Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Jehovah - CARM - 04/2018 - Jason Hare tries to deliniate perceived Jehovist difficulties

  1. Default Jehovah - CARM - 04/2018 - Jason Hare tries to deliniate perceived Jehovist difficulties

    This is funny. Perceived "fatal" issues.

    CARM
    https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/th...5%D7%94/page22

    I’ve just made up a really quick summary of three fatal issues to the Jehovist position. I’ve uploaded it here.
    All of these are covered in pro-Jehovah writings.

    And, ironically, none of these are actually a defense of the "Yahweh" position (abomination.)

    Not only that, none of these actually argue against Jehovah (Yehovah) being correct, except, in a very mild way, #2.

    Jason Hare
    https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/upload...ah-summary.pdf

    (we will place the text here if Jason makes it possible in the PDF, similar to the recent paper on the poetry from online)

    1. How can a Jehovist justify the patach under the prefixed prepositions?

    2. How do we get from Yehovah to Yahu and Yah?

    3. What about the Ktiv-Qere of Adonai YHVH?
    A quick summary.

    #1 - Nehemia has a response on a recent audio that I will try to track down. More info two posts down.

    #2 - covered earlier in the very thread where this was placed

    #3 - a common discussion - I will check on the history.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 05-07-2018 at 01:41 PM.

  2. Default Jason Hare descends to scurrilous personal attacks - "swindler"

    Jason Hare went into an attack mode on Nehemia right before he sent out his questions.

    Emphasis added:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson 4-24-2018 #278;n5226104
    Well, I have since become convinced, like Barry, that Nehemia Gordon is just out for a buck. I would like to think that he was being sincere, but I cannot explain the positions he takes except in light of the fact that there are a lot of gullible people who are willing to shell out cash for anything that stinks of conspiracy. Everything that he gets excited about can be explained from the traditional position. His position, however, does not explain all of the linguistic phenomena related to the name. It is a weak position.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery 4-24-2018 #284;n5226180
    ... Now, I can see a person disagreeing with Nehemia, in a principled way.

    Your post above, however, has really cheapened your own position. Especially after Nehemia repeatedly and respectfully responded to points you raised on the thread.

    In 2002, I saw Nehemia teach on this issue, and others, in North Talpiot. I've talked with him. He is 100% sincere in believing that Yehovah is the proper pronunciation of the tetragram. It is a sincere conviction he reached through study and research, with the somewhat unique position of having been involved in Hebrew scholarship, rabbinical Judaism and karaite Judaism.

    Nehemia is also a believer that the Masoretic Text is the pure word of God, a position that you do not share.

    .... Many of the sacred namers and hebrew roots and pseudo-messianics and pseudo-scholastics have made a cottage industry of attacking Nehemia, in any way possible. One of the most popular attacks is that he is not a believer in Jesus. ... In good conscience, at this point I cannot feel the liberty to ask Nehemia to answer any more questions you raise. Which have been, in this thread about five distinct points, maybe more. Steven
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery 4-24-2018 #286;n5226196
    Considering that you just attacked the integrity of Nehemia, and tried a ridiculous and vicious and shameful attack claiming that he was only supporting the pronunciation Yehovah for money, I would say that this follow-up post is one of the most hypocritical I have ever seen.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery #297;n5227454
    ...Why? You think it is just a $-position.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson 04-25-2018 #306;n5228095
    This is a conclusion I came to as a result of considering the entire question. Gordon rejects everything Hebrew scholars generally say (which would be admirable if his position were worthwhile), and the audience that he writes for is the intersection of Christianity and Judaism. He writes for people who are disproportionately interested in the Hebrew name of Jesus and the Tetragrammaton. He does not write for academia, nor has he submitted his “research,” as you call it, for scholastic consideration. If he is right (and I’m now convinced that he is not), he should be pushing for acceptance among academics. Instead, he is selling lay literature for a cult-like group of fringe Christian believers. This is what shows that he is trying to turn a buck, not to make a serious change in how Hebrew scholars approach the Tetragrammaton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery 04-25-2018 #308;n5228127
    .... Simply an absurd and vicious attack. Thus, I really have no more interest in your posturing, or trying to work through any additional issues.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery 04-25-2018 #337;n5229054
    There was no emotional response.
    Simply an integrity response to an irresponsible, ignorant and vicious accusation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson 04-25-2018 #425;n5229153
    In Israel there is a new pyramid project called b:hip. ....This is how I see your responses here. You have bought into Nehemia Gordon. If he is wrong, you have wasted your time and money. You have an emotional commitment to him, and so when I say that he’s a swindler who is taking people for their money, you respond with incredulity. If you were an unbiased person on the side who had looked at his arguments from my perspective, you would come to the same conclusion. He writes sensationalist books about conspiracies and secret knowledge because he wants to make a buck. I’m convinced. As unflattering as that is, his works are sub-par for a Hebrew scholar, and his arguments in favor of Yehovah are simply wrong. He may sincerely believe what he does, but his position is the result of bad scholarship and skepticism gone wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery 04-25-2018 #341;n5229158
    btw, Nehemia really liked your graph-pic, called it wonderful. It will likely be of assistance in preparing for his presentation on the topic. He mentioned that this argument is in Gesenius
    ...
    While your accusation tude is totally despicable, your attempt to argue the defense position for Yahweh is appreciated, since the general level of opposition given to Nehemia is a bit feh. ....
    As for your psycho-babble, thanks for the laugh lol
    Laughing at lunacy can be a tad therapeutic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery 04-30-2018#430;n5237516
    your repeated vicious and despicable attacks on the motivation and integrity of the position of Nehemia.

    Right or wrong, Nehemia holds his position with conviction, study, cordiality, listening and learning, and full integrity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson 04-30-2018 #415;n5237522
    If it were not the case that there were people selling pseudo-knowledge at every turn, if it were more likely that he had caught upon secret knowledge than that he could benefit from the sales of books, if he hadn't written books with sensationalist titles and claims to near-revelatory knowledge,...
    The next is the closest Jason ever got to retracting some of the more despicable stuff above, like when he said that Nehemia was not sincere, was looking for gullible people, a swindler, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson 04-30-2018 #419;n5237531
    I didn't say that he doesn't actually believe what he's saying. I'm sure he actually thinks he's caught onto something. He's wrong, though, and he hasn't honestly understood the morphological issues of the Hebrew language. If he has understood them, he hasn't communicated anything near a good understanding of them. One can be wrong and convinced about anything. That doesn't touch on his motivation for writing the types of books that he does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery 04-30-2018 #425;n5237549
    Wrong again. When you say that somebody is only in it for the $, (and the exact topic is our Yehovah discussion and his position) you are saying they do not have a sincere belief and conviction.

    This remains your vicious and shameful and despicable repeated accusation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson 5-04-2018 #560;n5245207
    I agree. As I said, my favorite authors write books for the money – but they also make sure that they are writing as accurately as they can. The things that Gordon writes, while padded with some good information, are mistaken at their core. You would think that any position based on reading the letters and vowels literally as written would take all forms in which the name is found into account. I don't understand why he doesn't deal with the forms that have prefixed prepositions. They contradict his general position.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery 5-04-2018 #566;n5245283
    I'll plan on posting, in review, your many scurrilous attacks on the integrity of Nehemia Gordon. Going over them, they were actually worse than I remembered.
    ================================
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 05-07-2018 at 12:00 PM. Reason: Jason Hare descends to scurrilous personal attacks - "swindler"

  3. Default Prefixed Prepositions

    PREFIXED PREPOSITIONS
    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson 04-24-18 #276;n5226095
    Again, Stephen, why are you ignoring my question? The lamed prefix in Hebrew means “to” or “for.” When attached to a theophoric name, it behaves regularly. We have יְהוֹשֻׁעַ “Joshua” and לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ “for Joshua.” How do you explain that the name יהוה takes a patach instead of a chirik (לַיהוָה)? If the vowels are native to the word, it would be לִיהֹוָה. You must be able to explain the patach. From the traditional position, it is easily explainable.
    https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/th...95#post5226095
    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson #280;n5226126
    While I was waiting for more information, I held back on giving an opinion. Savlanut requires that you not be attacking “Yahweh” as if waging war until you have all the information. This specific question needs to be answered, but I have not seen anyone on the Jehovist side answer it at all. I’m willing to be savlani (of course), but I would appreciate if the attacks stopped until you got an answer, whatever it might be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery #308;n5228127
    Read right above. I'm told that it is something that is planned for this weekend's broadcast.
    Steven
    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson;n5227046
    I asked you (actually, Stephen) to give an explanation of the appearance of patach on prefixed prepositions with the name יהוה. How is this asking someone to prove a negative? If that explanation cannot be provided, then that leaves a huge weakness in the position of Jehovists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson 04-25-18, #305;n5228091
    I thought you were saying that Gordon responded to the issue of prefixed prepositions. I never saw such a response from him, and if you’re telling me that I saw all of his responses, then that issue remains unaddressed. https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/th...91#post5228091
    #309 - Graph-Pic

    # 426
    Here is what Nehemia shared with me this weekend (remember I said he was going into this question this weekend):
    "The LaYehovah (B-52 bomber) is discussed in episode 4 as a tangent on the discussion of the Hebrew John from the Vatican."

    Some earlier raw notes:
    ... the forms with the Prefix like lamed etc ... also a guy named Jacob Metz has it in a paper, although he ends up with his own form Yehewah AND .. it came up in Relands Prologue, and was mentioned by Hengstenberg whose section is rather interesting, the concept they throw out is that these prepositional forms support the idea that the vowels are strictly Adonai-based. Gesenius raises the issue.

    here is where Jason put the question out
    https://www.facebook.com/NehemiaGord...07616914332169

    Here is where Kurtz describes Hengstenberg on the preposition prefixes
    https://books.google.co.il/books?id=...AYAAJ&pg=PA183

    While Hengstenberg apparently simply quotes Reland
    https://archive.org/stream/dissertat...e/247/mode/1up
    however, even though it is supposed to be Reland quoted, I have not found this yet in Reland

    The short answer is that Ben Asher and other scribes read the Tetragrammaton as Adonai and leaving the Sheva out following the preposition reflects that. I don't dispute that. However, this actually strengthens my case in the Aleppo Codex! When there is no preposition, they leave out the Cholam, so the word can't be read. When the preposition appears (actually Lamed, Bet, Kaf, and Vav, the last of which is not a preposition) before Adonai it is read Ladonay, Badonay, Kadonay, Vadonay with a silent Aleph. When these same "prepositions" appears before YHVH, there is no Sheva in the Yod, but the Cholam is written! So we have Lahovah, etc.

    Why put in the Cholam in Lahovah, but not in Yehvah (without preposition)? Because in both case, the scribes did not want people to read it Yehovah in accordance with the ban. As soon as they took out the Sheva (to reflect the silent Aleph on Adonai) it was safe to put back in the Cholam! This is actually really huge!

    ahh, neat, and the cholem is consistent in the preposition forms, while rare in the dangerous forms

    I'm compiling precise stats for the Aleppo Codex and will release them (hopefully soon) in a systematic study.
    Also, check out this:
    Jacob Bachrach
    https://books.google.com/books?id=QH...page&q&f=false

    One of my "Ten Rabbis" who addresses the preposition issue in great detail. First, I am working on responding to Jason on the basic paradigm that the scribe knew the name, this effects whether they put in the cholem for Yehovah or Adonai.

    here is the thread
    https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/th...94%D7%95%D7%94
    Backrach discusses 10 issues that reflect the scribal tradition of reading the name as Adonai, which no one has ever disputed (as far as I can recall). He still concludes that Sheva Cholam Kamatz are the vowels of Yehovah.

    Gesenius detail

    The preposition argument is ironic. Generally the people who bring this up, reject the Masoretic vowels as an "invention' of the 7th century. If the vowels were added, then wouldn't the vowel in the preposition be unreliable too?

  4. Default oh, no! - Nehemia used his left hand first in a hand-washing stage presentation :)

    Here is an amazing Jason Hare hobby horse.

    "Jehovah" as the Pronunciation of יהוה
    Jason Hare
    https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/biblical-languages/4840470-jehovah-as-the-pronunciation-of-%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95%D7%94?p=4851929#post4851929

    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson 10-18-2017 #62;n4851929
    Before this question, the only time that I had heard of Nehemia Gordon was from a YouTube video in which he was talking about the takanot of the rabbis and obedience to rabbinic authority – and he demonstrated ritual handwashing for his Christian audience… and he did it wrong (see here [for morning ritual] and here [for before eating]).

    That struck me as odd. Something I learned a long time ago from a Haredi friend is that the first step into religious observance is learning to wash your hands according to the ritual. Why? The first thing you do in the morning – before you utter a single word – is wash your hands. Before you use the restroom, before you kiss your wife, before you eat anything or even say a blessing, you must first have washed your hands upon rising from bed. This is the most basic of the basic when it comes to Jewish ritual. There’s no reason that he should make such an elementary mistake. How could he not know that you always wash the right hand first? Because he never really lived as a non-Karaite Jew. He said in an interview I saw recently that from his youth he understood that the rabbinic law was absurd. He rejected it early on. He does not speak with authority on Jewish practices outside of Karaism.

    That was my first experience of Nehemia Gordon… that he might have a general outlook worth exploring (just as Karaism may be worth exploring), but he is sloppy with the details. I have not sought to discredit him, but he needs to be more precise in the small matters – because the devil is in the details, as they say. Not being precise will, in the end, invalidate the major point he’s trying to make, and that is not a personal attack of any kind.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery Oct 19, 2017, #75;n4853984
    Similarly stupid was his polemic around the fact that Nehmia, in giving a public demonstration to Christians and Messianics, while reciting on a stage in a somewhat rushed presentation, horrified Jason when Nehemia actually pulled a type of metathesis, using the wrong hand first. (At that point, Nehemia was 20+ years removed from his 12 years of Orthodox private schools and the Hebrew University studies with a Masters in Biblical Studies.) Nehemia slipped up on stage! Amazing! Somehow Jason, in his pique about his paper being torn to shreds, decides to make this his new point!
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery 10-19-2018 #76;n4854069
    The atheist whines that the (former) yeshiva bucher made a mistake on stage, albeit one of no real consequence.

    Maybe Nehemia would have never made a good, righteous Pharisee!
    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson 10-20-2017 #77;n4854780
    My comment about how he demonstrated washing his hands was aimed only at credibility. How can he speak credibly about Judaism when he doesn’t even know the ritual for handwashing? That’s an issue, whether you think it is or not. He never lived according to halachic Judaism. He has, since his youth, rejected the Oral Torah and its implications for his life.
    So Jason Hare decided to ignore the response and lie outright.

    " He never lived according to halachic Judaism. He has, since his youth, rejected the Oral Torah and its implications for his life."

    You would think this would end the issue, but Jason Hare is so obsessed with nothing issues and false attacks that he even placed this in a blog a half year later! His first blog post in his blasphemy blog "Jehovah Rants" goes on and on about this:

    It seems to me, though, that Gordon exaggerates his experience with observant Judaism. He says that he was raised in a religious family, but on his Matthew 23 video, he demonstrates handwashing as an example of תַּקָּנוֹת (taqqānôṯ), religious institutions of the rabbis. The problem is that he doesn’t even perform the handwashing ritual properly according to Orthodox Judaism. When you wash your hands, you always begin by washing the right hand. This is written in all instances of discussion of handwashing within Jewish law. The Kitsur Shulchan Aruch (§2.2) says it this way:


    נְטִילַת יָדַיִם שַׁחֲרִית הוּא בְּדֶרֶךְ זֶה: נוֹטֵל אֶת הַכְּלִי בְּיַד יְמִינוֹ וְנוֹתְנוֹ לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ וְשׁוֹפֵךְ תְּחִלָּה עַל יַד יְמִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹטֵל אֶת הַכְּלִי בִּימִינוֹ וְשׁוֹפֵךְ עַל יַד שְׂמֹאל וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים.

    “The morning handwashing ritual is done in this way: You take the vessel with your right hand, pass it to your left and pour it first on the right hand. Afterwards you take it with your right hand and pour it on your left. You do this three times.”

    In his one demonstration of how to perform religious rituals according to rabbinic order, Nehemia Gordon clearly stated that you wash your left hand first. This is a ritual that is done in Orthodox households when you wake up in the morning and before any meal at which bread is served. At least three times a day, every Orthodox Jew washes his hands according to this ritual (with a slight variation between the morning ritual and the pre-meal ritual). There is no way that someone who lived according to Orthodox law and understood it would demonstrate the ritual incorrectly. This calls part of his personal story into question. To what extent did he ever live according to Orthodox law? At what early age did he decide that the tradition wasn’t right? It’s fine for him to take any position that he wishes on the issues, but he should be clearer about the level of observance he once kept.

    This is really a minor issue, but it is related to the lack of precision that we see throughout his arguments.
    When Nehemia saw this being raised by Jason again, he laughed (or at least chuckled.)

    In the first rodeo:

    As I recall I did have a scribal error of metathesis (switching things around) with right and left washing the hands. See, I would not make a righteous Pharisee.
    This I referenced in the discussion.

    And then in the new Jason Hare rodeo:


    If accusing me of being out-of-practice after not observing rabbinical ritual in washing my hands after 20 years (1985 to 2005) is the best he can do, well that's just silly.

  5. Default Megilat Ta'anit - editions, context, translation and the Rosh Hashanah Talmud reference

    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson;n5250593
    Megillat Taanit reads as follows:
    מפני שגזרה מלכות יון הרשעה שמד על ישראל, ואמרו להם כפרו במלכות שמים, ואמרו אין לנו חלק באלהי ישראל, ולא היו מזכירין שם שמים בפיהם. וכשתקפה יד בית חשמונאי התקינו שיהו כותבין שם שמים בשטרות. וכך היו כותבין: בשנת כך וכך ליוחנן כהן גדול דהוא כהן לאל עליון. וכששמעו חכמים בדבר אמרו, וכי מזכירין שם שמים בשטרות, למחר זה פורע את חובו וקורע את שטרו ונמצא שם שמים מוטל באשפה, ובטלום.‏

    Nehemia Gordon decided to deceptively translate it as:

    The Greeks made decrees to eradicate Israel, ordering them to deny the kingdom of heaven, to declare that they have no portion with the God of Israel, and not to mention the heavenly name on their lips.
    This is completely wrong for several reasons. (1) The whole thing starts with the word "because of" (מפני [mipnei]). The phrase ולא היו מזכירין שם שמים בפיהם is the resultant clause of the מפני [mipnei]. It was not part of the Greek command. If it had been, it would be ושלא יזכירו or ושלא יהו מזכירין. That's not what the text says. (2) He ignores everything after the word בפיהם "in their mouths." This ignores the fact that the name in question is אל עליון, not יהוה.

    He either deliberately mistranslated the passage or he is too inept with Hebrew to even realize that he translated it wrongly. Either way, it's wrong – as is his claims about this passage. This passage from the scholion does not declare that the Greeks forbade Jews from using the name YHVH by any stretch of the imagination.

    I have provided a complete (and accurate) translation of the passage on my blog, where I also added vowel points for those who might need them.
    Such a rush to falsely accuse, and then you draw Barry Hofstetter into your snare. Amazing.

    First, you are referencing the following video:

    Information Unleashed - Nehemia Gordon (Open Door Series 13) - NehemiasWall.com (2014) starting at 14:38 - recorded in Fort Lauderdsle, 2011
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BrN...tu.be&t=14m38s


    Also helpful, a short written explanation about the Seleucid Greek persecutions (and the later persecutions at the time of Hadrian.)

    Stand Against the Ban! (2011)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXSU14CloFE

    In 165 B.C., the Greek ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanies put a ban on proclaiming the holy name of the God of Israel. This ban is recorded in ancient Jewish sources: "The Greeks made decrees to eradicate Israel, ordering them to deny the kingdom of heaven, to declare that they have no portion with the God of Israel, and not to mention the name of God on their lips." Scholion on Megilat Ta'anit, 3rd of Tishrei It took one Israelite man and his five sons to stand-up against the pagan king and his unholy commands and to call a remnant of their countrymen to stand with them against the unholy ban. Through three years of desperate fighting, Judah the Maccabee led this remnant in liberating Israel from the iron grip of their Greek persecutors. Their cleansing of the Temple in 165 B.C. was celebrated as the first Hanukkah, the Feast of Dedication. The dedication of the new altar was accompanied by the biblical practice of calling on the name of the God of Israel. This dated back to the time of the Patriarchs who "built an altar there and called on the name of Yehovah" (Genesis
    26:25). ...
    Jason should get a bit more familiar with the material before he jumps to contusions and confusions.

    As for Jason's strained attempt to make an accusation of "deceptively translating":

    1) see below on his text of mipnei and his interpretation
    2) context can always be expanded, and Jason himself ironically does not have the full context. See below.

    Nehemia points out that Jason is referencing one online version of the Scholion. There are several versions and witnesses, and some don't have the word "Mipnei" at all. Nehemia relied on Noam's critical edition of Megillat Ta'anit along with citations. And remember, this was all for a casual talk to mostly laymen, so some condensation and expansion of points is totally proper.

    The context is an introduction connecting the Scroll with the Scholion ([There is no fast] because: ) Nehemia emphasizes that it is helpful to have the larger context, and this is necessary to reach the proper conclusions about the Name. The quotation in Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 18b makes it clear that it was the Greeks who imposed the prohibition, not the Jews refraining out of fear (not that there is much of a difference). So in addition to literary context, it is important to check all the sources and see what is being talked about.

    You can find a translation of the Talmud passage here.

    Talmud - Rosh Hashanah 18b
    William Davidson Talmud:
    https://www.sefaria.org/Rosh_Hashana...h=all&lang2=en

    Rav Aha bar Huna raised an objection: It is stated in Megillat Ta'anit On the third of Tishrei the ordinance requiring the mention of God’s name in legal documents was abolished, and on that day fasting is forbidden. For the kingdom of Greece had issued a decree against the Jews forbidding them to mention the name of Heaven on their lips. When the Hasmonean kingdom became strong and defeated the Greeks, they instituted that people should mention the name of Heaven even in their legal documents. And therefore they would write: In year such and such of Yohanan the High Priest of the God Most High.
    "For the kingdom of Greece had issued a decree against the Jews forbidding them to mention the name of Heaven on their lips."

    From the quotation in the Talmud, it is clear the Greek decree was a prohibition for the Jews to speak the Name.

    So in addition to being more familiar with the context, Nehemia's translation is based on a different text than what Jason Hare references. And his translation is corroborated by the citations of the Scholion in the Babylonian Talmud. Nehemia also shows below the correct way to translate Mipnei(when mipnei is in the ms or edition) Jason's translation of simply "because" was a consequence of Jason's not working with the full context.

    The following was written allowing the Mipnei text, and includes some explanatory context:

    Quote Originally Posted by Nehemia
    It might have been useful to study the context in Megillat Ta'anit. The Scholion (Gemara) is an explanation of an earlier scroll that lists a series of [celebratory] days on which it was forbidden in Second Temple times to fast. The Scholion gives the reason for not fasting on the various days. Many of these reasons begin with Mipnei "Because". The quote from the scroll says: "On the 3rd of Tishrei, the Mentions were abolished from the contracts". The 3rd of Tishrei (ironically) was a day on which it was forbidden to fast. The Scholion explains the reason for the prohibition to fast, opening with "Because: " What follows is the origin of this non-fast day. Mipnei is NOT the reason for the second part of the sentence, it is the reason for the fast! If you have any doubt about this, just go through the list of days, which begin Mipnei!

    The entire section is being introduced with Mipnei as the reason for the non-fast day.

    Shemad is destruction of the Jewish People, understood as stripping us of our faith and observance. Forced conversion and destruction are the same in Jewish sources from Tana'aitic times until the 21st century.

    Azkarah
    is a technical term that often refers to uttering the Tetragrammaton. El Elyon is part of a formula from Genesis 14:22.
    The full formula used by Abraham is Yehovah El Elyon. Melchizedek a few verses earlier speaks generally of El Elyon and then Abram specifies YHVH El Elyon. This is the context of the original scroll referencing Azkarot. "Mentions" is referring to the Tetragrammaton.
    Here is Morris Morris Jastrow on Azakarot:

    A Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature
    https://archive.org/stream/DictionaryOfTargumsTalmudsAndMidrashlit.index.aram hebJastrow.1903.2vols#page/n53/mode/1up/




    Having corrected the false accusation of a mistranslation, and given more context, the post is answered.

    Some more tidbits:

    Note to Jason: Nehemia never claimed the ban on the name continued from the time of the Maccabees. On the contrary, it was an episode of history that would be repeated later.

    (This section not need on CARM or blog, also question whether "Hadrianic persectuion in Megillat Ta'anit" needs a tweak. Plus it may not be in the 2011 video at all.)
    Jason could have offered a minor, valid critique. The Seleucid persecution mentions a ban on the name, whereas the Hadrianic persecution in Megillat Ta'anit does not. Nehemia was inferring that Hadrian copied Antiochus. This would have been a valid point to make. Nehemia relies on other sources to get to Hadrian. crawomg an analogy between the Seleucid Greek persecution and the Hadrianic Roman persecution. Admittedly, this was an extrapolation, but one corroborated by the account of Hanina Ben Teradion and some other evidence that Nehemia will present in a future study.

    ==========

    It is good to avoid Kol HaPosel BeMumo Posel. כָּל הַפּוֹסֵל בְּמוּמוֹ פּוֹסֵל - Kidushin 70b.

    Jason uses the internet edition and doesn't bother to check if there is another version before accusing Nehemia of being deceptive and/or inept.
    Jason may want to rewrite or delete his blog post.

  6. Default

    Final CARM Version
    https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/th...64#post5252264

    =====================

    Now, lets go into the blog post from Jason that tries to accuse Nehemia of "deceptively mistranslated" and related attacks.

    =====================

    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson;n5250593
    Megillat Taanit reads as follows:
    מפני שגזרה מלכות יון הרשעה שמד על ישראל, ואמרו להם כפרו במלכות שמים, ואמרו אין לנו חלק באלהי ישראל, ולא היו מזכירין שם שמים בפיהם. וכשתקפה יד בית חשמונאי התקינו שיהו כותבין שם שמים בשטרות. וכך היו כותבין: בשנת כך וכך ליוחנן כהן גדול דהוא כהן לאל עליון. וכששמעו חכמים בדבר אמרו, וכי מזכירין שם שמים בשטרות, למחר זה פורע את חובו וקורע את שטרו ונמצא שם שמים מוטל באשפה, ובטלום.



    Nehemia Gordon decided to deceptively translate it as:

    The Greeks made decrees to eradicate Israel, ordering them to deny the kingdom of heaven, to declare that they have no portion with the God of Israel, and not to mention the heavenly name on their lips.

    This is completely wrong for several reasons. (1) The whole thing starts with the word "because of" (מפני [mipnei]). The phrase ולא היו מזכירין שם שמים בפיהם is the resultant clause of the מפני [mipnei]. It was not part of the Greek command. If it had been, it would be ושלא יזכירו or ושלא יהו מזכירין. That's not what the text says. (2) He ignores everything after the word בפיהם "in their mouths." This ignores the fact that the name in question is אל עליון, not יהוה.

    He either deliberately mistranslated the passage or he is too inept with Hebrew to even realize that he translated it wrongly. Either way, it's wrong – as is his claims about this passage. This passage from the scholion does not declare that the Greeks forbade Jews from using the name YHVH by any stretch of the imagination.

    I have provided a complete (and accurate) translation of the passage on my blog, where I also added vowel points for those who might need them.
    Such a rush to falsely accuse.
    "deliberately mistranslated the passage or he is too inept with Hebrew"
    - wow, and all this is based on Jameson's lack of familiarity with the material.

    Here is the basic problem in a nutshell, the fundamental textual aspect:

    Quote Originally Posted by Nehemia Gordon
    Megillat Ta'anit survives in many versions with variations. In the version quoted in the Babylonian Talmud, the Seleucid Greeks prohibit the Jews from speaking God's name. The main issue here is not translation, but of textual variants in the preservation of Megillat Ta'anit.
    ================

    Jameson is referencing the following video:

    Information Unleashed - Nehemia Gordon (Open Door Series 13) - NehemiasWall.com (2014) starting at 14:38 - recorded in Fort Lauderdsle, 2011 (easy to find in youtube, we have CARM url limitations per post.)

    Also helpful, a short written explanation about the Seleucid Greek persecutions (and the later persecutions at the time of Hadrian.)

    Stand Against the Ban! (2011)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXSU14CloFE

    In 165 B.C., the Greek ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanies put a ban on proclaiming the holy name of the God of Israel. This ban is recorded in ancient Jewish sources: "The Greeks made decrees to eradicate Israel, ordering them to deny the kingdom of heaven, to declare that they have no portion with the God of Israel, and not to mention the name of God on their lips." Scholion on Megilat Ta'anit, 3rd of Tishrei It took one Israelite man and his five sons to stand-up against the pagan king and his unholy commands and to call a remnant of their countrymen to stand with them against the unholy ban. Through three years of desperate fighting, Judah the Maccabee led this remnant in liberating Israel from the iron grip of their Greek persecutors. Their cleansing of the Temple in 165 B.C. was celebrated as the first Hanukkah, the Feast of Dedication. The dedication of the new altar was accompanied by the biblical practice of calling on the name of the God of Israel. This dated back to the time of the Patriarchs who "built an altar there and called on the name of Yehovah" (Genesis 26:25). ...
    ================

    Jason should get a bit more familiar with the material before he jumps to conclusions, especially accusation conclusions.
    As for Jason's strained attempt to make an accusation of "deceptively mistranslating", it is based on his own lack of familiarity with the material.

    As for his specific 1-2

    (1) see below on his text of mipnei and Jameson's interpretation
    (2) context can always be expanded, and Jason himself ironically does not have the full context, using an uninformative online edition only.

    Nehemia points out that Jason is referencing one online version of the Scholion. There are several versions and witnesses, and some don't have the word "Mipnei" at all. Nehemia relied on Noam's critical edition of Megillat Ta'anit along with citations. And remember, this was all for a casual talk to mostly laymen, so some condensation and expansion of points is totally proper. As long as it fits the full context.

    As for the section, the context is an introduction connecting the Scroll with the Scholion ([There is no fast] because: ) The larger context is necessary to reach the proper conclusions about the Name. The quotation in Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 18b makes it clear that it was the Greeks who imposed the prohibition, not the Jews refraining out of fear (not that there is much of a difference). So in addition to literary context, it is important to check all the sources and see what is being talked about.

    You can find a translation of the Talmud passage here.

    Talmud - Rosh Hashanah 18b
    William Davidson Talmud:
    https://www.sefaria.org/Rosh_Hashana...h=all&lang2=en

    Rav Aha bar Huna raised an objection: It is stated in Megillat Ta'anit On the third of Tishrei the ordinance requiring the mention of God’s name in legal documents was abolished, and on that day fasting is forbidden. For the kingdom of Greece had issued a decree against the Jews forbidding them to mention the name of Heaven on their lips. When the Hasmonean kingdom became strong and defeated the Greeks, they instituted that people should mention the name of Heaven even in their legal documents. And therefore they would write: In year such and such of Yohanan the High Priest of the God Most High.
    "For the kingdom of Greece had issued a decree against the Jews forbidding them to mention the name of Heaven on their lips."

    From the quotation in the Talmud, it is clear the Greek decree was a prohibition for the Jews to speak the Name.

    So in addition to being more familiar with the context, Nehemia's translation is based on a different text than what Jason Hare references. And his translation is corroborated by the citations of the Scholion in the Babylonian Talmud.

    Nehemia also shows below the correct way to translate Mipnei (when mipnei is in the ms or edition) Jason's translation of simply "because" was a consequence of Jason's not working with the full context.

    The following was written allowing the Mipnei text, and includes some explanatory context:

    Quote Originally Posted by Nehemia Gordon
    It might have been useful to study the context in Megillat Ta'anit. The Scholion (Gemara) is an explanation of an earlier scroll that lists a series of [celebratory] days on which it was forbidden in Second Temple times to fast. The Scholion gives the reason for the fast on the various days. Many of these reasons begin with Mipnei "Because". The quote from the scroll says: "On the 3rd of Tishrei, the Mentions were abolished from the contracts". The 3rd of Tishrei (ironically) was a day on which it was forbidden to fast. The Scholion explains the reason for the prohibition to fast, opening with "Because: " What follows is the origin of this non-fast day. Mipnei is NOT the reason for the second part of the sentence, it is the reason for not fasting! If you have any doubt about this, just go through the list of days, which begin Mipnei!

    The entire section is being introduced with Mipnei as the reason for the non-fast day.

    Shemad is destruction of the Jewish People, understood as stripping us of our faith and observance. Forced conversion and destruction are the same in Jewish sources from Tana'aitic times until the 21st century.

    Azkarah is a technical term that often refers to uttering the Tetragrammaton. El Elyon is part of a formula from Genesis 14:22.
    The full formula used by Abraham is Yehovah El Elyon. Melchizedek a few verses earlier speaks generally of El Elyon and then Abram specifies YHVH El Elyon. This is the context of the original scroll referencing Azkarot. "Mentions" is referring to the Tetragrammaton.
    Here is Morris Jastrow on Azakarot:

    A Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (1903)
    (hosted on archive.org)

    Having corrected the totally false accusation of a deceptive mistranslation, and given more context, the post is answered.

    Some more tidbits:

    Note to Jason:
    Nehemia never claimed the ban on the name continued from the time of the Maccabees.
    On the contrary, it was an episode of history that would be repeated later.

    ==========

    It is good to avoid Kol HaPosel BeMumo Posel. כָּל הַפּוֹסֵל בְּמוּמוֹ פּוֹסֵל - Kidushin 70b.

    Jason uses the internet edition and doesn't bother to check if there is another version before accusing Nehemia of being deceptive and/or inept. Oops.

    Suggestion:: Jason may want to rewrite or delete his blog post.

    ===========

    All the material above is from Nehemia Gordon. In a couple of especially important places I made sure to quote his words exactly, with the quote-box. Since our chat was informal, the tweaks in the other spots are designed simply to fit the forum posting environment.

  7. Default

    Deleted and then put back in partly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson;n5252389
    Again, the text is talking about El Elyon, not YHVH.
    An interesting dynamic. The blog page does not have Jameson's typical vicious accusations, like those involving swindler, inept in Hebrew and deceptively mistranslating. At least not that I have seen.

    Yet, as soon as Jameson comes over to CARM, he goes into that mode. Barry Hofstetter similarly joins him (without any real scholarship contribution attempt.) Jameson will attack falsely, and then be sure to bypass his own errors. And not make the proper corrections (as we see also in the original Jehovah paper). And Jameson does not want to actually get a wider context, and correct and improve his limited understanding of the issues and the words, like with Mipnei and Azkarot.

    Let's read what Wilkinson says about the era.
    The section title is p. 178, the text is p. 179.

    Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God: From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century
    Robert John Wilkinson
    https://books.google.co.il/books?id=...AQBAJ&pg=PA179

    The Tetragrammaton in the Mishnah and Talmud
    ....
    The Babylonian Talmud also offers a report of how it was later considered that the ban had started:

    The [ Seleucid | Greeks decreed that the name of God may not be spoken aloud; but when he Hasmoneans grew in strength and defeated them they decreed that the name of God he used even in contracts... when the Rabbis heard about this they said, ‘Tomorrow this person will pay his debt and the contract will be thrown on a garbage heap [thus defiling the Name of God]’ so they forbade its use in contracts.2

    2.b.R.SH.18b
    Notice that Wilkinson, using he same section of the Talmud that Nehemia quoted above (in a different edition and translation) comes to the same conclusion as Nehemia, that the tetragrammaton may not be spoken aloud.

    And Wilkinson similarly uses a bit of shorthand, and he is working in a rigorous, scholarly book. Rather than a casual presentation to a lay audience.

    Jameson has frequently referenced how Wilkinson has been a main source of information on the tetragram. Now, if Jameson were consistent, he would go into rant mode against Wilkinson, call him inept and/or deceptive. Maybe a swindler, too.

    Jameson could have made a respectable scholarly presentation. He could even have questioned some conclusions of Robert John Wilkinson and Nehemia Gordon, in an edifying scholarship manner. Instead, he went his typical route, of trying to fabricate motives falsely as a base an ad hominem approach to the questions at hand. If he can give the false impression that he is more skilled in Hebrew and more familiar with the rabbinical material, and that Nehemia Gordon's contributions should be dismissed because of lack of skills and improper motives, it will help his attempt to "nibble at the edges" of the Jehovist position (ignoring major arguments and contending some minors.)

    In essence Jameson's approach has been like this:

    "Nehemia Gordon is a swindler, who is actually inept in Hebrew and/or will approach topics in order to deliberately deceive the gullible readers"

    All of the terms in the absurd accusation are in Jameson's writings on this forum in the last month, and more.

    And then, to top it off, the railing accuser Jason whines that Nehemia passed on personally answering all his questions. Amazing.

    This post is all my material, sans consultation with Nehemia ...except that Nehemia wondered if Jason had learned about Mipnei and Azkarot and whether he remained in Accusation City (my term.)

    Steven
    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson;n5252389
    Again, the text is talking about El Elyon, not YHVH.
    An interesting dynamic. The blog page does not have Jameson's typical vicious accusations, like those involving swindler, inept in Hebrew and deceptively mistranslating. At least not that I have seen.

    Yet, as soon as Jameson comes over to CARM, he goes into that mode. Barry Hofstetter similarly joins him (without any real scholarship contribution attempt.) Jameson will attack falsely, and then be sure to bypass his own errors. And not make the proper corrections (as we see also in the original Jehovah paper). And Jameson does not want to actually get a wider context, and correct and improve his limited understanding of the issues and the words, like with Mipnei and Azkarot.

    Let's read what Wilkinson says about the era.
    The section title is p. 178, the text is p. 179.

    Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God: From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century
    Robert John Wilkinson
    https://books.google.co.il/books?id=...AQBAJ&pg=PA179

    The Tetragrammaton in the Mishnah and Talmud
    ....
    The Babylonian Talmud also offers a report of how it was later considered that the ban had started:

    The [ Seleucid | Greeks decreed that the name of God may not be spoken aloud; but when he Hasmoneans grew in strength and defeated them they decreed that the name of God he used even in contracts... when the Rabbis heard about this they said, ‘Tomorrow this person will pay his debt and the contract will be thrown on a garbage heap [thus defiling the Name of God]’ so they forbade its use in contracts.2

    2.b.R.SH.18b
    Notice that Wilkinson, using he same section of the Talmud that Nehemia quoted above (in a different edition and translation) comes to the same conclusion as Nehemia, that the tetragrammaton may not be spoken aloud.

    And Wilkinson similarly uses a bit of shorthand, and he is working in a rigorous, scholarly book. Rather than a casual presentation to a lay audience.

    Jameson has frequently referenced how Wilkinson has been a main source of information on the tetragram. Now, if Jameson were consistent, he would go into rant mode against Wilkinson, call him inept and/or deceptive. Maybe a swindler, too.

    Jameson could have made a respectable scholarly presentation. He could even have questioned some conclusions of Robert John Wilkinson and Nehemia Gordon, in an edifying scholarship manner. Instead, he went his typical route, of trying to fabricate motives falsely as a base an ad hominem approach to the questions at hand. If he can give the false impression that he is more skilled in Hebrew and more familiar with the rabbinical material, and that Nehemia Gordon's contributions should be dismissed because of lack of skills and improper motives, it will help his attempt to "nibble at the edges" of the Jehovist position (ignoring major arguments and contending some minors.)

    In essence Jameson's approach has been like this:

    "Nehemia Gordon is a swindler, who is actually inept in Hebrew and/or will approach topics in order to deliberately deceive the gullible readers"

    All of the terms in the absurd accusation are in Jameson's writings on this forum in the last month, and more.

    And then, to top it off, the railing accuser Jason whines that Nehemia passed on personally answering all his questions. Amazing.

    This post is all my material, sans consultation with Nehemia ...except that Nehemia wondered if Jason had learned about Mipnei and Azkarot and whether he remained in Accusation City (my term.)

    Steven

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •