?

Log in

Aramaic learning journal
reaching back in time
TITULUS CRUCIS 
2nd-Oct-2007 02:42 pm
E
 TITULUS CRUCIS
   In 1492, a dramatic discovery was made in the course of repairs to a mosaic in Church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme (Rome): a brick inscribed with the words TITULUS CRUCIS (Title of the Cross). Sealed behind the brick was a fragment of an inscription in wood, with the word «Nazarene» written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin

. . . . . . . . . . הנצ . . . . .
 . . . . . . . B SUNERAZAN SI
. . . . . 
R SVNIRAZAN.I 


[
ישו] הנצ[רי מלק היהודים]
[NWIADUOI NWT SUELISA] B SUNERAZAN SI
[MVROEADVI XE]R SVNIRAZAN.I

This Title is mentioned in all four Gospels accounts:
 
Pilate also wrote a title (joltit-John 19:19) and put it on the cross; it read, «Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews». Many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Christ was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek (John 19:19-20; also Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38). 

In this case the Koine says «εβραιστι», but Aramaic was the vernacular of Jews in Jesus's day, not Hebrew.


In spite of  this has been radiocarbon dated to the medieval era, about AD 996–1023 (
685 C DATING OF THE ‘TITULUS CRUCIS’ Francesco Bella • Carlo Azzi), if anybody can solve the problem, why are the Greek and Latin presented also running right-to-left as Aramaic? Use of boustrophedon in Europe died out centuries before the time of Christ

 


 P.S. You can see also the Wikipedia discussion page on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Titulus_Crucis).
Comments 
18th-Apr-2008 05:06 pm (UTC) - Authenticity may not be an issue
Anonymous
If the Titulus was created around 1000 A.D. that does not necessarily make it a forgery. A forgery implies deceptive intent on the part of the Tituls creator.

I have yet to see where anyone has considered the possibility that the original Titulus Crucis could have been venerated as an early Christian icon. If this is the case, it would have been natural for an artist or iconographer to copy the object before age caused it to it decay completely. Scholars convinced by the textual oddities would pronounce it authentic. Others would give more credence to carbon dating and proclaim it a forgery.

Neither of which considering the possibility that the faithful may have venerated such an object with full knowledge that it was copied by a prayerful monk. And that the church holding the object would have made no secret that it was a copy, albeit faithful to the original.

Although this is a scenario of openness is anathema to some who want to find only conspiracy and deception in Christianity, it is far more consistent with Middle Eastern and Hellenic Christian practice. The Greeks have an icon "painted by the hand of Luke" and another "produced by the face of Jesus himself". These "Tituli" are not claims of authenticity. Like the scriptures themselves, they are iconic links that connect the faithful in a living historical tradition. The question is not the authenticity, but what changes in the church circa 1020 would have obligated a priest to protect a religious icon (regardless of authenticity) within the walls?

- David
8th-Jul-2011 10:34 pm (UTC) - Спасибо за статью
Благодарю за блог
This page was loaded Jun 26th 2017, 7:04 pm GMT.