Talk:Jesus, King of the Jews

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Distinction from INRI

I thought about adding this material to the INRI page, but then realized that given that the King of the Jews also applies to the Magi episode beginning of the life of Jesus, this article should be distinct from INRI which only applies to a smaller episode in the Passion, and not to the magi at all. So these should be separate pages. History2007 (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicts INRI article regarding 'INBI'

This article says that 'INBI' means 'King of Glory' while the INRI article says that 'INBI' means 'Jesus, King of the Jews' where 'B' is 'ὁ βασιλεὺς', and goes on to say that 'INBK' means either 'The King of the World' or 'The King of Glory'. I cannot verify references to printed books. So I am not sure what the sources have to say on this. Elizium23 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in Wikipedia? Never... But seriously, I did notice that, and INBI is the Greek version, as the image from Ellwangen Abbey also shows when it is written in 3 languages, the 2nd being INBI. I have now fixed that, Thanks. Now "Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων" reads Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews as that article says and "βασιλεὺς" is king and "τῆς Δόξης" glory, so that is right now. History2007 (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has concluded. Please do not modify this section. Result of discussion: No objection to merge, so merged.

Merger proposal

I don't see the benefit of having Jesus, King of the Jews as a separate page from INRI. There is simply too much overlap and repetition between the two articles. Reducing the overlap by deleting content from either article would leave the remnant as a incomplete stub, whereas merging allows all relevant information to be provided once, with context. I suppose the merged page would be better at Jesus, King of the Jews than at INRI since the former name encompasses the Nativity reference as well as the Crucifixion reference; however, perhaps some third name would be better than either. But a merger is certainly in order, whatever the name of the merged page might be. jnestorius^(talk) 13:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but not a major issue really if INRI gets merged in here. Although INRI is a term into itself it does not refer to the theological issue of "Jesus, King of the Jews". So a larger section here based on INRI may be ok. The main content in INRI is the table and the images, given that the biblical background is already here. And that article has a WP:Primary tag, which can get cleaned up in the process I guess. So ok, we can do it, but not the end of the world if we do not. However, the title needs to remain "Jesus, King of the Jews" because that is a notable term in its own right and INRI derives from that, and it is a notable "Nativity term" regardless of the INRI connotation anyway. History2007 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think a merge is a very good idea. Originally I thought weak support, then I tried a merged version here and it looks better. So I think the merge will work well. History2007 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, so I guess we should just do it the Nike way. History2007 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Version section reference to Hebrew

Just a question regarding the reference to Hebrew as being on the inscription. The greek word from John 19:20 is εβραιστι which could mean Aramaic. Especially since if memory serves correct, only priests would have spoken actual Hebrew at this time, and the common people spoke Aramaic. This would have been the "Hebrew tongue" and not actual Hebrew. I've no idea what the Aramaic translation would be. Any thoughts? Nerdtek (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I just looked in the Peshitta which is the Aramaic New Testament. Matthew 27:37 the part that refers to the title ܗܢܘ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܠܟܐ ܕܝܗܘܕܝܐ

which is the following word ids 5010 (pronoun, this is), 9573(Jesus), 11969(king), 8911(jews) if anyone is interested the following link http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/index.php can be used for reference. As to the pronounciation I'm at a loss. Nerdtek (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all of that would be discussion among editors and WP:OR. The source says Hebrew. The source wins against us - always. History2007 (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"this was written in three languages: Hebrew, Latin and Greek on a titulus/placard that was placed above Y'shua on the Cross"

John 19:20 states that this was written in three languages: Hebrew, Latin and Greek on a placard that was placed above Y'shua on the Cross. This added description is important! - Ben Hirt

Looks like you need to read John. I says " And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross." Nothing about above the head. History2007 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common depictions of Jesus crucified have that INRI sign above his head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also attached to the small pedestal beneath his feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlcred (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No artist or movie has ever depicted the titulus/placard anywhere other than above Jesus' head on the Cross. 73.85.207.65 (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Titus

(I have deleted a long Epistle to Titus quote from this point in the Talk: page. I don't think it has any relevance to discussion on how to improve this Wikipedia article.) jnestorius^(talk) 10:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

74.3.4.111 (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Jesus, King of the Judeans"?

Should this page be moved to "Jesus, King of the Judeans"? That is the literal translation of the Greek phrase, and it seems to be the sensible thing to do. If the Jews are understood to be the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees, who comprised a relatively small portion of the Judean population, then the phrase is much better rendered Judeans, than Jews. 73.20.33.105 (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Wikipedia articles use the common name of the topic, and prefer the English name. If a notable source, such as a prominent theologian or Bible scholar, has argued that "King of the Judeans" rather than "King of the Jews" is in some way a better translation, then that argument can be noted in the body of the Wikipedia article, supported by citation of the relevant source. But even in that case, the name of the article should not change. jnestorius^(talk) 10:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"As Jesus was both true man and true God". this line either needs a reference or should be deleted. it reads like a statement of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlcred (talk • contribs) 18:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should beleive in god. 2406:3003:2077:853:E5BB:7971:982E:CCE5 (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym?

Would INRI actually historically qualify as an acronym, which is read out like "ROTFL", rather than as an abbreviation like "ATM" or "NASA"? Although I know that Inri became an acronym in Spanish and Italian, I can't find any specific references for such in the English language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandycross (talk • contribs) 20:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

INRI: Hebrew or Syriac/Aramaic as one of the 3 languages referred to in John 19:20

Stix1776 Different Bible versions seem to have different wording

19 Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth,[a] the King of the Jews.” 20 Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew,[b] in Latin, and in Greek."-John 19:19-20 (NRSV)
Footnote b: John 19:20 That is, Aramaic

19 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: jesus of nazareth, the king of the jews. 20 Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.-John 19:19-20 (NIV)

19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews. 20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.-John 19:19-20 (AKJV)

Editor2020 (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - haven’t done a comprehensive search of translations but I think “Hebrew” predominates. Certainly, secondary sources tend to refer to “Hebrew” rather tha Aramaic (never Syriac). The word being translated is Ἑβραϊστί (Hebraisti, See this). This piece discusses whether it means Hebrew or can be translated as Aramaic (including in the Gospel of John) and concludes that it can only be translated as Hebrew:

Buth, Randall; Pierce, Chad (2014). "Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does ἑβραϊστί Ever Mean 'Aramaic'?" (PDF). In Buth, Randall; Notley, R. Steven (eds.). The Language Environment of 1st Century Judea Vol. 2. BRILL. pp. 66–109. ISBN 9789004264410.

DeCausa (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, this thread is about my reversion of this edit. DeCausa (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word Syriac also occurs in the INRI and ΙΝΒΙ section. Editor2020 (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now updated. DeCausa (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the first century, Aramaic was spoken in Judea and other eastern regions, and Hebrew was no longer the predominantly spoken language of the Jews. And the title INRI in all three languages was given to him by Pontius Pilate, who was not a Jew and had no way of knowing that Hebrew was a rare language in that period, most likely he could speak Latin or Greek, although he was the governor of Judeans are not sure if he spoke a Semitic language, but he was not a Hebrew. I know that the sources mentioned on the page are called Hebrew, but it can be confusing because Aramaic and Hebrew are similar languages but not the same. I preferred to use Syriac rather than Aramaic because I "generalized" it or to clarify where it came from because Aramaic is a predecessor of the modern Syriac language, the same as Greek if we were referring to Koine Greek at that time. Luis Trexxxx (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Luis Trexxxx: That’s WP:OR and we can’t do that. If the Crucifixion was a historical event and if the INRI sign was put on the cross, then there’s logic to what you say. But that’s not what we do. We can only reflect what John says and what the secondary sources about John say. DeCausa (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>https://biblia.com/bible/esv/john/19/20<ref> Depending on which version you choose, in my view it would be Aramaic / Syriac because it is the language spoken the most at that time. Of course I'm not an expert on ancient languages, that's my opinion.<ref>https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/what-language-did-jesus-speak<ref> Luis Trexxxx (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first website you link to helpfully includes 13 prominent translations, 10 of which use “Hebrew” and only 3 use “Aramaic”. (I don’t think any of them are Catholic, so I’ll just add in this and this for completeness - both also use “Hebrew”) The second link isn’t relevant because it’s a blog (see WP:SELFPUB). But in any event, there’s no doubt that Aramaic was the vernacular in Judaea at this time and Hebrew was not commonly spoken. But that’s not the issue. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biblegateway here has 48 translations using Hebrew and 12 using Aramaic. DeCausa (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the following footnote where Hebrew is mentioned (cited to pp107-109, Buth & Pierce, 2014, as above) which hopefully covers the issue: Some translations render Ἑβραϊστί (Hebraisti), the Koine Greek word used in John 19:20, as "Aramaic" rather than "Hebrew". Aramaic was a closely related language which had replaced Hebrew as the common vernacular at the time the Gospel of John was written. However, Ἑβραϊστί is consistently used in Koine Greek at this time to mean Hebrew and not Aramaic. Other than the word itself, there is no direct evidence in the verse as to whether Hebrew or Aramaic is meant and translations of the verse which render Ἑβραϊστί as Aramaic are reliant on assumptions made outside of the text to justify it, rather than the text itself. DeCausa (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve updated the note to say that, having looked into it, Hebrew continued as a vernacular as well until the beginning of 3rd century CE - with citation. DeCausa (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]