Greetings and a blessed Lent to all,

It is my desperate hope that in turning to you, I'll find a satisfactory answer to a question that has been laying heavily on my heart and mind.

This is it. I have been on every Roman Catholic message board I can think of. I have contacted priests and institutions. All to no avail.

Some have sympathized with my plight, but most have not shared my sense of important regarding the question I am about to ask. To be blunt, some think I am making a big deal out of nothing.

What am I refering to?

Two things really.

1) Jerome's translation of Genesis 3:15, where "she" instead of "he" appears.
2) The "Miraculous Medal" image depicting a serpent beneath Mary's feet.

Let me preface my question, by sharing with you the theological, more so, the mariological context from which my question derives.

Salvation or Theosis has become for me entirely Marian (and through Mary, God). I am strongly devoted to her as "The New Eve (Immaculata)", "Mother" and "Mediatrix".

Now for my question:

(Q) Since Jerome's translation differs from all other translations I have seen, is there anywhere else in Scripture that refers directly to Mary crushing Satan beneath her feet?

Why is this important to me?

Besides those things mentioned above, I want to make sure that Mary's appearance to St. Catherine at Rue Du Bac (on which the "Miraculous Medal" is based) is true and not the product of a misinterpretation of Scripture.

Many others whom I have asked have said, "The sense is the same, whether "he" or "she" is proper".

And this is where they and I depart company and the trouble begins. I couldn't disagree with the above statement more. The sense is not the same. Not to me!

In Jerome's translation and in the image engraved on the "Miraculous Medal", it is Mary, not Christ who is crushing the serpent-directly! I have further been told that Mary crushes the serpent through her Son, but that's not what Genesis 3:15, if translated as "he" or the "Miraculous Medal" image implies. If "he" is correct, then it is Christ, not Mary who is crushing the serpent directly. The sense is not the same, there is a distinction no matter how small. It's the difference between direct and indirect, between one person and another, between one image and another; And although Christ and Mary work together, it is naive (imho) to think that moving Mary from a direct position to an indirect one does not effect our understanding of Mary's role.

As a church which sings the "Akathist hymn to the Virgin Mary", can you help me?

In Christ,

Cheryl

Well I think that the quote in Genesis was using "he" as a general statement saying "humanity"/Homo Sapiens, as the source of the crushing of satan rather than any type of Hindu-type demi-god who would just come and preform some other act to defeat satan in some other way.

It's just saying salvation for man will come through a member of his own race and that's how much God loves us, to work on our level rather than a way we can't understand.

"No longer slaves, I call you friends. For a slave does not know his Master's business, but I have revealed everything to you."

I think you're too hung up on semantics to catch the underlying message.

Since I don't have the knowledge of scripture that might help answer your question, I'd just suggest my own personal 'strategy' which is praying to the Holy Spirit for the understanding which I am in need of, and the peace that comes from that. God Bless You in your search for understanding!

Cheryl,

Based on what I was taught, Jerome's use of "she" is simply a reference to the word "seed," which in Latin is a feminine noun. That would mean that even his translation did not intend for this pronoun to refer to "the woman."

Of course, in 1830, I believe it was generally accepted among Catholics that "she" was indeed a reference to "the woman."

Private revelations tend to be problematic with regard to doctrinal details like this (which may explain why theologians generally don't like private revelations very much).



We are certainly devoted to Mary in the East, going so far as to say "Most holy Mother of God, save us" and sometimes even "glory to you" (which is normally said only to God).

However, your phrase "entirely Marian" disturbs me somewhat. I know that St. Louis deMontfort was very deeply marian in his spirituality, yet I am not aware that even he would use such a phrase as "entirely Marian."

I cannot pretend to know how God is directing you, but I would strongly advise caution in a case like this, especially because it is causing you so much distress.

Wishing you all the blessings of Pascha and Bright Week!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

But it is designated as neuter:

link

Also:
link

VUL Genesis 3:15 inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius

Deacon Anthony,

Thank you, I stand corrected on this ... must have gotten some bad information.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

In the 1611 KJV you can see a bit of difference too, as it refers to Christ as 'it'

3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
http://bibledatabase.net/html/kjv/genesis_3.html

Is "he"/"heel" plural then?



Perhaps. But I think what I'm really hung up on is Mary's appearance to St. Catherine, crushing the serpent's head. If "she" is wrong, then is the apparition false? Did Mary not appear to St. Catherine in this manner? Or is Mary's appearance crushing the serpent's head independent of Jerome's translation of Gen 3:15, and the subsequent tradition it engendered?

Thanks.

Doro,

Thank you. I have been praying and sometimes I feel okay about it, but it never stays.


Still praying

Deacon Richard,

Blessings to you as well.



May I ask why?

Yep. I will say this, from a linguistic point of view, Jerome's translation seems to be the only one not frought with questions. From what others have told me, "seed" is plural, which would make "it" plural, so a better translation might be "they" as in "they will crush your head." Fine, but here is where it starts to get hairy; "heel" is masculine (I don't know if that carries with it any significants,, but if it does, then the proceeding sentence should read, "...while you strike at his heel" snd if "his/heel" is singular, then we have a problem).

I will put emnity between you and the woman
between your seed (plural) and her seed (plural)
They (plural) will strike your head
while you strike at his (singular) heel (masculine).

(To be consistent, it should say, "you will strike at their heels".)

The word seed, semen, is grammatically singular. Plural would be semina. It (semen) is the same word used when God tells Abram that all nations will be blessed in his seed. In the NT, St. Paul makes the argument that this refers to Christ because the word seed is singular, referring to one person (ie the Messiah).
Ipsa can be feminine singular or neuter plural; however, there is no neuter plural noun to serve as the antecedent. There is a feminine singular noun, mulier (woman). It is the only plausible antecedent for ipsa from a strictly grammatical perspective.
I don't know Greek or Hebrew, but it would be interesting to see how this passage reads in those languages.
Jerome's translation (if ipsa is in fact what he used rather than ipsum) would translate as "she will crush your head." However, I believe this could only be understood to mean that The BVM defeats Satan through her Son.
Personally, I would give preference to the Hebrew or Septuagint reading if they differ from Jerome on this matter.

Well, in addition to prayer, it's good if you have a friend to talk to about this.....someone who is a good listener and will let you bounce your thoughts off them. You can just talk about all the ideas that people have contributed on this forum. As simple as it sounds, I have seen many times how this helps people to resolve some issue that has been on their mind. I'm hoping that before long you'll be feeling really okay about your question.

I looked at the Bible on newadvent.com. It has the Greek, English, and Latin in parallel. The pronoun that Jerome translates ipsa is aftos in Greek. According to an online Greek-English dictionary, this word is masculine. Feminine would be afti.
Considering that the Septuagint predates the Vulgate by 500 or so years, I would be inclined to give preference to the Greek text.

Gregg

At best, the apparition referred to is a private revelation, upon which it is illegitimate to base doctrine. The Church is always cautious about private revelations.

Fr. Serge

Is the serpent's seed, grammatically singular, too?



In the study notes of the New American Bible; Gen 3:15, it says: 3 [15] 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'm utterly confused; here, "seed" is plural.



Me either, which puts us both at a great disadvantage. Nevertheless I am enjoying our discussion.



Agreed.



The Septuagint yes, since it is a Jewish translation of the Hebrew which predates Christ--but with a grain of salt, since it too has undergone revisions. The Hebrew manuscripts, I am not entirely comfortable with. Do we have any renderings of Gen 3:15 which predate Christ? (As far as I know the "Dead Sea Scrolls" does not have Gen 3:15). When Jerome translated the Scriptures into Latin, he used both the Septuagint and the Hebrew. I suppose the question at this juncture would be, Do we have any LXX or Hebrew manuscripts from his time? So much has been lost to us, through the destruction of their libraries. As an individual who could spend all day searching through books and manuscripts, the thought of ancient greek libraries going up in flames... .

Me too.

Unfortunately I don't have that sort of person in my life right now. But I know exactly what you're saying; my father was the best sparring mate one could ask for.

True. But "accepted" albeit "private" revelations are just that--accepted on the basis that there is nothing "revealed" that is contrary to the Faith and morals of the Church. Since Scripture belongs in the realm of "public" revelation, no "private" revelation can contradict Scripture and still be acceptable.

Now, as we all know, that the Western Church, for over a thousand years has translated a portion of Scripture (Gen. 3:15) as, "she will crush...her heel". In c1830, a novice claims to have seen a pictorial image of the Virgin Mary, which mirrors very precisely, this particular translation. If "she" is a faulty translation, then what this novice claimed to have seen must be rejected on the grounds that in contradicts the Faith of the Church (of which Scripture is a part).

But if this were the case, then the authority of the Church to make decisions concerning "private" revelations become null. The Church might say this or that "private" revelation is acceptable today, but then in 50 or 100 yrs, be forced to say that it isn't, based upon a new translation of Scripture ect. The authority of the Church to make such decisions must survive whatever exgesis Scriptural scholars can rightly muster.

Cheryl,

I'm familiar with the Miraculous Medal but have never heard of it associated with Gen 3:15. My reading of it would not associate it with the All Pure One, Mary.

Regarding the Theotokos being victorious over the serpent (Satan) usually the reference is to Revelation, Chapter 12. There are two lines of thought regarding the "woman clothed with the sun"....one is that the woman is the Church (the new Israel.) The other thought is that it is the Virgin Mary. Here's what the Orthodox Study Bible has to say about chapter 12:

The great sign in heaven, the woman, is either the Virgin Mary (Theotokos) or true Israel, the Church (Is.7:14). Orthodoxy sees the Theotokos (lit. "God-bearer")as the perfect symbol of Israel and the Church. She is the antithesis of the harlot of ch. 17, for she is a radiant bride (Song 6:4,10; Jer.2:2), adorned with splendor (Gen. 37:9). The twelve stars indicate the twelve tribes (and possible the Twelve Apostles( and the moon under her feet symbolizes her preeminence among all that is created.

Adding another thought to this, Our Lady of Guadalupe is often associated with Rev 12 as the "Woman clothed with the Sun" because of the stars and heavens in her garment that is miraculously "painted" on Juan Diego's tilma.

_______________


Regarding your quote above, Im glad that you did not add "Co-Redeemer", for I think we have to watch that we don't associate "Divinity" with the Virgin. As the "Spouse of the Holy Spirit" and the "Mother of God" she has a prominent place in God's plan (and each of her children individually) but this not solely through her own power. As the maiden who received the message of Gabriel with true humility and obedience, I think we insult her by putting her on a level approaching her beloved Son, Jesus.

I don't know if I was of any help, but may you continue to draw closer to God through the Virgin's care.

Fr Deacon Paul

However, in Revelation 12, her victory over the serpent, is not depicted in the manner of having crushed his head (or of him lying beneath her feet). But Genesis 3:15 very much does, if the Vulgate is correct. Perhaps there is no linear connection, that is to say, Vulgate-Gen 3:15-->tradition of Mary crushing the serpent-->miraculous medal. Perhaps the miraculous medal image is not (as you said), associated with Vulgate-Gen 3:15, at least not directly. Perhaps the miraculous medal image (ie, the appearance of Mary to Saint Catherine in c1830, crushing the serpent) and Vulgate-Gen 3:15 (even if a misinterpretation), comes from a single common source. That is to say, there was a common (perhaps, pictorial) tradition of Mary crushing the serpent that was rightly depicted in c 1830, but perhaps wrongly depicted (erroneously influencing), the Vulgate translator(s).

But I don't know that. All I know at this juncture is that the Western Church has perhaps erroneously translated Gen 3:15, and that this translation depicts the exact image we see on the miraculous medal.

_______________

Originally Posted By: LatinbyDefault

Salvation or Theosis has become for me entirely Marian (and through Mary, God). I am strongly devoted to her as "The New Eve (Immaculata)", "Mother" and "Mediatrix".

I agree. However, whether or not she (or any of us) can be called a co-redeemer with Christ, has alot to do with what we mean by redemption. She did not die for us, that is certain. Too, (and I can only speak for myself here), the "distance" if you will, between Mother and Son stays fairly fixed for me. So practically speaking, however much Mary may be exalted, she will never be on par with her Son. In fact, whenever I have discovered a tradition of the Church which I never knew before, but which may exalt Mary "higher" than she was before (for me), then by that very fact, Christ too becomes even more exalted. Good Mariology always leads us to Jesus.



Well, I'm still struggling, so I thank you for your blessing. Even if I don't come to some sort of definate answer here, the fact that each of you have taken me seriously and have have tried to sort this out with me, means the world to me.

I remember someplace and time as a small child reading in the KJV of Gen. 3:15, more emphasis on the 'woman' - as I was raised Southern Baptist. Trying to search I can't seem to find it. However, I thought this to be an interesting explanation from a Protestant stand point.

14 ¶ And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
.15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it [he] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

14 - Cursed The Lord cursed the serpent but not Eve and Adam. Satan had already gone past the point of repentance and was cast out of heaven re1208.
15 - [He] shall bruise thy head The Seed, the coming Redeemer, would destroy Satan (the serpent re1209), just as women kill snakes. God did not wait long before telling Adam and Eve about the plan of salvation.
http://www.bibleexplained.com/moses/Gene/ge03.htm

Did you read further down?



Hmmm.

I've been reading the Akathist Hymn to Mary and I came across some interesting acclamations:

1) Rejoice, Thou Who didst extinguish the furnace of error.
2) Rejoice, Thou Who didst banish from power the inhuman tyrant.
3) Rejoice, Thou Who redeemest from pagan worship.
4) Rejoice, downfall of demons.
5) Rejoice, Thou who didst trample down the dominion of delusion.

Even in the Eastern Liturgy, there seems to be an echo of the image St. Catherine saw. If Mary appeared to an Eastern-rite Christian, in the same manner as she supposedly appeared to St. Catherine at Rue Du Bac, I doubt I would think anything of it. The Eastern Church follows the Septuagint translation of he/it, so I would assume as most do, "That the sense is the same, for it is by her seed that the woman crushes Satan's head". But I can't seem to get past the fact that St. Catherine was a Western-rite Christian and that what she saw is a near exact pictorial replica of a Western, possible mistranslation of Gen 3:15, a translation which she herself would have assumed to have been correct--most likely.

I did a preliminary reading through the LXX on this, and it seems to imply that the child of the woman is the one crushing the head of the serpent, rather then the woman herself (like in Jerome's and St. Catherine's vision).

Ah! Very contemplative! And so true!!

My apologies for not replying sooner. I've had some unexpected things come up. I want to thank everyone for their prayers, assistance and encouragement. While I still wonder whether or not Catherine's vision is in any way related to Jerome's translation of Gen 3:15, our conversation has nevertheless proven very beneficial. And most of all, I am so incredibly grateful that each of you responded to my question with the same seriousness with which I ask(ed) it. You don't know how much that means to me.

May God bless each person here, for being so welcoming and kindly to me.
You're in my prayers. Please pray for me.

~Cheryl