by snowbird 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Perhaps someone can help me with this.
Were the words written above Jesus' head in GREEK, HEBREW, and LATIN or were the words in ARAMAIC, GREEK, HEBREW, and LATIN?
I read on one site that the initial letter of each word would have been YHVH if written in Hebrew. If so, this would have disturbing implications for the FDS, don't you think?
Snowbird
Hebrew would not have probably been used by that time, particularly if Aramaic is already written on the titilus. Bear in mind too that the Hebrew word for "king" was mlk; don't see an "M" in YHVH.
Leolaia, you said:
Bear in mind too that the Hebrew word for "king" was mlk; don't see an "M" in YHVH
I know, but somehow it was shown that the Y would be for Yeshua, H for ha-Nazareth, V for v-something Melech, and H for ha-Yehudah. I will try to find the article and you can dissect his line of reasoning. Thank you for your prompt reply.
Snowbird
The Gospel of John says which languages aramaic, greek and latin.
It was in the mediaeval period that we find INRI on a scroll above his head in paintings and sculptures.
HB
As hamsterbait points out, the idea of an "acronym" on the titilus is probably a late concept. Note also that INRI (the Latin acronym) and INBI (the Greek equivalent) are each composed of important identifying content words, "Jesus", "King", "Jews", "Nazarene". The so-called Hebrew equivalent is essentially "Jesus + THE + AND + THE". It doesn't tell you anything.
Strictly the Fourth Gospel -- the only one to mention the language(s) of the titulus, which stems from theological (Jesus "raised" on the cross is made available to the Gentiles, cf. 12:19ff,32f) rather than historical intent -- mentions Hebrew, Latin and Greek (hebraisti, rômaisti, hellènisti). That "Hebrew" means "Aramaic" is possible but absolutely not necessary, especially if history is not the point. Btw, if it is Aramaic there would be no article (like the Hebrew ha) but rather a determinative suffix (-a' at the end of the noun).
