It is not just the tense that is wrong. King James translates "charis" most everywhere as "grace". But this verse, for no reason that I can understand, the "charis" in "kecharitomene" becomes "favor". The difference is, of course, that grace is not just favor but unmerited favor. ...
Jerome's Latin translation, "gratia plena" -- "full of grace" has all the elements of "kecharotomene": reference to divine grace and completeness. ... The original in Ephesians 1 is different, as is, of course, the meaning. The word there is simply "echaritosen", "graced" or "gave grace".
Thanks for the info. I don't have the background to make an argument on this, so I tried to find someone who apparently does. Here is "an argument" that seemed to be up your alley. The speaker is using something called an ALT Bible (?) See what you think:
[FK: Please note that my original reference to Eph. 1:6 is completely independent of this argument, so I'm not the only one. :)]
[On "full of grace"] "Greek word is a perfect, passive participle. The passive indicates the action is done to the subject. And when the active party is not specified, as here, it generally is a "divine passive" meaning God is the active Subject."
"So the verse is saying Mary was bestowed or received grace from God. The point is, she is the recipient; she does not have grace to give to others as Catholicism would have it. The Greek word can also mean "favor" or "kindness," so any of these translations would be appropriate."
"The cross reference in my version is because Eph 1:6 is the only other place this verb occurs in the NT. The verse reads:"
1:6 to [the] praise of the glory [or, splendor] of His grace [or, of His glorious grace], by which He bestowed grace upon [or, showed kindness to] us in the Beloved,
"Note, that the same grace that was given to Mary is given to all believers. So there is nothing "special" about Mary's grace. ..."
"1. If they [Catholics] want to use "full of grace" it still should be rendered as "having been filled with grace" (again a perfect, passive, participle)."
"2. They would then have to render Eph 1:6 as:"
"to [the] praise of the glory of His grace, by which He filled us with grace in the Beloved,"
"The point is, no matter what the translation, whatever is said of Mary MUST be true of all other believers as well. So translate as they will they can't evade the fact that nothing is said of Mary that is not also said of all other believers."
"So if Luke 1:28 somehow "proves" Mary is sinless and immaculately conceived, then so are all believers. The first IS true; we are sinless as a result of being forgiven in Christ, but we weren't born that way, and neither was Mary."
There is one misunderstanding in this that might be genuine. Mary is not a source of grace according to the Catholic teaching; Christ is.
The rest is empty wordplay. Ephesians 1:6 states what we know from many passages, that we receive divine grace. It is indeed the same grace given us as is given Mary. Words however means things; the use of a different word to describe the bestowement of grace in Mary is significant, and should not be surprising given that her feat is different from any other feat that you or I might be graced to accomplish. The grace was given Mary by a different method, at a different time of her life, for a different purpose. The text reflects that. Your source, whoever he is, spins away from the text.
FK, I don't know who your expert on Greek is, but he's just plain wrong about the appropriateness of translating "kecharitomene" as favored or kindness. That is not at all how the Greek Father's used or understood the word in this context and it was their language.
As for the rest of the comments, I'm rather impressed, at least to a point. Indeed Panagia, so far as Orthodoxy is concerned, was conceived with the exact same nature as all the rest of us and thus we reject the usual explanation of the Latin Church dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Every one of us has the same potential to have been "kecharitomene" as Panagia but no one save her, or so the Fathers teach, ever achieved that. It is for that reason that we can say that Christ was truly born of a human women, not some demi-goddess (which taken to its conclusion could create Christological problems) and that she is also the quintessential example for all humanity in her sinlessness, which she chose in distinction with our similar ability to choose holiness but instead we choose ourselves and our own pleasures and thus "miss the mark". She didn't, ever.