The Greek for Luke 1:28 is:

καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν “Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ Κύριος * μετὰ σοῦ ⧼εὐλογημένη σὺ * ἐν γυναιξίν⧽

*Verb 'to be' lacking.

Part 1) Could it be thus translated, in perhaps a more dynamic sense?

And [Gabriel], having come in unto her, said: Greetings, thou that art engraced; [you and] the Lord with thee [i.e. Jesus]; ⧼O blessed among women!⧽

I'm not convinced that this is what is being said, or was intended. And my Greek is only preliminary. I hop along with my interlinears and concordances and such. Hence, my question.

My question would not be valid here unless I asked if this could have been at least an interpretation that would have been expected to be interpreted thus, or a secondary meaning or nuance that would have been apparent to the Greek-speaking reader—might it have jumped out at the reader while reading, or is it simply grammatically ridiculous?

Part 2) I'm aware that the verb 'to be' is omitted elsewhere in Scripture.

I'm not ignorant of this.

See v. 33 for an example of the verb 'to be' used again (estai).

What is the significance of these omissions, as it seems to simply be for emphatic reasons or something similar; or from translating, perhaps, a short phrase from a Semitic 'original' which naturally omits such (1 Corinthians 1:24?)—perhaps due to an already familiar liturgical or hymn use (as alleged for Philippians 2:5-11) being reflected in the written Gospel?

Thanks in advance. Apologies for the lengthy question.


1 Answer 1


I don't think the Greek can be teased in the way you suggest.

First, there is the fact that κεχαριτωμένη is declined in the feminine singular. It probably would have been written in the masculine plural if the verse was intended to be understood as you suggest. Second, if Luke really did intend to convey that the angel was saying that both Mary and Jesus were favored, then I think we would expect to see the conjunction καί also appear in the verse.

I guess a third reason for objecting is that I don't think that the verse comes across this way in a single homily of any Greek Church Father, including Gregory Thaumaturgus and Theodoret, who discuss the verse in their writing. Perhaps this last ground may not seem the most solid, but it is always a little unsettling when a new interpretation of the Greek comes along that was somehow "missed" by the Greek Church in antiquity.

  • Thank you for your answer! Especially a good point about this not being 'caught' by the Greek Fathers themselves. My question was more on whether this is grammatically possible/plausible or not. Not that it was waht the author intended to convey. Can you at all speak to this omission of 'to be' or its nature? Jun 8, 2017 at 22:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.