Replies

Establishment of canons is a separate issue from there being the same unaltered original

So?

Previously you were mixing the two together in the same sentence...

Now, after your other argumentation having failed, you switch to this tack.

This is the very kind of thing which makes any kind of interaction with yourself -- beyond extremely tedious - to flat out infuriating.

But now I have to nail down yet more squirminess and squiggling?

Mistranslations likewise do not alter the original.

What original is that? (I'm smelling both desperation -- and being set up for trickery!)

Do you have the autographs at home in a desk drawer? No?

The I must ask (again) -- WHAT "original" text are you speaking of now?

It cannot be the Latin Vulgate, for that is but a translation itself.

The Catholic bible has not changed for (nearly) 2 millennia. If you think otherwise, -- show me.

I already have. Issues of canon, and how that has subtly changed to allow in full canonical status for Apocrypha, is simply an unavoidable issue in this context. That aspect alone falsifies the above statement.

Now for things like this which you posted here;

Genesia 3:15 is still " הוא ישופך ראש" and "αυτος σου τηρησει κεφαλην", in either original work -- no one changed that.

require more than just vague assignment of those snippets be allegedly from "Gen:3;15".

What sources are you copying those from, huh?

Show your work. Show your sources. Provide links to those -- if you really want to drag this off into Greek and Hebrew 'bushes'.

The discrepancy on Genesis 3:15 is fairly convoluted. A decent explanation is here by Schaff.

The upshot is that in one sense, annalex is right, if one leaves out the Vulgate, which he did. The expression in doubt is the phrase "He shall bruise thy head" In the Masoretic Hebrew it looks like this:

ה֚וּא יְשׁוּפְךָ֣ רֹ֔אשׁ

And the Greek of the LXX is a good analog to it:

αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν

What doesn't line up is the original Vulgate:

ipsa conteret caput tuum

This error has been corrected in the Vatican-approved Nova Vulgata (new Vulgate):

ipsum conteret caput tuum

Available here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_genesis_lt.html#3

Notice that "ipsa" (she) has been corrected to "ipsum" (he). As pointed out in the Schaff explanation above, there was no real way to evade this correction, because the verb "to bruise" is masculine, so that's what the pronoun is going to be. Some have argued that "hu" can be translated "she," and that is technically correct. However, as Schaff points out, the occurrences in the Masoretic text where "hu" stands for "she" have the pointing that goes with the feminine, to make it abundantly clear where it should be taken as "she." Genesis 3:15 is not one of those place, because the pointing is distinctly masculine. No doubt this was done to ensure a match with the verb "to bruise," the gender of which is definitely masculine.

This also matches the LXX, which uses "autos" (he) and not "autes" (she). So the only outlier is Jerome's Vulgate.

Therefore yes, the text of the Hebrew and the LXX has no doubt remained the same, but no, this passage does not present Mary as the one bruising Satan's head.

As for whose Scripture is it, there was no distinctly Roman Catholic church until near the beginning of the third Century, so it's tough to make the argument that the Scriptures circulating among believers before that time belonged to anybody but generic Christians, as they do even to this day.

Peace,

SR

About "mixing the two together" re-read my posts, and, if you can stand them, also re-read your own. You are the one who brought up the development of the canons.

What sources are you copying those from, huh?

Why, the original text of the Bible is available on line widely.

I used https://unbound.biola.edu/.