--------------------
The Titulus
by Michael Hesemann
The titulus is 25x14 cm in size, 2.6 cm thick and has a weight of 687 g. It is inscribed on one side with three lines, of which the first one is mostly destroyed. The second line is written in Greek letters and reversed script, the third in Latin letters, also with reversed script. We can read the words:
z´nh (Hebrew)
BSUNERAZA(H)N.SI (Greek in reverse as the Hebrew is written)
RSUNIRAZAN .I (Latin in reverse as the Hebrew is written)
Read from right to left, obviously in imitation of the Jewish way of writing, we can read:
I. NAZARINUS RE,
obviously a part of the inscription of the cross, as quoted in the Latin translation of the Gospel according to St. John (19,19) as "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum". 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: 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. First of all, a variation of Joh. 19,19 is a freedom no forger would ever risk. 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. 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 Christian forger. It is furthermore significant that the writer used the Latin NazarInus instead of the later Christian NazarEnus. Indeed, NazarInus is closer to the Hebrew NozerY/NazarY and seems to be the original form. Both indicates an early, even contemporary origin.
The remains of the first line can be identified as Jewish script. Readable are only the letters Heh, Nun and Tzadi, which very well might have been parts of the Hebrew text of the inscription
(YSU´) HN´Z(RY MLK HYHUDIM) (Yeshu H´Nozery Melek H´Yehudim)
The edges of the titulus show a strong withering. The right edge is severely decayed, a part of the upper edge is broken off, on the lower edge the letters I and ARIN are difficult to see. Only the left edge is undamaged.. Obviously here the wood was cut at a later date and from this moment on preserved safely. This condition of the title seems to confirm the tradition according to which the title was hidden for 295 years in an old cistern close to the Calvary, bevor it was discovered and obviously cut into two pieces by St. Helena who brought one half to Rome. The division is indicated by the clean cut on the left side and the missing part of the inscription. If this indeed was, as John (19,19) and the Church historians (with the exemption of Sokrates Scholasticus who obviously got his information from Jerusalem, referring to the relic preserved there),
IESUS NAZARENUS REX IUDAEORUM,
we can reconstruct the inscription of the other half, remaining in Jerusalem, as
miduhyh kl(m) (Hebrew)
NOIADUI NOT SOELISA(B) MUROEADVI XE(R) (Latin)
Especially in the middle of the title chalky-greyish remains of color are still visible, furthermore traces of black color in some of the letters. This is characteristical for the Roman way to write the "titulus damnationis", as the archaeologists and historians Maria Siliato and Werner Eck stressed: First of all the wood was painted with white chalk, than the exactor painted the reason for the punishment on it with black or red letters. That the letters were also carved was rather an exemption. Although Eck states that there indeed were wood tablets with carved inscriptions, painted over with chalk, the letters painted out, these were rather common for public buildings or as tituli sepulcrales. A titulus damnationis, he thinks, would rather be reused. On the other hand it is rather questionable if tituli were in common use for provincial executions at all. Furthermore we have to ask if Pilate, who arrived with his Kohort in Jerusalem to guarantee a quiet Pesach, indeed took a whole staff of provincial officials wih him. The titulus rather was a form of "special treatment", of mocking of the "King of the Jews", ordered by Pilate and probably written by an officer who was able to write, maybe a Centurio. The relic rather allows the conclusion that it was written by an untrained writer, maybe a Levantine, inexperienced in other languages, writing by dictate. A reuse can be excluded since there were no regular trials in Jerusalem - they took place in the provincial capital of Caesarea Maritima. Only for the major Tempel Holidays the prafectus iudaeae came to Jerusalem to guarantee the public order. Only during this time he sat in judgement over imminent cases. Since everything which came in contact with the deceased was considered "unclean" by the Jewish Law (4 Mos 19,13-16), victims of executions had to be buried on the very same day (5 Mos 21, 22-23) and actually Jews removed the traces of the execution, it can be excluded that the titulus Crucis or any other remain of a public execution was eher brought back in the city to be reused.
Interestingly we find this detail -the chalk painting- mentioned in the Church History of Sozomenos, who, born in Gaza about 370-80, still met eye witnesses of the finding of the cross in his youth and added further details to the description given by his forerunner Sokrates Scholasticus. He described the titulus as a "separate piece of wood, on which were inscribed, on white, in Hebrew, Greek and Latin letters, the following words: 'Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews'." The fact that Sozomenos, in variation from St. John, gave the order of the lines exactly as it is on our relic, indicates that his report indeed represents the earliest description of it. The Church History of Sozomenos was written about 444, not even 120 years after the inventio crucis.
But the most interesting testimony is that of the pilgrom Antoninus of Piacenza who visited the Holy land in 570 AD. He described "the title which was placed above the head of Our Lord" quite carefully since he was able to examine it closely. He stressed that he "saw, hold in my hands and kissed" (vidi et in manu mea tenui et osculatus sum) the relic and stated: "This wood of the cross was of a nut tree" (Quod lignum crucis de nuce est). This is remarkable, since according to an expertise by the botanist Prof. Dr. Elio Corona, the relic of the titulus Crucis in S.Croce is of wood of a nut tree of the species "Juglans regia" which is common in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. If indeed the left half of the tablet can be proved to be in Jerusalem for 570 (Antoninus) and even for 383 (Egeria), it must have appeared at some time in the 4th century. The fact that the other half of the relic is in Rome, of all places in the former Palace chapel of Helena, makes it more than probable that she was the one who found and divided it.
The Jerusalem Relic of the title is lost since the 7th century, the looting of the city by King Chosros of Persia, although there is a possibility that Emperor Heraklius brought it to Constantinople after he re-conquered the True Cross and other relics from the Persians. We do not find it on the official relic catalogues of the imperial city, but there is the possibility that it was mentioned in a letter by Emperor Constantine VII. Porphyrogennetos to his army in Tarsus from the year 958. With this letter he sent his soldiers holy water which was benedicted by his most sacred relics including "the precious wood, the immaculate lance, the precious inscription... the linen that bore God and other symbols of His immaculate passion." It is furthermore possible that it was among the relics bought by king Louis IX., the Saint, from Balduin II., the "Latin Emperor" of Constantinople in 1241. At least P. Guillaume Durand, an author of the 15th century, lists "the tablet on which Pilate wrote: Jesus Nazarenus rex Judaeorum, which I saw in Paris in the Chapel of the illustrous king of the French, together with the crown of thorns" as one of the treasures of the Sainte Chapelle. Unfortunately this is the only evidence we have that the relic ever was in France, and if indeed it was it got lost during the French Revolution.
As we have shown above, we can trace the history of the relic of the titulus Crucis back to the 4th century. Is there any possibility that it indeed is from the time of Jesus?
Considering the titulus and the other relics of S. Croce consistent with all we know about the history of capital punishments in Roman times, I looked for a way to determine its age. As a working hypothesis, I developed three possible scenarios of its origin:
1. It is indeed the title of the True Cross of Our Savior, and therefore dated 30 AD.
2. It is a 4th century forgery, created to deceive the Empress Helena
3. It is a mediaeval forgery, created in memory of the tradition of the "Helena legend" and the Inventio Crucis.
From the possible methods to date the relic, dendrochronology (tree ring dating) could be ruled out, since the wooden fragment is too small and since Israel does not have sufficient dendrochronological data for the time in question. For a Radiocarbon-analysis a sample would be needed, and of course there is the danger that -as in the case of the Holy Shroud- a contamination could alter the results. Therefore I decided for the most precise and least problematic method of dating, the palaeographic method. The kind permission for this study was granted by the Sostituto per gli Affari Generali of the Segreteria di Stato of the Holy See, His Excellency Archbishop Giovanni Battista Re, via the Rev. Father Abbot of S. Croce, Don Luigi Rottini, whom I owe my deepest gratitude for it.
In April 1998 I received detailed photos from Mr. Paladini, the official photographer of the Basilica di Santa Croce, thanks to the help of the Rev. Father Abbot Don Luigi Rottini. In the following week I asked my co-worker and colleague Barry Chamish from Israel to look for the most competent experts of his country in palaeography and dendrochronology of the time periods in question. Israel is maybe today the country with the strongest interest in archaeology and the most active archaeological research, with 120 smaller and 30 bigger excavations on different sites in just the last summer. Because of the huge amount of data uncovered by Israeli archaeologists, I considered them as quite competent in determing the age of an object allegedly created and found in the country they investigate so carefully. Furthermore I could expect a certain degree of objectivity and "advocatus diaboli"-attitude, given that they, as Jews, have no religious veneration for what the titulus stands for. This was to protect the title from any future criticism and polemics from the sceptical scientific community, which would refuse any expertise from a Roman Catholic scholar, including myself, as "biased".
From August 12-20, 1998 I flew to the Holy Land to present my collection of high quality photos of the titulus to the experts. Further experts were consulted in the following months. In four cases I asked them to make a verbal statement, which I recorded on video, in four cases I received written statements.