History of Bible Translations - The Many Translations reflect the Number of Denominations...

[rightness]

I was talking to Anglican friends about Mary, and I happened upon a key text that sparked much research. For context, I wasn’t aware about the complexity of the Bible translation history until today.

For those familiar, Luke 1:28 “Full of Grace” vs “Favored one” or the dozens of different translations.

They noticed that they haven’t heard the term “Full of Grace”, so they looked at their NIV and ESV translations. I was pretty surprised too. We research together why there is a difference, and we happened upon two resources at first: a Christian Apologetics website, and a Catholic website.

https://carm.org/catholic/mary-full-grace-and-luke-128
http://www.themichigancatholic.org/2014/05/is-mary-full-of-grace-or-just-highly-favored/

The first one presented the argument of the Duoay-Rheims Bible as inaccurate as it was a “translation of a translation”, that is a translation of the Latin Vulgate instead of the original Koine Greek text. We would then find out that the Latin Vulgate was translate by St. Jerome in the 390 ad, commissioned by Pope Damasus I, after the official compilation and canonization in the Council of Laodicea in 364 ad. This would be the official translation of the Church for more than a thousand years (since Latin is the official language on Rome). Then, we find out, in response to the Reformation, the Duoay-Rheims Bible was the first English translation for Catholics, and there wouldn’t be another accurate English translation until the RSVCE.

The second website had a very detailed description of the Koine Greek word “kecharitomene”, which the first website briefly says it means “highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean “full of grace” which is “plaras karitos” (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.” Not very convincing when compared to the Catholic website, which teaches the breakdown of the Greek word.

My Anglican friends were more convinced of the Catholic website’s description of “kecharitomene” and find it more reasonable that translating from the Latin Vulgate is more appropriate than a translation from Greek done a millennium later. I personally found audacious that the Christian Apologetics website would consider the Latin Vulgate as inaccurate when it was the translation made in the 4th century and used by the Church up to now, but I guess that’s expected…

Now, I didn’t want to just share. I wanted to ask what would have the accurate verse of Luke 1:28 about Gabriel’s greeting “Full of Grace”. It seems like it would be the Latin Vulgate (Latin), then the Duoay Rheims (English), then the RSVCE (English). I know some translations, like the NAB and TEV were used for Catholics, but they don’t have this accuracy, so I’d probably steer clear from them. What are your thoughts and (name removed by moderator)ut?

 

[HopkinsReb]

My main thought is there’s not much difference between the two phrases. I would loosely define grace as “God’s presence, favor, and aid.” In that understanding, “favored one” and “full of grace” aren’t that different.

 

[PJH_74]

The problem here is that we are trying to translate either dead languages or languages whose vernacular is stuck as it was thousands of years ago. I doubt ancient Greek would be all that understandable to a native Greek speaker. Middle English is bad enough and I have to research Shakespearean plays (and I’ve seen many) before going so I can understand it better…and that English is only 400 years old.

My point being that we have to make choices when translating things into modern languages, there are people with PhDs in this stuff. Sometimes these translations are educated guesses as to their context and the language being translated to also changes of course…KJV Bibles anyone?

One must also remember that there is not likely just “one” version of the Bible passages. It might be that some of this is a compilation of just fragments of earlier translations or copies. It is also highly unlikely that the text has not changed as it was written and passed along. You must remember that there were very few truly literate people prior to more recent times. A number of “literate” people could often just daft basic documents or communication. I would find it hard to believe none of these people were involved in the process of transmitting Biblical copies.

Incidentally virtually all Bible translations are copyrighted due to the work that goes into the translation. The KJV Bible is very common because it is the only, or one of the very few, Bible translations in the public domain.

 

[rightness]

My main thought is there’s not much difference between the two phrases. I would loosely define grace as “God’s presence, favor, and aid.” In that understanding, “favored one” and “full of grace” aren’t that different.

I think “full of grace” indicates the lack of sin. Grace opposes sin, so to be declared to be full of it means the complete lack of sin. “Favored one” doesn’t have that effective meaning.

The problem here is that we are trying to translate either dead languages or languages whose vernacular is stuck as it was thousands of years ago. I doubt ancient Greek would be all that understandable to a native Greek speaker. Middle English is bad enough and I have to research Shakespearean plays (and I’ve seen many) before going so I can understand it better…and that English is only 400 years old.

My point being that we have to make choices when translating things into modern languages, there are people with PhDs in this stuff. Sometimes these translations are educated guesses as to their context and the language being translated to also changes of course…KJV Bibles anyone?

One must also remember that there is not likely just “one” version of the Bible passages. It might be that some of this is a compilation of just fragments of earlier translations or copies. It is also highly unlikely that the text has not changed as it was written and passed along. You must remember that there were very few truly literate people prior to more recent times. A number of “literate” people could often just daft basic documents or communication. I would find it hard to believe none of these people were involved in the process of transmitting Biblical copies.

Incidentally virtually all Bible translations are copyrighted due to the work that goes into the translation. The KJV Bible is very common because it is the only, or one of the very few, Bible translations in the public domain.

I was looking up the dates of when various Bible translations were made, and most of them were past the 1900s and close to 2000s. It appears to me that protestant denominations took things in their own hand and kept making translations. Like the Jehovah’s Witness would make the poorest Bible translation to suit their needs. The RSVCE is a result and response to the “ecumenical” version of the RSV. Duoay-Rheims is public domain as well, and I think more accurate to doctrine than the KJV, obviously because protestants would translate things to favor themselves when they can.

The Hail Mary prayer dates back to the 10 century, so, obviously, they were using the Vulgate. I’m pretty sure they had, at least, used “Full of Grace” for the English speakers at that time.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I think “full of grace” indicates the lack of sin. Grace opposes sin, so to be declared to be full of it means the complete lack of sin. “Favored one” doesn’t have that effective meaning.

PJH_74:

One’s certainly a stronger version of the statement. My (inarguably poor) understanding of the Greek is that the stronger version is more accurate, but either way, I think the difference is more of degree than kind.

 

[porthos11]

I’m not one of those who puts “full of grace” on a pedestal and neither do I trample “highly favoured” underfoot.

“Kecharitomene” is not elegantly translatable in its full power, be it into Latin or English. Both “full of grace” and “highly favoured” are best efforts, but they are both lame, for to translate this word, you have two options: lame or clumsy. The translators, including St. Jerome, probably wisely, opted for lame.

“full of grace” does not carry the power of the Greek perfect, or the Greek vocative, and “highly favoured” does not quite carry the “oomph” of “grace” (and despite our theological differences, it is not un-Catholic to translate “charitoo” as “favour” in some contexts, and the Annunciation does not exclude that translation in its own context.

That’s why a proper discussion of Luke 1:28 must be from the Greek, and not merely from translations.

 

[SeraficLeo]

Engraced of God would be the closest I could think of for conveying the Greek into English based on the etymology and connotations given by the one website of the Greek word. “Favoured one” comes nowhere near conveying it. But given that Saint Jerome was such a master of both Greek and Latin, I wonder why he thought full [L. plena] should have been included?

When I read up about Saint Jerome’s commission to translate the Bible into Latin for the Church, I was impressed how thoroughly modern he was when he came to deciding what texts to use, seeking a delicate balance between the most ancient/original and the most trustworthy and authoritative (keep in mind that an extremely old bad or careless translation couldn’t be taken seriously just because it might be very old). We also have the benefit of seeing many of his own justifications for texts he chose and even his reasoning for why he chose to translate some things as he did, giving us insight into the Hebrew or Greek text he was using or working from, making his arguments for why he chose to translate as he did, based on the meaning and context of the language in question.

It’s lamentable that the Latin Vulgate is treated as a mere translation into Latin at such-and-such a time: Saint Jerome scoured the earth for the oldest and best texts and manuscripts, with a bonafide “pedigree” (or history) behind them. Manuscripts back then could last 400 years if taken care of, meaning Jerome could easily have been reading a manuscript that sometimes was only once or twice removed from originals or contemporary copies of an original.

 

[rightness]

I’m not one of those who puts “full of grace” on a pedestal and neither do I trample “highly favoured” underfoot.

“Kecharitomene” is not elegantly translatable in its full power, be it into Latin or English. Both “full of grace” and “highly favoured” are best efforts, but they are both lame, for to translate this word, you have two options: lame or clumsy. The translators, including St. Jerome, probably wisely, opted for lame.

“full of grace” does not carry the power of the Greek perfect, or the Greek vocative, and “highly favoured” does not quite carry the “oomph” of “grace” (and despite our theological differences, it is not un-Catholic to translate “charitoo” as “favour” in some contexts, and the Annunciation does not exclude that translation in its own context.

That’s why a proper discussion of Luke 1:28 must be from the Greek, and not merely from translations.

How would you define the word “charitoo” if you are allowed to give a longer definition?

Engraced of God would be the closest I could think of for conveying the Greek into English based on the etymology and connotations given by the one website of the Greek word. “Favoured one” comes nowhere near conveying it. But given that Saint Jerome was such a master of both Greek and Latin, I wonder why he thought full [L. plena] should have been included?

Hmm Engraced of God does some more powerful than Full of Grace since it indicates that the Grace was bestowed on her by God. Maybe St. Jerome thought it can be understood without God’s name attached to it because all Grace comes from God anyways.

 

[porthos11]

porthos11:

I’m not one of those who puts “full of grace” on a pedestal and neither do I trample “highly favoured” underfoot.

“Kecharitomene” is not elegantly translatable in its full power, be it into Latin or English. Both “full of grace” and “highly favoured” are best efforts, but they are both lame, for to translate this word, you have two options: lame or clumsy. The translators, including St. Jerome, probably wisely, opted for lame.

“full of grace” does not carry the power of the Greek perfect, or the Greek vocative, and “highly favoured” does not quite carry the “oomph” of “grace” (and despite our theological differences, it is not un-Catholic to translate “charitoo” as “favour” in some contexts, and the Annunciation does not exclude that translation in its own context.

That’s why a proper discussion of Luke 1:28 must be from the Greek, and not merely from translations.

How would you define the word “charitoo” if you are allowed to give a longer definition?

“charitoo” is grace. Or favour.

“kecharitomene”, however is a whole different exercise. The most precise translation in English is:

“[O you who were] graced some time before and continue to remain graced till now”.

Prepending the “O” should convey the Greek vocative and participle, the “graced” should indicate the past component of the perfect, and the “continue to remain” conveys the perfect’s continuous effect of that past event. And “were” coveys the passive voice.

I don’t know why St. Jerome felt the need to include the word “plena” since the Greek makes no indication of degree of “gracedness”, only a sense of continuity. It does not even indicate when she entered her graced state, only that it was in the past. As I guess, it’s a best effort because of the extreme clumsiness of a precise translation of the word.

Even “engraced” doesn’t capture it completely because it indicates a past event, but does not convey the continuous sense of the Greek perfect.

 

[SeraficLeo]

Hmm Engraced of God does some more powerful than Full of Grace since it indicates that the Grace was bestowed on her by God. Maybe St. Jerome thought it can be understood without God’s name attached to it because all Grace comes from God anyways.

Yes, all grace does come from God and you may well be right for why St. Jerome didn’t feel he had to include “of God.” But I thought “engraced of God,” because the very Greek word explicitly indicates that Mary is being and had been acted upon: so I included “of God” so that an English reader might know this is almost being emphasized by the Greek word itself.

 

[SeraficLeo]

I don’t know why St. Jerome felt the need to include the word “plena” since the Greek makes no indication of degree of “gracedness”

Maybe by plena Jerome actually meant to indicate the indefinite in time (i.e. that it had happened in the past and still persists), as in the sense of plenary as an adjective meaning unqualified/unqualified-ly or unconditional/unconditionally:

ple·na·ry

ADJECTIVE

1. unqualified; absolute.

“crusaders were offered a plenary indulgence by the Pope”

synonyms:

unconditional · unlimited · unrestricted · unqualified · absolute · complete

 

[rightness]

“charitoo” is grace. Or favour.

“kecharitomene”, however is a whole different exercise. The most precise translation in English is:

“[O you who were] graced some time before and continue to remain graced till now”.

Prepending the “O” should convey the Greek vocative and participle, the “graced” should indicate the past component of the perfect, and the “continue to remain” conveys the perfect’s continuous effect of that past event. And “were” coveys the passive voice.

I don’t know why St. Jerome felt the need to include the word “plena” since the Greek makes no indication of degree of “gracedness”, only a sense of continuity. It does not even indicate when she entered her graced state, only that it was in the past. As I guess, it’s a best effort because of the extreme clumsiness of a precise translation of the word.

Even “engraced” doesn’t capture it completely because it indicates a past event, but does not convey the continuous sense of the Greek perfect.

So is the degree of grace a mistake in the translation? Does the Greek allow the understanding that Mary was without sin since she was full of the opposing force of sin, which is grace? I think St. Jerome wanted to point out that Mary was without sin.

I guess in terms of English grammar, “kecharitomene” needs to be conveyed in the past perfect continuous for the closest representation. Graced in the past, graced in the present, and will continue to be graced with no end. “Eternally Graced”?

 

[SeraficLeo]

“Eternally Graced”?

Ever-graced?

 

[Todd_Easton]

I don’t know why St. Jerome felt the need to include the word “plena” since the Greek makes no indication of degree of “gracedness”, only a sense of continuity.

I don’t know any Greek so I could be wrong but I remember reading somewhere that the prefix “ke” at the beginning of the word “kecharitomene” indicates a high degree of “gracedness,” which is why some, like the KJV and NIV, translate it as “highly favored,” instead of translating it merely as “favored.”

 

[porthos11]

porthos11:

I don’t know why St. Jerome felt the need to include the word “plena” since the Greek makes no indication of degree of “gracedness”

Maybe by plena Jerome actually meant to indicate the indefinite in time (i.e. that it had happened in the past and still persists), as in the sense of plenary as an adjective meaning unqualified/unqualified-ly or unconditional/unconditionally:

ple·na·ry

ADJECTIVE

1. unqualified; absolute.

“crusaders were offered a plenary indulgence by the Pope”

synonyms:

unconditional · unlimited · unrestricted · unqualified · absolute · complete

The keyword here is “maybe”.

“plenary” means “full”. It does not carry the same sense as the Greek perfect.

As I said, Jerome needed to make a best effort attempt because Latin is deficient, as is English where this word is concerned. The Greek’s perfect coveys only continuity of effect, and while close, does not imply fullness. We can apply logic to draw the conclusion of fullness, but we cannot derive that from the language itself.

The power of the word “kecharitomene” stems not only from the perfect, but also from the vocative and the fact that it is a passive participle. Only the Greek really conveys that, and it falls short in the Latin and the English.

 

[porthos11]

porthos11:

“charitoo” is grace. Or favour.

“kecharitomene”, however is a whole different exercise. The most precise translation in English is:

“[O you who were] graced some time before and continue to remain graced till now”.

Prepending the “O” should convey the Greek vocative and participle, the “graced” should indicate the past component of the perfect, and the “continue to remain” conveys the perfect’s continuous effect of that past event. And “were” coveys the passive voice.

I don’t know why St. Jerome felt the need to include the word “plena” since the Greek makes no indication of degree of “gracedness”, only a sense of continuity. It does not even indicate when she entered her graced state, only that it was in the past. As I guess, it’s a best effort because of the extreme clumsiness of a precise translation of the word.

Even “engraced” doesn’t capture it completely because it indicates a past event, but does not convey the continuous sense of the Greek perfect.

So is the degree of grace a mistake in the translation? Does the Greek allow the understanding that Mary was without sin since she was full of the opposing force of sin, which is grace? I think St. Jerome wanted to point out that Mary was without sin.

I guess in terms of English grammar, “kecharitomene” needs to be conveyed in the past perfect continuous for the closest representation. Graced in the past, graced in the present, and will continue to be graced with no end. “Eternally Graced”?

Using the word “eternally” to convey the Greek is implying something the Greek doesn’t. The perfect tells us Mary was graced in the past. It doesn’t tell us when. It could have been at her conception, her birth, yesterday, or the minute before the angel appeared.

It also tells us that the effect of that gracedness had persisted to the present time (i.e. at the moment the angel was speaking). It implies nothing about the future. So using the words “eternally” or “ever” is eisegesis: reading something into the text that the text doesn’t say.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say Jerome’s is a mistake any more than I would say the “highly favoured” translation is a mistake. It a best effort attempt. Jerome had to make do with the limitations of his target language without sounding stilted.

 

[SyCarl]

I would just like to note that the New American Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible and the New Revised Version Catholic Edition all do not translated the word as full of grace, so it is not just some Protestant thing.

 

[rightness]

I would just like to note that the New American Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible and the New Revised Version Catholic Edition all do not translated the word as full of grace, so it is not just some Protestant thing.

Not entirely the whole picture. The American Bishops wanted to use the NABRE, but the Vatican said no because it was full of errors. The American Bishops insisted, so the Vatican fixed all the mistakes in the NABRE to be used in Mass, therefore it is not really the NABRE.

A large number (or maybe every) of the top English-speaking theologians use the RSVCE or the second edition, but not the NRSVCE, which was made to remove all the “insensitive gender” language and replaced it with “inclusive” language. Therefore, all of the theologians rejected the NRSVCE.

That said, I’ve seen Dr. Tim Gray, president of the Augustine Institute, finding an error in Phillipians of the RSVCE and criticizing it harshly. RSVCE is the best we can get as an update while Duoay-Rheims remains true with old fashioned language.

 

[po18guy]

One translation difficulty arises in our age: In the “approved” NAB and NAB/RE, Mary is “favored one” while Saint Stephen the Martyr is “full of grace.” (Luke 1:28, Acts 6:8)

I have a problem with that.

Translation of a translation, huh?

Riddle me this Batman:

The words were spoken in Aramaic - Gabriel to Mary in her native tongue. Aramaic was also the language of the Apostles, the Disciples and our Lord Jesus Christ. There are two utterances of our Lord in Aramaic: “Talitha koum” and “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani”

Zero in Greek.

Translation of a translation “taints” the D-R?

Latin Vulgate: Aramaic(Hebrew) > Greek > Latin (dead language = set in concrete) > English.
King James et al: Aramaic(Hebrew) > Greek > English (living = morphing, undefinable language).

The multifarious English translations have nothing to do with Hebrew/Aramaic, Greek or Latin, but with English!

Red herring.

Oh, but ‘recent discoveries’…yack yack yack…

In the year 380, why did the Church, Pope Damasus, or Saint Jerome have exactly NONE of these “recently discovered manuscripts”? Shouldn’t they have had every reliable copy in their hands? I mean, the Church was unified - no Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant paradox. Although they may be early scrolls, they are not “autographs” and are copies of copies of copies just like all the others.

I, for one, will go with Saint Jerome. Read what Saint Augustine had to say about him.

 

[Darryl_B]

History of Bible translations is this.

People thirsted for the Bible, then they invented the printing press, then they printed versions galore of the bible and people had 12 different versions in their library. Then because of over abundance people simply stopped reading it.