Deleted and then put back in partly.
Jameson;n5252389 said:
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
Jameson;n5252389 said:
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