modern Bibles, it reads like this:

"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."

The essential difference between these two renderings -- or at least the one people always ask about -- concerning who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns -- he and his -- implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.

People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.

This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.

This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary's heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:

"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against -- and a sword will pierce through your own soul also -- that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34b-35).

Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.

This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, "The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."

For more information, see A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Bernard Orchard [New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953], p. 186

I disagree with a couple premises of the article. The big thing that I don't think is acurate is to push the problem so much on to the issue of the manuscript traditions. I mentioned the manuscript traditions in my first post but did not talk about it. This is because this gives the impression that the vulgate, in other words the Bible that the Church used for century after century and which has been quoted by councils and dogmatic decrees (including the "she will crush you head" passage) was corrupted by a "copyist error". I see this position as an impiety as well as overly simplistic.

I would hotly debate the author of this article if I met him. The first approach I mentioned in my last post ties in with the manuscript traditions but is bigger than that, because the issue is not that simple. I accuse this article of being far too simplistic in this regard. I touched upon the issue of the development of the pronoun itself in Hebrew which has morphed over time, this is more central than the later manuscripts if you ask me, although the two go together. So to try to say the "she" rendering was a copyist error, which implies a subsequent error on the part of the Church and the saints down through the ages who believes that verse to speak of Mary, is to overlook all the issues at hand. The answer is certainly not that simple. But anyway, my two previous posts still stand.

Edited February 26, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[phatcatholic]

well, the author is james akin, so if ur feelin froggy..........

hehe, jk bro. u could probably take him anyway ;)

[Laudate_Dominum]

well, the author is james akin, so if ur feelin froggy..........

hehe, jk bro. u could probably take him anyway

ha! yeah right!

I'm sure James Akin knows what he's talking about. It would be interesting to discuss it with him! Maybe this thing he wrote is old and he has a different position now.

I think the idea of a copyist error or something is a pretty common view anyway. The ancient latin manuscripts have the feminine pronoun ipsa which is what passed into the Vulgate. Whereas the Masoretic texts, the syriac, and the Samaritan versions give this passage a masculine reading.

The simple explanation of this discrepancy is to assert that the latin manuscript traditions must be corrupt, a copyist error or something.

As I've said before I don't think this is satisfactory for a number of reasons. Without getting into all the details and bogging down this thread I'll just make one point. Ancient manuscript traditions that use the pronoun hu' (he) instead of hi' (she) are important to consider but this doesn't change the fact that the archaic form was hw' which could be rendered as hu' or hi'. I think the sentence structure in the Hebrew tends toward the masculine rendering but I also think there are arguments to be made for the feminine so I don't think you have to try to explain away a particular manuscript tradition with an alleged "copyist error".