Talk:Jesus, King of the Jews

Christianity C‑class Mid‑importance

	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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Unassessed

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating 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 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