Talk:Titulus Crucis

[Untitled]
To answer Adam Bishop's question:

While I can't speak to the authenticity of this particular artifact, I can explain what the author meant (I agree, he did not state it very clearly). This is what he was trying to say: There is only one know description of the Titulus Crucis from the ancient world, and it appears in the Bible itself (John 19-21). In this famous account, the placard on the cross is described as having the message "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek (Aramaic is similar to Hebrew; it's in the same language family).

On the artifact from Helena's palace, this message appears in the same three languages, EXCEPT in a different order. I am not certain, but I think it is Aramaic, Greek, then Latin.

Many archaeologists (not just pseudoscientists) reason that if someone were to make a forgery, he would craft it with special attention to the description in the Bible. So, while it may seem ironic, it is the fact that the order is different from its famous biblical description which actually supports the idea that it could be authentic. Why would someone make a forgery with such an obvious "error?" Isn't it more likely that in centuries of revision, the order described in the Bible was muddled? Anyway, that is the logic behind the argument.

Of course, carbon dating is a tremendously robust test; it simply doesn't lie. As compelling as the idea might be that a piece of the true cross could still exist for us to see and reflect upon, the chances are high that this artifact is a forgery.

Hi all, but the controversy about the Titulus is only pseudoscience. The relic is a medieval forgery and I've added the paper published by the University of Arizona about its Carbon dating: it was made in 1020 AD. End of story.

Antonio (Italy)

Carbon dating of organic material which has been handled and moved about for many centuries is not reliable --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.10.32.36 (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"He cites that the order of the languages match what is historically accurate and not the order shown in the New Testament, and should it be phony, the forgerer would try to remain faithful to the text instead."

What does that mean? Adam Bishop 03:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See also: and  and Nun Egeria: "I have seen the Titulus Crucis in 383." -- Dietmar 12:44, 11 February 2006

Tagged for multiple problems
See the tags I added: this article violates NPOV and is a probably copy-vio. In addition it does not give its sources, and it reads like a high-school essay, not an encyclopedic entry. Please do not remove these tags until these issues have been resolved. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 21:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

added for information re discussion
Chandlery, P.J.    Pilgrim - Walks in Rome : A Guide to its Holy Places Society of         w/ map of churches and roads of Rome. Jesus         Pub: The Messenger, New York (1903) MPL#: 914.56 C456 (Milwaukee Public Library reference number) see the online bibliography at http://www.cyriac-fhp.com/cbx.htm for the above entry there.

(Father P. J. Chandlery, writing at the turn of the century from his position within the Vatican talks about both the Church of the Holy Cross in Rome and the original in Jerusalem. Given that his sources may have been more legitimate than most, both applicatble sections from pages 159 & 160 in the above book are quoted here for the information of anyone researching this matter:

p159  138.--DISCOVERY OF THE HOLY CROSS AT JERUSALEM BY ST. HELENA, A. D. 326. Constantine, desirous of honoring the holy places sanctified by our Redeemer's sufferings, resolved to build a magnificent church in      Jerusalem. (Alban Butler, May 3.) His mother, St. Helena, inspired with a great desire to find the true Cross, on which our Lord has suffered, undertook a journey to Palestine in 326, though she was nearly eighty years of age at the time. At Jerusalem she found no      mark, no tradition even among the Christians to guide her in her search. The heathens had heaped up a great quantity of stones and rubbish to conceal the place where our Savior was buried, and the Emperor Hadrian had profaned the Holy Places and outraged the feelings of Christians by erecting a statue of Jupiter near the Holy Sepulchre, and a temple and statue of Venus on Calvary, so as to prevent the Christians from coming there to worship. The pious Empress ordered the profane building to be pulled down, the statues to be broken to pieces, the rubbish to be removed; and on digging to a great depth the holy Sepulchre was found, and near it three crosses, also the p160  nails, which had pierced our Saviour's Hands and Feet, and the Title which had been fixed on the Cross. Uncertain, which of the three crosses was the one on which Christ died, the holy bishop St.      Macarius, after fervent prayer, applied them singly to a sick person; the first two had no effect, but an immediate and perfect cure followed the touch of the third. St. Helena, full of joy at having found the treasure she had so earnestly sought, built a church on the spot, and within it placed the Holy Cross enclosed in a rich silver case. A part of it she took to the Emperor Constantine, who received it with great veneration: another part she brought to Rome to be placed in this church of the Holy Cross.

p160  139.--RELICS OF THE PASSION AT SANTA CROCE--THE HOLY CROSS, THE SACRED NAIL, THE TITLE ON THE CROSS. Besides the large piece of the True Cross, St. Helena placed in this church the Title that had been fixed on the Cross and one of the Sacred Nails. These sacred relics disappeared for a long time (hidden      probably during some invasion of the city), and were thought to be       hopelessly lost. In 1492, during some repairs ordered by Cardinal Mendoza, a niche was discovered near the summit of the apse, enclosed by a brick front, inscribed "Titulus Crucis." In it was found a leaden coffer, containing an imperfect blank of wood, 2 inches thick, 1 1/2 palm long, 1 palm broad. On this was the inscription in Hebrew, Greek and Latin "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." The coffer also contained a large piece of the True Cross, and one of the Sacred Nails. (1) ...         (1) Bozius. Tract de Cruce. l. 1. c. 2.)

The source, Bozius. Tract de Cruce. l. 1. c. 2. would be crucial to this discussion and has been unfound by me (Ben Ciriacks) to date.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzden (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR
I added fact tags (citations needed) -- all of these issues need to have supporting documentation. Additionally, as the authenticity of the Titulus is a minority view, it needs to be represented as such.

I removed the following as being both clearly OR, and factually incorrect and unverifiable.


 * But it makes sense, since Pontius Pilatus, who, according to the gospels, dictated the inscription, was a Roman magistrate and used, especially for official documents, the official language Latin.


 * It was up to the writer to create a version in the other two languages, and therefore it was rather unlikely that he transferred the term Nazarinus in the correct Greek form.


 * Therefore it is very well possible that the Titulus Crucis is indeed the title of the cross of Jesus in his crucifixion.

&#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 22:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a source that the writer of this article most likely borrowed from: http://www.rense.com/general67/detox.htm

It's long, so I'll quote only a few sentences:

"Interestingly enough, what was written on the headboard differs from gospel to gospel, and likewise, the Titulus Crucis we have today differs also. A forger would surely attempt to imitate at least one of the gospel accounts! "

"Interestingly enough, the Greek line is a mere Greek transcription of the Latin line rather than a translation, in contrast to the original Greek quote of the Gospel according to St. John as "Ihsous Nazoraios Basileus ton Ioudaion". The variations from the version of St. John are: 1. The order of the lines (St. John: Hebrew, Latin, Greek; Titulus Crucis: Hebrew, Greek, Latin) 2. The reverse writing, not mentioned by St. John 3. The Initials "JS" and "I." instead of the full name "Iesous/Iesus". 4. The use of the Latin "Nazarinus/Nazarenous" instead of the Greek "Nazoraios", even in the Greek line." "Two experts, Prof. Thiede and Prof. Roll, consider this a major indication of the authenticity of the Titulus Crucis. First of all, a variation of Joh. 19,19 is a freedom no forger would ever risk."

"The abbreviation of the name "Iesous/Iesus" as "I." is typical for Roman Latin inscriptions. Since "Yeshu/Yehoshua" was a common name during the 1st century -Flavius Josephus mentions 16 persons with this name-, the unique "Nazarinus" rather pointed to the Savior from a small village in Galilee, at least for a Roman magistrate, although such an abbreviation in contrast to John 19,19 would be unthinkable for a Crucisan forger."

Someone can add the citations if this is apropriate.

--Paul


 * Unfortunately, that source doesn't meet WP:RS or WP:V, so it can't be added. Also, "Saviour" is a value judgment, and therefore inherently POV (I've reworded it).  Nazarinus merely means person from Nazareth.  I'm going to move the section to the talk page until a valid source can be found.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article
See above for reasoning. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 12:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The abbreviation of the name "Iesous/Iesus" as "I." is typical for Roman Latin inscriptions. Since "Yeshu/Yehoshua" was a common name during the 1st century - Flavius Josephus mentions 16 persons with this name-, the unique Nazarinus rather pointed to a person from a small village in Galilee, at least for a Roman magistrate, although such an abbreviation in contrast to John 19:19 would be unthinkable for a Christian forger.

Note this image...this casts doubt on the abbreviation theory. Also, can someone explain to me why both the Greek and Latin are not just written from right to left, but as a mirror image? This did not occur in either Greek nor Latin usage as the norm would have been either a standard inscription (left to right) or Boustrophedon, which alternates bewteen l-r and r-l with mirroring only on the r-l. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 12:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why this image "casts doubt" on the abbreviation theory? Clashwho 21:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have seen Hellenistic inscriptions that look mirror-like Pictureuploader 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but see the example on the Boustrophedon article. Only alternate lines are mirror images. Also, Latin was rarely done this way.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Other Considerations

While I can see that some people put alot of stock in the carbon 14 dating method, I dont see it as being the end of the discussion. There are many variables to consider, especially since the titulus has not been in a sterile environment at all in its history. Here are some variables to consider. The wood is walnut, a very common genus in the arab world at the time of christ. Its also covered in gypsum, a mineral commonly used by romans for instription when they werent using wax boards during meetings or in study. The last is the text, and how much of the titulus is actually left.

Many of the early christians believing the relic was genuine obviously took the lions share of it home with them. The next is the language, I subscribe to the hypothesis that a forger would follow the biblical description of the titulus while making it, the mere fact that thier are some differences with the relic and the one discribed in the bible is copisetic with the fact that the verbal and written account of the gospel of St John would vary since the Gospel would not be written until almost 70 yrs after the crucifixtion.

Just something else to discuss, lemme know your thoughts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.66.26.219 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Medieval copy not forgery?
Instead of considering the relic we now have a forgery, the Titulus Crucis may be medieval replica of an earlier relic that is now lost. That could explain the unusual wording for the time - the item we now have may have been copy of an older relic. IT would also explain a lack of tradition about this relic, since it could have been just a copy made for some private use, and never regarded as genuine in the first place. An item is a forgery only if the person who made it intends to pass it off as genuine. Since the item we have now was made long before it was discovered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.147.97 (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * lol. Sounds like the subscript to items as found in some (often American) 'museums':i.e. "genuine reproduction".
 * It's also fascinating how so many 'relics' carbon date to the time of the crusades and the heyday of cathedral building. How else would one fund such expensive stonework. Need a relic!1812ahill (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

By the end of the first millennium there were a lot of crucifixes around. Not remarkable to find one. That the order isn't what is in the bible isn't remarkable either. There are crosses in several languages. Made for the language of the person buying it. Making crosses is often a cottage industry. We often see the inscription merely abbreviated.

98.164.71.229 (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Carbon 14 dating
There are ways to correct for environmental contamination. One of the most basic ways is to simply clean the sample. Cleaned versus pristine readings are compared in test samples to calibrate the reading of cleaned historical objects. Cleaned test values have a consistent very small variation from the pristine test values. The variation is subtracted from the values of the cleaned historical object. Carbon 14 testing of non controversial samples have a very well documented accuracy.

98.164.71.229 (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Reversed writing
Is there some hypothesis for the reversion of the writing? --Error (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)