It is considered by many that the four different accounts of the inscription on the cross prove, beyond all controversy, that the Bible could not possibly have been inspired in every word, inasmuch as the wording is different in every case.
But those who raise this objection surely overlook the fact that Pilate—who was evidently anxious that all should read it—went beyond the usual custom of fixing up a condemned man’s accusation in one, or at most two languages, and in this case had it written out in three different languages, namely Latin, which was the official language—that is, of the Romans (representing power and conquest-worldly empire).
Greek, which was the usual language spoken by the people (representing art and learning human wisdom).
Hebrew, the vernacular or natural language of the Jews—that is, the religious language (representing the Covenant Race—God’s law).
So that it would be more correct, and much less misleading, to speak of the “inscriptions,” instead the inscription.
And what if the Holy Spirit was pleased to lead one evangelist to quote from the Latin; a second from the Greek; a third from the Hebrew, while a fourth was led by the same Spirit to give the substance of the whole—in order that in each case the wording of the inscription should retain the specific character of the particular gospel in which it was recorded, and thus set forth its own special view of the Saviour?
Surely the only reasonable argument here as to inspiration is that this part of the prophecy, at any rate, did not come “by the will of man!” For had they been merely human records, it is safe to assume that they would almost certainly have them made to agree with one another.
But, instead of this, it should be observed that in each case the words preceding the quotation of the inscriptions clearly indicate that there was a distinct intention that the quotations should differ; for example:
Moreover, all these prefaces themselves differ from one another. Mark merely tells us that the superscription was written; Matthew, that it was set up over His head; Luke, that it was written in three languages; John, that Pilate was the writer.
And it would be just as reasonable to argue that the Bible cannot be verbally inspired, because the evangelists did not all give exactly the same information in this respect, as it is to complain of the wording of the inscriptions. The fact is, they give us different views of the same facts, while all are equally correct. But it is now time to turn round upon the critic and ask him, even apart from what has been said, if he will kindly show us wherein the contradiction lies. Here are the four accounts:
Matt.: “This is Jesus. . . the King of the Jews.”
Mark: “. . . The King of the Jews.”
Luke: “This is. . . the King of the Jews.”
John: “. . . Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”
Total: This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.
From the foregoing table, it will be seen that the words quoted by the different evangelists were absolutely correct; but as, throughout the whole of the gospels, a perfect and full view of Christ and His teaching, can only be obtained by taking the four accounts together, so here it is the combined accounts that give us the total sum of the wording of the inscription, as written in the three languages; and it is absurd to charge the evangelists with misquoting the inscription, as it would be to say that the chief priests misquoted it when, in the very next verse to that in which John gives it as “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (Chapter 19), they say to Pilate, “Write not the King of the Jews” (Chapter 19:20). The fact was, they quoted, and quoted accurately—those particular words which applied to the argument they were then using, and purposely omitted the rest; and this is just what the evangelists did under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, had they done otherwise, they would have acted contrary to the principles on which the four gospels were written.