The Use of the Plural in Genesis 3

I am on the Common English Bible Advent Blog Tour, which has afforded me a great opportunity to dig into this new translation more carefully. Overall, I love the freshness of the language. There is a fresh clarity to some phrases that I find helpful. Using a new translation always keeps me on my toes as I read very familiar passages. It’s like getting a set of fresh eyes on the subject matter.

One such passage is today’s Advent reading in Genesis 3:15. This, of course, is a passage that is almost universally used to be the first prediction of Messiah. The CEB takes an interesting turn here.

First, the NIV:

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.

And the CEB:

15 I will put contempt
   between you and the woman, 

   between your offspring and hers. 
They will strike your head, 
      but you will strike at their heels.

The question here, for me, is why the CEB went to the plural. Can you great Hebrew scholars help me with this one? Thanks!

4 responses to “The Use of the Plural in Genesis 3”

  1. Good morning! I’m no Hebrew scholar (not even close!), but I did read this two-part blog post by Dr. Claude Mariottini at Northern Baptist Seminary. I’ll post the links to parts one and two here:

    http://claudemariottini.org/2011/05/25/translating-genesis-315-part-1/
    http://claudemariottini.org/2011/05/26/translating-genesis-315-part-2/

    It’s worth a read, even if (in the end) one doesn’t agree with the conclusions Dr. Marriottini reaches. The basic idea is that the word for “offspring” is a collective singular, so it takes a singular verb, but references multiple persons (e.g., the human race).

    It’s not my favorite rendering, but (I suppose) it is exegetically defensible! 🙂

  2. Thanks for the links!

  3. Rick Wadholm Jr. Avatar
    Rick Wadholm Jr.

    While a case (such as the one presented) can be made for using a plural, technically it is not a plural in the strictest grammatical sense. I’m not really certain why they should go with such a translation in this case.

  4. I’m no scholar, but from my own experience with the more “liberal” translators (or should I say their superiors) Is that they don’t want to make it so possible for this passage to be referring to the Messiah, Jesus. They’d much rather it was more generic. (Or I could be reading far too much into their actions.)

Leave a reply to Chad Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.