Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Clear]

POST THREE OF THREE

23) 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.
This usage undermines and debunks your present version of your claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.

If you disagree with this, can you explain how this quote supports either version of your claim?



24) 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

This usage undermines and debunks your present version of your claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.

If you disagree with this, can you explain how this quote supports either version of your claim?


It was after you tried to offer these examples that undermine and debunk your claim that I first pointed out your lack of ability to read Greek seemed quite obvious.

So, we are where we started in terms of your claim.

Your cut and paste from Professor Alford provides examples which undermined and debunked your claim.

Your recent cut and paste from Moulton and Milligan, in a similar fashion, undermined and debunked your claim.

So, we have at least 23 examples from ancient literature JUST from YOUR cut and pastes which undermine and debunk your claim and you have been unable to provide a single example from ancient literature which supports your claim. The claim remains dead.



WHAT IS THE MOTIVE FOR BELIEVING IN A THEORY THAT HAS SIGNIFICANT DATA AGAINST IT AND NO DATA SUPPORTING IT?


Oeste. The data (so far) shows that the single, lone, uncontexted Greek word Χαρακτηρ (English = Character) does not mean “exact Character” or "exact representation" or "exact reproduction", or "exact anything" unless appropriate context is added.

Yet you claim that you apply your personal meaning of an “exact reproduction” when you said : ”For me, it means image or "exact" reproduction. (Oeste, in post #743)


I assume that you have a personal theology or other context that you are applying to the lone, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ.

Perhaps you’ve simply grew up with a version that read some version of this meaning like I did growing up.
Perhaps you simply don’t know enough ancient Greek to understand the underlying Greek.
Perhaps your theology is more comfortably affirmed if the Greek supports your belief.
Perhaps there is another reason why this word has come to have this personal meaning for you.

Regardless of whatever reason you have to attribute this meaning to this ancient word in it’s ancient context, if you are logical and rational, then your reason for applying this personal meaning is because you add some sort of personal context to the word (as happens in each of the above probabilities).


READERS, IS THERE ANY READER THAT CAN FIND A SINGLE EXAMPLE WHERE THE SINGLE, UNCONTEXTED WORD "ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ", MEANS "EXACT REPRESENTATION"?

ANYONE?

In any case, I hope your journey is good and insightful.


Clear
τωσιτζεισεω

 

[Oeste]

Hi Clear,

As I stated before there is absolutely NO debate on whether Χαρακτηρ can mean "exact representation", "exact impress", or any of the other translations found in the mainstream Christian church.

It is not an issue for anyone on the forum, the Christian church or the planet except Clear. I believe you are arguing emotionally rather than logically which would certainly explain your obsession with getting me to divulge personal information even to the point of posing as some sort of Credentialing Agent.

Quoting from Milligan is GOOD, but you need to READ the literature you are attempting to cut and paste from their lexicon as support for your theory.

Remember what I said before Clear...we can be quick to give advice but slow to take it ourselves.

The base, uncontexted, single word Χαρακτηρ” does not mean “exact” anything.

It does not mean “exact representation”, “exact reproduction”, exact copy” nor does it mean "exact character".

MOULTON AND MILLIGAN AND THEIR EXAMPLES REGARDING ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ AND IT’S MEANING

I showed you this page before. It's from Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Apparently you are having trouble with this so instead of simply underlining, I've drawn an arrow and circled "exact". This may help you to read it properly.

Your argument is refuted.

Please Clear, I encourage you to talk with someone in your church. As I demonstrated before your comments undermine Mormon Christology.

Also, as I stated before, since you don't know me from Adam, there is no need to bring me personally into the argument:

Since you do not read Koine Greek

I can also speculate about your ability to read Koine Greek, or simply about your ability to read, but I don't make my arguments personal. You could be visually impaired and using a text reader for all I know, so I prefer to attack arguments instead.

1) In OGIS 383.60 (a mid 1st century b.c. document) the text reads Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης
As Moulton and Milligan show, This usage undermines and debunks your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”. If you disagree, tell us why you think this Greek use and meaning IN ANY WAY supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation”?

I can see where I said Χαρακτηρ can mean "exact representation", "exact impress", "exact reproduction", "very impress" and even "an engraver's tool".

What I don't see is where is I said the text in OGIS 383.60 reads "exact representation". I think you're making that up. Ditto for all the other papyri and ostraca cited.

If you want to know where you can find "exact representation" open your NIV, CSB, ESV, GNT, NAS, or WNT bible to Hebrews 1:3.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @Oeste ;


1) REGARDING EVOLVING AND CHANGING CLAIMS

Oeste said : "As I stated before there is absolutely NO debate on whether Χαρακτηρ CAN MEAN "exact representation", "exact impress", or any of the other translations found in the mainstream Christian church." (post #962) (bold, capital and underline is mine)

That’s NOT what you said initially. What you said was :

Oeste said : “As I stated before, there is NO DEBATE on whether χαρακτὴρ MEANS “exact representation” at Hebrews 1:3.” (post #952) (bold, capital and underline is mine)

These are two different claims.

Your statement in post #952 that Χαρακτηρ MEANS “exact representation” has already been proven false.
If you are NOW modifying this claim to agree with MY claim that Χαρακτηρ CAN MEAN almost anything with context, then we are now in agreement.

I claim that the word “Character” CAN mean all these things with context.
The word “Character” can refer to Mickey Mouse in the right context.
But the lone, uncontexted, word “Χαρακτηρ” it does NOT mean “exact representation” or “Mickey Mouse” unless context is added.

So, am I to understand you now agree that the lone, uncontexted word “Χαρακτηρ” needs additional context to mean “exact Χαρακτηρ”?
If so, we are now in agreement with my original claim.




2) REGARDING THE COMMENT FROM MILLIGAN IN HIS GREEK VOCABULARY

This is the picture of my Moulton and Milligan from MY 1963 version.
My finger is pointing to the phrase you cut and pasted from. I referred to this very section of Milligan almost 300 posts ago (post #688) for his examples why which demonstrated “χαρακτηρ” did not mean “exact representation”. I used Milligan since Milligan himself argued that it did NOT mean “an exact reproduction”

Please tell me you are not trying to support your initial claim that the lone, uncontexted word “Χαρακτηρ” means “exact representation” by trying to use Milligan...

This feels like a replay of your disastrous attempt to use a cut and paste from Professor Alford. Only this time it is a cut and paste from Milligan whome you hope will prove the claim that lone, uncontexted word “Χαρακτηρ” means “exact representation”.

If so, this is another misrepresentation of another scholar.

Milligan did NOT think Χαρακτηρ meant "exact representation" and fought to change this text.
Milligan was criticized for his insistence that Χαρακτηρ as “exact representation” was an incorrect translation.
So, You need to READ about Milligan and what Milligan is actually trying to prove and THEN decide what Milligan is trying to prove and why he introduced his examples with the explanation “From denoting “the tool for engraving,” Χαρακτηρ came to be used of the “mark,” “impress” made, with special reference to any distinguishing peculiarity, and hence == “an exact reproduction.”

These phrases introduce the process of how the word Χαρακτηρ was mistranslated is followed by many, many examples that demonstrate this specific, uncontexted usage as “exact representation” is incorrect.

The best rule is to READ FIRST for CONTEXT, and THEN come to a conclusion, instead of coming to a conclusion and looking for data to confirm it.

Let me explain the context to readers.



3) MILLIGAN WAS ON THE COMMITTEE THAT PRODUCED THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION OF THE BIBLE WHICH REVISED HEBREWS 1:3.

Milligan held that “exact representation” as a translation for the word Χαρακτηρ in Hebrews 1:3 was an error of translation. Other Scholars such as Moffatt and Goodspeed agreed.

The American Standard Version came out in 1901 and even by 1908 Milligan was vocal in suggesting changes to the biblical text were needed to improved its accuracy. It was not just the inaccurate translation of Χαρακτηρ in Hebrews 1:3 that Milligan objected to, but It was well known that there were many other error of translation to the various text as well.

To create an improved translation and remove important errors is the reason for the REVISIONS of the text to create the REVISED STANDARD VERSION.

Milligan, Moffatt, Goodspeed, and others were on the committee that produced the REVISED STANDARD VERSION (RSV) which was meant to REVISE and improve and correct the textual translation and errors of the Standard version.

One revision (or correction) changed Hebrews 1:3 from “exact representation’ to “and bears the very stamp of”. IF Milligan believed “exact representation” was correct, he would never have insisted the original was in error and his revision was more correct.



4) THE RSV COMMITTEE WERE CRITICISED BY CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTS FOR MAKING CHANGES TO FAMILIAR TEXTS

Changes made to certain texts such as those used for liturgies or devotionals such as Psalms 23 (The Lord is my shepherd…) were so deeply engrained in memorized recitations and ministry that the RSV felt pressured to reverse some changes to accommodate tradition.

For example, they cooperated with Catholic desires for revisions that were necessary “to make it acceptable to Catholics”. However, protestants complained that the committee made few concessions to their demands to retain their traditional readings in support of their theologies.

It was during this milieu of criticism that Milligan started releasing facsimiles of specific vocabulary of Greek from early greek literature. Part of the motivations to release these facsimiles was to justify the changes to text that were made to the text in the RSV.

One of the justifications Milligan was making was to support his insistence that Χαρακτηρ in Hebrews 1:3 did NOT mean “exact representation” but rather, to support his correction of the text to read “to bear the very stamp of” as he rendered it in the RSV.

His explanation “From denoting “the tool for engraving,” Χαρακτηρ came to be used of the “mark,” “impress” made, with special reference to any distinguishing peculiarity, and hence == “an exact reproduction.” is NOT referring to support of a rendering he believed was in error, but instead it was an introduction as to how “exact reproduction” came to be part of the text.



5) Milligans’ lexicon demonstrated that uncontexted Χαρακτηρ did NOT mean “exact reproduction” or “exact Character” or “exact” anything.

For example, Milligans example from OGIS 383.60 (of mid 1st century b.c) “Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης” refutes the idea of “exactness” in representation.

Milligans example from Syll 226 3.495.16 (of approx. 320 b.c.) “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα” Refutes the idea of “exactness” in Character.

Milligans example from P Flor I. 61.21 (of approx. 85 a.d.) “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι” meaning “Of the characters only heir seen is…” Refutes the idea of “exactness” in person.

Milligans example from P Leid X xxiv.11 (of 2-3 a.d.) refutes the idea of inherent “exactness” in an image.

Milligans example from in Syll 3 783.23 (written sometime after 27 b.c.) “μεχρι των Σεβαστειων ευπλοησεν Χαρακτηρων…” Again refutes the idea of “exactness” in person.

Milligans example from CPR I.11 (a text of of a.d. 108): Ετους ιβ Αυτοκρατορος Καισαρος Νερουα Τραιανου “(Year one, Emperor Caesar Neura of Trajan”). Refutes the idea of “exactness” in image.

Milligans example from Preisigke 5275.11 (written in 11 a.d.) which is the closest example that comes to possible support of “exactness” :“… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “ refutes the idea of exactness in a copy.

Milligans example from BGU IV 1088.5 (written in a.d. 142) “χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν” is another refutation of the idea of exactness in an image.

Milligans example from P Lond V 1658.8 (written in 4 a.d.) Ghedini “δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…” refutes the inherent idea of exactness in Χαρτακτηρ

Milligans example from P. Oxy I 144.6 (of 580 a.d.) “χρυσου εν οβρυζω Χαραγματι” “Gold with a stamp) refutes the idea of inherent “exactness” in a stamping (especially if it is Hebrew).

Milligans example from P Ryl II 160(a)10, (written approx. 14-37 a.d.) says “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι” Is another refutation of the idea of inherent exactness in Χαρακτηρ.

Milligans example from P Lond 854.11 (written 1 to 2 a.d.) Των φιλων εμων τα ονοματα ενεχαραξα τοις ιεροις. Is yet another example refuting the idea of inherent “exactness” in Χαρακτηρ.

Milligans example from P Oxy XIV 1680.12 (written in 3 to 4 a.d.) “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”. Is still another refutation of “exactness”



Oeste,
Milligan refutes your claim multiple times in these examples.
IF you disagree with either his Greek or his refutations of your claim or if you disagree with Professor Alford or his Greek or his refutations of your claim, I have invited you multiple times to explain your disagreement with their points.
If you disagree with their points, tell us.

Anyone who reads Milligan and his many, many refutations of the use of Χαρακτηρ as an “exact” reproduction will realize that Milligan is not trying to prove his claim is incorrect when he points out that “ Χαρακτηρ came to be used of the “mark,” “impress” made, with special reference to any distinguishing peculiarity, and hence == “an exact reproduction.”, but instead, 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.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

post two of two



6) DUELLING SCRIPTURES
Oeste Said : "If you want to know where you can find "exact representation" open your NIV, CSB, ESV, GNT, NAS, or WNT bible to Hebrews 1:3." (post #962)

A) And, if you want to know where it does NOT says “exact representation, you can open your, New Living Translation , English Standard Version ,Berean Literal Bible
King James Bible ,Amplified Bible ,American Standard Version ,Contemporary English Version ,Douay-Rheims Bible , Good News Translation ,Literal Standard Version , NET Bible, New Living Translation ,GOD'S WORD® Translation ,NET Bible ,New Heart English Bible ,A Faithful Version ,Geneva Bible of 1587 ,Literal Standard Version ,Smith's Literal Translation ,Aramaic Bible in Plain English ,Lamsa Bible ,Godbey New Testament ,Haweis New Testament ,Mace New Testament

B) Even better, if you want to know it does not say “Exact representation”, you can open ANY of the thousands and thousands and thousands of greek source manuscripts.
NOT one of them has “exact representation” in them. Zero, Zip, Nada.

C) Or, if you want to know that Χαρακτηρ does not mean “exact Character”, you can learn just a bit of Greek and open either Professor Alfords example (which you gave) and read his comments and examples, OR you can open Milligans ancient Lexicon and his examples (which you gave us) and read them.


Professor Alford is correct in his multiple examples and Professor Milligan is correct in his multiple examples. The lone, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ does not mean “Exact representation” or “exact reproduction” or “exact Character” nor does it mean “Mickey Mouse” without some sort of additional context that clarifies and creates that specific meaning.

Does any reader actually believe that despite Milligans arguments and examples to the contrary, that he believes Χαρακτηρ means "Exact representation"? anyone?

We are still left where we started.


ARE THERE ANY READERS THAT HAVE EVEN A SINGLE EXAMPLE FROM ANY ANCIENT LITERATURE WHERE THE LONE, UNCONTEXTED GREEK WORD ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ (ENG = CHARACTER) MEANS “EXACT REPRESENTATION” OR “EXACT REPRODUCTION” , ETC WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CONTEXT?

ANYONE?


Clear
τωσιδρακειω

 

[Oeste]

P Oxy XIV 1680.12

1) REGARDING EVOLVING AND CHANGING CLAIMS

Oeste said : "As I stated before there is absolutely NO debate on whether Χαρακτηρ CAN MEAN "exact representation", "exact impress", or any of the other translations found in the mainstream Christian church." (post #962) (bold, capital and underline is mine)

That’s NOT what you said initially. What you said was :

Oeste said : “As I stated before, there is NO DEBATE on whether χαρακτὴρ MEANS “exact representation” at Hebrews 1:3.” (post #952) (bold, capital and underline is mine)

These are two different claims.

I would have to say this argument shows a certain propensity to very binary thinking.

Yes, both are two different claims, but I'm not understanding the problem. This does not mean either-or Clear, nor does it mean "evolving and changing claims". It simply means both statements are correct.

Let me explain this to you using the example you gave us before with the word "horse". I like "horse" as an example because it instantly conjures an image to mind, yet the word is quite flexible.

As demonstrated previously the word “horse”, all by its lonesome, CAN mean an “equine animal” or it CAN mean a “cocaine” WITHOUT any “additional context”. BOTH definitions are appropriate for the base word “horse”.

LIKEWISE:

Χαρακτηρ CAN mean “engraving tool” or it CAN mean “exact representation”. BOTH definitions are appropriate for the base word “Χαρακτηρ”.

There is NO DEBATE on whether “horse” MEANS “equine animal”. That is settled semantics.

LIKEWISE:

There is NO DEBATE on whether "Χαρακτηρ" MEANS “exact representation”. That is settled semantics.

WHAT NO ONE HAS STATED:

No one has stated “horse” ONLY means “equine animal”, nor has anyone stated "horse" MUST mean "equine animal".

LIKEWISE:

No one has stated “Χαρακτηρ” ONLY means “exact representation” nor has anyone stated "Χαρακτηρ” MUST mean "exact representation".

This does not require a degree in rocket science Clear. It simply requires an ability to read, preferably with some comprehension and the ability to properly use a dictionary.

For example, Milligans example from OGIS 383.60 (of mid 1st century b.c) “Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης” refutes the idea of “exactness” in representation.

Milligans example from Syll 226 3.495.16 (of approx. 320 b.c.) “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα” Refutes the idea of “exactness” in Character.

Clear, I think comments like these simply suggest to the audience that you may have difficulty understanding how to properly use a dictionary.

Let's continue with our "horse" example.

We know at least two definitions are:

1. An equine animal
2. Cocaine​

However the dictionary we are using only gives the following examples of "horse" in usage:

"Never look a gift horse in the mouth" and "Sally mounted her horse and allowed it to gallop into the open field".

Let's say you then ask me to explain how "horse = cocaine" is used in either example.

Do you understand how that might give readers a pause and question your ability to read a dictionary?

And if you were to go even further and state these usage examples refute the definition of "horse" as "cocaine", how it might impact anyone's perception of your ability to use a dictionary?

I don't know you from anyone else, anymore than you know me, but I am fairly confident you know how a dictionary or vocabulary is used, so any such concern is unfounded, unjustified, and unwarranted. If I am mistaken about this, please feel free to correct me.

Therefore, when you ask me the following:

Milligans example from P Leid X xxiv.11 (of 2-3 a.d.) refutes the idea of inherent “exactness” in an image.

I am very sure that you, like everyone else on this forum, fully realize and are fairly cognizant of the fact that examples like these are not necessarily given to explain every or even each definitional sense enumerated in a dictionary.

In other words, I should not have to explain why you should never look at cocaine in someone's mouth, mount and gallop cocaine over an open field, or why Milligan didn't use "exact representation" in P Leid X xxiv.11. This holds especially true when confronted with rare words like "Χαρακτηρ" which is found only ONCE in the NT and is not used metaphorically in our ancient texts except for that found at Hebrews 1:3.

Secondly, I would have to ask exactly where Milligan or I declared Χαρακτηρ meant "exact representation" or even "exact reproduction" in any of his usage examples.

This appears to be something you assumed I stated but I'm confident if you go back and read what I've ACTUALLY written, you'll see I'm alleging it's in his definitions only. If this is incorrect, please feel free to quote exactly where I stated P. Leid X xxiv.11 meant "exact representation" or even where Milligan states it means "exact reproduction". Ditto for the other examples Milligan gives as well, keeping our content and context together.

 

[Oeste]

I claim that the word “Character” CAN mean all these things with context.

No one denies word can have meaning with context Clear. it's just that each word has a specific denotation that does not require "additional context". Each word has it's own, explicit or direct meaning(s) that does not require added context to define it as it will have this meaning with or without said context.

The word “Character” can refer to Mickey Mouse in the right context.
But the lone, uncontexted, word “Χαρακτηρ” it does NOT mean “exact representation” or “Mickey Mouse” unless context is added.

For the reasons stated above, I disagree.

So, am I to understand you now agree that the lone, uncontexted word “Χαρακτηρ” needs additional context to mean “exact Χαρακτηρ”?

Egad! Definitely not!

This is the picture of my Moulton and Milligan from MY 1963 version.
My finger is pointing to the phrase you cut and pasted from.

PUTTING ONE'S FINGER ON THE TEXT DOES NOT CHANGE THE TEXT.

My image gives the same reading as yours. Let's look at it again:

See? There's no difference here. “Χαρακτηρ” means "exact reproduction" in both pictures. Anybody who simply reads the definition will understand that “Χαρακτηρ” can mean multiple thing, including "exact reproduction".

I referred to this very section of Milligan almost 300 posts ago (post #688) for his examples why which demonstrated “χαρακτηρ” did not mean “exact representation”. I used Milligan since Milligan himself argued that it did NOT mean “an exact reproduction”[/QUOTE]

Look at the pictures above Clear. Both images show you were wrong 300 posts ago and that you are just as wrong now. Nothing has changed in the interim. You are misreading and misrepresenting Milligan’s vocabulary entry.

Please tell me you are not trying to support your initial claim that the lone, uncontexted word “Χαρακτηρ” means “exact representation” by trying to use Milligan...

Close enough.

I am using Milligan to support what is lexical fact to everyone but you that “exact reproduction” is a valid definition of Χαρακτηρ. I also used it to refute your nonsensical and unsourced argument that “Χαρακτηρ does not mean “exact” anything”.

Also I am not "trying" to support this fact as there is no need to when one has already "done" it.

5) Milligans’ lexicon demonstrated that uncontexted Χαρακτηρ did NOT mean “exact reproduction” or “exact Character” or “exact” anything.

Milligans example from BGU IV 1088.5 (written in a.d. 142) “χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν” is another refutation of the idea of exactness in an image.

Here, let me help with this:

IMPROPER USAGE OF REFERENCE MATERIALS LEADS TO IMPROPER CONCLUSIONS FROM REFERENCE MATERIAL

refutes the idea of “exactness” in representation.

Refutes the idea of “exactness” in Character.

” Refutes the idea of “exactness” in person.

refutes the idea of inherent “exactness” in an image.

I've already addressed these comments you made earlier in my last post, but I want to make it very clear that Milligan is NOT “refuting” anything here. Milligan IS giving examples of how Χαρακτηρα has been used historically in literature but he is NOT using the these example to "refute" anything. It's important not to overload our sources and that included Milligan. We cannot put words in his mouth that he just didn't speak.

So Milligan is NOT refuting “exactness" in representation, character, person or image. He does not use his Vocabulary to "refute" anything because its a Vocabulary and not a Commentary.

Do you understand what the word “refute” means? Just in case our readers do not, here it is:

re·fute

verb: refute; 3rd person present: refutes; past tense: refuted; past participle: refuted; gerund or present participle: refuting

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
2. prove that (someone) is wrong.

"his voice challenging his audience to rise and refute him"

1. deny or contradict (a statement or accusation).

"a spokesman totally refuted the allegation of bias"​

Looking at BOTH Images above, including the one with your finger, we see there is NOTHING about any “statement or theory” in Milligan’s entry for Χαρακτηρ so Milligan is NOT ”refuting” a ‘statement or theory”.

Milligan does not state any of his entries are “wrong”, so Milligan has not “proven” there are wrong definitions in his entry.

Milligan does not deny or contradict any of the entries he makes, so Milligan is not denying, contradicting or “refuting” anything here.

Conclusion: Milligan has NOT refuted anything, thus your statement that he refutes this, that, or anything else here is unfounded and not evidenced.

This proves your statement or theory to be wrong. It shows your argument is incorrect. It contradicts your accusation and denies your conclusion.

In short, your statement has been refuted.

 

[Oeste]

USING MILLIGAN’S VOCABULARY PROPERLY

MILLIGAN’S VOCABULARY HAS an entry for Χαρακτηρ with multiple definitions (see image in prior post).

A definition is a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary or of a meaning of a term.

Milligan shows us the base word “Χαρακτηρ”. This denotes a new entry into his vocabulary. Milligan gives multiple definitions for the word Χαρακτηρ, with each unique definition surrounded by quote (“ “) marks. Let’s go through it:

From denoting “the tool for engraving,”

The word “FROM” tells us this is the earliest meaning of the word and that “Χαρακτηρ” is a “tool for engraving”. However, this is not the SOLE or ONLY meaning of “Χαρακτηρ” because there is a COMMA which tells us Milligan is not quite through with his definition. Let’s continue:

Χαρακτηρ came to be used of the “mark,”

We now have Mulligan’s SECOND meaning of the word Χαρακτηρ. This second meaning DOES NOT replace the first. It does NOT REFUTE the first. It is simply another meaning of “Χαρακτηρ”. At this point, Χαρακτηρ can mean EITHER “engraving tool” or “mark”. However, there is a comma, which tells us the FIRST or SECOND meaning are not the ONLY meanings for Χαρακτηρ. The COMMA tells us Milligan is not quite through yet.

“impress” made, with special reference to any peculiarity,

We now have Mulligan’s THIRD meaning of the word Χαρακτηρ. This third meaning DOES NOT replace the first or second meaning. It does NOT REFUTE the first or second meaning. Nor is it the ONLY meaning. We have another COMMA which tells us Milligan is not quite through yet.

And hence

HENCE is the culmination of the earlier word FROM. This tells us Mulligan is about to finalize his definitions for “Χαρακτηρ”.

“an exact reproduction.”

We have now arrived at Mulligans FOURTH AND FINAL definition. This final definition DOES NOT replace the first, second, or third meaning of Χαρακτηρ. It does NOT REFUTE the first, second or third meaning. Nor is it the ONLY or SOLE meaning, but it is the FINAL meaning as we have no more commas. Instead we have a PERIOD.

I have demonstrated how someone might properly use Milligan’s Greek Vocabulary. It is not by any means "exhaustive" but "cursory". Any assertion that Milligan is offering refutations rather than definitions in his Vocabulary is unfounded and absurd.

 

[Oeste]

Milligan did NOT think Χαρακτηρ meant "exact representation" and fought to change this text.

Source Please?!

Let us know WHEN Milligan “fought to change this text”!

Let us know WHY Milligan “fought to change this text”! It’s his own “text” for Pete’s sake!!

Let us know HOW Milligan “fought to change this text”!

Let us know with WHOM Milligan “fought to change this text”!

Milligan was criticized for his insistence that Χαρακτηρ as “exact representation” was an incorrect translation.

Source Please?!

So, You need to READ about Milligan and what Milligan is actually trying to prove and THEN decide what Milligan is trying to prove and why he introduced his examples with the explanation “From denoting “the tool for engraving,” Χαρακτηρ came to be used of the “mark,” “impress” made, with special reference to any distinguishing peculiarity, and hence == “an exact reproduction.”

These phrases introduce the process of how the word Χαρακτηρ was mistranslated is followed by many, many examples that demonstrate this specific, uncontexted usage as “exact representation” is incorrect

No it doesn’t Clear. This is stuff you made up. You fabricated a narrative about Greek Rules. You fabricated a narrative about Alford. You fabricated a narrative about me. And now you fabricate a narrative about Milligan's Vocabulary.

The best rule is to READ FIRST for CONTEXT, and THEN come to a conclusion, instead of coming to a conclusion and looking for data to confirm it.

Let me explain the context to readers.


3) MILLIGAN WAS ON THE COMMITTEE THAT PRODUCED THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION OF THE BIBLE WHICH REVISED HEBREWS 1:3.

OH C'MON Clear!

That's ENOUGH!!

We both know full well that you will ignore and not respond to my requests for your sourced material. But now it seems to me that are on a roll, continuously make up these fantastic narratives, sewn from whole cloth, spawn from whatever pops up in your head in order to give your arguments an air of credibility.

I’m sure this technique has worked well in the past. And no, I don’t blame you or anyone else for the occasional “embellishment” here or there. We’re all prone to do this, especially to accent a nuanced meaning or convey a particular perspective “for the sake of illustration or in the heat of debate”.

But this? This just goes a bit too far, don’t you think?

Milligan was DEAD in his grave before the Revised Standard Version ever got off the ground. There is absolutely, positively NO WAY that Milligan was on the Committee for the Revised Standard Version. This is utter, invented nonsense that you created “on the fly”. You could not rebuke Milligan’s Greek Vocabulary which clearly illustrated Χαρακτηρ also means "exact reproduction", so now you’re trying to invent an alternative reality where Milligan does exactly that.

The Revised Standard Version

The American Standard Version was an expression of sensitivity to the needs of the American public. At about the same time that it was produced, several individual and unofficial translations into modern speech made from 1885 on gained popularity, their appeal reinforced by the discovery that the Greek of the New Testament used the common nonliterary variety of the language spoken throughout the Roman Empire when Christianity was in its formative stage. The notion that a nonliterary modern rendering of the New Testament best expressed the form and spirit of the original was hard to refute. This plus a new maturity in Classical, Hebraic, and theological scholarship in the United States led to a desire to produce a native American version of the English Bible.

In 1928 the copyright of the American Standard Version was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education and thereby passed into the ownership of churches representing 40 major denominations in the United States and Canada. A two-year study by a special committee recommended a thorough revision, and in 1937 the council gave its authorization to the proposal.

Not until 1946, however, did the revision of the New Testament appear in print, and another six years elapsed before the complete Revised Standard Version (RSV) was published. The RSV was the work of 32 scholars, one of them Jewish, drawn from the faculties of 20 universities and theological seminaries. A decision to translate the Apocrypha was not made until 1952, and the revision appeared in 1957. Insofar as the RSV was the first version to make use of the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, it was revolutionary.

The RSV was essentially not a new translation into modern speech but a revision. It did engage in a good deal of modernization—e.g., dispensing with archaic pronouns, except “thou” for the Deity. But its basic conservatism was displayed in the retention of forms or expressions in passages that had special devotional or literary associations, even where this practice made for inconsistency. The primary aim was to produce a version for use in private and public worship. SOURCE: Encyclopedia Britannica​

(OESTE’S NOTE: Milligan died in 1934, 3 years before the council gave its authorization to even have the ASV revised).​

You invented Greek Language “Rules” that I've never hear of and can’t find anywhere. Then you create a narrative where Alford, whom you have STILL yet to quote, “undermines” the translation of “exact representation”, then you make up ANOTHER narrative about me and what I do and do not know, then you devise another narrative and SCHEME where you need to “credential “me for Religious Forums and/or its readers, then you make up this unbelievable story that, for all practical purposes, contradicts what we see with our own eyes and now Milligan is somehow saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he actually wrote in his own Vocabulary!

But now, on top of all this you tell us that a DEAD MILLIGAN was on the REVISED STANDARD VERSION TRANSLATION COMMITTEE FIGHTING AGAINST THE USE OF “EXACT REPRESENTATION” IN THE RSV!!!

Isn’t that convenient! I am constantly amazed at how you dig up these little “facts” at just the right time Clear.

Milligan held that “exact representation” as a translation for the word Χαρακτηρ in Hebrews 1:3 was an error of translation.

Really?
I see where Milligan had issues with the translation at Hebrews 1:1, but I wasn’t aware about 1:3. Since Milligan is supposedly revising the ASV which doesn't use "exact representation", why would Milligan even bother with the phrase at all and how is he doing this beyond the grave?

Can you source this for us?

Other Scholars such as Moffatt and Goodspeed agreed.

Source Please?

It was not just the inaccurate translation of Χαρακτηρ in Hebrews 1:3 that Milligan objected to, but It was well known that there were many other error of translation to the various text as well.

Yes, as a general rule that would be a good reason to come out with a revised edition.

Milligan, Moffatt, Goodspeed, and others were on the committee that produced the REVISED STANDARD VERSION (RSV) which was meant to REVISE and improve and correct the textual translation and errors of the Standard version.

If you say so, but since Milligan was not alive at the time, and the RSV was not printed until 12 years after Milligan’s death, can you explain the exact method Milligan used to communicate his revisions and corrections, and how Moffat and Goodspeed communicated their agreement or disagreements back to him? Did they have a direct channel or was it through a medium?

One revision (or correction) changed Hebrews 1:3 from “exact representation’ to “and bears the very stamp of”. IF Milligan believed “exact representation” was correct, he would never have insisted the original was in error and his revision was more correct.

That revision was printed in 1946 Clear. Milligan had long departed by then.

The 1901 ASV never used the words "exact representation" at Hebrews 1:3 so there was no "exact representation" for Milligan to correct even if he had been seated on the RSV committee. The International Council of Religious Education didn't decide to revise the ASV until 1937, which is 3 years after Milligan's death. There is a 1929 ASV at JW.Org and the WT may own copyright to that particular version (not the 1901 ASV which is in the public domain). Both the 1901 and 1929 ASV's translate Χαρακτηρ as "very image" and not "exact representation".

Your claim is refuted and our discussion has concluded.

Take care Clear. This has been a great discussion and it has been a pleasure to have discourse with you.

I pray for your continued safety, nurturement and success.

 

[Clear]

Hi Oeste :

WHAT ONE PAYS ATTENTION TO AFFECTS THEIR CONCLUSIONS

You have been engaged in an effort to (somehow) demonstrate that the lone, uncontexted greek word Χαρακτηρ implied exactness. You have variously argued for "exact Character", and "exact rerproduction" and, I think we are currently on the subject of "exact representation". While readers have seen many, many examples where the lone greek word Χαρακτηρ did not mean "exact" anything, you have been unable to provide a single example of it having this meaning in any of the ancient greek literature of the period close to the new testament time period.

I think this inability to actually give a single example from the vast early literature where your claim holds true is causing you to "mine for data". To look for anything that has the word "exact" in front of "character" or "representation" or "reproduction" without paying any attention to context. (Remember, we both agree that CONTEXT is critical)

You posted your cut and past from Moulton and Milligan on the left below. I took a picture of my Moulton and Milligan on the right below.
However, we circled two different things which both of us wanted readers to pay attention to.

Below left : You circled the single word "exact" as though Milligan was saying that Χαρακτηρ meant "exact reproduction".
Below right : I underlined the same but I circled the single contextual word "hence" to give Milligans statement some context.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PROCESS AND USAGE AND TIME IN THE EVOLUTION OF MEANING OF WORDS

What Milligan actually describing is a PROCESS of the EVOLUTION of what Χαρακτηρ meant originally, and how this usage changed over time.

Milligan first points out that originally, Χαρακτηρ simply meant a "tool for engraving". Thats it. A tool.

Secondly, Milligan says that it "came to be used of the "mark" made by the tool.

This shift in meaning was caused by usage and happened over time. The single word could then, over time and with greater usage, mean the "mark" that is made by the tool. This is not the original meaning, but it is a new and additional meaning that is happening. It is a process of evolution of meaning.

He then says "hence = an exact reproduction". He is not saying the word meant "an exact reproduction" in the ancient greek usage, just as it did not mean "the mark made by a tool for engraving" in the beginning.

He is describing what the word came to mean in biblical usage and where translators got their idea to render it as "an exact reproduction". He is not describing it's original meaning.

This is why I circled the word "HENCE" which means : "as a consequence" or "for this reason."
Milligan is describing how the word Χαρακτηρ became rendered as "exact representation" when it did not mean that originally.

He the goes on to give multiple examples of what the word actually meant by usage in early Koine Greek.

All of his examples (which you have, so far, agreed with) do NOT use Χαρακτηρ as "an exact reproduction" but instead, are examples of inexactness and varied usage.

It makes no sense to apply your hurried and desperate meaning to Milligan as meaning he believed in a definition but then he gives many examples of why that meaning is incorrect.

CONTEXT is critical.

IF you disagree with the examples Milligan offers regarding the authentic and accurate meaning of Χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek, you have been invited multiple times to offer a counter to both Milligan and to the examples from Alford where Alford also demonstrated uncontexted Χαρακτηρ does not mean "exact reproduction".

I believe Milligan and Alford are correct in their examples instead of your steady insistent claim that does not have a single example to support it and, so far, no other readers have come forth to rescue your claim with a single example from early literature.

I have already offered to accept your claim if you can find even a single example where your claim is true from the vast ancient literature even near the time period it was used by Paul in Hebrews 1:3.

Without some sort off support from early literature, your claim remains a dead claim.

DO YOU HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE FROM EARLY LITERATURE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM?
ANYONE ELSE HAVE AN EXAMPLE FROM EARLY GREEK LITERATURE TO SUPPORT OESTES CLAIM?

ANYONE?

I will get to your other points later.

Clear
τωσισενετωω

 

[Oeste]

You have been engaged in an effort to (somehow) demonstrate that the lone, uncontexted greek word Χαρακτηρ implied exactness.

No, I have been engaged in an effort to (somehow) explain to you that the lone, uncontexted Greek word Χαρακτηρ implied exactness at Hebrews 1:3. The demonstration part concluded when I cited several translations that used "exact representation", "exact impress", "exact reproduction" and others.

You have variously argued for "exact Character", and "exact rerproduction" and, I think we are currently on the subject of "exact representation".

How is this different from you're "variously" argued "representation", "impress", or "character"? You have yet to tell us what perceived difference you find between "representation" and "exact representation".

The fact remains: Χαρακτηρ is used metaphorically at Hebrews 1:3. You're in the precarious position of taking a metaphor literally. For instance, you ask us to find a literal rendering in "ancient literature" that we can compare to Paul's metaphorical usage. You have yet to explain why you're doing this let alone explain why anyone else would want to do it.

I think this inability to actually give a single example from the vast early literature where your claim holds true is causing you to "mine for data".

Amusing.

To look for anything that has the word "exact" in front of "character" or "representation" or "reproduction" without paying any attention to context. (Remember, we both agree that CONTEXT is critical)

Context is critical but so are semantics. As stated previously:

Each word has it's own, explicit or direct meaning(s) that does not require added context to define it as it will have this meaning with or without said context.

For example, once again... the word "horse" has several meanings, all without additional context. When you look up "horse" you are presented with several defined meanings that falls within the semantic range of "horse". Horse means cocaine WITHOUT additional context. Horse means "equine animal" WITHOUT additional context. Horse means a geological rock formation WITHOUT additional context. There are other things horse means WITHOUT additional context.

It is not until the speaker or writer adds "additional context" that you know which valid, uncontexted meaning of "horse" is being applied.

What Milligan actually describing is a PROCESS of the EVOLUTION of what Χαρακτηρ meant originally, and how this usage changed over time.

Milligan first points out that originally, Χαρακτηρ simply meant a "tool for engraving". Thats it. A tool.

We are agreed.

This shift in meaning was caused by usage and happened over time. The single word could then, over time and with greater usage, mean the "mark" that is made by the tool. This is not the original meaning, but it is a new and additional meaning that is happening. It is a process of evolution of meaning.

We agree again!

He then says "hence = an exact reproduction". He is not saying the word meant "an exact reproduction" in the ancient greek usage, just as it did not mean "the mark made by a tool for engraving" in the beginning.

INCORRECT!

You are making a logic error and contradicting yourself.

Milligan IS saying the word meant "an exact reproduction" in Koine Greek usage, just as it DID mean "the mark made by a tool for engraving" in the beginning.

You stated: “Χαρακτηρ simply meant a ‘tool for engraving’” but then you say: “it did not mean “the mark made by a tool for engraving”. Your explanation is contradictory.

In the beginning it meant “tool for engraving”. We both agree this is correct. Later it meant “mark” and still later it meant “exact reproduction”. All 3 definitions are correct.

Another way to read this is:

From denoting “the tool for engraving” Χαρακτηρ came to be used of the “mark”, “impress” made, with special reference to any distinguishing peculiarity, and hence (as a consequence) equals “an exact reproduction”.​

Vocabularies and Dictionaries provide word definitions or meanings that correspond to the Entry word. They do not provide definitions that do not correspond to an Entry word. So when Milligan says "hence = exact reproduction" he is stating this is what Χαρακτηρ came to mean. As an example:

Note the section labeled "Meaning" which refer to the proper meaning of the Entry word.

This is why I circled the word "HENCE" which means : "as a consequence" or "for this reason."
Milligan is describing how the word Χαρακτηρ became rendered as "exact representation" when it did not mean that originally.

No one is stating Χαρακτηρ means "exact representation" all the time, anymore than anyone is stating it means "engraving tool" all the time. So yes, Χαρακτηρ did come to mean different things over time.

The later usage of Χαρακτηρ is illustrated by Paul at Hebrews 1:3.

He the goes on to give multiple examples of what the word actually meant by usage in early Koine Greek.

All of his examples (which you have, so far, agreed with) do NOT use Χαρακτηρ as "an exact reproduction" but instead, are examples of inexactness and varied usage.

INCORRECT!

Milligan clearly states that Χαρακτηρ came to mean "exact reproduction". That is what "hence = exact reproduction" literally conveys. Milligan is stating Χαρακτηρ means "exact reproduction". Χαρακτηρ came to mean "exact reproduction" over time. That's the way language works... it lives, breathes and evolves over time. He is not denying or dismissing "exact reproduction".

It makes no sense to apply your hurried and desperate meaning to Milligan as meaning he believed in a definition but then he gives many examples of why that meaning is incorrect.

CONTEXT is critical.

Clear, you are clearly misreading Milligan. The only "hurried and desperate meaning" is your own.

IF you disagree with the examples Milligan offers regarding the authentic and accurate meaning of Χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek, you have been invited multiple times to offer a counter to both Milligan and to the examples from Alford where Alford also demonstrated uncontexted Χαρακτηρ does not mean "exact reproduction".

Alford and Milligan do NOT agree with you Clear. You see agreement where there is none.

Without some sort off support from early literature, your claim remains a dead claim.

Only in your mind Clear. It's alive, kicking and valid for everyone else.

DO YOU HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE FROM EARLY LITERATURE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM?
ANYONE ELSE HAVE AN EXAMPLE FROM EARLY GREEK LITERATURE TO SUPPORT OESTES CLAIM?

1. This is not my or “Oeste’s” claim. It is the shared opinion and consensus of every scholar on the planet.

2. You are asking your fellow Mormons to join you in casting doubt on Mormon Christology and hermeneutics.

3. You are asking Catholics to join you in casting doubt on Catholic Christology and hermeneutics.

4. You are asking Protestants to cast doubt on their Christology and do the same.

5. You are asking Jehovah Witnesses to agree with you and proclaim the New World Testament to be “in error” at Hebrews 1:3

6. You are asking readers to find “a tool for engraving” or “mark” (Χαρακτηρ) that radiates the Father’s glory and His nature or being. Since God shares His glory with no one (Isaiah 42:8) let alone His praise, and since there is no one who is in nature or being like the Father (Jeremiah 10:6; 1 Chronicles 17:20), ( 2 Samuel 7:22) the idea of finding another Χαρακτηρ who can radiate God’s glory that is also His being in the Old Testament or other ancient literature is nil.​

You are misreading Milligan the same way you misread Alford. You are also making up narratives about Milligan, his supposed role on the RSV language committee and Greek rules that simply don't exist. You dispute virtually every lexicon and dictionary, and you disagree with every scholar I can come across.

I will get to your other points later.

You had to invent a narrative where Milligan is sitting on a language committee holding conversations after he died. You also have to misread Milligan's Vocabulary definition where he clearly states Χαρακτηρ came to mean "exact reproduction" and then tell us that's not what he meant. There are no more points to address.

YOUR CLAIMS ARE REFUTED.

 

[Clear]

1) OESTE EXPLAINED THE EFFORT HE IS ENGAGED IN

Oeste said : “No, I have been engaged in an effort to (somehow) explain to you that the lone, uncontexted Greek word Χαρακτηρ implied exactness at Hebrews 1:3. The demonstration part concluded when I cited several translations that used "exact representation", "exact impress", "exact reproduction" and others.” (POST #970)

1) Since you do not actually read Koine greek, I think this is part of the reason you were unable to offer readers anything but this and the remainder of your attempts were data which undermined your claim.

2) Also, you have not given readers even a single example from ancient literature where the lone, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ means “exact Character” or “exact representation” or “exact reproduction” or “exact anything”.

3) The simple fact that there are many, many, many different relatively modern renderings by the many different bible translation committees simply shows modern translations disagree on what the word meant to them.

I do agree that your "demonstration part" definitely concluded when you showed some translators used "exact" in their rendering of a contexted word Χαρακτηρ but were unable to provide even a single example from ancient literature to show the lone, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ, actually meant "exact representation".


2) Twenty (20) plus examples of data against Oestes claim and zero (none) for Oestes claim

It is the height of irony that YOU have given readers to almost 20 examples from ancient literature by Professors Alford and Milligan where the word Χαρακτηρ DID NOT mean “exact” reproduction. All of which data undermines your claim yet you still have been unable to offer readers a single example from ancient literature where the lone, uncontexted word DID mean “exact represententation” or “exact reproduction”.

Can you point out a single example from Greek literature you referred to from Alford or Milligan where a single example of the uncontexted Greek word Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation”? Even one?




3) MILLIGANS EXAMPLES DEMONSTRATING Χαρακτηρ DID NOT MEAN “EXACT REPRESENTATION”

The purpose of Milligans vocabulary was to show from actual examples in ancient Koine Greek literature, what words meant in the usage and definitions of the ancient time periods. He points out repeatedly, that this is different than later meanings.

I explained that Milligan is describing is a PROCESS of the EVOLUTION of what Χαρακτηρ meant originally, and how this usage changed over time and how it came to be translated as “exact representation”.

1) Milligan first points out that originally, Χαρακτηρ simply meant a "tool for engraving". Thats it. A tool. At this early state, it did not mean the "mark" made by the tool.

2) Milligan explains, it "came to be used of the "mark" made by the tool. This is a later time period and the shift occurred because of evolving usage over time.

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.

4) Milligan then gives more than a dozen examples that show actual ancient usage of this word.
His examples show that the word was NOT used as “exact reproduction” in ancient Koine literature.

For example, Moulton, in his Greek Grammar speaks to the ancient use only and does not reference modern rendering and says : "Χαρακτηρ (χαρασσω) originally a tool for engraving, then of the die or mold, then of the stamp or impress, as on a coil or seal; so heb 1:3.".

Moulton in his grammar is simply saying what the word meant anciently, while Milligan is both comparing modern rendering and then proving the ancient rendering is more correct with multiple examples.



Regarding you new claim that Alford and Milligan believe in something they disprove by their multiple examples
So, this new theory of your is that Alford and Milligan believed the lone, uncontexted Greek word Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” despite both of them giving 20 examples showing the word did NOT mean “exact representation”? This is another bizarre claim.

I believe Alford and Milligan are correct in their examples and, NONE of Alfords' and Milligans' examples from the ancient Greek support your claim.



4) Oeste said : "YOUR CLAIMS ARE REFUTED." (post #970)

Umm, actually no. This is yet another silly claim you are making.

The definition of Refute is :
1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous.

My claim is that the lone, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ did not mean "exact representation" or "exact Character" or "exact reproduction" or "exact" anything in it's ancient usage.

1) You've provided no evidence from any ancient greek literature that shows this is incorrect despite my repeated requests for even a single example to support your claim.

2) Your provided no relevant arguments as to ancient usage. Your arguments regarding how your personally define Χαρακτηρ is irrelevant as is other modern contexted usages.


5) A HISTORICAL CLAIM OR HISTORICAL THEORY WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING DATA IS A DEAD THEORY

Oeste, we’ve spent many, many posts and I have asked you several times to provide a single example demonstrating your claim that the lone, uncontexted Koine Greek word Χαρακτηρ meant “exact character” or “exact reproduction” or “exact reproduction” or “exact” anything.

You have never been able to provide a single example from ancient literature where you claim is correct while readers have seen almost two dozen examples demonstrating your claim is incorrect.

Do you have even one example to demonstrate for readers to support your claim?



6) DO ANY READERS HAVE EVEN A SINGLE EXAMPLE FROM ANCIENT GREEK LITERATURE THAT CAN REVIVE OESTES CLAIM?
READERS. Do ANY of you have a single example from ancient Greek literature where the lone, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ means “exact” anything that might support Oestes claim?

Anyone?



By the way readers,

I DID “Mix the Milligans” in a prior post.
William, George, son William and son James are familial relations, but the two Williams are not the same William though they wrote on many of the same subjects. The fact remains that that seniormost William was on the R.V. committee and none of them translated Hebrews 1:3 as "exact representation", but instead translated it differently.



Clear
τωσινετζακω

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste :

Oeste said : “No, I have been engaged in an effort to (somehow) explain to you that the lone, uncontexted Greek word Χαρακτηρ implied exactness at Hebrews 1:3. The demonstration part concluded when I cited several translations that used "exact representation", "exact impress", "exact reproduction" and others.” (POST #970)



When I consider this claim I think it is also another incorrect claim.
I think that you, as a non-greek reader should give yourself more credit that you as a Greek reader, trying to teach others Greek gave readers a LOT of data.

UNFORTUNATELY, The data you gave readers consistently undermined and refuted your argument.

I think that IF you had been able to read Greek, you would not have offered so much information that undermined your various claims.


ONE REASON NON-GREEK READERS SHOULD NOT TRY TO TEACH GREEK

Give yourself credit for the data you actually offered readers.
Back when you were still arguing that “Χαρακτηρ” (Character) meant “exact Character”, you referred readers to Professor Alford who showed your claim was incorrect.


You quoted Delitzsch when he said : “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) “

This quote by Delitzsch, does not support your claim that “Character meant “exact Character”, but still, it was part of your “demonstration”.


As another wonderful example of Data you provided was your quotes from professor Alford.
You offered readers “Thus Æsch. Suppl. 279, κύπριος χαρακτήρ τʼ ἐν γυναικείοις τύποις εἰκὼς πέπληκται τεκτόνων πρὸς ἀρσένων. “Aristot. Œc. ii. p. 689,
Oops, this also undermined and debunked that version of your claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.

You offered : “ ἀνενεχθέντος δὲ τοῦ ἀργυρίου ἐπικόψας χαρακτῆρα: id. Pol. i. 6, where it is said, ὁ γὰρ χαρακτήρ ἐτέθη τοῦ πόσου σημεῖον. Diod. Sic. xvii. 66, τάλαντα χρυσοῦ, χαρακτῆρα δαρεικὸν ἔχοντα.
Oops, another example of usage which undermined and debunked your (then) claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.


Hmm. There seems to be a pattern here.
Once you leave English and, as a non-greek reader, try to give us lessons on Greek, the data you offer us seems to be either irrelevant or shows your claim is incorrect.

Still, you offered a LOT of data.


You 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.
Again, This usage undermines and debunks your present version of your claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.


You then 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.
This usage also undermines and debunks your present version of your claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.

You pointed out “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),
Oops again. This usage undermines and debunks your present version of your claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.

Well, you DID offer us a LOT of data. The problem I think is that your data shows us your claim is incorrect. Lets continue.

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:
This usage also, undermines and debunks your present version of your claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.

You also 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,
This usage undermines and debunks your present version of your claim (that Χαρακτηρ meant “exact representation” as well as your prior claim that “Character can mean “exact Character” without additional context”.



So, I think you are incorrect in claiming that your “demonstration part concluded when I cited several translations that used "exact representation", "exact impress", "exact reproduction" and others.” (Oeste POST #970)
It continued WELL beyond this first mistake.


You continued to offer us a LOT more data from the ancient Greek when you cut and pasted from Milligan.


For example, from OGIS 383.60 (of mid 1st century b.c) “Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης”.
OOPS, this refutes your claim idea of “exactness” in representation.

You cut and pasted from Milligans example from Syll 226 3.495.16 (of approx. 320 b.c.) “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα”
OOPS, another refutation of your claim of “exactness”.

Well, you offered Milligans example from P Flor I. 61.21 (of approx. 85 a.d.) “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι” meaning “Of the characters only heir seen is…”

HMMM, there is a pattern here because this also refutes the idea of “exactness” in person.

You offered Milligans example from P Leid X xxiv.11 (of 2-3 a.d.) which refutes the idea of inherent “exactness” in an image.

Milligans example from in Syll 3 783.23 (written sometime after 27 b.c.) “μεχρι των Σεβαστειων ευπλοησεν Χαρακτηρων…” Again refutes the idea of “exactness” in person.

Milligans example from CPR I.11 (a text of of a.d. 108): Ετους ιβ Αυτοκρατορος Καισαρος Νερουα Τραιανου “(Year one, Emperor Caesar Neura of Trajan”). Refutes the idea of “exactness” in image.

Milligans example from Preisigke 5275.11 (written in 11 a.d.) which is the closest example that comes to possible support of “exactness” :“… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “ refutes the idea of exactness in a copy.

Milligans example from BGU IV 1088.5 (written in a.d. 142) “χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν” is another refutation of the idea of exactness in an image.

Milligans example from P Lond V 1658.8 (written in 4 a.d.) Ghedini “δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…” refutes the inherent idea of exactness in Χαρτακτηρ

Milligans example from P. Oxy I 144.6 (of 580 a.d.) “χρυσου εν οβρυζω Χαραγματι” “ refutes the idea of inherent “exactness” in a stamping (especially if it is Hebrew).

Milligans example from P Ryl II 160(a)10, (written approx. 14-37 a.d.) says “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι” Is another refutation of the idea of inherent exactness in Χαρακτηρ.

Milligans example from P Lond 854.11 (written 1 to 2 a.d.) Των φιλων εμων τα ονοματα ενεχαραξα τοις ιεροις. Is yet another example refuting the idea of inherent “exactness” in Χαρακτηρ.

Milligans example from P Oxy XIV 1680.12 (written in 3 to 4 a.d.) “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”. Is still another refutation of “exactness”



Well, I think you should not be modest and claim that the only demonstration you gave us (and concluded with) was your few examples where some of the English versions used the word “exact” incorrectly.

Take credit for the many, many, many examples where you, as a non-greek reader, gave us wonderful and specific cut and pastes from Greek which undermined and showed your claim regarding Koine Greek usage anciently, was a bogus claim from the very beginning.


Again, we are still where we started. You made a claim you could not support. It remains dead.


Oeste : DO YOU HAVE ANY ACTUAL EXAMPLE FROM THE ANCIENT KOINE LITERATURE THAT DEMONSTRATES YOUR CLAIM THAT THE LONE, UNCONTEXTED GREEK WORD FOR “CHARACTER” MEANS “EXACT CHARACTER”?

If not, then your claim remains dead regardless of any other issue or irrelevant claims you want to bring up.

Ι don't really understand the motive for the initial claim about the meaning of ancient greek, especially since you do not read greek, but I assume it is similar to translator bias, which is that we all view the scriptures from our own view points and it is difficult to have our personal viewpoints and religious biases challenged. Thus, I assume it was an attempt to support a personal religious opinion.

In any case, I hope your own spiritual journey is insightful and good and satisfying.




READERS, DO ANY of YOU have a single example from early greek literature is support of Oeste's claim that the lone, uncontexted Koine greek word meant "exact character" or "exact reproduction" or "exact representation" or "exact" anything?

I will yield my claim, will yield my support for Professors Alfort and for Dr. Milligan on this issue and I will yield all of the data from all of the examples given if ANYONE can find even a single example of Oestes' in the vast, ancient, koine literature.

If not, then Oestes claim remains a dead claim and we have wasted a lot of time giving this claim the privilege of consideration and discussion.


Clear
τωσινεσιφιω

 

[Oeste]

1) OESTE EXPLAINED THE EFFORT HE IS ENGAGED IN

Oeste said : “No, I have been engaged in an effort to (somehow) explain to you that the lone, uncontexted Greek word Χαρακτηρ implied exactness at Hebrews 1:3. The demonstration part concluded when I cited several translations that used "exact representation", "exact impress", "exact reproduction" and others.” (POST #970)

1) Since you do not actually read Koine greek,

No Clear, it's not because I don't read, it's because I do.
You want to know something even better?
I read with comprehension, something I find, however wrongly, is sorely missing in your posts.

Let's demonstrate this:

By the way readers,

I DID “Mix the Milligans” in a prior post.

William, George, son William and son James are familial relations, but the two Williams are not the same William though they wrote on many of the same subjects. The fact remains that that seniormost William was on the R.V. committee and none of them translated Hebrews 1:3 as "exact representation", but instead translated it differently

Let's start here. You appear to have a propensity to make things up as you go along and you rarely, if ever, cite a source.

CAN YOU CIITE YOUR SOURCE PLEASE?

Also, can you kindly explain why you're citing the R.V. Committee when we were discussing the RSV???

3) MILLIGAN WAS ON THE COMMITTEE THAT PRODUCED THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION OF THE BIBLE WHICH REVISED HEBREWS 1:3.

As explained previously, Milligan was dead before the the International Council of Religious Education ever decided to even come out with or publish the Revised Standard Version.

CAN YOU KINDLY EXPLAIN HOW MILLIGAN WAS ON THIS COMMITTEE WHEN HE WAS DEAD??

You forgot to explain this to the readers. I am sure there is a logical explanation.

And no, your "mixed Milligans" defense doesn't work since there were no Milligans on the RSV's translation committee.

Reading is great Clear, but reading with comprehension is even better. Perhaps you'll consider that the next time you get an urge to engage in personal attacks that I've specifically, time and time again, asked you not to engage in.

Milligan held that “exact representation” as a translation for the word Χαρακτηρ in Hebrews 1:3 was an error of translation. Other Scholars such as Moffatt and Goodspeed agreed.

As I pointed out in my prior post, Milligan was dead by the time the RSV committee even met, so how did Moffat and Goodspeed agree? Was it through a medium, or did they communicate directly with Milligan's spirit?

Milligan, Moffatt, Goodspeed, and others were on the committee that produced the REVISED STANDARD VERSION (RSV) which was meant to REVISE and improve and correct the textual translation and errors of the Standard version.

You still haven't explained how they were able to meet. Was it physically or spiritually?

One revision (or correction) changed Hebrews 1:3 from “exact representation’ to “and bears the very stamp of”. IF Milligan believed “exact representation” was correct, he would never have insisted the original was in error and his revision was more correct.

How did a dead Milligan communicate this "error"?

I am getting the distinct impression that you are just making this up Clear. "Facts on the fly" or some such.

Where are your sources? Can you cite them please?

One of the justifications Milligan was making was to support his insistence that Χαρακτηρ in Hebrews 1:3 did NOT mean “exact representation” ...

Since Milligan was dead, how and to whom did Milligan "support his insistence that Χαρακτηρ in Hebrews 1:3 did NOT mean “exact representation” in the RSV?

...but rather, to support his correction of the text to read “to bear the very stamp of” as he rendered it in the RSV.

Since the 1946 RSV doesn't read "to bear the very stamp of" at Hebrews 1:3, how were you able to determine that Milligan supported this rendering?

Can you cite a source or did you determine this yourself, by communicating with Milligan directly?

 

[Clear]

WAS THERE A "MILLIGAN" ON THE RSV COMMITTEE
Oeste said : "And no, your "mixed Milligans" defense doesn't work since there were no Milligans on the RSV's translation committee." (post #973)

This is another bizarre claim.

A very ALIVE George Milligan was on the RSV committee as I indicated. (I assume you are mixing up the Milligans as well...)

Why are you assuming Milligan was dead after being corrected?

The book "THE ENGLISH BIBLE – A SKETCH OF ITS HISTORY" written by GEORGE MILLIGAN B.D. (1895) describes a history of the RSV including a list of individuals who were on the committees for the Old and New Testament. Below, is a cut and paste of the New Testament group.

Readers will see that Professor Milligan of Aberdeen (George) was on the committee that was responsible for revising the New Testament. (His name appears on the next to the last line in the list of those on the committee.)

William is the Father to George. Both studied at the same university and both were theologians and both were writers on similar subjects. I went by memory and mixed them up. I don't know why you mixed them up after being corrected.

However, none of this is relevant if you don't have a single example to support your claim.

ADMITTING MISTAKES IS NOT FUN, BUT IT IS NECESSARY FOR BOTH SCHOLASTIC AND MORAL PROGRESS
Eating crow and admitting a mistake is not fun. I did not like admitting I mixed up William, the son with George the Father (I mixed them up partly because I was trying to speak from memory and partly because both were writers and their subjects were similar.) I assumed you would offer ad hominems and snide remarks in order to appear to support your claim because you lacked data.

So, while it is uncomfortable to admit error (especially if one seems to be bragging about an erroneous claim), it is necessary for personal and social progress.

It does not decrease credibility over all to admit an error because individuals will recognize that one is willing to admit an error.

At this point, I suggest that you simply admit your claim that "no Milligan" was on the committee is wrong and I will not capitalize or make fun of the error. I am not interested in making ad hominem attacks on this mistake but instead, I think readers and myself are interested in data.

However, Since Milligan WAS on the committee that revised the New Testament, all of your other attempts at ad hominems regarding a dead milligan and spiritual mediums are irrelevant.

In this same text, George, who was on the RV committee describes the importance of the discoveries in Koine that had been discovered and how this put the revisers in a better position to determine what the authentic words of more original texts were and what they meant. He also described his feelings that the reason the religious public was slow to adopt the corrections afforded by the RV was that they had already developed memories of what the prior text said and these memorized scriptures were already hallowed by them. It was a matter of difficulty given up traditions they had acquired. I assume this is why you made the claim that the lone, uncontexted greek word Χαρακτηρ meant "exact Character", later "exact reproduction" and now "exact representation".

However, you have not been able to give readers a single bit of data from any ancient Greek Literature (from tens of thousands that exist from the Christian enclave of Oxyrynchus alone) to support your claim. Since you do not have any relevant data and have been unable to support your claim with appropriate data, and no readers have stepped forward with a single example to save your claim, then your claim remains a dead claim.

As far as your new claim that you can read Koine Greek "with comprehension".
Since you could not read any of the simple examples you cut and pasted from either Alford or Milligan, I find this new claim, very, very doubtful.
I will leave it to the individual readers to decide for themselves how credible this new claim is.

if you read greek, WHY did you make a claim about greek and then give so many examples which undermined your claim? It is illogical for you to make a claim and then for you to prove your claim wrong with your own examples. Similarly, it is illogical for you to say Milligan supports your claim, when he proves it wrong with his examples of how Greek was used.

Unless some other reader comes to your rescue with an example from ancient greek that supports your claim, Your claim remains dead.


Clear
τωακτζσεφυω

 

[Clear]

MILLIGANS POINT THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT AND LANGUAGE HAVE A HISTORY, AND WE MUST UNDERSTAND THAT HISTORY TO UNDERSTAND THE TEXT

Milligan says that the New Testament has a history, and that it is only in the light of that history that it’s contents can be rightly understood. So it is with language of the New Testament. It is to be understood in light of the history and time period within which it is used.

Milligan describes the common language of the people anciently, being applied to religious use and in doing so, describes Koine being “baptized” into new conditions and religious use, the recognition of which are necessary to “fix the full connotation of many of our most characteristic New Testament words and phrases”.

In describing these new, religious connotations, Milligan said that “the best way to get at these new connotations is surely to start from the old, and to trace, as we are now enabled to do, the steps by which words and phrases were raised from their original popular and secular usage to the deeper and more spiritual sense, with which the New Testament writings have made us familiar. “

It is in light of historical usage Milligan tells us in his Grammar of New Testament Greek, that “Χαρακτηρ (χαρασσω) originally a tool for engraving, then of the die or mold, then of the stamp or impress, as on a coil or seal; so heb 1:3.” (underline and bold are mine). He is, as I pointed out, describing a process involving use over TIME.

In his “theology of the epistle to the hebrews” Milligan says refarding hebrews 1:3, that “the exact interpretation to be given to the words “the effulgence of God’s glory and the very image of His substance” is much disputed”.

Milligan renders his own opinion of this phrase multiple times in his own writings.
For example, in this same text he says “He is His “express image” (Χαρακτηρ)”
Still further, he says “He also is called the impress of the Father’s substance”.

Milligans own descriptions of this phrase tell us what he thought the phrase meant and we do not read in these texts where he thinks Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation” nor is the phrase rendered “exact representation” by the New Testament committee on which he served.



THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLING MOULTON AND MILLIGANS "VOCABULARY" OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND WHY THE PAPYRI WERE IMPORTANT
Milligan quoted J.B. Lightfoot (who also served on the committee) multiple times in his texts. The principle Milligan wanted to impress the reader with is Lightfoots principle that “if we could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote to each other without any thought of being literary, we should have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language of the New Testament generally.”

This principle underlies the text from which you took your examples from Moulton and Milligans vocabulary. It also applies to Professor Alfords examples which you were kind enough to offer readers.


IS MILLIGAN TRYING TO PROVE HIMSELF RIGHT OR TO PROVE HIMSELF WRONG?
Milligan has already told us in his texts what he believes Χαρακτηρ to mean in it's historical context and in the biblical rendering he uses.
It is not "exact representation" as the he tells us in the two prior examples.

I think Milligan in 'Vocabulary' indicates "exact representation" IS NOT the definition of Χαρακτηρ and uses examples which support his beliefs.
You indicate Milligan in 'Vocabulary' indicates "exact representation" IS the definition of Χαρακτηρ and uses examples which undermine this claim.


WHAT DO MILLIGANS EXAMPLES TELL US?

It is a good thing that you claim that you are able to read Koine “with comprehension” so as to be able to discuss the examples you gave us.
Lets go through Milligans Examples so we can see what Milligan was trying to show by his examples.

YOU offered the example from OGIS 383.60 (a mid 1st century b.c. document) the text reads Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης
I like the example but do not understand how it supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation.
Will you explain why you gave this specific example and how it supports your claim?


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, I like your example but do not understand how it supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation.
Will you explain why you gave this specific example and how 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”
As with the first two examples, I like the example and accept that it is representative of the time period we are talking about. But, as with the others, I do not understand how this example supports your claim that Χαρακτηρ means “exact representation.
Will you explain why you gave this specific example and how it supports your claim?

Clear
τωακτζνεδρω

 

[Clear]

READERS

REGARDING MANY, MANY, MANY ACRONYMS AND THE MANY, MANY, MANY VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE

As I look as the Acronyms for the various hundreds of versions of the bibles, I am surprised we are not making more mistake resulting in even more confusion that we now have.

I don't even try to keep up with the various acronyms for the different versions of the bibles in various language since I only use the NA-28 or GN-4 which represent are standard greek criticals for the new Testament and translators.

The acronyms are difficult to keep up with (even the RV we are speaking of is the very same bible as the ERV). I noticed that I typed RSV for RV in my last post.

So, whether we are speaking of the TR or the RV or the ERV or the RSV or the ASV or the NRSV or the ASV or any other bible or acronym or translation which one can name is irrelevant, the greek source text does not change at all and we have no variants listed among the thousands of Greek source texts that use any other word besides Χαρακτηρ in Hebrews 1:3.


WE HAVE MUCH EVIDENCE REGARDING THE ACTUAL USE OF THE WORD ΧΑΡΑΚΤΕΡ IN GREEK. NONE SHOW AN ENCODING FOR "EXACT ΧΑΡΑΚΤΕΡ"

In the ancient Koine texts, the lone, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ (the original word for the english word "Character") the word has no encoded meaning of "exact" Character, or "Exact reproduction" or "exact copy" or "exact representation".

We have many tens of thousands of Koine documents. Oxyryhchus alone has more that 10,000 examples in at least 5 volumes in the early 1900s. I don't have any idea how many thousands of Koine document have been discovered in the 100 years since then.

However, of all known documents, we do not have any examples where the lone, uncontexted word Χαρακτηρ (or Character) means "exact Character".

We must add some sort of context to the Word Character, before it becomes "exact Character" in english. So it is in greek.

If any reader now or in the future can find a single example in the ancient (peri c.e.) greek literature, where the lone, uncontexted word "Χαρακτηρ" means "exact Character", then I will certainly be willing to modify this claim, which is, so far, unchallenged by any data we now have.


Clear
τωακτωφιφυω

 

[Oeste]

WAS THERE A "MILLIGAN" ON THE RSV COMMITTEE
Oeste said : "And no, your "mixed Milligans" defense doesn't work since there were no Milligans on the RSV's translation committee." (post #973)

This is another bizarre claim.

A very ALIVE George Milligan was on the RSV committee as I indicated. (I assume you are mixing up the Milligans as well...)

Why are you assuming Milligan was dead after being corrected?

Because William and George Milligan were, in fact, very DEAD by the time the RSV committee met. There were no Milligans on the RSV Committee.

Readers will see that Professor Milligan of Aberdeen (George) was on the committee that was responsible for revising the New Testament. (His name appears on the next to the last line in the list of those on the committee.)

Okay…I see where the error is. You’re not mixing Milligans, but you are mixing revisions.

The New Testament Company revised (updated) the Authorized Version (King James) into more colloquial English. They made a number of changes to the Old Testament which not many seemed to have cared about. This they published in 1885. They also made a number of changes to the New (which of course sparked some controversy) which was published 4 years earlier in 1881.

There were approximately 50 scholars from England working on the Revised Version (RV) which later became known as the English Revised Version (ERV). There were also a number of Americans who worked with the committee through correspondence. The American suggestions were generally cast as footnotes in the Revised Version which prompted the Americans to produce the American Standard Version or ASV in 1901.

The ERV remains as the only bible besides the King James as suitable for reading in the churches by the Episcopal Church and Church of England. The ASV became very popular in the States. One of the main differences between the ASV and the ERV is the substitution of “Jehovah” where “Lord” appeared in the text. This would later make it a favorite of Jehovah Witnesses.

On the other hand, The Revised Standard Version (RSV) did not come out until 1946, so both Milligans were dead by that time. Moffat and Goodspeed did serve on the RSV, but there were no Milligans on the RSV committee.

ADMITTING MISTAKES IS NOT FUN, BUT IT IS NECESSARY FOR BOTH SCHOLASTIC AND MORAL PROGRESS
Eating crow and admitting a mistake is not fun.

No Clear, you did not "eat crow" here. A mistake is just a mistake. You acknowledged it. That's that. End of story.

I did not like admitting I mixed up William, the son with George the Father (I mixed them up partly because I was trying to speak from memory and partly because both were writers and their subjects were similar.)

You didn't mix up Milligans, you mixed up revisions. As for your memory, I'm pretty sure I am older than you are and it would be difficult for yours to be worse than mine.

I assumed you would offer ad hominems and snide remarks in order to appear to support your claim because you lacked data.

I thought you knew it was a mistake but had decided to continue offering it as fact. That was my mistake regarding your intentions… we all make them.
As for the data, I see my position as holding all the data.

It does not decrease credibility over all to admit an error because individuals will recognize that one is willing to admit an error.

I agree! We have both admitted to error. At least you don't call your errors "former truths" which is a definite plus from my perspective.

At this point, I suggest that you simply admit your claim that "no Milligan" was on the committee is wrong and I will not capitalize or make fun of the error.

This was not error.

Milligan was not on the RSV committee with Moffat and Goodspeed. He actually died before the RSV committee formed so he could not have collaborated with them.

In short, you are not mixing Milligans but bible versions. The RV and RSV are different bible versions written at different times. There is only a one letter difference between both versions, both use “revised”, both have an interlaced history (the RSV is actually based on the ASV, and the ASV is based primarily on the RV or ERV).

As anyone can see there is an “alphabet soup” of bible translations. Errors are common.

However, you have not been able to give readers a single bit of data from any ancient Greek Literature (from tens of thousands that exist from the Christian enclave of Oxyrynchus alone) to support your claim. Since you do not have any relevant data and have been unable to support your claim with appropriate data, and no readers have stepped forward with a single example to save your claim, then your claim remains a dead claim.

You're asking me to engage in an etymological fallacy. As stated previously:

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.​

The specific type of fallacy is "root word". Let's demonstrate this once again:

Today the word “gay” is a reference to sexual orientation. Nobody doubts this but let’s say Cleo does. Burt has just called Cleo “gay”. Cleo believes Burt has just called him “carefree”, “joyous” and/or “lively”, but his friend tells him Burt has just made a reference to his sexual orientation.

Cleo disagrees and then challenges his friend to find where the word “gay” meant “sexual orientation” in the works of Mark Twain, William Shakespeare, John Milton, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens or any other historic English writer. You are doing the same, except you’re using “χαρακτὴρ” rather than “gay”.

The only place where χαρακτὴρ needs to mean “exact representation” is where the author uses it, and that’s at Hebrews 1:3. Likewise the only place where “gay” needed to mean “sexual orientation” is when it left Burt’s mouth.

There is no linguistic “rule” that χαρακτὴρ needs to mean “exact representation” in prior, ancient Greek literature any more than there is a rule that “gay” needs to mean “sexual orientation” in prior English literature.​

As far as your new claim that you can read Koine Greek "with comprehension".
Since you could not read any of the simple examples you cut and pasted from either Alford or Milligan, I find this new claim, very, very doubtful.

That’s okay since I find your claims just as dubious.

I will leave it to the individual readers to decide for themselves how credible this new claim is.

Christians can open up their bible, lexicon or dictionary and find χαρακτὴρ validly translated as “exact representation”. Even if they don’t find it on the first document they search they will find it in another. The one thing they won’t find is anyone refuting or attempting to debunk the fact that “exact representation” is a valid translation of χαρακτὴρ.

if you read greek, WHY did you make a claim about greek and then give so many examples which undermined your claim? It is illogical for you to make a claim and then for you to prove your claim wrong with your own examples.

One cannot prove an accepted fact wrong using etymological fallacies. See above.

Similarly, it is illogical for you to say Milligan supports your claim, when he proves it wrong with his examples of how Greek was used.

I like what you said about letting the individual reader decide for themselves. Here's what you wrote:

Milligans’ lexicon demonstrated that uncontexted Χαρακτηρ did NOT mean “exact reproduction” or “exact Character” or “exact” anything.

Here's what Milligan wrote again:

χαρακτὴρ came to be used of the "mark," "impress" made, with SPECIAL REFERENCE to ANY DISTINGUISHING PECULIARITY, and HENCE = "an EXACT REPRODUCTION".

Sounds like Milligan is stating what every dictionary, lexicon and scholar already knows: χαρακτὴρ can mean "exact reproduction". It doesn't matter if this usage came over time Clear. All that matters is that it came to be used this way at Hebrews 1:3.

 

[Clear]

Oeste said : "Okay…I see where the error is. You’re not mixing Milligans, but you are mixing revisions." post #977

Yes. A very alive Milligan was on the RV committee, but not on the RSV of later years. Thanks for straightening out my error of alphabets.

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.



AN ENTYMOLOGICAL FALLACY = APPLYING A LATER MEANING TO A HISTORICAL WORD

Clear said : “However, you have not been able to give readers a single bit of data from any ancient Greek Literature (from tens of thousands that exist from the Christian enclave of Oxyrynchus alone) to support your claim. Since you do not have any relevant data and have been unable to support your claim with appropriate data, and no readers have stepped forward with a single example to save your claim, then your claim remains a dead claim.”

Oeste responded : You're asking me to engage in an etymological fallacy. As stated previously:”… .

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. (post 977)

I am not sure why you bring up the fallacy of applying a modern (i.e. present-day) meaning to an ancient word, or applying an ancient meaning to a modern word. This is an obvious "straw man" arguement since this is not what Milligan is doing. He is applying AN ANCIENT meaning to an ANCIENT word.

The New Testament is an ancient document. The word Χαρακτηρ in Hebrews 1:3 is an ancient word with an ancient meaning. Milligan is demonstrating what the meaning of the word was in the time period it was used. This is no fallacy. The ancient meaning of the lone, uncontext word Χαρακτηρ was not "exact character" in the ancient literature. This is why you have been unable to find a single example of this meaning in any of the vast genre of ancient literature in this peri-c.e. time period. It doesn't exist.

You are committing a fallacy if you try to apply a later or personal meaning (i.e. more modern meaning) to an ancient word that did not have your meaning in the time period it was being used.

So, insisting that a modern rendering ("exact representation") is necessarily the historical meaning is more likely an entymological fallacy than what Milligan or I are doing.

Milligan is trying to demonstrate the "ancient meaning" and usage of ancient words by using ancient examples from ancient Koine literature. I think he is correct to use ancient literature to determine what ancient words meant anciently and how they were used anciently.




MILLIGANS EXAMPLES DEMONSTRATE THE ANCIENT MEANING AND ANCIENT USAGE OF ANCIENT WORDS

One of Milligans points in his literature is that the present-day Lexicons and their meanings were not accurate in representing ancient meanings and usages.
Milligan has already described his own opinion of this phrase multiple times in his own writings. Milligan uses “He is His “express image” (Χαρακτηρ)” as a rendering.
Still further, he says “He also is called the impress of the Father’s substance”.


REGARDING YOUR CUT AND PASTE OF MILLIGANS DESCRIPTION OF ΧΑΡΑΚΤΕΡ PRIOR USAGE
In his “theology of the epistle to the hebrews” Milligan says regarding hebrews 1:3, that “the exact interpretation to be given to the words “the effulgence of God’s glory and the very image of His substance” is much disputed”.

You indicate you believe your cut and paste shows Milligan in 'Vocabulary' is approving of "exact representation" as a legitimate definition of Χαρακτηρ.

I believe Milligan, in 'Vocabulary is indicating how some translator came to use "exact representation" for Χαρακτηρ and he is showing by his subsequent examples, why this is in error.
Milligan has already explained this before, saying (quote) “Χαρακτηρ (χαρασσω) originally a tool for engraving, then of the die or mold, then of the stamp or impress, as on a coil or seal; so heb 1:3.” (underline and bold are mine). He is, as I pointed out, simply describing a process of evolving useage over time.

We can simply look at Milligans subsequent examples to see what sort of usage he is trying to demonstrate, whether he thinks it is "exact representation" or some other usage is actually correct.




WHAT DO MILLIGANS EXAMPLES TELL US?

It is good thing that you say you are able to read Koine with comprehension so as to be able to discuss the examples you gave us. Lets go through the examples YOU provided readers from Milligan and Alford to see what the examples demonstrate.

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?


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?


As we go through the examples from your cut and pastes, I think we will be able to see what Milligan was trying to demonstrate.



Clear
τωακφιτωακω

 

[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?

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.

But I want to be clear about this, because this is the 3rd or 4th time you've brought it up. I posted Milligan and his comments regarding OGIS 383.60 back at post #952. I am going to post the relevant portion once again:



Post #952

In all of these lexiconic uses and definitions, “Character” did not mean “exact Character”.

​

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.
​

The ability to differentiate between POSTERS and their QUOTED SOURCES is ESSENTIAL to any debate forum. If a poster is unable to parse and properly attribute the words or content of various speakers discussion becomes impossible. Likewise, if a post is ambiguous, has misplaced quotation marks, or provides no standard or acceptable way of quoting, linking or delineating posters from their responses, other responders, or quoted sources, then communication becomes limited or impaired.

Either way, the situation will need to be remedied so that communication can continue, or discontinued if communication is impossible.

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.

I see where I gave OTHER examples, but I do not see where I mentioned "Χαρακτηρ" should be translated as "exact representation" at OGIS 383.60 .

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 was Epiphanes (Greek: “God Manifest”). But again, this is MILLIGAN, and not Oeste.

Of course, my entire post is available at #952.

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST

 

[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?

This is another strawman.

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

It appears you are confusing points made by Milligan with points made by me and then transposing them to your advantage. It will be difficult to continue discussion if we can't get this straightened out.



CONTINUED...