Re: CHAT: Ave Maria

At 6:46 pm +0200 2/7/00, BP Jonsson wrote:
>At 06:52 02.7.2000 +0100, Raymond Brown wrote:
>
>>While the choice of 'hail' or 'rejoice' for the opening word depends on the
>>predilection of the translator, the translation of the 2nd word is
>>influenced by the religious standpoint of the translator.
>
>Might a -- linguistically speaking -- "neutral" translation be possible?
>
[Buddhist translation problems read with interest, but snipped]

>
>Well, I guess that any translation of texts to which philosophical and
>religious values are attached is rife with these difficulties!
Yes, indeed.  One might think this is best translated by someone outside of
the Christian tradition but, as your Buddhist examples show, this does not
by any means guarantee neutrality.

The problem is that the verb 'kharitoO' is very rare & hardly used,
apparently, outside of the JudaeoChristian Scriptures.  According to
Liddell & Scott, it occurs once in the Septuagint, in Ecclesiasticus
(Siracides) 18, verse 17.  Unfortunately, I don't have the Septuagint
version. In the Vulgate version there is nothing at chap.18, verse 17 that
could possibly correspond to the verb.  But there are difference in
numbering chapters & verses in the Septuagint & Vulgate versions, so I'm
afraid I can't pin this down but I guess it won't have the Pauline meaning,
but prob. means 'having favor shown to one' (it's passive here acc. to L &
S).

It occurs in the active in Paul's letter to the Church at Ephesos, ch.1,
v.6, thus:
 eis epainon       doxEs       tEs   kharitos autou
 to [the] praise of-the-glory of-the grace    of-him [the Father]

  hEs    ekhaitOsen hEmas en tOi EgapEmenOi,
of-which he-engraced us    in the beloved [son]

i.e. "to the praise of the glory of his grace, from which he has filled us
with grace in his beloved son".

Here kharit- is clearly being used in the meaning developed in the Pauline
writings, i.e. 'grace' in the theological sense - 'free & underserved
favor, gift, help [that God gives us to respond to his call to be partakers
of the diven nature & of eternal life]'.

The missing definite articles at the beginning is interesting - this is
obviously a Semeticism as (just as in Welsh & Gaelic) if the posessive
(which follows the possessed) is definite, we do not put the definite
article before the first noun.

Luke uses the perfect passive participle in giving Gabriel's salutation to
Mary.  As you know the old Greek perfect was not like the so-called perfect
tenses of modern western European languages, which essentially has a past
meaning; it represent a *present state* resulting from some past action or
event.

So the question here is whether Luke is using this rare verb just with a
general meaning. i.e. 'you, who have had favor shown you & now enjoy that
favor' or whether he is using it with the meaning developed in the Pauline
writings, i.e. 'you, who have been engraced [by God & are now filled with
that grace]'.

As the Pauline writings pre-date the Gospels, I find it unlikely that Luke
was not using it the second way.  And the weight of Orthodox & Catholic
tradition supports this.  But then, I guess, I'm slightly biased   ;)

Ray.






=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================