Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews

[SF3CHURCH]

I read on a non-denominational website about the epitaph that Pilate had posted on the cross above Jesus, and in the Hebrew it reads:

**HaYehudim W’Melech HaNazarei Yeshua **

which transliterated from right to left (as it is read in Hebrew) reads

YHWH

We also read in John’s Gospel that the Jews were upset at this:

*,
20 Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read “Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews.”
Now many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.
21
So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that he said, ‘I am the King of the Jews.’”
22
Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”
23 *

We are so used to seeing crucifixes with the inscription “INRI”, but clearly the Hebrew inscription has more meaning. I don’t know if Pilate did this deliberately, but the Jews certainly must have understood the implication: they had just crucified Yahweh, God!

I would love to hear more comments about this.

 

[Lisdogan]

I have also been conscious of this apparently explicit act of Pilate with regard to the inscription ‘This is the King of the Jews’. I too would like clarification. Thanks for asking the question.

In Christ

 

[NoelFitz]

One reads:

19 Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” 20 Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek. 21 Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’ ” 22 Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.” The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version, Jn 19:19-22 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989).

From the above there is no indication that the Jews considered YHWH was written. The Jews claimed they were upset because Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews.

 

[Spirithound]

I read on a non-denominational website about the epitaph that Pilate had posted on the cross above Jesus, and in the Hebrew it reads:

**HaYehudim W’Melech HaNazarei Yeshua **

which transliterated from right to left (as it is read in Hebrew) reads

YHWH

It’s a good observation, but whether you would actually have seen that on the Cross would depend on what was actually written (before you fall off your chairs in obviousness, read on ).

The H’s in the acrostic appear to be articles (translated to either “the” or “a”). If it was only the initials of each word, then it would be “YWNY” (read from right to left), since the “Ha” doesn’t really add to the meaning of the inscription, but rather it just fulfills a grammatical requirement. So, that being said, I’m not sure that any Hebrew-speaking people would have drawn your connection, even if the words were written out, just because the “Ha” is just a grammaticalism. Note that in our current English internet acronyms, we say “ROFL”, not “ROTFL” for “rolling on the floor laughing”.
Anyways, whatever was actually written, it’s pretty cool that it reads as you found it

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It’s a good observation, but whether you would actually have seen that on the Cross would depend on what was actually written (before you fall off your chairs in obviousness, read on ).

The H’s in the acrostic appear to be articles (translated to either “the” or “a”). If it was only the initials of each word, then it would be “YWNY” (read from right to left), since the “Ha” doesn’t really add to the meaning of the inscription, but rather it just fulfills a grammatical requirement. So, that being said, I’m not sure that any Hebrew-speaking people would have drawn your connection, even if the words were written out, just because the “Ha” is just a grammaticalism. Note that in our current English internet acronyms, we say “ROFL”, not “ROTFL” for “rolling on the floor laughing”.
Anyways, whatever was actually written, it’s pretty cool that it reads as you found it

it’s nice, but the “W’” ‘and’ is inserted, which the text does not say.

And then there’s the problem that it might more likely have been in Aramaic, in which case it would mean “YNMY.”

 

[Christy_Beth]

Isn’t this a nit-picky bit to get into an argument over?

 

[beeliner]

There isn’t anything to suggest that Pilate used any sort of abbreviation or initials.

 

[NoelFitz]

Christy Beth
You wrote:

Isn’t this a nit-picky bit to get into an argument over?

No!

The whole point of the discussion is whether preople would see YHWH in what was written by Pilate.

 

[patrick457]

I read on a non-denominational website about the epitaph that Pilate had posted on the cross above Jesus, and in the Hebrew it reads:

**HaYehudim W’Melech HaNazarei Yeshua **

which transliterated from right to left (as it is read in Hebrew) reads

YHWH

We also read in John’s Gospel that the Jews were upset at this:

*,
20 Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read “Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews.”
Now many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.
21
So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that he said, ‘I am the King of the Jews.’”
22
Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”
23 *

We are so used to seeing crucifixes with the inscription “INRI”, but clearly the Hebrew inscription has more meaning. I don’t know if Pilate did this deliberately, but the Jews certainly must have understood the implication: they had just crucified Yahweh, God!

I would love to hear more comments about this.

“Yeshua’ Ha-Notsri u’Melech Ha-Yehudim” means ‘Jesus the Nazarene (or Nazarite) AND King of the Jews’.

This Hebrew version of what was written on Jesus’ placard was said to have been devised during the medieval period by Christian scholars, who were intrigued by the mystical properties of the Hebrew inscription, and thus added the Hebrew letter vav (aka vau or waw), meaning “and”, thus forming the name of God, the Tetragrammaton.

Perhaps yet another factor as to why the Jews were angry about the sign, besides the usual interpretations is an irony: Jesus was a Galilean due to His hometown of Nazareth in Galilee, yet here He is practically billed as the 'King of the Jews (or ‘Judeans’)!

Galilee were usually looked upon with a proud contempt in Judea because of its ‘mixed’ population of Jews and Gentiles and its status as an were economic and cultural “outsider” that they could not be expected to prove such sticklers for high orthodoxy as the Judeans, with Galileans being stereotyped as ‘country bumpkins’ or ‘uneducated peasant hicks’ who spoke with a funny accent (Galileans slurred their vowels, frequently dropped consonants, and their pronunciation of the gutturals are not as smooth as Judeans) and were prone to produce rabble rousers (for example, the Zealots led by Judas of Galilee, and in the eyes of these people, Jesus). Remember that political correctness was still 20 centuries away; discrimination, generalizing and stereotyping was the norm.

Perhaps the Judeans could not wrap their heads around the fact that the Messiah, the King of Israel, came from a province of ‘dumb yokels’. Such is the ‘foolishness’ of God that is wiser than men.

 

[Lisdogan]

But can we extrapolate anything from the fact that Pilate insisted that the inscription read This is the King of the Jews, as if he perceived some kind of truth, rather than This man has said he is King of the Jews?

I am fascinated by Pilate’s own understanding, and his insistence on the difference between the two inscriptions.

In Christ,

 

[Spirithound]

There isn’t anything to suggest that Pilate used any sort of abbreviation or initials.

That’s a good point. Sometimes I have to remind myself that they had quite a bigger writing surface than the typical crucifix on a cord today.

 

[Spirithound]

But can we extrapolate anything from the fact that Pilate insisted that the inscription read This is the King of the Jews, as if he perceived some kind of truth, rather than This man has said he is King of the Jews?

I am fascinated by Pilate’s own understanding, and his insistence on the difference between the two inscriptions.

In Christ,

I’m not sure that we could call it “insisting”. What Pilate said, was done. By the time the Jewish authorities objected, I tend to think it had already been nailed to the Cross. At the least, it had already been written.

That being said, Pilate could have known that many of the people did believe in Jesus, and so he was mocking them by crucifying their King.
He also could have seen Truth when he was interrogating Jesus, but really still unwilling to embrace it.

 

[patrick457]

But can we extrapolate anything from the fact that Pilate insisted that the inscription read This is the King of the Jews, as if he perceived some kind of truth, rather than This man has said he is King of the Jews?

I am fascinated by Pilate’s own understanding, and his insistence on the difference between the two inscriptions.

In Christ,

One way of interpreting this is Pilate trying to have the last laugh. Sure, he may have conceded to the Jewish leaders to have Jesus crucified, but it seems that he is getting back at them by writing Jesus’ ‘crime’ as if it were a fact (i.e. Jesus was executed for being the King of the Jews instead of because He was claiming to be such), which it actually is, on that placard.