Originally posted by FreakyKBH[/b]The following is a direct translation from the Hebrew: the words in parenthesis do not actually appear in the Hebrew, but are indicated by the endings of the immediately previous word.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel."
a. Or seed
I think you may want to re-think your stance on 'implications' and the like. 3:15 is directed at the serpent. Next comes the indictment on the wo ...[text shortened]... omeone forgot to tell Moses about the up-to-date stuff when he sat down to write the beginnings.
“And enmity I will put between (you) and between the woman and between (your) offspring/seed/sowing and between (her) offspring/seed/sowing; he will crush/bruise/desire (your) head and you will bruise/crush/desire (his) heel.”
Now this can be read in different ways, on different levels. Jewish exegesis would look at (and search out) all the possibilities, even the “fantastical” ones. The “plain meaning” (Hebrew: p’shat) would simply be that the children of the original woman (chavah, Eve, perhaps from an archaic root-word for “life,” more literally to show or become) and snakes would not get along—which they generally don’t.
Judaism became matrilineal sometime during the Roman occupation period, and this view was later “codified” by the rabbis in the Talmud. The rabbis looked back for Torah references that could support this change. I am not aware that they looked at this passage, but, “midrashically,” they could have—of course, that would’ve meant applying matrilineality to all descendants of the first humans, not just descendants of Abraham and Sarah, so it really wouldn’t have served their specific purpose.
A Christian doing midrash could look back and see Chavah as precursor to Miriam (Mary), and read into it enmity between the woman’s offspring (Jesus in this case) and the serpent, as archetype of evil. In this case, the emphasis would be on Jesus as Miriam’s offspring (Yeshua ben Miriam), and not Joseph’s, in support of a virgin birth. (Not sure what that does with the Matthean and Lucan genealogies.)
But I am not aware in any of the Hebrew Scriptures of the notion of a woman having “seed” without the participation of a man.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhen the man 'plants the seed in the vessel' it would be perfectly normal
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel."
a. Or seed
I think you may want to re-think your stance on 'implications' and the like. 3:15 is directed at the serpent. Next comes the indictment on the wo ...[text shortened]... ne forgot to tell Moses about the up-to-date stuff when he sat down to write the beginnings.[/b]
to refer to it as 'her seed,' just like Elizabeth's song to Mary speaking about
the fruit of her womb.
You're just going backwards to try to rectify a bizarre and historically untenable
position to make it look like God was teaching us something by reading a passage
in the most unusual, but most favorable way.
Nemesio
Originally posted by vistesdNot completely related to the content of your post, but you mentioned stubborn Hebrew chauvinism twice. Does [modern] Judaism define itself, in some sense, as being not-Christianity?
Also, the most reasonable hypothesis is that the Jewish translators came upon the term, saw there were two possible translations to the Greek, and chose whatever word best expressed the way in which Jewish society understood the term at the time. So, in effect, the meaning of the text (i.e. virgin instead of maiden) had to be part of the Jewish oral traditio ...[text shortened]... s[/i] morphology/dictionaries and Langenscheidt’s Hebrew/English and Greek/English dictionaries.
Originally posted by NemesioHi Nemesio:
When the man 'plants the seed in the vessel' it would be perfectly normal
to refer to it as 'her seed,' just like Elizabeth's song to Mary speaking about
the fruit of her womb.
You're just going backwards to try to rectify a bizarre and historically untenable
position to make it look like God was teaching us something by reading a passage
in the most unusual, but most favorable way.
Nemesio
But does not the "fruit of Thy womb" imply Mary's genetic motherhood?
Did you see my previous post asking you about this?
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, no, no! I didn't mean that! That was my joke against myself for insisting on Hebrew-language precedence in OT translations! I should've put in a smiley face. I was just tryin' to lighten it up a bit....🙂😳😛
Not completely related to the content of your post, but you mentioned stubborn Hebrew chauvinism twice. Does [modern] Judaism define itself, in some sense, as being not-Christianity?
I actually think that, if anything, modern Judaism is moving the other direction--i.e., away from any such kind of "defensive" (for lack of a better term) posture, real or perceived.
A few years ago I had an interesting experience. I was having a casual conversation with a Jewish friend of friends, who perhaps had let her know that mentioning religion was not taboo with me. At the time, I was contemplating going to a seminary to do a Masters degree in theology (strictly non-ordination track!); I had actually been accepted, but other things in life intervened. Anyway, she knew about that and asked about it and what I planned to study. I told her I was looking mainly at the Jewish roots of Christianity. We talked about it awhile, and then I said: “You know, I think there is really only one question where Jews and Christians are at a fundamental impasse.”
She thought a moment, and then asked: “You mean the whole virgin birth/son-of-God thing?” She wasn’t being antagonistic or dismissive or sarcastic—there wasn’t even a trace of irony in her voice or demeanor. It was simply a non-sequiter concept for her. I was mildly (and, no doubt, naively) stunned. She knew about Christianity; she was a religious Jew (Conservative, I think; perhaps Reform). It had just never occurred to her that there could be any logic in such a notion, just as it had never occurred to me, up to that point, that there wasn’t. Some business matters came up, and that was the end of the discussion.
As I began to interrogate myself on the issue, I realized that the reason I assumed the logic of the question—whether one disagreed with any of the various arguments or not—was because I grew up with it. It was such an integral part of my family and social culture, that I absorbed in by osmosis, so to speak. I had never asked if any of the underlying, foundational assumptions behind the logic of the story. (And, yes, I am aware that there is also an “adoptionist” argument that represents a fairly strong stream in Christian theology; but I was too “Chalcedonian” for that.)
Anyway, it was an interesting experience that made me think. Part of the reason, perhaps, that I am trying today to read the Hebrew Scriptures without the filtering lens of the NT or Patristic tradition. It’s not that easy to do, when you’ve been wearing those lenses all your life, and reading the “OT” through their logical filters.
Originally posted by vistesdSo her dead-pan response was more enlightening than a thousand bells & whistles?
(And, yes, I am aware that there is also an “adoptionist” argument that represents a fairly strong stream in Christian theology; but I was too “Chalcedonian” for that.)
What does the bit in parentheses mean?
Originally posted by NemesioAs I said earlier: here the first mention of 'seed of...' is toward the woman, and yet the remaining books of the OT, five of which are written by Moses, including this passage, ALL speak of man begatting.
When the man 'plants the seed in the vessel' it would be perfectly normal
to refer to it as 'her seed,' just like Elizabeth's song to Mary speaking about
the fruit of her womb.
Nemesio
...and we haven't even started talking about the Hebrew of the text!
To attempt to reconcile seed with fruit? Come on!
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes. The seed is planted in her womb. What is so hard to understand?
As I said earlier: here the first mention of 'seed of...' is toward the woman, and yet the remaining books of the OT, five of which are written by Moses, including this passage, ALL speak of man begatting.
...and we haven't even started talking about the Hebrew of the text!
To attempt to reconcile seed with fruit? Come on!
Seed leads to fruit. These metaphors exist for a reason!
Yes, the seed that is to be planted in the woman is mentioned because
it is her birthpangs which are the 'punishment' for succumbing to sin.
That is, God punished all of womankind with the worst pain imaginable
because He wasn't decent enough to make a creation that wouldn't sin.
Pretty nice guy, your god is.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioApparently it is hard for you to understand that when the entire OT speaks of offspring, the reference is always to the man.
What is so hard to understand?
Pretty nice guy, your god is.
Nemesio
When the OT illuminates the sin nature, it is through the man.
When the OT speaks of the seed of the woman, the reference is to one woman, who's offspring will crush the serpent's head: Isha, later, Eve.
The distinction is there purposely, and is distinguished purposely. If, as you weakly assert, this 3:15 reference is answered in (semantic) kind by the rest of the OT, then at least the rest of Moses' works (again, not even speaking of the Hebrew, yet) would have followed suit. Instead, in the geneaology following, man begats man, and etc.
Nothing is projected upon the Scripture. It is what it is.
Nice is important, I take it. Without listing all the things that nice isn't, perhaps you could define what nice is, according to your standards and values.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are obviously too entrenched to realize that the Genesis story was written
Apparently it is hard for you to understand that when the entire OT speaks of offspring, the reference is always to the man.
When the OT illuminates the sin nature, it is through the man.
When the OT speaks of the seed of the woman, the reference is to one woman, who's offspring will crush the serpent's head: Isha, later, Eve.
The distinction is there ...[text shortened]... that nice isn't, perhaps you could define what nice is, according to your standards and values.
long after the Exodus story, so I'm not going to waste my time. You can pretend
that somehow this isolated reference that you think says 'seed of a woman'
portends the discovery of the ovum in the 19th century, or you can look think about
it and realize that (from the Jewish perspective) the woman's seed is only there
because the man planted it, so that it can become fruit in her womb.
Nemesio