Talk:INRI

1492

The text claims an alleged actual inscription was found but then fails to mention what happened to it...Jarwulf (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have created a redirect for "Titulus" to this page - that being the proper name of the INRI plaque. Ideally the two should be separated out, with one article covering the object and subsequent history/pseudohistory, and the other covering the text itself.

I've changed "double crucifixion" to "crucifixion", as [1] I can't imagine what "double" crucifixion is, except for an octopus, and [2] I find but one web page which seems to refer to it [1]. I've also made it clearer exactly who it is that considers Pontius Pilate a saint, and I suspect the article would be improved if someone could add exactly what sources maintain he was converted to Christianity and crucified. - Nunh-huh 06:23, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Possible meaning for "double crucifixion." Numerous authors refer to the simultaneous crucifixion of the two Jesus' in this way (Jesus King of the Jews, and Jesus Barabbas, read as "Son of the Father"). They interpret 2 Corinthians 11:4 as an instruction to listen to the other Jesus should he come along and speak... and speculate that the movement was actually led by two men, both named Jesus. Expression of this view occurs frequently within the "sangreal" and "holy grail" -related literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baz Daniels (talk • contribs) 14:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Iustum Necar Reges Impius error

This is incorrect Latin -- properly should be "Iustum necarE reges impiOs"... AnonMoos 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-relevant quote

The following quote from Cryptonomicon has to do with the subject of this page. I think it's hilarious.

"Goto Dengo lies on a cot of woven rushes for six weeks, under a white cone of mosquito netting that stirs in the breezes from the windows. When there is a typhoon, the nurses clasp mother-of-pearl shutters over the windows, but mostly they are left open day and night. Outside the window, an immense stairway has been hand-carved up the side of a green mountain. When the sun shines, the new rice on those terraces fluoresces; green light boils into the room like flames. He can see small gnarled people in colorful clothes transplanting rice seedlings and tinkering with the irrigation system. The wall of his room is plain, cream-colored plaster spanned with forking deltas of cracks, like the blood vessels on the surface of an eyeball. It is decorated only with a crucifix carved out of napa wood in maniacal detail. Jesus's eyes are smooth orbs without pupil or iris, as in Roman statues. He hangs askew on the crucifix, arms stretched out, the ligaments probably pulled loose from their moorings now, the crooked legs, broken by the butt of a Roman spear, unable to support the body. A pitted, rusty iron nail transfixes each palm, and a third suffices for both feet. Goto Dengo notices after a while that the sculptor has arranged the three nails in a perfect equilateral triangle. He and Jesus spend many hours and days staring at each other through the white veil that hangs around the bed; when it shifts in the mountain breezes, Jesus seems to writhe. An open scroll is fixed to the top of the crucifix; it says I.N.R.I. Goto Dengo spends a long time trying to fathom this. I Need Rapid something? Initiate Nail Removal Immediately?"

Dbenbenn 21:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph is utter nonsense:

The inscription in Hebrew was probably Ye'shuah Ha'Nazarei Wemelech Ha'Yehudim, YHWH, the Holy Name of God. This made the Jews even more furious, as the inscription confirms Jesus' Godness, just what he was crucified for.

Where did you get this information?

Ye'shuah Ha'Nazarei Wemelech Ha'Yehudim would of course be abreviated YNWY just as Jesus the Christ is abreviated JC not JT. The notion that the Jews killed Jesus because he claimed to be God is of course the root to antisemitism. See Crossan, "Who Killed Jesus?" for details.

That's a christian-centric view of the "root of antisemitism", why'd the Egyptians hate the jews? Why the Muslims? What about Khazar invaders? Ashkenazi cultural exclusivity & banking hegemony in Europe? etc. etc. etc. 4.242.192.176 (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the paragragh.

I took the liberty of re-removing it for you. The restorer of the statement gave a source that eventually retracted its conclusions.

Why would the inscription be in Hebrew?? Latin was the language of the Roman Empire, Greek was the main language used in the administration of the Roman East, and Aramaic was the local lingua franca. AnonMoos 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

For one thing, the Gospel says it was Hebrew. (Luke 23:38, John 19:19-20) Of course they're closely related languages and written with the same alphabet AFAIK, so it's an easy mistake to make for an observer who knew what Hebrew looked like but could not actually read it so as to tell the difference. One might guess, however, that Pilate probably didn't write it himself, since one has no reason to expect that he could write either Hebrew or Aramaic. It's therefore possible he wrote the Greek and Latin and handed it off to a native official to write the local vernacular, but the native chose the more formal local written language instead. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The list of languages was probably not in the original of Luke 23:38, and "Hebrew" (Hebraisti) often meant Aramaic at the time (as in Josephus). AnonMoos 06:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Extrapolation on Nazerene / Nasorean

I have added two additional paragraphs of information, based on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumranian Scrolls respectively, the Qumran Scroll's being the writings of the actual Nasorean sect themselves documenting their (previously) verbal history that was then lost for so many years.

It's a highly debated and inflammable topic mainly between the schools of thought that, "There is truth in the bible." and "The bible is the truth." .. so take it as you will, whether you believe in 800 year old humans, or 80 year olds and a typo, the choice is yours.  :)

Jachin 03:52, 23 May 2005 (AEST)

Sources please? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumranian Scrolls of the Nasoreans? Hello?

Yes, hello. Could you please quote the sources you are referring to, including the ones which suggest that the Qumran community were Nasoerans? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Methinks he was thinking of the Essenes, who were though to be the inhabitants of the Qumran settlement. There was no "Nasorean sect"; the Nazirites (to use the more common spelling) were those who had taken certain vows under the Mosaic law. I don't know of any evidence for the idea that the Essenes were all Nazirites. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Frjwoolley says "Rex Iudaeorum" means exactly "King of the Jews"; Iudaeorum -- masculine genitive plural of Iudaeus, a Jew

Then it should be "King of the Judeans". I see no problem with the English construction Judean King, but if you prefer the long form, fine. Jew is an anachronism.

Not really -- The single word Y'hudi (Hebrew) / Ioudaios (Greek) / Judaeus (Latin) was used in ancient times to cover all three of the concepts Judahite (member of the tribe of Judah by genealogical descent), Judaean (resident of the land of Judea), and Jew (follower of the monotheistic religion). AnonMoos 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Titulus - Need definition

Until INRI & Titulus get seperated out, there's a need to define that a titulus is. If I recall correctly, it was Roman tradition to post the crime above the person they executed. The reading of the charge above Jesus is signifigant, in that it is both Pilot mocking the Jewish leaders, and is the only change Pilot was asked to rule on. (I don't have a ready source for this, otherwise I'd make a proper edit) -15:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would it be Pilate mocking Jewish leaders? AnonMoos 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

At a guess, because they annoyed him by putting him in the position he found himself in. The Jewish leadership, at any rate, wanted the inscription changed, so presumably they found it objectionable or embarrassing. But that, of course, is just one reasonable interpretation among several, and I see no reason to favor any of them by a mentioning in the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"The King of the World"

Perhaps some Orthodox crucifixes do say this, but even more say "The King of Glory". Unfortunately I don't know how to put this in Greek so I can't fix it myself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Other interpretations?

I found this on a messageboard. Can anyone corroborate?

Christian Interpretation INRI is a Latin acronym for Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum (English: "Jesus of Nazareth [literally 'Jesus the Nazarene'], King of the Jews [or 'Judaeans']".)

Masonic Interpretation Igne Natura Renovatur Integra meaning "Through fire, Nature is reborn whole" or "By fire Nature is renewed whole", symbolizing Humankind's spiritual regeneration by the sacred fire of truth and love.

Yes, I think it is "Ignis Natura Renovatur Integra". Maybe somebody should find some source to support this? Xytor500 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

24.18.35.120 10:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That information was once in this article, but the only source for it was the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is unreliable for Freemasonry. I forget when it was removed, but it was a while ago. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

2017

Would a website of followers of Aleister Crowley be a "reliable source" for that occult interpretation of I.N.R.I.? http://thelemapedia.org/index.php/INRI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.60.10 (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I found another source from a website "Pietre-Stones Review of Freemasonry: made by Freemasons for Freemasons" -- the page is an essay "An Esoteric View of the Rose-Croix Degree" by R. W. Bro. Leon Zeldis. "Ignis Natura Renovatur Integra (Nature is completely renewed by fire)" is the first of a dozen occult interpretations of I.N.R.I. that Zeldis gives. He has a bibliography of 15 print titles. http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/zeldis11.html

Also, there are the following lines from the opening and closing of the "Ritual of the Hexagram" as used by the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. (This rite was, according to their official pronouncements, inherited from the secretive Order of the Rosy Cross.)

"I.N.R.I. / Yod. Nun. Resh. Yod. / Virgo, Isis, Mighty Mother. / Scorpio, Apophis, Destroyer. / Sol, Osiris, Slain and Risen. / Isis, Apophis, Osiris, IAO."

(As given in "Liber O" by Aleister Crowley.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.152.175 (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hebrew

Why הנצרת instead of נצרת or הנוצרי ?

Is there any solid evidence for הנצרת ? AnonMoos 14:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In truth, הנצרת does not make any sense; this means "the Nazarus". הנוצרי means "the Nazarean" and is what the Hebrew should read. Furthermore, the transliteration should read U'Melech because a conunctive-waw before the letter מ is always pronounced vocalically.

There isn't any reason to have a conjunctive vav here. It is only inserted to force the "yod-hey-vav-hey" acronymn.

Reason For Crucifixion

I, in no way, want to start a debate on the reasons for jesus' crucifixion, I'm just wondering why it needs to be in this article. This article should define INRI and say why it's written on crosses with maybe a little history. Going into the details of the crucifixion that have nothing to do with the writing of INRI should be left elsewhere. Djibouti 03:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia deletion

I have removed the "trivia" section. It has no relevance to the meaning of the crucifix and is at best irrelevant information. At worst it constitutes vandalism worthy of being reported, but for now the section will just go away. If there are any bits of crucifix related trivia worthy of putting here, I invite anyone to recreate the section, but as long as ignorant jokes are the only content, it makes no sense to even have it here. Please remember to keep this page as information-centered as possible and keep inane bits of trivia where they belong- Urban dictionary or other similar sites, not Wikipedia--Wingsfan6047 23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have returned to the article page to find my editing undone with no explanation or discussion on this page. I reverted the page to my original edit, and explained why. I am not prepared to enter a revert war with a joker who has made 3 contributions. I will report this as vandalism if I find it changed again without 'at least' proper explanation.--Wingsfan6047 11:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

INRI SPQR 2 INRI INRI:... the moscovian is tricking you - in all of corvonia and the fact the houses of corruption detention and instruction wish for armenia to gain this pleasure; ; 501 says I and this into 5.1 where the supermarket is considered arabian stallion on your side; ; suddenly your leprosy has defeated you - the moscovian thinks you are insane to realise the horse is with you; ; so now you both close... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.136.20 (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew/Latin text in table is Original Research

Each Gospel gives the text only in Greek, not in any other language. The table incorrectly implies that the Gospels specify the precise wording of the text in Latin and/or Hebrew/Aramaic. In addition, it doesn't give any source for the Latin and Hebrew texts. This seems a clear breach of Original Research and WP:V, especially as we don't know whether "Hebrew" refers to Classical Hebrew or (more likely) Aramaic. I suggest removing the Latin and Hebrew text, and replacing it with a simple list of the languages specified by the Gospels. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the problematic text. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin is needed, as that's what INRI is an acronym of! 86.168.6.101 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Gospels

I noticed that the original document stated that Luke and John wrote that the inscription is written in three languages however, I only find it in John. I have revised the content to reflect that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerang (talk • contribs) 07:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Luke 23:38 "And there was also a superscription written over him, in letters of Greek, and Roman, and Hebrew, `This is the King of the Jews.'". link. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-Christian INRI

What does this section have to do with anything? It certanly has nothing to do with the rest of the article, and really doesn't even make any sense. -- 20:51, 29 November 2010 75.28.56.200

it is some ones interpretation of the letters. it may not make sense to you. but it took 45 years after many years study in Latin to get this explanation. it took reading many books. you may not agree with it and I do not ask you to. I have not deleted any thing you or any one else has put down as what they think those letters mean so why would you want to delete my discovery. if you want I will add several more pages on how I came to a decision on what INRI means. I put non Christian so to not cause a dispute. i do not want to bash any Christian faith. ever since my youth I have asked priest and nuns what it meant. I have never been satisfied with any answer. I would only ask that it is like a dictionary with many examples of what the letters may mean. let who reads it decide for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.158.239 (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's your personal "discovery", unknown to anybody else, then by Wikipedia rules it doesn't belong on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Citing_oneself. In addition, the phrase really does not make any sense -- and the fact that you, the lone advocate of the theory, do not appear to have a great command of the Latin language does not inspire great confidence... AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

the other interpretations where did they come from? someone's written bible for their own church? they should be disallowed too. as they too make no sense to me other than some preaching their religion at others expense. the Black Nobility may have been the reason Jesus was killed. he was a threat to the Roman empire. the Black Nobility were the rich of Rome who had a military do their conquering. inri was their way of saying to those viewing him to bow under their rule. it has been there under our noses. -- 01:29, 3 December 2010 66.245.158.239

The standard Latin version IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDÆORVM comes from early Latin Bible translations of John 19:19; we have direct evidence in the form of manuscripts dating from the early middle ages, and textual philology methods allow us to take it back a few centuries earlier. Of course, the Latin was originally translated from the Greek, as explained in the article.

Some things you should understand: 1) "INRI" does not directly appear in early Biblical manuscripts. The Latin translation of John 19:19 came first, and "INRI" was formed from it; John 19:19 was not devised to fit any pre-existing "INRI" acronym. 2) Jesus was a local Judaean personality; he caused some turmoil among Jews there, but few people outside of the southern Levant area would have heard of him in his lifetime; he certainly was no threat to the whole Roman empire. 3) There's no evidence that pagans ever exerted any direct influence over the contents of New Testament books. 4) If any color was associated with the Roman high classes, it was purple (not always distinguished from scarlet in ancient color terminolog). AnonMoos (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I will get back to you with my research answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.153.119 (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the meanwhile why don't you stop banging on the article and filling it with nonsense? AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not need to stop banging on the article you should stop high jacking it for your own christian uses. my info is from a priest who worked in the Vatican Library... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.207.56 (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Roman Catholicism" section of myths

This edit seem problematic on several levels. In a minor way it is the heading, Roman Catholicism, which bears no relation to the subject discussed, and apparent liberal quotes from the supplied source, which should be paraphrases for copyright reasons. But the larger issue is whether it belongs at all in the article. To my reading, it seems to run afoul of WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. Searching the web for various terms therein, I was able to find this forum post, a Masonic reading in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and this mostly-unrelated blog post. Not reliable sources, and nothing to suggest that these myths or stories are a part of mainstream scholarship on the titulus. WP:FRINGE states, An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. Now, Easton Press appears to be a "luxury book" imprint and their catalog seems to be reprints of popular and notable works. I am sure that Robert Graves' work is a reliable source. I am just not sure that it represents anywhere near mainstream scholarship on this topic, or we would be able to find myriad other sources to support addition of this section. Elizium23 (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Greek Myths was actually most prominently published by Penguin, so that's not a problem -- however, some of the interpretations are generally considered somewhat eccentric (as discussed in the linked article). AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems at least two contributors have reached an impass on the matter and there really is no point in pressing an issue. The edit does, apparently, fall within the class of Roman Catholicism as described on this discussion page, but, unfortunately, while the text does add meaning and definition to the article, it seems that Robert Graves information regarding the formation and heritage of the language of the "titulus" will remain unacknowledged. There is a difference between popular sentiment and historical reality- this contributor is under the impression that Robert Graves has it correct, but then again that's something to keep- "There is something about a neighbor that loves a wall." KJ Cruz 06:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ Cruz (talk • contribs)

KJ Cruz -- The term "impasse" is not usually used on Wikipedia for the situation where everybody except one person thinks that that person's edits are rather strange... In any case, I looked up section 52 "The Alphabet" in Volume I of the Penguin edition of The Greek Myths, and there's absolutely nothing whatsoever about INRI or Roman Catholicism, so your edits fail the sourcing test, if nothing else... AnonMoos (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

How, exactly, are the Three Fates, Gallic druids, and the significance of trees in Greek and Latin myths related to Roman Catholicism? It sounds to me more like the "non-Christian INRI" that is discussed above. KarlM (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The "non-Christian INRI" was a purely personal Latin interpretation offered by somebody who didn't know Latin (and it showed!), and had nothing to do with Robert Graves. AnonMoos (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Acronym- "word formed from the first letters of a series of words," 1943, Amer.Eng. coinage from acro-, comb. form of Gk. akros "tip, end" (see acrid) + -onym "name" (abstracted from homonym; see name). The practice was practically non-existent before 20c. except in cabalistic esoterica and acrostic poetry. (Online Etymology Dictionary)

You're right. The Greek Myths doesn't overtly state anything about Roman Catholicism or the inscription, but it does provide a historical perspective on language formation that does coincide with the general realm and reach of Roman Catholicism as its presence was documented within Europe and is traditionally known within those linguistic regions of Greece, Italy, and Ireland as well as noting Egypt (which is a Biblical centerpiece of Genesis.)

So it really is difficult to determine what part of the Article is a farce (if not all of the article) without, what must be considered an insightful and, at this point, humorous edit. KJ Cruz 22:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ Cruz (talk • contribs)

Actual INRI plate

The article fails to mention that about 75% of the actual INRI wooden plate from the crucifiction still exists and is on display at Mounth Athos in Greece. 82.131.133.206 (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been said that if all the alleged fragments of the cross in Europe were brought together, you could build a barn. What's your citation for the INRI plate? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right. And in fact Erasmus complained about those claims of wood usage in church buildings as well. History2007 (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)