Since you attest to your love for Scripture and your attention to detail, I wonder if you have ever wondered why that verse (Luke 1:28) only says "full of grace" in one (1) English translation of Scripture. It happens to be the Douay-Rheims version. In all others it says "highly favored"; "favored woman"; "favored one"; "favored by the Lord"; or "to whom special grace has been given". Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the Bible didn't really say "full of grace"?
I also find it a little curious that you say the only reason Mary said "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" must mean she never intended to have sexual intercourse. Could she also not have meant that she and Joseph still had some time to go on their betrothal period before they would come together to consummate and the angel's announcement sounded imminent? I think it is the detested "Protestants" that cling more to the Scriptures as written, and don't create their own "tall tales" or "theories" to advance their own wistful legends.
You are right. This is a perfect example of an attempt to "harmonize" the manuscripts to fit the doctrine.
I think it is the detested "Protestants" that cling more to the Scriptures as written, and don't create their own "tall tales" or "theories" to advance their own wistful legends.
That's simply not true, bb. For example NIV is the worst of all Protestant Bibles when it comes to changing what the Greek text says.
The koine Greek term "full of grace" is πλήρης χάριτος (John 1:14, Act 6:8, older variants). In comparison, Luke 1:28 says κεχαριτωμένη which, because the grammatical form is intensive some translate as full of grace(DR) or highly favored (KJV).
The Slavonic translation, the one that most closely correpsonds to the oriignal Greek in all aspects, uses the word is благодатная or graced, and not full of grace ( преблагодатная)
So, there is no doubt that transitional flexibility, combined with doctrinal harmonizing is responsible for these variations, which ultimately lead to different interpretations, which then result in different theologies, and endless FR debates over what the Bible really says.
Even if the scripture was originally the word of God, it has long ceased to be that due to various human interventions. The only way the faith may have been preserved (by some miracle) would be through the Church Sacred Tradition, in spate of trends and translations and corruptions, and never by merely reading the Bible.
χαιρε κεχαριτωμενη(and it sounds-- you can practice that alone -- KhAYray KeKhARiTOMenuh!)
χαιρε is literally "rejoice", and is used as a greeting even in modern Greek. "κεχαριτωμενη" is a word without a direct translation. It is a word formation from χαρις, grace. The suffix here creates a reflective past participle, so it is something like "one who had been graced". St. Jerome translated "gratia plena"; "full of grace" is a copy of that. The Church Slavonic has it "graced one". If you do a search on χαρις (and its inflections such as χαριν or χαριτος), especially in Pauline writings that develop the theology of grace, you will see that χαρις is consistently translated "grace". Why the Protestant translations all of a sudden break that and translate χαρις in κεχαριτωμενη as "favor" is anyone's guess. Mine is that any time a Protestant translator bumps into something in the scripture that sounds too Catholic -- has to do with Mary, or the priesthood, or the Church, -- he forgets the lingustic rules and seeks to mistranslate. This is how "tabernacle" becomes "[human] body".
Modern Catholic translations are not much better, although I believe NAB finally fixed its Luke 1:28. The mistaker of Vatican II was to assume goodwill onthe part of the Protestants, enter into various committees with them and the result is scandalously bad translations that were made in "ecumentical" committee somehow are considered Catholic. you want to know what the scripture really has to say, read Douay, or at least verify with the original.
This is a good online translation comparison tool:
Could she also not have meant that she and Joseph still had some time to go on their betrothal period before they would come together to consummate and the angel's announcement sounded imminent?
Where does it sound imminent? It is natural for people who are engaged to think of what their children will be like; no one says "how is it possible that our child will be such and such since we are not married yet?" The answer is obvious: you get married and you get pregnant, and a child results.