Some have made the claim that an acrostic of the accusation Pilate wrote above Jesus’ cross spells “YHWH.” (example). There is at least one reason to seriously question the claim, and a second reason that proves it false. Let me deal with each in turn.
One reason to question this claim is the fact that we cannot be certain what was actually written on the titulus (the placard on which the victim’s crime was recorded) above the cross. The evangelists do not present us with a single version of what was written:
- Matthew: “This is Jesus, the king of the Jews” (27:37)
- Mark: “The king of the Jews” (15:26)
- Luke: “This is the king of the Jews” (23:38)
- John: “Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews” (19:19)
The accusation was written in three different languages: Hebrew/Aramaic, Greek, and Latin (Jn 19:20). The nature of language and translation is such that we would not necessarily expect for exact verbal parallels to exist between the three languages. Consider, for example, the fact that some languages require more space to write a given phrase than others.[1] Perhaps the executioners wrote different versions of the accusation in each language due to space constraints.[2] Which words were used in the Hebrew rendition of the accusation? No one knows! One suggested reconstruction is ישוע הנצרי מלך היהודים (Yeshua HaNazri Melekh HaYehudim), but this presupposes that the Hebrew rendition was “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” which cannot be known with any reasonable degree of certainty. If the Hebrew was rendered similar to how Mark and Luke record it, then the initial letter of each word could not possibly have spelled YHWH since Yeshua would not appear in the Hebrew accusation (and thus there would be no yod for the “Y” in YHWH).
The second reason, however, falsifies the notion entirely. All renditions of the accusation include the word “king,” which is melek in Hebrew/Aramaic. Melek begins with the Hebrew letter mem, not waw as would be required to form the acrostic “YHWH” (waw is the third letter in the Tetragrammaton). So not only does the claim presuppose to know the original Hebrew construction, but it fails to recognize that one of the words that was undoubtedly part of the accusation (“king”) begins with a letter that is not found in the Tetragrammaton.
[1]Greek taking up the most room, followed by Latin and Hebrew.
[2]Perhaps the variation recorded in the Gospels is to be explained in terms of one evangelist reporting the way the accusation was written in one language, whereas another evangelist was recording the way the accusation was written in another. Or perhaps the evangelists were not attempting to provide a word-for-word rendition of any particular rendition of the accusation, but simply reported the gist of it.
May 31, 2011 at 10:03 am
I’m a novelist and this comes up in my forthcoming book. I agree that your translation of the John 19 phrase (“Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews”) cannot be the tetragrammaton (YHWH) because the first Hebrew letters of each word in that phrase are YNMH (Yeshu’a Natseret Melekh Hayhudim). However, what if the phrase was “Jesus of Nazareth AND King of the Jews” and thus “Yeshu’a Hanatseret U’Melekh Hayhudim” (Jeshua of Nazareth and King of the Jews), which results in YHWH. I do not speak Hebrew, but for the purposes of this novel I’d like to find an iteration of the titulus that would result in YHWH or an acceptable variant. Perhaps you can help me?
LikeLike
June 2, 2011 at 7:33 am
I’m not a fan of fudging the historical data for fictional purposes, so I cannot say I support your effort to find an iteration of the phrase to support the idea that an acrostic of the accusation on the titulus spelled YHWH. That said, I don’t think your proposal will work anyway. While adding “and” would help you accomplish your goal, there is no way it could be correct because a conjunction is not appropriate at such a juncture. Besides, “Nazareth” is still a problem. It would not have been spelled as “Hanatseret,” but rather “nah-tseh-ret.” The word begins with the Hebrew letter nun (n). There is no nun in YHWH.
LikeLike
June 2, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Thanks for your response. The word “Nazareth” is indeed the difficulty here. However, does not the letter “he,” in addition to being a letter, also mean “the” “that” or “who” as well as a shorthand for Hashem? Therefore, I wonder why “Jesus of Nazareth” (which is quite similar to “Jesus the Nazarene”) cannot supply the required “he” in front of letter nun, if used as the definite article “the.”
LikeLike
June 2, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Also, “Hayhudim” is a similar case in point, providing the required “H” needed for the last “h” in YHWH. In this case, the Hebrew “he” signifies, “of the,” does it not? Or some variation of the possessive? If so, I wonder why a similar usage of “he” before Nazareth would not be equally acceptable as meaning the same thing (“Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”: both phrases are quite similar in construction). Thanks again for your patience and consideration. I’m not trying to “fudge” as much as access what I’m told is Renaissance-era scholarship which allowed for the interpretation a character contemporary with Jesus sees in the novel. In other words, it need not be current belief that the acrostics in the Hebrew phrase form the name of God, only that at the time it was not outside the realm of possibility that John 19:19-20 might have been written that way. In other words, can you see any possible iteration of the basic information (Jesus, Nazareth, King, Jews) that WOULD form the tetragrammation?
LikeLike
June 2, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Kenny,
I hated studying Hebrew, and I don’t remember much. I can say, however, that “he” does serve as a definite article. But would it be fitting to place it before “Nazareth”? I wouldn’t think so. Why use the definite article before Nazareth to say “the Nazareth”?
Perhaps it can be used as a genitive. I don’t remember. Of course, it would have to mean “from” in relationship to “Nazareth,” and “of” in relationship to Jews. I’m not sure if such a semantic range of meaning is allowed, even if “he” can be used as a genitive. Even if it is, you still have to deal with “king,” and I don’t find any reason to think there would be any prefix to that word.
Jason
LikeLike
June 2, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Nazareth: In my post I said an alternate version might be “Jesus the Nazarene,” and thus supply the context for “the” (“he”).
As far as “king” goes, what I read was that “Melekh,” was preceded by the Hebrew letter vav (V or W), which could represent “and”, as in “Jesus of Nazareth AND King of the Jews.”
I’m beginning to understand why Kabbalah is so mystifying; if each letter stands for a letter, a number, or even a word, the possibilities of definition are endless. Plus, without vowels, the word MLKh (king) could probably mean a dozen different things, depending upon the vowels ascribed.
LikeLike
June 2, 2011 at 2:21 pm
But saying “Nazarene” makes it an adjective rather than a noun, and it is presented in the gospels as a noun.
Yes, I remember your suggestion that it was a conjunction, but I do not think this is plausible. A conjunction is only appropriate to connect two different things. But “King of Jews” functions epexegetically (i.e. an expansion on who “Jesus of Nazareth” is).
That’s why Kabbalah is so misguided! 🙂
Jason
LikeLike
November 9, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Yeshua Hanotzri Vemelech Hayahudim
HYH Past
HVH Present
YHYH Future
LikeLike
December 10, 2011 at 8:11 am
I’ve studied languages for over 50 years, and have found that none translate perfectly into another. It is entirely feasible that YHVH stood out in Hebrew. The Roman leaders loved to slam the Jews, even changing the name of the province of Israel to the name Philistine or Palestine (same word in Hebrew). Why not slap them again by deliberately emphasizing those letters the Jews refused to speak! I’m with you, Eliyahu.
LikeLike
March 9, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Yeshua
Ha Nasaret
Ve Melek
Ha Yehudim
LikeLike
April 26, 2012 at 5:37 pm
What is the possibility that it was written on two plaques and the vav was the connector of the two?
Yeshua HaNazri
Melekh HaYehudim
Thanks!
LikeLike
April 26, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Also nearly every English translation has every chapter/paragraph of the tanack wrong since they do not start with ‘and’…. tongue in cheek.
Thanks!
LikeLike
April 27, 2012 at 5:15 am
Iow, the vavs are added to each page of the Torah scrolls to hook the pages together as hooks connect the curtains of the temple. My point is try connecting the last sentence of any previous chapter with the first sentence of the next chapter and see if putting an ‘and’ in the middle will hold true thereby making the two sentences one. Vavs may translate from Hebrew to Greek as ‘and’ but not necessarily the other way.
Thanks!
LikeLike
July 16, 2012 at 2:06 am
jesus the branch(nazareth)(zech6:12)the king of the jews (zech9:9)
LikeLike
July 16, 2012 at 6:47 am
eliyahu your past present & future expressions coming out of these 4 letters is an incredible thought&suggests an amazing likeness to messiah calling himself “beginning & end”3 times!-as to objections over YHVH not being on the sign because the only way to do so would involve poor grammar-might that be just exactly the case since it was pilate & not a hebrew trained scribe that composed the wording?–Yahshua The Branch (The Nazareth [one])(zech 6:12,isa 11:1)and the king of the jews (zech9:9). this takes far less liberty than the vast range of variation given in the 4 gospels. But if proper grammar is yet judged a requirement then.may i ask if there arnt indeed 2 extremely different & almost opposite facts about messiah given on the sign?-1-that he is from the utterly “low life” city of nazareth and yet 2-that he was some kind of mysterious king that made mighty pilate extremely fearful to offend-and thus needing a conjunction?
LikeLike
July 16, 2012 at 6:59 am
gregrs point is a serious one- were taking what was hebrew then was translated to greek & were saying “now to be put BACK into hebrew from greek it would have to say thus & so & yet everyones rendition is a little different from the next one but we still think every fine point of grammar will be totally preserved all along the way?
LikeLike
October 23, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Ana ha elohim (I am God) in Hebrew. The numerical value of the Hebrew letters in ANA HA ELOHIM is 153. When Jesus appeared to the disciples as they where fishing and told them to drop the net into the water, they specifically caught 153 fish. So, I would assume it did read YHWH… either way Jesus is portrayed in every story of the Old Testament… and also in the name YHWH through ideograms
LikeLike
January 21, 2013 at 6:32 pm
I was looking this up bc I too had heard that YHWH was written as an acrostic on the sign. I also heard that in history that the Passover lamb for sacrifice would have a small sign around its neck with the owners name on it. This was significant in YHWH that Christ was the Lamb of God and labeled as such. It is CLEAR you all know MUCH more than I so I am gleening from your information.
LikeLike
February 12, 2013 at 2:51 pm
I’ve given myself several crash courses in Hebrew, including transliterating much of the book of Exodus into Phoenician letters, and the book of JOHN itself back into Koine Greek as far as Greek studies go, that in Greek, it did not say Jesus of Nazareth but “Jesus the Nazarene” (Iesous ho nazoraios) which in Hebrew is Yeshu(a) haNatsariy. Now, the “and” may be added, giving you YHWH, as John, the only Gospel-writer who was an eyewitness to the crucifixion, was ninety years old at the time he wrote his gospel and may have forgotten that one word, or that one tiny letter was written in the Hebrew and not in the other texts. It is most likely, however, that this “Hebrew” was actually Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, as the same word for Hebrew in Greek was used for the official language of the Jewery (Aramaic) as well. In this case, you don’t get Yahweh, but an observing Pharisee may have noted in his high-and-mighty knowledge of Hebrew, that this acrostic was made in the holy scribal language, Hebrew, and have based some of his protest against the titulus’s text when he besought Pilate to rewrite it. We’re really not sure, but Pilate, who clearly favoured Jesus’ case, might have chosen to write the “Hebrew” text in the Jews’ scribal language as a means of getting under the Pharisees’ (or the Jews’ in general, as there was some racial tension between Romans and Jews) skin. Anyone who knew Aramaic would have had no trouble making out the meaning of the brief Hebrew title. It’s a possibility. God bless, and I hope you found my studies useful.
P.S. A rough JPA translation of the title follows: Yeshu’a Natsarayyah, umalkhah diYehudiyn.
LikeLike
March 3, 2013 at 6:35 pm
John 19:19 says Jesus of Nazarene the King of the Jews so the acrostic (if every letter beginning the words is it)would be Yeshua Ha Nazarene Ve Meleck Ha Yudah YHVH see easy
LikeLike
March 30, 2013 at 5:04 pm
I comment each time I like a post on a website or if I have something to valuable to contribute to the conversation.
It’s triggered by the passion communicated in the post I browsed. And on this post Did the Accusation above Jesus’ Cross Form an Acrostic Spelling “YHWH”? | Theo-sophical Ruminations. I was moved enough to leave a thought 😉 I do have a couple of questions for you if it’s okay.
Could it be simply me or does it give the impression like some of the responses come across
as if they are coming from brain dead people? 😛 And,
if you are writing on additional online sites, I would like to follow you.
Would you make a list the complete urls of all your shared pages like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?
See this: kliknij, http://whenever.waw.pl
LikeLike
September 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm
Yeshua ha-Notzri u’Melekh ha-Yehudim: YHVH….THERE U GO
LikeLike
September 6, 2014 at 1:22 pm
You know this is disturbing because I repeated it without looking fully into it, I no longer take at their word many of the Christian teachings. I also note that the Torah seems so much more inspired.
LikeLike
March 4, 2016 at 12:27 am
jesus my lord and savior and he is the lord of what we have today
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 4:50 pm
Reblogged this on jose's space.
LikeLike
December 28, 2016 at 6:12 am
John was at the foot of the cross when Jesus was crucified so his account has the most accurate report of what was actually written above Jesus. This doesn’t mean the other gospel writers report of what was written is wrong, in fact, what they recorded was above Jesus’s head. The main point of Johns gospel is that Jesus was and is, God. Pontius Pilate and the roman soldiers unknowingly testified that Jesus was in fact God. Not only did they participate in the fulfillment of the messianic scriptures,they wrote Jesus’s Old Testament name YHWH(acrostic) letting everyone there know that he was God. That’s why the Jewish leaders wanted Pilate to change the placard above his head, because they knew that what was above his head said that he was God, Yeweh. Had it not said that Jesus was God, they wouldn’t have cared. After all, that’s why they had Jesus crucified, because he told them that he was in fact God. Legalistic grammar and lack of spiritual insight will always be food for doubt among those who are skeptical, but the evidence of who Jesus was and still is, is obvious and overwhelming to those who have faith, even the size of a mustard seed. Jesus was and still is, God.
LikeLike
December 28, 2016 at 12:24 pm
Jesus was the product of the Creator as all humanity is and that Creator is Evolution by any other name.
What is Faith, if not with proof, but skepticism? And what is Skepticism, if not simply Faith, looking for proof?
Faith by definition is unexamined, so in that sense it has to be among the shallowest of experiences and yet if it could it would regulate every action, every word and thought of every single person on this planet by beliefs, without proof, that is nothing less than vain imaginations of various men.
LikeLike
March 14, 2017 at 3:09 pm
hi, loved reading the comments. I was led here by the thought that perhaps Revelation 17:5 (the mysterious name of babylon the great) could possibly be an acrostic? I am at a loss, as I can find no articles that consider this, and I have no knowledge of greek. Anyone?
LikeLike
March 15, 2017 at 1:09 am
STEVEN COHEN:
What do the letters “INRI” on the crucifix mean?
The letters “INRI” are initials for the Latin title that Pontius Pilate had written over the head of Jesus Christ on the cross (John 19:19).
Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire. The words were “Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm.” Latin uses “I” instead of the English “J”, and “V” instead of “U” (i.e., Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum). The English translation is “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”
The Early Church adopted the first letters of each word of this inscription “INRI” as a symbol. Throughout the centuries INRI has appeared in many paintings of the crucifixion. By the way, Pilate’s title for Christ was actually written in three languages. And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
This title, then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, “Write not, ‘The King of the Jews;’ but that he said, ‘I am King of the Jews’.” Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.” -John 19:19-22 (KJV)
LikeLike
March 15, 2017 at 1:54 am
Steven:
The mystery of the woman is not an acrosticBabylon is the City of wealth and greed that knew no hole too deep to wallow in.
The metaphor for that city, Babylon, was a woman turned Harlot of seduction seducing very man who could find her especially the wealthy kings.
Thus the lust for sexuality was metaphorical for the lust of wealth of the greed who knew no depths of exploitation to acquire the wealth as man knows no depths of exploitation to satisfy his lust for sex.
The most powerful forces in the world; the drivers of that part of mankind pursuing greed and propelled by sex, the cares, riches and pleasures of the world. Money, metaphorical for the beast of 666 and Harlot metaphorical for the Beast driven by sex; thus, is the mystery of Babylon The Great City incorporated both to the maximum extent until the inevitable “Fall” that pursuit that shall render the pursuer to peril, to perish.
The full analogy is replete with comparatives of the two in chapters 17 and 18 of Revelation.
The name written on the Harlot’s forehead is a metaphor for the mindset of the brain on the other side of the forehead, not the forehead itself but the mindset of the brain.
The best descriptor of these two chapters are most easily understood ny reading it from the Message (MSG) Bible. Rev 17 & 18
LikeLike
December 30, 2017 at 6:46 pm
guys are you blind? it certaintly wasnt written P.DIDDY. what is with you? you would accept all sorth of bs except that it read YHWH….
LikeLike
December 30, 2017 at 6:51 pm
moreover, read verse 21 from John 19. you might get a deeper insight concerning this issue.
LikeLike
December 30, 2017 at 7:49 pm
satrapu:
Here is the deeper insight about what was written and what was written was not YHWH.
In the accounts of the Passion of Jesus, the title King of the Judeans is used on three separate occasions. In the first such episode, all four Gospels state that the title was used for Jesus when he was interviewed by Pilate and that his Crucifixion was based on that charge, as in Matthew 27:11, Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3 and John 18:33.
The use of the terms King and Kingdom and the role of the Jews in using the term King to accuse Jesus are central to the discussion between Jesus and Pilate. In Mark 15:2, Jesus affirms to Pilate that “Thou sayest it” and says nothing further. In John 18:34, he hints that the King accusation did not originate with Pilate but with “others” and, it was this “others” that Pilate was asking him the question about. In John 18:36, he states: “My kingdom is not of this world”. However, Jesus does not directly deny being the King of the Jews. He merely says “Thou sayest it”..
In John 18:33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34 Jesus answered him, “Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, “Art thou a king then?” Jesus answered, “Thou sayest that I am a king.” (But I say here and now I give you the reason for which I was born ) “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world,THAT I SHOULD BEAR WITNESS TO THE TRUTH. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”
So Jesus was not confirming that he was King of the Jews he was affirming that others say it of him, and then proceeds to tell Pilate directly why he was born. People confuse this important distinction and believe Jesus is confirming that he is the King off the Jews but that is not the context of the syntax.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
In the New Testament, Pilate writes “Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Judeans” as a sign to be affixed to the cross of Jesus. John 19:21 states that the Jews told Pilate: “Do not write King of the Jews” but instead write that Jesus had merely claimed that title, but Pilate wrote it anyway. Pilate’s response to the protest is recorded by John 19:19 “What I have written, I have written.”
The use of the term “King of the Judeans” by the early Church after the death of Jesus was thus not without risk, for this term could have opened them to prosecution as followers of Jesus, who was accused of possible rebellion against Rome.
John 19:20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
To summarize:
In the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as the King of the Jews (or of the Judea’s), both at the beginning of his life and at the end. In the Koine Greek of the New Testament, e.g., in John 19:3, this is written Basileus ton Ioudaion (βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων).
Both uses of the title lead to dramatic results in the New Testament accounts. In the account of the Nativity of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, the wise men (i.e., Magi) who come from the east call Jesus the “King of the Judeans”, causing King Herod to order the Massacre of the Innocents. Towards the end of the accounts of all four Canonical Gospels, in the narrative of the Passion of Jesus, the title “King of the Judeans” leads to charges against Jesus that result in his crucifixion. The name Judea is a Greek and Roman adaptation of the name “Judah”, which originally encompassed the territory of the Israelite tribe of that name and later of the ancient Kingdom of Judah.
The initialism INRI (Latin: Iēsūs/Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rex Iūdaeōrum) represents the Latin inscription (in John 19:19) which in English reads as “Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews” and John 19:20 states that this was written in three languages—Hebrew, Latin, and Greek—during the crucifixion of Jesus. The Greek version of the initialism reads ΙΝBΙ, representing Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ Bασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων.]
The title “King of the Jews” is only used in the New Testament by gentiles, namely by the Magi, Pontius Pilate, and the Roman soldiers. In contrast, the Jewish leaders use the designation “King of Israel”. Although the phrase “King of the Jews” is used in most English translations, it has also been translated “King of the Judeans” (see Ioudaioi).
LikeLike
March 15, 2021 at 10:01 am
19 And Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross beam. And having been written, it was:
Y AHSHUA
H’NAZARENE,
V MELEK (and King of)
H YEHUDEIM (the Jews)
20 Therefore many of the Jews read this title, because the place where Yahshua was crucified was near the city. And it had been written in Hebrew, in Greek and in Latin.
21 Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, Do not write, The King of the Jews, but that One said, I am King of the Jews.
22 Pilate answered, What I have written, I have written.
Click to access hebraicRootsBible.pdf
LikeLike
March 15, 2021 at 12:51 pm
The Pharisees request to Pilate to change the wording says a ton. Otherwise, why would they care. They saw their God’s intimate name above Jesus’s(Yeshua) head, and so did all the other Jews. Anyone looking for proof about anything in Gods word, will probably be let down. But it is faith, that Gods people display, which pleases Him, and baffles those who lack it.
LikeLike
August 2, 2021 at 10:39 pm
TURN THE LETTERS AROUND.
YHWH. Abreviated
H WHY! Backwards.
LikeLike
September 25, 2021 at 7:15 pm
This is altogerher wrong.
The Greek uses the definite article. So its Jesus THE NazarENE, (the)King of the Jews.
So in Hebrew Yeshua hanatzari melek hayehuda. An “of” doesnt translate, its implied. So weve eliminated the problem of YNMH/YNHH.
The issue now is yeshua hanatzari hamelek hayehudim
Reads yeshua the nazarene OF the king of the Jews. That OF comes from the fact that Hebrew construct chains are made placing two nouns back to back.
It doesnt matter if the AND is present or not present in the Greek, you CANNOT translate it to Hebrew WITHOUT ADDING IT.
yeshua hanatzari VA(ha)melek HaYehudim
YHVH. There is ZERO way out of this gramatically to read true
LikeLike