tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post8643545314035755239..comments2024-03-28T08:41:17.341-04:00Comments on <center> Ralph the Sacred River </center>: A Note on the Translation of Gen 3:15Edhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05188482189638751204noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-8679498555752050622010-04-07T13:01:28.349-04:002010-04-07T13:01:28.349-04:00I believe it's been shown that, depending on h...I believe it's been shown that, depending on how you mark the Hebrew text, you get the one meaning or the other. But I'm just vaguely remembering this, and I don't know Hebrew.<br /><br />Here's the old Catholic Encyclopedia, noting some various iterations:<br /><br />The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the very opening chapters of the Book of Genesis (iii, 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." This rendering appears to differ in two respects from the original Hebrew text: first, the Hebrew text employs the same verb for the two renderings "she shall crush" and "thou shalt lie in wait"; the Septuagint renders the verb both times by terein, to lie in wait; Aquila, Symmachus, the Syriac and the Samaritan translators, interpret the Hebrew verb by expressions which mean to crush, to bruise; the Itala renders the verb teoein employed in the Septuagint by the Latin "servare", to guard; St. Jerome (Quest. hebr. in Gen., P.L., XXIII, col. 943) maintains that the Hebrew verb has the meaning of "crushing" or "bruising" rather than of "lying in wait", "guarding". Still in his own work, which became the Latin Vulgate, the saint employs the verb "to crush" (conterere) in the first place, and "to lie in wait" (insidiari) in the second. Hence the punishment inflicted on the serpent and the sergent's retaliation are expressed by the same verb: but the wound of the serpent is mortal, since it affects his head, while the wound inflicted by the serpent is not mortal, being inflicted on the heel. The second point of difference between the Hebrew text and our version concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the serpent: our version agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading "she" (ipsa) which refers to the woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu' (autos, ipse) which refers to the seed of the woman. According to our version and the Vulgate reading, the woman herself will win the victory; according to the Hebrew text, she will be victorious through her seed. In this sense does the Bull "Ineffabilis" ascribe the victory to Our Blessed Lady. The reading "she" (ipsa) is neither an intentional corruption of the original text, nor is it an accidental error; it is rather an explanatory version expressing explicitly the fact of Our Lady's part in the victory over the serpent, which is contained implicitly in the Hebrew original. The strength of the Christian tradition as to Mary's share in this victory may be inferred from the retention of "she" in St. Jerome's version in spite of his acquaintance with the original text and with the reading "he" (ipse) in the old Latin version.Bansheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12594214770417497135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-20835659902192276212009-11-03T14:16:05.852-05:002009-11-03T14:16:05.852-05:00Mumpsimus rules in such matters.<a href="http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-mum1.htm" rel="nofollow">Mumpsimus</a> rules in such matters.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028509564182818087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-50155191591318187842009-09-29T12:33:09.764-04:002009-09-29T12:33:09.764-04:00Scott Johnson tells me (quite rightly) that ipsum ...Scott Johnson tells me (quite rightly) that <i>ipsum</i> is neuter, not masculine, and that therefore it must be translated "it," not "he." The antecedent would be the neuter <i>semen</i>.Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05188482189638751204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-2327756422140811212009-09-29T10:51:11.885-04:002009-09-29T10:51:11.885-04:00Welcome to the crazy world of Catholic allegorical...Welcome to the crazy world of Catholic allegorical interpretation without any checks and balances. The problem seems to be solved at least in part by documents and the Catechism saying all others senses (like the allegorical) must be based on the literal (the authorial intention), but not all have figured out how this is done or bother to apply it. <br />A favorite of mine is to start a class with Jer 44:17, ask my Catholic students who this is, the answer is always Mary. Then I tell them they a reading this passage with a Catholic lens but reading it contrary to how the Church teaches proper exegesis. This makes a good intro to what Church documents have said about exegesisPalimpsesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03736074037922947399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-48881766172774566662009-09-28T14:21:43.266-04:002009-09-28T14:21:43.266-04:00The theological point of Mary bruising the serpent...The theological point of Mary bruising the serpent's head is the subject of many works of art.I have been aware of the accurate translation but find it difficult to give up the symbolism. I have used the image myself in my work.<br />http://janknegt.eccwireless.com/art/holyFamilylg.jpgJim Janknegthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02971229049336038270noreply@blogger.com