INRI Meaning: The Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Writing on the Cross


Written by Joshua Schachterle, Ph.D

Author |  Professor | Scholar

Author |  Professor | BE Contributor

Verified!  See our editorial guidelines

Verified!  See our guidelines

Date written: January 23rd, 2025

Date written: January 23rd, 2025


Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The inscription INRI — a common sight in depictions of Jesus' crucifixion — has sparked curiosity for centuries. What exactly is the INRI meaning, and why was it placed above Jesus' head on the cross?

In this article, I’ll explore that question, the role of the titulus’ in Roman crucifixions, and the languages in which the inscription on Jesus’ cross was written. By delving into the Gospels, historical records, and linguistic analysis, we will uncover the deeper layers of this ancient title and its implications, both for the Roman authorities who executed Jesus and the Christian faith that grew in his wake.

INRI Meaning

Roman Crucifixion and the Titulus

Outside of the New Testament, historians are fortunate to have descriptions of the process of crucifixion written by ancient writers who witnessed such executions first-hand. This is one way we can confirm what the Gospels say about the sign  — called a titulus in Latin — hanging above Jesus’ head on the cross that has caused enduring interest about the INRI meaning.

In Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion, Gunnar Samuelsson, having read numerous ancient accounts of crucifixions, writes that after being scourged or whipped, a condemned person was normally forced to carry the horizontal crossbeam (Latin: patibulum) of the cross — not the entire cross — to the place of execution. Samuelsson writes that on this crossbeam was posted a small sign called the titulus, which told bystanders of the name of the condemned criminal and the crime with which he had been charged. The titulus then remained on the cross as the person was affixed to it to increase awareness among subjugated populations of what happened to those who challenged Roman rule.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Such an action would have been an added deterrent to criminal activity for those who read the titulus. However, there are reasons for thinking that this form of deterrent may not have affected many people directly (although seeing the person hanging on the cross surely did). In Ancient Literacy, William Harris writes that in the ancient Mediterranean world, only about 10% of people could read and/or write. The number of people who could actually read the titulus directly may have been small, but there were probably literate people around who could inform the crowds about the INRI meaning and its significance.

Having understood the purpose and function of the titulus, let’s look at what the Gospels say about the INRI meaning over Jesus’ head.

The Titulus and INRI Meaning in the New Testament

In surveying the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion, we see some notable differences, especially regarding details. Since Mark was the first of the four Gospels to be written, let’s start there.

In Mark 15:26, we read “The inscription of the charge against him read, ‘The King of the Jews’.” Perhaps this doesn’t sound like a criminal charge, but remember that Jesus was executed by representatives of the Roman Empire. Claiming to be a ruler of any kind automatically meant confronting the power of Rome and was taken quite seriously by the authorities.

Matthew says nothing about a titulus, but in Luke 23:38, we read that “there was also an inscription over him, ‘This is the King of the Jews.’” It may seem unlikely that the Romans would have written the charge this way and, indeed, it is. This is likely Luke’s way of both noting the charge of sedition for which Jesus was killed and simultaneously declaring that he really was someone fitting of the title.

Finally, John’s Gospel is the only one in which the languages of the titulus are mentioned while also incorporating a longer vignette about Jesus’ crucifixion:

Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” Many of the Jews read this inscription because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek. Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’” Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.”

Let’s unpack this longer version. What is common to all three Gospel versions is the title “King of the Jews.” Claiming the title of king while living under the thumb of a foreign empire was certainly a dangerous move. Although none of the Gospels say that Jesus directly claimed that identifier, his frequent talk about the Kingdom of God could certainly have been interpreted as a claim of royal power. Perhaps this explains why our earliest version of the inscription in Mark says simply “The King of the Jews,” implying that crucifixion is what happens to those who claim power over Rome. In fact, Luke’s version, “This is the King of the Jews,” adds a sarcastic edge to the charge, implying that Roman authority mocked Jesus for such an unlikely claim (“This is the King of the Jews?”).

It is only in John’s version, though, that we see some real impact from the titulus. In John, the chief priests complain to Pilate that the charge sounds not like a criminal act but rather like an acknowledgement of Jesus’ political authority. However, continuing the Gospel tradition of making the real-life tyrant Pilate seem all but guiltless, Pilate implies that he wrote the charge not just as a matter of legal necessity, but also to acknowledge Jesus’ royal status.

It is also only in John where the author notes that the inscription was written “in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.” Why would this have been the case?

FREE COURSE!

WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN

Raw, honest, and enlightening. Bart's story of why he deconverted from the Christian faith.

Over 6,000 enrolled!

Languages in the 1st-Century Roman Empire

The Roman Empire covered such a huge number of regions that there were bound to be various languages spoken within it. To begin with, then, we should note that Latin was the primary language of Rome. In fact the early Roman writer Virgil, in his epic poem the Aeneid, wrote that at the founding of Rome, the god Jupiter had ordered the Romans and anyone who wanted to join their ranks to use Latin exclusively. For this reason, Latin was the language of administration, legislation, and the military throughout the empire’s duration. It makes sense, then, that Jesus’ inscription would be written in Latin.

Prior to the advent of the Roman Empire, however, Alexander the Great had conquered most of the near east and Mediterranean and had forced the inhabitants to learn his native Greek. For that reason, Greek was the lingua franca, the international language of diplomacy and trade, throughout the Mediterranean world in Jesus’ time, which is why the entire New Testament was written in Greek. It also makes perfect sense that Jesus’ inscription would contain Greek.

Hebrew, however, is a trickier subject during Jesus’ historical period, especially in the context of the INRI meaning. In his History of the Hebrew Language, Angel Saenz-Badillos writes that as early as the 5th century BCE, Hebrew was no longer the everyday spoken language of Palestine, almost completely replaced by Aramaic which had happened during the Persian period. Hebrew, on the other hand, had remained, first and foremost, the language of Jewish religion. Why, then, would the Romans have written Jesus’ titulus in Hebrew?

When the Gospel of John says “Hebrew,” it is likely referring to the language of the Hebrews or Jews which, in his time and in Jesus’ time, was Aramaic. How can we know this? First, the Gospel of John often calls Aramaic words “Hebrew.” For example, in John 19:17, the author writes “they took Jesus, and carrying the cross by himself he went out to what is called the Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha.” However, we know that the word Golgotha is the Aramaic word for skull. Likewise, in John 20:16, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene: “Jesus said to her, ‘Mary!’ She turned and said to him in Hebrew, ‘Rabbouni!’ (which means Teacher).” The word “Rabbouni” is, however, the Aramaic word for teacher. It follows, then, that the author of John, who wrote in Greek and may have known neither Hebrew or Aramaic, assumed that the language Jews spoke in Palestine was called Hebrew.

Furthermore, all the words in the New Testament that are called “Hebrew” are, in fact, Aramaic words. In several verses in Acts, however (Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14), the word “Hebrew” is used to refer to "the (Aramaic) vernacular of the Jews", according to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

The only conclusion we can come to, then, is that if the titulus was indeed written in three languages, they were Latin, Greek, and Aramaic.

INRI meaning on the cross

The INRI Meaning on the Cross

The Latin version from John meaning “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”, would have said

IESUS NAZARENUS REX IUDAEORUM

Note that the English letter J did not exist in Latin (or any other ancient language) and so the letter I was used. In many paintings of the crucifixion, we see this Latin phrase on the inscription above Jesus’ head, abbreviated as INRI by using the first letter of each word. Do the crucifix letters in these cases have a particular meaning? The Catholic Church used Latin exclusively for religious services until the 1960s, when the Second Vatican Council decreed that the Mass should be performed in local languages. For this reason, the Catholic crucifix letters usually include the Latin abbreviation of INRI.

In Greek, by the way, the inscription would have said

IĒSOUS HO NAZŌRAIOS HO BASILEUS TŌN IOUDAIŌN

As I noted above, it doesn’t make historical sense to look at the INRI meaning in Hebrew. However, in Aramaic, the phrase may have said something like

Yéş̌ẇʻa dĕ̇ Nṣrt Melekĕ dĕ̇ Yhwdywtʾ

To be fair, while I have a good knowledge of ancient Greek and Latin, my knowledge of Aramaic is scanty at best. The above Aramaic translation is the result of my research but may or may not be entirely correct.

Conclusion

The enigmatic INRI hanging on a placard above Christ’s head as he is on the cross in paintings has long interested people. What is the INRI meaning? Where does it come from?

That placard was a standard practice in Roman capital punishment. It was a sign called a titulus, which usually included the name of the condemned person and the crime for which they were being punished. Therefore, when we see references to this sign in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion, we can be sure that they are at least historically plausible.

Literacy rates in the Roman Empire were extremely low, so some who saw the placard may not have immediately understood the INRI meaning. However,  the notion of the titulus was designed to maximize deterrence, making anyone considering committing seditious acts think twice before trying them.

The titulus references in Mark, Luke, and John all give the kingly title to Jesus, but their tone differs slightly. While that phrase stands alone as the charge in Mark, Luke’s phrase — “This is the King of the Jews” — sounds like a sarcastic reference, one highlighting Jesus’ utter failure to set up any kind of kingdom on earth.

Only in John, however, is it said that the titulus was written in three languages. First, it was written in Latin, the official language of Rome. Next, it was written in Greek, the lingua franca of most of the Roman Empire in the 1st century. Finally, John says it was written in Hebrew, although there are good reasons to assume that he actually meant Aramaic, the spoken language of Palestine in Jesus’ time.

In addition, only in John does Pilate appear to slyly admit that Jesus was indeed a king of sorts, as he refuses to amend or erase what he has written above Jesus’ head.

FREE COURSE!

WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN

Raw, honest, and enlightening. Bart's story of why he deconverted from the Christian faith.

Over 6,000 enrolled!

Josh Schachterle

About the author

After a long career teaching high school English, Joshua Schachterle completed his PhD in New Testament and Early Christianity in 2019. He is the author of "John Cassian and the Creation of Monastic Subjectivity." When not researching, Joshua enjoys reading, composing/playing music, and spending time with his wife and two college-aged children.

{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}