Genesis 3:15, Sam Shamoun and the Crushing of the Serpent's Head

Sam Shamoun provided a two-hour video response to the question of what Genesis 3:15 says.  He phrases it this way: does the woman or her seed crush the head of the serpent? (link to the portion of his video where his response starts)

Sam was commenting on my debate with Robert Sungenis (link to video) regarding the truth of Sola Scriptura. I appreciated Sam's comparison of my speaking style with that of David Wood.

The issue is significant for a number of reasons.  One reason is that the Papal Encyclical, Ineffabilus Deus, which defined the dogma of the immaculate conception repeatedly interprets the text of Genesis 3:15 as though it said that hell crushing the head of the serpent was that of a woman.  The reason for this error is that the Latin text is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew original. 

The Vulgate had "Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, ... ipsa conteret caput tuum ... ."  Ipsa is a feminine pronoun.  The New Vulgate corrects this error in the following: "Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem ... ipsum conteret caput tuum ...."  Ipsum is a neuter pronoun.  The difference is between "her" crushing the serpent's head, and "it" (i.e. the seed of the woman) crushing the serpent's head.

Sam compares the Douay-Rheims wording (which translated the Latin Vulgate of that day) with the King James Version, which translated the Masoretic text.

Sam's first interaction with the debate (around 28:30 into the video) is to provide about a five-minute quotation of one of Sungenis' arguments that Scripture needs an external interpreter.  Sam seizes hold of a remark about those at the early councils being willing to die for their faith.  

At 41:45, Sam goes to another clip, where Dr. Sungenis and I are discussing his proposed alternative to Sola Scriptura, and Dr. Sungenis acknowledges that he would not trust the current pope with any theological question.

With that, at 45:20 or so, Sam comes back to the particular verse in question.  For this, he turns to 59:30 in the debate (link to Sam's replaying).  

Sam spends some time building up Sungenis' high intelligence, because he's going to argue that Sungenis made a mistake.

Sungenis argued that the Hebrew is ambiguous.  Sam acknowledged, however, that the Hebrew itself is clear, and not supportive of the papal interpretation.  

Sungenis further argued that Jerome put her (i.e. "ipsa") in the Latin Vulgate. Sam says that Jerome did not, citing Jimmy Akin for support.

Finally, at 1:02:30 so into the clip, we get to what appears to be Sam's argument, which is that "seed" does not refer to Christ, but to all believers, and Mary is one of those believers.

Around 1:50:30 or so, Sam argues that the DRB must have been translated from "defective copies." 

(I would point out that the Clementine Vulgate has the same error.)

Next, Sam provides an audio version of a Catholic Answers article, claiming that because Mary also participated in what Jesus did, the "she" understanding is "also true."

Sam then provides a "Catholic Commentary," that confirms that the "she" reading is wrong, and which speculates that this reading entered through a copyist error early on.

Around 1:24:00, Sam argues that the pope interprets the pronoun as "he." Sam bases this on the fact that pope says, "These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind — words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent ... ."  Sam is just wrong that this is an interpretation of Genesis 3:15 that correctly identifies that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent (Sam made the same mistake on his blog). The phrase "by which he crushed," refers to the act of God's sentence immediately preceding the comment about crushing the head of the serpent.  Specifically, here is the full paragraph from Ineffabilis Deus:

The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin’s supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful. These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind — words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed” — taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. 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.

The reason that the pope got it wrong is because the Clementine Vulgate got it wrong.

Next (around 1:25:30), Sam turns to Luke 10:17-20.  There, Jesus tells his disciples that they have the power to tread on serpents and scorpions.  Sam interprets these as demons or devils.  

At 1:28:30 or so, Sam turned to Romans 16:20 ("And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen."). 

Then Sam argued that Mary is a believer, and consequently that these statements to believers also apply to Mary.

For the sake of the argument, we can grant this aspect of Sam's video.  When we do that, though, notice the result: Luke 10 and Romans 16 are not about Mary particularly, but about believers (if Sam is right, all believers).  Thus, if the fulfilment of Genesis 3:15 is to be found in those passages, it is wrong for the pope to interpret the passage as referring specifically or uniquely to Mary, so as to say that she was immaculately conceived.

At 1:32:00 or so, Sam argues that the word "seed" can be a collective singular, rather than an individual singular.  On this particular argument, Sam should be careful.  While sometimes it is used collectively (perhaps Romans 4:18 is an example), it is also used singularly and uniquely of Christ (Galatians 3:16 is an example).

As well, remember that in the Roman Catholic and papal view of Genesis 3, the woman represents Mary and the seed represents Christ.  So, to make the woman represent Mary and the seed also represent Mary is self-evidently problematic enough, that we can see that Sam is grasping at straws on this point, having lost track of the argument.

Moreover, Sam reads from what I believe is Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, which interprets the "seed" as "sons."  Mary is definitely not a son, and - as I mentioned above - even if "sons" could apply to all believers, it undermines the Mary-Eve comparison used and undermines the use of the passage as having special reference or applicability to Mary.  Indeed, the interpretation of Pseudo-Jonathan wrongly interprets the "seed" to be distinct from the Messiah! 

Sam seems (1:38:30) to adopt the targum view and apply it to Revelation 12, to say that the children of the woman in that chapter are the seed from Genesis 3:15.  While this is a creative tying together, it is wrong.  Sam then goes to another Targum with a similar interpretation.  In one of these Jewish documents, the seed is interpreted as all the sons of the woman, not just the Messiah.  Of course, Mary isn't a son of the woman, so that would not help any more than any of the preceding arguments. 

Ultimately, Sam's arguments can't prop up  Ineffabilis Deus.

Epiphanius of Salamis - Evidence of the Bodily Assumption in the Panarion

 Panarion, Anacephalaeosis VII, Chapter 78, Against Antidicomarians (p. 635):

23,8 And there have been many such things to mislead the deluded, though the saints are not responsible for anyone’s stumbling; the human mind finds no rest, but is perverted to evils. (9) The holy virgin may have died and been buried—her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death—as the scripture says, “And a sword shall pierce through her soul” 96—her fame is among the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end.

The greatest relevance of the passage above is that there was not a reliable tradition as to how Mary left the Earth during the time of Epiphanius of Salamis, known to him.

Moreover, when discussing the translation of Enoch and Elijah in Anacephalaeosis IV, at 64,1 and 64,2 (p. 197), in responding to the followers of Origen, Epiphanius does not mention Mary.  Likewise, when mentioning the resurrection to glory, Epiphanius only mentions Christ at 65,1.  

However, defenders of the Bodily Assumption sometimes reference to the chapter following Epiphanius' famous "No one knows her end":

Panarion, Anacephalaeosis VII, Chapter 79, Against Collyridians (p. 641):

5,1 For what this sect has to say is complete nonsense and, as it were, an old wives’ tale. Which scripture has spoken of it? Which prophet per-mitted the worship of a man, let alone a woman? (2) The vessel is choice but a woman, and by nature no different [from others]. Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, [she is] like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up and has not seen death. She is like John who leaned on the Lord’s breast, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”(FN12) She is like St. Thecla; and Mary is still more honored than she, because of the providence vouchsafed her. (3) But Elijah is not to be worshiped, even though he is alive. And John is not to be worshiped, even though by his own prayer—or rather, by receiving the grace from God—he made an awesome thing of his falling asleep.(FN13) But neither is Thecla worshiped, nor any of the saints.

For the age-old error of forgetting the living God and worshiping his creatures will not get the better of me. (4) They served and worshiped the creature more than the creator,” and “were made fools.”(FN14) If it is not his will that angels be worshiped, how much more the woman born of Ann,(FN15) who was given to Ann by Joachim(FN16) and granted to her father and mother by promise, after prayer and all diligence? She was surely not born other than normally, but of a man’s seed and a woman’s womb like everyone else. (5) For even though the story and traditions of Mary say that her father Joachim was told in the wilderness, “Your wife has conceived,”(FN17) it was not because this had come about without conjugal intercourse or a man’s seed. The angel who was sent to him predicted the coming event, so that there would be no doubt. The thing had truly happened, had already been decreed by God, and had been promised to the righteous. 

FN12 John 13:23.

FN13 Cf. Act. John 108-115. 

FN14 Rom 1:24; 22. 

FN15 Cf. Protoevangelium of James 4:1-3. 

FN16 Cf. Protoevangelium of James 4:1-3. 

FN17 Cf. Protoevangelium of James 4:2.

Naturally, there is an urgent rush to assume that the comparison to Elijah is a comparison to his translation.  Moreover, continuing to John the Assumptionists think they have hope.  That hope, however, should be crushed by Thecla, who is one of the most famous female martyrs.

As noted by the editor of the English translation, the account of John praying at the end of his life comes from the apocryphal Acts of John.  Some advocates of the Bodily Assumption like to point out that some versions of the Acts of John actually have John not simply dying, but getting translated (see the discussion at this link).  There is no evidence that Epiphanius had such an ending in mind.

Instead, as I pointed out during the debate, Epiphanius was arguing that Mary was virgin like Epiphanius thought Elijah was, and as was John according to the prayer in Acts of John 113 (113 "O thou who hast kept me until this hour for thyself and untouched by union with a woman:"), and as Thecla was reputed to have been.  We see this confirmed from the fact that the next section after what I quoted above begins: "6,1 And everywhere we see the scriptures saying < the same >. Isaiah predicted the things that would be realized in the Son of God and said, “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel.”[FN18 Isa 7:14]"

Our Roman Catholic friends would do well to hear Epiphanius words of caution in the immediately preceding section (Panarion, Anacephalaeosis VII, Chapter 79, Against Collyridians, pp. 640-41):

4,6 Yes, of course Mary’s body was holy, but she was not God. Yes, the Virgin was indeed a virgin and honored as such, but she was not given us to worship; she worships Him who, though born of her flesh, has come from heaven, from the bosom of his Father. (7) And the Gospel therefore protects us by telling us so on the occasion when the Lord himself said, “Woman, what is between me and thee? Mine hour is not yet come.”[FN11 John 2:4.] < For > to make sure that no one would suppose, because of the words, “What is between me and thee?” that the holy Virgin is anything more [than a woman], he called her “Woman” as if by prophecy, because of the schisms and sects that were to appear on earth. Otherwise some might stumble into the nonsense of the sect from excessive awe of the saint.

If Epiphanius were alive today, surely he would view the "hyper-dulia" offered to Mary to be excessive awe.  Mary was just a woman, she should not be the object of religious veneration.

Nevertheless, both the context prior and the context post are about Mary's virginity, not her supposed assumption.  The end of Mary, no one knows, as Epiphanius explicitly affirmed.