John, Matthew and Luke told us. Duh!
Told us what? Produce the originals. And, let's not forget my namesake. What did he say? Are you about ready to admit that you aren't sola; you are as guilty of creating extra Scriptural beliefs as those you condemn, however you do not have the wisdom of the ages, the accompanying writings of the Church contemporaries, or even the consistency of those who knew those who knew Christ. You merely have the contents of your stomach, your wife's mood, your boss's conduct and the performance of the stock market in order to formulate your beliefs of the day.
Making a claim that “that verse isn’t supposed to be there” simply condemns the CC if it’s true since according to Catholics the CC “wrote” the scriptures so must have erred which would surely put them in fallible and untrustworthy territory.
John says there were three languages used. John, Matthew and Luke each quote a slightly different version of what is written which tells me what each of those inscriptions says. It’s either that or the whole of scripture is untrustworthy. No outside knowledge or information needed.
Mark, this is another case where Scripture is incomplete. It is a story told by eye witnesses decades after the fact. There are minor differences in detail, yet none can say that the differing accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John perjured themselves or the Lord. John tells us that the message was placed there at the command of Pilate himself and was done over the objections of the Chief Priest. It tells us more of the mind of the Romans than the Holy Spirit. This sinner's conclusion is that this point is not important to the Gospel message.
Jesus' sacrifice was to gather and unite us. How sad that we use it to divide us.