New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition

[thereselittleflower]

"Douay Rheims"

Are you actually suggesting that in the last 500 years there have been no advancements in exegesis and philology?


Were they using the vulgate for the KJV? because the old vulgate is where we find gratia plena, which is mearly a more specific translation, but not the only correct translation.

The reason why none of these are the only correct translation is because it is not possible to translate this word, kecharitomene, with one or a couple words . .

We are talking about grace and favor, we are talking about grace bestowed compeltely, perfectly, fully, and done so completely by the agency of another, and not in any way by the agency of the one Gabriel was speaking to, Mary. . . ao it is completely passive in regards to Mary . . and it is an ongoing state that remains and does not change . .

The words "Full of grace" do not fully tell us that it is an ongoing state, or that it was something that Mary received passively which was conferred upon her by another (God).

The word "favor' does not do the term 'charito' justice in our modern understanding of the wod favor . .

charito is the grace of God, the infused power of God . . and means much more than mere favor . . Mary was completely infused with this grace, this infused power of God . .



Peace in Him

 

[geocajun]

Therese, I agree that it is a difficult word to translate.
I gathered from this thread at one point that "Full of Grace" was deemed the only correct translation, but now I am gathering that even "Full of Grace" isn't good enough in your opinion.
I am simply trusting in Catholic scholarship to give us the Word of God as the Church always has in the past - and continues to do today.
In my opinion, anyone who refers to anything less than "Full of grace" as wrong, and substituting truth for ecumenism is a fanatic.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Therese, I agree that it is a difficult word to translate.
I gathered from this thread at one point that "Full of Grace" was deemed the only correct translation, but now I am gathering that even "Full of Grace" isn't good enough in your opinion.
I am simply trusting in Catholic scholarship to give us the Word of God as the Church always has in the past - and continues to do today.
In my opinion, anyone who refers to anything less than "Full of grace" as wrong, and substituting truth for ecumenism is a fanatic.

LOL - I can't tell if you think I am a fanatic or not by what you said . . but you may well consider me to be one . .

But be that as it may, I think there are a couple of things getting mixed up here . . one is that of "what is the best translation for the word 'kecharitomene', and 2) What are we really talking about . . translations . .

My whole point in using this word as an example was to show how very difficult it is to translate from one langauge family to another . . and that there is no one Engllish translation that can capture all the dynamic of some portions of scripture . . and this example is, by its very nature, a perfect example of why we should use a few different types of translations .. a literal, a dynamic, and something in between, to really help us as we read the bible in English . .

So, the specifics of how to translate kecharitomene aside, the main thrust of what I am trying to say remains outside of the issue of whether I or someone else is a fanatic or not . .

Personally, I favor the "full of grace" translation over any that uses any form of the word "favored" and without any pronouns added.


Peace in Him!

 

[Axion]

"Douay Rheims"

Are you actually suggesting that in the last 500 years there have been no advancements in exegesis and philology?

Well I'm sure that God didn't wait until the 1960's to let us know that "Full of Grace" is the wrong translation for kecharitomene, and "highly fravoured" is right. And if that were so, shouldn't the words of the Hail Mary be changed?

So no. I don't see any great advancements in exegesis and philology revealed behind the decision of some recent translators to substitute favour for grace in the Annunciation account. No new discoveries have been made as to meaning. The indications are that the change has been a misguided attempt to homogenise standard texts in the cause of ecumenism. The english translation of the Novus Ordo mass shows similar tendencies, in order to dovetail (sometimes word for word) with the Anglican and Methodist communion prayers.

Were they using the vulgate for the KJV? because the old vulgate is where we find gratia plena, which is mearly a more specific translation, but not the only correct translation.

The KJV was actually not so much a new translation, as it claimed, but a revision and re-editing of previous texts in the light of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. So all available previous translations were used.

kecharitomene is only used 1 time in scripture that I know of. if you know of any other places, please show me.

Kecharitomene is a grammatical construct of Charis. Charis is the key root word. And Charis appears throughout the New Testament.

As a comparison, oversimplify is a grammatical construct of simple. In both cases the core root word remains the same, and carries the same meaning.

Throughout the New Testament, Charis and its derivative words are normally translated grace. While it is legitimate to translate Charis as favour on every occasion that it appears in the NT. It is not really legitimate, IMHO (and in fact misleading) to translate Charis one way on one occasion and differently on another. This is because Charis (grace) has a particular meaning in the NT that goes above and beyond simple "favour".

I am simply trusting in Catholic scholarship to give us the Word of God as the Church always has in the past - and continues to do today.
In my opinion, anyone who refers to anything less than "Full of grace" as wrong, and substituting truth for ecumenism is a fanatic.

Catholic "scholarship" does not give us the word of God. The Deposit of Faith within the Church does. Catholic scholars are not infallible, and are as prone to following fads as anyone else.

The NJB footnote writers for example (who you quoted approvingly earlier) are in fact extremely liberal in many of their interpretations. They accept as fact certain recent academic theories, such as that the pentateuch was not written by Moses at all, but cobbled together from different sources very much later by hebrew editors. So is this now a Catholic doctrine, just because it appears in an approved bible? I don't think so.

As for "fanaticism", one reason that "Full of Grace" is important is that it underlies the Catholic teachings of the Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary.

Quoting the highly favoured (mis)translation, those protestants who attack these doctrines, and label them "unbiblical", attack the Hail Mary as a false translation, deny any divine gift of Grace to Mary, and argue that Mary was only "highly favoured" in being chosen to bear Jesus.

 

[Maximus]

The Orthodox Hail Mary also translates kecharitomene as "full of grace."

If anyone should know what a Greek word means and how to translate it, it should be the Greeks, right?

I have heard the Douay-Rheims Bible is extremely accurate.

Does anyone know if they produce them with wide margins for note-taking?

 

[FR0G]

One they are biased and hate the Church

I don't hate the Catholic Church.

 

[pmarquette]

Why not? I assume that it is because Protestant bias may find its way in there. I am asking this because for the last few years I've been using the NIV, it has all sorts of notes in it that I do ----the NIV completely omits Mark 16 , verses 16-20 , for one reason ..... the NIV is a paraphrase , not a word for word transliteration like the Douay-Rheims , NAB , etc.

Except for the 7 deuterocanoconical texts in a catholic bible , the New King James or the New American Standard is basically the same book with some words having a weaker or stronger rendering ..... the New Testaments , for all practical purposes are identical ....

I have a Catholic Confraternity bible downstairs and use a KJV on my computer . In 10 years , I have yet to find any significant difference in the 2 books ....

 

[Brian Daniel]

wow! I knew the NRSV was very inclusive, but the other one you mention is just a slap in the face to our theology. Do you have any links which reference this?

http://www.bible-researcher.com/ntpiv.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195284186/002-29

Here are two links about this version. I feel like saying per-version, but that's too Chick-like.

 

[geocajun]

There are many words in greek which require some creativity to translate to modern language.
Have we at least established that the NJB translation is not wrong?
I am certain that we have established that even "Hail, full of grace!" is not good enough for a few posters in this thread.

 

[Mr.Cheese]

I've heard an understanding of that phrase is like "infused with Grace." SO I believe "full of Grace" is a legitimate attempt to translate the force of the language.

I'm really late in this convo.
There is no one "uber translation." Every translation compromises something. So far, the one translation I do not like is the Holman Christian Standard. I believe it is simply wrong in places. But I don't see Catholics running out and grabbing a Broadman/Holman book. When I get money, I would like to have the NAB Catholic Study Bible and a NJB.
Does anyoen know the difference between the Catholic Study Bible and the Catholic Personal Study Bible?

The gender inclusion is usually the only problem some people have with the NRSV. I have a New Oxford Study Bible and have grown very attached to it. It's a nice reading translation and the study notes are nice. Granted, they can be a little speculative or presumptive at times, but it's still worth owning.
The NIV Study Bible is also a very good study bible.
I know it's not from your side of the fence, but it really is nice.
My Baptist professor is the one who recommended the Catholic Study Bible to our class. I like his attitude. There is more that unites us than divides us.
He's also got me hooked on the Anchor Bible Reference books.
Catholic Scholars are the bomb!

 

[geocajun]

Well I'm sure that God didn't wait until the 1960's to let us know that "Full of Grace" is the wrong translation for kecharitomene, and "highly fravoured" is right. And if that were so, shouldn't the words of the Hail Mary be changed?

if you want to change it, go right ahead. I will stick with the traditional translation myself

So no. I don't see any great advancements in exegesis and philology revealed behind the decision of some recent translators to substitute favour for grace in the Annunciation account. No new discoveries have been made as to meaning. The indications are that the change has been a misguided attempt to homogenise standard texts in the cause of ecumenism. The english translation of the Novus Ordo mass shows similar tendencies, in order to dovetail (sometimes word for word) with the Anglican and Methodist communion prayers.

your dodging the point. you stated that 500 years ago, exegets were as qualified as today.

Kecharitomene is a grammatical construct of Charis. Charis is the key root word. And Charis appears throughout the New Testament.

As a comparison, oversimplify is a grammatical construct of simple. In both cases the core root word remains the same, and carries the same meaning.

simple is defined in many different ways, and the term oversimplify can expound on any of the defintions of simple depending on context.

Lets use an easier example. Image, and Imagination.
-Image can mean, visual representation for idea, fanciful assumption, interest.
- Imagination can mean creative ability, empty assumption, interest.

To translate the meaning of these words into another language, one may never end up using the exact word for word translation for 'image' if the translator finds that the context does not keep the message being transmitted in the original language.

Catholic "scholarship" does not give us the word of God. The Deposit of Faith within the Church does. Catholic scholars are not infallible, and are as prone to following fads as anyone else.

so it is your contention that the interpretation of the deposit of faith in no way uses Catholic "scholarship" ?

The NJB footnote writers for example (who you quoted approvingly earlier) are in fact extremely liberal in many of their interpretations. They accept as fact certain recent academic theories, such as that the pentateuch was not written by Moses at all, but cobbled together from different sources very much later by hebrew editors. So is this now a Catholic doctrine, just because it appears in an approved bible? I don't think so.

now your playing dirty. Don't confuse my pointing out your fanaticism over luke 1:28 with my not understanding how doctrine is transmitted.

As for "fanaticism", one reason that "Full of Grace" is important is that it underlies the Catholic teachings of the Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary.

wrong. The imacculate conception is not contained explicitly in that verse, but is only implied by it and others.

Quoting the highly favoured (mis)translation, those protestants who attack these doctrines, and label them "unbiblical", attack the Hail Mary as a false translation, deny any divine gift of Grace to Mary, and argue that Mary was only "highly favoured" in being chosen to bear Jesus.

The "Hail Mary" is a traditional prayer, and thats why we pray it. It is neat that it is partially found in some translations of scripture, but thats just 'neat' not required.
"Highly favoured" is not my favorite translation either. I suggest showing how Luke 1:41 equates the blessing of Mary to the blessing of Jesus for a strong argument with folks such as those you mentioned.

 

[thereselittleflower]

geocajun . . how do you perceive what the angel Gabriel was saying to Mary?

What does the word 'favored" mean to you? How do you understand it in tnis context?

How do you approach the Church's teaching of the Immaculate Conception?

Do you see this verse, even using the word "favored" or the words "highly favored" instead of 'full of grace' supporting the Church's teaching on the Immaculate Conception?


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

There are many words in greek which require some creativity to translate to modern language.
Have we at least established that the NJB translation is not wrong?
I am certain that we have established that even "Hail, full of grace!" is not good enough for a few posters in this thread.

geocan

I would not say it is "wrong" as in the sense that it misses what is being said altogether, as the root word carries the idea of favored as well as graced, as part of being graced . . but that it brings across to our understanding much less of what the original word actually conveys than the phrase "full of grace" does, and so I believe the phrase 'full of grace' is a much better translation. . . .


Peace in Him

 

[geocajun]

geocajun . . how do you perceive what the angel Gabriel was saying to Mary?

What does the word 'favored" mean to you? How do you understand it in tnis context?

priviliged or in ones grace.

How do you approach the Church's teaching of the Immaculate Conception?

I would say correctly (I hope at least)
I guess I do not fully understand the question. I do enjoy studying dogmatic theology - and I would say that I have read much on the topic.

Do you see this verse, even using the word "favored" or the words "highly favored" instead of 'full of grace' supporting the Church's teaching on the Immaculate Conception?

well neither "full of grace" or "you who enjoy God's favor" explicitily support the Church's teaching on the Immaculate Conception.
I do see both translations implicitly supporting the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, but only when coupled with lenthy explanation, other verses, and some patristic quotes help.

IMO, when engaging in the apologetics of explaining the Immaculate Conception, using the "New Eve" explanation, rather than the Luke 1:28 argument wins more hearts and minds.


Also, FWIW, the New Jerome Biblical Commentary says this:

"O Graced One: Of the three greetings given to Mary to question (v 29) in what way she is graced or favored by God. Gabriel will supply the answer in vv 30-33.
- New Jerome Biblical Commentary on Luke 1:28

 

[geocajun]

geocan

I would not say it is "wrong" as in the sense that it misses what is being said altogether, as the root word carries the idea of favored as well as graced, as part of being graced . . but that it brings across to our understanding much less of what the original word actually conveys than the phrase "full of grace" does, and so I believe the phrase 'full of grace' is a much better translation. . . .

Have you considered translating your own bible?

 

[thereselittleflower]

priviliged or in ones grace.

Does that carry with it the idea of being infused with God's Grace and impowerment?

I would say correctly (I hope at least)

LOL - well, I guess we would all answer the same to such a question!

I guess I do not fully understand the question. I do enjoy studying dogmatic theology - and I would say that I have read much on the topic.

I was meaning more along the lines of how you understand it, which I think you answer below . .

well neither "full of grace" or "you who enjoy God's favor" explicitily support the Church's teaching on the Immaculate Conception.

Yes, I can see this view point. . it does not explicitly say when she was "graced'. but that she was graced sometime before the annunciation . .

So do I understand correctly that you are saying that she became immaculate sometime prior to the annunciation, but this passage does not tell us when, so we can't say from this passage alone that it was at conception?

I do see both translations implicitly supporting the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, but only when coupled with lenthy explanation, other verses, and some patristic quotes help.

I think we agree on this. And then, it seems to me that you see the use of the word "favored' in the same light as someone might see the use of the words "full of grace" . .

It seems that we (sepaking collectively and generally) always come back to a matter of semmantics . . using the same words, but not understanding quite the same thing from their use . .

My own bible translation? naaa . . I think I'll pass . .

Peace in Him!

 

[Axion]

if you want to change it, go right ahead. I will stick with the traditional translation myself

I don't want to change it. That's the point.

your dodging the point. you stated that 500 years ago, exegets were as qualified as today.

Unless there is good evidence to prove otherwise in this matter, that is true. But of course by no means all modern exegetes support "Highly favoured".

simple

is defined in many different ways, and the term oversimplify can expound on any of the defintions of simple depending on context.

Lets use an easier example. Image, and Imagination.
-Image can mean, visual representation for idea, fanciful assumption, interest.
- Imagination can mean creative ability, empty assumption, interest.

To translate the meaning of these words into another language, one may never end up using the exact word for word translation for 'image' if the translator finds that the context does not keep the message being transmitted in the original language.

You are using a pair of words where the meaning has changed so much over time between the original root and the modern usage, that we actually have a new root word. "Imagination" has only tenuous lings back to the old word "image". So it is a false comparison.

There is no such change between Charis and Kecharitomene. Scholars agree that the prefixes and suffixes merely change the tense of the root, not the basic meaning. It means either "full of grace" or "Full of favour".

So we're talking about choosing between grace and favour. Since Grace is used for Charis in the rest of the NT, it needs to be used here.

so it is your contention that the interpretation of the deposit of faith in no way uses Catholic "scholarship" ?

Not at all. I'm saying Catholic scholarship is a tool. The scholars themselves are not arbiters of the faith.

now your playing dirty. Don't confuse my pointing out your fanaticism over luke 1:28 with my not understanding how doctrine is transmitted.

Not "dirty" at all... I'm simply saying that bible scholars - even ones on an approved translation are by no means infallible.

The "Hail Mary" is a traditional prayer, and thats why we pray it. It is neat that it is partially found in some translations of scripture, but thats just 'neat' not required.

The Hail Mary is one of the main prayers used by the majority of the world's christians. It is based on Luke 1. It is important that our prayer is correct in what it says.

 

[geocajun]

I assume your "our father" is totally based on the DRV translation right?

 

[Axion]

I assume your "our father" is totally based on the DRV translation right?

Matthew 6:9
Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.

[size=-1]Matthew 6:10
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

[size=-1]Matthew 6:11
Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.

[size=-1]Matthew 6:12
And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.

[size=-1]Matthew 6:13
And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.


[/size][/size][/size][/size]Seems ok to me.

 

[geocajun]

Exactly! the 'Our Father' is not word for word in scripture, but rather it is a custom or traditional prayer.
No one argues that we should change the words of the traditional prayer even though it does not align perfectly with scripture.
This is the very same reason we would not do this for the 'Hail Mary'.