Peshitta Forum
John 19:19 (YHWH?) - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: Communities (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Nazarene/Messianic Judaism Forum (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: John 19:19 (YHWH?) (/showthread.php?tid=1342)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6


John 19:19 (YHWH?) - distazo - 12-02-2007

According to some, the inscription above Jeshua was as follows in Hebrew

"Jeshua Hanozri Wumelech Hajehudim".

However, the gospel of John, never was found in original Hebrew language, but in Aramaic language.

Now I wonder, what exactly does the Peshitta write here?

(w4y (Yeshu)
0yrcn (nasrya)
0klm (mlek)
0ydwhyd (jews)

Can we, from Johns gospel, extract the same 4 letters from the tetragrammaton as the hebrew version of the inscription above Jesus cross?


Re: John 19:19 (YHWH?) - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 12-05-2007

Shlama Akhi Distazio,

Great question--wow! It is worth noting that all four Gospels report (or rather, interpret/targum) the contents of the sign a little differently.

Matthew says, "This is Y'shua, king of the Jews".
Mark says, "This is the king of the Jews". (Does not say Y'shua by name)

But it is Luke 23:38 that answers your question in the Peshitta:

DIN AP KTABA D'KTIB AIL MENEH (and there was also an inscription that was written above him)

YONIT W''RAHOMIYT W'AIBRIYT (in Greek Roman and HEBREW)

HANA MALKA D'YEHUDIYA (this is the king of the Jews)

Luke, like Mark, does not mention Y'shua by name but obvious intends to refer to him. John, as you point out, refences Y'shua directly and is the only one to include Nazareth in the tag.

So what is going on? Well, this is one case where I think we have to say all Aramaic versions are TARGUMMING FROM HEBREW SCRIPT AND LANGUAGE AS RECORDED IN THE PESHITTA GOSPELS. We have seen this before where one Aramaic word in a dialect (like Matthew's exclusive use of AURAYTA for Torah instead of NAMUSA everywhere else) is interpreted in another. Other times both Hebrew and Aramaic names for the same place (Golgotha, Gabbatha--see esp John 19:13) or titles (Rabbuli or Rabboni) are used to make the point very clear to an Aramaic readership who uses Hebrew liturgically.

So I think John actually is the only one who transliterates the Hebrew portion of the sign literally. He, like Luke, also records "in Greek, Roman and Hebrew" (AIBRIYT) BUT IN HIS CASE HE PUTS "HEBREW" FIRST, MEANING THAT'S THE PART OF THE SIGN THAT HAS HIS ATTENTION. The only thing that John does to "turn" it into Aramaic, is add the dalet proclitic (d'Yehudiya) that Hebrew does NOT have. he also drops the definite article HA, which Hebrew does have but Aramaic does not. Otherwise he leaves it EXACTLY as it was, as if he were putting the exact phrase you suggest into another 'accent' almost. Technically, it's just a very minor transposition from one dialect to another.

So, here AIBRIYT means Hebrew LITERALLY and not say dialektos Hebraidi as the Greek NT and church fathers sometimes use to designate Aramaic in "Hebrew" style script. But the HEBREW sign that John records IS AN ACROSTIC FOR YHWH AND THAT'S WHY THE AUTHORITIES WERE SO UPSET BECAUSE THIS WAS A COMMON FORM OF HEBREW PRAYER AND POETRY.

Again, great question, and I hope this helps!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth


Re: John 19:19 (YHWH?) - gbausc - 12-07-2007

Shlama Akhay,

Very interesting discussion, but I cannot see Pilate writing Hebrew on a cross. It was the language of Jewish liturgy, not the language of Roman administration, government or commerce. If he had put anything Hebrew on the cross, the outrage would have been 100 times greater than it was, not merely for what it said,
but for the presumption of the pagan Roman Governor using the sacred Hebrew tongue, and for defiling it by applying it in public to a cross of a criminal whom Israel's leadership had condemned as a false Messiah and blasphemer. Pilate may have been a monster, as Josephus seems to have indicated, but he certainly was not stupid. I doubt Pilate's men knew Hebrew, regardless. I also doubt any Jew would have used Hebrew in that way.

The Peshitta uses"Hebraith" in John 19, just as in the 9 other places where it occurs in John & Acts. In John, it refers to the Southern Judean Aramaic dialect, as opposed to the Northern dialect, as Paul Younan has brilliantly pointed out several times.

Finally, to make this a YHWH acrostic, the letter "Waw" has been conveniently inserted before "Malka" . There is no Waw in The Peshitta text and no "kai" ("and") in the Greek mss. before "o Basileus"-"the King", so this "acrostic" is just wishful thinking.

Andrew, what evidence is there that John transliterated Hebrew in the Peshitta verse you quote? Only one of the five words on the tablet inscription is the same
in Hebrew. That is not transliteration.

"Gabbatha" and "Golgotha-Gagultha" are Aramaic words, not Hebrew. "Rabbouli" is Aramaic, "Bethesda" is Aramaic. All these words are described as "Hebraith" in The Peshitta, demonstrating that the word refers to a dialect of Aramaic in the NT books.


Shlama l'kown,

Dave


Re: John 19:19 (YHWH?) - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 12-08-2007

Shlama Akhi David,

I tried to write and sub a rather lengthy reply to all your questions but the system booted me off and would not let me sub it or refresh the screen. I will have to try another time perhaps to answer you better.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

PS--I really hope that doesn't happen again as it totally wasted a lot of my time.


Re: John 19:19 (YHWH?) - *Albion* - 12-12-2007

Shlama Andrew,

I have thought about your posting problem here at length.

I have some advice, take it or leave it as you wish.

1. Re-register with another (NEW) ID that still identify's you, as you.

But it would be a NEW ID, NOT associated with the old, hacked list.

2. Write your posts on Notepad, or Wordpad BEFORE signing in, and then sign-in briefly, and post and then leave (sign out).

I DON'T believe that this happened to you "by accident", or as a fluke.

Try this, and see if it helps. I believe that it will.

G-d forbid that you lose any time that could be spent getting MARI to us quicker! <!-- s:oha: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/oha.gif" alt=":oha:" title="Oha!" /><!-- s:oha: -->

In Yeshua's Shalom, Albion




Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama Akhi David,

I tried to write and sub a rather lengthy reply to all your questions but the system booted me off and would not let me sub it or refresh the screen. I will have to try another time perhaps to answer you better.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

PS--I really hope that doesn't happen again as it totally wasted a lot of my time.



Re: John 19:19 (YHWH?) - brantana - 12-14-2007

Shlama all,
Quick question on this topic, and I may be showing ignorance, but here it is anyways...

If Latin was inscribed on the cross for the Imperial Roman and Greek was inscribed due to its pervasiveness throughout the Mediteranean, was Hebrew not utilized because it was the preiminent language of the Judean area vice Aramaic? Or stated another way: Why was Hebrew utilized when stating "Yeshua, King of the Jews" if the most common language of the area was Aramaic?

Ma'a Salama


Re: John 19:19 (YHWH?) - *Albion* - 12-14-2007

Dear Brantana,

I'm not a Syriac speaker nor a scholar like some here but...........when the New Testament says "in Hebrew", I believe that what it really means is "in Aramaic".

Do I have some scholarly 'proof' for this view? NO, I don't.

But if Hebrew was being 'targummed' in the Synagogues by this time, and the average Jew could no longer understand Hebrew, I think that it's even more likely that this expression mean't "in Aramaic".

Shlama, Albion



brantana Wrote:Shlama all,
Quick question on this topic, and I may be showing ignorance, but here it is anyways...

If Latin was inscribed on the cross for the Imperial Roman and Greek was inscribed due to its pervasiveness throughout the Mediteranean, was Hebrew not utilized because it was the preiminent language of the Judean area vice Aramaic? Or stated another way: Why was Hebrew utilized when stating "Yeshua, King of the Jews" if the most common language of the area was Aramaic?

Ma'a Salama



Re: John 19:19 (YHWH?) - Paul Younan - 12-14-2007

brantana Wrote:Why was Hebrew utilized when stating "Yeshua, King of the Jews" if the most common language of the area was Aramaic?

Shlama Brantana,

What does the word, "Yiddish", mean?


Re: John 19:19 (YHWH?) - brantana - 12-14-2007

Paul,
I'm not sure I understand the reference to Yiddish... Can you expound?

Shukran wa Shlama


Re: John 19:19 (YHWH?) - Paul Younan - 12-14-2007

brantana Wrote:Paul,
I'm not sure I understand the reference to Yiddish... Can you expound?

The word "Yiddish", what does it mean?


Re: John 19:19 (YHWH?) - brantana - 12-14-2007

Paul,
As I understand it, "Yiddish" is a Germanic word for "Jewish" and refers to an archaic form of Germanic language used by Ashkenazi Jews in Europe which includes many elements of Hebrew. The language has incorporated other Near Eastern and European lanagues during its evolution.

Jews and non-Jews recognize the language's Jewish connections and refer to it as Yiddish, not Hebrew. I look forward to hearing your thoughts to my question.

Shlama,
b


Re: John 19:19 (YHWH?) - Paul Younan - 12-14-2007

Hey Brantana, thanks for the reply.

2nd to last trivia question (one more after this): What's the name of this alphabet?

[Image: hebrew-alphabet.jpg]


Re: John 19:19 (YHWH?) - yaaqub - 12-14-2007

Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:like Matthew's exclusive use of AURAYTA for Torah instead of NAMUSA everywhere else

Shlama Andrew and everyone else,

Sorry for butting in, but I something Andrew wrote kinda' stuck out a bit.

From reading the Peshitta copy that I have Matthew uses the Greek word "namusa" in Matthew 5:17. I was just doing some research on this today. The editor's note in the back of my Aramaic Peshitta acknowledges the use of Greek loan words throughout the Peshitta, but my main question is, Andrew, was this a mistake when you said Matthew used "Aurayta" exclusively, or I am misunderstanding your comment?

I see the word "namusa" used in Matthew 5:17 and 18 instead of "aurayta".

Also in these verses...

Matthew 7:12 ???????? ?????? ?????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ???????? ?????????????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ?????????????????? ??

Matthew 22:35 ?????????????? ???????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????? ??

Thanks in advance.


Re: John 19:19 (YHWH?) - Paul Younan - 12-14-2007

Hi Yaaqub,

yaaqub Wrote:The editor's note in the back of my Aramaic Peshitta acknowledges the use of Greek loan words throughout the Peshitta,

Does your Greek version have an editors note about how many times more Aramaic loan-words are in the Greek versions of the NT ?

If not, I can point out several to you.


Re: John 19:19 (YHWH?) - *Albion* - 12-14-2007

Shlama all,

I don't mean to ask a dumb question but about 'Na Musa'.

'Musa' in Arabic is Moses (or 'Moshe'), and seems to be used as a kind of substitute word for "Law", as in 'The Law'.

Is this correct? I know that Aramaic and Arabic are cognate and sister languages.

But what does 'Na' mean in Aramaic?

And since 'Musa' is an ARABIC word, it seems VERY likely that perhaps it's an Aramaic (Syriac) word, INSTEAD of a Greek word!

And can you tell me exactly what 'Na Musa' would mean in Syriac?

Thanks for your help! Shlama, Albion