"Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ignatius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Ignatius

Guest
So many translations give “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” as the greeting of the Angel Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1.
Can anyone give a literal translation? What are the Greek and Latin words which are variously translated as ‘favored one’ and ‘full of grace’? Thanks and God bless you all.
 
Ignatius said:
So many translations give “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” as the greeting of the Angel Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1.
Can anyone give a literal translation? What are the Greek and Latin words which are variously translated as ‘favored one’ and ‘full of grace’? Thanks and God bless you all.
Click to expand...
\

The Greek word is kecharitomene, which is not possible to translate elegantly in English or even Latin. The Latin Vulgate translates it as “gratia plena”, “full of grace”.

“Favored one”, while not inaccurate, fails to capture the full nuances of the term.

Not even “gratia plena” conveys full power of the Greek. The literal translation goes something like,

“Rejoice, O you who have been graced before and has continued to remain graced until now. The Lord is with you.”

I always insist on any discussion on Luke 1:28, that instead of dissing “favored one” outright, that we also recognize that “full of grace” isn’t perfect either, and only through a word study of the Greek can we understand the passage fully.
 
Ignatius said:
What are the Greek and Latin words which are variously translated as ‘favored one’ and ‘full of grace’? Thanks and God bless you all.
Click to expand...
while i love the Latin language and acknowledge it’s historical significance within the church, we must remember that the Latin is a translation and not the original language. i know you understand this because you also asked about the Greek, i am more speaking to those in these forums who seem to value the Latin Vulgate over the original languages. i studied Latin for many years and even have translated extensive parts of the Vulgate into English… it never seems to read the same as going straight from the original language.
 
I knew someone who was muslim from Iran. He always said that if the the Koran was not read in Arabic you are missing out on what it means. While many translations of the Bible are great it seems to be a problem that we also run into.
 
bengal_fan said:
…i am more speaking to those in these forums who seem to value the Latin Vulgate over the original languages.
Click to expand...
The Vulgate is valued because many of the manuscripts used in its creation no longer exist. It’s simply not possible to use a preferred manuscript in the “original languages” for some of it. This is why the Vulgate is often listed as an original “source” in modern translations. It’s not because they love Latin.

Also, many of the things you are calling “original languages” are not. For example, the gospel of St. Matthew was, according to historical testimony, written in Aramaic - and only later translated into Greek.
 
porthos11 said:
I always insist on any discussion on Luke 1:28, that instead of dissing “favored one” outright, that we also recognize that “full of grace” isn’t perfect either, and only through a word study of the Greek can we understand the passage fully.
Click to expand...
You’ve pretty much just convinced me to learn NT Greek, I had no idea the passage had that much depth to it 😊 .
 
Was the angel Gabriel speaking Greek or Aramaic to Mary?
I would be curious to see how it comes out in Aramaic.
 
JimG said:
Was the angel Gabriel speaking Greek or Aramaic to Mary?
I would be curious to see how it comes out in Aramaic.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter. The Holy Sprit inspired Luke to write ‘kecharitomene’. How can we object to that, or somehow consider it less that fully true?
 
Brendan said:
It doesn’t matter. The Holy Sprit inspired Luke to write ‘kecharitomene’. How can we object to that, or somehow consider it less that fully true?
Click to expand...
I’m not objecting. I like ‘kecharitomene!’ And I like the “full of grace” translation, even though it is apparently inadequate to fully express the meaning. “Highly favored” is hardly the same. I was just curious about the Aramaic. Not that I’m insisting Gabriel spoke Aramaic. I’m assuming that Luke got the details from Mary.
 
JimG said:
I’m not objecting. I like ‘kecharitomene!’ And I like the “full of grace” translation, even though it is apparently inadequate to fully express the meaning. “Highly favored” is hardly the same. I was just curious about the Aramaic. Not that I’m insisting Gabriel spoke Aramaic. I’m assuming that Luke got the details from Mary.
Click to expand...
Please pardon me for gently disputing you here, JimG. Perhaps this is not the best way to consider Sacred Scripture was written. I think we should focus on the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit as the fount (as Brendan alluded to) rather than give even small credence to the notion that interviews or conversations took place between the authors and the subjects. So many places in scripture where it would be impossible for an author to know to the degree it’s presented in writing – unless he had the help of God.

-mp
 
mart(name removed by moderator)orres said:
Please pardon me for gently disputing you here, JimG. Perhaps this is not the best way to consider Sacred Scripture was written. I think we should focus on the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit as the fount (as Brendan alluded to) rather than give even small credence to the notion that interviews or conversations took place between the authors and the subjects. So many places in scripture where it would be impossible for an author to know to the degree it’s presented in writing – unless he had the help of God.

-mp
Click to expand...
I understand your point, and can certainly agree with you that the Holy Spirit must be considered as the ultimate source of of the scriptures. Still, God used human authors to write what He wanted, so it can be a useful line of inquiry to consider human sources, especially for those parts of scripture which purport to relate historical happenings.
 
Joel_Tunnah said:
The Vulgate is valued because many of the manuscripts used in its creation no longer exist. It’s simply not possible to use a preferred manuscript in the “original languages” for some of it. This is why the Vulgate is often listed as an original “source” in modern translations. It’s not because they love Latin.

Also, many of the things you are calling “original languages” are not. For example, the gospel of St. Matthew was, according to historical testimony, written in Aramaic - and only later translated into Greek.
Click to expand...
Excellent points, Joel! And well said!
 
porthos11 said:
There is one other reference to “kecharitomeno” in Sirach 18:17, and is typically rendered “gracious man” (RSV).
Click to expand...
Do you mean 18:16?

The use of the verb charo there is in an adjetive form, it describes the man.

The use reqarding Mary is unique, in that it is used as a Title.

Note that Gabriel does address Mary by given name, as far as Gabriel is concerned “Kecharitomene” IS Mary’s name, or a fact so unique, that it is a form of address.

That is another area where “Highly Favored” falls.

BTW, this is one of the places where the Vatican corrected the NAB. The Vatican would not permit the NAB text to be used in the Liturgy until the NAB’s use of “highly favored daughter” was corrected.
 
I think Jim isn’t trying to get around what the Greek says, but is just wondering something that certainly has significance in other areas of Scripture where single words or phrases have powerful dogmatic significance. For instance, many Catholic apologists would rightly answer charges against the identification of Simon as the rock in Matthew by saying that the Aramaic pun that was being made was not fully applicable to the Greek. Arguments are made over the significance of the word “brothers”, and even the word “is”. (Transubstantiation? That depends on what the meaning of the word is is.) “God” in John 1, “virgin” in Isaiah 7, we ask, what did they say, and what did they mean. The address of the angel to Mary is similarly important to us, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask “What did Gabriel say?” or (perhaps more accurately, since who knows if angels speak our language, or we just hear what they mean) “What did Mary hear?”, while, of course, giving full weight to the inspired writings in the Gospel.
 
JimG said:
Was the angel Gabriel speaking Greek or Aramaic to Mary? I would be curious to see how it comes out in Aramaic.
Click to expand...
The Syrian Aramaic translation of Luke 1:28 in the Pesheetto (AKA Peshitta) has malyat taybooto, which literally means “stuffed with grace”. I discuss this in a little more detail in the following entry on my blog:

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=125682309&blogID=269593299
Brendan said:
BTW, this is one of the places where the Vatican corrected the NAB. The Vatican would not permit the NAB text to be used in the Liturgy until the NAB’s use of “highly favored daughter” was corrected.
Click to expand...
Huh? Well, what did they change it to? Even the edition of the NAB available on the Vatican’s site…

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PWK.HTM

…has “favored one”. Personally, I find that very troublesome.
By the way, just for the sake of keeping track, I wanted to note three different English translations which predate the KJV and DR and have “full of grace”:

Wyclif
And the aungel entride to hir, and seide, Heil, ful of grace; the Lord be with thee; blessid be thou among wymmen.

Tyndale
And ye angell went in vnto her and sayde: Hayle full of grace ye Lorde is with ye: blessed arte thou amonge wemen.

Coverdale
And the angell came in vnto her, and sayde: Hayle thou full of grace, the LORDE is with the: blessed art thou amonge wemen.
 
NewAbdalMaseeh said:
By the way, just for the sake of keeping track, I wanted to note three different English translations which predate the KJV and DR and have “full of grace”:

Wyclif
And the aungel entride to hir, and seide, Heil, ful of grace; the Lord be with thee; blessid be thou among wymmen.

Tyndale
And ye angell went in vnto her and sayde: Hayle full of grace ye Lorde is with ye: blessed arte thou amonge wemen.

Coverdale
And the angell came in vnto her, and sayde: Hayle thou full of grace, the LORDE is with the: blessed art thou amonge wemen.
Click to expand...
Well, now, doesn’t this just take the cake! All three of these translators are “hailed” (sorry, couldn’t resist 😃 ) as heroes of the Reformation.

I understand Wyclif may have translated from the Vulgate, but I don’t believe Tyndale or Coverdale did. Which is to say that their translations - allegedly from the Greek - allowed for “full of grace”, and they didn’t see a need to alter it “in the interests of doctrinal presuppositions” (phrase taken from the Preface to the RSV-CE).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top