Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/182

 serpents, and the whole race of men.—He shall bruise thee on the head, etc.] In the first clause the subj. is the 'seed' of the woman individualised (or collectively), in the second it is the serpent himself, acting through his 'seed.' The current reading of V (ipsa) may have been prompted by a feeling that the proper antithesis to the serpent is the woman herself. The general meaning of the sentence is clear: in the war between men and serpents the former will crush the head of the foe, while the latter can only wound in the heel. The difficulty is in the vb. , which in the sense 'bruise' is inappropriate to the serpent's mode of attack. We may speak of a serpent striking a man (as in Lat. feriri a serpente), but hardly of bruising. Hence many comm. (following G al.) take the vb. as a by-form of (strictly 'pant'), in the sense of 'be eager for,' 'aim at' (Ges. Ew. Di. al.); while others (Gu. al.) suppose that by paronomasia the word means 'bruise' in the first clause, and 'aim at' in the second. But it may be questioned whether this idea is not even less suitable than the other (Dri.). A perfectly satisfactory interpretation cannot be given (v.i.).

The Messianic interpretation of the 'seed of the woman' appears in T$J$ and Targ. Jer., where the v. is explained of the Jewish com-

(Ezk. 36$3$, Am. 2$7$ 8$4$, Ps. 56$2. 3$ 57$4$) is disguised under the by-form. But the only places where the assumption is at all necessary are Am. 2$7$ 8$4$, where the may be simply mater lectionis for the â of the ptcp. (cf., Ho. 10$14$); in the other cases the proper sense of 'pant' or metaph. 'long for') suffices. The reverse process (substitution of for ) is much less likely; and the only possible instance would be Jb. 9$17$, which is too uncertain to count for anything. There is thus not much ground for supposing a confusion in this v.; and De. points out that vbs. of hostile endeavour, as distinct from hostile achievement, , etc.), are never construed with double acc. The gain in sense is so doubtful that it is better to adhere to the meaning 'crush.' The old Vns. felt the difficulty and ambiguity. The idea of crushing is represented by Aq. , Σ. , G $Coisl. mg.$ (see Field) and Jer. (Quæst.) conterere; 'pant after' by G$A al.$ [] (if not a mistake for or ). A double sense is given by V conteret insidiaberis, and perhaps S   ; while T$O$ paraphrases:.