Translation of Ephesians 1:6 and Luke 1:28

[Joe5858]

I read this link:

carm.org/mary-full-grace-and-luke-128

If I understand right, critics are saying that the Latin Vulgate translation of the original Greek is wrong and therefore Mary is referenced as “highly favored” and not “full of grace” when approached by the angel.

My question is, in looking at the original Greek words. Is the same word used in Ephesians 1:6 and Luke 1:28 or a different word?

Thanks.

 

[DaveBj]

I read this link:

carm.org/mary-full-grace-and-luke-128

If I understand right, critics are saying that the Latin Vulgate translation of the original Greek is wrong and therefore Mary is referenced as “highly favored” and not “full of grace” when approached by the angel.

My question is, in looking at the original Greek words. Is the same word used in Ephesians 1:6 and Luke 1:28 or a different word?
Thanks.

No. The word in Eph. 1:6 is the Greek noun charis, translated “grace.” The word in Luke is the feminine perfect passive participle of the Greek verb charitoo (confusing, but those two final o’s are actually two different letters), translated “to grace, i.e. indue with special honor.”

 

[Antegin]

No. The word in Eph. 1:6 is the Greek noun charis, translated “grace.” The word in Luke is the feminine perfect passive participle of the Greek verb charitoo (confusing, but those two final o’s are actually two different letters), translated “to grace, i.e. indue with special honor.”

You speak classical Greek?

 

[DaveBj]

You speak classical Greek?

No, but I have studied both of these passages from the Greek, and even without that, I know how to use a computerized interlinear New Testament, hyperlinked to several Greek-English lexicons.

Anyway, it’s not classical Greek; it’s koine Greek.

 

[PJM]

I read this link:

carm.org/mary-full-grace-and-luke-128

If I understand right, critics are saying that the Latin Vulgate translation of the original Greek is wrong and therefore Mary is referenced as “highly favored” and not “full of grace” when approached by the angel.

My question is, in looking at the original Greek words. Is the same word used in Ephesians 1:6 and Luke 1:28 or a different word?

Thanks.

Eph. 1:6 “Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son”.

Means Grace is GRANTED BY Christ. That is Grace Originates from Christ Divine and Perfect Will.

Luke 1: 28 [DOUAY Bible] " And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women"

The Latin Vulgate: Luke 28:1 “28 et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have 28 et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus”

1. The Dpuay Catholic Bible predates the King James by 50+ years; and the Catholic bibles that have also mistreated this teaching, by many hundreds of YEARS
2. The LAtin Vulgate predates Both the Douay and the King James by about ONE THOUSAND YEARS!
3. 28 e gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta TRANSLATES in to “FULL OF GRACE”

Thanks for asking,

Patrick

 

[Joe5858]

Eph. 1:6 “Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son”.

Means Grace is GRANTED BY Christ. That is Grace Originates from Christ Divine and Perfect Will.

Luke 1: 28 [DOUAY Bible] " And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women"

The Latin Vulgate: Luke 28:1 “28 et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have 28 et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus”

1. The Dpuay Catholic Bible predates the King James by 50+ years; and the Catholic bibles that have also mistreated this teaching, by many hundreds of YEARS
2. The LAtin Vulgate predates Both the Douay and the King James by about ONE THOUSAND YEARS!
3. 28 e gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta TRANSLATES in to “FULL OF GRACE”

Thanks for asking,

Patrick

Thank you. So why are these two passages often presented together? Is it to show that grace is a different word in the two passages? With Ephesians showing Christ granted us grace but Luke passage showing Mary already had grace prior to the arrival of the angel (shown by the perfect passive participle)?

 

[Gorgias]

Thank you. So why are these two passages often presented together? Is it to show that grace is a different word in the two passages?

When it’s done by non-Catholic Christians (as in this case, the folks at CARM), it’s typically meant as a jab against the Catholic Marian dogma.

Here’s the way the folks at CARM are doing it: they’re trying to convince you that Marian dogma proceeds solely from the Latin translation plena gratia – ‘full of grace’. (It’s not, by the way!) But, if you buy into that foolishness, then they’re going to try to show you that the literal phrase ‘full of grace’ is a poor translation that can’t be used to justify Catholic Marian dogma.

Here’s the problem, though: first, the dogmatic statements quote the phrase ‘full of grace’, but don’t depend on it solely. Second, the phrase itself is simply a translation of the Greek participle kecharitomene. But, what they do is to take the Latin phrase ‘full of grace’ and translate it back into Greek as ‘plērēs charitos’, and attempt to show that plērēs charitos cannot be used to support Marian dogma.

Can you see how weird an approach that is? Let’s diagram it out:

(Greek) kecharitomene → (Latin) plena gratia → (Greek) plērēs charitos

See what I mean? If they want to attack Marian dogma using Greek, then they need to address the literal text of the Greek Scriptures (kecharitomene), not their own personal back-translation (plērēs charitos).

Specifically, what they’re trying to do is show that the phrase plērēs charitos doesn’t apply to Mary, and even if it did, it wouldn’t imply Mary’s Immaculate Conception or sinlessness.

It’s a pretty weak attempt. But, if you look at it uncritically, and if you aren’t familiar with the Greek and Latin, and if you don’t know the basis for Catholic Marian dogma… well, it would be easy to fool you with their twisted logic. :sad_yes:

 

[ericc]

When it’s done by non-Catholic Christians (as in this case, the folks at CARM), it’s typically meant as a jab against the Catholic Marian dogma.

Here’s the way the folks at CARM are doing it: they’re trying to convince you that Marian dogma proceeds solely from the Latin translation plena gratia – ‘full of grace’. (It’s not, by the way!) But, if you buy into that foolishness, then they’re going to try to show you that the literal phrase ‘full of grace’ is a poor translation that can’t be used to justify Catholic Marian dogma.

Here’s the problem, though: first, the dogmatic statements quote the phrase ‘full of grace’, but don’t depend on it solely. Second, the phrase itself is simply a translation of the Greek participle kecharitomene. But, what they do is to take the Latin phrase ‘full of grace’ and translate it back into Greek as ‘plērēs charitos’, and attempt to show that plērēs charitos cannot be used to support Marian dogma.

Can you see how weird an approach that is? Let’s diagram it out:

(Greek) kecharitomene → (Latin) plena gratia → (Greek) plērēs charitos

See what I mean? If they want to attack Marian dogma using Greek, then they need to address the literal text of the Greek Scriptures (kecharitomene), not their own personal back-translation (plērēs charitos).

Specifically, what they’re trying to do is show that the phrase plērēs charitos doesn’t apply to Mary, and even if it did, it wouldn’t imply Mary’s Immaculate Conception or sinlessness.

It’s a pretty weak attempt. But, if you look at it uncritically, and if you aren’t familiar with the Greek and Latin, and if you don’t know the basis for Catholic Marian dogma… well, it would be easy to fool you with their twisted logic. :sad_yes:

:clapping:

Beautifully written! That’s why a balanced approach to researching topics is really important. After a few instances of selective bias reporting (not exegesis) at CARM, one just stop quoting them in order to avoid embarrassing ourselves.

 

[DaveBj]

snip

Specifically, what they’re trying to do is show that the phrase plērēs charitos doesn’t apply to Mary, and even if it did, it wouldn’t imply Mary’s Immaculate Conception or sinlessness.

It’s a pretty weak attempt. But, if you look at it uncritically, and if you aren’t familiar with the Greek and Latin, and if you don’t know the basis for Catholic Marian dogma… well, it would be easy to fool you with their twisted logic. :sad_yes:

It’s not just a “pretty” weak attempt; it is an extraordinarily weak attempt. There is such a depth of meaning in that one word κεχαριτωμενη that one must have help not to see the Immaculate Conception in it. I guess they’ve had some pretty high-priced help over the years.

 

[abucs]

Thanks for your explanation Gorgias, it does seem quite a weird approach.

Do CARM make any attempts at sound arguments for how they defend their translation?

 

[Gorgias]

Thanks for your explanation Gorgias, it does seem quite a weird approach.

You’re welcome!

Do CARM make any attempts at sound arguments for how they defend their translation?

None that I’ve seen. They’re infamous for their anti-Catholic polemics (and for their misunderstanding and/or deliberate twisting of Catholic doctine)…

 

[Joe5858]

When it’s done by non-Catholic Christians (as in this case, the folks at CARM), it’s typically meant as a jab against the Catholic Marian dogma.

(Greek) kecharitomene → (Latin) plena gratia → (Greek) plērēs charitos

So are they saying that “full of grace” in Greek is plērēs charitos? What are they saying kecharitomene means or should be translated?

 

[Joe5858]

When it’s done by non-Catholic Christians (as in this case, the folks at CARM), it’s typically meant as a jab against the Catholic Marian dogma.

Here’s the way the folks at CARM are doing it: they’re trying to convince you that Marian dogma proceeds solely from the Latin translation plena gratia – ‘full of grace’. (It’s not, by the way!) But, if you buy into that foolishness, then they’re going to try to show you that the literal phrase ‘full of grace’ is a poor translation that can’t be used to justify Catholic Marian dogma.

Here’s the problem, though: first, the dogmatic statements quote the phrase ‘full of grace’, but don’t depend on it solely. Second, the phrase itself is simply a translation of the Greek participle kecharitomene. But, what they do is to take the Latin phrase ‘full of grace’ and translate it back into Greek as ‘plērēs charitos’, and attempt to show that plērēs charitos cannot be used to support Marian dogma.

Can you see how weird an approach that is? Let’s diagram it out:

(Greek) kecharitomene → (Latin) plena gratia → (Greek) plērēs charitos

See what I mean? If they want to attack Marian dogma using Greek, then they need to address the literal text of the Greek Scriptures (kecharitomene), not their own personal back-translation (plērēs charitos).

Specifically, what they’re trying to do is show that the phrase plērēs charitos doesn’t apply to Mary, and even if it did, it wouldn’t imply Mary’s Immaculate Conception or sinlessness.

It’s a pretty weak attempt. But, if you look at it uncritically, and if you aren’t familiar with the Greek and Latin, and if you don’t know the basis for Catholic Marian dogma… well, it would be easy to fool you with their twisted logic. :sad_yes:

Thank you.

So in essence, they are saying that Catholics are mis translating kecharitomene as “full of grace”. They believe plērēs charitos means full of grace. So they accuse Catholics of twisting the original translation.

What do they suppose kecharitomene means?

And also, how does this tie into Ephesians 1:6?

Thanks for the help.

 

[Gorgias]

Thank you.

You’re welcome!

So in essence, they are saying that Catholics are mis translating kecharitomene as “full of grace”.

Yes.

They believe plērēs charitos means full of grace.

Well, it does, actually. Here’s the thing, though: Jerome was trying to translate the meaning implicit in the Greek passive perfect participle. He couldn’t duplicate it using Latin grammar, so he had to find another way to express the meaning there. So, he chose ‘plena gratia,’ which wasn’t a verbatim translation, but rather one which expressed the meaning found in kecharitōmenē. It’s possible to argue that this wasn’t the best possible translation; but it’s not reasonable to translate it back into Greek as if it had been a verbatim translation.

So they accuse Catholics of twisting the original translation.

Right – and then developing erroneous doctrine from the bad translation.

What do they suppose kecharitomene means?

‘highly favored’. Sadly, this translation is deficient, since it ignores the grammar of the word and the implications that this has on the meaning of the word.

And also, how does this tie into Ephesians 1:6?

There are only two instances of forms of the verb χαριτόω in the NT – Luke 1:28 (κεχαριτωμένη - ‘kecharitōmenē’) and Ephesians 1:6 (ἐχαρίτωσεν - ‘echaritōsen’).

In Ephesians, the grammatical form is strictly a verb (expressed in a tense that tends to imply simple past (although the description of the ‘aorist’ is more complex than that)). Since the translation of echaritōsen doesn’t imply enduring grace, the argument typically goes, neither does kecharitōmenē. (It’s just a poor grasp of Koine Greek grammar.)

 

[DaveBj]

You’re welcome!

Yes.

Well, it does, actually. Here’s the thing, though: Jerome was trying to translate the meaning implicit in the Greek passive perfect participle. He couldn’t duplicate it using Latin grammar, so he had to find another way to express the meaning there. So, he chose ‘plena gratia,’ which wasn’t a verbatim translation, but rather one which expressed the meaning found in kecharitōmenē. It’s possible to argue that this wasn’t the best possible translation; but it’s not reasonable to translate it back into Greek as if it had been a verbatim translation.

Right – and then developing erroneous doctrine from the bad translation.

‘highly favored’. Sadly, this translation is deficient, since it ignores the grammar of the word and the implications that this has on the meaning of the word.

There are only two instances of forms of the verb χαριτόω in the NT – Luke 1:28 (κεχαριτωμένη - ‘kecharitōmenē’) and Ephesians 1:6 (ἐχαρίτωσεν - ‘echaritōsen’).

In Ephesians, the grammatical form is strictly a verb (expressed in a tense that tends to imply simple past (although the description of the ‘aorist’ is more complex than that)). Since the translation of echaritōsen doesn’t imply enduring grace, the argument typically goes, neither does kecharitōmenē. (It’s just a poor grasp of Koine Greek grammar.)

Excellent responses and explanation

 

[Joe5858]

great help, thank you!