Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste


1) REGARDING THE WORD “CHARACTER” (ΧΑΡΑΚΤΕΡ in Greek) in Hebrews 1:3

Oeste said : “… (χαρακτὴρ) as used (metaphorically) by Paul most certainly means “exact" (post #740)

Oeste gives us his reason for this opinion saying “The goal of the translator is not to convey a literal, word for word translation but to communicate the actual intent of the author into the target language. If they do this their mission is accomplished. That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.” (post #740)


This logic assumes that a translator correctly assumes to know that the author intended to write something the author did not write AND that the translator knows what to add, subtract, or modify to the text the author actually DID write.

This assumption is a dangerous and easily abused rule of translation and it is the source of multiple known contaminations to the Old and New Testament text.

This sort of subjective rule justifies any translator of a theological persuasion to change, add to or subtract from the text by assuming the actual intent of the author was to write something else other than what they actually wrote.

This is the very theme of this thread.

The O.P. is questioning whether it is appropriate to render John 1:1c into "a God", rather than "God". In this case the translator of the New World Translation used your rule and assumed the author meant "a God", rather than "God". You can see what sort of problems can be caused by using a translators assumption that they know what the author actually meant and are thus allowed to change the text to reflect the translators assumption.



2) THE RULE OF TRANSLATION IS NOT TO ADD, NOR TO SUBTRACT FROM MEANING

Oeste said : “Likewise, if the writer had meant “similar” ὁμοίως or “likeness” ὁμοίωσις he would have written that instead of “representation” χαρακτηρ. (post #740)


I think this is very, very good logic and the rule the translator should follow.

We can apply this logic to the translation of the phrase containing the word “Character” (Greek “ΧΑΡΑΚΤΕΡ”) in Hebrews 1:3.

IF the author had mean to write “exact Character” (In Greek this is “ΧΑΡΑΚΤΕΡ ΑΚΡΙΒΗΣ”), he could have done this. Instead, of writing "Exact Character" or "χαρακτηρ ακριβησ", the author simply wrote “Character” (ΧΑΡΑΚΑΤΕΡ). Just as in your example, If the author had meant "exact Character" we would have written "Exact Character" instead.

It is not usually a legitimate rule of translation which motivates the addition or subtraction or changing words or concepts not found in the original text. Such inappropriate changes are typically due to the theological position of the translator.

The only reason to change the word “Character” into “Exact Character” is a theological contamination. This happens fairly frequently and, interestingly, Hebrews 1:3 is a good example.



3) HEBREWS 1:3 AS A FAMOUS EXAMPLE OF TEXTUAL CONTAMINATION OF A TRANSLATOR ASSUMING THEY KNOW THE AUTHORS INTENT

My Avatar, has been, for years, a picture of Hebrew 1:3 from codex Vaticanus.

The original codex reads “He reflects the glory of God and [bears] the stamp of his nature, upholding (or bringing forth / carrying / gk φερων) the universe by his word of power."

A second corrector (of three known correctors of the text) of another century assumed to know that the author meant something other than what was written. He then scratched out “upholding” (φερων) and inserted “revealing” (φανερων) into the phrase.

A third corrector from yet another century scratched out the "correction" and “re-corrected” the word to read “upholding” (φερων – carrying, bring to pass, etc.).

The indignant third corrector of the manuscript inserted the comments appeaing in the left margin of the text (shown in my avatar next to my name "clear" on this page) which reads “fool and knave, leave the old [reading], don’t change it!”.

This represents an actual removal of an original word and replacement of an entirely different word that happened due to a translator assuming the original author “meant” something other than what he wrote. The Third corrector also made his change to the text because he assumed that the original author meant something different than the second corrector assumed.

When you see the single word “CHARACTER” rendered “EXACT CHARACTER” by a translator, you are seeing a similar contamination of the original text.


I have given many prior examples of the use of the Greek word “Χαρακτηρ” in multiple sentences and various uses. We can review them if you like.
ALL of them demonstrate that the word “Character” meant “Character” and it required adding the adjective “Exact’ before "Character" meant “Exact Character”.

Oeste, I hope your spiritual journey in life is wonderful and insightful and satisfying.


Clear
ειτωνεσενεω

 

[Oeste]

Brian2 said : “The unity of Christians is not in what they know, the unimportant doctrines, which is knowledge. It is in being part of the one body of Christ and in loving God and each other.”

This is an insightful philosophy you have Brian2 and I certainly agree with you that certain bits and types of knowledge are more important than others. If eternal life is “that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”, then this knowledge is more important than to know Greek grammar. To know how to love is more important than to know latin. I like your insight.

I agree with @Brian2 and @Clear on this.

We all see through a glass darkly (1 Cor 13:12). It's my sincere wish that we will, at some point, come together to laugh, joke, and engage in some good hearted "told ya so's" whether it be in heaven, the "New System" or at our exaltation.

 

[Oeste]

Yes, the New World Translation incorporated this same error into their text.

I agree Franz inserted errors but I disagree it extends to Hebrews 1:3. But who knows? Given my track record with JW’s it’s entirely possible they’ll disagree with me on this. (Sorry, couldn’t resist)

If readers will google various translations for Hebrews 1:3 it will show that most early translations from greek did NOT follow the error of translating χαρακτηρ as “exact representation”.

Well, before we cross out every modern translation of Hebrews 1:3 on the planet, it might help to take a look at what’s happening here.

I agree with you that “early” translations did not translate χαρακτηρ as “exact representation”. However, as you’ve already pointed out, modern translations most certainly do. Does this imply modern translations are in error?

No, it simply implies our language, and our use of it, has changed. Some words, like “representation” carry a lot more "baggage" (shades of meaning) than they did previously. The adjective “exact” simply helps retain the same intent it did in previous translations with prior audiences. It does not imply the translation committees were too lazy to look up χαρακτηρ in a dictionary.

“Reproduction” carries more disambiguation than it did previously. The earliest usage of reproduction meant the biological offspring produced by procreation or breeding. As we entered the age of manufacturing and mass production it came to mean a copy. We now live in a modern age of low cost and custom manufacturing where simple copies (knockoffs) can be produced on demand.

For example, original letters in my company are produced in reflex blue (whatever "reflex" means) and printed on 24lb paper. When I need duplicate or copies they're reproduced in black in white on 20lb paper. Obviously we do not want to convey this now common notion into scripture.

Neither of us argues that χαρακτηρ cannot mean image or reproduction. This is good as it take a lot off the table. So what are we arguing about here?

When I reduce this to it's common core, it's the nuances of "reproduction". For me, it means image or "exact" reproduction. For you, it appears to mean a little less, a similarity or likeness. So the argument, at least from my perspective, is: What is the "default" state of an "image" or "reproduction". Is the reproduction similar or is it exact?

I believe, for the modern English reader, that the immediate context surrounding Paul's metaphorical use of χαρακτηρ demands the reproduction to be "exact" . Quite simply, a similarity (as we use it now) implies a certain amount of deviation from the Father's character, much like a copy can deviate somewhat from an original. When we look at the context of Hebrews 1:3 we see Christ radiates the Father's glory, and you cannot deviate from the Father's character on the one hand, yet be seen to radiate His glory on the other.

IMO, to do so divorces us from the author's intent. Our fallen, sinful "image" must be brought back into full compliance in order to share in the glory we have in Christ (John 17:2-5, John 17:22, John 17:24).

 

[Oeste]

Early bibles all tend to be actual translations where authors are not copying other english texts. The later, modern bibles tend to have more standard text where translators often copy prior english text that seem "good", rather than retranslate text that seems acceptable to them. I've underlined those with the word "exact" and one can see that they are in the minority. I did not data mine for specific versions.

I believe what this shows is that language changes over time. This does not mean the translations are “erroneous”.

For example, the NIV, which uses “exact representation”, took roughly 10 years and a team of over 100 scholars from the United States, Canada, South Africa, United Kingdom, Australia and other countries to develop. You provided no basis for your assertion that “translators often copy prior English text that seem “good”, rather than retranslate text that seems acceptable to them”. As such I see this assertion as lacking veracity or vigor.

I went through the listed translations quickly, but I see nothing “erroneous”:

Hebrews 1:3 and the very image of his substaunce, = Bishops Bible

Hebrews 1:3 and the express image of his person, = Websters bible

Hebrews 1:3 (CJB) “…the very expression of God's essence, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (CSB) “…the exact expression of His nature…”​

But this reminds me of something I'm sure you're aware of but would like to bring up as a sidebar
(continued next post)

 

[Oeste]

Sidebar: Formal vs. Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation

There are two generally accepted (or common) methods of bible translation, Formal and Dynamic (or Functional) Equivalence. Both terms were originally coined by Eugene Nida, a world renowned linguist who died about 9 years ago.

I simply do not have enough time to get into a discussion regarding the differences between these two methods but in short, Formal Equivalence attempts to retain the grammatical structure and lexical details of the source into the target language, whereas functional translations seek to retain the readability of the source language into the target. Formal is going to be more word-for-word, whereas Functional is going to be more thought-for-thought.

Either approach will have unique advantages and disadvantages over the other but this is way more than I want to get into right now. Most translations use a combination of both, but will be biased toward one or the other (the NIV translation committee states they have attempted to balance both). The following chart shows where some of the more common translations fall on the map:

Some posters (myself included) will at times imply any deviation from Formal equivalence in bible translation is “error”. This happens a lot in debate forums. However any such supposition would be incorrect. Formal and Functional equivalence are simply different methods of translation. To the extent they convey the intent of the author to a target audience one, the other or both is correct.

 

[Oeste]

The actual quote from 1 Clement is was "Επι πασι το εξοχωτατον και παμμεγεθε κατα διανοιαν ανθρωπον ταις ιεραις κα αμωμοις χερσιν επλασεν της εαυτου εικονος χαρακτηρα".

Above all, man, the most excellent, and from his intellect the greatest of his creatures did he form in the likeness of his own image by his sacred and faultless hands.”

I like the point that the translations do not say "exact impress" or "exact image", but renders the word as merely impress (impression) or image.

Yes, but..

I still see nothing wrong with "exact". The impress or image is metaphorically formed by "sacred and faultless hands" after al.

I think we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on this one.

This shouldn't surprise us because we've walked this circle before.

For example, when χαρακτηρ/Characteristic was used in Leviticus 13:28 it speaks of a skin lesion that represents something else (The chapter deals with identifying leprosy)...

The scar is a Χαρακτηρ or Characteristic of the burn. It is NOT an “exact representation” of the burn. It looks, in fact, different. But it is a χαρακτηρ or a sign or identifying mark of the burn. No exactness is implied.

I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.

In the same way, If I do not know how to write and simply make “my x”, that is my identifying character. It is not an exact representation of my name or myself, but it is a character which represents me and is sufficient to identify me.

Any mark that is “similar” but doesn’t exactly represent you is called a forgery.

When we affix our mark on a document, we are essentially affix ourselves to the document as well. It acknowledges our consent, approval, acceptance or obligation. When I show you the document with your mark, we all know that the mark represents you. When you tell us the mark is similar but doesn’t exactly represent you, you’re simply telling us the mark is counterfeit and does not represent your belief or acceptance , nor can it be used to show you've given your approval or obligation.

The same holds for Jesus Christ. If he is only “similar” in character to God he’s a counterfeit or phony. He cannot claim to have the approval of the Father. His "mark" upon the earth will be no different from yours or mine.

Likewise if his radiance is only “similar” then he’s no different from other “similar” radiances like Satan who keeps “transforming himself into an angel of light”. On the other hand, if he’s the exact representation, the very image of the Father, then he’s the real deal.

In short, the mark must represent you exactly, and not someone or something “similar” to be considered authentic or genuine.

 

[Oeste]

I noticed that you referred to a lexicon as evidence that "exact" representation was one of the meanings of the word "Character" (gk χαρακτηρ), however a lexicon is not what you want to refer to for the meaning of a word.

Possibly, but a good lexicon gives us a better sense of vocabulary as used by an author. Also, I’m looking at the text as a whole, which shows us Paul is using χαρακτηρ metaphorically. But to be brutally honest, I most likely used it because it was ubiquitous, convenient, easy to copy and saved time.

For example, a religious LEXICON will tell you what words are IN a language, and how they are used, but it does not tell you what the word actually meant historically. Perhaps you are mixing up a lexicon with a dictionary?

Here’s how I see it:

Paul and Clair are two foreign speaking language students sitting on a porch. Paul tells Clair, in English, “It’s raining cats and dogs.”

Claire is unfamiliar with English so she checks a dictionary which tells her rain consists of water droplets formed by moisture, and cats and dogs are domesticated animals. So she asks Tom what he meant by “It’s raining cats and dogs”. Turning to Paul she says “Perhaps you meant to say ‘It’s raining on cats and dogs’”?

When Paul tells her he meant it was raining “very hard”, she informs him that he’s using English incorrectly, because nothing in the words cats, dogs or rain gives any hint as to the forcefulness of the rain. She follows this up by saying there are ways to say “very hard” in English but they were not present in his statement. She concludes from this that Tom does not know English very well and could greatly benefit with some increased studies.​

It just seems to me you’re making the same argument here.

 

[Oeste]

THEOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF INSISTING A “REPRESENTATION” OF GOD BY JESUS MUST MEAN “EXACT REPRESENTATION” OF GOD...

...IF Jesus is “exactly like God” in their nature (character) then God must share characteristics which are not particularly “Godly”. God the Father must be a servant of another since Jesus was.

God the Father must follow the commandments of his Father since Jesus did. God the Father must have been born of a mother since Jesus was..., God must eat…

I don't see how these “Theological Consequences” flow logically from your argument. The image on the coin represents Caesar. No matter how exact or inexact we claim the image or character is, when I flip the coin the emperor will not engage in cartwheels, and if spin the coin Caesar will not pirouette.

 

[Oeste]

Concerning Oeste's (post #695)

Nearly all early writings of Christians have been copied, recopied, etc. by Church copyists through the centuries who would not dare add to or change the manuscript copy in an 'unorthodox' way. The consequences would have been dire for them if they had.

Agreed!

But adding to or changing their copies to advance the "orthodox" teaching of the time was usually overlooked.

I agree that the Long Recension definitely had some convenient Roman Catholic additions, but there is near universal agreement from modern scholars that the Middle Recension is authentic and all my Ignatius quotes stem from there.

As to why the Roman Catholic church holds the entirety of the Ignatius/Pseudo Ignatius letters authentic you would need to consult with them. There's a poster on board who advocates for Roman Catholic primacy but I'd rather not get him involved. I think we all have enough to deal with on this thread already.

"The special attention of all interested in the Ignatian controversy is invited to the two chapters of this work in which the subject is investigated. Evidence is there produced to prove that these Ignatian letters, even as edited by the very learned and laborious Doctor Cureton, are utterly spurious, and that they should be swept away from among the genuine remains of early Church literature" - The Ancient Church, by noted Presbyterian scholar Dr. William D. Killen.

Lightfoot & Harmer say otherwise, but to be honest I'm rather surprised to see you quoting from Killen. His writings are from the 18th century, and it’s my understanding JW’s view even their own writings from that time period with great suspicion and distrust.

 

[Oeste]

I'm not a Greek scholar and I don't even know Greek...

My goodness, is there anyone who does???

As someone told me once a long time ago, “It’s the first year student who knows Greek and it’s the scholar who knows they don’t.”

In any event, while a command of Koine will surely help it will not necessarily affect one's ability to understand scripture. There were plenty of people who spoke Koine, Hebrew and even Aramic, but had no idea what Jesus, his disciples, or the prophets were talking about. The Pharisees are a great example, and they made great airs of understanding the Law.

The grammar part of John 1:1c would be that the position of theos stresses the quality of the Word. This is said to be the nature of the Word. The Word has the nature of something. If "a god" is used that is not a translation expressing the Word's nature since an angel can be called a god and a man can be called a god. Jesus pointed to the Jewish judges as being called gods and that psalm also says they are only men who die. So "a god" seems to be a grammatically wrong translation in this case even if in other cases of the same structure a translation of "a prophet" for example would be fine since that translation shows that someone has the nature of a prophet.

That’s the part I don’t understand @Brian2. They blow a hole through scripture for the sake of doctrine. We no longer have a consistent hermeneutic when Jesus becomes “a God”. There is no such thing in scripture as a god in a "positive sense". Pharaoh suffered when Moses was made so much "as" god to him, and Israel suffered under the corrupt and condemned Judges.

So I think I did all that without bringing context in......................and I even brought the thread back to the OP sort of

Lol, that you did!

But somehow I don’t think we’ll be "on point" for long.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste


1) THE ANCIENT USE OF "CHARACTER" (ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ) - One of multiple prior examples
Oeste said : “Neither of us argues that χαρακτηρ cannot mean image or reproduction. This is good as it take a lot off the table” (post #743)

The quote from 1 Clement is was "Επι πασι το εξοχωτατον και παμμεγεθε κατα διανοιαν ανθρωπον ταις ιεραις κα αμωμοις χερσιν επλασεν της εαυτου εικονος χαρακτηρα". Above all, man, the most excellent, and from his intellect the greatest of his creatures did he form in the likeness of his own image by his sacred and faultless hands.”


Clear said ; "I like the point that the translations do not say "exact impress" or "exact image", but renders the word as merely impress (impression) or image.”
Oeste said : “I still see nothing wrong with "exact". The impress or image is metaphorically formed by "sacred and faultless hands" after al. (post #746)

If one insists that "Character" (gk ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ) means the EXACT nature, then one can simply Follow the Logical consequences


THE THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF CLAIMING TWO DIFFERENT BEINGS ARE “EXACTLY” LIKE EACH OTHER IN THEIR NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS – TWO EXAMPLES

1) Clement is using the same word “Character” as is used in Hebrews 1:3.
2) Clement is referring to Mankind in this sentence (ανθροπον).
3) If one means that mankind is EXACTLY like God in their nature then man has EXACTLY the same nature as God has. God has EXACTLY the same nature as man. God then has a body of flesh, blue eyes, a mole on his left thigh, boogers in his nose. Etc.

One must allow that the single word "Character" can mean the single word "Character" rather than meaning "Exact Character".


Similarly, The claim that Jesus or Man have the same EXACT characteristics as God has theological implications.

Clear said : If the man Jesus is an “Exact” representation of God’s nature, this will have theological consequences that logically, must follow “exactness”. IF Jesus is “exactly like God” in their nature (character) then God must share characteristics which are not particularly “Godly”

God the Father must be a servant of another since Jesus was.

God the Father must follow the commandments of his Father since Jesus did.

God the Father must have been born of a mother since Jesus was.

God the Father must have grown up, since Jesus did.

God the Father must sometimes become tired and sleep, as Jesus did.

God must eat, as Jesus did.

God must be ignorant of certain facts, as Jesus did.

God must have power which is given him by another, as Jesus did.

God must have a Father, as Jesus did.

God must have a body and hair and perhaps brown eyes.

God must have a body which can die, as Jesus did.

Rather than insisting on "exact" representation and "exact" equally, there MUST be some logical and rational allowance for God to have some differences to the man Jesus in some natural ways, rather than God having “exactly the same” nature as Jesus otherwise one must accept the logical theological consequences of the father being exactly like the Son.”



Oeste said : “Any mark that is “similar” but doesn’t exactly represent you is called a forgery.” (post #746)

This is an illogical conclusion. An image that is similar but not exact need not be negatively characterized as a "forgery". For example :

If a grandchild creates five drawings of their grandfather, all drawings are images, none are exact, all represent the grandfather and none are forgeries. If the Greek grandfather describes these χαρακτηρ’s which represent him, exactness not implied.

It is when the same word “Character” (gk. Χαρακτηρ) is placed into a religious context that one starts to claim that the same word “Χαρακτηρ” now means “exact” Characters/images/impressions (χαρακτηρ) rather than simply Characters/images/impressions. images”.

When one sees a street painter who will paint an impression of you, it is not necessarily implied the impression will be exact nor does one expect it to be.

I have given multiple examples from early Koine literature of the use of χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine literature in posts #688 and #689). The single word "Character' never meant "Exact Character" in any of that literature.

Can ANYONE ON THE FORUM give us an example from general ancient koine literature where "χαρακτηρ" (or "Character" in greek) meant "χαρακτηρα ακριβησ" (which means "Exact Character" in greek) without adding a modifying adjective? ANYONE?

Clear
ειδρτζνεδρω

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste

Clear said : “For example, when χαρακτηρ/Characteristic was used in Leviticus 13:28 it speaks of a skin lesion that represents something else (The chapter deals with identifying leprosy)...” The scar is a Χαρακτηρ or Characteristic of the burn. It is NOT an “exact representation” of the burn. It looks, in fact, different. But it is a χαρακτηρ or a sign or identifying mark of the burn. No exactness is implied.

Oeste said ; “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.”


O.K. Lets try out your logic and see how exact it is.

I am a medical clinician and I saw a χαρακτηρ this afternoon on a teenage girl. It was not leprosy.

You claim Leviticus, tells the priest "exactly" what marks leprosy and what does not. If so, can you use the information from Leviticus, tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was not leprosy.

If you cannot, can you tell me ANYTHING, in any EXACT terms that might describe the skin lesion I saw that was not leprosy?

How EXACT can you be, given the "exact" instruction from Leviticus?

Can such "exactness" in description tells us that the use of χαρακτηρ indicates EXACTLY what marks a lesion as leprosy?
Does the description contain EXACTNESS that can differentiate leprosy from non-leprosy?
How does that sort of logic and theory work in practice?
If I show you a few pictures of skin lesions, can you use the description in leviticus to identify which are leprosy with any exactness?

In any case, good journey Oeste

Clear
ειδρτζνεφιω

 

[TiggerII]

Agreed!

Lightfoot & Harmer say otherwise, but to be honest I'm rather surprised to see you quoting from Killen. His writings are from the 18th century, and it’s my understanding JW’s view even their own writings from that time period with great suspicion and distrust.

William Dool Killen (1806–1902) lived from early 19th century to early 20th century.

Joseph Barber Lightfoot (13 April 1828 – 21 December 1889) lived from early 19th century to late 19th century.

In fact, Killen's words were from his rebuttal of Lightfoot.

 

[Oeste]

1) REGARDING THE WORD “CHARACTER” (ΧΑΡΑΚΤΕΡ in Greek) in Hebrews 1:3

Oeste said : “… (χαρακτὴρ) as used (metaphorically) by Paul most certainly means “exact" (post #740)

Oeste gives us his reason for this opinion saying “The goal of the translator is not to convey a literal, word for word translation but to communicate the actual intent of the author into the target language. If they do this their mission is accomplished. That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.” (post #740)

This logic assumes that a translator correctly assumes to know that the author intended to write something the author did not write AND that the translator knows what to add, subtract, or modify to the text the author actually DID write.

I’m not following the logic of your statement as it doesn’t require translators to “assume” what an author intends. A good translator is able to communicate the intent of an author and a good author will communicate what it is he intends.

This assumption is a dangerous and easily abused rule of translation and it is the source of multiple known contaminations to the Old and New Testament text.

If such an assumption was made it would be dangerous, yes, but unless I missed a post no one here has suggested making assumptions part of the translation process. This is beginning to sound like a strawman.

This sort of subjective rule justifies any translator of a theological persuasion to change, add to or subtract from the text by assuming the actual intent of the author was to write something else other than what they actually wrote.

Ah, now we construct the strawman, building it slowly, one layer at a time. When we’re finished we can label it “Oeste’s argument” and knock it down.

But before we do that let me go into a bit more detail about the translation process.

As previously mentioned bible translation can fall into two distinct groups: formal or functional (idiomatic) translation.


A formal translation is word-for-word. The problem with word-for-word is that they don’t always translate well into other languages. There is a common myth that there is a “pure” word-for-word translation available but such a translation simply doesn’t exist (nor could it). The grammatical differences between grammar and cultures is simply too wide to bridge.

Secondly, word-for-word translations can be obstructive to reaching fluency in your target language. You don’t have to be familiar with Koine Greek to realize this…just order a kit or furniture from China or Korea and read the assembly instructions. Many of them were generated by word-for-word translators. For example:

나는 어제 학교에 갔어요 (naneun eojae hakkyo-ae gasseoyo).​

This sentence (written in Korean) reads “Yesterday I went to school”. However if we were to directly translate this word-for-word it would be rendered as: “I yesterday school to went.”

Here’s another example, this time in Chinese:

我会说, 不会写. (Wǒ huì shuō, bu huì xiě).​

This means “I can speak, but I cannot write,” but translated word-for-word, it would be “I know how speak, no know how write.”

In short, we can see that in some instance word-for-word translation will be fine, but in others thought-for-thought is preferable. There is nothing nefarious about either scenario as long as fidelity is kept with the source and the author’s actual intent (meaning) is transferred to the target language.

There is no need to assume the author's intent.

This is the very theme of this thread.

Well the theme was to consider what happens when we accept “a God” as a valid translation. There’s no "assumption" that JW’s have translated John 1:1c as “a God” as a simple check of the NWT will validate this as true.

I am quoting the Watchtower’s New World Translation of the apostle John and for purposes of this discussion, have asked the reader to accept their translation as “correct”. The reason for this is given in the OP.

The O.P. is questioning whether it is appropriate to render John 1:1c into "a God", rather than "God". In this case the translator of the New World Translation used your rule and assumed the author meant "a God", rather than "God".

Nah. I did not make any rule of “assumption”. Go back to your opening on this post. It was you who made the initial assumption, it was you who constructed the assumption, and it is you who now attempts to slap “Oeste’s argument” on the assumption you just made. It's your rule, not mine.

It’s a classic strawman but that’s okay. When the dust settles the OP remains unanswered.

You can see what sort of problems can be caused by using a translators assumption that they know what the author actually meant and are thus allowed to change the text to reflect the translators assumption.

Yes, that would cause all sorts of problems but there's no need for a translator to make assumptions. There is only the need to convey the author's intent.

 

[Oeste]

2) THE RULE OF TRANSLATION IS NOT TO ADD, NOR TO SUBTRACT FROM MEANING

Oeste said : “Likewise, if the writer had meant “similar” ὁμοίως or “likeness” ὁμοίωσις he would have written that instead of “representation” χαρακτηρ. (post #740)

I think this is very, very good logic and the rule the translator should follow.

Excellent! I think we can get far on this. But first, I'd like to include your quote from #678:

My point to Brian2 was that since Hebrews 1:3 implies similarity but the text does not imply “exactness”, then creating a belief or doctrine of “exact representation” from “representation” based on an incorrect translation is the same mechanism for which the Jehovahs Witnesses are being criticized.

While a (gk χαραγμα) such as a statue or a bust of a picture of a person was similar to the person, it was not an indication of exactness.

In short, you imply similarity whereas I imply exactness.

We can apply this logic to the translation of the phrase containing the word “Character” (Greek “ΧΑΡΑΚΤΕΡ”) in Hebrews 1:3.

Yes, I agree!

IF the author had mean to write “exact Character” (In Greek this is “ΧΑΡΑΚΤΕΡ ΑΚΡΙΒΗΣ”), he could have done this.

He did do this. He is the effulgence or the radiance of the Father’s glory. God does not “share” His glory with another, and there is no time where God’s glory did not radiate. Since there is only one true God we know there is no other God like God. The metaphor simply illustrates what Paul said immediately prior and after at Hebrews 1:1-4.

Instead, of writing "Exact Character" or "χαρακτηρ ακριβησ", the author simply wrote “Character” (ΧΑΡΑΚΑΤΕΡ). Just as in your example, If the author had meant "exact Character" we would have written "Exact Character" instead.

Okay, now let's apply the exact same logic to your example:

Instead, of writing "Similar Character" or "χαρακτηρ ὁμοίως," the author simply wrote “Character” (χαρακτηρ). Just as in your example, If the author had meant "similar Character" he would have written "Similar Character" instead.

My point is that the character must “exactly represent” and not “similarly represent” the Father’s character. The context surrounding χαρακτηρ at Hebrews 1:3 demands it. You cannot hold the entire universe in your power and yet be only “similar” to the Father. That implies other Gods running around that are just like God, and that is anathema to the historic Christian church and an immediate contradiction to scripture. Thus Christ is not similar in substance, but same in substance. He is not similar in character, but same in character. He is not Homoiousion but Homoousion .

The reason for this (besides the surrounding context) is found in John 14:9: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” You do not see something like the Father, nor someone similar to the Father, but you see exactly the Father’s character.

It is not usually a legitimate rule of translation which motivates the addition or subtraction or changing words or concepts not found in the original text. Such inappropriate changes are typically due to the theological position of the translator.

If the change is inappropriate yes, but not all changes are inappropriate. In this instance, it's an example of keeping up with modern English. Homoiousion or Homoousion was settled at Nicea.

The only reason to change the word “Character” into “Exact Character” is a theological contamination.

It’s more of a modern language consideration. Our language like all languages is not static. Words written a hundred years ago may not carry the same nuances or meanings they do today.

 

[Oeste]

IF the author had mean to write “exact Character” (In Greek this is “ΧΑΡΑΚΤΕΡ ΑΚΡΙΒΗΣ”), he could have done this. Instead, of writing "Exact Character" or "χαρακτηρ ακριβησ", the author simply wrote “Character” (ΧΑΡΑΚΑΤΕΡ). Just as in your example, If the author had meant "exact Character" we would have written "Exact Character" instead.

3) HEBREWS 1:3 AS A FAMOUS EXAMPLE OF TEXTUAL CONTAMINATION OF A TRANSLATOR ASSUMING THEY KNOW THE AUTHORS INTENT

My Avatar, has been, for years, a picture of Hebrew 1:3 from codex Vaticanus.

The original codex reads “He reflects the glory of God and [bears] the stamp of his nature, upholding (or bringing forth / carrying / gk φερων) the universe by his word of power."

A second corrector (of three known correctors of the text) of another century assumed to know that the author meant something other than what was written. He then scratched out “upholding” (φερων) and inserted “revealing” (φανερων) into the phrase.

A third corrector from yet another century scratched out the "correction" and “re-corrected” the word to read “upholding” (φερων – carrying, bring to pass, etc.).

This represents an actual removal of an original word and replacement of an entirely different word that happened due to a translator assuming the original author “meant” something other than what he wrote. The Third corrector also made his change to the text because he assumed that the original author meant something different than the second corrector assumed.

When you see the single word “CHARACTER” rendered “EXACT CHARACTER” by a translator, you are seeing a similar contamination of the original text.

Then we may be seeing you committing a similar textual contamination here, as none of the modern translations listed by @tigger2 in post 680 or you in posts 688 & 689, or Biblehub's numerous translations found here use the words “EXACT CHARACTER”.

I have given many prior examples of the use of the Greek word “Χαρακτηρ” in multiple sentences and various uses. We can review them if you like.
ALL of them demonstrate that the word “Character” meant “Character” and it required adding the adjective “Exact’ before "Character" meant “Exact Character”.

There is only one instance of Χαρακτηρ in the New Testament and none of the other instances you gave use the term metaphorically. Lastly the context is different. The impress is being made from faultless hands whereas human hands are sinful, and thus any image will always “miss the mark”. Lastly I think you may be stretching the metaphor a bit far.

Oeste, I hope your spiritual journey in life is wonderful and insightful and satisfying.

Our conversations have been deeply so and I’m enjoying this sharing of perspectives. I think we had an interesting and rewarding walk.

 

[Oeste]

THE THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF CLAIMING TWO DIFFERENT BEINGS ARE “EXACTLY” LIKE EACH OTHER IN THEIR NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS – TWO EXAMPLES

1) Clement is using the same word “Character” as is used in Hebrews 1:3.
2) Clement is referring to Mankind in this sentence (ανθροπον).
3) If one means that mankind is EXACTLY like God in their nature then man has EXACTLY the same nature as God has. God has EXACTLY the same nature as man. God then has a body of flesh, blue eyes, a mole on his left thigh, boogers in his nose. Etc.

I have no problem with “character”, “very image”, “reproduction” or “exact reproduction”. The issue for me is whether the character, image, or reproduction is something similar or whether it’s exact. You implied the image is similar (which implies it's "fuzzy"). Also you used literal examples, like a bust or statue, and applied them to a metaphor. It's like saying It's raining cats and dogs, and then grabbing a cat and dog to ask if either is dropping from the sky.

Rather than insisting on "exact" representation and "exact" equally, there MUST be some logical and rational allowance for God to have some differences to the man Jesus in some natural ways, rather than God having “exactly the same” nature as Jesus otherwise one must accept the logical theological consequences of the father being exactly like the Son.”

There is! Jesus is not the same person as the Father.

However they have the same (not similar) intrinsic qualities…love, justice, righteousness, empathy, etc. Since there is only one God, they consist of the same substance. In Trinitarian Christology Jesus has a dual nature.

Oeste said : “Any mark that is “similar” but doesn’t exactly represent you is called a forgery.” (post #746)

This is an illogical conclusion. An image that is similar but not exact need not be negatively characterized as a "forgery". For example :

If a grandchild creates five drawings of their grandfather, all drawings are images, none are exact, all represent the grandfather and none are forgeries. If the Greek grandfather describes these χαρακτηρ’s which represent him, exactness not implied.

We were discussing documents, and your signature or "x" but your grandchild's drawing will do fine.

If your grandchild creates five drawings then they represent his work, made by his impress. He's not making coins but he is making drawings.

The drawings do not need to be exact images of you, they simply need to be exactly what your grandchild impressed on the paper.

If later I come to you with five more drawings, and your child says they look similar to his work but he didn't draw them, then they are counterfeit or forgeries. In other words, my drawing represent "marks that are similar but don't exactly represent his work" just as stated in red above.

The same goes for a coin. If it's the emperor's press making the impress it's legit. If it's my press it's counterfeit.

It is when the same word “Character” (gk. Χαρακτηρ) is placed into a religious context that one starts to claim that the same word “Χαρακτηρ” now means “exact” Characters/images/impressions (χαρακτηρ) rather than simply Characters/images/impressions. images”.

Correct…we are unable to make this type of impress.

When one sees a street painter who will paint an impression of you, it is not necessarily implied the impression will be exact nor does one expect it to be.

Correct…now imagine an image where you can touch the stones, smell the baking bread and taste the salt in the air, and not only see all the subtle hues of the blue sky overhead but actually feel the gentle breeze and warmth of the sun…an image that not only captures but actually radiates what was drawn, down to every insect, leaf, and person depicted. In other words, imagine if all the attributes inherent to the scene were now made manifest in the image.

I think then you might see the difference between a divine and secular impress. If you read Hebrews 1:1-4 in full, you'll see quite a different impression than the one you've so far described.

I have given multiple examples from early Koine literature of the use of χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine literature in posts #688 and #689). The single word "Character' never meant "Exact Character" in any of that literature.

Probably because they never radiated the very character of the image depicted. You are focusing on one part of the verse and treating χαρακτηρ as if it were separate and distinct from its immediate and surrounding context. Hebrews 1:1-4 is all part of one large sentence in the original Greek, but let’s take a hard look at verse 3:

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

None of the images in the multiple examples you gave come close to describing what is being stated here. You cannot radiate God’s glory in a “similar” fashion as God because only God can radiate His glory, and your image is simply paper or canvas whereas Christ lives and breathes. Lastly any image we create needs to be upheld in a frame, whereas Christ upholds all of creation.

As scripture states:

“I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.”

Since God does not and will not give His glory to another, and since only God can radiate the glory of God, and since there is no time at which God’s glory did not radiate, and since it is the Son who sustains all things by his powerful word, and since there is only one God and there is no God beside Him (Hosea 13:4; Isaiah 46:9) , and since there was no God formed before or after Him (Isaiah 43:10-11), we can only conclude, as did the vast majority of people who were still of a mind to be martyred, persecuted, beaten and tortured for their faith, and who arrived as Arians but left as Trinitarians at Nicea, that Jesus is God.

Can ANYONE ON THE FORUM give us an example from general ancient koine literature where "χαρακτηρ" (or "Character" in greek) meant "χαρακτηρα ακριβησ" (which means "Exact Character" in greek) without adding a modifying adjective? ANYONE?

There never was a need in Koine Greek for "exact" as it was implied. The need came in modern English, when the word “representation” did not necessarily carry exactness and an image need not necessarily possess clarity which is essentially what you’re arguing here… “similar” vs. “same” substance. This issue was also settled at Nicea for much of the same reasons given above.

Also, the divine context used in Hebrews 1:3 is different from the earthly contexts you’ve mentioned.

My question to the forum is this: Can ANYONE ON THE FORUM give us an example from scripture where ANYONE but GOD is GOD? If Jesus is another God, can ANYONE ON THE FORUM explain why God gave His glory so that it could be radiated by someone else? How this happened when there is none else beside Him? Extra points if you can point to “a god” that is like or similar to God. Be prepared to reconcile (rather than ignore) your response with the following:

1. Deuteronomy 4:35,39 — Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. (39) Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

2. Deuteronomy 6:4 — Hear, O Israel: The LORD thy God is one LORD. [Note in Mark 12:28-34 how Jesus and a Jewish scribe he encountered understood this text.]

3. Deuteronomy32:39 — See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

4. 2 Samuel 7:22 — Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

5. 1 Kings 8:60 — That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.

6. 2 KINGS 5:15 — And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel; now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.

7. 2 Kings 19:15 — And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.

8. 1 Chronicles 17:20 — O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

9. Nehemiah 9:6 — Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou has made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

10. Psalm 18:31 — For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?

11. Psalm 86:10 — For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.

 

[Oeste]

Oeste said ; “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.”

O.K. Lets try out your logic and see how exact it is.

I am a medical clinician and I saw a χαρακτηρ this afternoon on a teenage girl. It was not leprosy.

You claim Leviticus, tells the priest "exactly" what marks leprosy and what does not. If so, can you use the information from Leviticus, tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was not leprosy.

If you cannot, can you tell me ANYTHING, in any EXACT terms that might describe the skin lesion I saw that was not leprosy?

How EXACT can you be, given the "exact" instruction from Leviticus?

Leviticus 13 does not make a medical diagnosis, it make a spiritual one. Likewise, as a medical clinician, you do not make a spiritual diagnosis but a medical one.

Leviticus 13 is pretty straight forward. The term “leprosy” is used for a wide variety of skin diseases and it tells the priest exactly who is considered clean, unclean, who needs to be quarantined and for how long.

In any case, good journey Oeste

And to you as well my friend.

 

[Oeste]

William Dool Killen (1806–1902) lived from early 19th century to early 20th century.

Joseph Barber Lightfoot (13 April 1828 – 21 December 1889) lived from early 19th century to late 19th century

Good catch @tigger2! That’s what happens when you stay up late in the morning responding to posts. I stand corrected.

In fact, Killen's words were from his rebuttal of Lightfoot.

Correct! It’s just that most scholars don’t hold to Killen’s views today, but it’s still a good debate in academic circles.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO


THE BASIC RULE OF GOOD WRITING, “WRITE WHAT YOU MEAN TO WRITE”

Oeste said : “I did not make any rule of “assumption”.”

You referenced the basic rule of communication that says writers typically wrote what they meant and translators assume they understand the meaning before they translate the meaning. For example :

Oeste said : “…if the writer had meant “similar” ὁμοίως or “likeness” ὁμοίωσις he would have written that instead of “representation” χαρακτηρ. (Oeste post #740)

I agree with you on this point that the fact the writer of Hebrews 1:3 did not write something else means that he meant to write just what he wrote.

For example, you claimed that If the writer of Hebrews 1:3 had meant to say “similar Character”, he would have written όμοιος χαρακτήρας, or “similar Character” in Greek.
You pointed out that the writer did not do this. He wrote what he intended.

I then similarly pointed out that If the writer of Hebrews 1:3 had meant to say “exact Character”, he would have written “ακριβης χαρακτερας” or “exact Character” in Greek.
The writer of Hebrews 1:3 did not add any adjective at all to the word CHARACTER. He wrote what he intended.

While readers may take away from the text additional meaning not found in the bare text, the translator of actual, authentic, written Greek is not allowed to add any adjective at all to the translation.

A trinitarian is not allowed to add “equal”, or “exact”, or “same” to the text.
A non-trinitarian is not allowed to add “similar” or “like” to the text.
An atheist is not allowed to add adjectives such as “imaginary” or “non existent” to the text.
An Agnostic is not allowed to add “maybe” or “could be” to the text.


ASSUMING AN AUTHOR OR SPEAKER MEANT SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT THEY SAID OR WROTE DOES NOT JUSTIFY CHANGING A QUOTE OR A TEXT

On March 21, 1942 General McArthur, in a speech said “I came through and I shall return”.
McArthur may have actually MEANT, he would “return with an army” but he didn't say that.
We cannot quote McArthur as saying “My army and I came through this difficult situation and the army and I will return to free Bataan”

McArthur said “I shall return” regardless of what his intent was.

The point is that translators are not allowed to change the words of a text to fit their assumption that a speaker or writer meant something other than what they actually wrote or said.

Commentators may change, add, and subtract words from quotes, a translator of a text must remain tethered to actual words though there is certainly some leeway.



ADDING “EXACTNESS” TO THE BASE WORD “CHARACTER” DOESN’T WORK

Clear said : “For example, when χαρακτηρ/Characteristic was used in Leviticus 13:28 it speaks of a skin lesion that represents something else (The chapter deals with identifying leprosy)...” The scar is a Χαρακτηρ or Characteristic of the burn. It is NOT an “exact representation” of the burn. It looks, in fact, different. But it is a χαρακτηρ or a sign or identifying mark of the burn. No exactness is implied.

Oeste replied ; “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.”

You are, in this case, assuming that there is "exactness" implied.
I asked you to apply your assumption of exactness in Leviticus 13:28 to a test to see how adding “exact” the word “Character” works as follows :


DOES THE WORD “CHARACTER” IN LEVITICUS 13:28 IMPLY “EXACTNESS” IN IDENTIFYING SKIN LESIONS?

I am a medical clinician and I saw a χαρακτηρ a few days ago on the skin of a teenage girl.

You claim Leviticus, tells the priest "exactly" what marks leprosy and what does not.
If so, can you use the information from Leviticus, tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was not leprosy.
OR, did I make a mistake and should I call the parents back and tell them their child has leprosy.

Since you claim the verse describes “exactly what marks leprosy and what does not”, you can help me out?

Can you tell me ANYTHING, in any EXACT terms that might describe the skin lesion I saw that tells me the lesion was not leprosy?

EXACTLY what marks a lesion as leprosy in this description?
Does the description contain EXACTNESS that can differentiate leprosy from non-leprosy?
How does your claim to EXACTNESS in the word “CHARACTER” work in practice?
If I show you a few pictures of skin lesions, can you use the description in leviticus to identify which are leprosy with any exactness?

post two of two follows