Translation of Scripture Debate - Windsor v. Hofstetter

Round 3b

Cross Examination Round

Questions from Scott Windsor


1.  As I alluded to in my response to your question #3, if we went with the typical Protestant rendering of Luke 1:28 of simply “favored” or “found God’s favor,” can you provide us with the reason Mary would be so astounded by the angel’s greeting, not accepting it as a greeting any Christian would?

2. You appear to have contradicted yourself when you said:

Please understand that charitoõ  and kecharitômenê are the same word with precisely the same range of meaning.  Using the perfect stem does not change the meaning of the word to mean “full of grace.”  It changes the meaning of the word to “having received grace.”  

After rereading this, would you agree that you have stated that kecharitomene “changes the meaning” so kecharitomene and charitoo do not have “precisely the same range of meaning?”  

3. You seemed to be downplaying that charitoo has the meaning of “grace” included when you posted your first rebuttal, which you also appear to contradict in what I quoted above from your Round 2 Counter Response.  Question, would you agree that charitos (which you used in your first rebuttal) and charitoo both come from the same Greek root of “charis” - which means “grace?”  Here’s a few resources for you:  http://concordances.org/greek/charitos_5485.htm
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/charitoo.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/charis.html

4.  Sort of weaving the first three questions to ask this one... Since it is clear that kecharitomene is the perfect/completed past participle of charitoo (a point you’ve already agreed to and is quoted above), then why would it not be a viable translation to say that the grace which the Blessed Virgin Mary was given, at some point in the past, was “completely” or “fully” given to her - or in short, “full of grace?”

5. Since I would like to look at your sources and one of the rules of this debate which we both agreed to explicitly states, “All valid sources will have online links” - could you please provide me/us with the online sources you used for the MT, DSS which you stated both used the same word and is also supported by the LXX (Septuagint) [all within the same paragraph of your Round 2 Counter Response, under “Another Translation Issue”]?

6.   You challenge St. Jerome’s translation, almost as if you believe he did this in a vacuum, do you believe the Old Latin Vulgate was not, what we would call, “peer reviewed” by other Latin scholars of his day and especially by Vatican officials before it was accepted as the official canon and translation of the Catholic Church?

7.  In the rebuttal phase from your Question 1 you said:  “The subject of the second clause is “you”, i.e., the serpent, and the direct object of the verb SUPh is “heel.”  So that would be the serpent is the subject and the direct object of the verb “heel” - thus it is the serpent who lies in wait of the heel.  Then in your rebuttal of your Question 8 you said:  “Nowhere in the text is “heel” the subject of that verb...”  Do you see where it appears you’re dancing around the fact that you did make an argument for “whose heel did the crushing?”

Back to Translation of Scripture Debate Page

Back to ACTS Homepage