On the 'King of the Jews' Sign

I asked:

Another question - the sign which hung on Jesus at the cross. If "Jew" was originally "Judean" could the sign have originally been read "King Judas"?

Boid responds:

Yes!!! Let us suppose that what Pilate wrote was “The King, Judah” המלך יהודה in Hebrew or מלכה יהודה in Aramaic. This is of course only a guess at the moment. I found nothing in the Old Syriac of Matthew, Mark, or Luke to support it, and the Old Syriac doesn’t survive in this part of John. On the other hand, there is the insistence on the descent of Jesus from Judah in the genealogies of Jesus. The two verses of the Torah that give this status to Judah are Deuteronomy XXXIII: 7 and Genesis XLIX: 10. The first of these is more definite than it seems. Notice the first word of the verse. Why does it say “And this is for Judah” [Luke 23:38] or “And this belongs to Judah” at the start of the verse? None of the others starts like this. The first word refers back to the first word of v. 1, which refers to the second word. The words “And this is the blessing” refer to ALL that follows. But if it is a blessing, it must refer to the future. But the words lie before the telling of the giving of the first Torah and the assumption of kingship by Moses. Therefore there is to be a second Torah and a second Moses and a second king. All this belongs to Judah. If even the Samaritans agreed that the second and greater Moses was to be from the tribe of Judah (John IV: 22), then the THRONE-NAME of the individual would be Yehuda, since Deuteronomy XXXIII speaks of each tribe in the name of its eponymous ancestor. In Genesis XLIX: 10 nearly all the ancient Versions find the meaning “whose it is “ or “who rightfully owns it” or “to whom it belongs”. The fact that the numerical value of Shiloh is the same as that of Moses expresses the same concept.

I mentioned to you long ago that Chrêstos, although superlative in form, often only means appropriate or right, not the most appropriate. The connotation of the common use of the superlative form is to signify the right person or the right thing, when only one can be the right one. The right one is therefore the one most right. The right one is therefore superior even to Moses.. This is to be the king that will be a king in the full sense, unlike David or Solomon, who were far inferior to Moses. He will be greater even than Moses. Translate Shiloh as “the right one”. Aquila, the translation authorised by Rabbinic Judaism, is the most explicit. The Peshitta agrees. I don’t mean this is the literal etymological meaning, because that is obscure, but this is what the word was universally taken to mean in the context. Neither does the LXX disagree in translating the word as ΑΠΟΚΕΙΜΕΝΟΣ meaning “the one stored away”. See Deuteronomy XXXII: 34. (The next verse gives you Menachem, the comforter and avenger, both being literal meanings of the word). Whose body lay uncorrupted in an unfindable cave, waiting for the time of Manifestation? Neither does the Rabbinic connection with descent from Judah ultimately differ. Neither does the translation of Targum Onkelos differ when it translate both ways, as the Anointed to whom belongs the kingship. The Palestinian Targum has the Anointed one, the last of his descendants, meaning the last descendant of Judah to hold kingship, because holding complete and everlasting kingship. In this context, the anointing is the anointing of the High Priest, but the High Priest of the Heavenly Tabernacle, like Moses. Notice how these concepts have been obscured by the church’s fixation on descent from David and ORDINARY kingship. I personally think this line of thought to have been deliberately set up to take attention away from Moses, and to obscure the nature of Christianity. Look what has been done to obscure the meaning of the title Christos, and to pretend the alternative Chrêstos was never used by Christians. The only REAL importance to Jesus being descended from David was that that made him a descendant of Judah and eligible to be Judah, the second Moses. If you look at the genealogies without presuppositions, they are concerned with descent from Judah more than from David. I take it that Pilate understood all this. So did the Jewish leaders that had framed Jesus and coerced Pilate. They had difficulty saying what they didn’t like about the sign because they didn’t want to talk about what they THOUGHT was a secret doctrine. I can see why the Coptic Church has canonised both Pilate and his wife. When Pilate chose those words, he made a public declaration about his own religious position, in two (or four) words that were full of meaning but sounded like a bald statement.

I haven’t read the Gospel of Barnabas yet, which is probably a good thing, since I didn’t want to be influenced. If it says the one crucified was Judas, I take this to be a misunderstanding of what was written by Pilate, but I also take it as a historical witness to my reconstruction (inspired by you) of the words of the sign. If the words were read and then repeated and eventually copied by someone that missed the point, that only confirms the objectivity and reliability of the witness.

A slight digression. The words Christos and Chrêstos are different in meaning, but can obviously be applied to the same person and imply the same as each other about the status of that person. The ms. evidence in John IV supports Christos. I intend to try to list the places where the ms. evidence supports Chrêstos. Anyway, Chrêstos is a literal translation of Shiloh.

You might have noticed that some mss. of the Samaritan and the MT leave out the yod in Shiloh. The purpose would be to deny that this person was equal to Moses. This is current Samaritan orthodoxy. The figure is ten less. This is the same symbolism as in the lifespan of Joshua, a hundred and ten years, ten less than the hundred and twenty that Moses lived.

LATER NOTE FROM BOID:

Let us suppose that what Pilate wrote was “The King, Judah” המלך יהודה in Hebrew or מלכה יהודה in Aramaic. This is of course only a guess at the moment. I found nothing in the Old Syriac of Matthew, Mark, or Luke to support it, and the Old Syriac doesn’t survive in this part of John. On the other hand, there is the insistence on the descent of Jesus from Judah in the genealogies of Jesus. The two verses of the Torah that give this status to Judah are Deuteronomy XXXIII: 7 and Genesis XLIX: 10. The first of these is more definite than it seems. Notice the first word of the verse. Why does it say “And this is for Judah” or “And this belongs to Judah” at the start of the verse? None of the others starts like this. The first word refers back to the first word of v. 1, which refers to the second word. The words “And this is the blessing” refer to ALL that follows. But if it is a blessing, it must refer to the future. But the words lie before the telling of the giving of the first Torah and the assumption of kingship by Moses. Therefore there is to be a second Torah and a second Moses and a second king. All this belongs to Judah. If even the Samaritans agreed that the second and greater Moses was to be from the tribe of Judah (John IV: 22), then the THRONE-NAME of the individual would be Yehuda, since Deuteronomy XXXIII speaks of each tribe in the name of its eponymous ancestor. In Genesis XLIX: 10 nearly all the ancient Versions find the meaning “whose it is “ or “who rightfully owns it” or “to whom it belongs”. The fact that the numerical value of Shiloh is the same as that of Moses expresses the same concept.

I mentioned to you long ago that Chrêstos, although superlative in form, often only means appropriate or right, not the most appropriate. The connotation of the common use of the superlative form is to signify the right person or the right thing, when only one can be the right one. The right one is therefore the one most right. The right one is therefore superior even to Moses.. This is to be the king that will be a king in the full sense, unlike David or Solomon, who were far inferior to Moses. He will be greater even than Moses. Translate Shiloh as “the right one”. Aquila, the translation authorised by Rabbinic Judaism, is the most explicit. The Peshitta agrees. I don’t mean this is the literal etymological meaning, because that is obscure, but this is what the word was universally taken to mean in the context. Neither does the LXX disagree in translating the word as ΑΠΟΚΕΙΜΕΝΟΣ meaning “the one stored away”. See Deuteronomy XXXII: 34. (The next verse gives you Menachem, the comforter and avenger, both being literal meanings of the word). Whose body lay uncorrupted in an unfindable cave, waiting for the time of Manifestation? Neither does the Rabbinic connection with descent from Judah ultimately differ. Neither does the translation of Targum Onkelos differ when it translate both ways, as the Anointed to whom belongs the kingship. The Palestinian Targum has the Anointed one, the last of his descendants, meaning the last descendant of Judah to hold kingship, because holding complete and everlasting kingship. In this context, the anointing is the anointing of the High Priest, but the High Priest of the Heavenly Tabernacle, like Moses. Notice how these concepts have been obscured by the church’s fixation on descent from David and ORDINARY kingship. I personally think this line of thought to have been deliberately set up to take attention away from Moses, and to obscure the nature of Christianity. Look what has been done to obscure the meaning of the title Christos, and to pretend the alternative Chrêstos was never used by Christians. The only REAL importance to Jesus being descended from David was that that made him a descendant of Judah and eligible to be Judah, the second Moses. If you look at the genealogies without presuppositions, they are concerned with descent from Judah more than from David. I take it that Pilate understood all this. So did the Jewish leaders that had framed Jesus and coerced Pilate. They had difficulty saying what they didn’t like about the sign because they didn’t want to talk about what they THOUGHT was a secret doctrine. I can see why the Coptic Church has canonised both Pilate and his wife. When Pilate chose those words, he made a public declaration about his own religious position, in two (or four) words that were full of meaning but sounded like a bald statement.

I haven’t read the Gospel of Barnabas yet, which is probably a good thing, since I didn’t want to be influenced. If it says the one crucified was Judas, I take this to be a misunderstanding of what was written by Pilate, but I also take it as a historical witness to my reconstruction (inspired by you) of the words of the sign. If the words were read and then repeated and eventually copied by someone that missed the point, that only confirms the objectivity and reliability of the witness.

A slight digression. The words Christos and Chrêstos are different in meaning, but can obviously be applied to the same person and imply the same as each other about the status of that person. The ms. evidence in John IV supports Christos. I intend to try to list the places where the ms. evidence supports Chrêstos. Anyway, Chrêstos is a literal translation of Shiloh.

You might have noticed that some mss. of the Samaritan and the MT leave out the yod in Shiloh. The purpose would be to deny that this person was equal to Moses. This is current Samaritan orthodoxy. The figure is ten less. This is the same symbolism as in the lifespan of Joshua, a hundred and ten years, ten less than the hundred and twenty that Moses lived.