It is sometimes said that the Jewish historian Josephus (35 – c. 100 CE) supports the wording that is found in the Vulgate’s version of Genesis 3:15 as opposed to the wording that is found in Masoretic manuscripts.[1] In the Vulgate’s version of Genesis 3:15 it says:
Genesis 3:15 (Vulgate) – 15 inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius
Genesis 3:15 (Vulgate) – 15 I will put hostility between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. She herself will crush your head and you will lie in wait for her heel. (Translation mine)
But in Masoretic manuscripts, as seen in Firkovich B19a, otherwise known as Codex Leningradensis, it says:
15וְאֵיבָ֣ה׀ אָשִׁ֗ית בֵּֽינְךָ֙ וּבֵ֣ין הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וּבֵ֥ין זַרְעֲךָ֖ וּבֵ֣ין זַרְעָ֑הּ ה֚וּא יְשׁוּפְךָ֣ רֹ֔אשׁ וְאַתָּ֖ה תְּשׁוּפֶ֥נּוּ עָקֵֽב׃
15 And I will put hostility between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He/They will crush you on the head and you will crush him/them on the heel. (Translation mine)
So in the Vulgate’s version of Genesis 3:15 it says that the head of the serpent would end up being crushed by a “she”. But in Masoretic manuscripts it says that the head of the serpent would end up being crushed by a “he” or a “they” –depending on whether or not the word (זֶ֫רַע) is understood as a collective noun.[2]
Now it is sometimes, though rarely, said that the wording in the Vulgate’s version of Genesis 3:15 should be preferred over the wording in Masoretic manuscripts.[3] One piece of evidence that is sometimes offered in support of this position is how Genesis 3:15 was understood by Josephus.[4] In this post, we will take a look at whether or not Josephus does, in fact, support the wording that’s found in the Vulgate’s version of Genesis 3:15.
Josephus and Genesis 3:15
Josephus discusses Genesis 3:15 in book one, chapter one, of the Antiquities of the Jews.[5] In section fifty he says:
Ant. 1.1.50 – ἀφείλετο δὲ καὶ τὸν ὄφιν τὴν φωνὴν ὀργισθεὶς ἐπὶ τῇ κακοηθείᾳ τῇ πρὸς τὸν Ἄδαμον καὶ ἰὸν ἐντίθησιν ὑπὸ τὴν γλῶτταν αὐτῷ πολέμιον ἀποδείξας ἀνθρώποις καὶ ὑποθέμενος κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς φέρειν τὰς πληγάς, ὡς ἐν ἐκείνῃ τοῦ τε κακοῦ τοῦ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους κειμένου καὶ τῆς τελευτῆς ῥᾴστης τοῖς ἀμυνομένοις ἐσομένης
Ant. 1.1.50 – And he [i.e. God] deprived the serpent of its voice because he was angry at his malicious behavior towards Adam. And he inserted poison under his tongue – the tongue that had made him an enemy to human beings. And he [i.e. God] suggested that they should bring their blows to his head since it was in that place that his evil towards human beings was located and it is the easiest place to kill him for those who want to get revenge. (Translation mine)
From a grammatical perspective, there is some ambiguity in the part where it says that blows should be directed against the head of the serpent. In Greek, it doesn’t explicitly say who the suggestion was being made to. When translated literally it simply says, “suggesting to bring the blows against the head” (ὑποθέμενος κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς φέρειν τὰς πληγάς).
However, when the surrounding context is taken into account, it is clear that this suggestion is being made to human beings in general. Immediately before the suggestion is made it says, “And he inserted poison under his tongue – the tongue that had made him an enemy to human beings (ἀνθρώποις).” When read in context, it seems clear that the suggestion that comes immediately after this is directed towards the human beings that this passage was just talking about.
But this can be seen in an even clearer way in the part that comes right after this. So right after the suggestion is made that blows should be directed against the head of the serpent it says, “since it was in that place that his evil [i.e. the serpent] towards human beings (πρὸς ἀνθρώπους) was located and it is the easiest place to kill him for those who want to get revenge (τοῖς ἀμυνομένοις).” This makes it clear that the suggestion was being made to human beings in general and, more specifically, to “those who want to get revenge.”
So based on Josephus’s discussion of Genesis 3:15, it seems clear that he understood the word seed as a collective noun and understood it as a reference to human beings in general. This means that instead of supporting the wording in the Vulgate’s version of Genesis 3:15, Josephus actually supports the wording that is found in Masoretic manuscripts (i.e. the third masculine singular pronoun הוּא).
Where Did The Idea Come From?
So if that’s the case, where did the idea come from that Josephus supports the wording that is found in the Vulgate? It is difficult to know for certain since Josephus is normally cited without noting where he discusses this passage and without noting which translation, if any, the writer/speaker is using. But one possibility is that the idea can ultimately be traced back to a translation of the Antiquities of the Jews that was made by Ebenezer Thompson and William Charles Price back in 1777.[6] In their translation it says:
Ant. 1.1.50 (Thompson and Price) – And, as the just punishment of the malice and wiles of the serpent, God deprived him of the gift of speech, put poison under his tongue, condemned him to the loss of his feet, and to crawl upon his belly in future; and branded him as the avowed enemy of mankind; further commanding Eve to tread upon his head, as being the source of all our miseries, and that part in which he is most susceptible of a mortal wound.[7]
So in this translation, it says that Eve was commanded to tread upon the head of the serpent, which would seem to support the reading that is found in the Vulgate. However, the word Eve is not found in the Greek text of this passage. This was added by the translators. As we saw earlier, the passage does not explicitly say who was given the suggestion to crush the head of the serpent. However, when the context is taken into account, it is clear that the suggestion was being made to humanity in general and, more specifically, “those who want to get revenge.”
Conclusion
So what did Genesis 3:15 say in the version that Josephus was using back in the first century? Based on his discussion in the Antiquities of the Jews as well as other evidence from Old Testament textual criticism,[8] it is clear that Josephus supports the wording that is found in Masoretic manuscripts.
Mark Steven Francois, Ph.D.
[1] Taylor Marshall, “Who Crushes Satan’s Head in Genesis 3:15? (Mary or Jesus?)” https://taylormarshall.com/2010/12/who-crushes-satans-head-in-genesis-315.html (accessed February 10, 2021); Wikipedia contributors, “Seed of the woman,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seed_of_the_woman&oldid=1002329204 (accessed February 10, 2021).
[2] The relevant pronoun in Hebrew is a third masculine singular pronoun (הוּא), which refers back to the word seed (זֶ֫רַע), which is a masculine singular noun. In Hebrew, the word seed (זֶ֫רַע) can either refer to an individual or it can be used as a collective noun and refer to a group of people. If it refers to an individual, the pronoun הוּא would be translated as he. But if it refers to a group of people, it would be translated as they.
[3] It should be noted that this claim is essentially made on theological grounds, though it has the veneer of being made on text-critical grounds. From a text-critical perspective, it is indisputable that the reading in Masoretic manuscripts should be preferred. The evidence will be laid out in other posts.
[4] Other arguments that are sometimes used to support this position are that: (a) the reading found in the Vulgate is supported by Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – c.50 CE); (b) the reading found in the Vulgate is supported by Maimonides (1138-1204 CE); (c) the third feminine singular pronoun הִיא is found in two Masoretic manuscripts, Kennicott 227 and 239 (for a response see https://markfrancois.wordpress.com/2021/02/05/kennicot-227-and-239-%d7%94%d7%99%d7%90-vs-%d7%94%d7%95%d7%90-in-genesis-315/); and (d) the third feminine singular pronoun in the Pentateuch is normally spelled with the same consonants as third masculine singular pronouns, which means that either one is a possibility.
[5] For the Greek text of this section in B. Niese, Flavius Josephus. Flavii Iosephi opera (Berlin: Weidmann, 1892) see http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0526.tlg001.perseus-grc1:1.1.4. For the translation of this section by William Whiston, Flavius Josephus. The Works of Flavius Josephus (Auburn and Buffalo, NY: John E. Beardsley, 1895) see http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0526.tlg001.perseus-eng1:1.1.4.
[6] This was suggested by a user called “Patron of Heaven” in the comment section of Taylor Marshall’s article cited above. The text can be found here https://archive.org/details/worksflaviusjose01jose or https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t8v98df53&view=1up&seq=7.
[7] Note that the translators do not seem to working from a different Greek text. The passage has simply been reworded and rearranged to make the translation smooth in English.
[8] This reading is supported by the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Peshitta, and the Targumim. It is also supported by some manuscripts of the Vulgate and St. Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis. See Patrologia Latina XXIII (Paris, 1883) cols. 983-1062 (specifically, c. 994). For an English translation see St. Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis, translated with an introduction and commentary by C. T. R. Hayward (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 33.
Between the Perfect and the Doomed 