Inscription above the Crucified Jesus

[glen smith]

How can those recording the Gospels be inspired if they did not agree on something as concrete as the words on this sign?
Why do these accounts differ?
What are Christians to make of these different accounts?
-------------------------
How can those recording the Gospels be inspired if they did not agree on something as concrete as the words on this sign?

First, none of the following recorders of the texts claimed to be inspired recorders of holy writ. With the exception of the Apostle Peter's comment about the epistles of the Apostle Paul and a passage by Paul where he states he is writing his opinion and not what the Lord provided, the recorders of the New Testament do not claim divine inspiration.

It is the ecumenical Church councils that determined which writings were inspired and which ones were not. So, it is these Church councils that decided the four Gospels in the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, it would have been left up to individual congregations or people to choose which texts they would use. The negating or ignoring the work of the ecumenical Church councils leaves such a proponent without any support for whatever “Bible” they desire to call inspired. Isolating the Bible from the Church councils'’ process of its compilation is failing to comprehend what the Bible is and leaves such a position vulnerable to not being able to justify the Bible's authority other than by imagining some immature, miraculous source like used by Joseph Smith to assert authority.
----------------------------
The various texts

Matthew 27:37 MOUNCE
And above his head they put · the charge against him, which read,
“This is Jesus, the king of the Jews.”

Mark 15:26 MOUNCE
And the inscription giving the accusation against him read,
“The King of the Jews.”

Luke 23:38 MOUNCE
In fact, there was · an inscription above him,
“This is the King of the Jews.”

John 19:19 MOUNCE
And Pilate wrote · an inscription · and fastened it to the cross. It read, ·
“Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”

John 19:20-22 ESV
²⁰ Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek. ²¹ So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write,
‘The King of the Jews,’
but rather,
‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’” ²² Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.”
----------------------------
Progression from the most restricted version to the most complete version might place the inscriptions in this order.

“The King of the Jews.” Mark and the Chief Priests and Jews who read it indicated it read as recorded by Mark (John 19:21)
“This is the King of the Jews.” Luke
“This is Jesus, the king of the Jews.” Matthew
“Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” John

Each inscription has
The King of the Jews.
Luke adds “This is”
and Matthew adds “Jesus” to the inscription recorded by Mark..
John leaves off “This is” but adds “of Nazareth.

An inscription on a cross bearing the victims body would not need to include “"This is" on the inscription since it would be obvious the inscription referred to the person on the cross. “"This is”" is possibly just the way those recording the inscription introduced the title and was not actually how the inscription read.

John records the inscription reading both “"The King of the Jews”" and “"Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jesus." Chief Priests and Jews were not objecting to the “"Jesus of Nazareth" portion so they only objected to the title "“King of the Jews"” portion.

Naming the person on the cross would seem expedient if not necessary if the death sentence was to discourage others of committing the same offense against Rome. There being a number of Jewish men of the first century named Jesus, therefore, it would have also been expedient to add Nazareth to identify the person with his place of residence or origin.

John probably provides the full inscription while the synoptics abbreviate it just as did the Chief Priests and Jews who complained to Pilate.

Lesson:
This is a simple example of how appropriate Bible interpretation must use all relevant passages rather than focusing on a passage that can be interpreted to support a particular position. If a Bible student uses only Mark 15:26 and John 19:21 the conclusion of what was written on the inscription would be less accurate.

While this example has no significant doctrinal importance, the importance of using all the appropriate passages is demonstrated. The main use of this Bible study is in apologetics to reply to those who claim the Bible contradicts itself by using these verses.

[Lou Newton]

How can those recording the Gospels be inspired if they did not agree on something as concrete as the words on this sign?
Why do these accounts differ?
What are Christians to make of these different accounts?
-------------------------
How can those recording the Gospels be inspired if they did not agree on something as concrete as the words on this sign?

First, none of the following recorders of the texts claimed to be inspired recorders of holy writ. With the exception of the Apostle Peter's comment about the epistles of the Apostle Paul and a passage by Paul where he states he is writing his opinion and not what the Lord provided, the recorders of the New Testament do not claim divine inspiration.

It is the ecumenical Church councils that determined which writings were inspired and which ones were not. So, it is these Church councils that decided the four Gospels in the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, it would have been left up to individual congregations or people to choose which texts they would use. The negating or ignoring the work of the ecumenical Church councils leaves such a proponent without any support for whatever “Bible” they desire to call inspired. Isolating the Bible from the Church councils'’ process of its compilation is failing to comprehend what the Bible is and leaves such a position vulnerable to not being able to justify the Bible's authority other than by imagining some immature, miraculous source like used by Joseph Smith to assert authority.
----------------------------
The various texts

Matthew 27:37 MOUNCE
And above his head they put · the charge against him, which read,
“This is Jesus, the king of the Jews.”

Mark 15:26 MOUNCE
And the inscription giving the accusation against him read,
“The King of the Jews.”

Luke 23:38 MOUNCE
In fact, there was · an inscription above him,
“This is the King of the Jews.”

John 19:19 MOUNCE
And Pilate wrote · an inscription · and fastened it to the cross. It read, ·
“Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”

John 19:20-22 ESV
²⁰ Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek. ²¹ So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write,
‘The King of the Jews,’
but rather,
‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’” ²² Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.”
----------------------------
Progression from the most restricted version to the most complete version might place the inscriptions in this order.

“The King of the Jews.” Mark and the Chief Priests and Jews who read it indicated it read as recorded by Mark (John 19:21)
“This is the King of the Jews.” Luke
“This is Jesus, the king of the Jews.” Matthew
“Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” John

Each inscription has
The King of the Jews.
Luke adds “This is”
and Matthew adds “Jesus” to the inscription recorded by Mark..
John leaves off “This is” but adds “of Nazareth.

An inscription on a cross bearing the victims body would not need to include “"This is" on the inscription since it would be obvious the inscription referred to the person on the cross. “"This is”" is possibly just the way those recording the inscription introduced the title and was not actually how the inscription read.

John records the inscription reading both “"The King of the Jews”" and “"Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jesus." Chief Priests and Jews were not objecting to the “"Jesus of Nazareth" portion so they only objected to the title "“King of the Jews"” portion.

Naming the person on the cross would seem expedient if not necessary if the death sentence was to discourage others of committing the same offense against Rome. There being a number of Jewish men of the first century named Jesus, therefore, it would have also been expedient to add Nazareth to identify the person with his place of residence or origin.

John probably provides the full inscription while the synoptics abbreviate it just as did the Chief Priests and Jews who complained to Pilate.

Lesson:
This is a simple example of how appropriate Bible interpretation must use all relevant passages rather than focusing on a passage that can be interpreted to support a particular position. If a Bible student uses only Mark 15:26 and John 19:21 the conclusion of what was written on the inscription would be less accurate.

While this example has no significant doctrinal importance, the importance of using all the appropriate passages is demonstrated. The main use of this Bible study is in apologetics to reply to those who claim the Bible contradicts itself by using these verses.

I agree with your explanation. It is reasonable to think that the writers included the part they thought important, but never claimed it was the complete inscription, but just that the inscription included what they wrote. With that in mind there is no disagreement.

I never had a problem with this issue because of the fact they do not actually disagree, but include different details.

There are other accounts in the Gospels that others claim that disagree, but can be explained with this same reasoning.

[RoyDavid]

Perhaps brothers, (and I actually prefer to think this way), that the complete inscription above the cross read: "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews". This would mean that no gospel writer presented the complete truth of the inscription (although none were lying), but only a piece of the truth. And each one of them and each one of us would have to rely on other brothers in order to know the truth more fully..even on something as simple as 10 word sign.

[RoyDavid]

Can we imagine the arguments that could ensue between Mathew, Mark, Luke and John if each one in arrogance said that God spoke to HIM directly about what the sign said and the other 3 MUST be wrong?
But what sweet fellowship if each one in humility admitted he only saw thru the foggy glass dimly, and rejoiced with his brothers as each one added a part for a more complete picture of the Truth. Would the brothers not then realize that they NEED one another? Are not each one made in the Father's image and a part of His body? Isn't rejoicing together in fulness better than fighting and dividing?

[Lou Newton]

Can we imagine the arguments that could ensue between Mathew, Mark, Luke and John if each one in arrogance said that God spoke to HIM directly about what the sign said and the other 3 MUST be wrong?
But what sweet fellowship if each one in humility admitted he only saw thru the foggy glass dimly, and rejoiced with his brothers as each one added a part for a more complete picture of the Truth. Would the brothers not then realize that they NEED one another? Are not each one made in the Father's image and a part of His body? Isn't rejoicing together in fulness better than fighting and dividing?

Hi Roy, what you say is true. But God really did speak to many men that wrote the Bible and many disagreed with them then and still do today. But that does not change the fact that God did speak to them and they wrote what God said to them. God still speaks to men today. Men that disagree with what these men wrote are disagreeing with God, not men.

Many others claim that God speaks to them, when He did not. The way to find the truth is to seek God and ask Him to reveal what is true instead of deciding what to believe for oneself.

God spoke to Paul and he taught that one did not have to be circumcised, ( or obey other Jewish laws ) to be saved. Many Jewish Christians said Paul was wrong and that God did not speak to Him. But God had spoke to Paul and what he wrote was true.

Certainly controversy followed Jesus and all who followed Him. That is still true today. We do not seek unity for the sake of unity. We seek Christ and we have unity with all who trust in Jesus alone to save them. We do not have to all agree to have unity in Christ.

[glen smith]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John do not claim divine revelation for the gospel they recorded.

Let this be repeated:
With the exception of the Apostle Peter's comment about the epistles of the Apostle Paul being scripture and a passage by Paul where he states he is writing his opinion and not what the Lord provided, the recorders of the New Testament do not claim divine inspiration.

Additional fact:
The recorders of the Gospels and much of the rest of the New Testament writers are claiming to be either eye witnesses or writing the accounts obtained from eye witnesses rather recording something God spoke to them. The Apostle Paul begins his addresses to both Jews and gentiles with the testimony he received from eye witnesses concerning the resurrection. The New Testament testimony is not visionary dreams of prophets claiming that God spoke to them. The New Testament is better described as eye witness testimony to history. The skeptics may not make the argument against these writers by claiming that God did not speak to them because that is not the claim they are making (except for John in Revelation) as to why all men ought to follow Jesus.

Let this be repeated:
It is the ecumenical Church councils that determined which writings were inspired and which ones were not. So, it is these Church councils that decided the four Gospels in the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, it would have been left up to individual congregations or people to choose which texts they would use. The negating or ignoring the work of the ecumenical Church councils leaves such a proponent without any support for whatever “Bible” they desire to call inspired. Isolating the Bible from the Church councils'’ process of its compilation is failing to comprehend what the Bible is and leaves such a position vulnerable to not being able to justify the Bible's authority other than by imagining some immature, miraculous source like used by Joseph Smith to assert authority.

Additional consideration:
The Apostle John was at the crucifixion.
Mark, the son of disciples might have also been there since his parents lived in Jerusalem and furnish the facility for the last supper.
Luke obtains his information through research.
Matthew was an on site recorded of the saying of Jesus in Aramaic. His agenda is well known to be against Jews. Mathew's emphasis might have been on recording Jesus as the King of the Jews rather than recording exactly what he heard how the inscription read.

Speculation about the Gospel of John.
When the Gospel of John was written, copies of the other three Gospels were already in circulation.
John recorded his Gospel while in Ephesus which was a main center for the early Church and this congregation would have had a copy of Matthew, Mark, and Luke if any congregation had all three.
An excellent case can be made that when the apostle John wrote down his Gospel version he had on the table before him a copy of the synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John only includes passages already recorded in the synoptics if that passage is essential to the point he is making. Otherwise, he seems to intentionally avoid important details recorded by the synoptics. If this speculation is correct, then when John recorded the inscription he could see what the other three had previously recorded.

This topic is not an argument but an exploration of how to formulate an answer for apologetic purposes through the use of all relevant passages. As Lou posted, "There are other accounts in the Gospels that others claim that disagree, but can be explained with this same reasoning."

[Lou Newton]

Glen you write:

Let this be repeated:
With the exception of the Apostle Peter's comment about the epistles of the Apostle Paul being scripture and a passage by Paul where he states he is writing his opinion and not what the Lord provided, the recorders of the New Testament do not claim divine inspiration.

My comment:

1 John 1 (NIV)

The Incarnation of the Word of Life


1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. ² The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. ³ We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. ⁴ We write this to make our joy complete.

Light and Darkness, Sin and Forgiveness


⁵This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. ⁶ If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. ⁷ But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

⁸ If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. ⁹ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. ¹⁰ If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

John is definitely claiming divine revelation in the above chapter. John goes so far as to say he has seen The Lord with his own eyes and touched Him with His own hands. God came down from heaven and gave John ( and others) divine revelation. Jesus certainly revealed things to them and Jesus was certainly divine.

Acts 10 Cornelius Calls for Peter


10 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. ² He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. ³One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision.He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”

⁴ Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked.

The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. ⁵ Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. ⁶ He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea.”

⁷When the angel who spoke to him had gone, Cornelius called two of his servants and a devout soldier who was one of his attendants. ⁸ He told them everything that had happened and sent them to Joppa.

The passage above does not say that Cornelius thought he saw an angel of God, it says an angel of God visited and spoke to him. Something was revealed to him and it was a message from God, who is divine

⁹ About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. ¹⁰ He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. ¹¹He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. ¹² It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds.¹³ Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”


¹⁴“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

¹⁵ The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

¹⁶ This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

¹⁷ While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. ¹⁸ They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.

¹⁹ While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three men are looking for you. ²⁰ So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”

²¹ Peter went down and said to the men, “I’m the one you’re looking for. Why have you come?”

²² The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.” ²³ Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.

The Holy Spirit spoke to Peter and revealed things to him. The Holy Spirit is of course divine

Peter at Cornelius’s House


The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the believers from Joppa went along. ²⁴ The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. ²⁵ As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. ²⁶ But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”

²⁷ While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. ²⁸ He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. ²⁹ So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”

NOTE: Peter is claiming divine revelation above.

³⁰ Cornelius answered: “Three days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me ³¹ and said, ‘Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. ³² Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’ ³³ So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.”

³⁴ Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism ³⁵ but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. ³⁶ You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. ³⁷ You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— ³⁸ how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

³⁹“We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, ⁴⁰ but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen.⁴¹ He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. ⁴² He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. ⁴³ All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

⁴⁴ While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. ⁴⁵ The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. ⁴⁶ For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

Then Peter said, ⁴⁷ “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”⁴⁸ So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

The passage above makes it very clear what God reveals, says, or does and those are all divine revelation.

The Lord makes it clear when Peter speaks instead of the Holy Spirit by saying, Then Peter said.

The New Testament is full of divine revelation. If not why would we bother reading it. It also records the words of mere men and even the words of Satan himself. We know that everything God says is true. We know that Satan is the father of lies. We know that all men are lairs and also God chooses to speak through mere men at times.
.

[glen smith]

Good points.
Lou posted about John 1
John is definitely claiming divine revelation in the above chapter.

Reply:
In John 1 the Apostle is recording what he heard, seen, touched – that being the Lord Jesus. He is a witness to history - divine revelation history.
Technically, seeing Jesus in the flesh is divine revelation but being a witness does not imply divine inspiration. There were many who witnessed but did not claim to write inspired scripture. It is an easy assumption to confuse the recording of a spiritual event or a revelatory event with what is meant by divine inspiration. Recording ones eye witness testimony of the resurrection does not qualify as divine inspiration if one is communicating accepted theological ideas.

Acts 10
Cornelius is not the author of a New Testament text.
Peter has a vision which God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.

Reply: Luke is the writer not Peter or Cornelius.

Technically, what Luke records is hearsay.
Luke is recording history and did not witness these events.
Some of the history recorded by Luke contains spiritual events just as some of the history recorded in the Gospels contain spiritual events.

Among theologians and New testament scholars, it is generally held that the writers of the New Testament texts do not claim for themselves divine inspiration for what they write and record. The Book of Revelation being an exception.

Lou stated: The New Testament is full of divine revelation.

Reply: Of course it is. However, that is not what divinely inspired means.

[Lou Newton]

Good points.
Lou posted about John 1
John is definitely claiming divine revelation in the above chapter.

Reply:
In John 1 the Apostle is recording what he heard, seen, touched – that being the Lord Jesus. He is a witness to history - divine revelation history.
Technically, seeing Jesus in the flesh is divine revelation but being a witness does not imply divine inspiration. There were many who witnessed but did not claim to write inspired scripture. It is an easy assumption to confuse the recording of a spiritual event or a revelatory event with what is meant by divine inspiration. Recording ones eye witness testimony of the resurrection does not qualify as divine inspiration if one is communicating accepted theological ideas.

Acts 10
Cornelius is not the author of a New Testament text.
Peter has a vision which God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.

Reply: Luke is the writer not Peter or Cornelius.

Technically, what Luke records is hearsay.
Luke is recording history and did not witness these events.
Some of the history recorded by Luke contains spiritual events just as some of the history recorded in the Gospels contain spiritual events.

Among theologians and New testament scholars, it is generally held that the writers of the New Testament texts do not claim for themselves divine inspiration for what they write and record. The Book of Revelation being an exception.

Lou stated: The New Testament is full of divine revelation.

Reply: Of course it is. However, that is not what divinely inspired means.

Technically, seeing Jesus in the flesh is divine revelation but being a witness does not imply divine inspiration.

Glen, John not only saw Jesus, he heard Him with his ears. Certainly God speaking to someone is divine revelation.

The account in Acts is passed on to us by Luke. But the account passed on by Luke is an account from Peter, and Peter claims the Holy Spirit spoke to him.

The apostles are giving accounts of divine revelation from Jesus or the Holy Spirit

NOTE: Peter says; But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.

Notice that this vision is not about unclean food, but it is about calling people unclean when God has called them clean. Some use this passage to say it is OK to eat food that God has called unclean. But it is not about food at all, but people as Peter says.

[glen smith]

It is comprehendible that in Newtonian theology that by definition the English terms divine revelation and divine inspiration mean the same thing. It is even understandable why this assertion has been made.

It is because Newtonian theology assets that the writers of the New Testament CLAIM divine inspiration and the only way to demonstrate this is to assert that every recorded divine revelation or event is also divine inspiration. As an example, when Luke records the virgin birth it is by divine revelation rather than hearing it from Mary the mother of Jesus. Because the recording of the virgin birth is divine revelation Luke is thereby CLAIMING divine inspiration. Another example is the witnesses to the resurrection. In Newtonian theology if the witnesses of this divine event is recorded by the writers of the New Testament their eye witness testimony qualifies as divine inspiration. There you have it.

The Problem:
Inspire, inspired, or inspiring do not occur in the Greek text of the New Testament.
How is it that the writers of the New Testament can CLAIM divine inspiration when this word does not appear in their writings?

Here are some verses that some English versions translate using inspire or inspired which are actually interpretations of the meaning of the text rather than a translation.

2 Timothy 3:16 MOUNCE
All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correcting, for training · in righteousness,

Matthew 22:43 MOUNCE
He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call him ‘Lord,’ saying,

Revelation 22:6 MOUNCE
And he said to me, “These · words are reliable and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent · his angel to show to his servants what must soon take place.”