Mis-translating John 6:53

[COPLAND_3]

I have been studying the Latin text of codex Bezae which is a 5th century Bible manuscript. I have found a very interesting mistake made by the scribe, or perhaps a very reckless error.

Here is the Bezae and Vulgate lined up, and I have translated both texts underneath the Latin. Here is a link that is easier to follow. litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Bezae+vs+Vulgate+Jn.+6%3A53-71

Bezae on top and Vulgate below it

53 dixit autem illis IHS amen amen dico uobis nisi acceperitis carnem fili hominis et sanguem eius uiueritis non habebitis in uobis uitam

dixit ergo eis Iesus amen amen dico vobis nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis et biberitis eius sanguinem non habetis vitam in vobis

Bezae reads: However Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: except you receive the flesh of the Son of man and revere his blood, you shall not have life in you.

Vulgate reads: Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

 

[COPLAND_3]

While looking at the Greek page of the Bezae of this verse, it is not exactly the same as the Latin page. Here is the Greek text

εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ λάβητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ, τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, πίητε οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὴν ζωὴν.

I underlined the Greek word for ‘receive’ and ‘drink.’ The Greek version atleast gets ‘drink’ correct while sadly has gotten ‘receive’ (λάβητε) wrong. But the Latin page of the manuscript also got ‘drink’ wrong by using ‘uiueritis’ (revere).

I thought that was intereting!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Copland.

I think the Bezae Greek is recalling the words of the last supper, where both words are used: eg:

Matthew 26:26 … και δους τοις μαθηταις ειπεν λαβετε φαγετε τουτο εστιν …
Mark 14:22 … . και εδωκεν αυτοις και ειπεν λαβετε τουτο εστιν

Bezae Greek seems to echo the saying in Mark, whereas others mss. stress the meaning found in Matthew. Is the Latin of Mark 14:22 also simply “take” or does it command, Eat! as well?

if (not) you-take! the flesh ,

So, it isn’t just indicative, but a command – eg: if the command is not obeyed…

Although at the last supper, Jesus reduces the strength of the statement to body (σομα), I think, in order to show the non-cannibalistic way he wished the disciples to eat his flesh.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

also, I was thinking, is it perhaps UV exposure that has changed the text?



I thought we shared the same alphabet with the Latins at least…
unlike the Greek!

Reader beware…

 

[COPLAND_3]

Huiou Theou

Great observation!!!

Bezae Greek seems to echo the saying in Mark, whereas others mss. stress the meaning found in Matthew. Is the Latin of Mark 14:22 also simply “take” or does it command, Eat! as well?

The Latin version of Bezae differs from the Vulgate, it has accipite which means ‘take’, while the Vulgate has ‘sumite’. Both words are practically synonymous. But it does not have the command to “eat”. But some Greek manuscripts do have eat, such as codex Y,28, 1582c.

I think that you hit the nail on the head as far as the Bezae echoing Matt. and Mark which is something that the ancient Bible manuscripts do a lot of with the Gospels. Bezae just happens to be the only one the have this variant in John 6:53.

 

[tobinatorstark]

here is a brief explanation from the Douay-Rheims Challoner text from drbo.org
54 “Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood”… To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
and here is from the Haydock Bible Commentary
Ver. 53. Because the Jews said it was impossible to give them his flesh to eat, Christ answers them by telling them, that so far from being impossible, it is very necessary that they should eat it. “Unless you eat,” &c. (St. Chrysostom) — It is not the flesh of merely a man, but it is the flesh of a God, able to make man divine, inebriating him, as it were, with the divinity. (Theophylactus) See Maldonatus.

Ver. 54. Unless you eat … and drink, &c. To receive both the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both the body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind: (ver. 52.) If any man eat of this bread he shall life for ever: and the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world: (ver. 58.) He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me: (ver. 59.) He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. (Challoner)

Ver. 55. Jesus Christ, to confirm the notion his disciples had formed of a real eating of his body, and to remove all metaphorical interpretation of his words, immediately adds, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. … For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed;” which could not be so, if, as sectarists pretend, what he gives us in the blessed sacrament is nothing but a bit of bread; and if a figure, certainly not so striking as the manna.

Notice that verse 53 in the NAB and RSV-CE is verse 54 in the Douay-Rheims

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Tobinator!
I’ve noticed you have a tendency to reproduce the Douay commentary whenever passages are interpreted.

The point made by the commentators, however, do not always fit well with the english translations Nab and RSVCE, for example.

The fact that receiving the body or blood of Jesus christ as a disciplinary action will be obscure to many readers.
eg: The English (even in the Douay itself!) does not seem to support what the commentators are saying (This is often the case).

However, A literal translation of some texts of John 6:51 would be MUCH more helpful with this particular Douay commentary – Rather than John 6:54 as the commentary is attached…

For eample, I think the Nestle Aland 26th/27th reads something like…

John 6:51
εγω ειμι ο αρτος ο ζων ο εκ του ουρανου καταβας
εαν τις φαγη εκ τουτου του αρτου ζησει εις τον αιωνα

και ο αρτος δε ον εγω δωσω
and the bread (~which) I will-give

η σαρξ μου
OR flesh of-me

εστιν υπερ της του κοσμου ζωης
is beyond(hyper) the wife/life of this cosmos(order).

Notice, that the conjunction OR is used here. When the church made the disciplinary rule of eating the Eucharist only, (which could just have easily been drinking the Eucharist only), The church is fully supported by the meaning of John 6:51.

Animals are of this world (cosmos), and their life is of this order (cosmos). So, drinking the blood of animals does not give life beyond (hyper) this world (cosmos).
Since blood is the sign of life, God forbade man to drink the blood of animals which would have signified the life of this world.

However, Jesus stresses that Eating His Flesh OR drinking his blood – does give a life beyond the order of this world since he refers to only the flesh at first, then the flesh and blood as a clarification. Hence, it ought to be clear that Jesus’ body is not a mere animal one, but one coming with another life not subject to the death of this world.

The confusion over the necessity of Blood AND flesh vs. the Blood OR Flesh is totally circumvented by this kind of understanding – The Douay commentary, however, needs a little augmentation to be understood by the general public.

I hope you will include some of your own comments in the future, as well?

God bless you.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Hi Tobinator!
I’ve noticed you have a tendency to reproduce the Douay commentary whenever passages are interpreted.

The point made by the commentators, however, do not always fit well with the english translations Nab and RSVCE, for example.

The fact that receiving the body or blood of Jesus christ as a disciplinary action will be obscure to many readers.
eg: The English (even in the Douay itself!) does not seem to support what the commentators are saying (This is often the case).

However, A literal translation of some texts of John 6:51 would be MUCH more helpful with this particular Douay commentary – Rather than John 6:54 as the commentary is attached…

For eample, I think the Nestle Aland 26th/27th reads something like…

John 6:51
εγω ειμι ο αρτος ο ζων ο εκ του ουρανου καταβας
εαν τις φαγη εκ τουτου του αρτου ζησει εις τον αιωνα

και ο αρτος δε ον εγω δωσω
and the bread (~which) I will-give

η σαρξ μου
OR flesh of-me

εστιν υπερ της του κοσμου ζωης
is beyond(hyper) the wife/life of this cosmos(order).

Notice, that the conjunction OR is used here. When the church made the disciplinary rule of eating the Eucharist only, (which could just have easily been drinking the Eucharist only), The church is fully supported by the meaning of John 6:51.

Animals are of this world (cosmos), and their life is of this order (cosmos). So, drinking the blood of animals does not give life beyond (hyper) this world (cosmos).
Since blood is the sign of life, God forbade man to drink the blood of animals which would have signified the life of this world.

However, Jesus stresses that Eating His Flesh OR drinking his blood – does give a life beyond the order of this world since he refers to only the flesh at first, then the flesh and blood as a clarification. Hence, it ought to be clear that Jesus’ body is not a mere animal one, but one coming with another life not subject to the death of this world.

The confusion over the necessity of Blood AND flesh vs. the Blood OR Flesh is totally circumvented by this kind of understanding – The Douay commentary, however, needs a little augmentation to be understood by the general public.

I hope you will include some of your own comments in the future, as well?

God bless you.

I use the Haydock Bible Commentary simply because I understand it better than any other and basically it sums what I would say. I don’t necessarly agree with the NAB or RSV-CE. In fact I think the RSV-CE is an awful translation. I don’t know how more precise one English commentary can be. I disagree with the fact that the Haydock commentary needs a little augmentation to be understood. I do think that non English Commentary could seem more accurate. Also keep in mind that the Bezae was concacted after the Latin Vulgate was translated

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I use the Haydock Bible Commentary simply because I understand it better than any other and basically it sums what I would say. I don’t necessarly agree with the NAB or RSV-CE.

That wasn’t my point… other’s read them.

In fact I think the RSV-CE is an awful translation.

You’re entitled to your opinion. I happen to like the Ronald Knox version…but quote the KJV for fun.

I don’t know how more precise one English commentary can be. I disagree with the fact that the Haydock commentary needs a little augmentation to be understood.

Oh, then in the commentary – which is for an English text which reads – “for the life of the world”, you wouldn’t say that an augmentation is in order? eg: that the Haydock(?) commentary reads just “world”, but not “above and beyond” this “world” (or any clarifying variation)?

Or do you mean to say that the Haydock commentary needs a LOT of concise editing to be understood? (In which case it is no longer truly their commentary?) Or again, could the Douay be a bad translation, sometimes – and hence a commentary on a bad translation can’t be better?
(An aside: is it the Douay , or the Challoner, anyway…)

I could also agree that I don’t necessarily agree with the Haydock commentary? Does that help?

I do think that non English Commentary could seem more accurate. Also keep in mind that the Bezae was concacted after the Latin Vulgate was translated

I have no idea what you mean. The concatenation of scraps here and there in the Bezae has little to do with the Haydock commentary as far as I know, and I don’t recall commenting in non English anywhere.
I do recall non English quotations…

Is the Douay translated from the Bezae or something?

 

[COPLAND_3]

Also keep in mind that the Bezae was concacted after the Latin Vulgate was translated.

I don’t think anybody was hinting that the Bezae is anything compared to the Vulgate, God forbid. I hope that no one gets that idea about this thread. I am simply studying the Latin text of the Bezae and comparing the variant readings with the Vulgate.

 

[tobinatorstark]

That wasn’t my point… other’s read them.

You’re entitled to your opinion. I happen to like the Ronald Knox version…but quote the KJV for fun.

Oh, then in the commentary – which is for an English text which reads – “for the life of the world”, you wouldn’t say that an augmentation is in order? eg: that the Haydock(?) commentary reads just “world”, but not “above and beyond” this “world” (or any clarifying variation)?

Or do you mean to say that the Haydock commentary needs a LOT of concise editing to be understood? (In which case it is no longer truly their commentary?) Or again, could the Douay be a bad translation, sometimes – and hence a commentary on a bad translation can’t be better?
(An aside: is it the Douay , or the Challoner, anyway…)

I could also agree that I don’t necessarily agree with the Haydock commentary? Does that help?



I have no idea what you mean. The concatenation of scraps here and there in the Bezae has little to do with the Haydock commentary as far as I know, and I don’t recall commenting in non English anywhere.
I do recall non English quotations…

True others do read the NAB and/or the RSV-CE. I however prefer to quote from the Douay-Rheims the most. I too like the Ronald Knox Translation as well as the Confraternity Edition. I understand the Haydock Bible Commentary just fine and I don’t think it needs any editing or updating. Not everyone is going to agree with the Haydock Bible Commentary or the RSV-CE or NAB whatever maybe the case. I chose to have nothing to do with the RSV-CE simply because I don’t agree with parts of texts being left out. I feel the same way with NAB and Jerusalem Bible. Luke 1:28 being an example. The Latin Vulgate is declared free from doctrinal err and I choose to follow translations based on the Latin Vulgate. [Oh, then in the commentary – which is for an English text which reads – “for the life of the world”, you wouldn’t say that an augmentation is in order? ] I do not say that augmentation is in order. It speaks for itself. I don’t find the Douay-Rheims a bad translation at all. As a matter of fact I find it the best translation outside the Latin Vulgate. The Douay-Rheims is a word for word translation. It doesn’t bother me if you think that the Douay is an awful translation or a good translation. The Douay-Rheims, Haydock Bible Commentary and the Catechism of the Catholic Church has given me more insight than the NAB or RSV-CE. As a matter of fact I look up the Bible references in the Catechism in my Douay. I understand my Douay better. I use the Haydock so much because it simply has given me an understanding to questions that I had to begin with. I use it to help others so that they could possibly understand as well

 

[COPLAND_3]

The Douay-Rheims is a great translation, though it is need of a strict revision in order to make it more suitable for the modern day reader. I am so thankful that God has blessed me with the time and zeal (unfortunatly not brains ) to learn Greek and to study Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin in order to avoid being bound to English translations. I have the bitter KJV-only folks to thank for motivating me years ago to look beyond translations in order to refute them!

 

[tobinatorstark]

The Douay-Rheims is a great translation, though it is need of a strict revision in order to make it more suitable for the modern day reader. I am so thankful that God has blessed me with the time and zeal (unfortunatly not brains ) to learn Greek and to study Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin in order to avoid being bound to English translations. I have the bitter KJV-only folks to thank for motivating me years ago to look beyond translations in order to refute them!

I applaud you for your efforts in learning Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin. Your efforts certainly help not only yourself, but others in the long run. I am getting better at Latin, but I know nothing on Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

 

[COPLAND_3]

tobinatorstark

I applaud you for your efforts in learning Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin. Your efforts certainly help not only yourself, but others in the long run. I am getting better at Latin, but I know nothing on Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

Thank you, I sure hope that my labors through the years will benefit other people than me. As a matter fact though, my son and I went hiking today and he kept asking me what different words and phrases were in Greek, he is becoming interested in it.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

True… I understand the Haydock Bible Commentary just fine and I don’t think it needs any editing or updating…

Ok, now I understand the meaning of what you said before.
Thank you.

I chose to have nothing to do with the RSV-CE simply because I don’t agree with parts of texts being left out. I feel the same way with NAB and Jerusalem Bible. Luke 1:28 being an example.

OK, Luke 1:28

DOUAY: “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”
…

One version of Rheems might have said “entered” rather than “come” , but that doesn’t seem to be what you are commenting on.

RSV-CE: “And he came to her and said, ‘Hail full of grace, the LORD is with you!’ Blessed are you among women.”

NAB:"Upon arriving, the angel said to her, ‘Rejoice, O highly favored Daughter! * The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women.’

The NAB I can understand complaining about…it is slightly wrong. highly → perfectly , favored is graced, so that’s sloppy, but OK, and Daughter is garbage. That is not in the original Greek or the Vulgate.

But I don’t see anything left out.

The Latin Vulgate is declared free from doctrinal err and I choose to follow translations based on the Latin Vulgate.

Then why do you follow the Challoner version rather than the older Douay version? The older one is rather a pain in the neck, but it is a far more literal translation than the Challoner revision from what I understand, although COPLAND is probably more qualified than I in the Latin area… Besides, the revisions that Challoner made are not dogmatically infallible as far as I know.

I do not say that augmentation is in order. It speaks for itself. I don’t find the Douay-Rheims a bad translation at all. As a matter of fact I find it the best translation outside the Latin Vulgate.

So, as far as originals go (if you ever take up Greek), you might like the TR-Stephanus Greek which not a translation, but rather is the Catholic Church’s priestly editing of the Greek to be in conformity with the Vulgate. Eg – The priest, Stephanus, only made a handful of minor changes because he was able to get Greek copies which were original enough to be truly compatible with the Vulgate… Eg: some Greek actually exists in the Vatican which goes all the way back to Jerome’s time period.

P.S. That happens to be the Greek the KJV is translated from – BUT the translators clearly did not understand the original Greek in places, because, like the NAB they translated odd things from good Greek.

The Douay-Rheims is a word for word translation. It doesn’t bother me if you think that the Douay is an awful translation or a good translation.

I don’t think either. It is just a translation with some good and some bad points. As a catholic I appreciate the Martyr’s blood associated with some of the unmentioned translators who died while using it in England.

I understand my Douay better. I use the Haydock so much because it simply has given me an understanding to questions that I had to begin with.

OK. that’s great. Read your bible

I just want to point out, that in the Haydock commentary – it says “life of the World” which is ambiguous. It can mean, the life we have here on this earth (as in ONLY on this earth).
And the Eucharist, certainly, after the sign ceases to be, becomes normal food for the body.

But I think the Latin says “eternal” which is normally taken as a “heavenly” forever and not a clock based one. The RSV-CE says eternal, just like the Vulgate. But, the NAB just says “forever”. So, some kids out there might be confused by the fact that you mention the NAB at the end of your post.
You don’t supply the verses from the Douay with the commentary… which would be another way to solve the problem and augment the commentary.

I sure tripped over these kinds of details when I was younger, nearly lost my faith permanently over it.

I use it to help others so that they could possibly understand as well

No complaint from me. I was just puzzled at the large number of copy and pastes with sort of mismatched information and was wondering if I was being brain dead or something – because I didn’t immediately get the connection.

Glad to have you at the forums!

Pax Tecum.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Ok, now I understand the meaning of what you said before.
Thank you.

OK, Luke 1:28

DOUAY: “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”
…

One version of Rheems might have said “entered” rather than “come” , but that doesn’t seem to be what you are commenting on.

RSV-CE: “And he came to her and said, ‘Hail full of grace, the LORD is with you!’ Blessed are you among women.”

NAB:"Upon arriving, the angel said to her, ‘Rejoice, O highly favored Daughter! * The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women.’

The NAB I can understand complaining about…it is slightly wrong. highly → perfectly , favored is graced, so that’s sloppy, but OK, and Daughter is garbage. That is not in the original Greek or the Vulgate.

But I don’t see anything left out.


.

Correction. The NAB doesn’t have Blessed are thou among women in Luke 1:28. I checked my NABs that I have at home, USCCB and the Vatican’s website. ALL omit Blessed are thou among women. And the RSV-CE online doesn’t have it either. I will let you know when I see an NAB or an RSV-CE

 

[patrick457]

Correction. The NAB doesn’t have Blessed are thou among women in Luke 1:28. I checked my NABs that I have at home, USCCB and the Vatican’s website. ALL omit Blessed are thou among women. And the RSV-CE online doesn’t have it either. I will let you know when I see an NAB or an RSV-CE

That is because some early manuscripts (such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) omit the phrase (thus the Nestle-Aland Critical Edition of the GNT also omit it). It IS attested in many MSS, yet it is believed by some who prefer the simpler reading that the phrase is a scribal addition based on Elizabeth’s words in 1:42 (‘Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb’) perhaps in order to emphasize Mary’s blessedness more and because in both situations, Mary is being greeted.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Correction. The NAB doesn’t have Blessed are thou among women in Luke 1:28. I checked my NABs that I have at home, USCCB and the Vatican’s website. ALL omit Blessed are thou among women. And the RSV-CE online doesn’t have it either. I will let you know when I see an NAB or an RSV-CE

You and St. Paul are very similar.

As Patrick457 has mentioned, it isn’t exactly omitted – Just located a few verses down the page – and I’ll note that I made a superficial mistake by not adding the extra verse number. How about you?

I am certain there is deep truth in what you say about the NAB – perhaps infallible! But certainly not impeccable…
(just like Like St. Paul…)

The problem is you have not told us what group after ALL, but rather you expect the interactive audience to remember everything before “ALL”. (That sort of puts us all on the spot).

Isn’t this how St. Paul’s precise writing in Romans led so many astray? Many (modern) readers were not learned enough to remember what the subject of his sentences were – and so, all misread his teaching commentary on scripture.

I know you are not a liar – you tell the truth, and I know you don’t wish to write a book. sigh But, I wish Catholics could avoid this problem… It’s like watching St. Paul all over again…

2000 word digraph.

img525.imageshack.us/img525/1531/nabcovertbdo1.jpgimg525.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif
img510.imageshack.us/img510/7030/nabluke128tblk6.jpgimg510.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif

Photos, Thanks to image Shack.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I have seen many times where people think that certain Bible translations have omitted parts of Scripture when in fact there was no omission but a translation based upon a certain manuscript tradition. Years ago I remember when someone came up to me (in my Baptist days) and said that we had Bibles in our pews that left out the ending of the Lord’s Prayer. The man was very ticked off! I explained to him about the ancient manuscripts and how many of the oldest manuscripts did not have that ending. I have run onto a number of instances where people have grown up using the KJV and they are caught off guard when they read a modern version that has variant readings. They usually will think that the modern version has mistakes and errors when in fact the translation is fine it is just translated from a different Greek text. I don’t know how many times I have debated the issue with Independent Baptists and they will try to throw Bible verses at me thinking they have got me with this weak arguement, using **Revelation 22:18-19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.**

 

[tobinatorstark]

You and St. Paul are very similar.

As Patrick457 has mentioned, it isn’t exactly omitted – Just located a few verses down the page – and I’ll note that I made a superficial mistake by not adding the extra verse number. How about you?

I am certain there is deep truth in what you say about the NAB – perhaps infallible! But certainly not impeccable…
(just like Like St. Paul…)

The problem is you have not told us what group after ALL, but rather you expect the interactive audience to remember everything before “ALL”. (That sort of puts us all on the spot).

Isn’t this how St. Paul’s precise writing in Romans led so many astray? Many (modern) readers were not learned enough to remember what the subject of his sentences were – and so, all misread his teaching commentary on scripture.

I know you are not a liar – you tell the truth, and I know you don’t wish to write a book. sigh But, I wish Catholics could avoid this problem… It’s like watching St. Paul all over again…

2000 word digraph.

img525.imageshack.us/img525/1531/nabcovertbdo1.jpgimg525.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif
img510.imageshack.us/img510/7030/nabluke128tblk6.jpgimg510.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif

Photos, Thanks to image Shack.

hmm. quite odd. I too have the New American Bible, St. Joseph Medium Size Edition and Luke 1:28 reads
And coming to her, he said “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” and so does my New American Bible St. Joseph Edition Large Type. It should read exactly the same as the pic that you scanned. Is it possible that I have a newer version of these Bibles than you. Shouldn’t the USCCB and the Vatican’s website read just like that scanned pic??? I am well aware that Luke 1:42 does include the words blessed are you among women. I am kinda baffled.