What was written above the cross?

[Greektim]

In all 4 accounts, something different is recorded. So much so that if you conflate all the readings together, you arrive at a "saying" that is actually not recorded in the Bible.

Mt 27:37 - And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews."
Mk 15:26 - And the inscription of the charge against him read, "The King of the Jews."
Lk 23:38 - There was also an inscription over him, "This is the King of the Jews."
Jn 19:19 - It read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

Here is what I mean. Most conservative evangelicals will say that what was probably written over Jesus was a combination of all 4: "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

My question then, is there a problem that this conflated reading never occurs in the 4 evangelists??? Aren't we adding to Scripture w/ that assumption.

 

[beameup]

I believe that John has the English equivalent of the Hebrew.
The Hebrew was in an acrostic which read: Y H W H
The Jews didn't much like what Pilate had written.
Obviously Pilate was fluent in Hebrew, Greek and Latin.

 

[Dr. Bob]

INRI is the abbreviation seen on many communion tables. From the Latin above the cross

Iesus
Nazarene
Rex
Iouda

Each Gospel writer included a part of the whole. Not a-typical of four views of any complex, multi=lingual sign. We "put together" the Gospel accounts to make a complete pix of many events; this is just another example.

 

[agedman]

The Apostle John was THE ONLY writer with first hand, personal eye witness testimony as to the cross.

I put what John states as what was actually written.

He was there.

All the others had to rely upon "other witnesses" to the event.

 

[Greektim]

The Apostle John was THE ONLY writer with first hand, personal eye witness testimony as to the cross.

I put what John states as what was actually written.

He was there.

All the others had to rely upon "other witnesses" to the event.

The only problem with that is that according to some of the synoptics, John left out "this". Minor? Yes. But his version is still incomplete. If you conflate all the readings, then the conflated reading no longer matches the Biblical account. I find that to be a bit disturbing.

 

[agedman]

The only problem with that is that according to some of the synoptics, John left out "this". Minor? Yes. But his version is still incomplete. If you conflate all the readings, then the conflated reading no longer matches the Biblical account. I find that to be a bit disturbing.

I suppose the problem is the desire to "conflate all the readings" rather than accept that all except John were at least third hand.

As far as "this" being left out, I don't see John as having left out anything, but recording exactly what was written.

The other records only record what they were told by others; that which the tellers might recall what was written. Unlike much of the rest of their accounts of the ministry of Jesus (which were first hand - eye witnessed) the account of the events of the cross were only John's to actually see - the rest of the writers abiding in cowardly disposition or yet in unbelief.

If one take John's record as completely reliable, and then compare the others writers to that record, you will see that each included a portion of what was written, but only John was truly accurate as to exactly what was written. All other accounts must bow to that witness of John who stood before the cross with the very mother of Christ.

 

[Dr. Bob]

No. That would elevate JOHN'S Gospel as somehow "better" than the others - all of which are 100% breathed by God and perfect.

Hard to improve on "perfect".

Each Gospel (Matthew was a disciple, Mark was simply penman for Peter's preaching, Luke a second-generation disciple, and John) has its own unique PURPOSE and PERSPECTIVE in including words, phrases, events or whole months of Jesus' life. NONE are a "complete biography" nor do any claim to be.

As for slight differences, remember that in the Greek wording of the sign, "This" would be a distinct word. In the Hebrew wording, "This" would not be a word but only understood/implied for the reader. So the "This" missing from John's record but in Matthew and Luke simply shows John was not recording how the sign read in Greek, but in Latin or Hebrew.

I personally do not think ANY pronouns, definite articles, etc, would be used on the sign. This was a placard hung around neck of the condemned walking to crucifixion so people knew the reason for execution. 2' by 2' size.

Jesus . Nazareth . King . Jews
would probably be accurate in all three languages. Anything more and the print would have been too small for anyone to read more than a few feet away. People would "understand" that "this is" Jesus "from" Nazareth "the" king "of the" Jews

 

[Greektim]

I suppose the problem is the desire to "conflate all the readings" rather than accept that all except John were at least third hand.

As far as "this" being left out, I don't see John as having left out anything, but recording exactly what was written.

The other records only record what they were told by others; that which the tellers might recall what was written. Unlike much of the rest of their accounts of the ministry of Jesus (which were first hand - eye witnessed) the account of the events of the cross were only John's to actually see - the rest of the writers abiding in cowardly disposition or yet in unbelief.

If one take John's record as completely reliable, and then compare the others writers to that record, you will see that each included a portion of what was written, but only John was truly accurate as to exactly what was written. All other accounts must bow to that witness of John who stood before the cross with the very mother of Christ.

Then you haven't read carefully. John leaves out the word "this". Instead of saying "this is Jesus..." he just has "Jesus..."

 

[Greektim]

No. That would elevate JOHN'S Gospel as somehow "better" than the others - all of which are 100% breathed by God and perfect.

Hard to improve on "perfect".

Each Gospel (Matthew was a disciple, Mark was simply penman for Peter's preaching, Luke a second-generation disciple, and John) has its own unique PURPOSE and PERSPECTIVE in including words, phrases, events or whole months of Jesus' life. NONE are a "complete biography" nor do any claim to be.

As for slight differences, remember that in the Greek wording of the sign, "This" would be a distinct word. In the Hebrew wording, "This" would not be a word but only understood/implied for the reader. So the "This" missing from John's record but in Matthew and Luke simply shows John was not recording how the sign read in Greek, but in Latin or Hebrew.

I personally do not think ANY pronouns, definite articles, etc, would be used on the sign. This was a placard hung around neck of the condemned walking to crucifixion so people knew the reason for execution. 2' by 2' size.

Jesus . Nazareth . King . Jews
would probably be accurate in all three languages. Anything more and the print would have been too small for anyone to read more than a few feet away. People would "understand" that "this is" Jesus "from" Nazareth "the" king "of the" Jews

I can live with that explanation.

 

[agedman]

No. That would elevate JOHN'S Gospel as somehow "better" than the others - all of which are 100% breathed by God and perfect.

Hard to improve on "perfect".

Each Gospel (Matthew was a disciple, Mark was simply penman for Peter's preaching, Luke a second-generation disciple, and John) has its own unique PURPOSE and PERSPECTIVE in including words, phrases, events or whole months of Jesus' life. NONE are a "complete biography" nor do any claim to be.

As for slight differences, remember that in the Greek wording of the sign, "This" would be a distinct word. In the Hebrew wording, "This" would not be a word but only understood/implied for the reader. So the "This" missing from John's record but in Matthew and Luke simply shows John was not recording how the sign read in Greek, but in Latin or Hebrew.

I personally do not think ANY pronouns, definite articles, etc, would be used on the sign. This was a placard hung around neck of the condemned walking to crucifixion so people knew the reason for execution. 2' by 2' size.

Jesus . Nazareth . King . Jews
would probably be accurate in all three languages. Anything more and the print would have been too small for anyone to read more than a few feet away. People would "understand" that "this is" Jesus "from" Nazareth "the" king "of the" Jews

Then you haven't read carefully. John leaves out the word "this". Instead of saying "this is Jesus..." he just has "Jesus..."

I am not placing John as "superior" but as a "touchstone" in this area. He was the only writer with first hand information having been an eyewitness.

When one holds John as giving the whole wording, then all the others fit. If one attempts to make them all compliant to each other, then there is rift and disunity between them.

John did not leave anything out. He didn't include what wasn't written. He stated exactly what was on the placard, and the others selected a few words that didn't disagree, but showed accuracy in what they stated when compared to John.

If one is to take the position that the Scripture is "perfect" in every account, then the disagreements the worldly appoints as inaccuracies then become factual. However, throughout Scriptures the reader engages the writing from the author's viewpoint, the perspective of writer in context.

Therefore, it is John to which the others must be compared for accuracy in this matter. Not that He is "more perfect" or "superior," but that he is the most reliable witness. Each of the writers had reason to conform their writing to both style and purpose, and each when compared to John are shown as accurate and perfect.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

In all 4 accounts, something different is recorded. So much so that if you conflate all the readings together, you arrive at a "saying" that is actually not recorded in the Bible.

Mt 27:37 - And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews."
Mk 15:26 - And the inscription of the charge against him read, "The King of the Jews."
Lk 23:38 - There was also an inscription over him, "This is the King of the Jews."
Jn 19:19 - It read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

Here is what I mean. Most conservative evangelicals will say that what was probably written over Jesus was a combination of all 4: "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

My question then, is there a problem that this conflated reading never occurs in the 4 evangelists??? Aren't we adding to Scripture w/ that assumption.

I'm assuming yes Tim...but that is assumption brother...not hard fact...so I'm just really guessing :wavey:

 

[Dr. Bob]

I am not placing John as "superior" but as a "touchstone" in this area. He was the only writer with first hand information having been an eyewitness.

Peter (recorded by Mark) was also an eyewitness at the cross. Just preached on that.

He was not with John/Mary at the cross, but further away with the women. But still an eyewitness.

Agree, though, that John has the most complete; the others only selections

 

[Van]

Someone else may have pointed this out, but things were written in different languages.

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-t001.html

 

[beameup]

I still like the concept that Pilate personally wrote the inscription in the Hebrew, in an ACROSTIC of YHWH
to purposely irritate and offend the Jewish leaders, and this is what John referred to in his Gospel.