In Luke 1:28:
. . . Mary is described by Luke as the object of a most
exceptional favor, as the recipient of a most unique commission. (John F.
Craghan, Mary: The Virginal Wife and the Married Virgin: The Problematic of
Mary’s Vow of Virginity [Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1967], 35)
Theologians have been led to see in this title
“kecharitōmenē” a certain reference to the Immaculate Conception. As Lyonnet
has clearly indicated, this title by itself does not designate Mary’s
privilege. “Ce term est capable,
sans doute, de signifier la plénitude de grâce que comporte la privation due
péché originel ; mais risen ne permet d’affirmer une telle plénitude.” (L’Ánnonciation,
MiSS 4). In this theological interpretation of Lk 1:28 Bourassa
correctly concludes that the grace which was announced to Mary and which constituted
her “kecharitōmenē” was the coming of Christ within her. (cfr art cit, 313) (Ibid.,
35 n. 87)
The translation “gratia plena, proper to the Latin
versions and the Syriac (although some Old Latin MSS reads “gratificata”) might
have been the chosen to indicate Mary’s plenitude of grace. But arguments from a literary standpoint overrule
with great probability such a theological intention. “Plenus” is a periphrastic
expression employed by St. Jerome elsewhere in the Vulgate without the hint of
an added meaning. Thus, the Hebrew “šiltôn” (Eccl 8:4) is rendered “potestate plenus”;
in 2 Chr 26:21 the Hebrew term for a leper is first translated “leprosus” and then
“plenus lepra” within the same verse (cfr Lyonnet, “L’Ánnonciation,” MiSS
4) “Die Wiedergabe von ‘kecharitōmenē’ durch ‘gratia plena’ ist also einfach
eine übersetzungstechnik, welche
dazu dienen soll, dem Ausdruck grössere Fülle und volleren Klang zu geben,
dagegen den Inhalt gar nicht berührt: ‘gratia plenta’ will nicht mehr basagen
als ‘kecharitōmenē.’” (Stummer, F. “Beiträge zur Exegese der Vulgata,” ZAW
62 (1949: 50), 167) (Ibid., 35 n. 88)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
