James White on Lk 1:28 and Kecharitomene

[Axion]

.

The text merely says “highly favored one”…I have no problem with that…
.

No. This is false.

The Greek word used by the angel is Kecharitomene. The root of this word is Charis, meaning Grace. The prefix **Ke **means that the grace was already perfectly present before the angel appeared. The suffix **mene **means that Mary is the one endowed with this grace.

Now Charis can also be translated simply as “favour”. So “Highly-favoured” could be a conceivable translation - but this would only be acceptable if the word “favour” were used as a translation for “Charis” everywhere else in the New Testament. But THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. Even those bibles which translate “Charis” as Favour" when referring to Mary, translate it as “Grace” everywhere else. This is highly misleading because in the New Testament the word “Grace” has a particular meaning distinct from “Favour”. In the New Testament “Grace” is a gift of God that saves from sin and its effects. So translating the word any differently is wrong. The correct translation is rightfully “Full of Grace”.

Kecharitomene is a special ‘tense’ within the greek language (it is a “Perfect Passive Participle”) of which the English Language has no really equivelancy. The stem of that verb denotes a “continuance of a completed action”- which means Mary was completely bestowed with Gods Grace up until that point. Continuing… a “completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem”… Which means if you want an accurate, English translation of Luke 1:28, it would be: Hail, ‘completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with Grace!’…

What the title Full of Grace does indicate is that Mary was absolutely sinless before the angel appeared to her, since having a fullness of Grace necessitates the complete absence of sin. Just as a fullness of righteousness necessitates an absence of iniquity.

 

[PhilVaz]

James White from blog << … is that the users assume someone like Keating, who has refused to engage any meaningful critique of his apologetics writings for decades now, would have a meaningful response to my criticism… >>

Fine. I’ll do it then.

The Meaning of Kecharitomene
Reply to James White’s Mary, Another Redeemer
The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God

Those three should successfully do the job. Oh there’s more where that came from.

As for Keating (allegedly) not engaging any meaningful critique of his own apologetics writings for decades, I think being a former editor of This Rock, author of several books and dozens of apologetics articles, and founder/president of the largest Catholic apologetics organization in North America, he has dealt with thousands, millions, and even billions of unmeaningful critiques of his apologetics and given meaningful answers. Doesn’t mean he must debate White to prove his skills. And neither must I. I’ll stick by the articles above.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

James White from blog << So, we can only hope that the serious minded readers of the forums (who are rarely the most talkative in my experience) will consider well just how shallow and untenable Rome’s arguments based upon Luke 1:28 really are. >>

Yes, and serious minded readers will consider well just how shallow and untenable is White’s book Mary, Another Redeemer.

Akathist hymn (eastern 5th or 6th century AD):

Hail, O you, through whom Joy will shine forth!
Hail, O you, through whom the curse will disappear!
Hail, O Restoration of the Fallen Adam!
Hail, O Redemption of the Tears of Eve!
Hail, O Peak above the reach of human thought!
Hail, O Depth even beyond the sight of angels!
Hail, O you who have become a Kingly Throne!
Hail, O you who carry Him Who Carries All!
Hail, O Star who manifest the Sun!
Hail, O Womb of the Divine Incarnation!
Hail, O you through whom creation is renewed!
Hail, O you through whom the Creator becomes a Babe!
Hail, O Bride and Maiden ever-pure!

Theodotus of Ancrya (d. 445)

In the fifth century, references to Mary’s immunity from original sin include the teaching of Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia (d. 445).

Hail, our desirable gladness;
Hail, O rejoicing of the churches;
Hail, O name that breathes out sweetness;
Hail, face that radiates divinity and grace;
Hail, most venerable memory;
Hail, O spiritual and saving fleece;
Hail, O Mother of unsetting splendor, filled with light;
Hail, unstained Mother of holiness;
Hail, most limpid font of the lifegiving wave;
Hail, new Mother, workshop of the birth.
Hail, ineffable Mother of a mystery beyond understanding;
Hail, new book of a new scripture, of which, as Isaiah tells, angels and men are faithful witnesses.
Hail, alabaster jar of sanctifying ointment;
Hail, best trader of the coin of virginity;
Hail, creature embracing your Creator;
Hail, little container containing the Uncontainable.
(Theodotus, Homily 4:3; PG 77:1391B-C; Gambero, page 267-8)

“In the place of Eve, an instrument of death, is chosen a Virgin, most pleasing to God and full of His grace, as an instrument of life. A Virgin included in woman’s sex, but without a share in woman’s fault. A Virgin innocent; immaculate; free from all guilt; spotless; undefiled; holy in spirit and body; a lily among thorns.” (Theodotus, Hom 6 in S. Deiparam, No 11; PG 77:1427A)

Another translation of above: “Innocent virgin, spotless, without defect, untouched, unstained, holy in body and in soul, like a lily flower sprung among thorns, unschooled in the wickedness of Eve, unclouded by womanly vanity…Even before the Nativity, she was consecrated to the Creator…Holy apprentice, guest in the Temple, disciple of the law, anointed by the Holy Spirit, clothed with divine grace as with a cloak, divinely wise in your mind; united to God in your heart…Praiseworthy in your speech, even more praiseworthy in your action…God in the eyes of men, better in the sight of God.” (Theodotus, Hom 6:11; Gambero, page 268)

“What did the divine messenger do then? Perceiving the Virgin’s interior dispositions and perspicacity in her outward appearance and admiring her just prudence, he began to weave her a kind of floral crown with two peaks: one of joy and one of blessing; then he addressed her in a thrilling speech of praise, lifting up his hand and crying out: ‘Hail, O full of grace, the Lord is with you, you are blessed’ (Lk 1:28), O most beautiful and most noble among women. The Lord is with you, O all-holy one, glorious and good. The Lord is with you, O worthy of praise, O incomparable, O more than glorious, all splendor, worthy of God, worthy of all blessedness…Through you, Eve’s odious condition is ended; through you, abjection has been destroyed; through you, error is dissolved; through you, sorrow is abolished; through you, condemnation has been erased. Through you, Eve has been redeemed. He who is born of the holy [Virgin] is holy, holy and Lord of all the saints, holy and Giver of holiness. Wondrous is he who generated the Woman of wonder; Ineffable is he who precedes the Woman beyond words; Son of the Most High is he who springs from this highest creature, he who appears, not by man’s willing it, but by the power of the Holy Spirit; he who is born is not a mere man, but God, the incarnate Word.” (Theodotus, On the Mother of God and on the Nativity; Patrologia orientalis 19:330-1; Gambero, page 271)

Neither White nor Webster has responded to Juniper Carol’s volumes from the 1950s, nor Bishop Ullathorne’s 19th century book on the Immaculate Conception. We’ve been waiting not only decades, but a century for a meaningful response.

Phil P

 

[po18guy]

As for Keating (allegedly) not engaging any meaningful critique of his own apologetics writings for decades, I think being a former editor of This Rock, author of several books and dozens of apologetics articles, and founder/president of the largest Catholic apologetics organization in North America, he has dealt with thousands, millions, and even billions of unmeaningful critiques of his apologetics and given meaningful answers. Doesn’t mean he must debate White to prove his skills. And neither must I. I’ll stick by the articles above.

Phil P

Some mosquitos are just too small to swat. By directly engaging White, Mr. Keating would be granting him credibility. Patrick Mardid debated White way back in the 90s. Here’s a link to Patrick’s impressions of White:

patrickmadrid.com/whitemansburden.htm

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Here’s a link to Patrick’s impressions of White >>

I remember that! Then I remember White’s 55-page or so response written a month or two later (can be found on his site somewhere I think) which he turned into a booklet (White gave me the booklet). Then Juniper Carol’s 555-page multi-volume response to that. Still waiting for White’s 5,555 page response to Carol. When does it end? We serious minded non-Calvinist readers of the CA Forums want to know.

Phil P

 

[Canto]

When you say hello to someone you usually say their name right, especially if you are greeting them for the first time.

The angel said Chaire Kecharitomene
Note he does not say Chaire Miriam, kecharitomene
Kecharitomene is clearly a title and not just a descriptor and it is of course one word.
Who else is ever called Kecharitomene, so how can some say it means Mary is merely favoured. If Luke wanted to say this he could of.

The root word charitoo means to fill with grace
the perfect denotes fullness (Westminster Translation footnote)
Thus we have Full of Grace

Also being a perfect passive participle - Mary received the grace in the past before the annunciation.

If we agree with sacred tradition that this time in the past was Mary’s conception, how could she have ever sinned with God’s grace always with her?

consulting Strong’s for charitoo it says (and says first) “to grace”

Tyndale[1534] full of grace (in the actual verse)
Cranmer [1539] full of grace (in the actual verse)
Geneva [1599] might be rendered full of favour and grace - margin
King James [1611] Much Graced – margin
Polyglott Bible [1838] or Much Graced - margin
Revised Version [1885] endowed with grace - margin
American Standard Version [1901] or endowed with grace - margin
Scofield Edition [1909, revised in 1914] or endued with grace - margin
New Standard Reference Bible [1934] Much Graced – margin
Westminster [1935] full of grace
The Amplified [1958] in the verse (In brackets) endowed with grace with a foot note that says ‘literal translation’
Christian Community Bible (198?) full of grace (in the actual verse)

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Oh Gee, I just realized I have a vice

Sarah became Sarai

versa.

Does anyone think I need to ask the mods to correct such a thing, will it ruin the argument? How hi are you, mods – I have a vice versa, could you fix it?
I don’t mean to offend such a woman’s dignity as Sarah, the quarry of faith from which the children of Israel came. The rock Abraham in the flesh of his wife; upon which is built the early foundation of the church, the outcalling on the Mount, I really do feel silly… This name changing stuff gets so complicated!

God bless you all.

 

[PhilVaz]

Cleaned up and improved…

The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace

Phil P

 

[rpavich]

I guess this is not going to go anywhere.

You all keep asserting over and over the same thing yet…the original post was left untouched.

Does the passage support the leap that the RC church makes to “sinlessness”?

NO. As has been stated.

That was the answer 25 posts back and remains the answer.

The text doesn’t support any such thing.

PS: Assertions don’t make arguments.

 

[rpavich]

Sin cannot be in her if she is perfectly and permamently graced.

Naked assertion, not proven.

I agree the key to understanding the passage is to see that Mary’s name had been changed and the significance of that throughout the OT.

Naked assertion, not proven.

He is dishonest in his representation of Catholic apologists. He is not interested in meaningful dialogue.

Cop out

Nice trick! So, do you deny that the language of Jesus and Mary was Aramiaic?

Trick? I simply asked for some documentation that this phrase was uttered in Aramiaic.

As it was intended to do, scripture backs up tradition.

Naked assertion, not proven.

Because the bible does not say that Gabriel spoke Greek.

What in the heck does this have to do with what the text of scripture says?

Does the bible teach every single thing that Jesus said and did? Does the bible tell of every single thing that the Twelve did? Does the bible tell of everything that Paul did? Well no, it does not.

Of course that’s never been the issue; once again a smoke screen. The issue has always been the RC’s position that their beliefs HAVE ALWAYS been the beliefs of the Church…and thus we talk about this passage supporting or not supporting the “full of grace/sinless” doctrine.

The angel addresses Mary, not by name, but by a quality she possesses. “Hail, full of grace…”

Actually it’s NOT “full of grace” as has been pointed out over and over.

Mary was GRACED completely,
remains GRACED completely
this state of being GRACED completely will continue and
there is NOTHING MORE to be added!.

And just in case you missed it before; assertions are not arguments.

 

[Rogerteder]

So, I’m currently in a debate on the meaning of the Greek word kecharitomene (“full of grace”) in Lk 1:28 and the implications for Marian dogma. My opponent recently provided the following argument by James White:

However, if we look at Mr. Keating’s presentation, it seems clear that he is basing his interpretation not primarily upon the lexical meaning of the word caritow, but upon the form it takes in Luke 1:28, that being the perfect passive participle, kecaritomene. Note that Keating alleges that the “Greek indicates a perfection of grace.” He seems to be playing on the perfect tense of the participle. But, as anyone trained in Greek is aware, there is no way to jump from the perfect tense of a participle to the idea that the Greek “indicates a perfection of grace.” First, participles primarily derive their tense aspect from the main verb of the sentence. In this case, however, we have a vocative participle, and no main verb in what is in actuality simply a greeting. (The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.) What are we to do with the perfect tense of the participle, then? We might take it as an intensive perfect, one that emphatically states that something is (see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament pg. 202), but most likely it is simply emphasizing the certainty of the favor given, just as the perfect passive participle in Matthew 25:34 (“Come, you who are blessed by my Father…”), 1 Thessalonians 1:4 (“For we know, brothers loved by God…”), and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord…”) emphasizes the completedness of the action as well. No one would argue that in Matthew 25:34, Jesus means to tell us that the righteous have a “perfection of blessedness that indicates that they had this perfection throughout their life, for a perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively” (to borrow from Mr. Keating’s presentation). The application of Keating’s thoughts to any of the above passages results in foolishness. Hence, it is obvious that when Keating says that the Greek indicates that Mary “must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called `full of grace’ or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way,” he is, in point of fact, not deriving this from the Greek at all, but from his own theology, which he then reads back into the text. There is simply nothing in the Greek to support the pretentious interpretation put forward by Keating and Madrid. Therefore, Madrid’s statement, “This is a recognition of her sinless state,” falls for lack of support. The angel addressed Mary as “highly favored,” for, as he himself said, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.”

You can read White’s entire article here. At any rate, if I am understanding White correctly, his argument can be restated like this:

If Mt 25:34; 1 Thes 1:4; and 2 Thes 2:13 all have the same perfect passive tense as Lk 1:28, why don’t we understand those verses the same way we understand Lk 1:28, as indicating a permanent state of fullness, completion, or perfection of the verb in question?

Have I properly understood his argument? How would you respond to this argument?

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

google Bob Sungenis and Luke 1:28 he has a great article explaining it all—

 

[rpavich]

google Bob Sungenis and Luke 1:28 he has a great article explaining it all–

Surprisingly, I couldn’t find anything…can you provide a link?

 

[rmax70]

Sorry to break in on this subject but since I know James watches this forum and does not allow comments on his blog I just had to post this here.

He said this about Harold Camping:

" This incredibly absurd belief, which overthrows every possible part of the Bible’s teaching on the cross, the incarnation, atonement, etc., is just another example of the fact that once you are cut loose from the foundation of Scripture, there is no end of the silliness you can end up promoting."

I would say to James:

"This incredibly absurd belief, which overthrows every possible part of the Church and the Bible’s teaching on the cross, the incarnation, atonement, etc., is just another example of the fact that once you are cut loose from the foundation of the Church and Scripture, there is no end of the silliness you can end up promoting.

How many false teachers have caused havoc in peoples lives relying on the Bible alone?

2 Peter 3:16
His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Russ

 

[rpavich]

How many false teachers have caused havoc in peoples lives relying on the Bible alone?

You CANNOT be serious.

False teachers arose WHILE THE TRADITIONS WERE BEING SPOKEN BY THE ORIGINAL APOSTLES…

What a thoroughly horrible argument.

Like I don’t know any Catholics who believe and teach false things…

give me a break.

 

[chris_notzon]

I would like to add a perspective to this argument that I hope transcends Greek, and Latin, and all languages which I humbly admit I do not have a God given gift for. Mary is not only full of grace, but there is NO grace that could benefit man that she does not possess. She has a sweet jusrisdiction over the salvation of man whether a person is Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Athiest, Muslim Jewish, Etc. She loves us all and wants us all to love Her son, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Questioning her fullness of grace whether to confirm the truth about her role in our salvation or in order to negate it, does not change who she is. We will all be surprised when we realize at our passing that it will be Mary who leads us to Jesus. it will be Mary, who begs Jesus to spare our souls, and we will realize that any blessing or grace that we ever had in our life, came from JESUS…THRU MARY, AND BY NO OTHER WAY! With deep love and humility let us pray a Hail Mary for Mr. White, and any soul who does not yet understand his or her dependence on Mary. Hail Mary Full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

Amen

 

[rpavich]

We will all be surprised when we realize at our passing that it will be Mary who leads us to Jesus.

Repeat after me:

Assertions are not arguments
Assertions are not arguments
Assertions are not arguments
Assertions are not arguments
Assertions are not arguments

 

[rmax70]

I have no doubt that there are false teachers inside the Catholic Church but this is not authoritative teaching. It’s not very hard to find authoritative teaching in the Catholic Church.

I have no doubt that false teachers arose while the Apostles were alive. This has nothing to do with my argument.

My point is when people leave the Church that Christ Instituted and start interpreting the scriptures for the masses then you have examples such as Harold Camping and James White.

Russ

 

[rpavich]

And again…your point is unfounded.

your point was this:

Not having the “Central Authoritative body to interpret scripture” and ONLY having that scripture, leads to this kind of false teaching.

My point was this: The same kind of thing goes in WITHIN the RCC church and EVEN AMONG IT’S APOLOGIST WHO CANNOT AGREE…

So point invalid.

The fact that someone mis-represents what a book says doesn’t necessarily follow that their has to be some “infallible authority” to tell me what it means…bad logic…sorry.

PS: Why don’t you listen to the Camping debate; see the scriptures cited, and then provide the “Authoritative interpretation” of them that Rome has provided…now that would be a service to both Mr. Camping, and Dr. White.

Would this be possible or would it be like on this thread for example…where every Catholic has their own private interpretation, even contradicting each other within the same thread?

 

[PhilVaz]

rpavich << Would this be possible or would it be like on this thread for example…where every Catholic has their own private interpretation, even contradicting each other within the same thread? >>

There is “private interpretation” of individual texts since the Church doesn’t decide the precise meaning of any text of Scripture (except perhaps a few). What we have is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception itself, which is not based on any one text of Scripture, but has various levels of support from Scripture, the Fathers, the development of doctrine in the Church (the arguments and history is detailed in my article from Carol’s Mariology). The dogma is true because the Church that Christ founded has taught it. We’re not basing the dogma on Luke 1:28 alone, but let’s examine the argument from that text a little more.

Let’s go back and see what Kecharitomene means to Greek scholars or folks who read the language. We have from the Greek perfect tense:

“The ‘perfect’ action of the participle is considered to have been completed before the time of the speaker…The person using the word is confessing that the one referred to has already been blessed [referring to Psalm 118:26 LXX]…” (from a commentary Zechariah and Jewish Renewal by Fred P. Miller)

“The Greek perfect tense denotes the present state resultant upon a past action…” (Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, p. 187).

“The word ‘saved’ * is translated from the Greek word sesosmenoi, which is a perfect passive participle. It means that this salvation took place at some point in the past and is continuing on in the present…” (from commentary on 2 Peter 3, CephasMinistry.org)

So what the perfect passive participle means is Mary was ‘highly favored’ or ‘full of grace’ sometime in the past, was ‘highly favored’ or ‘full of grace’ in the present, and will continue to be ‘highly favored’ or ‘full of grace’ in the future. That was one of Keating’s main points (found in Catholicism and Fundamentalism) in the chapter on Marian doctrines (see page 269). Keating says:

(1) Kecharitomene signifies a plenitude of favor or grace (he cites from Catholic scholar Rene Laurentin).
(2) This grace is at once permanent and of a singular kind (i.e. the specific word and greeting is only used of Mary).
(3) The Greek indicates a perfection of grace (disputed by White).
(4) This perfection of grace must be not only intensive, but extensive, and must have extended over the whole of her life, from conception (disputed by White)

Keating says: “…she must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called ‘full of grace’ or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way. This is just what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds…” (C & F, page 269)

The only “leap” Keating is making is that “full of grace” means a complete state of sanctifying grace (i.e. in Catholic theology) and that implies sinlessness. It is not that hard a leap to make, and follows from the meaning of the Greek. The opposite of grace is sin. To be ‘full of grace’ is to have no sin, to be pure, to be immaculate. The Fathers so interpreted the text and greeting as such. I’ve quoted Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-270 AD), the Akathist hymn (5th or 6th century AD), Theodotus of Ancyra (early 5th century AD), Romanos the Melodist (c. 560 AD), and John the Theologian (c. 400 AD).

“In the place of Eve, an instrument of death, is chosen a Virgin, most pleasing to God and full of His grace, as an instrument of life. A Virgin included in woman’s sex, but without a share in woman’s fault. A Virgin innocent; immaculate; free from all guilt; spotless; undefiled; holy in spirit and body; a lily among thorns.” (Theodotus, Hom 6 in S. Deiparam, No 11; PG 77:1427A) or another translation: "Innocent virgin, spotless, without defect, untouched, unstained, holy in body and in soul, like a lily flower sprung among thorns, unschooled in the wickedness of Eve, unclouded by womanly vanity… (Theodotus, Hom 6:11; Gambero, page 268)

According to Fr. Luigi Gambero, author of Mary and the Fathers of the Church, “This kind of apostrophe addressed to the Virgin occurs frequently in Greek homilies of the fifth century onward; it constitutes a literary form called chairetismoi, from the Greek word chaire, which translates as ‘hail’ or ‘rejoice’ (cf. Luke 1:28).”

So the Church Fathers agree with Karl Keating on Luke 1:28, not with James White.

continued in next post…

Phil P*

 

[PhilVaz]

continued from previous…

Once again, the Greek word means:

“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard Univ Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175). See also Fr. Mateo’s booklet on the Marian doctrines where some of these quotes are found.

James White: “…it is obvious that when Keating says that the Greek indicates that Mary ‘must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called `full of grace’ or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way,’ he is, in point of fact, not deriving this from the Greek at all, but from his own theology, which he then reads back into the text. There is simply nothing in the Greek to support the pretentious interpretation put forward by Keating and Madrid.”

Incorrect, as shown above. The Greek was so interpreted of a pure, immaculate, sinless Mary, the Mother of God in the Church Fathers.

Keating’s argument stands, White is refuted by the Fathers.

There is much more on the development of the doctrine, and I invite you to print out the article I carefully edited from Carol’s Mariology and Ullathorne’s Immaculate Conception.

Phil P