Discussion in 'עברית (Hebrew)' started by progial_son_2008, Apr 21, 2008.
Hi, how would you translate INRI into Hebrew
(jesus of nazareth king of the jews)
INRI is the acronym for that inscription in Latin.
The Hebrew translation, according John 19:19 in one of the principal Hebrew translations of the New Testatment, it was ישוע הנצרי מלך היהודים.
That is awesome thank you!
Is that just for INRI or for the whole of Jesus of Nazereth King of the Jews?
INRI is an acronym for the Latin for "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews". The first letter of each word.
Brilliant thanks... How comes u can type that? Do you have a Hebrew keyboard?!
So its: ע ך רי ים
Is that correct?
No, it is not.
"INRI" is not a word, it is the first letter of each of a series of words.
Hebrew is written from right to left and you have copied the last letter of each word. But the even the first letter of each word makes no sense in Hebrew.
The words I gave you are the translation of the words "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews". "INRI" stands for "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iuaedorum", if I'm not mistaken, which is the Latin for the same phrase. (Latin didn't have a J.)
To sum up, "INRI" is not a word, and so there is no direct translation. It stands for a phrase that can be translated, and you have that now.
I hope this is helpful.
According to John, the whole title was attached to the cross in three languages, Roman/Latin, Greek, and Hebrew/Aramaic, but most artistic renderings of the event show only the four initial letters since the title is not the main focus of these depictions. I have seen these with "INRI" as well as "INBI", the Greek equivalent. The exact original words may not be known except for John's original Greek version.
As very often, Nun-T. is right.
Just a tiny precision : the order of the Hebrew translation of INRI is :
ישוע הנצרי מלך היהודים. The order of words in post #2 is misleading, because of the way the sentence was cut.
ישוע הנצרי מלך היהודים = (from RIGHT to LEFT) :
Yeshua hanatzari melekh hayehudim
Jesus the Nazarean king [of] the Jews
(I stand to be corrected for the first two words).
To widen the debate, I have always wondered why it is Yeshua (ישוע) and not Yehoshua ...
This goes even further, because the name Jesus could also be Joshua, Yehoshua (more "Hebrew like" = G.od is [my] help) or Josue (Josué).
I think ישוע is "He will save" (Chaldean), but I have never understood how it could fulfill a prophecy that He would be named Im-manu-el.
Some parts of this thread might be of interest.
Iudaeorum (sorry for my pedantry).
Thank you for correcting my typo.
Thank you Nun T. for the thread.
I thought Jesus is ישו? Obviously I could be totally wrong though. Maybe both can be used?
ישו and ישוע both work. I am not clear on why Morfix only has ישו, but in Hebrew texts both names have appeared.
Oh alright. I just saw that here it distinguishes between the two.
If you re-read Nun-Translator's post, she says:
"On the other hand, "Jesus" in Hebrew is ישוע (Yeshua) - no ho in the middle. Some people shorten that to ישו (Yeshu), but that is not accepted by Hebrew-speaking Christians."
Which one you choose to use depends a great deal on the context, again.
To the best of my understanding, the process of the word change went the other way round. Yeshu is the original form of the name (it appears in the Talmud); but, since in the Jewish tradition it had acquired negative connotations, the Hebrew-speaking Christians felt the need to change it. The form “Yeshua” (when applied to Jesus) seems to be relatively recent. If I am not mistaken, it is used only by Christians (a Jew may use it when speaking to a Christian, out of courtesy to the listener).
Just so you realize, that isn't me saying that, that was a post of Nun-Translator's that I had borrowed.
ישו is what appears in the Talmud to what I've seen. As to which came first, I really don't know.
I respectfully submit that the Talmud may not be the best source with regard to the name of Jesus. The few references that are generally considered to refer to him are not entirely friendly.
And now, I'll leave you to it.
I am sorry, I certainly had no intention to say anything unpleasant for you.
The Talmud seems to be the oldest (though unfriendly) Hebrew source with regard to Jesus' name. So the Talmudic version of the name is the oldest one in Hebrew. That's all I wanted to point out.
I hope it is acceptable to ask about the second word in the phrase, נצרי. Was it derived from the name of a city in existence about 2000 years ago? If so, was the name of that city always spelled with צ? Was there any meaning to the word, or was it strictly a place name?
I don't know about the history of the city, but there is no such thing as "strictly a place name". The name נוצרי does come from the city נצרת, where jesus is said to be born. The root נצר can mean "to guard" or "a branch, a descendant".
I'm pretty sure that the צ has always been there, though it was probably pronounced differently than today's צ.
The צ has always been there, and it indeed still exists as a city with that same name in northern Israel. Originally, though, the צ was velarized and pronounced as is the ص in Arabic.
At the 12th station of the cross in the Holy Sepulchre Church in Jerusalem they have a 2-dimensional artist's representation of Jesus on the cross. The letters
INBI are on top
INRI second, and
י נ מ י in third position.
Probably INBI is on top, because the 12th station belongs to the Greek Orthodox, so they would naturally present the Greek inscription first.
You can see what it looks like on Google images, if you type in 12th station Holy Sepulchre.
Not sure about Hebrew but in Aramaic it's Eshu', not Yeshua, and it's written the same way as Hebrew, so ישוע.
Sometimes it's pronounced Eshu, this only happens in some dialects that don't pronounce the Ayin much, but it's never ever written like this ישו, not sure what source this form comes from but it's not the correct spelling, whether you pronounce it Eshu', Eshu, or Yesho', it's always written this way ישוע.
The Hebrew ישו form comes from the Jewish Talmud. See post 19 of this thread. It is commonly used among Hebrew-speaking Jews, but Hebrew-speaking Christians prefer ישוע.
is "yod" (י) not pronounced in Aramaic?
It is, but in the case of Jesus' name it pronounced differently from the Hebrew way, for example in Hebrew it's Yesh-wa, in Aramaic it's Eee-shu', I'm assuming that the Aramaic way should be Yesh-u', but for whatever reason every Aramaic dialect I have come across it's always Eee-shu'.
What's the reason for that spelling Nun? because it doesn't make sense to be honest with you, Talmud or not the spelling is ישוע, even if you pronounce it Yeshu, the spelling must remain proper.
That's like how some Aramaic dialects say Yaqu for Jacob (Where in reality it should be Ya'qub), but in the end of the day we still spell it יעקוב not יקו.
The point is that, as Nun-Translator explained, in the Talmud the name ישו has pejorative connotations. As a matter of fact, ישו and ישוע represent two different semantic entities. To the best of my understanding, that's why Hebrew-speaking Christians prefer the latter version of the name. It has nothing to do with the real history of the word. The etymological tie between the two names seems to be very uncertain.
Apparently John's translation of the inscription reads thus:
Yeshua Hanotzri V'melekh Hayehudim (Jesus of Nazereth, A/The King of the Jews)-> this reads YHVH - the name of the Lord I AM. This is presented as one reason why "many jews" read it and the priests were so eager for Pilate to change it to say "HE said he is king of the Jews". Their blood probably curdled at the sight knowing what fate lay waiting for them in hell.
To quote tfighterpilot from another thread:
Really!? you had to correct something last seen in 2008!?
No sir...that's incorrect. There is no copula in the Greek.
The Greek states,
Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων
Which in Hebrew is,
ישוע הנוצרי מלך היהודים
However, it was likely written in Aramaic, not Hebrew. Aramaic was also known as Hebrew back then. Even Rashi notes that Aramaic is sometimes called עברית in his commentary on the Talmud (I believe it's a passage in massekhet Megilla).
And, the English should be, "Yeshu'a (or "Jesus") the Nazarene (not "of Nazareth"), the King of the Jews."
The Greek does not say "of Nazareth" which would have been ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ (cp. Matt. 21:11).
@Diadem, I'm asking for a short clarification. Is the point of what you're saying is that "v" is inserted to the acronyms although the Greek sentence doesn't justify it?
@Diadem: Are you saying that a Nazarene (or its Aramaic equivalent) meant something other than simply someone from Nazareth?
By the way, Jesus was said to be a Nazarene although he was born in Bethlehem, apparently because he grew up in Egypt and Nazareth, not where he was born, and Matthew says this fulfills a prophecy, so I am curious.
There are different theories as to what Nazarene means, as John Lightfoot, rabbinic scholar and biblical commentator of the 17th century notes:
In order to have the ו in the equivalent Hebrew phrase, then the Greek would need to be Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων.
Not necessarily, although there are debates on the meaning. But, still, the English translation of Ναζωραῖος is "Nazarene."Look in Matt. 2:23 of the KJV, the first verse in which it occurs. It says, "...and he shall be called a Nazarene..."
Just thought I would mention something that might add to the discussion. As noted by Diadem, the Christian's New Testament maintains that Jesus’ dwelling in Nazareth fulfilled "what was spoken by the prophets" that "he shall be called a Nazarene" (Matthew 2:23). These words, however, do not appear in the Jewish Scriptures. Interestingly, an addition to 1 Samuel 1:22 in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls might be the basis for the words cited in Matthew: ונת]תיהו נזיר עד עולם כול ימי [חייו "[And] I will [give] him as a Nazirite forever, all the days of [his life]" (4QSam(a) col. II, frag. a, lines 3-4). If this is the case, then behind Greek Ναζωραῖος stands נָזִיר, at least for the words cited by Matthew. Of course one is still left with the difference in the 3rd person passive καλέω "to call" verses the 1st person active נתן "to give."
I honestly dont understand what you guys are arguing about - every language has its own way of saying things and it doesnt have to be a 1:1 translation in all words.
(We actually don't know how "Jesus" is written in Hebrew. Contrary to what some people here wrote, the Talmud arguably doesn't mention him.)
So, you consider one website's perspective and then make the blanket statement, "We actually don't know how "Jesus" is written in Hebrew"? Sure, that's impartial.
In any case, Rambam mentions Jesus of Nazaret in his Iggeret Teiman, and perhaps a few of his other writings (I'd need to revisit them to be sure of the others). The Syriac Peshitta also has ܝܫܘܥ, which is a cognate of the Hebrew ישוע. No surprise there.
The new testament portion of the Peshitta was translated from Greek, so that doesn't say much.
Mere translation from Greek would eliminate ש and ע. Their presence attests a tradition for the name that doesn't rely on Greek. Not a big surprise as Aramaic was the dominant language in the neighborhood during and after Jesus time and the continuity in regard to his story.
Yes, the Pšīttā was translated from Greek, but that does not mean that the Aramaic-speaking Christians did not know how to say “Jesus” in Aramaic. The name is vocalised as Īšōʻ in Eastern Syriac and Yašūʻ in Western Syriac. The Talmudic form ישו is Babylonian Eastern Aramaic, with the typical Babylonian loss of the laryngeal /ʻ/.
But the Rambam wrote in Arabic. Could anybody please quote how he wrote "Jesus"? It'd be interesting to see if he wrote it the Arab way (Isa, عيسى) or the way that allegedly appears in the Talmud.
Separate names with a comma.