5

I was just reading a few stories pointing at medieval art that conceived of what was written in Aramaic on the cross and that Pilate had put the four words "Jesus the-nazorean, and-king of-the-jews". There's this claim that his formulation would have spelled out the tetragrammaton, the sacred name of God and that this may have been Pilate getting back at them for forcing this public killing on him (though I don't buy that - Pilate would have been fine with Slaughtering them all).

In Greek, Latin, & Hebrew, this may have looked like:

Greek: ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο* ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ Ο* ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ

Latin: Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdaeōrum

Hebrew: ישוע הנצרי ומלך היהודים

Note that this reads "Jesus the nazorean and the king of the jews." The first letter of each word reads YHWH (the name of God).

I think this is a reasonable semitic formulation (the and happens repeatedly). I have trouble with the exact details of how the definite article (the "ה") works in word pairs on proper nouns. I know that with the vav ("and") in front of Melech ("king"), the direct object on melech can be subsumed into the vowel pointings on the vav, so you don't have "a king" but "the king" without having the definite article.

Questions abound:

1) Is this likely what was written?

2) Why would Pilate have this written (certainly he didn't write it)? Did he know hebrew?

3) If someone else wrote it, who, and did they do it as a subversive act against Rome/Judeans part of a pro-jesus Christology? Who could have had it together enough to see this as victory at the time vs fleeing in defeat? Peter and the beloved disciple didn't yet know he would be resurrected (John 20:9).

4) Why was Pilate so passive here? Is this narrative shifting blame from the Romans to the Judeans in a post 70AD temple destruction world?

Gus L.
  • 2,511
  • 1
  • 16
  • 33
  • Related: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/28068/were-charges-required-by-roman-law – James Shewey Jun 11 '20 at 16:11
  • And also possibly This answer – James Shewey Jun 11 '20 at 16:24
  • 1
    Articles and conjunctions as part of abbreviations ? Seriously ? – Lucian Jun 11 '20 at 16:44
  • 1
    I'm not seeing any commentary on the actual hebrew and/or the presence of the tetragrammaton in these links. – Gus L. Jun 11 '20 at 16:44
  • 1
    @Lucian, I'm not sure what you're getting at. This kind of acrostic is a common hebrew tool. For example, though YHWH is not in the book of Esther explicitly, it is in acrostic form at the central verse, forward and backwards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Esther#Interpretation ... Also, as one of my links suggests, this was the interpretation of Fra Angelico in 1434, not some sort of bizarre modern anachronism. I'm not asking if this is the true case, but if this is coherent hebrew and a potential first century rendering of the greek in aramaic. – Gus L. Jun 11 '20 at 16:47
  • @Lucian, what makes you think this was an abbreviation? Because often it is presented as INRI? Is there something in the text that would make you think it was written in abbreviated form? The text of John claims a full sentence (in greek) was written on it. – Gus L. Jun 11 '20 at 16:55
  • The above mentioned acrostics from the Book of Esther do indeed contain conjunctions and articles as well, apparently. (The and still looks suspicious, though). – Lucian Jun 11 '20 at 17:19
  • The greek of John 19:19 is word for word translated "Jesus The Nazorean The King The Jews." This is not a faithful translation. "The Nazorean" and "The King of The Jews" are part of a list of descriptions of jesus that appear often in Hebrew. There are and conjuctions everywhere in the Torah. Here's a quick list of more acrostic verses with the tetragrammaton: https://franknelte.net/article.php?article_id=126 – Gus L. Jun 11 '20 at 18:02
  • 2
    This strikes me as a pious stretch of the imagination. – Dottard Jun 11 '20 at 20:28
  • 1
    In any case, my Hebrew NT does not quite have that text as the OP has it. The second waw is missing in mine. I agree that conjunction is a real stretch (the second waw) and was probably not there originally. My conclusion: It is better to base information on what is known rather than what is unknown! – Dottard Jun 11 '20 at 20:36
  • I guess that I wasn't asking if this was TRUE but rather if (according to the hebrew experts here), that sentence makes sense and is not just bizarre on its face. It sounds like you're claiming that the vav is unreasonable? – Gus L. Jun 11 '20 at 21:06
  • @Dottard A very balanced and just comment : a pious stretch of the imagination. Very nicely put, sir. – Nigel J Jun 11 '20 at 21:42
  • ישוע הנצרי ומלך היהודים would translate as "Jesus Christ and the king of the Jews", NOT, "Jesus Christ King of the Jews", because of the surplus waw. This makes it more unlikely. – Dottard Jun 12 '20 at 01:04
  • @Dottard: It does make it sound as if being a Nazarene was part of the reason for his crucifixion. Jesus: Nazarene, and King of the Jews. – Lucian Jun 12 '20 at 01:26
  • @Lucian - perhaps but that is not what John recorded, no "and". The structure in John is apposition. – Dottard Jun 12 '20 at 02:24
  • Bear in mind that this was a political statement by the Romans. All the Jews were traveling to Jerusalem for Passover, so Pilate is using this opportunity to tell the Jews, "We have crucified your king. Do not defy Rome." – 2br-2b Apr 28 '22 at 21:26

1 Answers1

1

John 19:19-22 Pilate also wrote a placard and placed it on the cross, and there was written on it: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. And the placard was read by many of the Jews (for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city): and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. Therefore the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate: Write not, King of the Jews, but, He said, I am the King of the Jews. But Pilate answered: I have written what I have written.

The Hebrew for these two alternate placards would be, respectively:

ישוע הנצרי מלך היהודים

Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews

And:

ישוע הנצרי אשר אמר אני מלך היהודים

Jesus of Nazareth, who said he was/I am king of the Jews.

The Waw ("and" King of the Jews) is out of place and unnecessary. "The Nazarene" is not an adjective and merely specifies the Jesus: "Jesus of Nazareth/The Nazarene" (Yeshua HaNosri). As such, it should be treated as a proper noun, and "King of the Jews" would be taken appositionally, or, as a title of sorts, or what he was known as markedly (or, in this case, His 'crime').

In other words, using the Waw ("And" King of the Jews) takes "the Nazarene" as some kind of pejorative, when in fact it was simply a way to specific the Jesus (a very common name at the time—e.g. Yeshua Barabba, as is highly probable: "Who should I release to you, Jesus 'Son of the Father' [Barabba]? or Jesus 'the Messiah?'").

So answering your questions one by one:

(1) See the above.

(2) Almost certainly Pilate did none of the 'dirty work' of crucifixion. Rather, he chose what was written, and in that sense, "Wrote" what was found on the cross. But to your question: he did know Hebrew, as he governed Jews. He was not governor over some Roman area, but an area replete and almost exclusively populated with Jews.

(3) Probably Roman soldiers, some of whom, at least, probably knew enough Hebrew to write this very simple thing, or in any case, Pilate had the resources and provisions to have it written by someone, with or against their will, one way or another. Pilate thought Jesus was innocent, which is why He put all blame on the Jews, and symbolically washed his hands. In Acts, the Apostles agree and say the Jews killed Jesus despite Pilate wanting to release Him (Acts 3:13; John 19:12). Perhaps Pilate insisted on having "King of the Jews" to spite the Jews, as it is written: "For he knew that for envy they had delivered him up" (Matthew 27:18).

(4) There is no reason to believe Pilate ever thought the mild fellow called Jesus was worthy of being put to death, and so it was obviously, in every concievable sense, the fault of the hoards of Jews chanting "crucified him: let his blood be upon us and our children" that were to fault. The Romans were merely the weapon used, wielded via manipulation: "you are no friend of Caesar's [if you don't do what we want.... we could say bad things about you...]"

So in conclusion, no, it was not an acronym for Yahweh.

Sola Gratia
  • 9,630
  • 18
  • 44