by Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi
Some Protestants and Vatican II “Catholics” who read my last publication, Genesis 3:15: “He shall crush thy head” or “She shall crush thy head”?, didn't argue further. But of course, there were some — both the Protestants and some fanatical followers of John Paul the Great — who didn't even bother to read the write-up, yet they were quick to make some counter “arguments” — “It is He shall crush, not She shall crush”!
Our Lady Herself has warned against these false Bibles which I wrote against but of course the modern world (including “devoted Catholics”) makes mockery of her apparitions and messages. One of such messages reads:
“My children, I--My heart is greatly saddened at the distortion of doctrine in My Son's Church. I understand that man can be misled, for I have often counselled you that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. You must examine your Bible, the Book of life. Genesis, chapter 3. There must be no changes in the story of the origin of mankind. 'She' must remain. 'He' must not replace it in the story of the serpent's attack upon Eve.
“The Eternal Father has stated that the serpent shall crawl on his belly, stomach, My children. I use several words to illustrate the manner in which man is describing this time. He will crawl, the serpent, as the lowest animal among the beasts because he has deceived Eve. But the Eternal Father in His mercy has stated that He will place enmities between the serpent and the woman, between, enmities between the serpent's seed and the woman's seed; and the serpent shall have his head crushed by the woman and the serpent shall lie in wait for her heel.
“Be it known that the Eternal Father has deemed that man shall not change the words to 'he' and 'he.' I say this not to bring any false notions in your mind, My children, that I repeat this in pride. Far be it from Me, for I have not sought, neither on Heaven or earth, to be prideful; but, My children, I must bring to you the words of truth. Many are changing the words to suit their own interpretations of the Book of life, and these interpretations are based upon man's own seeking.” (Our Lady of the Roses, September 28, 1978).
A FINAL CLARIFICATION: The word in issue is the Hebrew emphatic pronoun “הוּא (hu)”. Our “critics” hold that “הוּא (hu)” is solely “masculine” but I say NO, that is a lie.
As I said, in Genesis, “הוּא (hu)” is used for all genders, including the feminine and neuter. Hence we observe that even within the same chapter of Genesis 3:15 the same word “הוּא (hu)” is used to mean “she” in reference to Eve, a woman.
We read: (Genesis 3:12): “And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, SHE gave me of the tree, and I did eat.”
“ויאמר האדם האשׁה אשׁר נתתה עמדי הוא נתנה־לי מן־העץ ואכל׃”
Again: (Genesis 3:20): “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because SHE was the mother of all living.”
“ויקרא האדם שׁם אשׁתו חוה כי הוא היתה אם כל־חי׃”
NOTE: there is no neutral pronoun in Hebrew — so our main focus, as far as the passage (Gen.3:15) is concerned, must be on “he” or ”she”. Hebrew nouns are all either male or female, and to refer to an inanimate noun you would simply refer to it by its appropriate pronoun. For instance “שֻׁלְחַן shulchán” (table) is of masculine gender, so one will refer to it as “הוּא hu” (he); “קַעֲרָה ka’ará” (bowl) is of feminine gender, so one will refer to it as “הִיא hi” (she). This point is important particularly for those who maintain that “it”, and not “he” or “she”, is the one who will crush the serpent’s head! But if by “it” they are really referring to the “he”, as we see in the King James Version and in Paul VI’s (1979), that is just absolute nonsense. As I said, “It” is just nonsense because “It” in English, apart from being used to refer to an animal or a person whose sex is unknown or disregarded, or a group of individuals or things, or an abstract entity, is primarily used as a subject or direct object or indirect object of a verb or object of a preposition usually in reference to a lifeless thing. So, if our “critics” use “It”, then they are either saying that the sex of the person referred to in Genesis 3:15 is unknown and can be disregarded or that the one referred to is not a human being!
That said, it is totally wrong to say that “הוּא (hu)” must be translated as “he” — our “critics” who say so are just ignorant. While beginners in the study of Hebrew are often taught that “הוּא (hu)” is the masculine third person pronoun and “היא (hiy)” is the feminine third person pronoun, this distinction, as noted by even the Protestant “biblical scholar” James Strong, occurs “BEYOND THE PENTATEUCH” (Cf. Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries).
(NOTE: “the Pentateuch” is the first five books of the Hebrew Old Testament — namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These are the books traditionally ascribed to Moses, the recipient of the original revelation from God on Mount Sinai. Although the books of the Pentateuch themselves do not clearly identify the author, there are many passages that attribute them to Moses or as being his words (Exodus 17:14, 24:4-7; Numbers 33:1-2; Deuteronomy 31:9-22). Exodus 17: 14 above says, for instance, “And the Lord said to Moses: Write this for a memorial in a book, and deliver it to the ears of Josue: for I will destroy the memory of Amalec from under heaven”. While there are some verses in the Pentateuch that would appear to have been added by someone later than Moses, for example, Deuteronomy 34:5-8, which describes the death and burial of Moses, most if not all scholars attribute the majority of these books to Moses. Even if Joshua or someone else actually wrote the original manuscripts, the teaching and revelation can be traced from God through Moses).
That said, hence we also observe that even Jewish scholarly giants read the same passage (Genesis 3:15) in the same way we have been demonstrating. Jewish historian Josephus (d. 101 A.D.), states, “He ordained that the woman should inflict wounds on his head.” (Thomas Mary Sennot, The Woman of Genesis, (The Ravengate Press, Cambridge, 1983, p.50)) This becomes evident that Josephus in his day read the word aute, that is to say, “she”. Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo is also said to have read the passage the same way. Now Josephus and Philo both wrote in Greek but also knew Hebrew, so their testimony is a common witness that the Greek of the Septuagint of their day was aute (αυτή), not autos (αυτός), and that the Hebrew pronoun was just what we've been demonstrating — “she”. Moses Maimonides, another Jewish philosopher who did not even believe in the Messianic or Mariological content of the prophecy, had the following to say on the passage:
“But what must be admired most of all, is that the serpent is joined with Eve, that is, its seed with her seed, its head with her heel; that she (Eve) should conquer it (the serpent) in the head, and that it should conquer her in the heel.” (Ibid. p.51)
On page 2 of his work, Mary: The Second Eve, John Cardinal Henry Newman, writes on the topic:
“‘I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.’ The Seed of the woman is the Word Incarnate, and the Woman, whose seed or Son He is, is His Mother Mary. This interpretation, and the parallelism it involves, seem to me undeniable; but at all events (and this is my point) the parallelism is the doctrine of the Fathers, from the earliest times; and, this being established, we are able, by the position and office of Eve in our fall, to determine the position and office of Mary in our restoration.”
Today, as far as this passage (and many others as well) is concerned, the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome — as well as the Douay-Rheims Bible translated from it — simply stands alone among other so-called “Catholic bibles”, reading ipsa, or “she”, while all the rest simply contradict it — reading either “he” or “it”. It’s a sign!
Interestingly, even the Protestant “biblehub.co” (from where Fr. Louis Melahn quoted Genesis 3:15 to counter me during our last month discussion!) has the following to say on this gender issue generally:
“In the Pentateuch, הוא is of common Gender. ...The origin of the peculiarity ... is uncertain. It can hardly be a real archaism for the fact that arab., Aramaic, & Ethiopic have distinct forms for masculine & feminine shews that both must have formed part of the original Semitic stock, and consequently of Hebrew as well, from its earliest existence as an independent language. Nor is the peculiarity confined to the Pentateuch: in the Manuscript of the Later Prophets, of A.D., now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile by Strack (1876), the feminine occurs written הוא.... In Phoenician both masculine and feminine are alike written הא (CIS i. 1 Chronicles 1:9 מלך צדק הא, 1 Chronicles 1:13 מלאכת הא, 1 Chronicles 3:10 אדם הא, 1 Chronicles 1:11 ממלכת הא, 1Chron 93:2; 1Chron 94:2), though naturally this would be read as hu° or hi° as occasion required. Hence, as ᵐ5 shews that in the older Hebrew MSS. the scriptio plena was not yet generally introduced, it is probably that originally הא was written for both Genders in Hebrew likewise, and that the epicene הוא in the Pentateuch originated at a comparatively late epoch in the transmission of the text — perhaps in connection with the assumption, which is partly borne out by facts (compare DeZKWL 1880, pp. 393-399), that in the older language feminine forms were more sparingly used than subsequently.)”
(NOTE: Phoenician is a Semitic language of the Northern Central (often called Northwestern) group, spoken in ancient times on the coast of Syria and Palestine in Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, and neighbouring towns and in other areas of the Mediterranean colonised by Phoenicians. It is very close to Hebrew, another Semitic language of the Northern Central (also called Northwestern), and Moabite, with which it forms the Canaanite subgroup of the Northern Central Semitic languages.)
So when the Fathers of the Church translated “הוּא (hu)” as “she”, it was NOT a mistake, NOT a mistranslation — they were not “guilty” of turning a “masculine” pronoun into a feminine, as our modern “critics” erroneously accuse them.
Of course, the reason for this hasty conclusion on the part of our “critics” is because, in their intellectual arrogance, they just disregard the Church Fathers, seeing them as men who lived in the “dark ages” and hence who were “unenlightened” and “ignorant” of many things. As Pope Pius X points out in paragraph 42 of his Pascendi, “The Modernists pass judgment on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon Tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived.”
I have already discussed how modern scripture scholars and theologians simply discard the idea of the Bible being inspired by God the Holy Spirit in my article, Francis and his gang of heretics pushing for women ordination. For this Modernists’ treatment of Holy Bible — also represented by our “critics” — Pope St. Pius X points them out in paragraphs 22 and 34 of his Pascendi. In paragraph 22 (entitled, “The Holy Scriptures”) the Pope writes:
“We have already touched upon the nature and origin of the Sacred Books. According to the principles of the Modernists they may be rightly described as a collection of experiences, not indeed of the kind that may come to anybody, but those extraordinary and striking ones which have happened in any religion. And this is precisely what they teach about our books of the Old and New Testament. But to suit their own theories they note with remarkable ingenuity that, although experience is something belonging to the present, still it may derive its material from the past and the future alike, inasmuch as the believer by memory lives the past over again after the manner of the present, and lives the future already by anticipation. This explains how it is that the historical and apocalyptical books are included among the Sacred Writings. God does indeed speak in these books - through the medium of the believer, but only, according to Modernistic theology, by vital immanence and permanence. Do we inquire concerning inspiration? Inspiration, they reply, is distinguished only by its vehemence from that impulse which stimulates the believer to reveal the faith that is in him by words or writing. It is something like what happens in poetical inspiration, of which it has been said: There is God in us, and when he stirreth he sets us afire. And it is precisely in this sense that God is said to be the origin of the inspiration of the Sacred Books. The Modernists affirm, too, that there is nothing in these books which is not inspired. In this respect some might be disposed to consider them as more orthodox than certain other moderns who somewhat restrict inspiration, as, for instance, in what have been put forward as tacit citations. But it is all mere juggling of words. For if we take the Bible, according to the tenets of agnosticism, to be a human work, made by men for men, but allowing the theologian to proclaim that it is divine by immanence, what room is there left in it for inspiration? General inspiration in the Modernist sense it is easy to find, but of inspiration in the Catholic sense there is not a trace.”
In paragraph 34 (entitled, “How the Bible is Dealt With”) the Pope writes:
“The result of this dismembering of the Sacred Books and this partition of them throughout the centuries is naturally that the Scriptures can no longer be attributed to the authors whose names they bear. The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming commonly that these books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed by additions to a primitive brief narration - by interpolations of theological or allegorical interpretation, by transitions, by joining different passages together. This means, briefly, that in the Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding with evolution of faith. The traces of this evolution, they tell us, are so visible in the books that one might almost write a history of them. Indeed this history they do actually write, and with such an easy security that one might believe them to have with their own eyes seen the writers at work through the ages amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this they call to their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, and labour to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, and adducing other arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their decision as to whether a thing is out of place or not. Judge if you can how men with such a system are fitted for practising this kind of criticism. To hear them talk about their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the pages of Scripture, whereas the truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding imperfections in them, have thanked God more and more the deeper they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately, these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for their guide and rule, - a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves.
“We believe, then, that We have set forth with sufficient clearness the historical method of the Modernists. The philosopher leads the way, the historian follows, and then in due order come internal and textual criticism. And since it is characteristic of the first cause to communicate its virtue to secondary causes, it is quite clear that the criticism We are concerned with is an agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist criticism. Hence anybody who embraces it and employs it, makes profession thereby of the errors contained in it, and places himself in opposition to Catholic faith. This being so, one cannot but be greatly surprised by the consideration which is attached to it by certain Catholics. Two causes may be assigned for this: first, the close alliance, independent of all differences of nationality or religion, which the historians and critics of this school have formed among themselves; second, the boundless effrontery of these men. Let one of them but open his mouth and the others applaud him in chorus, proclaiming that science has made another step forward; let an outsider but hint at a desire to inspect the new discovery with his own eyes, and they are on him in a body; deny it - and you are an ignoramus; embrace it and defend it - and there is no praise too warm for you. In this way they win over any who, did they but realise what they are doing, would shrink back with horror. The impudence and the domineering of some, and the thoughtlessness and imprudence of others, have combined to generate a pestilence in the air which penetrates everywhere and spreads the contagion. ...”
The entire Encyclical should be read HERE.
Using St. Augustine as a case study, I have shown the clear difference between the way modern Catholic churchmen treat the Bible and the way the Fathers of the Church treated it. See the article I referred to above: Francis and his gang of heretics pushing for women ordination
QUESTION: If the word “הוּא (hu)” — believed by our “critics” to be solely masculine — is used in Genesis 3:12 and Genesis 3:20 in reference to Eve (a woman), why do the same “critics” SHUT THEIR EYES to these verses but argue about the same word “הוּא (hu)” being used in reference to the new Eve, Mary (a WOMAN too!) in Genesis 3:15?
As for “Catholics” who join our Protestant opponents to make this blind argument, do they really believe Pope Pius IX’s Apostolic Constitution (a declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception “” which reads: “Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot”?