Literature.— Kaestner, de Aeris; Bilflnger, Die antiken Stundenangaben ; Schwarz, Der Jiid. Kalender ; Lewin, Fasti Saeri ; Wieseler, Ckron. Sy7wpsis of the Four Gospels ; Ideler, llandbuch der Chronologie ; Schiirer, HJP i. 37, ii. App. iii. and iv. ; W. M. Ramsay. Was Christ born at Bethlehem? v.-xi. ; Hastings' DB iv. pp. 762>'-7C6'>, also specially Ext. Vol. 473^-484.
G. Gordon Stott.
732
TITHE
TITLE OlS THE CROSS
TITHE. — On the tithe as a Jewish institution, see art. ' Tithe ' in Hastings' DB.
Our Lord makes but three references to the tithes, and they are all of the observance of them by the Pharisees (Mt 2323, Lk 11^2 W^). In the first two passages He contrasts the minute exact- ness with which the Pharisees observe their less important and external laws of tithe with their careless disregard of the inner and more important virtues of justice, mercy, faith, and the love of God. In Lk 18^^ He illustrates how compliance with external requirements, especially when these are exceeded, as in the case of the Pharisees, and dissociated from the corresponding state of heart, breeds a culpable and overweening self- righteousness. Our Lord in these references, as also in Mt 5^^, recognizes degrees of importance in the Law's demands. Minute observance of the less important does not excuse from attending to the greater, but neither does compliance with the greater absolve from the obligation to observe the lesser. ' This ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.' Our Lord evidently thought tlie tithe, as well as the other OT institu- tions, of Divine origin, and binding upon the Jews of His day. At the same time. He foresaw a period when outward observances should give place to the more purely inward, as men should Avorship the Father in spirit and in truth (Jn 4^'"^^). See also artt. ANISE and RuE. G. GooDSPEED.
TITLE ON THE CROSS. — The technical word tLtXos is found only in Jn 19^^ ; Mt 27^'' has airia, Lk 23^^ iTnypa<j>T), and Mk 15^® t) iiri.ypa(j>y) r-qs alrias. Again, as regards the wording of the titulus, no two Gospels agree exactly. Mt. has oStos icnv 'I'jjcroOs 6 ^aacXevs rwv 'lovSaiuv ; Mk. 6 ^acriKif/s tQv 'lovdaiuv ; Lk. 6 ^atnXevs rOiv 'lovdaiiiiv oSros ; and Jn. ItjctoCs 6 Nafojpatos 6 jSaaiKevs ti2v 'lovdaiuv.
The onlyjmportant variation is in the case of Lk., where the TR reads oJto; la-nv o i3. t. 'I., probably from assimilation, to the form given by Mt. The form above given (Lk 2338) is found in NBL, and is supported by the Latin of D: rex Judceorum hie est. The so-called Gospel of Peter, taking the words as an insult to Jesus on the part of the Jews, reads : olToi irTiv i /3. tov 'IcrpaviX.
It was customary at Roman executions, at least in the case of remarkable prisoners, for the charge under which the prisoner was suffering to be written briefly on a tablet (aavis) covered Avith gypsum {■yj^ip okifKiixiiAyos, Suidas ; cf. titulus qui causam pcence indicavit [Suet. Ccd. 32], and yuerd ypa/j.fidTuv Trjv airiav r^s davarihcrews aiirov SrjkodvTOJv [Dio Cassius, liv. 3]). This was usually hung round the neck of the criminal, or carried before him to the place of execution (prcecedente titulo [Suet. Cal. 32]). It was afterwards hung from, or fixed to, the top of the cross.
other words for this tablet are !t/v«| and uCxa/j^. The letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, preserved by Eusebius (HE V. 1), gives an instance of such a titulus in the case of one of the martyrs. The words are: ThxHo; kItov ^poxyoMTo;, l» Si lyiypccTTO 'Paifiixiirri, outo; liniv" AttccXo; i ^piirrixtio?. This agrees exactly with the form of the title as given by Mt.
The Synoptists merely mention the fact that such a title was placed over the cross of Jesus. St. John, who writes as an eye-witness, adds some interesting particulars— (1) that Pilate wrote the title ; (2) tliat it was written 'E^palaTi, "PuixaCarl, 'EWTjvicrTi (tlie similar words in the TR of Lk. are merely an inter- polation from Jn. ) ; (3) that Pilate, in spite of the expostulation of the chief priests, scornfully refused to alter the form of what he had written. With r^erence to (1) Westcott (on Jn IQi^) remarks: 'The Roman governor found expression to the last for the bitterness which had been called out in him by the opposition of the Jews . . . the heathen governor completed the unwilling testimony of the
Jewish priest' (Jn ll^"'-). The three languages of the WrXos — Hebrew (i.e. Aramaic), Latin, and Greek — represent, as Westcott remarks, the national, the official, and the common dialects respectively. The true reading, therefore, preserves the more natural order.
Bilingual and trilingual inscriptions such as this were naturally common in the East under the Roman Empire. Grotius (on Jit 2737) mentions the case of the inscription on the tomb of the Emperor Gordian, which was written in no fewer than five languages ; the five being the three above mentioned, together with Persian and Egyptian.
The wording of the title differs in all the four Gospels, as above remarked, and many attempts have been made to harmonize or explain the varia- tions. Wordsworth (on Jn 19^^) has even supposed that the title really ran thus : ' This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.' Such an attempt at harmonizing the variations is absolutely un- necessary. All four Gospels agree in giving the important words which were offensive to the chief priests, viz. 'the King of the Jews.' Others have .•supposed the variations to be due to slight differ- ences in the form of the title in the three languages. This, as a general idea, is possible, even probable ; but, as regards detail, agreement seems to be nearly hopeless. The uncertainty appears greatest as to the Latin form, which Edersheim finds in Mt., Cook (Speaker's Com.) in Mk., Farrar in Lk., Grotius and Swete in John. In the case of the other two languages the more gensi-al consensus of opinion finds the Greek in Mk. and tlie Hebrew, or rather Aramaic, in John. It can be said with some confidence that it is more natural that 6 Nafwpatos should represent the word of the Aramaic inscription, as this method of description would have little point for those who would read the Greek or the Latin (cf. Sadler on Jn 19^^). We have seen above that the form given by Mt. agrees with that of the Latin titidus mentioned in tlie letter of llie Chm-ches of Gaul. Assuming, then, that Jn. gives the Aramaic form and Mt. the Latin, the Greek must be looked for in Mk., as Lk. agrees with Mt. in retaining the word o6ros. We may suppose, then, that the various forms were some- what as follows :