The trial as per the gospels vs. Jewish law

[dybmh]

It seems to suggest that someone has drained the Name of its holiness, lessened the glory or holiness of the Name.

That would be a Chillul HaShem. Desecrating the name. I think what you're observing is that the NT and Christianity in general simplifies Judaism while at that same time forcing things into an exaggerated black/white dynamic. We ran into this same problem with betulah/almah vigin/young-woman. The NT doesn't distinguish between these two different words.

 

[John D. Brey]

In the words of legal scholars (why would you want my words when there are experts?) "These are the laws which govern a blasphemer: A blasphemer is not liable to be stoned to death until he states God's unique name, which possesses four letters: א-ד-נ-י, and curses that name with one of the names of God which are forbidden to be erased," That's it. Here are some examples

What does it mean to curse Adonai with one of the names of God which are forbidden to be erased? I can't parse that? What does it mean to say a name of God is "forbidden to be erased"? And how do you curse Adonai with one of those names? Am I just slow or what? I can't make heads or tails of what you're implying is Simple Simon.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

It seems peculiar at best to say מְגַדֵּף הַיְינוּ מְבָרֵךְ הַשֵּׁם is very clear? How is blessing ברך the same as cursing? How do you curse God by blessing God?

You don't understand how the talmud works then, or Hebrew language.

Does that make me too little in your eyes to explain it to me? I state that I don't see how blessing is cursing and you say that means I don't understand how the Talmud works without showing me the courtesy to explain how blessing is cursing in the Talmud. And this, after you said the statement that cursing is blessing is simple. Maybe it's simple to you. But it's clearly not simple to a simpleton like me.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The word נקב ---generally used for "blaspheme" ––––means to "pierce," "hollow,"or "bore out." It seems to suggest that someone has drained the Name of its holiness, lessened the glory or holiness of the Name. If that be the case, then a mere man claiming to be God is seemingly draining the holiness and glory of divinity by implying it can fit inside the body of a man without being drained of any of its highness or prestige? In this sense Jesus would be both and idolator and a blasphemer for lessening the Name, boring it out and draining it of its prestige or holiness, while at the same time implying that he himself is worthy of the Name.

So you take a word that means (among other things), "pronounce" and use the Strong's/KJV's (incorrect) translation of "blaspheme" (when, no, it is not used for blaspheme) and then try to connect it to another definition of the n-q-b and move symbolically to the story which drives your entire thinking so that you can connect it all. Have fun with that, but once it is built on error, only error ensues.

I have no clue what you're talking about since נקב is found in Leviticus 24 as the consonants translated "blaspheme"?

​

ונקב שם AND HE THAT UTTERETH BLASPHEMOUSLY THE NAME [OF THE LORD SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — He is not liable to the death-penalty at the hand of the judges unless he utters the Divine Tetragrammaton blasphemously, but not if he execrateth the Lord by only mention of one of the substitutes for the Divine name (e. g., רחום, חנון, אל etc.), (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 5; Sanhedrin 56a).​

​

Rashi on Leviticus 24:16.​

I never use Strong׳s. I looked at Klein Dictionary, Gesenius, BDB, HAL, and DBL Hebrew. All of them note that נקב (which is used for "blaspheme" in Leviticus) means to bore a hole, hollow something out, pierce, deflower, and a number of other things. Shouldn't the Talmud clarify and explain the Torah, rather than the Torah being considered commentary on the Talmud? Which is to say, wouldn't we want to see what the Torah says about blasphemy and then get clarification from the Talmud, rather than seeing what the Talmud says, and secondarily getting confirmation, or commentary on the Talmud, from the Torah?

Fwiw, Rashi seems to be implying that the death penalty is related to blasphemy in relationship to the Tetragrammaton (Adonai) but not another, or other divine Names. But as I stated previously, the Gospels aren't written in Hebrew. So to know if someone blasphemed the Tetragrammaton (Adonai) requires knowing how Adonai is spoken of, or misspoken for, in Koine Greek? To know if Jesus blasphemed in relationship to the Tetragrammaton would require knowing how the Tetragrammaton is spoken of in the Koine Greek of the New Testament. Did you, or any of your sources, research how the Tetragrammaton would be spoken of, or misspoken for, in Koine Greek? Without the exegesis concerning that question I don't see how it's possible to imply Jesus couldn't have been tried for blasphemy?



John

 

[1213]

According to Roman historians, Pilate was recalled to Rome for being overly brutal. He was eventually removed, although I can't remember what the reason was.

Interesting, do you know a source for that information?

 

[1213]

If Jesus did not "die for our sins" how would we be saved?

I believe people are saved by that sins are forgiven. That way one can avoid the wage of sin, which is death. Jesus had right to forgive sins before he was killed. And that way people can be saved.

And seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, Child, your sins are forgiven to you. But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, Why does this one speak blasphemies this way? Who is able to forgive sins, except One, God? And instantly knowing in His spirit that they reasoned this way within themselves, Jesus said to them, Why do you reason these things in your hearts? Which is easier? To say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven to you, or to say, Rise up and take your cot and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority to forgive sins on the earth, He said to the paralytic, I say to you, Rise up and take up your cot and go to your house.
Mark 2:5-11

Also disciples of Jesus have the right to forgive sins:

Of whomever you forgive the sins, they are forgiven to them. Or whomever you may retain, they are retained.
John 20:23

Death is not necessary in that.

 

[Colt]

Interesting, do you know a source for that information?

wiki:

Although Pilate is the best-attested governor of Judaea, few sources regarding his rule have survived. Nothing is known about his life before he became governor of Judaea, and nothing is known about the circumstances that led to his appointment to the governorship.[8] Coins that he minted have survived from Pilate's governorship, as well as a single inscription, the so-called Pilate stone. The Jewish historian Josephus, the philosopher Philo of Alexandria and the Gospel of Luke all mention incidents of tension and violence between the Jewish population and Pilate's administration. Many of these incidents involve Pilate acting in ways that offended the religious sensibilities of the Jews. The Christian Gospels record that Pilate ordered the crucifixion of Jesus at some point during his time in office; Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus also record this information. According to Josephus, Pilate's removal from office occurred because he violently suppressed an armed Samaritan movement at Mount Gerizim. He was sent back to Rome by the legate of Syria to answer for this incident before Tiberius, but the emperor died before Pilate arrived in Rome.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is not one shred of evidence that Jesus was a political activist. You are assuming Jesus must have been a political agitator and since Rome was always brutal towards uprisings therefore Pilate crucified him. Huge stretch to create that position. While historical sources do note that Pilate had violent conflict with the Jews.

Agitator?!?!? Jesus claimed to be the promised Messiah and the King of the Jews which is a claim for establishing the Independent kingdom and rebellion against Rome punishable by crucifixion.

 

[rosends]

What does it mean to curse Adonai with the one of the names of God which are forbidden to be erased? I can't parse that? What does it mean to say a name of God is "forbidden to be erased"? And how do you curse Adonai with one of those names? Am I just slow or what? I can't make heads or tails of what you're implying is Simple Simon.



John

These are simple elements of Jewish law. Certain names, when written cannot be erased. Using one of these names in a formulaic statement which curses God is blasphemy. That's it.

 

[rosends]

Does that make me too little in your eyes to explain it to me? I state that I don't see how blessing is cursing and you say that means I don't understand how the Talmud works without showing me the courtesy to explain how blessing is cursing in the Talmud. And this, after you said the statement that cursing is blessing is simple. Maybe it's simple to you. But it's clearly not simple to a simpleton like me.



John

I would have thought with your extensive reading of Judaic texts that you would have run into words like קדשה. Are you unfamiliar with לשון סגי נהור?

 

[rosends]

I have no clue what you're talking about since נקב is found in Leviticus 24 as the consonants translated "blaspheme"?

​

ונקב שם AND HE THAT UTTERETH BLASPHEMOUSLY THE NAME [OF THE LORD SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — He is not liable to the death-penalty at the hand of the judges unless he utters the Divine Tetragrammaton blasphemously, but not if he execrateth the Lord by only mention of one of the substitutes for the Divine name (e. g., רחום, חנון, אל etc.), (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 5; Sanhedrin 56a).​

​

Rashi on Leviticus 24:16.​

Here's the error writ in large. The kjv chooses the word "blaspheme" so you decide n()qb means blaspheme. But it doesn't. The verse in Lev speaks of one who mentions the name as part of the curse which would then qualify as a blesphemy. If you want an example of its meaning "curse" (but not "blaspheme) try Num 23:25 That, in whole, creates "blasphemy" but the ingredient is not the same as the end result. Start with a translation that doesn't put the cart before the horse.

I never use Strong׳s. I looked at Klein Dictionary, Gesenius, BDB, HAL, and DBL Hebrew. All of them note that נקב (which is used for "blaspheme" in Leviticus)

Only in bad translation

means to bore a hole, hollow something out, pierce, deflower, and a number of other things

But not blaspheme

. Shouldn't the Talmud clarify and explain the Torah, rather than the Torah being considered commentary on the Talmud? Which is to say, wouldn't we want to see what the Torah says about blasphemy and then get clarification from the Talmud, rather than seeing what the Talmud says, and secondarily getting confirmation, or commentary on the Talmud, from the Torah?

The two are complementary. The biblical text gives the case and parameters and the Talmud shows the underpinnings.

Fwiw, Rashi seems to be implying that the death penalty is related to blasphemy in relationship to the Tetragrammaton (Adonai) but not another, or other divine Names.

Not every commentator agrees with that limitation but all agree with the structure of what has to be said. Check out the Rambam " וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁמְּפָרֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל שֵׁם יוּ''ד הֵ''א וָא''ו הֵ''א וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁעַל שְׁנֵיהֶם הוּא נִסְקָל:"

But as I stated previously, the Gospels aren't written in Hebrew. So to know if someone blasphemed the Tetragrammaton (Adonai) requires knowing how Adonai is spoken of, or misspoken for, in Koine Greek?

Or the Greek text is a telling of an event that took place in Hebrew. Either way, there was no blasphemy. It isn't about whether he used a name but whether he said the particular formula for a curse.

 

[metis]

Interesting, do you know a source for that information?

I got it originally from a close friend of mine who's an amateur Roman historian but have seen it mentioned again from other sources. This link I'll provide you is not one of my sources but may deal with your question:
According to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (18.4.1–2), Pilate's removal as governor occurred after Pilate slaughtered a group of armed Samaritans at a village called Tirathana near Mount Gerizim, where they hoped to find artifacts that had been buried there by Moses... -- Pontius Pilate - Wikipedia

I obviously did not quote most of this as it's quite long, so please keep reading after the one sentence above.

 

[John D. Brey]

I would have thought with your extensive reading of Judaic texts that you would have run into words like קדשה. Are you unfamiliar with לשון טגי נהור?

Unfortunately there seems to be a truism that almost no amount of study can make up for having been born into, and raised in, a given tradition. There are still so many things I don't know or understand about Jewish tradition, which, my lack of knowledge, bollixes up fluid debate with those who've been born into, and raised in, the tradition.

The same is true concerning Jewish understanding of many Christian concepts. I recently read Professor Shaye JD Cohen's book on Jewish circumcision, and though it was encyclopedic in scope, his take on Christian concepts concerning Jewish circumcision showed, in some places, the shallowest of true understandings of how Christian doctrine treats circumcision. Which is to say, that his research is extensive and extremely deep, and yet, not having grown up in the Christian tradition, not having been immersed in it day after day, year after year, makes it impossible to fully grasp it and understand all the subtle nuances through academic study.

It's so difficult for Jews and Christians to dialogue seamlessly for the very reason that we're immersed in unique and intricate traditions related to the biblical text. It often seems to us that the other party is not playing fair, when in truth they're often simply taking certain things for granted that are the foundation of a tradition they know in a living way, while the other party is trying to grasp it through academic investigation.



John

 

[dybmh]

wouldn't we want to see what the Torah says about blasphemy and then get clarification from the Talmud, rather than seeing what the Talmud says, and secondarily getting confirmation, or commentary on the Talmud, from the Torah?

This is a wonderful answer to your question from one of your favorite Rabbis.

Oral Letter and Written Trace: Samson Raphael Hirsch's Defense of the Bible and Talmud

Oral Letter and Written Trace: Samson Raphael Hirsch's Defense of the Bible and Talmud

www.academia.edu

 

[John D. Brey]

Here's the error writ in large. The kjv chooses the word "blaspheme" so you decide n()qb means blaspheme. But it doesn't. The verse in Lev speaks of one who mentions the name as part of the curse which would then qualify as a blesphemy. If you want an example of its meaning "curse" (but not "blaspheme) try Num 23:25 That, in whole, creates "blasphemy" but the ingredient is not the same as the end result. Start with a translation that doesn't put the cart before the horse.

Here's the error from my perspective. The JPS chooses the word "blaspheme." In the JPS Miqra'ot Gedolot, I read Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et. al., all speaking of "blasphemy"? I go to the Hirsch Chumash and read of "blasphemy." And the word found in Leviticus 24, נקב, is the place-holder for all this "blasphemy."

Setting aside a discussion of what constitutes the "blasphemy," it's difficult to understand how, with such a broad spectrum of witnesses, you should, or could, say the consonants נקב aren't, or shouldn't be, translated, "to blaspheme," or "blasphemy"?

Now if the consonants נקב are the grammatical marker used so speak of "blasphemy," and as best I can tell they are, at least at Leviticus 24, then something about the arrangement of those consonants, the meaning of that word, serves to speak of "blasphemy." So when I go to the various lexicons to see why those particular consonants are used to speak of "blasphemy" I find that in its generality the word means "to bore," "pierce," "hollow out," among other things.

Only in bad translation

I haven't yet found a translation of Leviticus 24 that doesn't translate נקב "blaspheme"?




John

 

[John D. Brey]

This is a wonderful answer to your question from one of your favorite Rabbis.

Oral Letter and Written Trace: Samson Raphael Hirsch's Defense of the Bible and Talmud

Oral Letter and Written Trace: Samson Raphael Hirsch's Defense of the Bible and Talmud

www.academia.edu

I want to give that a full and careful reading (and I will). But before reading it I'll note that you must have been reading my mind since Rabbi Hirsch's explanation of the oral (unwritten) part of the text is precisely what came to my mind in how rosends is approaching the word נקב.

In a nutshell, Hirsch notes that without knowledge of the unspoken part of the Law, much of the written part is tautological. For instance, an example Hirsch gives is Moses telling Israel to prepare the Peshat. Hirsch says that Moses tells Israel to prepare the Peshat, before the written text has even stated what that means. So if someone asks "What does it mean to prepare the Peshat," and someone answers, "Precisely what is said: Prepare the Peshat," we have the tautology that the Peshat is the Peshat, without any information given to to help someone who doesn't know what that means. If someone was told privately (i.e., from mouth to ear) what it means to prepare the Peshat, then Moses' commandment is meaningful as written. But if a person wasn't privy to what was passed on mouth to ear, Moses statement is woefully incomplete.

Rabbi Hirsch is clear that the entire Law, as written, can't be interpreted without access to an oral element that isn't itself given with the written text. What this means, is that the written Torah is incomplete as written. Those people who believe the written Torah is self-contained, that it can be understood and interpreted just from what is written in it, are incorrect and have no genuine ability to deal with the written text properly. All they can do is read what someone has interpreted and translated the text to be saying; they're like little chicks being fed food that's already been chewed.

Voila. We come to the distinction between the Talmud versus the Gospels. The Talmud and the Gospels are two distinct, and different, oral traditions, one or both of which are absolutely required to interpret the written Torah.

The Talmud isn't just Jewish sages debating their various interpretations of the written text. The Chazal are fully aware that the written text is more like a body without a soul, than a living, breathing, complete, entity. For a knowledgeable Jew, the written Torah (without the Talmud) is more like a golem than a living soul. The same is true for the Christian: you need the oral tradition given in the Gospels to function, for Christians, as the Talmud functions for Jews ---i.e., as the blood, the soul, that must be put into the dead, or inert, letters, consonants, if they're to speak as a living man rather than chatter and repeat what they've been told to say by the masters of a given tradition.

The Masoretic Text is a pre-chewed interpretation of the Torah text. It's not the simple reading of a text. It's a reading of the text informed by the traditional Jewish spirit found in the Talmud. Anyone who's read Derrida's Of Grammatology, would likely be aware that in the minds of those who understand the nature of a written text, all text is like the Torah text: incomplete without a presupposition being added to make the text parturient so that it gives birth to meaning. The simpleton who believes what he reads out of the text was already there without him adding his pre-text is engaging a pretext that births gross errors. It would be similar to a scene in Blue Lagoon where the guy stares at the enlarging stomach of the girl wondering when and why she ate enough to cause that giant beer gut?

In grotesquery of biblical proportions, most Christians are the midwifes of Judaism since they cloth, feed, and care for the offspring of the Talmud and the Torah text (i.e., the Masoretic Text) utterly blind and ignorant to the fact that the mother of that child gave birth, secondarily, to a child with a red string attached to his wrist ---- the Gospel interpretation of the Torah text. The MT and the Gospels are blood-brothers such that it shouldn't be surprising that the firstborn of this textual Eve (the virgin Torah text informed and inseminated by the tradition later codified in the Talmud) would seek to kill the second born firstborn. There's nothing opaque about the fact that the reading of the written Torah come from the Talmudic tradition (i.e., the MT) would lead to the death of the firstborn who was born second. Nevertheless, we need both the Talmud and the Gospels to figure out why Cain killed Abel as the primary act of the alleged, messianic, firstborn of creation? When Jews and Christians understand that, they'll quit killing each other, and get their act together to usher in the Kingdom of God.

It's important to note that in the Talmud and the NT, Cain is the bad guy, a murderer, irredeemable, but that's not the case where the Talmud and the Gospels go to the Torah text hand in hand. There's things in both oral traditions that reveal a layer of the story of Cain and Abel that's not available to the reader until they know what Cain and Abel discussed outside Cain's doorway before they headed out to the field. That discussion can be born out of the text if we use a circumcised oral tradition to impregnate the text. . . It's in the text, as an unfertilized ovum is in a womb. And it can be brought out of the text in a manner whereby it can be shown after the fact that the DNA of that hidden discussion indeed came out of the text itself and was not merely a brother from another mother.



John

 

[rosends]

Here's the error from my perspective. The JPS chooses the word "blaspheme."

But the JPS was built on the KJV. Using it is a bad decision.

In the JPS Miqra'ot Gedolot, I read Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et. al., all speaking of "blasphemy"?

Which Rashbam? On Lev 24:11 he says "mention" and doesn't comment on the word in 24:16. The Ibn Ezra on 16 speaks of mentioning the name and cursing it. On 24:11 he writes "יש אומרים שפירושו ויפרש" (there are those who say that its meaning is 'an he pronounced') and that is the explanation he prefers. Mention, not "blaspheme. They are talking about the components that qualify as "blasphemy" -- mentioning God's name and cursing it.

I go to the Hirsch Chumash and read of "blasphemy." And the word found in Leviticus 24, נקב, is the place-holder for all this "blasphemy."

No, you don't. If you look at Hirsch on 24:11-16 you will see the English word "pronounced" for Vayikov. The "blasphemed" would be his understanding of "vayikalel" (which means "cursed) -- Hirsch is explaining that the specific combination of mentioning and cursing equals blaspheming. In the later verse you will note how he adds "blasphemes" in brackets to clarify the translation of "pronounces" which he has for n-q-b.

Setting aside a discussion of what constitutes the "blasphemy," it's difficult to understand how, with such a broad spectrum of witnesses, you should, or could, say the consonants נקב aren't, or shouldn't be, translated, "to blaspheme," or "blasphemy"?

How can you with all the sources I have given, continue to insist that it means blasphemy?

I haven't yet found a translation of Leviticus 24 that doesn't translate נקב "blaspheme"?




John

On 24:11 (vayikov)

The 2006 JPS reads " pronounced the Name in blasphemy,"
The Judaica Press has "pronounced" for vayikov and later, "blasphemously pronounces" for the context in which it is pronounced.
The Brenton Septuagint Translation has "named THE NAME"
the God's Word translation has "began cursing the LORD's name"
The Literal Standard Version has "execrates the Name and reviles"
The New American Bible has "uttered the LORD’s name"
The Stone edition has "pronounced the name "
The Aramaic Onkelos reads "וּפָרֵשׁ" (pronounces)

On 24:16 (v'nokev)
The 2006 JOS has "uttered the LORD’s name"
The Aramaic Bible in Plain English has "who ever will execrate the Name of LORD"
Brenton reads "names the name of the Lord"
God's Word has "curse the LORD's name"
The Good News translation has "curse the LORD's name"
(Literal Standard and New American repeat their translations listed above)
NET Bible has "misuses the name"
The Stone Chumash has "pronounces blasphemously"
The Metsudah Chumash has "pronounces clearly the Name of Adonoy [and blasphemes]" (note the interpretive insertion in brackets as opposed to the translation, not in brackets)
Shraga Silverstein's translation has "indites the Name of the L-rd"
The Targum reads "וְדִי פָרֵשׁ שְׁמָא" which, as I'm sure you know, simply means "pronounces"


Hope these resources help.

 

[John D. Brey]

They are talking about the components that qualify as "blasphemy" -- mentioning God's name and cursing it.

Right. I understand that much. It's the fact that the word that condenses the cursing into a distinct category is נקב that seems to be the problem.

You seem to be taking a tautology as self-evident, which it is, and then assuming it tells us something that's not tautological? For instance, in the equation 1 + 1 = 2, we have a tautology since 2 is self-evident already in 1 + 1. The "= 2" implies the adding (no pun intended) of "= 2" is telling us something we don't already see without it being added, i.e, 1 + 1. But "= 2" is really just repeating what we already see before the "= 2" is added, i.e., 1 +1 ----- the "= 2" is actually redundant, tautological.

You seem to be inferring a reversal of the tautology 1 +1 = 2.

You seem to be saying that נקב is the predicate (like "= 2") of the subject (whatever the actual kind of cursing that = "blasphemy" happens to be). And while you would be just as correct in pointing that out as someone would be correct to say "= 2" is the predicate of the subject "1 + 1," you'd be left explaining why the consonants נקב serve the subject (cursing God) in a manner like the number "2" serves the subject "1 + 1"?

When we read, 1 + 1 = 2, the 2 has a natural relationship to 1 + 1 that allows us to read the statement from subject to predicate. If I look up the meaning of the number 2 in order to see why it has a natural relationship to the subject 1 + 1 I'll see that 2 means 1 + 1. But when I look up the word נקב to see why it should have a natural relationship to cursing God in a particular way, I read not that it means "cursing Adonai" (in a particular manner) ---but that נקב means "to bore," "to pierce," or "to hollow out," such that I wonder what those meanings have to do with the fact that the subject is Adonai being cursed in a particular way.

I'm not doubting or questioning the legitimacy of what you're saying about what "blaspheme" actually is; you're no doubt correct within the context you're using. I'm trying to get you to answer to why נקב is a proper predicate for the subject "cursing God"? Imagine if when researching why 2 is a proper predicate for the subject 1 + 1 I read that it's because 2 means "boring," or "piercing," or "hollowing out." I'd no doubt be left scratching my head as I am when I read that cursing God in a particular way is "= to" ---"boring," or "piercing," or "hollowing out."

Admittedly that all seems complex and belabored. But I believe not only is it factual and true, but once we understand the gist of what's being said above, we have the duty to see why "cursing God" (in the way you've described as blasphemy) uses the Hebrew consonants נקב as the predicate for the subject of cursing Adonai. It's that examination that leads to living interpretation of the text rather than reliance on what is tautological and self-evident. How I wish someone were genuinely interested in the fruitful exegesis and examination of why the Torah text uses נקב as a predicate for cursing Adonai.




John

 

[rosends]

Right. I understand that much. It's the fact that the word that condenses the cursing into a distinct category is נקב that seems to be the problem.

You seem to be taking a tautology as self-evident, which it is, and then assuming it tells us something that's not tautological? For instance, in the equation 1 + 1 = 2, we have a tautology since 2 is self-evident already in 1 + 1. The "= 2" implies the adding (no pun intended) of "= 2" is telling us something we don't already see without it being added, i.e, 1 + 1. But "= 2" is really just repeating what we already see before the "= 2" is added, i.e., 1 +1 ----- the "= 2" is actually redundant, tautological.

You seem to be inferring a reversal of the tautology 1 +1 = 2.

You seem to be saying that נקב is the predicate (like "= 2") of the subject (whatever the actual kind of cursing that = "blasphemy" happens to be). And while you would be just as correct in pointing that out as someone would be correct to say "= 2" is the predicate of the subject "1 + 1," you'd be left explaining why the consonants נקב serve the subject (cursing God) in a manner like the number "2" serves the subject "1 + 1"?

When we read, 1 + 1 = 2, the 2 has a natural relationship to 1 + 1 that allows us to read the statement from subject to predicate. If I look up the meaning of the number 2 in order to see why it has a natural relationship to the subject 1 + 1 I'll see that 2 means 1 + 1. But when I look up the word נקב to see why it should have a natural relationship to cursing God in a particular way, I read that נקב means "to bore," "to pierce," or "to hollow out," such that I wonder what those meanings have to do with the fact that the subject is Adonai being cursed in a particular way.

I'm not doubting or questioning the legitimacy of what you're saying about what "blaspheme" actually is; you're no doubt correct within the context you're using. I'm trying to get you to answer to why נקב is a proper predicate for the subject "cursing God"? Imagine if when researching why 2 is a proper predicate for the subject 1 + 1 I read that it's because 2 means "boring," or "piercing," or "hollowing out." I'd no doubt be left scratching my head as I am when I read that cursing God in a particular way is "= to" ---"boring," or "piercing," or "hollowing out."

Admittedly that all seems complex and belabored. But I believe not only is it factual and true, but once we understand the gist of what's being said above, we have the duty to see why "cursing God" (in the way you've described as blasphemy) uses the Hebrew consonants נקב as the predicate for the subject of cursing Adonai. It's that examination that leads to living interpretation of the text rather than reliance of what is tautological and self-evident. How I wish someone were genuinely interested in the fruitful exegesis and examination of why the Torah text uses נקב as a predicate for cursing Adonai.




John

But n-q-b is not a predictive for blasphemy. it is a word used (in the majority of biblical cases) as "stated" or "pronounced". In one or two places, it is understood as "curse" (and if you want to connect that to "pierce" feel free). But it only sets up as an ingredient for "blasphemy" when other factors are also included.

It isn't that 1+1=2, but that 1+2=3 and 1 does not equal 2, and neither, on its own, equals 3.

 

[Eli G]

About the term "blasphemy" (...)

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000769

About the term "blasphemy" under the Law Covenant our Biblical Encyclopedia Insight says:

The first three commandments of the “Ten Words,” or Ten Commandments, set forth Jehovah God’s unique position as Universal Sovereign and his exclusive right to worship, warning also: “You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way, for Jehovah will not leave the one unpunished who takes up his name in a worthless way.” (Ex 34:28; 20:1-7) Calling down evil upon God and cursing a chieftain were condemned. (Ex 22:28) Thereafter the first recorded instance of spoken blasphemy was that of a son of mixed parentage who, in a struggle with an Israelite man, “began to abuse the Name and to call down evil upon it.” Jehovah decreed the penalty of death by stoning for the offender, and He established this as the due punishment for any future “abuser of Jehovah’s name,” whether a native Israelite or an alien resident among them.—Le 24:10-16.

Soon afterward the great majority of Israelites became guilty of disrespectful murmuring against Jehovah. As a result, they were sentenced to wander 40 years in the wilderness, and those from 20 years old upward were sentenced to die there. (Nu 14:1-4, 11, 23, 29; De 1:27, 28, 34-39) Their blasphemous attitude brought them to the point of talking of stoning God’s faithful servants. (Nu 14:10) While the abusive speech of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram was actually directed against God’s representatives, Moses and Aaron, yet, prior to God’s execution of these men and those of their households before their tents, Moses told those observing: “You will then know for certain that these men have treated Jehovah disrespectfully,” by disdaining his theocratic appointments.—Nu 16:1-3, 30-35.

Even where there were no spoken expressions against God, one’s actions against the laws of God’s covenant evidently could amount to “speaking abusively of Jehovah” or a blaspheming of him. Thus, while merciful consideration was given to the unintentional violator of God’s law, the individual committing deliberate, willful offenses, whether native Israelite or alien resident, was to be put to death as having spoken abusively of Jehovah and as having despised his word and commandment.—Nu 15:27-31; compare De 31:20; Ne 9:18, 26.

Other acts of blasphemy recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures were those of priest Eli’s sons (1Sa 3:12, 13) and that of the pagan Assyrian official Rabshakeh. (2Ki 19:4-6, 22, 23) Innocent Naboth was convicted of blasphemy and put to death on the basis of testimony by false witnesses. (1Ki 21:10-13) In later times, God condemned the false prophets who reassured those disrespectful of Jehovah. (Jer 23:16, 17) Jehovah gave positive warning that his reproachers would be rendered their due reward “into their own bosom.” (Isa 65:6, 7; compare Ps 10:13; Isa 8:20-22.) Because of Israel’s apostate course, Jehovah’s name came under reproach among the nations.—Isa 52:4, 5; Eze 36:20, 21.

In time rabbinic teaching fostered the erroneous view that Leviticus 24:10-23prohibited as blasphemous the very pronunciation of the name Jehovah. Talmudic tradition also prescribed that when the religious judges heard testimony setting forth blasphemous words supposedly used by the accused, they were to rend their garments, following the example at 2 Kings 18:37;19:1-4.—The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1976, Vol. III, p. 237; compare Mt 26:65.