12-05-2007, 05:48 PM
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
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