Luke 1:28 Why no "Hail Mary full of grace" translation?

[porthos11]

No, that’s not quite right, either. In this particular inflected form – kecharitomene – this is the sole place it occurs, but it shows up elsewhere. (For instance, see Ephesians 1:6, where it shows up as a pure verb.)

And in Sirach 18:17: kecharitomeno, close, but not identical (it’s not a vocative).

 

[AmbroseSJ]

What a welcome this has been… More like an attack. If acting like you and AmbroseSJ is what CAF has become and what being Catholic is today, then I am saddened.

No need for you to be saddened. I don’t believe anyone (at least not myself in particular) is attacking you.

I was using your quote as a launching point for my own opinion. I have enough reading skills to realize that you were ALWAYS of the same opinion as myself regarding the term grace. However, since you wanted to re-iterate THAT argument, and it certainly is one I see over and over again, I thought it would not be amiss to counter it. That is not to be taken personally. Truce?

 

[AndreaDorrie]

I appreciate expressing a desire for peace, and I apologize if I have been too sensitive (something doctors told me could happen), so I would like to just move on. I am, however disappointed even while saying this and looking back at the thread: Countering a point for the sake of countering isn’t very gracious (since we are on the subject). While I believe in forgiving and forgetting, I must add that the flood of nit-picking on my original post is worrisome, very worrisome. It’s as if everyone wants to show-up this point and that point that I wrote, and the more I write to defend my post, the more keeps coming.

And for Porthos11, the word there in Sirach is what is known as an “adjectival participle.” It means that the subject is acting “just,” “kind” or showing “favor,” being “gracious.” The expression in Luke is peculiar because of being vocative, as if saying Mary’s name is equivalent to the substance of graciousness or favor. That’s very different. It’s not used that way anywhere else even though there are similar expressions with similar spellings, and this makes it unique in Luke.

Besides, the Greek in Sirach is NOT the original inspired form of the book. It was originally composed in Hebrew, as the foreword written by Ben Sira’s grandson explains. The Greek form is canonical, but the Hebrew is the inspired language. The word in Sirach 18.17 is, of course, different in Hebrew than what appears in Luke.

And everyone is welcome to have an opinion, of course. It is a forum, after all. But goodness, Gorgias, incorrect and obnoxious. My post didn’t require you to “fix” it. If you can’t see where that is insulting, then I really am in the wrong place!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

AndreaDorrie:

If you can’t see where that is insulting, then I really am in the wrong place!

Although it would be sad if you left, and for such a silly reason, I would hate to think that you really wish to add yourself to that bunch here that feels “insulted” whenever they are contradicted. (There is a fairly large contingent of these folks posting how much umbrage they take at this and that…) But there is a huge difference. Expect contradiction, but slough off insults. The worst treatment is to be ignored.

 

[Gorgias]

There is a stark difference between the LXX Greek and the vernacular Greek of the first century.

It was written four centuries earlier. Would you expect a letter written today in English and one written in 1616 might use identical stylistic features, let alone identical grammar and spelling? Yet, the English of 1616 is Modern English, just as it is today (albeit that we’d call that variant “early modern” and ours “late modern”).

Nevertheless, stylistic differences between 3rd century BC Koine Greek and 1st century AD Koine Greek do not make them different languages…

I don’t know how I can prove that to you here, but being that I speak three Jewish dialects and have a big investment in my own people’s history, I think I speak in agreement with both Jews and other linguist scholars on this point.

Some citations from scholars might be a good start.

The words in Luke 1.28 and Ephesians 1.6 are not the same. In Luke the word is KECHARITOMENE, but in Ephesians the word is ESCHARITOSEN. They are similar, but not the same.

No, they’re the same root, although they are inflected differently. kecharitomene is xaritoo, inflected as a perfect participle in the feminine nominative. echaritosen is xaritoo as a verb, aorist indicative active third person singular. Same word. Different inflection.

As to correcting things for me, you did nothing of the sort but made me regret coming back on CAF. After being absent due to a paralyzing neurological disease, I was looking forward to spending some of my recovery time here among my fellow Catholics.

What a welcome this has been… More like an attack.

Umm… it’s an internet forum. There’s healthy debate and discussion here. Sorry if that’s been off-putting for you; but, was your expectation that everyone would just listen to what you say and bow in reverence?

I have worked as a director for my diocese, assisted in RCIA, worked with diocesan cultural programs and public relations as well as a part-time employee of my parish office for years.

Yeah, I guess you really do just want us to roll over and praise the glory of your words…

How horrible you have made me feel.

I’m sorry you feel horrible. That wasn’t my intent; nor, I hope, is it your reaction whenever anyone questions the statements you make. RCIA and public relations must’ve been really horrible for you then, too, eh?

It is like my words in my posts are meant to be stripped apart by vultures who are happy to search for what ey view are mistakes and then smile happily when they find one.

Nah. But, if you have sources or citations to back up what you’re saying, I’d love to see them. Clearly, you and I have been taught differently. I welcome the opportunity to learn – that’s part of the charm around here. Do you have anything – besides personal assertions – that I might read in order to see where you’re coming from?

 

[Gorgias]

And in Sirach 18:17: kecharitomeno, close, but not identical (it’s not a vocative).

Ahh… there we go! I knew there was an OT example, but just couldn’t find it on a moment’s notice! Thanks!

AndreaDorrie:

And for Porthos11, the word there in Sirach is what is known as an “adjectival participle.” It means that the subject is acting “just,” “kind” or showing “favor,” being “gracious.”

Still, it’s the same word. Are you asserting that an adjectival usage as compared to a noun usage makes participles ‘different words’ with different meanings?

The expression in Luke is peculiar because of being vocative, as if saying Mary’s name is equivalent to the substance of graciousness or favor. That’s very different. It’s not used that way anywhere else even though there are similar expressions with similar spellings, and this makes it unique in Luke.

Agreed. Yet, I thought your claim was that the word itself wasn’t used anywhere else in Scripture? That’s not the case.

Besides, the Greek in Sirach is NOT the original inspired form of the book. It was originally composed in Hebrew

I’m not certain why this is relevant. Why would it matter that it was written in Hebrew? After all, we’re comparing the Greek of the LXX to the Greek of Luke 1.

The Greek form is canonical, but the Hebrew is the inspired language. The word in Sirach 18.17 is, of course, different in Hebrew than what appears in Luke.

Again, apples and oranges? Unless you’re claiming that there’s a version of Luke in Hebrew, and that version uses different words – at which point we have to utilize your ‘inspired/canonical’ distinction right back at you – then I’m not really sure what distinction you’re attempting here.

 

[CJsmommy]

Ooh, so Mary’s name was changed by God the same way Abram was changed to Abraham and Jacob was changed to Israel? It makes so much sense too, since Miriam (Mary) means “bitter”. God was saying you can’t call yourself bitter anymore, you are full of grace! It makes her initial reaction make more sense too. She’s looking at Gabriel like “what did you just call me?”

 

[GaryTaylor]

I was under the impression it was changed by Catholic Erasmus who sought a clearer wording for the translation and whom never disagreed with Jeromes. Its also consistent with the Peshitta thus Hebrew. Thus reverse translation but the fact is no-one has the original Greek Erasmus translated from. So its speculation to assume he had access to this imho?