The four canonical New Testament gospels offer readers diversity in their descriptions of the words etched upon the sign, called a “titulus,” placed above Jesus of Nazareth (c. 6–4 BCE–30–33 CE) on the cross. The titulus, nailed above the heads of victims, was intended to display to passersby and onlookers the punishment for which a criminal was sentenced to death by crucifixion. In the Gospels, the titulus above Jesus’ head read as follows:

Mark: “The King of the Jews” (15:26)
Matthew: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37)
Luke: “This is the King of the Jews” (23:38)

John: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (19:19)

The Historical Question

The historian might read these, pondering the diversity in the wording and phrasing with a reasonable question pertaining to the exact words etched upon the sign.

Moreover, particularly uncharitable readers might employ any evidence of diversity between the gospels as ammunition in an arsenal already geared to undermine the credibility of them as historical sources. I will offer several comments.

Is This Really a Historical Problem?

Reasonable historians do not impose inerrantist or hypercritical presuppositions upon historical texts under critical analysis, regardless of the genre of those texts or the personal subjectivities of the historian. In my opinion, the historian will not, therefore, observe these four gospel descriptions of the titulus and conclude there to exist a major historical discrepancy between the accounts, thereby rendering them unreliable records of the described surrounding ancient historical events.

When Would This be a Historical Problem?

The historian would conclude differently if there were an actual discrepancy pertaining to the titulus across the four accounts. For example, if Mathew and Luke read “Jesus, the Brigand”; John, “Joshua, a Deserter”; and Mark, “King Jesus, for Sedition,” then there would be a historical problem.

In such a case, the historian would conclude that although he can remain confident that Jesus was put to death by crucifixion, he would need to forfeit any confidence pertaining to what exactly the charge was as stated on the titulus. At the very least, it would be a matter of significant academic debate between historians.

Independent Tradition and Consistency

On the contrary, the four canonical Gospels, largely the crystallization of decades of (mostly) independent oral tradition, demonstrate consistency regarding the content of the titulus placed above Jesus’ head. For example, they agree that Jesus was known as “The King of the Jews,” the charge of sedition for which he was tried and crucified by Rome.

The diversity between the four Gospels offers important information for historical purposes. Mark’s description of the sign is the pithiest and therefore likely the chronologically earliest of the four. This view coheres generally with Mark’s Gospel, which is the shortest of the four, contains the fewest sayings of Jesus, and often demonstrates a lack of legendary embellishment readers find in Luke and Matthew, notably where these two derive and use shared material from Mark.

The author of John’s gospel most likely added in the epithet “Jesus of Nazareth” for specificity. Jesus (Hebrew: Yeshua) was a common Jewish name across first-century Judea and Galilee, and the most effective manner by which the earliest Christians and Gospel writers could distinguish “their Jesus” from the other ones was to add the epithet “of Nazareth.” There were, after all, many Jesuses but far fewer Jesuses from Nazareth. Few would, therefore, have mistaken the identity of this crucified Jesus being described in John’s Gospel.

A further point to observe is John’s mentioning of the diversity in translations of the titulus itself: “Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek” (19:20; emphasis added).

Translating the titulus into several languages would render it more effective as a deterrent toward anyone intending to challenge Rome’s rule. The greater the number of people who could understand the content of the titulus, the better it would have been for Roman rule and geopolitical interests. It is difficult to make much of this point in detail, but suffice it to say that historians are left in the dark pertaining to which of the translations the Gospel authors used and how these translations between languages may have borne diversity themselves, thus embedding said diversity into the oral tradition.

What Did the Sign Actually Say?

The question nonetheless remains: How did the titulus above Jesus’ head actually read if one were there to observe it?

Most probably the version offered by Mark’s writer: “The King of the Jews.”

In my view, Mark‘s account is the pithiest, chronologically earliest, and most unadorned, thereby lending it greater probability. In addition, I believe one may take greater confidence in this since the “King of the Jews” is also attested in John‘s account, the chronologically latest of the four and most likely entirely independent of the others, thereby furnishing multiple attestation.