I was wondering this, so I decided to take a look at God's work. And this is what I found:
Matthew 27:37..."And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Mark 15:26..."And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS."
Luke 23:38..."And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
John 19:19..."And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS."
Which one is right, if any?
2007-11-28 16:40:22 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
This side up.
2007-11-28 16:44:56 · answer #1 · answered by Beavis Christ AM 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
All are similar in the accusation.
The plaque/sign above Jesus' head on the cross was a normal practice.
Each sign above the head of a criminal would list the charges and offenses for which he was being executed.
The accusations all point to one thing, that Jesus was accused and charged as being "King of the Jews." So while we are not sure of the precise wording, we are assured of the accusation.
It also helps to know that all the Apostles fled, except for John who was left at the foot of the Cross with some of the women, including Mary.
Therefore, among the Gospel writers, John was the only eye witness to the Crucifixion, and therefore to the wording on the
plaque that listed the charges against Jesus.
2007-11-28 17:01:01 · answer #2 · answered by Bob L 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In Hebrew, the phrase "JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS" is ישוע הנצרי ומלך היהודים (Yeshua` HaNotsri U'Melech HaYehudim).
When read in acrostic, the first letter of each Hebrew word actually says "Y H W H".
YHWH is Yahweh - the Lord God of Israel.
So, Jesus is YHWH. Jesus is Yahweh. Jesus is God!
Unbeknown to Pontius Pilate the Roman governor, he had actually ordered the soldiers to inscribe Jesus' name that reveals His true identity. No wonder the chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews', but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews." (John 19:21) But God has the final say, for it is all part of His plan, and Pilate answered (without knowing it's God's plan), "What I have written, I have written." (John 19:22)
2007-11-28 17:35:35 · answer #3 · answered by Music and dancing 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They say the same thing man. There are simply linguistic and translational considerations and four different "reporters" who did not use the exact same words.
Look at this verse - it says three different languages were used. All people cannot read all three of these languages:
Luke 23:38..."And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
2007-11-28 16:50:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Mark is thought to have been written first from Peter's testimony and used as a reference for both Matthew and (Luke or John, I can' remember which now). It was added to from other sources. Thus what you are seeing is the different accounts of several witnesses to the same thing. Note that they don't really disagree, but simply have different amounts of information and minor wording differences.
2007-11-28 17:06:36 · answer #5 · answered by Disciple of Truth 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We always had the sign "INRI" appearing in paintings, etc etc which is supposedly latin for "King of the Jews".
However - even this is wrong. It was suppose to be "King of Wisdom" as Jesus was never intended to be a king of power as such, but a spiritual leader - and not any other...
This is from
www.figu.org (English Discussion Forum)
and is part of 'The Talmud Jmmanuel' material.
www.tjresearch.info/overview.htm
2007-11-28 17:35:05 · answer #6 · answered by TruthBox 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I see the same thing...
The Roman's repeating what the Sanhedrin mocked at the outset of the "trial" of Jesus when he was brought before Caiphas.
When Jesus was accused of being the son of God, and King of the Jews, this was blasphemy punishable by death.
The Roman Execution squad had a severe sense of duty.
2007-11-28 16:55:44 · answer #7 · answered by Klondike John 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
John was the only one of the Gospel writers who was there, so I go with John. But I thought the inscription was in three languages that were commonly spoken at the time. What were the three inscriptions in those languages. Can anybody write them in the original languages, for this audience?
2015-03-21 07:34:15 · answer #8 · answered by Edwin B 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Take into account "which" ones were "there." Mark and Luke were not present at the crucifixtion of Jesus. "John" WAS, so by validity in "truth" resides with the "authority" of being present at the "actual" event of seeing the cross. It is doubtful "all" this inscription was written upon the cross itself, but the "implication" of it is what John writes in his book, and it would have been done in "Latin," as the soldiers of the Romans were in charge of carrying out the sentence given Jesus.
2007-11-28 16:51:03 · answer #9 · answered by Theban 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Four different men all wrote an account of their time with Jesus around 30 to 40 years after the fact... each with different recolections, each in different writting styles, and all in Greek that has been translated for us to understand in English.
So what's your point...
2007-11-28 16:49:56 · answer #10 · answered by HooKooDooKu 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Seems I was just told last Sunday that John 19:19 is technically the correct one. But it would seem all are OK.
2007-11-28 17:03:11 · answer #11 · answered by gismoII 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋