"Full of Grace"

[Fish and Bread]

I was always taught that the first couple lines of the "Hail Mary" prayer were straight from the bible. It's repeated by folks on this board all the time. A lot of the defenses of the Immaculate Conception that I've seen from both those Anglicans who believe in it and from members the Vatican church refer to part of that verse as being "full of grace". There are some fairly famous works of apologetics about the RCC dogma that mention it in detail. It seemed so widely accepted that I never bothered to look it up and see whether or not it was actually there.

I was looking at another board and someone quoted it without it and said, look it up, it's not there. It's not there -- not in the NRSV, not in the KJV, not in the NASB, not in the NIV. Even the NAB, which is the offical lectionary bible for Latin Rite Roman Catholics in the United States translates it as follows: And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.". The *only* bible I could find that uses the phrase "full of grace" is the old Douay-Rheims Bible, which is sort of like the Vatican equivalent of the King James Version (i.e. the standard English translation for several hundred years, but now out of popular use), and which I checked because I knew if any bible would have "full of grace", that one would. I say this with the disclaimer that I only checked about half a dozen bibles online, so there may be some others out there which concur with the DRB.

I feel like I've wandered into the twilight zone! What's going on? What does the Greek say?

John

[Fish and Bread]

Alright, I did a little more research:


Some Catholic theologians have also found Scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception in the angel Gabriel's greeting to Mary at the Annunciation, recorded by Saint Luke in Luke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke) 1:28 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PWK.HTM). The English translation, "Hail, Full of Grace," or "Hail, Favored One," is based on the Greek of Luke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke) 1:28 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PWK.HTM), Χαιρε κεχαριτωμενη Chaire kecharitomene. The latter word has the verb "to grace" as its root, and the Greek syntax indicates that the action of the verb was passive, fully completed in the past, with results continuing into the future. Put another way, it means that the subject (Mary) was graced fully and completely at some time in the past, and continued in that fully graced state.


-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_conception


If the article is correct about the translation, that would still beg the question: Why would so many translations, included the the translation approved by the Vatican for US in the US church, translate this passage differently? I mean, one could make a whole "Protestant conspiracy" argument about how people opposed to Marian doctrines changed it, etc., etc., etc., if we were just talking about Protestant translations, but here we have a definitively non-Protestant translation which was prepared by translators in communion with the Vatican, has both the Papal seal on and a letter from Pope Paul VI recommending it the original version before revisions, and is read at mass in the United States universally by RCC parishes. So, what's the counter argument to the argument back by the Wikipedia site?

John

[PaladinValer]

It can say either. Each is an acceptable translation.

[Fish and Bread]

It can say either. Each is an acceptable translation.

Does that indicate that it means both or that the word meaning in the Greek is uncertain and that both "guesses" are equally plausible?

John

[gitlance]

Alright, I did a little more research:

Some Catholic theologians have also found Scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception in the angel Gabriel's greeting to Mary at the Annunciation, recorded by Saint Luke in Luke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke) 1:28 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PWK.HTM). The English translation, "Hail, Full of Grace," or "Hail, Favored One," is based on the Greek of Luke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke) 1:28 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PWK.HTM), Χαιρε κεχαριτωμενη Chaire kecharitomene. The latter word has the verb "to grace" as its root, and the Greek syntax indicates that the action of the verb was passive, fully completed in the past, with results continuing into the future. Put another way, it means that the subject (Mary) was graced fully and completely at some time in the past, and continued in that fully graced state.


-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_conception


If the article is correct about the translation, that would still beg the question: Why would so many translations, included the the translation approved by the Vatican for US in the US church, translate this passage differently? I mean, one could make a whole "Protestant conspiracy" argument about how people opposed to Marian doctrines changed it, etc., etc., etc., if we were just talking about Protestant translations, but here we have a definitively non-Protestant translation which was prepared by translators in communion with the Vatican, has both the Papal seal on and a letter from Pope Paul VI recommending it the original version before revisions, and is read at mass in the United States universally by RCC parishes. So, what's the counter argument to the argument back by the Wikipedia site?

John



Your findings on the Greek are correct.

And yes, there is the deal with the "protestant conspiracy," but it is worth noting that aside from 2 or 3 translations, they have almost all been done primarily by protestants. We may like to think that they are unbiased translations, but one reading of most of them compared to the Greek will quickly change your mind on that.

[gitlance]

Does that indicate that it means both or that the word meaning in the Greek is uncertain and that both "guesses" are equally plausible?

John

One who is favored is also seen as one who is "full of grace" in this context. The Greek context does indeed refer to a past action in which the subject became "full of grace". This passage has long been seen as specially significant to Mary, even before the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared by the Vatican.

Ultimately, the Immaculate Conception is not as far-fetched as it sounds: it actually just states that Christ redeemed Mary at the moment of her conception, so that she would be able to bring forth a pure redeemer into the world. She was not "sinless" in the same sense that Christ was (meaning by her own power), but she was preserved from sinning due to her redemption at such an early point in life. We see that John the Baptist was baptized in the Holy Spirit in his womb, so why could Mary not have been redeemed in the womb?

Either way, the Greek syntax points to something that happened in Mary's life BEFORE the angel came to announce the Incarnation to her. The early Fathers wrote of this peculiar pureness of Mary -- something brought about by Christ's pre-incarnate work in her.

[Naomi4Christ]

What about:

28L'ange entra chez elle, et dit: Je te salue, toi à qui une grâce a été faite; le Seigneur est avec toi. you to whom a grace has been made/done

28 L'ange entra chez elle et lui dit:
---Réjouis-toi, toi à qui Dieu a accordé sa faveur: le Seigneur est avec toi. you to whom God has give his favour

28E l'angelo, entrato da lei, disse: «Salve, o grandemente favorita, il Signore è con te; tu sei benedetta fra le donne» oh biggest favourite, the Lord is with you; you are blessed among women

28 Gabriele, entrato, disse: "Ti saluto! Il Signore è con te; egli ti ha dato la sua grazia in abbondanza". he has given you his grace (thanks) in abundance

[Lel]

Luke 1:28 (Wycliffe New Testament)

28 And the angel entered to her, and said, Hail, full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed be thou among women.

[Fish and Bread]

And yes, there is the deal with the "protestant conspiracy," but it is worth noting that aside from 2 or 3 translations, they have almost all been done primarily by protestants. We may like to think that they are unbiased translations, but one reading of most of them compared to the Greek will quickly change your mind on that.

Thank you for responding. Why do you think the New American Bible, which is the lectionary text in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States (which like all churches in communion with the Vatican has dogmatized the Immaculate Conception and thus has incentive to translate it as "full of grace", rather than a bias against) has used the same translation as the Protestant texts? I've heard some traditionalist RCC folks accuse the the US Catholic Bishops Conference of being, to put it charitably, a little bit out to lunch, but the Vatican has to approve these choices and Pope Paul VI himself put his stamp on this translation and wrote a letter in support of it.

That's the big question in my mind about all this -- if the obvious translation, or an equally likely translation, is "full of grace", why would the biblical translations written and approved by folks who have ever incentive to translate it "full of grace" (Due to the IC dogma) not do so? It's one of those things that raises a big red flag for me. I know the Canadian RCC liturgical text is currently the NRSV (But that's changing, due to some problems the Vatican has over gender neutral language), which has a similar translation to the NAB of that passage. How do the approved RCC liturgical texts in Latin America and overseas translate this passage? Does anyone know?

John

[gitlance]

Thank you for responding. Why do you think the New American Bible, which is the lectionary text in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States (which like all churches in communion with the Vatican has dogmatized the Immaculate Conception and thus has incentive to translate it as "full of grace", rather than a bias against) has used the same translation as the Protestant texts? I've heard some traditionalist RCC folks accuse the the US Catholic Bishops Conference of being, to put it charitably, a little bit out to lunch, but the Vatican has to approve these choices and Pope Paul VI himself put his stamp on this translation and wrote a letter in support of it.

That's the big question in my mind about all this -- if the obvious translation, or an equally likely translation, is "full of grace", why would the biblical translations written and approved by folks who have ever incentive to translate it "full of grace" (Due to the IC dogma) not do so? It's one of those things that raises a big red flag for me. I know the Canadian RCC liturgical text is currently the NRSV (But that's changing, due to some problems the Vatican has over gender neutral language), which has a similar translation to the NAB of that passage. How do the approved RCC liturgical texts in Latin America and overseas translate this passage? Does anyone know?

John

It is a good question you raise. I, frankly, do not understand many things Rome has done in the past 40 years since Vatican II. As you may well know, many accused Vatican II of "protestantizing" the Church, and that may very well have been a result of those reforms. When I came out of the evangelical church, one of the things that prevented me from going to Rome was the fact that there was very little difference between them and evangelical protestantism -- I know that may sound absurd, but sadly American Roman Catholics (by and large) are not the most devout group of people. I know what the Roman Church teaches, but it's frustrating to see so many of her members not obeying Church teachings.

Back to the subject at hand, I am at a loss as to why the ASB does not translate that phrase as "full of grace," when it is very clearly present in the Greek. Naomi's texts above were very good, for they seemed to show that other language translations did indeed render the Greek accurately. I have an RSV Catholic edition, unfortunately it is not on my person at the moment. I am almost certain that it renders the "full of grace" passage accurately, though I will have to go get my Bible and then report back to you on that.

I will also ask my RC professor about it, since he is an advocate of Vatican II.

Don't change the channel, for we will be right back!!!

[gitlance]

Well, the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition renders the verse this way:

"And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!"

There is a footnote that says "full of grace" may be rendered "favored one".

Perhaps we should write the Vatican and ask about the ASB...

[Fish and Bread]

It is a good question you raise. I, frankly, do not understand many things Rome has done in the past 40 years since Vatican II. As you may well know, many accused Vatican II of "protestantizing" the Church, and that may very well have been a result of those reforms. When I came out of the evangelical church, one of the things that prevented me from going to Rome was the fact that there was very little difference between them and evangelical protestantism -- I know that may sound absurd, but sadly American Roman Catholics (by and large) are not the most devout group of people. I know what the Roman Church teaches, but it's frustrating to see so many of her members not obeying Church teachings.

I'm not sure many of the members of the Roman Catholic Church know her teachings in the first place. I think the same holds true for a lot of different religious bodies. I dated a Lutheran girl once once a time who insisted that her church didn't believe in the trinity and that "Jesus was just a man". I sent her a link to her denomination's website outlining trinitarian teaching and she still insists that the website was wrong and didn't reflect the views of her congregation. It's possible that the congregation she grew up in was actually teaching unitarianism, but since it was located in what was described as a very rural (and thus likely conservative) area, I think it was more likely simply a failure to catechize.

I think the problem with the Roman Catholic Church and it's failure to catechize properly may well simply be that the bishops and priests in the United States don't agree with most of the teachings. I only base on that on very casual observation of them, so I could very well be wrong, but let's face it -- if, for example, the bishops and priests truly believe that people using artificial birth control are committing mortal sin, that it is independently putting them in danger of hell, and that receiving communion in that state was unworthy and thus putting them in even more serious danger of hell (All of which I think the Vatican teaches), why in the world would they be letting the 70% of married Roman Catholics who are using birth control receive communion? Now, we can quibble about the idea that the priests don't know whether a given couple is using artifical birth control or not, and they probably don't, but I get the impression that not many homilies are given on the subject. If I were a priest and believed that 70% of the married members of my parish were putting themselves in serious danger of going to hell by their actions and by receiving communion, I'd put an announcement in the bulletin every single week that people who are using artificial birth control should not receive communion and quote the cathechism or an encyclical or whatever stating that using it is a mortal sin and then quote the part saying people in mortal sin should abstain from communion.

If these bishops and priests can not bow to the authority of Rome and truly believe they should be allowing the use of artificial birth control and people to receive communion regardless of the state of their consciences, they really ought not be bishops in the Roman Catholic Church, in my view. I mean, seriously, to me it sounds as if they are are moderate to conservative Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians, really.

What I really don't get, though, is how this could happen if the Pope appoints all the bishops and the bishops ordain the priests, though. They're not elected by the locals, like in the Episcopal Church. So, why would a fairly conservative (Though ecumenically minded and compassionate) Pope like John-Paul II (Since Benedict XVI probably hasn't had a chance to appoint many bishops yet, I think it's fair to exclude him from this discussion for the time being), who presumably think that God binds people to follow his directives, appoint bishops who will not follow and thus lead their diocesean flocks into sin? I'm not really sure I understand what's going on. It doesn't make any sense to me. Something is weird about the whole situation.

Back to the subject at hand, I am at a loss as to why the ASB does not translate that phrase as "full of grace," when it is very clearly present in the Greek. Naomi's texts above were very good, for they seemed to show that other language translations did indeed render the Greek accurately. I have an RSV Catholic edition, unfortunately it is not on my person at the moment. I am almost certain that it renders the "full of grace" passage accurately, though I will have to go get my Bible and then report back to you on that.

Father Benedict Groschel, the host of EWTN Sunday Night Live, mentioned yesterday evening that the bible he uses is the RSV. I thought that was kind of interesting, because one doesn't get more orthodox Roman Catholic than Father Benedict (Though he has sometimes rare traits among the orthodox -- understanding, compassion, and humility) and he's not using the lectionary text bible recommended by his bishops! But there's probably something to it if that's the bible he uses. He has a tremendous grasp of church history and I'd be shocked if he *wasn't* a Greek scholar.

I will also ask my RC professor about it, since he is an advocate of Vatican II.

Please do! I'd really like to hear his perspective.

John

[Fish and Bread]

Well, the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition renders the verse this way:

"And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!"

There is a footnote that says "full of grace" may be rendered "favored one".

Thanks for looking that up for me!

Perhaps we should write the Vatican and ask about the ASB...

Just a quick note: The liturgical text for the US RCC parishes is the New American Bible (NAB), not to be confused with the American Standard Bible (ASB) or the New American Standard Bible (NASB), which, despite similar sounding names, are significantly different translations (Protestant translations, no less).

John

[gitlance]

Thanks for looking that up for me!



Just a quick note: The liturgical text for the US RCC parishes is the New American Bible (NAB), not to be confused with the American Standard Bible (ASB) or the New American Standard Bible (NASB), which, despite similar sounding names, are significantly different translations (Protestant translations, no less).

John

Ahh, thank you. I was unaware that it is in fact the NAB. I don't tend Roman Mass that often anymore, so I'm not up-to-date on the minutiae of their liturgics. Thanks!!!!

[SirTimothy]

Just a quick note: The liturgical text for the US RCC parishes is the New American Bible (NAB), not to be confused with the American Standard Bible (ASB) or the New American Standard Bible (NASB), which, despite similar sounding names, are significantly different translations (Protestant translations, no less).

And definitely not to be confused with the Alternative Service Book which we used in the UK for donkeys, til CW came along...

Timothy