Did Both Thieves on the Cross Revile Christ?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Did Both Thieves on the Cross Revile Christ?

Post by Paidion » Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:47 pm

In Luke's account, one thief reviled him, but the second one rebuked him for it:

And, one of the suspended evil-doers, began to defame him—Art not, thou, the Christ? Save thyself and us! But the other, answering, rebuked him, and said—Neither fearest, thou, God, in that thou art, in the same judgment? And, we, indeed, justly,—for, things worthy of what we have done, are we duly receiving, but, this man, nothing amiss, hath done. And he went on to say—Jesus! remember me, whensoever thou shalt come into thy kingdom. And he said unto him—Verily, I say unto thee this day: With me, shalt thou be in Paradise. (Luke 23:39-43 Rotherham)

However, in Matthew's account, both thieves reviled Him.

So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way. (Matt 27:41-44 ESV)

Are these two accounts inconsistent? Or is there a way to understand both as being true?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Did Both Thieves on the Cross Revile Christ?

Post by Homer » Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:22 am

Paidion,

Leon Morris observes that Jesus was mocked by three classes: passerby, chief priests and their allies, and those crucified with Him. Lange says that "we assume that Matthew and Mark express themselves indefinitely; that they only meant to give the genus, but not the number of the last class of scoffers...."

Similarly, N. Turner in his "Grammatical Insights into the New Testament" holds that it is an example of the plural "used in the New Testament for one person or thing in both a Semitic and a normal Greek manner".

But then most hold to the belief that one thief mocked Jesus at first and later repented.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Did Both Thieves on the Cross Revile Christ?

Post by mattrose » Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:51 pm

I would take the more traditional approach to resolving this apparent contradiction. Perhaps Luke was privy to a conversation that Matthew wasn't privy to. I imagine the 2 thieves were antagonistic toward Christ at first and that this was heard by most/all involved. But as the hours passed, I think one of them had a heart change (probably based on Jesus' willingness to forgive even his enemies in 23:34). Such a change, and the conversation contained in Luke, may only have been observable to those near the cross. Luke probably discussed such matters with eye-witnesses as part of his preparation for writing his account of the gospel.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Did Both Thieves on the Cross Revile Christ?

Post by Singalphile » Thu Sep 08, 2016 9:28 pm

I'll play liberal's advocate and guess that the passage in question (Luke 23:39-43) was not written by Luke.

Why?

1. All four accounts say that Jesus was crucified with two men. There's little room for supposing there was more than two criminals.

2. Matthew and Mark specifically say that both men insulted Jesus. John (who was there, I think) does not mention any insults.

3. Only Luke mentions the contrite thief. Someone would have had to tell Luke that story. (The thief himself presumably did not.)

4. It seems unlikely that Mark and Matthew would (meanly) cast both robbers in the same negative light if they were aware of Luke's account. Likewise, it seems that Luke would have given some hint of the thief's change of heart, if he was aware of Matthew or Mark's account. Surely the apostles would have been familiar with the conversion of the thief, but none of them (nor any other Bible authors) mention it. So it doesn't seem too likely that the apostles told Luke about the conversion.

5. It seems that Matthew and Mark were highlighting the awful circumstances that Jesus was in. That's probably partly why they would point out that even the criminals were insulting him. Luke's account undercuts that a bit by injecting a great and at-the-time encouraging and empowering conversion story in there.

6. Similarly, the account in Luke has Jesus recognizing that He would be in "paradise" in a short time, which also arguably undercuts the torment of His situation a bit.

7. Luke's account also creates a bit of difficulty with John 20 when Jesus said He had "not yet ascended to the Father." (I'm aware of the comma-placement controversy.)

8. The words put into the thief's mouth seem a bit artificial: "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong. Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" It makes for a very nice scene, but it seems a bit unrealistic. It's got a bit of an apocryphal feel.

9. Lastly, related to #8, how long would it take a crucified man to get all that out? Was he shouting this over to Jesus (loud enough for at least one onlooker to hear it apparently)? Just physically, it seems pretty unlikely.

So that's why I theorize that the "thief on the cross" account was not in Luke's original. But as near as I can tell, there's zero evidence that it was added later, so it would have been added very early if at all. I also suppose it's possible that Luke got some bad info, but he strikes me as so careful and smart that it seems unlikely. On the other hand, he was not actually an eyewitness or an apostle. This is why it's wonderful to have multiple accounts, after all.

... or maybe Luke did write it and it's true, which I hope is the case! The explanations in others' posts are reasonable too. (Fortunately for me, the account doesn't have any impact on anything practical or even theological.)
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Did Both Thieves on the Cross Revile Christ?

Post by steve » Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:33 pm

The so-called "difficulties" with this passage are no different, in kind, from many other differences that exist in parallel accounts among the four (and, especially, the three synoptic) Gospels. They are not difficulties to those who take the gospel accounts at face value. They only create problems when we bring an a priori suspicion to the reading of them, as if we suspect that someone is trying to "put something over" on us, and we are determined to find every possible evidence that they are doing so.

Obviously, if we were listening to friends, on different occasions, relating a story that was known to all of them (rather than reading the Gospels in the Bible), we would bring no such suspicion to our listening. Nor would certain differences in detail of various reports disturb us or raise our eyebrows (unless they involved ostensible contradictions, which our present case does not). If one person told you, "I saw a terrible accident, and bodies were strewn all over the highway," you might wonder whether there were any survivors. When later talking to another friend who was there, you might hear that, though the first account was true, nevertheless, most of the victims received timely medical treatment and recovered from their injuries. If I were to hear two friends, on different occasions, presenting such reports, it would never occur to me that someone was making something up, simply because the second report happened to take the story further than did the one I had originally heard.

I know that Luke was not an eye-witness, but I have never disqualified a historian's reports simply on the grounds that he was not there when the events occurred. Luke has been demonstrated to be one of the most careful historians of ancient history. The people who doubt him without a cause must approach him differently than I do. I see the writers of the Gospels as my fellow Christians—as brothers and friends. I do not suspect my friends of deliberate misrepresentation or fabrication of reports without any reason for me to doubt them.

Every time I read someone's presentation of a "difficulty" that they claim to find between one Gospel and another, I wonder why such differences are being regarded as problematic. The one thing they demonstrate is the independence of the writers—raising serious doubts about the standard view that they used one another as "sources." When Matthew and Mark place the time difference between Caesarea Philippi and the Transfiguration as "after six days," and Luke records it as "about eight days"—where some people find a problem—I find only an artless evidence that Luke did not use Matthew or Mark as his "source" (why would he gratuitously change their wording?). Furthermore, I find no difficulty in seeing both records as completely accurate. After all, if something occurs "after six days"—i.e., on the seventh day—after a previous event, what fault could be found in someone approximating the length of this period as "about eight" days? What number, other than seven or nine, better fits the description of "about eight"?

I love the comment made by Clark Pinnock about such criticisms:

"While insisting on their right to treat the Bible 'like any other book'...some critics proceed to treat it like no other book, by bathing it in the acid solution of their skepticism and historical pessimism."
A Defense of Biblical Infallibility, pp.22-23]

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Did Both Thieves on the Cross Revile Christ?

Post by Paidion » Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:19 pm

Hi Steve, you wrote:They only create problems when we bring an a priori suspicion to the reading of them, as if we suspect that someone is trying to "put something over" on us, and we are determined to find every possible evidence that they are doing so.
Steve, do you regard one or more of the contributors to this thread as holding to such a suspicion, and possessing such a determination? If not, why do you bring the matter up?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Did Both Thieves on the Cross Revile Christ?

Post by steve » Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:02 pm

Paid ion,

I stand by my statement, which seems self-evidently true as a generality. I do not determine who may or may not fit into the shoes. You can decide that.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Did Both Thieves on the Cross Revile Christ?

Post by Singalphile » Sat Sep 10, 2016 12:17 pm

Hello, Steve (and all)!
steve wrote:The so-called "difficulties" with this passage are no different, in kind, from many other differences that exist in parallel accounts among the four (and, especially, the three synoptic) Gospels. ....
Other "difficulties" can be easily harmonized and are irrelevant to the the general picture or point of the narrative and the skill and care of the authors. That is not true with this case, imo. No matter where you fall on this, one or more of the authors or books takes a little ding, I think.

Some possibilities about the contrite criminal:
  1. It never happened, but someone added the account into Luke's gospel (for whatever good or bad or accidental reason(s)).
    1. It never happened, but Luke was told about it and was convinced that it did.
      1. Either Luke knew about Mark and/or Matthew's accounts but did not think it necessary to harmonize the accounts,
      2. or Luke did not know about Mark and Matthew's accounts,
    2. It happened and Matthew and Mark knew about the good guy but grouped him with the bad guy anyway.
      1. It happened but Matthew and Mark didn't know (or forgot) about it.
        1 does not reflect poorly on the authors. But we would have to acknowledge a very early interpolation. This would not likely harm the gospels since we have four separate accounts to check against, but still.

        2a reflects a little bit poorly on Luke's judgment and carefulness.

        2b reflects a bit poorly on Luke's judgment, but not really. Even the best historian might get a few little things wrong.

        3 reflects poorly on Matthew and/or Mark's character and judgment.

        4 does not really reflect poorly on any of the authors. But we would have to acknowledge that the gospel details (at least Matthew's and Mark's) are subject to change and might give a wrong impression. We might even adopt the stance that the gospels don't necessarily give the right impression individually, but they can when read all together. (We also would have to think that if Matthew and Mark didn't know about this, then neither did the other apostles nor anyone very close to them, which means that Luke didn't get his account from them.)

        So which option is most generous and respectful of the authors and reliability of the NT as a whole? Arguably #1, which is why I have my little (mostly) private hunch about it.

        I stress, this is relatively minor detail in one gospel. To me, it affects nothing.
        ... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

        User avatar
        steve
        Posts: 3392
        Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

        Re: Did Both Thieves on the Cross Revile Christ?

        Post by steve » Sat Sep 10, 2016 1:34 pm

        Other "difficulties" can be easily harmonized and are irrelevant to the the general picture or point of the narrative and the skill and care of the authors. That is not true with this case, imo.
        I do not see the basis for this judgment.
        3. It happened and Matthew and Mark knew about the good guy but grouped him with the bad guy anyway.
        This seems most likely, since Peter (Mark's mentor) and Matthew were probably closer to the events than was Luke. I do not see why they can be faulted for grouping the two thieves together in their mockery, assuming that they both indeed mocked Jesus. Why should this not be reported. If one of them repented later, this is an independent pericope, and need not be included by an author who is making a different point (as in the case of every author omitting pericopes that others include).

        User avatar
        Paidion
        Posts: 5452
        Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
        Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

        Re: Did Both Thieves on the Cross Revile Christ?

        Post by Paidion » Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:13 pm

        Steve wrote:Obviously, if we were listening to friends, on different occasions, relating a story that was known to all of them (rather than reading the Gospels in the Bible), we would bring no such suspicion to our listening. Nor would certain differences in detail of various reports disturb us or raise our eyebrows (unless they involved ostensible contradictions, which our present case does not). If one person told you, "I saw a terrible accident, and bodies were strewn all over the highway," you might wonder whether there were any survivors. When later talking to another friend who was there, you might hear that, though the first account was true, nevertheless, most of the victims received timely medical treatment and recovered from their injuries. If I were to hear two friends, on different occasions, presenting such reports, it would never occur to me that someone was making something up, simply because the second report happened to take the story further than did the one I had originally heard.
        It wouldn't occur to me, either. Nor did it occur to me that one or more of the writers of the memoirs of Christ were making something up. Indeed, I see the discrepancies between the four accounts in the same way as I would see discrepancies in the accounts of friends. However, there is one major difference. We all recognize that our friends may not have all observed every detail of an event completely, and that some of them may have forgotten details. And I think the same concerning the various discrepancies in the four accounts of the memoirs of Christ. However, many of our dear Christian friends strongly affirm that all of the Protestant Bible is without errors or inconsistencies. I brought up the initial question in the thread just to become aware of the various ways in which one of the variations in the different accounts might be explained.
        Paidion

        Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

        Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

        Post Reply

        Return to “The Gospels”