Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Oeste]

Similarly, YOU offered readers Milligans Syll 226 3.495.16 (of approx. 320 b.c.) the text says : “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα” .
Again, Milligan is not trying to apply a “present day” meaning to this word, but is demonstrating what the word mean in “320 b.c.). I do not think this example you gave us supports your claim regarding that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation”.
Will you explain why you gave this specific example and why you think it supports your claim?

YOU also offered P Flor I. 61.21 (of approx. 85 a.d.) the text Uses the word Character appears saying : “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι”
Yet again, Milligan is not trying to apply a “present day” meaning to this word, but is demonstrating what the word mean in “approx. 85 a.d.)

I do not think this example you gave us supports your claim regarding that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation”.
Will you explain why you gave this specific example and why you think it supports your claim?

Here's my quote again:

No Clear, this is just flat out wrong and it shows us you either misunderstand or misread the papyri.

First, no one uses “exact Character” so I wouldn’t expect to see it in any papyri, lexicon or dictionary.

Second, when we read the published, peer reviewed works of actual, bona fide Greek scholars who looked at many of the very same papyri quoted above we see they reached a dramatically different conclusion.

Here is how James Hope Moulton, D.D., D. Theol., a Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge; Greenwod Professor of Hellenistic Greek and Indo European Philology, Manchester University and George Milligan, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, Glasgow University saw it:

Source: The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Payri and other non-literary sources, p. 683-684

As I stated before, there is NO DEBATE on whether χαρακτὴρ means “exact representation” at Hebrews 1:3.

Your argument that χαρακτὴρ did not mean “exact representation”, “exact impress”, or “exact reproduction” without “adding additional context” has been thoroughly refuted. This includes your argument concerning "historical text".​

I even underlined the word "exact reproduction" to show where "exact" was being used by Milligan. Since Milligan is giving multiple definitions and multiple examples of these definitions, and since I have repeatedly and frequently stated that χαρακτὴρ means"exact representation" AT HEBREWS 1:3, and since I never separately quoted any of Milligan's extended examples, why would you conclude I was using Syll 783.23 or any other reference Milligan makes as and example of "exact representation"?

I am not seeing it Clear, so your claim is refuted. Please quote exactly where I stated Syll 783.23 means "exact reproduction".

 

[Oeste]

DIFFERING TRANSLATIONS ARE NOT NECESSARILY A REJECTION OF A PARTICULAR TRANSLATION

Suitor “A” calls Helen “beautiful”.

Suitor “B” calls Helen “gorgeous”.

Has suitor A “refuted” suitor B? Has suitor B “rejected” suitor’s A’s claim about Helen?​

Of course not! Both Suitors are using platitudes to convey their heartfelt admiration for Helen. You cannot introduce a “rejection” or “refutation” where there is none. Only Suitor A, Suitor B, or Helen can do that. Telling Helen that Suitor A rejects her as “gorgeous” simply because he called her “beautiful” is illogical and introduces unnecessary conflict where there is none.

Likewise...

We have different “suitors” (translation committees) for the Word of God.

Committee A uses “exact representation” to describe Paul’s Spirit directed metaphoric usage of Χαρακτηρ.

Committee B uses "express image" to describe the same.

Has committee A "rejected" committee B's interpretation or vice versa? ​

Of course not! Both Committees (or Suitors) are attempting to translate Χαρακτηρ as faithfully to their respective audiences as possible. There is no “rejection” or “refutation” unless one or the other committees specifically states they do not accept the other’s definition.

There is no dispute that Χαρακτηρ is used metaphorically at Hebrews 1:3. It's the same with the metaphor "It's raining cats and dogs". One person says the metaphor is describing a torrential downpour whilst the other says it's windswept rain. Neither denies it's describing rain and no one I am aware of claims its wrong to use "exact representation", "exact impress", or express image to describe Christ at 1:3.

Your own church, the Church of Latter Day Saints, are fine and dandy with “exact representation” at Hebrews 1:3. If you believe they are in error you should go to them and explain your findings. If you cannot convince them, how do you expect to convince anyone else?

Convince them first, then convince us, or perhaps start your own church. At least from the start every member will be a believer.

The relevant point is that Milligan and his committee rejected rendering the greek word Χαρακτηρ (eng “Character”) as “exact Character” (or exact anything) in Hebrews 1:3.

That is certainly not "the relevant point"!

The relevant point is that Miilligan did not serve on a committee that "rejected" rendering the Greek word as "exact" anything, Milligan was not on a committee with Moffat and Goodspeed, and therefore Moffat and Goodspeed could not have agreed with Milligan that "exact representation" was improper.

It's early in the morning. I will post more later (hopefully much later) today or tomorrow.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste

DELITZSCH AND MILLIGAN ARE PERFECTLY CORRECT IN THEIR EXAMPLES REGARDING THE ANCIENT MEANING OF Χαρακτηρ - The examples show Χαρακτηρ did not mean "exact" representation anciently.


Clear said : "I very much agree that “no one uses the words ‘exact character”.
This has always been my point. (post #904 84 posts previously)
The greek base text does not use the words "exact Character", or "exact anything". (post #904)


Clear said : 'I have given you more than a dozen examples of ancient lexicon useage where χαρακτηρ meant Χαρακτηρ. If you can find a single example from all of the early Greek literature where “Character” meant “exact Character” without adding the adjective “exact”, then I must yield to your claim.
(post #904)

Oeste replied: "Any good exegetical commentary should be able provide you with that:" (post #906)

But then Oeste offered a cut and paste from Delitzsch with examples that showed Χαρακτρη did NOT mean "exact Character", did not mean "exact representation" or "exact reproduction".

The problem for the claim that the lone, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ meant "exact" anything, is that Delitzsch and Milligan agree that the lone, ancient Koine word Χαρακτηρ did NOT mean "exact representation" in ancient Koine and all of their examples demonstrate this.

While Milligan explains the word has been translated "exact representation" in more modern times, he demonstrates with all of his examples that this modern usage is incorrect. This is the value of actually letting Milligan speak for himself. Milligans examples show very clearly what he is trying to prove. I very much agree with what Milligan is trying to prove with his examples.

So we have many, many examples so far where Χαρακτηρ did not mean "exact" representation in ancient Koine and not a single example (so far) where it did mean "exact" representation. If any reader can find one (including Oeste), I am happy to withdraw my claim.




Regarding the claim that a simple question is a "straw man"

Oeste, you cut and pasted Milligan.
I am simply asking why you think his examples supports your claim instead of undermining your claim.
This is a very, very simple thing I am asking.

Why do you think Milligans examples support your claim?


REGARDING THE EXAMPLES OESTE GAVE US FROM MILLIGAN - HOW DO THEY SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM?

Clear asked Oeste :
YOU offered the example from OGIS 383.60 (a mid 1st century b.c. document) the text reads Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης Milligan is not trying to apply a “present day” meaning to this word, but is demonstrating what the word mean in “mid 1st century). I do not think this example you gave us supports your claim regarding that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation”. Will you explain why you gave this specific example and why you think it supports your claim?

Oeste responded :
I've refuted this argument several times already, I believe the last was in post #962. This is a strawman because I never claimed the inscription from OGIS 383.60 meant "exact representation" so there is no need for me to refute something I've never stated.


You are confused.
I am not arguing anything by simply asking this question.
I am asking WHY you think Milligans example supports your claim.
I think Milligan does not support your claim with this example.
Why do you think your example supports your claim?



REGARDING OESTES FIRST EXAMPLE : Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης
Oeste said : “I also see where Milligan gives this ostraca as a suggested comparison for Paul's usage of "Χαρακτηρ" (to metaphorically describe Christ) since the royal cult of Antiochus IV also called Antiochus Epimanes (the Mad) made claim that this king as Epiphanes (Greek: “God Manifest”). But again, this is MILLIGAN, and not Oeste.”

What???
What are you talking about???

Your example says : "“… Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης “ but nothing you said relates to this greek example.
How does what you just said have ANYTHING to do with the greek in the example you gave us??????
The question is HOW this example you gave us supports your claim.




Oeste said : “In order to determine the source of the problem it would be helpful if you could tell me exactly where I gave the "specific example" that OGIS 383.60 supports the standard, universally accepted fact that "Χαρακτηρ" meant "exact representation" at Hebrews 1:3, or where I stated the Greek word "Χαρακτηρ" should be translated as "exact representation" at all on OGIS 383.60.”

You are confused.

I simply asked you why you thought this example from Milligan supports your claim.
You gave readers an example that seems to me to undermine your claim.
Why do you think this example supports your claim?
The greek example you gave us is EXTREMELY simple.
Why does this example you gave support your claim regarding the meaning of χαρακτηρ?



Clear said : “Similarly, YOU offered readers Milligans Syll 226 3.495.16 (of approx. 320 b.c.) the text says : “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα” .
Again, Milligan is not trying to apply a “present day” meaning to this word, but is demonstrating what the word mean in “320 b.c.). I do not think this example you gave us supports your claim regarding that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation”.
Will you explain why you gave this specific example and why you think it supports your claim?”
Oeste responded : “…Using the quote shown in the post above, can you show us exactly where I stated Syll 226 3.495.16 supports "exact representation"?”

You are still confused.
I simply said I thought this greek example undermined your claim and asked you why you think it supports your claim.

I’m still left asking why you think this example you gave supports your claim. Is there some reason you think this example supports your claim and doesn’t undermine it. It is a simple question.


YOU also offered P Flor I. 61.21 (of approx. 85 a.d.) the text Uses the word Character appears saying : “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι”
Yet again, Milligan is not trying to apply a “present day” meaning to this word, but is demonstrating what the word meant in “approx. 85 a.d.)
Why do you think this third example you gave supports your claim?

These are all simple examples.
I think every example Milligan gives, undermines your claim.
I am simply asking you to explain why you think they support your claim rather than undermining your claim.

Clear
τωνετζσιτζω

 

[Oeste]

DELITZSCH AND MILLIGAN ARE PERFECTLY CORRECT IN THEIR EXAMPLES REGARDING THE ANCIENT MEANING OF Χαρακτηρ - The examples show Χαρακτηρ did not mean "exact" representation anciently.

This is logical fallacy. While Clear is correct that Delitzsch and Milligan are “perfectly correct” in their examples regarding the ancient meaning of χαρακτηρ it is a fallacy because their examples do not show what Clear claims they show.

You will notice that Clear provides no additional data to support his claim that "The examples show Χαρακτηρ did not mean "exact" representation anciently."

There is no such data because there is no such support in Delitzsch and Milligan. Clear simply claim there is.

On the other hand, I’m about to provide quite a bit of data that refutes this.

Regarding the claim that a simple question is a "straw man"

Oeste, you cut and pasted Milligan.
I am simply asking why you think his examples supports your claim instead of undermining your claim.
This is a very, very simple thing I am asking.

IT IS STILL A STRAWMAN FOR THE REASONS STATED.

You are apparently under the mistaken impression that a “simple question” is not a “strawman”.

Whether or not an argument is a strawman has NOTHING to do with it being in the form of a question or statement. Let me demonstrate this for you:

Wife: I'd rather have a glass of wine than a beer.

Husband: Why do you hate beer?​

In the example above the husband asks a “simple question” but the question is a still a strawman. The wife never stated that she hated beer. Even if the husband had asked this in the form of a complex question it would still be a strawman.

The simplicity or complexity of a question or statement is irrelevant as to whether it’s a strawman.

As previously stated, you asked about Milligan’s example and called it my example when I never used OGIS 383.60 as an example. That was your initial strawman.

You then asked why I had used that “specific example” to show “exact representation” when I never used that “specific example” to show “exact representation”. That was your second strawman.

The only person using OGIS 383.60 as an example is Milligan, and he is using it to illustrate how χαρακτηρ was used in various Greek artifacts.

Milligan is perfectly correct in his definitions of χαρακτηp, all of which apply to their ancient usage. There is no “Modern Greek” in any of his “χαρακτηρ” definitions or examples. Such assertions are on par with the prior fallacious assertion that “χαρακτηρ meant χαρακτηρ”.

Why do you think Milligans examples support your claim?

This was previously demonstrated. Go to the top of this page. Notice the image. Notice what’s circled in the image. Note the word “exact”. Here, I’ll post it again

:

This example states VERY CLEARLY "χαρακτηρ came to be used of the "mark," impress" made, with special reference to any distinguishing peculiarity, and hence = "an exact reproduction."

What do the words "exact reproduction" for χαρακτηρ do?:

1. It REFUTES your argument that “χαρακτηρ does not mean “exact” anything”.
2. It REFUTES your argument that “χαρακτηρ means χαρακτηρ”.
3. It REFUTES your argument that “the lone, single, Greek word χαρακτηρ means χαρακτηρ (charaktḗr) unless you add “additional content”
4. It REFUTES your argument that χαρακτηρ cannot mean “exact representation”, “exact reproduction”, “express image”, “very image”, “very impress” or similar unless the writer adds an adjective.

 

[Oeste]

Clear asked Oeste :
YOU offered the example from OGIS 383.60 (a mid 1st century b.c. document) the text reads Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης Milligan is not trying to apply a “present day” meaning to this word, but is demonstrating what the word mean in “mid 1st century). I do not think this example you gave us supports your claim regarding that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation”. Will you explain why you gave this

specific example and why you think it supports your claim?

Oeste responded :
I've refuted this argument several times already, I believe the last was in post #962. This is a strawman because I never claimed the inscription from OGIS 383.60 meant "exact representation" so there is no need for me to refute something I've never stated.

You are confused.
I am not arguing anything by simply asking this question.

Look at your first sentence Clear.

It states:

"YOU offered the example from OGIS 383.60."

That is a strawman.

I never offered OGIS 383.60 as an example. I did however, quote Milligan, and Milligan, not Oeste, offered it as an illustration of "Χαρακτηρ" usage. Claiming I offered it as an example of "exact representation" usage is a strawman. Χαρακτηρ can mean many things. It does not always mean "exact representation".

IF I had stated all of Milligan examples meant "exact representation" then yeah, you could ask me about that. But I never stated that and I see no need to defend comments I've never made.

I am asking WHY you think Milligans example supports your claim.
I think Milligan does not support your claim with this example.
Why do you think your example supports your claim?

Read Milligans DEFINITIONS. One of them is “exact reproduction”. This supports my claim and refutes your claim that “χαρακτηρ meant χαρακτη”.

Why did Milligan state “an engraver’s tool” if “χαρακτηρ means χαρακτηρ? Why not just “tool” ? Why would Milligan define Χαρακτηρ as “an engraver’s tool” if he needed, as you claim, “additional context”?

Why would Milligan define Χαρακτηρ as “an engraver’s tool” if he needed to “add an adjective” to do it?

Milligan’s definition of “exact reproduction” supports my claim that χαρακτηρ can mean “exact representation, exact reproduction, exact impress, express impress or even express image. All of these definitions support Paul’s metaphorical usage of χαρακτηρ at Hebrews 1:3.

Clear said : “Similarly, YOU offered readers Milligans Syll 226 3.495.16 (of approx. 320 b.c.) the text says : “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα” .
Again, Milligan is not trying to apply a “present day” meaning to this word, but is demonstrating what the word mean in “320 b.c.). I do not think this example you gave us supports your claim regarding that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation”.
Will you explain why you gave this specific example and why you think it supports your claim?”

Oeste responded : “…Using the quote shown in the post above, can you show us exactly where I stated Syll 226 3.495.16 supports "exact representation"?”

You are still confused.
I simply said I thought this greek example undermined your claim and asked you why you think it supports your claim.

Your response does not tell me where I gave this specific example to support my claim.

Once again, you are confusing Milligan's examples with my examples. You then transpose Milligan's intended usage as an illustration of χαρακτηρ in Greek papyri and ostraca with my assertion that χαρακτηρ can mean "exact representation" at Hebrews 1:3.

It will be impossible to carry on meaningful conversation with you unless you know how to parse, separate and attribute arguments.

I’m still left asking why you think this example you gave supports your claim.

The definitions Milligan gives for χαρακτηρ refute your assertions Clear.

RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX:

We see Χαρακτηρ means “ an engraver’s tool” instantly divesting us of any notion that “χαρακτηρ means χαρακτηρ (charakter)” unless you add “additional content”.

It also has the added benefit in that it sheds and relieves us of any notion that Χαρακτηρ cannot mean “exact representation” unless “we add an adjective”.

If Χαρακτηρ can mean “an engravers tool” without adding an adjective, then it can mean “exact representative” without adding an adjective for the very same reason.​

Do you understand why I quoted Milligan now? If not, then kindly explain how you allow an "added adjective" in "engravers tool" but toss and turn with "exact representation". Also, explain these "added adjectives" in Milligan's examples.

REGARDING OESTES FIRST EXAMPLE : Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης

Oeste said : “I also see where Milligan gives this ostraca as a suggested comparison for Paul's usage of "Χαρακτηρ" (to metaphorically describe Christ) since the royal cult of Antiochus IV also called Antiochus Epimanes (the Mad) made claim that this king as Epiphanes (Greek: “God Manifest”). But again, this is MILLIGAN, and not Oeste.”

What???
What are you talking about???[/QUOTE]

Why are you confused about this?

The question is HOW this example you gave us supports your claim.

You will need to explain how Milligan's examples became my examples, and when and where I cited this particular example to support my claim for "exact representation".

Milligan's definition supports my claim but it also refutes a lot of yours. This is why he is cited.

It's late. I will be posting tomorrow unless some emergency pops up. You may want to hold off prior to responding as I have quite a bit more to say.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF THREE


Oeste claimed : "This is logical fallacy. While Clear is correct that Delitzsch and Milligan are “perfectly correct” in their examples regarding the ancient meaning of χαρακτηρ it is a fallacy because their examples do not show what Clear claims they show."

Hi @Oeste and other readers,

I claim that Delitzsch and Milligan both use ancient papyri to show what Χαρακτηρ meant and how it was used in Koine at that time by the people who spoke and wrote Koine.



Oeste said : "You will notice that Clear provides no additional data to support his claim that "The examples show Χαρακτηρ did not mean "exact" representation anciently."


Actually clear provided example from Delitzsch and Milligan and from Clement 1 and from Leviticus as well almost 300 posts ago in post #688-89.



AN EXAMPLE OFFERED BY TIGGER2 FROM A NEW TESTAMENT ERA CHRISTIAN

For example, @tigger2 gave us an example regarding how Clement of Rome, a colleague of the apostle Peter) used the words Χαρακτηρ when Clement says : “[God] formed man in the impress (charakter) of His own image” - 1 Clem. 33:4, The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot & Harmer.

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".

Which means : “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.”

Notice that the translation does not say "exact impress" or "exact image", but renders the word as merely impress (impression) or image. This is what the word meant anciently.
.


AN EXAMPLE CLEAR GAVE FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT

We discussed the word Character and it’s usage in Leviticus 13:38. I would have thought you would not have forgotten your attempt to claim the text demonstrated an “exactness” of character in describing “exactly” what characterized Leprosy. Here is the example we discussed almost 300 posts ago.


This was when Oeste claimed : “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)”
and
“This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.” (Oeste, post #819)


What we actually discovered is that one could not tell leprosy from eczema or from acne, using Leviticus



THE WORD CHARACTER OR CHARACTERISTIC OR GREEK ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ AS A REPRESENTATION OF SOMETHING


Χαρακτηρ. (eng : Character / Characteristic) anciently was some sort of identifying sign or mark. It did not imply “exactness” in it’s base meaning.

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 priest is to look as a spot on the skin, and “If, however, the spot is unchanged and has not spread in the skin but has faded, it is a swelling from the burn, and the priest shall pronounce them clean; it is only a scar from the burn. Lev 13:28 (LXX) Και καθαριει αυτον ο ιερευς ο γαρ χαρακτηρ του κατακαυματος εστι.

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 also gave multiple examples from Milligan where Milligan is demonstrating the actual ancient meaning of the word “Character / gr Χαρακτηρ) as the word was used in ancient Koine Greek


A survey of a few ancient koine texts should help clarify this point.

For example, in OGIS 383.60 (a mid 1st century b.c. document) a group is speaking of a statue and they remark Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης meaning that it is a “Representation of us” (our shape and form). The statue of a single person cannot be the “exact” representation of the group speaking, but rather it represented the group as a whole since it was similar to them.

Similarly, in Syll 226 3.495.16 (of approx. 320 b.c.) the text uses the word Character saying : “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα” which speaks “Of the foreign bearer on the Character”. The Characteristic (χαρακτηρ) in this instance simply identified the bearer as foreign. There is no implication of “exactness” but merely a χαρακτηρ (Characteristic) which identifies as foreign.

In P Flor I. 61.21 (of approx. 85 a.d.) the text Uses the word Character when speaking of the heir to property saying : “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι” meaning “Of the characters only heir seen is…” While multiple individuals are noted in the document, only one qualifies or is seen as an heir. The other “Characters” are the names of others. The names that appear on a document are not an “exact representation” of the actual person. They are only letters that represent the individual. No exactness is implied.

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.

Similarly, P Leid X xxiv.11 (of 2-3 a.d.) has a text using the word χαραψτερ (Character) which reads : “ τελει τε μοι κυριε τον μεγαν, κυριον αφθεγτον Χαρακτηρα, ινα αυτον εχω.” Meaning “I have finished the Character of my great Lord, Lord Afthegton (or uncorruptible Lord?). I have it.”

Presumably, the great Lord had asked for a bust or picture to be made (the text doesn’t specify) and it was finished. While this is a representation of the Lord, it doesn’t imply an “exact representation”. If it did, the writer could have specified this by saying “χαρακτηρας ακριβης” which means “exact representation”. But he did not say this. He simply said “χαρακτηρα”.

Χαρακτηρ (Character) was used metaphorically as well and enough context had to be present to understand what was meant. We use this word metaphorically nowadays. If I say “Bob is such a “Character”, I imply that he is someone distinguished by some characteristic. You cannot tell if I am implying good or bad or something else without context. However, I am NOT implying that “Bob is such an “exact representation” as something else.

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF THREE


EXAMPLES I GAVE FROM MILLIGAN

In posts #688 and 689 I gave examples from Milligan that demonstrated what Koine meant anciently and how it was used by the ancients who spoke it. For example, just as the single English word Character, does not mean “exact Character” without context, This is true of the ancient usage of this word.


For example, in Syll 3 783.23 (written sometime after 27 b.c.) the text speaks of Augustus and Livia and says “μεχρι των Σεβαστειων ευπλοησεν Χαρακτηρων…” which Deissman (LAE.2 p.341 n.1) translates as “He made a successful voyage to the August Persons …(referring to Augustus and Livia).

As with other usage, the text is not referring to an “exact representation”, but it demonstrates the transferred sense of Character (gk χαρακτηρ) into it’s sense of referring to the actual person.

The Stamp or impress implied by the word χαρακτηρ is not necessarily a picture or “ikon” but is more often words or numbers, on a seal. They can be a type of dress or a language spoken. ANYTHING which is sufficient to identify a thing is a Characteristic or Character. The words may represent a person and the numbers may represent a date, but none are specific for an “exact representation” of a thing.

For example the actual impression made by a stamp is a Χαραγμα.

New Testament Revelations text uses it as a reference to “the mark of the beast” (13:17, 16:2, 19:20). It is not an “exact representation” of the beast, but it is merely an identifying characteristic or “mark”.

It was customary to affix to bills of sale or official docuents of 1st and 2nd centuries of the empire, a seal given the year and name of the reigning Emperor. The various seals used may or may not have had any effigy on them.

For example, on the back of CPR I.11 (a text of of a.d. 108) on the agreement of sale of a house, the seal read : Ετους ιβ Αυτοκρατορος Καισαρος Νερουα Τραιανου “(Year one, Emperor Caesar Neura of Trajan”). There is no effigy or ikon on this Χαρακτηρ. The words are enough to identify the person or thing to which the seal refers. There is no implication of an “exact representation”.

Seals were not meant to be “exact representations” of a person or place or thing, but merely represents the authority under which all business took place, or a place or a thing.

The closest examples I could find to using χαρακτηρ as an “exact representation” is when a seal was also used to attest to a copy of a document of writing. The text of Preisigke 5275.11 (written in 11 a.d.) says “… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “ which says “Copy from copy of engraving and inscription Greek letters”. However, the WRITTEN text is not an “exact representation” of ENGRAVED or INSCRIBED texts. They merely represent the letters of an engraved stone on paper. I think this is the closest example I could find that could be related to an exact representation. But it is the exception to the use and not the rule.

Even effigies and ikons of something were not considered “exact representations”. For example, In BGU IV 1088.5 (written in a.d. 142) an engraved icon was made of a camel “χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν” to demonstrate what an Arabian camel looked like.

I have not seen the engraving, but presumably it is a version like like we might see in a picture book of animals from another place. It is not made to be an exact representation of a specific camel, but merely a representation of the species. It is to demonstrate what a class of camels looks like, but not a specific camel and it is not meant to be an “exact representation” of a specific camel.

Meanings of words evolve. This is true of χαρακτηρ as well.

Because a stamp was most often used for letters, it became used in the sense of a letter itself. For example, in P Lond V 1658.8 (written in 4 a.d.) Ghedini provides the example of “…δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…” which he translates from a larger sentence as “I pray for your health “in this letter”.



In terms of coins P. Oxy I 144.6 (of 580 a.d.) speaks of “χρυσου εν οβρυζω Χαραγματι” “Gold with a stamp) but this doesn’t tell us if the stamp included an effigy or was to identify the time and place. Coins of Israel generally did NOT have effigies due to the prohibition against graven images but instead, had dates and places and leaders names. Though the text represented the leader or place, there was no “exact representation” implied (the coin may not have been stamped in the place marked on the coin), merely representation.

The word χαρακτηρ came to mean an endorsement as well. For example, in P Ryl II 160(a)10, (written approx. 14-37 a.d.) says “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι” in a sentence where the text says “ to pay the clerk of the record office when the has endorsed the deed.”

A Χαρακτηρ or χαραγμα need not even be an official mark of identification. For example

P Lond 854.11 (written 1 to 2 a.d.) speaks of a traveler who writes that he engraved (Εγχαρασσω ) the names of friends on temples he visited. Των φιλων εμων τα ονοματα ενεχαραξα τοις ιεροις. This informal “marking” simply identified his friends. This informal marking need not be an “exact representation” of his friends. He might have even written “Bobby” instead of "Robert". It was not exactness that made it a χαρακτηρ, but merely an identifying mark.

For example, when we took our kids to Disneyland, we “marked” our kids by putting each one in a bright “t-shirt” that had their name and a telephone number written on the inside. This was how we put our own family stamp on them which identified them.

Similarly, in P Oxy XIV 1680.12 (written in 3 to 4 a.d.) a son who is anxious for his fathers’ safety (owing to insecurity of the situation) writes, that “I wanted to stamp a mark on you” “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”.

The point of this exercise is to show historical CONTEXT and demonstrate how this word Χαρακτηρ was actually used and what it actually meant to the ancient writers who used it. It was not representation that included “exactness” but was merely an identifying mark, a seal that represented some degree of authenticity, reliability, etc.





MOVING ON TO EXAMPLE FROM DELITSCH

In post #904 Clear asked Oeste : “DO YOU HAVE EVEN ONE EXAMPLE FROM ANY HISTORICAL LITERATURE WHERE "CHARACTER" MEANT "EXACT CHARACTER"?
I have given you more than a dozen examples of ancient lexicon useage where χαρακτηρ meant Χαρακτηρ.
If you can find a single example from all of the early Greek literature where “Character” meant “exact Character” without adding the adjective “exact”, then I must yield to your claim.
If you cannot, then We are left where we started.
Linguistically, “Character” still meant “Character” in ancient koine Greek.



Oeste responded in Post #906 : Any good exegetical commentary should be able provide you with that:


And then he gave a cut and paste from Delitsch. The problem was that Delitsch’s examples all undermined Oestes Claim.


Clear discussed Delitsch’s examples in post #912.

1) Oeste offered : “Delitzsch remarks, Es ist kein nimbus um Gott, welchen, hier δόξα genannt wird, sondern die übersinnliche geistige Feuer und Lichtnatur Gottes selber, welche er, um sich vor sich selbst offenbar zu merden, aus sich herausfeßt) “

Though I lived in Germany and spoke German when I was younger, my German is rusty. However, Delizsch’s remarks do not speak to nor even mention the specific meaning of the word “Character” in Koine greek. His comments have to do with the aura or “glory” surrounding God and it’s relationship to Gods character of Fire and light which he reveals.

Why did you offer these irrelevant comments to try to show “Character” meant “exact Character” in early greek literature? Can you explain?




REGARDING THE “EXACTNESS” OF ANCIENT “IMPRESIONS”

2) Oeste offered :
a) “and impress (“figura,” vulg.: “figure,” Wiclif and Rheims: “very image,” Tyndal and Cranmer: “ingraved forme,” Geneva: “express image,” E. V. The word χαρακτήρ, which by formation would be the stamp or die itself on which a device χαράσσεται, and which stamps it on other things, never appears to bear this meaning, but always to be taken for the impression itself so stamped. “

b) “... of the objects themselves, on which the features of another are expressed,—which bear its peculiar image, so that they appear as if taken off from it by impression of a die.


Both of these comments speak of engraved or stamped images. They do not speak of “exact ingraving” or “exact images”.
You seem to assume that the “impression” of a die in 70-100 a.d. was somehow “exact”.

Below is a picture of a group of widows mites (singular : Lepton)

One can see with their own eyes the great variation in the Images, depth, clarity, centering, coin size, coin shape, etc. Why do you think this sort of variation and "unexactness" indicates the various Characters or coins are “exactly” like one another or that the bare word “Character” means “exact character”?





3) Oeste offered : “Thus Æsch. Suppl. 279, κύπριος χαρακτήρ τʼ ἐν γυναικείοις τύποις εἰκὼς πέπληκται τεκτόνων πρὸς ἀρσένων. “Aristot. Œc. ii. p. 689,

Can you explain why you think the Cypriot type of “character” referred to used here is relevant to your attempt to demonstrate “Character” meant “exact character” in ancient Koine Greek?



POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOW

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF THREE


4) Oeste offered : “ ἀνενεχθέντος δὲ τοῦ ἀργυρίου ἐπικόψας χαρακτῆρα: id. Pol. i. 6, where χαρακτῆρα ἐπιβάλλειν is to stamp coin, and it is said, ὁ γὰρ χαρακτήρ ἐτέθη τοῦ πόσου σημεῖον. Diod. Sic. xvii. 66, τάλαντα χρυσοῦ, χαρακτῆρα δαρεικὸν ἔχοντα.

Can you explain why you think the silver and Gold mentioned here shows the bare ancient koine word “Character” meant “exact Character”?




5) Oeste offered : “Hence the word is taken, 1. generally for any fixed and sharply marked lineaments, material or spiritual, by which a person or an object may be recognized and distinguished. Herod. i. 116, ὁ χ. τοῦ προσώπου. Diod. Sic. i. 82, τοὺς τῆς ὄψεως χαρακτῆρας, the lines of the countenance.

I would actually have used this quote to show that the word “Characteristic” simply meant “lineaments” by which a person or an object may be recognized and distinguished.
There is nothing in the text to indicate “lineaments” meant “exact lineaments”.

Can you explain why you think this demonstrates the ancient koine word “Character” meant “Exact Character”? Or that lineaments means “exact lineaments” without the addition of the adjective “exact”?



6) Oeste offered : “Lucian, de Amoribus, p. 1061, calls mirrors τῶν ἀντιμόρφων χαρακτήρων ἀγράφους εἰκόνας, and ib. p. 1056, ἧς ὁ μὲν ἀληθῶς χ. ἄμορφος. Demosth. (in Stephan.), ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἐσόπτροις ὁ τῆς ὄψεως, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὁμιλίαις ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς χαρακτὴρ βλέπεται.

If Lucian points out that a mirror is an αντιμορφων rather than a true μορφων of an image, why would you offer what clearly demonstrates “unexactness” in an attempt to show the ancient Greek word “Character” meant “exact Character”.

As another strange offering, the “shapelessness” (αμορφοσ) of the “character” implied in Demonsth. clearly does not indicate exactness, but rather, it demonstrates the opposite. Unexactness.

And the third example simply describes that it is NOT what we see but in the spoken, or written thoughts (homilies) that the soul’s character is best seen. This demonstrates UNEXACTNESS in a visual image to demonstrate Character, not exactness.

Can you explain why you think ANY of these support or are even relevant to support your theory?




7) Oeste offered : “Philo, de Mund. Opif. § 4 (vol. i. p. 4), τοὺς χαρακτῆρας ἐνσφραγίζεσθαι, to impress on the mind the lines and forms of an intended city: id. Legg. Allegor. i. § 18 (vol. i. p. 55),

Can you explain why you think the lines and forms (i.e. “the characteristics”) of a city plan shows that “Character” meant “Exact Character” in ancient koine Greek?




8) Oeste offered : “ὁ τῆς ἀρετῆς χαρακτήρ, οἰκεῖος ὢν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ: id. de Mundi Opif. § 23 (p. 15), τὴν δὲ ἐμφέρειαν (the likeness of man to God) μηδεὶς εἰκαζέτω σώματος χαρακτῆρσιν, ib. § 53 (p. 36), τῆς ἑκατέρου φύσεως (viz. of God and the creation) ἀπεμάττετο (scil. man, while he was alone) τῇ ψυχῇ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας:

Why do you think that the mere mention of a “Character” living in heaven (in the text, de Mundi), or the inability to know what a body “in heaven” is like (ib), or that the different nature “in heaven” or the mere words mentioning the “Character” of a soul shows that the ancient Koine word for “Character” meant “Exact Character”?

It seems that you are unable to read enough Greek to see that these “examples” you think you are offering either undermine or are irrelevant to your demonstration of your theory that “Character” meant “Exact Character”.

Do you read Koine?




9) Oeste offered : “So Philo, Quod Det. Potiori Ins. § 23 (vol. i. p. 217), designates the πνεῦμα imparted by God to man τύπον τινὰ καὶ χαρακτῆρα θείας δυνάμεως,

In your example, Philo says the soul of man is a type of Gods power. IF you are suggesting that Greek Character means “exact Character”, then how is man’s soul “exactly” like that of God, or “exactly” like God’s power? How does such a principle demonstrate that in ancient Koine, the word "Character" , meant "Exact Character"?




10) Oeste offered : “Moses naming the same εἰκών, to shew ὅτι ἀρχέτυπον μὲν φύσεως λογικῆς ὁ θεός ἐστι, μίμημα δὲ καὶ ἀπεικόνισμα ἄνθρωπος: De Plant. Noë, § 5 (p. 332), he says, Moses named the rational soul τοῦ θείου καὶ ἀοράτου εἰκόνα, δόκιμον εἶναι νομίσας οὐσιωθεῖσαν κ. τυπωθεῖσαν σφραγῖδι θεοῦ, ἧς ὁ χαρακτήρ ἐστιν ὁ ἀΐδιος λόγος. Here the λόγος is designated as the impress of the seal of God, by the impression of which in like manner on the human soul, this last receives a corresponding figure, as the image of the unseen and divine.

Philo here is speaking of the mind and soul of man which he says, is “an image of the divine and unseen being” in language similar to the previously mentioned text ("example" number 9).

In this example however, it says that man’s spirit is “a coin” made of sterling which is “stamped and impressed with the seal of God.” almost exactly like the language in Hebrews 1:3.
However, while Hebrews applies to the nature of Jesus, Philo is applying this nature to the soul or spirit of man.

Why would Philo mean that man is in the "exact" character of God if "exact" is what is meant here?

How does Philo’s application of this sort of “Character” to mankind having the imprint of Gods nature demonstrate that “Character” meant “exact Character” in ancient Koine Greek language?






11) Oeste offered : “Compare also Clem.-rom. ad Cor. c. 33, αὐτὸς ὁ δημιουργὸς κ. δεσπότης ἁπάντων … τὸν … ἄνθρωπον ταῖς ἰδίαις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀμώμοις χερσὶν ἔπλασεν, τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα. Hence the usage of χαρακτήρ here will be easily understood.” Bleek: see also the word in Palm and Rost’s Lex

I agree with Clement that the use of the Greek word “Character” (or “Image”) in this sentence by Clement to the Corinthians) means “Image” or “likeness”.

However, Clement does not use it to mean “exact image” or “exact likeness” in this example.

For example, Clement says God formed man, the most excellent and greatest of Gods creatures “in the ‘character’ of [Gods] own image. (In the “exact character” according to your theory).

Why do you think this example demonstrates that the lone and single Greek word “Character” meant “exact Character” in Koine Greek?


What we are left with is simply more examples that show the greek word "Character" did not mean "exact Character" (unless we add the adjective "exact.)

Oeste. If NONE of these examples support your theory that the lone and single word "Character" means "Exact Character", Why in the world would you offer these examples which show your theory is incorrect?



I haven’t counted how many examples from ancient literature that I and Oeste have given readers that shows what “Character” ( Χαρακτηρ in Greek ) meant. I assume Oeste gave them accidentally without reading them first, otherwise he would not have given them.


So, we have many, many, many examples regarding what Χαρακτηρ meant and how it was used and all of the examples (so far) undermine Oestes Claim that the lone, uncontexted, Koine word Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” unless context is added that makes it mean this.


We have zero, zip, none, nada, examples from Oeste from any ancient Koine literature that supports Oestes claim that the lone, uncontexted word as used in ancient Koine literature meant “exact character’, or “exact reproduction” or “exact representation” or “exact” anything.


We are still where we were in the beginning. I believe both Delitsch and Milligan are perfectly correct in their ancient Greek examples as to what Χαρακτηρ meant and how it was used anciently in Greek.


IS ASKING FOR INFORMATION A “STRAW MAN”?

Asking Oeste to provide a single example from Greek to support his position is not “misrepresenting an opponents position.”

Asking Oeste to provide a single example from ancient Greek to support his position is not “offering a proposition” (other than proposing he explain why he thinks the Greek examples do not undermine his claim)

Asking Oeste to provide a single example from ancient Greek to support his position or to explain why he thinks Delitschs or Milligans examples from ancient Greek support his position is not “refuting a weaker position”. It’s not trying to refute, it is simply a request for information.


Thus, simply asking Oeste why he thinks the Greek examples (which HE cut and pasted himself) support his claim is not a “strawman”.


If neither Oeste, nor any other reader has a single example from the vast amount of ancient Greek to support his claim, then, Oestes claim is dead.

If Oeste cannot give us any information regarding why either Delitschs or Milligans example support his claim, then the claim remains dead.

If Oeste calls all requests for information strawmen, Oestes claim remains dead.


Does any reader have even a SINGLE example from early Greek Koine papyri or text that can save Oestes claim?


If not, it remains a dead claim.

However, my question still stands Oeste. I've given you three examples from Milligans greek (so far).
YOU gave the examples to readers.
I do not think the examples support your claim

Why do you think these examples from ancient greek support your claim.

Clear
τωνεακειανω

 

[Oeste]

AN EXAMPLE CLEAR GAVE FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT

We discussed the word Character and it’s usage in Leviticus 13:38. I would have thought you would not have forgotten your attempt to claim the text demonstrated an “exactness” of character in describing “exactly” what characterized Leprosy. Here is the example we discussed almost 300 posts ago.


This was when Oeste claimed : “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)”
and
“This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.” (Oeste, post #819)


What we actually discovered is that one could not tell leprosy from eczema or from acne, using Leviticus

No Clear, what we actually discovered is that one could tell who was clean and unclean.

Also, I fail to see why you are still confusing metaphors with literals.

Hebrews 1:3 uses a METAPHOR. Leviticus 13:38 is a LITERAL.

YOU were the first to bring up Leviticus 13:38, not me. I saw no need to mix the two and still wonder why you take literary devices literally.

 

[Oeste]

Unfortunately this particular forum does not support columns. I would certainly put them to good use. But as I stated before, my posts speaks for itself.

IMPROPER ATTRIBUTIONS LEADS TO FALSE AND ERRONEOUS CLAIMS

The ability to PARSE (analyze a sentence into differing parts and describe each syntactic role), SEPARATE (recognizing speakers, voices, paragraphs, sentences and dividers into constituent or distinct elements) and DIFFERENTIATE (the ability to recognize differences between two or more things or people, for example a POSTER and his QUOTED SOURCE) is not only ESSENTIAL but CRUCIAL for any debate. If a poster does not possess this particular skill they will need to acquire it before meaningful conversation can continue.

Merging my arguments with Milligan’s glosses and asking me to refute each gloss as if I had stated each gloss was the equivalent of “exact representation” is an extremely desperate but nevertheless ILLOGICAL FALLACY.



DECONSTRUCTING THE STRAWMAN

This is relatively easy.

I simply ask Cleo to show me where "Oeste states" he can find "horse = cocaine" in My Friend Flicka.

If he points to my quote or excerpt, I ask him to point MY example, and more specifically, MY example that told him he can find "horse= cocaine" in My Friend Flicka.

As expected, Cleo is not able to find it. NEITHR CAN ANYONE ELSE.

We rinse and repeat for all the other glosses in the lexicon, including the "Napoleonic Wars" and "Knight Moves".

Finally when Cleo asks me where he can find "horse = cocaine" at all the lexicon, I simply bring his attention to the DEFINITION IN RED.

When Cleo says he dismissed the definition because he thought "Slang" means "in error" I tell him to look up the word "Slang" and obtain it's proper meaning. I then point out the painfully obvious...the definition for horse = cocaine is still there, in the lexicon, whether he erroneously thought "slang" meant "error" or not.

LIKEWISE

We can do the same for Clear. I will leave the reader to do that rather than walk them through it.

The only difference between our imagined Cleo and the very real Clear is when we come to the word "HENCE". Clear has stated on repeated occasions that "HENCE" is some sort of reference to modern Greek. I have no idea where this comes from, but its certainly not what "HENCE" means. As I explained earlier, HENCE is just the culmination of the first word FROM. Thus it does show what Χαρακτήρ came to mean over time, but it is still ANCIENT TIMES. There is absolutely no reason to suggest or imply Modern Greek. That is pure eisegesis.

Thus Clear's misunderstanding of the term "Hence" does not allow us to dismiss Milligan's definition of Χαρακτήρ as "exact reproduction". The definition is there, in red shown above, and plain as day.

Clear's claims regarding Mulligan are refuted.

I have more to say. I will continue tomorrow as time permits.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste

So, we are still left with many examples from Delitsch and from Milligan and from Leviticus and from Clement in ancient literature which undermines your claim but you have (so far) not given readers a single example from ancient Koine Literature where your claim holds true.

Do you have a single example of ancient Koine literature where the lone, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ means "exact Character" or "exact reproduction" or "exact representation" or "exact" anything?
Clement, Milligan and Delitsch have given us more than 20 examples from ancient literature that undermines your argument.

You have spent more than 300 posts arguing every manner of argument known to man EXCEPT a single example from ancient literature that supports your claim.

YOU even refused to explain why you thought the ancient Greek example you cut and posted were going to be helpful to you. I assumed you could not read Greek and didn't realize the example you cut and played were examples against your claim. Since then you claimed you could read koine "with compensation" and so it is even more perplexing why cut and pasted greek examples that show your claim is incorrect. It makes no sense.

IF you think the ancient examples from Delitsch and especially Milligans examples from ancient Koine support your claim, tell us how this is possible. If you read Greek as you claim, you have no reason not to tell readers why you think either Delitschs' and Milligans ancient examples support your claim.

So, at this point the score is Leviticus 1 and Oeste 0,
Clement 1 and Oeste 0,
Delitsch maybe 10 and Oeste 0,
Milligan almost 20 and Oeste 0.


READERS, AGAIN I WOULD ASK, IF ANYONE CAN HELP OESTES CLAIM WITH A SINGLE EXAMPLE, THIS IS YET ANOTHER CHANCE TO HELP SUPPORT OESTES CLAIM.

IS THERE A SINGLE READER ON THE FORUM THAT EITHER BELIEVES OR SUPPORTS OR HAS ANY DATA TO BELIEVE OESTES CLAIM?


Clear
τωνεακνετζω

 

[Oeste]

So, we are still left with many examples from Delitsch and from Milligan and from Leviticus and from Clement in ancient literature which undermines your claim but you have (so far) not given readers a single example from ancient Koine Literature where your claim holds true.

I see you're back to calling this "Oeste's claim" rather than what it is...the church's claim.

First, I am going to take Milligan away from you since you abuse his points so much. Then we'll delve further into whether this is actually "Oeste's claim" or the church's claim.

Clear has made several posts and comments about Milligan which he presents as if they were "facts" rather than misrepresentations. He has repeated them over and over and over again. Let's review it here:

While Milligan explains the word has been translated "exact representation" in more modern times, he demonstrates with all of his examples that this modern usage is incorrect.

This statement, repeated in various forms in the last 20 or 30 posts, is incredulous.

This is the value of actually letting Milligan speak for himself. Milligans examples show very clearly what he is trying to prove. I very much agree with what Milligan is trying to prove with his examples.

This statement is ever more incredulous than his prior statement. Clear talks about "the value of letting Milligan speak for himself." Unfortunately Clear never quite lets Milligan do that. Instead, Clear speaks words for him, creating claims for Milligan out of thin air, just as he makes words for me, creating claims for me to refute that I've neve spoken.

We are going to demonstrate Milligan first:


DISTINCTION BETWEEN EISEGESIS AND EXEGESIS

Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. Exegesis is drawing out text's meaning in accordance with the author's context and discoverable meaning. Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their interpretation of the text. Thus exegesis tends to be objective; and eisegesis, highly subjective.

I'm sure everyone understands this, but now and then it's good to have a refresher.

​

I like charts and diagrams. They help to illustrate points.

This one shows our "objective evidence". That's Milligan's excerpt or "cut and paste". It shows EXACT reproduction right there, smack in the middle of the first column, with the word "exact" surrounded in red.

Clear attempts to get around, over, or under this rather large wrench I threw into his argument by creating a series of "imagined facts" about Milligan. All of Clear's "facts" are great examples of eisegesis or reading words into Milligan's mouth that just aren't there. This is illustrated in green.

As stated:

1. Milligan mentions NOTHING about “some” (or any) translator(s)”. This is a fabrication. Any such nonexistent “fact” must be read INTO the text because it cannot be EXTRACTED from it.

2. Milligan mentions NOTHING about showing why “exact representation” is “in error” by “subsequent examples”. This nonexistent “fact” must be read INTO the text because it cannot be EXTRACTED from it.

3. The word “hence” (see point of arrow, column 1 and column 3) does not mean “modern times” as Clear claims but simply shows how “Χαρακτηρ” eventually came to be used by the Koine Greek speaking people.


BUT THAT'S NOT ALL:

We have a bonus feature:

The word χαρακτηρ is translated as "exact representation". This immediately refutes the notion that "χαρακτηρ meant χαρακτηρ". It refutes any notion that Χαρακτηρ cannot mean “exact representation” unless “we add an adjective”, and it refutes any notion that any notion that Χαρακτηρ cannot mean “exact representation” unless “we add "additional content".

All 3 pillars of Clear's argument are refuted in one neat package.



continued:

 

[Oeste]

LETTING MILLIGAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF


Clear states:

Milligan is simply pointing out the evolution of its use and how it came to be rendered “an exact reproduction” in the very texts he disagrees with.

This was amazing! Clear tells us Milligan is disagreeing with his own example! HOW CLEAR ARRIVES AT THIS CONCLUSION IS UNKNOWN. I can't fathom it. I don't know how ANYONE could read Milligan's example where he CLEARLY STATES χαρακτηρ came to be....exact representation" and conclude that he was disagreeing with what he just wrote!!!


This is so completely NOT what Milligan wrote, it is so completely against what our eyes tell us, it so completely contrary to the clear and simple reading of the text, that I leave it to the reader to read. I see no sport at shooting fish in a barrel.


But Clear moves on. Yes, there are more fabrications in store!


Clear states:

3) Milligan then points out "hence = an exact reproduction". He is explaining a further evolution of meaning into modern times. He is not explaining it's ancient usage.

Where Clear came up with "modern" times is beyond me,


This is just flat out wrong and goes directly against his advice to let “Milligan speak for himself”.


NOWHER Does Milligan state he is explaining "modern usage" which explains why his comment is unsourced. This is complete nonsense invented by Clear. I have no doubt Clear skimmed through Milligan's Vocabulary, but had he ACTUALLY read it (reading for comprehension is key!) he would have noticed the full title which is illustrated below

ANCIENT TEXT IS THE DEFAULT


It’s The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament illustrated from Papyri and other non-literary sources. The default is NOT "MODERN" Greek but "ANCIENT" Greek!


Remember, we are letting the authors Moulton and Milligan speak for themselves. We are not letting Oeste or Clear speak for them. That would be Eisegesis. We want Exegesis.

Let’s continue:

There is a section for ABBREVIATIONS that are used by Milligan in his book. When Milligan gives any usage of "modern Greek" he uses the ABBREVIATION. The ABBREVIATION Milligan uses is shown here:

See that little read arrow? Milligan states he will use the abbreviation MGr when referring to Modern Greek. Oeste is not claiming this. Clear is not claiming this. It is Milligan who claims this and we are allowing Milligan to speak for himself.



EXAMPLES OF MILLIGAN USING MGr (Modern Greek)


Milligan gives quite a few examples of actual Modern Greek usage in his vocabulary…nearly 775 times if my count is accurate. For example:


The Greek word ἄνοιξις “(anoixis) Strong’s Greek #457 meant “an opening” or “the act of opening” in ancient Greek. In MGr (Modern Greek) Milligan tells us it means “springtime”:

​

Likewise Milligan tells us χαρά (chara) Strong’s Greek #5479, meant “joy” or “gladness” in the ancient texts but now means a “festival” or “wedding” in MGr (modern Greek):

In fact, here is just a small list of Milligan’s usage of MGr to let us know when he is referring to Modern Greek:

εἷς Strong’s Greek #1520

MGr has ἕνας, μιά, ἕνα(ν).

ἐκ Strong’s Greek #1537

In MGr ἐκ has been supplanted by ἀπό and ἔξω, though it lives an obscure life as a prefix in such words as βγαίνω, γδέρνω, ξεγράφω, ξέσκεπος.

ἑκατόν Strong’s Greek #1540

MGr has ἑκατό(ν).

ἐκβαίνω Strong’s Greek #1831

In MGr the verb assumes the form βγαίνω.

ἐκβάλλω Strong’s Greek #1544

MGr βγάλλω.

ἔκγονος Strong’s Greek #1549

Εγγονος survives in MGr = “grandchild.”

ἐκδύω Strong’s Greek #1562

MGr γδύνω, “doff,” “pillage.”

ἐκεῖ Strong’s Greek #1563

The word is MGr.

ἐκεῖθεν Strong’s Greek #1564

In MGr the word = “whence,” “yonder,” “beyond.”

​

I think everybody gets the idea.
So if everything is as Clear claims it is, we will expect to see the letters "MGr" following "exact reproduction" in his entry for Χαρακτηρ. Let's take a look again:

​

Can anyone find the letters “MGr”?

There is NO ABBREVIATION (MGr) before or after "an exact reproduction" so Milligan is NOT telling us "exact reproduction" is a "modern usage of "Χαρακτηρ".

I have demonstrated the fallacy inherent in Clear's claim.

CLEAR'S CLAIM IS REFUTED. Milligan explicitly tells us "Χαρακτηρ" can mean “exact reproduction” in the ancient text when we allow Milligan to speak for himself.

Any serious discussion as to whether "Χαρακτηρ" can mean “exact reproduction, exact impress, express image or similar has come to a close.

 

[Oeste]

So, at this point the score is Leviticus 1 and Oeste 0,
Clement 1 and Oeste 0,
Delitsch maybe 10 and Oeste 0,
Milligan almost 20 and Oeste 0.

All this shows is that you have committed 32 more etymological fallacies than I have. Remember what we discussed in post 977:

An etymological fallacy is a genetic or irrelevant fallacy that holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning.[1] This is a common linguistic misconception,[2] and is sometimes used as justification for a linguistic prescription.

An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology.​

This is the argument you are making now. You want me to show the word "gay" meant "sexual orientation" using Old English.

It's a fallacy you've committed at least 32 times.

Also, can you finally explain why you want me to defend positions I've neve taken (strawman) and why you think it's a good idea to match a metaphor (Hebrews 1:3) with it's literal counterpart in Greek papyri?

READERS, AGAIN I WOULD ASK, IF ANYONE CAN HELP OESTES CLAIM WITH A SINGLE EXAMPLE, THIS IS YET ANOTHER CHANCE TO HELP SUPPORT OESTES CLAIM.

IS THERE A SINGLE READER ON THE FORUM THAT EITHER BELIEVES OR SUPPORTS OR HAS ANY DATA TO BELIEVE OESTES CLAIM?

Oeste's Claim???

I am not sure why Clear continuously couches the Church's claim as "Oeste's claim". I've repeatedly told him this is not my claim, but the claim of Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, and even secular academia. I cannot find anyone who disagrees with this except of course for @Clear. Perhaps he thinks the church got the idea that "Χαρακτηρ" can mean “exact reproduction” from me? I really don't think that happened, in fact I know it didn't but I suppose the only thing I can do at this point is to ask.

Let's start with the Mormon church.

The Mormons hold Joseph Smith as a divinely inspired prophet. They adhere to the King James Version of the bible but state the prophet Smith restored the gospel to it. You can find the changes he made here. According to the LDS, Joseph Smith clarified scripture, restored knowledge that had been revealed ages ago but had become lost or corrupted; provide new knowledge; and organize his many insights into a broad vision of eternity.


One of the point I would like to make is that he did not seem to hold Hebrews 1:3 in "error" as Clear holds the NWT, the NIV, and the KJV to be. In other words, there is no commentary that “χαρακτηρ meant χαρακτη”, or that “χαρακτηρ meant χαρακτη unless you add an adjective or additional content" to it.

As you can see Joseph Smith starts his commentary with Hebrews 1:6 and not Hebrews 1:3. Why would he have missed this error if this is a restored gospel? Is Clear the first to see it?

There was no mention of "Oeste's claim" on this site. In other words, no indication this was originally or solely "Oeste's claim" and they had adopted it.

It just seems to me if he is asking his fellow Mormons to answer this comment:

IS THERE A SINGLE READER ON THE FORUM THAT EITHER BELIEVES OR SUPPORTS OR HAS ANY DATA TO BELIEVE OESTES CLAIM?

He could at least ask it appropriately:

IS THERE A SINGLE READER ON THE FORUM THAT EITHER BELIEVES OR SUPPORTS OR HAS ANY DATA TO BELIEVE OESTES THE CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS CLAIM?


I also took the liberty of checking Lynn Hilton Wilson's booklet which I found at bookofmormoncentral.com. There was no mention at this site either of "Oeste's claim" but there was mention of "exact representation".

So where did the LDS get this "erroneous" (according to Clear) translation? Did they listen to "Oeste's claim"? Are my opinions on this web site really that popular? Do they not have a single data point to support "Oeste's claim"? Did they previously translate this differently? I would be extremely interested as to what I said that convinced them. Obviously Milligan, Moulton, Delitzsh, and Alford did not.

We can discuss where the JW's got there's next, and then the Catholics, Protestants and secular academia.

If they all got this "erroneous" translation from me then I'm apparently a lot older than I thought.

When I come back on I'll address why the churches properly believe Christ is the "express image" or "exact representation" of God. There are a lot of differences between Mormons, Witnesses, Catholics and Protestants, but "refuting" translations of Hebrews 1:3 is not one of them and that's not because they all decided to adopt "Oeste's claim".

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste


3) REGARDING EXAMPLES FROM ANCIENT LITERATURE THAT UNDERMINE OESTE'S CLAIM - Are ancient examples of ancient literature representing ancient usage a fallacy?

Clear said :
"So, at this point the score is Leviticus 1 and Oeste 0,
Clement 1 and Oeste 0,
Delitsch maybe 10 and Oeste 0,
Milligan almost 20 and Oeste 0."


Oeste said : "All this shows is that you have committed 32 more etymological fallacies than I have. Remember what we discussed in post 977:
An etymological fallacy is a genetic or irrelevant fallacy that holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning.[1]

I remember. Read your definition of etymological fallacy.
It holds that a present-day meaning is similar to the ancient meaning.

Leviticus, Clement, Delitzsch, and Milligan are not committing this fallacy.

none of their examples hold present-day meaning is similar to ancient meaning.

Their examples hold that ancient meaning is similar to ancient meaning used in ancient literature.
Their examples are historically correct and not fallacies.




2) REGARDING A HISTORICAL THEORY THAT HAS NO HISTORICAL SUPPORTING DATA

I do not see how your historical claim is going to ever be historically coherent or historically rational or historically viable without having a single example that it is correct in the face of multiple examples from Clement, Delitsch and Milligan that shows it is not historically coherent.

You still have not explained to readers why the greek examples from Clement, Delitzsch or Milligan which undermine your claim are incorrect since the greek examples from ancient literature are not fallacies.

The score still remains, Leviticus, Clement, Delitzsch and Milligan, more than 30. Oeste, still 0.



3) EXAMPLES FROM ANCIENT KOINE GREEK ARE THE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHAT A WORD MEANT AND IT'S USAGE IN ANCIENT KOINE GREEK

Oeste, I STRONGLY agree with you when you say :
"It’s The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament illustrated from Papyri and other non-literary sources. The default is NOT "MODERN" Greek but "ANCIENT" Greek!" (Oeste, post #993)

This is why I asked you to explain why you think Delitzschs and Milligans examples from ancient Koine greek support your claim.
Since the examples undermine your claim, why did you offer them?
If you think the examples from ancient greek support your claim, tell us why.


Clear
δρτζειακφιω

 

[Oeste]

All this shows is that you have committed 32 more etymological fallacies than I have. Remember what we discussed in post 977:

An etymological fallacy is a genetic or irrelevant fallacy that holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning.[1] This is a common linguistic misconception,[2] and is sometimes used as justification for a linguistic prescription.

I remember. Read your definition of etymological fallacy.
It holds that a present-day meaning is similar to the ancient meaning.

No, read it again. It holds that it’s a fallacy to claim a present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. There is nothing to suggest that present day meanings are similar to ancient meetings. Do you understand what fallacy means?

fal·la·cy

a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.

A failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid​

In other words, what I stated is that to claim a present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning is unsound and not sound reasoning.

That’s why I gave the word “gay” as an example. The word “gay” is used many times in our historical literature. We are in the 21st century and it’s a reference to sexual orientation. That does not mean the word “gay” meant “sexual orientation” 300 years ago. Thus it would be incorrect to say gay cannot mean “sexual orientation” without “historical data” from 300 years ago. That would be an etymological fallacy.

Likewise Paul lived during the 1st Century. It would be incorrect to say Paul’s usage of χαρακτήρ needed to have the same meaning it had 300 years prior.

Any such insistence would only demonstrate a remarkable naivety of how language actually works.

none of their examples hold present-day meaning is similar to ancient meaning.

Strawman; no one argues that modern meaning must be similar to ancient meaning.

Their examples are historically correct and not fallacies.

Strawman; no one argues their examples were fallacies or incorrect.

You are creating strawmen to knock down and refute. That doesn’t bode well for your argument that the Mormon Church is wrong, that Joseph Smith failed to restore Hebrews 1:3 properly, that the Watchtower committed a translational error at Hebrews 1:3, that the Catholic and Protestant churches are incorrect, that this is something academia missed, that χαρακτήρ does not mean “exact” anything, that χαρακτήρ meant χαρακτήρ, that χαρακτήρ cannot mean “exact reproduction” without adding “additional content”, or that it χαρακτήρ cannot mean “exact impress” without adding an adjective.

EXAMPLES FROM ANCIENT KOINE GREEK ARE THE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHAT A WORD MEANT AND IT'S USAGE IN ANCIENT KOINE GREEK

EXCELLENT Clear!

I just hope you realize that "standard" is not some pagan statue, magic papyri, pottery shards or other ostraca rescued from a long abandoned rubbish heap in Egypt.

SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE

That is the Gold standard in any translation of the biblical text. Clear has repeatedly and totally misunderstood the scope and purpose of Milligan's Vocabulary.

It is the Vocabulary of the Greek Testament ILLUSTRATED not BASED on Greek papyri and ostraca.

Let's look at the title again:

So when Clear asks something like this:

4) Oeste offered : “ ἀνενεχθέντος δὲ τοῦ ἀργυρίου ἐπικόψας χαρακτῆρα: id. Pol. i. 6, where χαρακτῆρα ἐπιβάλλειν is to stamp coin, and it is said, ὁ γὰρ χαρακτήρ ἐτέθη τοῦ πόσου σημεῖον. Diod. Sic. xvii. 66, τάλαντα χρυσοῦ, χαρακτῆρα δαρεικὸν ἔχοντα.

Can you explain why you think the silver and Gold mentioned here shows the bare ancient koine word “Character” meant “exact Character”?

It is apparent he does not understand WHO is offering this example (it is not "Oeste") or WHY it is being offered. Neither Moulton nor Milligan lose sight of why they offer illustrations (and not a basis). Apparently Clear did and mistakenly takes illustration of Greek papyri and other "non-literary sources" as the "basis" or "standard" for the Greek Vocabulary in the New Testament.

One more point that is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT which Clear has apparently forgotten or missed (I have more):

VERY GOD OF VERY GOD

Milligan, Moulton, Delitzsch, and Alford are staunch Trinitarians who, like me, believe in one Triune God. I am amazed (flabbergasted actually) that ANYONE would argue that either Milligan, Moulton, Delitzsch or Alford sees Christ as a representative, but not an “exact representative”, as an impress, but not as the “express or very impress”, as a reproduction, but not an “exact reproduction”, or as an image, but not the “very or express image” of the Father when all 4 theologians confess Jesus is God!

So to me the better question is not why I think Milligan, Delitzsch, or Alford support this historical, confessed, and well established claim, it’s why anyone would think that they wouldn’t. Jesus is the second person of the Triune Godhead. Of course he's going to be considered the "exact representation" of the Father! I've been posting in religious chat rooms for about 14 years, and I've never seen anyone suggest these authors have argued otherwise, let alone attempt it, and much less go for all the marbles and persist in such an incredulous assertion that is anathema to Trinitarian theology.

Clear, I salute you. I suppose just about anything is possible, but I really believe you’re on a kamikaze mission here.

I don't know of anyone who would have taken the amount of time that I have to explain what is not debatable: χαρακτήρ can mean "exact reproduction" at Hebrews 1:3. This started with a challenge to Jehovah Witnesses and you have morphed it into something totally different. I wish I could have the past 3 or 400 comments into a separate thread titled "χαρακτήρ at Hebrews 1:3" but I suppose it doesn't matter.

You certainly landed on the right thread.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste

Your responses are turning into a series of deflections and ad hominems and claims that everything is a "strawman".
Readers are still waiting for a single example from ancient greek which supports your claim as to what an ancient greek word meant and how it was used.
Do you have a single example from ancient Greek to support your claim?

1) THE DEFLECTIONS


a) The deflection of ETYMOLOGICAL FALLACY by Leviticus, Clement, Delitzsch and Milligan
Oeste said : "It holds that it’s a fallacy to claim a present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. There is nothing to suggest that present day meanings are similar to ancient meetings. Do you understand what fallacy means?" (post #996)


You are confused.

I have always agreed with this definition of an etymological fallacy and I also insist that it is correct.

However, Leviticus, Clement, Delitzsch, and Milligan are NOT committing this fallacy when they offer examples which undermine your claim.

none of their examples from ancient greek hold present-day meaning is similar to ancient meaning.
Their examples from ancient greek hold that ancient meaning is similar to ancient meaning (as demonstrated in their many examples of meaning and use in ancient literature).

Insisting that present-day greek meaning = ancient meaning = may be a fallacy
Insisting that ancient greek meaning = ancient meaning = is NOT a fallacy.

Examples from ancient greek used in O.T. Leviticus, Clement, Delitsch and Milligan are historically correct and not fallacies.

Do you have a single example from "ANCIENT" greek to support your claim?



b) The deflection of claiming disagreement where none exists - the Default for examples is Ancient Greek
Oeste, you and I are in agreement with your statement that
"The default is NOT "MODERN" Greek but "ANCIENT" Greek!" (Oeste, post #993)

This is why I asked you to explain why you think Delitzschs and Milligans examples from ancient Koine greek support your claim.

Do you have a single example from "ANCIENT" greek (which you agree is the "default") to support your claim?



c) the deflection of referring to the Historians religion.
Oeste said : “ Milligan, Moulton, Delitzsch, and Alford are staunch Trinitarians who, like me, believe in one Triune God.” (post #996)
Yes. It was always clear from the beginning that supporting your religious belief was the motive why you made your claim without having any data. You want to support your religious belief.

However, religious beliefs are irrelevant to the meaning of Καρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek.
It is simply another deflection.

Do you have a single example from "ANCIENT" greek to support your claim?


d) the deflection of repeating what Χαρακτηρ "CAN MEAN"
Oeste said : "I don't know of anyone who would have taken the amount of time that I have to explain what is not debatable: χαρακτήρ can mean "exact reproduction" at Hebrews 1:3"

Χαρακτηρ "can mean" almost anything IF there is context added to the lone, uncontexted greek word Χαρακτηρ". It is an entymological fallacy to insist that a word from your religion or a translation from your religion means the same thing anciently. Read your definition of entymololigical fallacy.

Do you have a single example from "ANCIENT" greek to support your claim?



2) REGARDING A HISTORICAL THEORY THAT HAS NO HISTORICAL SUPPORTING DATA
While Delitsch and Milligan and Clement have provided almost 30 examples where your claim does not hold true, you still have not given readers a single example from “ancient Greek” where your claim is correct.

You have almost 3 dozen examples of ancient Koine Greek before you.
You claim you read ancient Koine Greek "with comprehension".
All of the ancient Koine greek example demonstrate your claim is incorrect.

I still do not see how your historical claim is going to ever be historically coherent or historically rational or historically viable without having a single example where it is correct in the face of multiple examples from Clement, Delitsch and Milligan that shows it is not historically coherent.


The score still remains,

Leviticus, Clement, Delitzsch and Milligan = still more than 30.
Oeste, still = 0.

None of the forum readers have (so far) found an example to support your claim when I asked for one.

Do you have a single example from "ANCIENT" greek to support your claim?


Clear
δρτζσεφιφυω

 

[Oeste]

Your responses are turning into a series of deflections and ad hominems and claims that everything is a "strawman".

That's because a large segment of your arguments have been strawman. I've always pointed out your strawmen Clear but I didn't just stop there. I demonstrated WHY they were strawmen. I'm going to do that again.

a) The deflection of ETYMOLOGICAL FALLACY by Leviticus, Clement, Delitzsch and Milligan

Your statement above is a strawman. Let's look at what a strawman is again:

STRAWMAN:

1. Ignore the real argument
2. Create a pretend argument
3. Defeat the pretend argument
4. Claim victory over the real argument
5. Do a victory dance.

1. In the above example, you ignored my actual argument. My argument concerned etymological fallacies:

It holds that it’s a fallacy to claim a present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. There is nothing to suggest that present day meanings are similar to ancient meetings.

​

I gave and example of this with the word "gay". I also stated the following:​

Likewise Paul lived during the 1st Century. It would be incorrect to say Paul’s usage of χαρακτήρ needed to have the same meaning it had 300 years prior.

2. You created a pretend argument, that I or someone on this board was claiming Leviticus, Clement, Delitzsch and Milligan were committing etymological fallacies:

a) The deflection of ETYMOLOGICAL FALLACY by Leviticus, Clement, Delitzsch and Milligan

3. You announce victory over this pretend argument that no one had made.

However, Leviticus, Clement, Delitzsch, and Milligan are NOT committing this fallacy

4. You claim victory over the real argument:

Examples from ancient greek used in O.T. Leviticus, Clement, Delitsch and Milligan are historically correct and not fallacies.

5. You then inexplicably ask:

Do you have a single example from "ANCIENT" greek to support your claim?

6. When you've already stated:

none of their examples from ancient greek hold present-day meaning is similar to ancient meaning.

Do you not understand that Paul once lived in "present-day"?

And since Paul's days was once present-day, why are you insisting that his then present day meaning of χαρακτήρ have the same meaning it had in Leviticus, or any other papyri, tablet or pagan statue made 300, 400 or even a thousand years previously? In other words, why on earth are you asking the following question, time and time again?"

Do you have a single example from "ANCIENT" greek to support your claim?

​

When you just told us:

Insisting that present-day greek meaning = ancient meaning = may be a fallacy

Given that last quote, it makes absolutely no sense for you to insist on an ancient Greek pottery shard for validation when even you admit it may be a fallacy.

It is even more confounding when we consider that Paul is using a metaphor and you want to apply it literally to something written hundreds of years before Paul was even born!

You've never explained that one. We're still waiting.

Readers are still waiting for a single example from ancient greek which supports your claim as to what an ancient greek word meant and how it was used.

No, no, no Clear. Readers are not waiting for what they already have.

We have thousands of extant manuscripts which support our translation of the New World Testament. We do not need ancient Greek pottery shards or pagan statutes to support this and this is not the reason Milligan and Moulton wrote their Vocabulary. The Vocabulary is a gloss with illustrations, that's all.

This is the argument of the skeptics and critics. They want to see Jesus' name on a statue or a historical record of his trial before Pilate. Paul is metaphorically describing Christ, the second person of the Triune God according to Milligan, Moulton, and Delitzsch. Insisting we first find him similarly described in the same manner on an ancient, non-literary Greek tablet, statute, papyri, or pottery shard is ludicrous.

 

[Oeste]

b) The deflection of claiming disagreement where none exists - the Default for examples is Ancient Greek
Oeste, you and I are in agreement with your statement that
"The default is NOT "MODERN" Greek but "ANCIENT" Greek!" (Oeste, post #993)

No Clear. We have not been in agreement on this. You were denying this just a few posts ago. Don't you remember??

We were discussing Milligan's definitions and glosses:

You denied "exact reproduction" was referring to ANCIENT Greek. Instead you claimed it was MODERN Greek and the rest were ancient.

While Milligan explains the word has been translated "exact representation" in more modern times, he demonstrates with all of his examples that this modern usage is incorrect.
This is the value of actually letting Milligan speak for himself.

You denied "exact representation" was an ancient Greek meaning not once, but several times.

I had to rebut and refute this denial. I showed you this was incorrect and wrong. I explained that when Milligan wanted to show a modern definition he told us, quite explicitly, that he would use the abbreviation MGr:

I then asked where we could find the abbreviation "MGr" in Milligan and Moulton Vocabulary definition for Χαρακτηρ. We couldn't find it. It was this that showed us Milligan was referring to an ancient Greek definition for Χαρακτηρ and had not been referring to a "modern definition" at all.

So yes, we are in agreement, but the disagreement was actually there. It's just gone now.

 

[Oeste]

c) the deflection of referring to the Historians religion.
Oeste said : “ Milligan, Moulton, Delitzsch, and Alford are staunch Trinitarians who, like me, believe in one Triune God.” (post #996)

Yes. It was always clear from the beginning that supporting your religious belief was the motive why you made your claim without having any data.

This makes no sense Clear. Of course I will support my religious beliefs. I am not trying to undermine my religious beliefs, and neither are Alford, Milligan, Moulton or Delitzsch. Also, I am at a loss of where your "no data" idea comes from. Right now, from my standpoint, I have ALL the data. Virtually every Lexicon, Dictionary, Scholar and Religion supports "exact representation", "exact reproduction", "express image", or "very image", "express imprint" or similar as valid translations. It's only you who do not.

You want to support your religious belief.

Yes, of course. Everyone wants their religious beliefs supported. This is not novel or new, and its not incorrect or wrong. If someone can show me, to my satisfaction, that my religious beliefs are incorrect, then I will of course revaluate my belief.

However, religious beliefs are irrelevant to the meaning of Καρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek.
It is simply another deflection.

If only you were around when Paul wrote his epistle to the Hebrews. You could have explained how irrelevant his religious beliefs were to any meaning he placed to words when using Koine Greek.

d) the deflection of repeating what Χαρακτηρ "CAN MEAN"
Oeste said : "I don't know of anyone who would have taken the amount of time that I have to explain what is not debatable: χαρακτήρ can mean "exact reproduction" at Hebrews 1:3"

That's correct! I've taken a lot of time and effort to explain the obvious: χαρακτήρ can mean "exact reproduction" just like Milligan and quite a few bible translations state. It doesn't have to mean this. It doesn't always mean this, but it certainly does mean "exact reproduction", "exact representation", "exact imprint", "express imprint" or similar at Hebrews 1:3. There is nothing, "no data", that refutes this.

As to why this is so I previously explained. Paul is using a metaphor. It's similar to "it's raining cats and dogs". One person says were describing a rainstorm, another says were describing a heavy rain, and still someone else says it's a torrent. This is not rocket science.

Χαρακτηρ "can mean" almost anything IF there is context added to the lone, uncontexted greek word Χαρακτηρ". It is an entymological fallacy to insist that a word from your religion or a translation from your religion means the same thing anciently. Read your definition of entymololigical fallacy.

I have read it several times. I'm not claiming a definition solely from ancient Greek papyri while ignoring its immediate usage. You are.

Do you have a single example from "ANCIENT" greek to support your claim?

This is an etymological fallacy. Even so, I will provide you with this:

If you want to see your "single example for "ANCIENT" Greek", try reading some of the manuscripts. I would direct you to P46. You'll find the entire epistle to Hebrews there. You won't find it on an ancient Greek pottery shard, especially one written hundreds of years before Paul or even before Christ came to earth and started his ministry. Any such notion or insistence that we find χαρακτήρ, used in the same way as Paul, in the same manner as Paul, to describe what Paul described is absurd. And to make this clear, this was not something Milligan and Moulton set out to do in their Vocabulary.

SCRIPTURE, NOT NON LITERARY GREEK OSTRACA OR PAPYRI FOUND IN AN ABANDONED EGYPTIAN RUBBISH HEAP, INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE

This hugely salient and important point appears to be missing.

Clear continuously asks:

"Do you have a single example from "ANCIENT" greek to support your claim?"​

No such "support" from Ancient Greece is necessary. Paul did not receive his inspiration from ancient Greece. His inspiration came from God. The support comes from God. The words or their equivalent thoughts come from God. That is the meaning of inspiration. The inspiration of when and what to write is a product of God and not the by-product of an Egyptian rubbish dump.

Had Paul been rummaging around on the outskirts of town one day, filled his bag with junk, came home and said "Eureka! This stuff inspires me to write to the Hebrews!" then yeah, I suppose Clear would be making an important point.

However this is not what happened.

Neither Milligan nor Moulton are basing or supporting their definitions on Greek papyri or ostraca. They are simply illustrating New Testament Greek with Greek papyri or ostraca. This gives us an important window into the culture, habits, thoughts, concerns, hopes and struggles of the ancient inhabitants of the Mediterranean area. It does not give us insight into the thoughts of Paul. It's is Paul's own writings, and the writings of his fellow apostles that do this for us.

“Illustrated” should not be confused with "Supported" or “Based”. They are different words with different meanings.

It is scripture, and not Greek pottery shards or pagan Greek papyri that interpret Scripture. If you want to know where to find support for "exact representation", we need look no further than Hebrews 1:1-4, Col 1:15, 16, or John 14:8-9. They are ALL "Ancient Greek" literary sources (and not non-literary sources a shown above) and they are all inspired from the same source (and it's not a rubbish heap).