|
 |
The multilingual sign over Jesus’ Cross | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Cultural Experiences in Foreign Languages |  | |
| JW Hexaglot Senior Member United States youtube.com/user/egw Joined 6154 days ago 1802 posts - 2011 votes  22 sounds Speaks: English*, German, Spanish, Ancient Greek, French, Biblical Hebrew Studies: Luxembourgish, Dutch, Greek, Italian | Message 1 of 28 20 August 2010 at 1:09am | IP Logged | |||||
|
I have been interested in exactly what the sign over Jesus' cross looked like for some time. Now that my Hebrew is finally (I think) good enough, below is what I think it looked like:
ΟΥΤΟΣΕΣΤΙΝΙΗΣΟΥΣΟΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣΟΒΑΣ ΙΛΕΥΣΤΩΝΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ HICESTIESVSNAZARENVSREXIVDÆORUM זההואישועהנצרימלךהיהודים In more modern friendly writing this is: ουτος εστιν ιησους ο ναζωραιος ο βασιλευς των ιουδαιων Hic est Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudæorum זה הוא ישוע הנצרי מלך היהודים The INRI used by Roman Catholics is the first letter of the last four words in Latin. Thr INBI used by the Greek Orthodox is the first letter of the last four words in Greek. In English it translates to: "This is Jesus of Nazereth the King of the Jews" I derived this from the following verses: And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Luke 23:38 Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written, "JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS." John 19:19 The inscription of the charge against Him read, "THE KING OF THE JEWS." Mark 15:26 And above His head they put up the charge against Him which read, "THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS." Matt 27:37 Edited by JW on 20 August 2010 at 1:23am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Arekkusu Hexaglot Senior Member Canada bit.ly/qc_10_lec Joined 5413 days ago 3971 posts - 7747 votes Speaks: English, French*, GermanC1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian | Message 2 of 28 20 August 2010 at 1:36pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Considering the very historicity of Jesus is the topic of much debate, and seeing as we
have no proof he ever existed, you might be getting a little bit ahead of yourself by assuming there really was a Jesus, a cross and a sign to begin with. Still, wouldn't you have a more satisfactory answer, rather than guessing, if you looked it up in the oldest versions of the Bible? 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| kidshomestunner Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 6437 days ago 239 posts - 285 votes Speaks: Japanese | Message 3 of 28 20 August 2010 at 2:15pm | IP Logged | |||||
There is more proof for the existence of Jesus than the existence of Plato. Edited by kidshomestunner on 20 August 2010 at 5:44pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| staf250 Pentaglot Senior Member Belgium emmerick.be Joined 5729 days ago 352 posts - 414 votes Speaks: French, Dutch*, Italian, English, German Studies: Arabic (Written) | Message 4 of 28 20 August 2010 at 2:16pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
When I'll be back at home I'm going to look up what A.K. Emmerick said about the text on her "visions". I
remember now only to have read that the text was written from right to left. Wait and see. Edited by staf250 on 20 August 2010 at 5:06pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| JW Hexaglot Senior Member United States youtube.com/user/egw Joined 6154 days ago 1802 posts - 2011 votes 22 sounds Speaks: English*, German, Spanish, Ancient Greek, French, Biblical Hebrew Studies: Luxembourgish, Dutch, Greek, Italian | Message 5 of 28 20 August 2010 at 2:29pm | IP Logged | |||||
I think this is not the place to discuss this topic lest we violate the forum rules. I would be happy to discuss it via PM if you like. The point here is an exercise in ancient languages which I think many people will find interesting.
The full text of the sign must be reconstructed because each of the accounts in the four gospels has only part of the text of the sign. I reconstructed the full Greek text from the original Greek New Testament. I reconstructed the Latin from the Vulgate (a 4th century translation of the Bible into Latin). Finally, I reconstructed the Hebrew from interlinearbible.org which contains the Bible in numerous languages. Edited by JW on 20 August 2010 at 2:31pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| William Camden Hexaglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 6304 days ago 1936 posts - 2333 votes Speaks: English*, German, Spanish, Russian, Turkish, French | Message 6 of 28 20 August 2010 at 2:34pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Although the New Testament says one of the languages was Hebrew, I read somewhere that the reference was actually to Aramaic, which was the main spoken language in the region at the time and was written in the same square script used for Hebrew.
Hebrew had already ceased to be a normal spoken language at the time, being used for religious purposes only. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| JW Hexaglot Senior Member United States youtube.com/user/egw Joined 6154 days ago 1802 posts - 2011 votes 22 sounds Speaks: English*, German, Spanish, Ancient Greek, French, Biblical Hebrew Studies: Luxembourgish, Dutch, Greek, Italian | Message 7 of 28 20 August 2010 at 2:44pm | IP Logged | |||||
Yes, this is true. As an objective Historian, the only conclusion possible is to accept the life, crucifixion, death, burial,and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as historical facts. Both the Biblical and extra-Biblical data demand this conculsion. These are the most well attested facts of Ancient History, thus to reject them would require one to reject all of Ancient History. If anyone disagrees with this statement, I challenge you to do the research. Please feel free to PM me if you do the research and want to discuss further. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| JW Hexaglot Senior Member United States youtube.com/user/egw Joined 6154 days ago 1802 posts - 2011 votes 22 sounds Speaks: English*, German, Spanish, Ancient Greek, French, Biblical Hebrew Studies: Luxembourgish, Dutch, Greek, Italian | Message 8 of 28 20 August 2010 at 2:56pm | IP Logged | |||||
Yes, this is true. My theory is the following: Aramaic and Hebrew are very similar languages (I would say, something like the Scandinavian languages). Aramaic was certainly the spoken language in Judea at the time but I am not sure it was used for official writing. I think Hebrew was used for official writing. Thus Greek, Latin, and Hebrew would be the three official languages, Greek and Latin being the official languages of the Roman Empire, and Hebrew being the official language of Judea. Edited by JW on 20 August 2010 at 2:59pm 2 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
