Mary "full of grace"

  • Thread starter Thread starter brwdaniel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brwdaniel

Guest
When comparing the Greek text of the translation of Luke 1:28 in the Douay Rhiems which has Mary as “full of grace”, and John 1:14 which describes Christ as “full of grace” the Greek text shows two words, an adjective for full and a noun for grace (πλήρης χάριτος) in John 1:14, but when looking at the Greek text of Luke 1:28, the word for “full of grace” a verb (κεχαριτωμέη).

Do you know why the Greek would be different for the same translated English? The RSV and most protestant bibles translate Luke 1:28 as “favored one”. Was the DR just a poor, or biased translation? If the RSV is the correct translation, what does that say about our Catholic description of Mary as full of grace? It seems to me that if the DR translation is incorrect, it leads to other questions concerning Mary’s status. If Mary is not indeed “full of grace” then how can she be immaculate? Would the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception then be extra-biblical?
 
The Douay-Rheims contains the correct interpretation. The RSVCE has “full of Grace”. The Knox translation also uses “full of grace” the Confraternity translation uses “full of grace”. The same goes for the Navarre translation.

In this case “full of grace” is a title that has been conferred on Mary by God, through the Archangel Gabriel.

I was thinking about this issue because Protestants attempt to compare the information that St. Stephen was described to have been full of grace. The difference is that the author (same person by the way) was conferring a title on Mary but was making a statement about the holiness of St. Stephen before he was martyred by the Jews.

The expression itself is a statement that Mary is highly favoured by God and that He gave to her the special gift of grace so that she would think only of him. St. Stephen on the other hand, a good man, was drawn to be a follower of Jesus, and he was also blessed with the grace of God, thus giving the early Christians an example to live by.

I hope that this is in line with what you want to know.

MaggieOH
 
40.png
brwdaniel:
When comparing the Greek text of the translation of Luke 1:28 in the Douay Rhiems which has Mary as “full of grace”, and John 1:14 which describes Christ as “full of grace” the Greek text shows two words, an adjective for full and a noun for grace (πλήρης χάριτος) in John 1:14, but when looking at the Greek text of Luke 1:28, the word for “full of grace” a verb (κεχαριτωμέη)

Do you know why the Greek would be different for the same translated English?

Greek is a much more precise language than English.

The words used of Jesus in John one are Pleres Charis. Pleres means “full” or “lacking nothing” (and is applied also to “truth”). Charis simply means “Grace”.

The word used of Mary in Luke 1 is Kecharitomene. It is a complex participle. 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 was the recipient of this grace.

In other words Kecharitomene shows that Mary was a **recipient ** of a fullness of Grace. The grace was **given ** to her. The perfect tense indicates that this filling with grace is a continuous event that was ongoing before the angel appeared.
The RSV and most protestant bibles translate Luke 1:28 as “favored one”. Was the DR just a poor, or biased translation? If the RSV is the correct translation, what does that say about our Catholic description of Mary as full of grace? It seems to me that if the DR translation is incorrect, it leads to other questions concerning Mary’s status. If Mary is not indeed “full of grace” then how can she be immaculate? Would the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception then be extra-biblical?
Click to expand...
The translations which state “highly favoured” instead of “full of grace”, are largely motivated by a doctrinal desire to downgrade Mary. The first version to use this translation was the King James Version, where the translators noted that “highly favoured” was used instead of “full of Grace” in order to show that Mary was not a source of grace. (Tyndale’s version on which the KJV was largely based, used full of Grace).

Most protestant bibles followed the KJV, (along with some modern Catholic ones!)

Now, in secular Greek, Charis can 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”.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
The Douay-Rheims contains the correct interpretation. The RSVCE has “full of Grace”. The Knox translation also uses “full of grace” the Confraternity translation uses “full of grace”. The same goes for the Navarre translation.

In this case “full of grace” is a title that has been conferred on Mary by God, through the Archangel Gabriel.

I was thinking about this issue because Protestants attempt to compare the information that St. Stephen was described to have been full of grace. The difference is that the author (same person by the way) was conferring a title on Mary but was making a statement about the holiness of St. Stephen before he was martyred by the Jews.

The expression itself is a statement that Mary is highly favoured by God and that He gave to her the special gift of grace so that she would think only of him. St. Stephen on the other hand, a good man, was drawn to be a follower of Jesus, and he was also blessed with the grace of God, thus giving the early Christians an example to live by.

I hope that this is in line with what you want to know.

MaggieOH
Click to expand...
I have actually come to the same conclusion Maggie. It was also to argue over the verse about Stephen.
 
I would say the main difference between the two verses is that in the one about Mary, “full of Grace” is a title like a name. In the verse from John 1;14, it is more of a declaration that Christ is full of Grace.

The one of Mary also declares that she has been made full of grace. It is a participle that is used in the vocative case, meaning that it is the name being addressed. It is literally “Hail, Full of Grace”.

In John 1;14 Grace is more of something that Jesus possesses. It is more objective.

I also think that it may be like that because it he is full of grace and truth. If he used the verb charito then he would also have to use another verb for truth. I think it could be a way to compress it.

These are just my thoughts about it. I am not a Greek scholar.
 
I’ve read somewhere (can’t remember where) that the term used in regards to Stephen was a different form of the same word.
They were both blessed with grace - but the forms of the word were not identical in both cases.
Maybe someone here can spell it out better than I can?
 
40.png
Lorarose:
I’ve read somewhere (can’t remember where) that the term used in regards to Stephen was a different form of the same word.
They were both blessed with grace - but the forms of the word were not identical in both cases.
Maybe someone here can spell it out better than I can?
Click to expand...
I have read the Greek for the verse of Stephen. It uses the pluperfect tense. What it means is that Stephen had been filled with Grace prior to being martyred. It is not necisarily an on going thing. The pluperfect tense just states that he was filled with Grace prior to the martyrdom.

Whereas with Mary it is a verbal Participle being used in the vocative case. It is a title that is used for Mary and it is how she is addressed by the angel. Mary is “Full of Grace” just like I am Jimmy.
 
40.png
Axion:
Greek is a much more precise language than English.

The words used of Jesus in John one are Pleres Charis. Pleres means “full” or “lacking nothing” (and is applied also to “truth”). Charis simply means “Grace”.

The word used of Mary in Luke 1 is Kecharitomene. It is a complex participle. 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 was the recipient of this grace.
Click to expand...
Axion is correct.

When the Holy Scriptres were written in Greek, kecharitomene is only used once: Luke 1:28.

There were two main languages back then: Greek and Latin.
When the Greek was translated into Latin, there was no argument of the translation gratia plena.

And so, when confronted by those who dismiss the words “full of grace”, you must challenge them. "Why do you translate the Greek kecharitomene as you do? Why do you translate the Latin *gratia plena * as you do?
When was the Latin *gratia plena * of the Greek kecharitomene first criticized?
 
40.png
brwdaniel:
When comparing the Greek text of the translation of Luke 1:28 in the Douay Rhiems which has Mary as “full of grace”, and John 1:14 which describes Christ as “full of grace” the Greek text shows two words, an adjective for full and a noun for grace (πλήρης χάριτος) in John 1:14, but when looking at the Greek text of Luke 1:28, the word for “full of grace” a verb (κεχαριτωμέη).

Do you know why the Greek would be different for the same translated English? The RSV and most protestant bibles translate Luke 1:28 as “favored one”. Was the DR just a poor, or biased translation? If the RSV is the correct translation, what does that say about our Catholic description of Mary as full of grace? It seems to me that if the DR translation is incorrect, it leads to other questions concerning Mary’s status. If Mary is not indeed “full of grace” then how can she be immaculate? Would the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception then be extra-biblical?
Click to expand...
Good Day, Brwdaniel

You might what to et your hands on “Mary of the N.T” written by Raymond E Brown who before his passing was the top Biblical scholar of the Roman Catholic church he addresses this issue, and upholds the RSV translation as the true translation of the text where it be Latin or Greek.

Peace to u,

Bill
 
bbas 64:
Good Day, Brwdaniel

You might what to et your hands on “Mary of the N.T” written by Raymond E Brown who before his passing was the top Biblical scholar of the Roman Catholic church he addresses this issue, and upholds the RSV translation as the true translation of the text where it be Latin or Greek.

Peace to u,

Bill
Click to expand...
That’s one view. Here are some others…

“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” (Blass & DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961, p.166

“…Highly favored as in Luke 1:28 meaning to bestow grace upon…it really does not mean to show favor, but to give grace to” [Lexicon To The Old and New Testaments, edited by Spiros Zodhiates, TH.D, 1988 Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publications Inc.Pg. 1739]

"The fifth century scholar Jerome was correct in translating the Greek to gratiae plena ‘full of grace’, even the translators of 1611 King James Version show there approval of this in the Margin with “Much Graced” [A Look at the Greek Scriptures, 1984, New York, Garretson Cox & Company Pg. 123 ]
 
The translation of the Douay - Rheims Bible was a translation FROM THE VULGATE (Latin) to English.

The Vulgate translated by Jerome was a translation of Greek into Latin.

If someone were to translate from Greek to English you would expect slight differences.
 
40.png
Exporter:
If someone were to translate from Greek to English you would expect slight differences.
Click to expand...
You would expect consistency also.

The Greek charis means “grace”, and is interpreted that way in every instance of the Bible, save once in some translations. Why the difference?

Do the Greeks not know their own language when Jerome translated Greek to Latin? Why did they not disagree with his translation?
“charis” = “grace”
 
Thank you everyone for your (name removed by moderator)ut and information. Not having any knowledge of Greek, when you look at some of the on-line dictionaries on different bible sites, the definition of *kecharitomene *can be very misleading. Now I can go on praying, hail Mary, full of grace without any doubt or reservation.
 
The New American Bible says “Hail, favored one!” Isn’t this the “official” Bible to be used for the readings at mass? How do we reconcile that with the fact that the Church teaches Mary is indeed full of grace?
 
40.png
Maurelian:
The New American Bible says “Hail, favored one!” Isn’t this the “official” Bible to be used for the readings at mass? How do we reconcile that with the fact that the Church teaches Mary is indeed full of grace?
Click to expand...
This translation is technically doctrinally sound. The American Bishops pushed hard for it. I’m sure it’s meant to be all ecumenical and stuff. To me, no good Catholic would mess with the Hail Mary, but what do I know. If I’m not mistaken, the translators also butchered her Magnificat too.

As a side note, the official Latin translation (*the *official translation of Scripture) of the Church uses “gratia plena.”
 
Can anyone give us a literal translation of πλήρης χάριτος as in John 1:14?

How about a literal translation Luke 1:28, κεχαριτωμέη?
 
40.png
Axion:
Greek is a much more precise language than English.

The words used of Jesus in John one are Pleres Charis. Pleres means “full” or “lacking nothing” (and is applied also to “truth”). Charis simply means “Grace”.

The word used of Mary in Luke 1 is Kecharitomene. It is a complex participle. 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 was the recipient of this grace.

In other words Kecharitomene shows that Mary was a **recipient **of a fullness of Grace. The grace was **given **to her. The perfect tense indicates that this filling with grace is a continuous event that was ongoing before the angel appeared.

The translations which state “highly favoured” instead of “full of grace”, are largely motivated by a doctrinal desire to downgrade Mary. The first version to use this translation was the King James Version, where the translators noted that “highly favoured” was used instead of “full of Grace” in order to show that Mary was not a source of grace. (Tyndale’s version on which the KJV was largely based, used full of Grace).

Most protestant bibles followed the KJV, (along with some modern Catholic ones!)

Now, in secular Greek, Charis can 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”.
Click to expand...
Axion,

This is a superb post. Can I have your permission to use it if need be on other threads?
 
“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” (Blass & DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961, p.166

I love this style of translation. It originates in the protestant conception, and begins to get the point.

grace – If I have found grace in your eyes – is a fairly common idiom to find in the old testament. It is a figure of true love or favor.
David for Jonathan, A pagan king for a woman unlike the rest, and so on.

I would awkwardly translate kechartomene as – she who has been endowed with grace.

Here it suggests marital language – a dowery of grace.
Funny how dictionaries now try to pass it of as ‘endued’ rather than ‘endowed’. Many do not wish to support the “spouse of the Holy Spirit” perspective.

There is no single word in english that will match the Greek.
Of course this is because the Greek word is made up of smaller segments which (similar to a compound word) make up the meaning. kechartomene is not a normal Greek word either, it is not commonly found anywhere that I am aware of. 🙂
 
Axion hit the nail on the head.

I also want to add that the Syriac/Aramaic Peshitta uses “Maliath taibootho” which is translated out as “full of grace.” Even though most of the NT was originally written in Greek, the gospel of Matthew is an exception. It was orignally written in Aramaic by Matthew, atleast according to just about all the Early Church Fathers such as Papias, Ireneius, Cyril, Eusebius, Origen, Jerome, ect ect. So I believe that the Peshitta retains the most accurate version of Matthew’s gospel which supports “full of grace” without any question.

Modern day Protestants have tried to claim that the Greek says this and that and means other than what it has always meant, such as “Petros” means stone while “petra” means rock in order to deny that Peter is the rock. Usually they can get by with such tricks because they can get by with it with those who don’t know Greek.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top