Genesis 3:15

[kzarah]

Cruising the internet I was looking for Roman Catholic support that the serpent's head in Genesis 3:15 was crushed by the heal of the BVM.  I found this commentary.  I would like feed back that supports that it was in fact the BVM that crushed the head of the serpent and that it was crushed not bruised. 
Daniel

MYSTERIOUS PASSAGE ON CRUSHING SERPENT IN BOOK OF GENESIS VARIES IN TRANSLATIONS

Posted By Victor | Filed Under Quotes & Excerpts

Is it “she,” “He,” “they,” or “it”? The question pertains to one of the most powerfully mysterious passages in Scripture:
The words are in Genesis 3:15, wherein God casts the devil as a creeping serpent and says that the offspring of the woman will crush that serpent’s head. This was all brought to our attention by a capable researcher named Tom Bush of Olmsted Township, Ohio.

The question and potential controversy: Does the Bible say “she” will crush its head, or that her offspring — in the way of Jesus (or “He”) — will do that?

The bottom line, of course, is that it may not matter: the Bible is portraying the Blessed Mother and her Son as working together in the defeat of evil — along, perhaps, with so many who follow the Christian walk, and as such are “offspring” or “seed” (thus the word “they” or “it”).

But there has been some dismay in Marian circles that over the past few decades the official Catholic Bible sponsored by the Bishops’ Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, known as the New American Bible, has quietly changed it to “he will crush your head” — instead of the she for the Blessed Mother.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the earliest translations of the sentence in question was most widely translated as “it”: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman [widely perceived to be the Virgin Mary], and between your offspring and hers; it will crush your head” [our italics]. In Hebrew and Greek, there are concepts and idioms that are not easily translated and thus cause a tension between giving words-for-word translations or an idiom parallel with the target language. Moreover, Genesis is giving a prophecy.

“It” refers to “offspring” — and of course Jesus was that offspring.

When the passage was translated into Greek, however — at least by certain scholars (especially Protestant ones) — it was now “he will crush your head.”

Thus the verse and the preceding one now read, “So the Lord God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel [3:14-15].’”

Around 382 A.D., Pope Damascus I ordered St. Jerome — one of the great doctors of the Church — to revise the Bible and translate it into common (or “vulgate”) Latin. The Latin Vulgate improved on several translations and became the definitive, officially promulgated Bible version of the Roman Catholic Church by the Fifth Century. It was translated directly from the Hebrew, not from Greek.

This translation has it as “she will crush your head.”

And that had been the translation, in many Catholic versions, for 1,600 years. The change to “he” has been in the New American Bible since 1970, when the text was granted an imprimatur by Cardinal Patrick O’Boyle of Washington.
One was seen as Christological (’He”), the other as Marian “she.” “It” was rather neutral, including but not limiting the war to Jesus — Who indeed did crush the Head of the serpent at Calvary. The phrase about enmity between the devil and the woman remains the defining phrase.

But confused the situation is, and to add to it is the fact that another version of the Old Testament, The Catholic Rainbow Study Bible — which bears the imprimatur of Cardinal William Keeler of Baltimore when he was president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops — uses the phrase “her offspring will crush your head, and you will bite her offspring’s heel” — a throwback to the original translations of Hebrew!

Does it make a difference?

One can argue — as does Bush — that the Miraculous medal revelation in 1830 to St. Catherine Labouré in France pictures the Blessed Mother (”she”) as stepping on the serpent. So do countless statues based on that.
Is such meant to emphasize that it is “she” — or simply a reflection on the collective force of her offspring?
Does changing it from “she” detract from the Blessed Mother’s role, at this crucial time in history when she is so actively opposing the devil?

That’s for you to mull over. Bishop Fulton Sheen quoted it as “she.” So did Pius IX in declaring the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The great Jewish scholar Josephus said that “He ordained that the woman should inflict wounds on his head.” St. Louis De Montfort used the Marian translation, as did St. Alphonsus de Liguori, who in his book The Glories of Mary, states: “Still more was it becoming that God should preserve her from original sin, for He destined her to crush the head of that infernal serpent, which, by seducing our first parents, entailed death upon all men: and this Our Lord foretold: I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush your head.”

That seems fine with us. Not that there has been a conspiracy. We’d be the last to oppose using “He.” The Virgin and Christ and those who follow them are the team — the “offspring.” But the emphasis should remain on “she” — the translation of St. Jerome should be kept — because it is her special time.

Christ crushed the head of the serpent in the biggest way upon His Crucifixion. Now Mary — and her army — are in a special battle.

The bottom line is that we’re in it together, with Mary and in His Name. [resources: The Glories of Mary and True Devotion to Mary]

    [note from a viewer: Regarding the Hebrew in Genesis 3:17 - it is not "offspring" but zerae meaning SEED from the root zarae meaning TO SOW. It is not 'offspring'. That is important because a woman does not have a 'seed' - only man has a seed. The seed of the devil are the children of the devil and the seed of the Woman are the children of Mary: the Church, as in Revelation 12:17 where Satan makes war on the rest of her seed. It is possible that the collective Mystical Body of Christ in the authority of Jesus' Name continues to crush the serpent's head. (One kills a serpent by snapping its neck not crushing it's head hence possibly this is a symbol indicating crushing the pride of Satan's intellect.] If the Church is the seed of Mary [mystically but really) then as both the Mystical Body of Christ and as Bride of the Lamb the 'it' can refer to both simultaneously.]

[didishroom]

I believe the correct translation is "she" but "He" and "it-the seed" are true as well.


St. Bernard says: "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 to the mystery of the Incarnation and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestion of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin."

St. Gregory the Great (Mor. i. 38) says: "We crush 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 God of peace crush Satan under your(Church of Rome) feet speedily." (Rom. 16:20)

So Jael, Haber’s wife, took a nail of the tent, and taking also a hammer: and going in softly, and with silence, she put the nail upon the temples of his head, and striking it with the hammer, drove it through his brain fast into the ground: and so passing from deep sleep to death, he fainted away and died." (Judg. 9:17-21)

And Abimelech, coming near the tower, fought stoutly: and, approaching to the gate, endeavoured to set fire to it: And behold, a certain woman casting a piece of a millstone from above, dashed it against the head of Abimelech, and broke his skull." (Judg. 9:52-53)

And don't forget our Lady of Guadalupe's title means "serpent crusher." And whom did she defeat? The aztec gods, especially Quetzalcoatl, the serpent god. It is also fitting because our Lady of Guadalupe had much imagery with the Woman of the Apocalypse who is fighting against the dragon which parralels with the first book of the Bible with the woman crushing the serpent(dragon)'s head.

[glgas]

Here is the Douay Rheims comment

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.

Cruising the internet I was looking for Roman Catholic support that the serpent's head in Genesis 3:15 was crushed by the heal of the BVM.  I found this commentary.  I would like feed back that supports that it was in fact the BVM that crushed the head of the serpent and that it was crushed not bruised. 
Daniel

MYSTERIOUS PASSAGE ON CRUSHING SERPENT IN BOOK OF GENESIS VARIES IN TRANSLATIONS

Posted By Victor | Filed Under Quotes & Excerpts

Is it “she,” “He,” “they,” or “it”? The question pertains to one of the most powerfully mysterious passages in Scripture:
The words are in Genesis 3:15, wherein God casts the devil as a creeping serpent and says that the offspring of the woman will crush that serpent’s head. This was all brought to our attention by a capable researcher named Tom Bush of Olmsted Township, Ohio.

[timoose]

This stuff is sooo good, it's like rolling around something savory in the mouth before swallowing. All have a point but it gives us time to look closely at what actually happened there. 
tim

[StrictCatholicGirl]

I agree that if the translation was "he" it would not take anything away from our Blessed Mother. The text immediately before this specifically mentions "the woman...."

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: [she/he/it] shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for [her/his/its] heel.

By saying "he" I think it stresses even more Our Lady's role as co-redemptrix, and more than ever the bond of man-and-woman in the plan of salvation. Through a woman, the first Adam sinned and the serpent seemed victorious. Through a woman, the Second Adam defeats the serpent. Jesus, through Mary, redeems mankind.

- Lisa

[DJR]

Cruising the internet I was looking for Roman Catholic support that the serpent's head in Genesis 3:15 was crushed by the heal of the BVM.  I found this commentary.  I would like feed back that supports that it was in fact the BVM that crushed the head of the serpent and that it was crushed not bruised. 
Daniel

Although the Hebrew is ambiguous, the Blessed Virgin Herself has answered the question. 

http://www.amm.org/medal.asp

From the website: 

Then Mary spoke to Catherine: “Have a medal struck upon this model. Those who wear it will receive great graces, especially if they wear it around the neck.” Catherine explained the entire series of apparitions to her confessor, and she worked through him to carry out Mary’s instructions. She did not reveal that she received the Medal until soon before her death 47 years later.

The model showed the Blessed Virgin standing on the serpent.  The Miraculous Medal, given approbation by the Church, is proof that the word is "she."

[aquinas138]

Of course neither reading is wrong in a doctrinal sense - through her obedience to the Divine Will, Mary always acts in harmony with her Divine Son.  The problem with the Vulgate reading is rather one of external attestation - there is NO extant variant of either the Hebrew or the Greek that supports the Vulgate "ipsa."  This does not of course mean that such a variant never existed, but if one did, it is no longer known.  However, as the Douay notes mention, many of the Latin fathers quote this passage in this sense, so it was a known reading somehow.

I've run into an interesting situation with the Peshitta (which incidentally, does not support "ipsa" either - and it was also translated from Hebrew).  The Syrian theological tradition puts a great emphasis on the image of Christ the Bridegroom and consequently the individual soul as a member of the Church the Bride, but also individually as a bride of Christ.  In the parable of the Wise Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13), the Greek, Latin and Peshitta all read at verse 10 that the virgins entered the "wedding feast" with the bridegroom - but the early Syrian Fathers (Aphrahat, Ephrem, etc.) give instead that they entered the "bridal chamber" - which is certainly a more intimate image!  Codex Curetonianus, which contains the Old Syrian text of Matthew, is unfortunately not preserved here, but it seems likely that it must have read "bridal chamber" in order to account for its use among the early Syriac authors.

[SaintSebastian]

I also tend to think "she" is more accurate. The Hebrew as written doesn't have a vowel--it can be translated as he, she, or they. Most Christian Bibles nowadays translate it as "he" thinking of Christ. Jews actually translate it as "they."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Genesis3.html

If we look at the rest of Scripture, it is never actually Christ crushing the head of the enemy, but someone else doing it by the Lord's power.

Two other women called blessed among all women and predicted to be praised by all generation, Jahel and Judith, both by the power of God strike at the head of the chief enemy.

Judges 5:24 Blessed among women be Jahel the wife of Haber the Cinite, and blessed be she in her tent. 25 He asked her water and she gave him milk, and offered him butter in a dish fit for princes. 26 She put her left hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workman's hammer, and she struck Sisara, seeking in his head a place for the wound, and strongly piercing through his temples.

Judith 13:17 Judith said: Praise ye the Lord our God, who hath not forsaken them that hope in him. 18 And by me his handmaid he hath fulfilled his mercy, which he promised to the house of Israel: and he hath killed the enemy of his people by my hand this night. 19 Then she brought forth the head of Holofernes out of the wallet, and shewed it them, saying: Behold the head of Holofernes the general of the army of the Assyrians, and behold his canopy, wherein he lay in his drunkenness, where the Lord our God slew him by the hand of a woman. 20 But as the same Lord liveth, his angel hath been my keeper both going hence, and abiding there, and returning from thence hither: and the Lord hath not suffered me his handmaid to be defiled, but hath brought me back to you without pollution of sin, rejoicing for his victory, for my escape, and for your deliverance. 21 Give all of you glory to him, because he is good, because his mercy endureth for ever. 22 And they all adored the Lord, and said to her: The Lord hath blessed thee by his power, because by thee he hath brought our enemies to nought. 23 And Ozias the prince of the people of Israel, said to her: Blessed art thou, O daughter, by the Lord the most high God, above all women upon the earth. 24 Blessed be the Lord who made heaven and earth, who hath directed thee to the cutting off the head of the prince of our enemies. 25 Because he hath so magnified thy name this day, that thy praise shall not depart out of the mouth of men who shall be mindful of the power of the Lord for ever, for that thou hast not spared thy life, by reason of the distress and tribulation of thy people, but hast prevented our ruin in the presence of our God. 26 And all the people said: So be it, so be it.

Likewise, St. Paul writing in Romans exhorts them to trample the serpent by the power of God. It's never Jesus Himself, He's always working through someone else.

Rom. 16:20 And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

I think the she refers to both Mary and the Church (Mary being the image and a precursor of the Church.). Just as Mary has already trampled Satan under foot, so will the Church by the power of her Seed tranmple him.

[aquinas138]

I also tend to think "she" is more accurate. The Hebrew as written doesn't have a vowel--it can be translated as he, she, or they.

No, it cannot be translated as "she," due to context.  With a Semitic language, you have to look to the gender of the verb.  While without vowels, the pronoun הוא could be translated "he/it" or "she/it" (it is certainly not grammatically plural) in certain contexts, the verb here, ישופך "to bruise," is unambiguously masculine, meaning that the pronoun has to be read as hû, the masculine form, not hî, which is feminine.  This situation is identical in the Peshitta - masculine pronoun (which isn't ambiguous in Syriac) and masculine verb.

The Jewish translation to which you link is not being strictly literal.  It is understanding the pronoun to refer to the "seed," which while grammatically singular, is a collective idea, and so it uses a plural pronoun to translate it.

I want to reiterate that I do not consider the Vulgate translation to be a doctrinal error.  The only reason I doubt it is original is that NO OTHER known translation of the Bible supports "ipsa" - not Hebrew, not Greek, not Syriac.  I will check the Coptic Bible when I return to school next week and double check what it says.  I think the possible reasons why the Vulgate alone supports "ipsa" are several:

1. It is an error.  While I suppose it is possible ("Sometimes even the noble Homer nods"), I have a hard time believing St. Jerome would commit a blunder in the protoevangelium of all places.

2. It is a willful change, possibly to help promote the cult of the Virgin.  Again, while theoretically possible, it flies against everything known about St. Jerome and would be a calumny to seriously maintain this.

3. There existed a Hebrew version, differing from the extant Masoretic text, that unambiguously supported "ipsa."  If this is the case, then it must have either been lost very early, since neither the Septuagint (3rd century BC) nor the Peshitta OT (1st-2nd century AD) support it, or only in very limited circulation, since only the Vulgate has it.  While I can believe such a thing could have existed, absent any evidence whatsoever, I can't support that.

4. It is a divinely inspired change in the text.  While this is also possible, I wouldn't wish to believe or promote this belief without the approval of the Church.

5.  It's just one of those things.  This is actually what I believe.  I think the traditions of the particular Churches influenced the translations, and when these translations became authoritative, they in turn strengthened the traditions.  Like with the Syriac "bridal chamber" thing I mentioned above, I think the Latin Church at a very early date connected bruising the serpent's head with Mary, and so the Vulgate reflected that.  I wouldn't consider this a willful change or an error.  Rather it would be an example of the interpretation done while translating.  It is like how the Septuagint replaced the ineffable name יהוה with κὐριος, to reflect that the divine name is not to be pronounced, or Hebrew words like "rock" with "strength" in order to not mislead pagans into erroneous beliefs about the God of Israel.

[aquinas138]

I have pursued the issue of the Vulgate's reading of "ipsa" a bit further.  I consulted the critical editions of the Old Latin and the Coptic Versions and found some interesting things.

As concerns the old Latin, the critical edition has a very useful critical apparatus that gives citations in the patristic writers.  What is interesting is that while the overwhelming number of Old Latin manuscripts support the Hebrew and Greek "ipse," the reading "ipsa" was fairly well known to the patristic age.  It is apparently behind some variants in the works of St. Cyprian (†258) - if that is indeed true, then the reading was known almost 130 years before the Vulgate was commissioned.  Also interesting, though the entry in the critical apparatus gives no details, it mentions that Tertullian (c.160-c.220) is believed to have had this reading.  That would explain how it was widely known among Latin authors before the Vulgate.  The list of patristic era Latin witers in which this reading is known is impressive:

St. Optatus (4th century)
St. Ambrose (†397)
Rufinus of Aquileia (c.340/5-410)
St. Jerome (†420) [in his commentaries on Ezekiel (410-415) and Isaiah (408-410), in addition to the Vulgate]
St. Augustine (†430)
Julian of Eclanum (386-455)
St. Gregory I (†604)
St. Isidore of Seville (†636)
St. Beatus of Liébana (†800)

Interestingly, some Old Latin manuscripts have "illa" instead of "ipsa."  This is also attested in St. John Chrysostom (the Greek equivalent, of course), St. Augustine, Cassiodorus (c.485-c.585), and Primasius of Hadrumetum (died c. 560).

None of this proves one reading or the other is original - it just demonstrates that the Vulgate's reading was known.  Of course, once you get to Gregory the Great's time, Latin authors are probably taking the reading from the Vulgate, not providing an independent witness.  The earlier authors, though, are close enough in time to the Vulgate's production to probably be considered independent witnesses.  I don't know how quickly the Vulgate spread, but it is unlikely to have been terribly widespread before 450 (Jerome only finished the OT in 405).  Julian of Eclanum is certainly an interesting witness, since he was a leader of the heretical Pelagian party - so the reading was not known only to Catholics.

As concerns the Coptic, there is no support for "ipsa" in either major diaelct.  The very fragmentary Sahidic Genesis, fortunately preserved here, borrows the Greek word "ΣΠΕΡΜΑ" as a grammatically feminine word (Coptic has no neuter), yet unambiguously has a masculine subject of the verb, following both Hebrew and Greek (where "ΣΠΕΡΜΑ" is grammatically neuter, yet the verb's subject is masculine).  The Bohairic version, which is fully preserved, also unambiguously has a masculine subject, but this time has used the native Coptic word for "seed," which is masculine, rather than borrowing "ΣΠΕΡΜΑ".  Neither version is terribly surprisng, as the Coptic was translated from the LXX.  It does lend support that there was no known Greek variant supporting "ipsa" in Egypt at least.