INRI: What Was Written Over Jesus On The Cross?

It is Passover season, around 30–33 CE. Three men hang on crosses at Golgotha, just outside Jerusalem. According to the Gospel narratives, the man in the middle, Jesus of Nazareth, has an inscription posted above his head. But exactly what did the inscription say? The Gospels offer slightly different versions:

• Matthew 27:37: "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews."
• Mark 15:26: "The King of the Jews."
• Luke 23:38: "This is the King of the Jews."
• John 19:19: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

At first glance, this raises a well-known question often discussed in both theological and historical circles: Do these differences represent a contradiction?

Historically, it was Roman custom to post a placard, or titulus, above a crucifixion victim, stating the crime or charge. This served as a public deterrent and a declaration of Roman authority. The Gospels seem to agree on two essential points: the inscription identified Jesus as "King of the Jews," and it was placed prominently above him during the crucifixion.

According to John’s Gospel, the sign was multilingual—written in Aramaic (or Hebrew), Latin, and Greek (John 19:20). This multilingual practice fits Roman policy, especially in areas like Judea where diverse populations lived under Roman control. Latin was the official language of the Roman government, Greek served as the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean, and Aramaic (or Hebrew) was the local language spoken by many Jews.

The variations across the Gospels likely reflect how each writer tailored their narrative for their audience and theological purpose:

• John emphasizes Pilate’s authorship and presents the full version: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." Some scholars suggest this reflects the Latin version (Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum), often abbreviated as INRI in Christian art and iconography.
• Luke, writing for a Greek-speaking audience (possibly Theophilus, as addressed in Luke 1:3), offers: "This is the King of the Jews." Some suggest this may echo the Greek version of the inscription.
• Matthew, traditionally seen as addressing a Jewish audience, presents: "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." Some propose this might reflect the Aramaic (or Hebrew) rendering.
• Mark, known for his shorter, action-focused style, gives the briefest form: "The King of the Jews."

Some Biblical scholars have attempted to harmonize these accounts by suggesting that each Gospel writer is quoting one language version of the sign, or selecting phrases that best suit their narrative aims. Others note that it’s equally possible that each writer simply preserved a version they were familiar with, without concern for exact word-for-word precision. After all, all four agree on the core content: Jesus was crucified under the title of "King of the Jews."

The urge to harmonize the Gospel differences is not a new one. Tatian’s Diatessaron, a 2nd-century harmony of the four canonical Gospels, weaves together Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into a single coherent narrative. While the original Syriac version is lost, our reconstructions (via later Arabic, Latin, and Syriac translations) preserve how Tatian merged overlapping Gospel traditions. For the inscription, Tatian seems to have opted for the most inclusive, combined wording. He essentially harmonizes all four Gospel snippets into a full statement similar to: “This is Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews.” This matches the long version in John, while also incorporating the "This is…" phrasing from Matthew and Luke. Tatian’s version is a clear attempt to unify differing Gospel accounts into one inscription.

Textual critics and historians often frame these kinds of Gospel variations as differences in literary reporting, not necessarily as contradictions. Ancient authors did not always share modern expectations for word-for-word accuracy across parallel reports. Instead, each Gospel preserves a version that emphasizes particular theological or narrative points.

For those interested in harmonization, one proposed reconstruction is that the full inscription was something like: "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews"—a synthesis covering the elements found in all four Gospels. But it’s worth remembering that the original inscription would have existed in three languages, each with its own phrasing, alphabet, and syntax. Differences between the Gospels may simply reflect which version the writer chose to highlight.

The trilingual nature of the inscription underscores the political and cultural complexity of Jerusalem in the first century. It also highlights Pilate’s role. According to John, when Jewish authorities objected to the wording, Pilate famously replied: "What I have written, I have written" (John 19:22)—an example of Roman authority asserting itself in the face of local pressure.

The inscription’s reference to kingship, framed as an accusation or crime, points directly to the charge under which Jesus was executed: sedition against Rome under the pretense of a messianic kingship claim. This is consistent with Roman practice for dealing with perceived political threats.

In short, while the Gospels present different wordings of the inscription, all four agree on the central issue: Jesus was crucified under a public declaration that he was "King of the Jews." Whether seen as ironic mockery by Pilate, or as a theological proclamation by later Christian readers, the inscription remains one of the most historically attested features of the crucifixion narratives.

Sources:
Taylor, Paul S. "What do the letters 'INRI' on the crucifix mean?" Christian Answers Network, 1998.

Grigg, Russell M. "Why do all four Gospels contain different versions of the inscription on the Cross?" Christian Answers Network / Creation Ministries International, 1997.

Trans. Hope W. Hogg. “The Diatessaron of Tatian.” Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume IX. 1895.