Mainly because it’s taking the form of a verb rather than a noun. Otherwise it’s the same basic idea. That verbal form only occurs one other place that I am aware of:
Eph 1:6 εις επαινον δοξης της χαριτος αυτου εν η εχαριτωσεν ημας εν τω ηγαπημενω
Which the KJV renders as:
“To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.”
So it’s the same verb (χαριτόω) and the same tense (aorist) as its companion in Luke 1:28, and could easily be rendered thus:
“To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us highly favored (or ‘graced’) in the beloved.”
While not formally in the perfect like Luke 1:28, it is aorist and therefore perfective, i.e., describing a state of completion. An event occurred, and it was a complete, simple, undivided event. The only reason to add the perfect is to suggest the past completed act has some present relevance. In Mary’s case, for example, having come to be favored in the past is relevant as explanatory of the angelic visit in the present.
(BTW, if this seems different than my first explanation of the perfect, it is. It’s been a few years, and in preparing this post I realized I hadn’t stated the nature of the perfect correctly in my earlier post. It is temporal, yes, but it is the aorist that really provides the completeness of the event; the perfect is mainly there to project the event’s relevance into the present context, such as the conversation between Gabriel and Mary.)
So here’s the consequence of all this. If Mary’s “graced” equals sinlessness from birth, then the same must be said of all believers, because the same verb and tense is used, inflected differently, yes, but only to account for the different subjects, Mary versus all believers. Now it is patently absurd to posit that all believers have been sinless from birth because of being “graced.” So it is equally untenable that the same word should have a different meaning for Mary.
I agree that simply "graced" is technically possible but it removes the poetic alliteration present in the Lucan text.
Color me dense, but how can this be? Alliteration is a technique of using similar sounds in poetic form to create pleasing auditory patterns. How can an English translation choice possibly affect Luke’s Greek alliterations? No one is suggesting changing the Greek, only understanding it differently. What am I missing here?
But all your examples are when the context is not divine grace, but indeed human favor
Luk 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
Luk 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
Act 7:46 [David] Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.
The above are all divine favor, and they are all based on the same root χαρις. And David we know was not sinless.
So the case for special pleading fails, and any effort to prove sinlessness in Mary must look elsewhere. Luke 1:28 will not provide it.
Which the KJV renders as:
“To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.”
It should be obvious what low quality the KJV is. "εχαριτωσεν" is "accepted"? Good grief.
[Eph. 1:6] could easily be rendered thus:
"Graced" is the correct translation for Eph 1.6, as a past tense ot the verb "to grace". It is also technically an acceptable translation of "κεχαριτωμενη" as a past participle because "graced" is likewise derived from "grace" as a theological concept, and not from banal "favor". The problem with "graced" in Luke 1:28 is that St. Luke chose a very rare word (a participle, with the unusual κε prefix) to describe what Mary is, and did not choose it to describe others, where he said "εχαριτωσεν". Of course, routine past passive participle of "χαριτόω" would be "χαριτόμενη" at least in Demotic Greek.
How can an English translation choice possibly affect Luke’s Greek alliterations?
Maybe I used the wrong word. Lucan text has a poetic quality, achieved by using elevated language, appropriate for an angel of God and the solemnity of the moment. St. Jerome likewise chose a unique construct, "gratia plena" even though "plena" is not technically supported by the original. The fact that these two Latin words are probably the only two Latin words many Catholics know testifies that Jerome achieved the objective to elevate the speech by Gabriel above a routine flow of events. Of course, precisely for that the Protestants would fight to the death not to allow the spirit of scripture to show through in relation to Our Lady.
Luk 1:30
should have "grace" also, this is another KJV mariophobic deception.
Luk 1:30
Ditto. You cannot use a translation filled with intentional substitutions of words to argue scripture. You seem to know Greek; why do you use one ass-backward translation to support another? Find me where KJV translates St. Paul's teaching on grace ("χαρις") with "favor". You won't: because the liars who put KJV together did not have an agenda to play down St. Paul, but they had a definite agenda to play down the Mother of God.
Acts 7:46 Again, why not simply "grace", although here it might be driven by the desire to delineate the Old Testament events from the dispensation of Grace in the New. Douay translates "grace" here also.
Daniel found three or four "favor" translations in Douay, all in Acts and all in a mundane context of favor-seeking between men, unwittingly proving my point.