Why "O favoured" instead of "Full of grace?"

[ni8_shadow]

Ok, when and why do modern transaltions, Catholic and Protestant, have 'Hail o favoured one," instead of “Hail full of grace?”

Protestant Bibles I know tend to translate in favor of their theology, but that complicates things when I bust out my RSVCE and point to “see, she is Full of Grace here” only to be met with “well my Bible doesn’t say that, in fact, most Catholic Bibles don’t say that!”

Is Full of Grace a better translation?

 

[Verbum]

Hi nie,

The original Greek word (kecharitômenê) means "looked upon with favor[by God]. Latin has no corresponding word, so they translated it as “gratia plena”, (“gratia” corresponding to the root word of the above original Greek, “charis” (favor). Hence our “full of grace”.

“Full of grace” is more in line with subsequent theological development, and so is held on to by many Catholic of the conservative persuasion.

However, modern translators tend to translate in a way that is as close as possible to what it meant to the people for whom it was directly written. Two points of view.

Verbum

 

[Jon_S]

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209fea2.asp

 

[ni8_shadow]

Interesting stuff. Thanks. A little over my head at the moment…but hey…in the end it’s all Greek to me!!! Ok I know it wasn’t funny

 

[porthos11]

The main reason we have “highly favored” and “full of grace” is the inherent difficulty in translating the Greek word kecharitomene. In fact, the word cannot be translated into English or even Latin without losing some of the original force. “Full of grace”, while close, still does not convey the full meaning of the term, since it loses the past and continual aspect of the participle.

When explaining this verse, one must never stop at the English, or even the Latin. This is one Greek term every Bible reader must understand.

 

[jcrichton]

The main reason we have “highly favored” and “full of grace” is the inherent difficulty in translating the Greek word kecharitomene. In fact, the word cannot be translated into English or even Latin without losing some of the original force. “Full of grace”, while close, still does not convey the full meaning of the term, since it loses the past and continual aspect of the participle.

When explaining this verse, one must never stop at the English, or even the Latin. This is one Greek term every Bible reader must understand.

***Hi, porthos!

…I follow your text… but I must be the thickest bush in the field… from your explanation I gather that translating the term from Greek loses its original value (force–which I truly get since my first love is Spanish–which I consider it to be 1K more romantic than English and at least 20K more than za phrenchz ), but it seems to me that “full of grace” (or better full of Grace) is much more powerful than the weak “highly favored” (which, incidentally, seems more appropriate for some restaurant dish or some sports betting odds).

Are you knowlegeable of the original language (perhaps Arameic) which Virgin Mary used? …and if you are… what would be the actual rendering of Gabriel’s greeting in that language?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Ok, when and why do modern transaltions, Catholic and Protestant, have 'Hail o favoured one," instead of “Hail full of grace?”

Protestant Bibles I know tend to translate in favor of their theology, but that complicates things when I bust out my RSVCE and point to “see, she is Full of Grace here” only to be met with “well my Bible doesn’t say that, in fact, most Catholic Bibles don’t say that!”

Is Full of Grace a better translation?

I dont know Greek, but Full of Grace is the better translation by the very fact of its ties with how the Church understands the Blessed Virgin throughout the ages. I can fully understand why Protestants would avoid using the phrase, but I think it is totally scandalous for modern Catholic Bibles to not use that phrase. The only Catholic English Bibles I know that retain that passage are the Douay Rhemis and the RSV-CE.

 

[porthos11]

***Hi, porthos!

…I follow your text… but I must be the thickest bush in the field… from your explanation I gather that translating the term from Greek loses its original value (force–which I truly get since my first love is Spanish–which I consider it to be 1K more romantic than English and at least 20K more than za phrenchz ), but it seems to me that “full of grace” (or better full of Grace) is much more powerful than the weak “highly favored” (which, incidentally, seems more appropriate for some restaurant dish or some sports betting odds).

Are you knowlegeable of the original language (perhaps Arameic) which Virgin Mary used? …and if you are… what would be the actual rendering of Gabriel’s greeting in that language?

Maran atha!

Angel***

No sorry, I do not know Aramaic. All we have to work on for Luke is the Greek, since that’s the original inspired text.

Yes, the translation from the Greek loses its original force, even into Latin. Compared to Greek, Latin is word-poor and lacks the precision conveyed by the Greek. As venerable “full of grace” is, it’s still insufficient to render the full meaning of the Greek, as it lacks the past+continuous effect. That’s why “full of grace” does not distinguish the “gracedness” between Mary and Stephen, while “kecharitomene” does.

So really, I don’t beat anyone over “highly favored” vs. “full of grace”, although I personally prefer the latter. Limiting ourselves to these terms does no justice to the original language, which uses a very powerful term indeed.

 

[ni8_shadow]

I re-listened to a Tim Staples tape and he says the Greek can be translated as “you perfected in Grace.” If it does mean perfected, or filled, past tense, then why is it hard to just translate it as “perfected in Grace” or “Filled with Grace” or anything like that? If it loses it’s “power” then why not fix it so it will convey that?

Are there rules for doing stuff like that while translating? If we know “highly favoured” or even “full of Grace” is NOT close enough why can’t we fix it?

 

[Joe_5859]

The original Greek word (kecharitômenê) means "looked upon with favor[by God].

Not all biblical scholars agree that this is the best way to define the greek word, though. Some believe “full of grace” is more accurate.

I wonder what the reason was that they chose to translate it into Latin as “gratia plena”. Something must have led them to believe it was an accurate translation.

 

[Spirithound]

…the Greek can be translated as “you perfected in Grace.” If it does mean perfected, or filled, past tense, then why is it hard to just translate it as “perfected in Grace” or “Filled with Grace” or anything like that? If it loses it’s “power” then why not fix it so it will convey that?

Are there rules for doing stuff like that while translating? If we know “highly favoured” or even “full of Grace” is NOT close enough why can’t we fix it?

From what I’ve read in this thread, which is actually the most in-depth i’ve read, it seems that “perfected in Grace”, and “filled with Grace” may not encompass the full meaning of the word. There are not really hard-and-fast “rules” of translating, but there are 2 extremes, literal and dynamic, that we use and mix for different purposes. One drawback to dynamic translation is that some force will inevitably be lost because different languages really aren’t equivalent on every concept. One drawback to the level of literalness which you are asking about is that to encompass the full connotations of a word may be rather lengthy, and quite possibly awkward to put into sentence format.
So, what is the answer to this problem? I think regardless of which style of translation we are using, we need a commentary to go along with it.

 

[jcrichton]

From what I’ve read in this thread, which is actually the most in-depth i’ve read, it seems that “perfected in Grace”, and “filled with Grace” may not encompass the full meaning of the word. There are not really hard-and-fast “rules” of translating, but there are 2 extremes, literal and dynamic, that we use and mix for different purposes. One drawback to dynamic translation is that some force will inevitably be lost because different languages really aren’t equivalent on every concept. One drawback to the level of literalness which you are asking about is that to encompass the full connotations of a word may be rather lengthy, and quite possibly awkward to put into sentence format.
So, what is the answer to this problem? I think regardless of which style of translation we are using, we need a commentary to go along with it.

***Hi, Spirithound!

…I follow what you are saying… but what I was attempting to insinuate on my previous post is that I believe that many of the changes are not due to lack of “correct” translation…

Two Examples:

• When I came to the US my name was changed from “Ángel Valentín” to “Angel Valentine.” Clearly no substance was lost since there was a direct translation for both my first and last names–it happened due to a simple action: my cousin took me around and filled out all the applications with my corresponding names in English not Spanish. There was no ulterior motive!

However, when changes are made to Scriptures I do not think that it is as simple as finding the corresponding words or meanings… I think that it goes well beyond that–there is, from my perspective, the desire to reinvent the wheel… make it more “round!” :whacky:

• When someone says in Spanish, “¡Me estás tomando el pelo!” If translated literally it will be grammatically correct but the meaning would have changed totally: “You’re pulling my hair!”

Only those lacking language skills would believe that that literal translation is correct since the true meaning is lost and the English equivalent exists which would, even if not literal, render the actual meaning: “You’re pulling my leg!”

What joyous and wondrous news Gabriel brings to Mary and the best he can do is tell her how she beat out a whole bunch of others awaiting for the Messiah… “hey, you are favored,” just doesn’t quite make it, does it?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[graceandglory]

• When someone says in Spanish, “¡Me estás tomando el pelo!” If translated literally it will be grammatically correct but the meaning would have changed totally: “You’re pulling my hair!”

Only those lacking language skills would believe that that literal translation is correct since the true meaning is lost and the English equivalent exists which would, even if not literal, render the actual meaning: “You’re pulling my leg!”

What joyous and wondrous news Gabriel brings to Mary and the best he can do is tell her how she beat out a whole bunch of others awaiting for the Messiah… “hey, you are favored,” just doesn’t quite make it, does it?

Maran atha!

Angel

Thank you for sharing that, Angel Valentine.
Great point!
I totally “get” what you’re saying!
You think just like I do.

When reading and understanding Scripture, a scholar has to take into account the denotative (dictionary) meaning of the words, and the connotative (what people generally mean when they use a word). Too many people, predominately American protestants, think that their personal meaning of the words is the intended meaning. This drives me crazy. :hypno:

The denotative meaning of a word is its literal meaning – the definition you’d find in the dictionary. Take the word “mother,” for example. The dictionary would define mother as “a female parent.” OK, but the word “mother” probably creates emotions and feelings in you: it paints a picture in your mind. You may think of love and security or you may think of your own mother. The emotions and feelings that a word creates are called its connotative meaning.etap.org/demo/englishhs/instruction_last.html

 

[porthos11]

I re-listened to a Tim Staples tape and he says the Greek can be translated as “you perfected in Grace.” If it does mean perfected, or filled, past tense, then why is it hard to just translate it as “perfected in Grace” or “Filled with Grace” or anything like that? If it loses it’s “power” then why not fix it so it will convey that?

Are there rules for doing stuff like that while translating? If we know “highly favoured” or even “full of Grace” is NOT close enough why can’t we fix it?

Because it cannot be fixes. The word is virtually untranslatable; there is no equivalent in English or even in Latin. Its perfect tense cannot be exactly reproduced into elegant English or Latin. Most accurately, it would have to be translated this way:

“Hail, O you who have been endowed with grace and have continued to be so up to this time.” That’s not a good phrase to put into a Bible, but it is the most precise.

“Perfected in grace” is not a translation, it’s an interpretation, no matter how true it is. While kecharitomene uses the perfect tense, the tense has to do with the past and continuing effect. Its use does not signify qualitative perfection.

 

[jcrichton]

Thank you for sharing that, Angel Valentine.
Great point!
I totally “get” what you’re saying!
You think just like I do.

When reading and understanding Scripture, a scholar has to take into account the denotative (dictionary) meaning of the words, and the connotative (what people generally mean when they use a word). Too many people, predominately American protestants, think that their personal meaning of the words is the intended meaning. This drives me crazy. :hypno:

***Hi, graceandglory!

Exactly!

I had those terms in my head… they just refused to surface!

…just as I was reading the quoted portion of your post my mind raced as “Mother Land” mother load, mother of a headache… jumped right in… so while the denotative rendering is an excellent start-point, not taking the connotative meaning into effect could distort the meaning beyond recognition.

Sadly, too many seek to homogenize Scriptures to the point of reckless abandon; while still others just want everyone to be “friends.” …what’s that ole saying… the road to hell is paved with “good” translations?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Hastrman]

Ok, when and why do modern transaltions, Catholic and Protestant, have 'Hail o favoured one," instead of “Hail full of grace?”

Protestant Bibles I know tend to translate in favor of their theology, but that complicates things when I bust out my RSVCE and point to “see, she is Full of Grace here” only to be met with “well my Bible doesn’t say that, in fact, most Catholic Bibles don’t say that!”

Is Full of Grace a better translation?

Arguably they think people won’t know “grace” means blessed/favored by God. Or in other words, “The people are stupid, let’s dumb it down.”

Add to that they’re butchering the language (the version they read at Mass in the States is, oddly enough, a sin against both God and the Muse Polyhymnia {religious poetry}), and you can see why people say, “God saw that the American Church lacked persecution, so He sent them liturgists.”

 

[j1s2a3]

Luke 1:46-55 will suffice.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Eph 1:6 that greek word is used for all believers twice in this verse.

 

[Nita]

Eph 1:6 that greek word is used for all believers twice in this verse.

Thanks for the reference Daniel.
Eph 1:6 “Unto the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He hath graced us in His beloved Son.”

It verifies that the meaning in Luke is to the grace that comes in and through our Saviour - sanctifying grace, merited by Him for us. In Baptism, believers are graced with the same grace that was infused in Mary’s soul from the moment of her conception.

 

[Michael_G]

I re-listened to a Tim Staples tape and he says the Greek can be translated as “you perfected in Grace.” If it does mean perfected, or filled, past tense, then why is it hard to just translate it as “perfected in Grace” or “Filled with Grace” or anything like that? If it loses it’s “power” then why not fix it so it will convey that?

This all started with the Protestant Revolt. One ought to consider the history, as well as what Greek Scholars say about the word. One KeCharitoMene, the Charito is the base word which does mean grace, while favor can be grace, it is not necessarily so, favor has multiple meanings and might have nothing to do with grace so to use the word favor only muddies the water. All translations prior to the Protestant Revolt this passage was recorded as full of grace, which is for all practicality the same as filled with grace. The Wycliffe Bible , Tyndale, and Tyndale coverdale Bile all translated as full of grace. What is even more powerful is the Arameic Peshitta Bible which dates to 500 AD to about 100-200 AD (Hebrew-Arameic translated as full of Grace).

The original 1611 King James translated as highly favored but its margin notes suggested that it could be read as much graced. They would eventually drop out the margin notes so no one could be the wiser. The Geneva Bible translated as highly favored but its margin notes in the original aknowledge that it could be rendered full of Grace.

Robertson word Picture, a Baptist no friend of the Catholic Church, a Greek linguist author of "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research%between% "
%between%Robertson, A. (1919; 2006). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research acknowleges that Jerome was right, in translating to full of grace.

*When one looks at a greek english interlinear with grammer tags one will find that KeCharitomene is a special word only used one time in the entire Bible and it is a perfect Passive Particple, meaning that it has both verb and noun properties, and that the action on the word Chartio-grace is a perfectly completed action on the word grace meaning Mary is perfectly graced in the past with ongoing meaning in the present by something outside of her by God. *

So the Protestant revolt started changing the meaning of the word eventually wiping out any rememberance for the full of grace in their translation, which would then spread to certain Catholic Bibles such as the Jerusalem Bible, and New American Bible