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
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
Last edited:
