This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
This is incorrect Latin -- properly should be "Iustum necarE reges impiOs"... AnonMoos 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The following quote from Cryptonomicon has to do with the subject of this page. I think it's hilarious.
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.
I'm removing the paragragh.
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)
Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumranian Scrolls of the Nasoreans? Hello?
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Latin is needed, as that's what INRI is an acronym of! 86.168.6.101 ( talk) 12:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
This is incorrect Latin -- properly should be "Iustum necarE reges impiOs"... AnonMoos 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The following quote from Cryptonomicon has to do with the subject of this page. I think it's hilarious.
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.
I'm removing the paragragh.
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)
Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumranian Scrolls of the Nasoreans? Hello?
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Latin is needed, as that's what INRI is an acronym of! 86.168.6.101 ( talk) 12:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)