The Good Thief

[narnia59]

Often referred to in a defense of certain theologies, I am curious if anyone has ever heard an explanation for the apparent discrepancies in the Gospels regarding the ‘good’ thief?

John’s Gospel simply mentions the two – no details.

John 19:16-18 Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). **Here they crucified him, and with him two others–one on each side and Jesus in the middle. **

Luke’s Gospel tells us that one thief was good and turned to Christ:

Luke 23:33-43 When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals–one on his right, the other on his left. Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One.” The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar and said, “If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself.” There was a written notice above him, which read: ~this is the king of the jews. One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”** But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” **

But both Matthew and Mark indicate that neither criminal turned to Christ:

Matthew 27:38-44 Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”** In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him. **

Mark 15:26-32 The written notice of the charge against him read: ~the king of the jews. They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!” In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” **Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him. **

So, has anyone ever heard an explanation for this? Thanks.

 

[SimonArizona]

But both Matthew and Mark indicate that neither criminal turned to Christ:

So, has anyone ever heard an explanation for this? Thanks.

I wouldn’t say that Matthew and Mark’s accounts are saying that neither turned to Christ, I think they just omitted it, and said in a general way that the criminals reviled Jesus.

Luke wasn’t an eye witness, and maybe John and Matthew didn’t hear the intimate conversation between Our Lord and the criminal.

Luke wrote his Gospel after collecting the facts from the Apostles, so someone heard it, and the Holy Spirit probably wanted to make sure the story of the depth of God’s mercy was included.

 

[patrick457]

Often referred to in a defense of certain theologies, I am curious if anyone has ever heard an explanation for the apparent discrepancies in the Gospels regarding the ‘good’ thief?

Personally, I tend to think that one of the criminals or revolutionaries (‘thief’ is a rather bad translation, IMHO; the Greek word lestai could also mean ‘revolutionary’, ‘rebel’ or ‘bandit’, especially in this context as being a mere cat-burglar is not sufficient enough to get you crucified, but guerilla-banditry or being a ‘freedom fighter’ can) joined in with the jeering, but later had a change of mind (a ‘conversion’, if you will) and started to defend Jesus from further mockery.

I have seen some who try to explain this by proposing that there were more than three people (such as four or five) hanging in Golgotha that day.

However, while it is possible that there were more than three of them hanging in crosses on Golgotha that day (after all, the three were not the only ones in history who were crucified; there might have already been some poor victims, alive or dead, hanging in their own respective crosses for quite some time when Jesus and company arrived there), I personally think that trying to explain the ‘good thief’ as being different from the two criminals led along with Jesus is rather unnecessary.

 

[RosaryFan]

Four Gospels, four different accounts. When a crowd witnesses a car accident and the police arrive on the scene and start interviewing all the witnesses, they always get different versions of what happened. No one is lying, necessarily. Different people see different things. What is crucial to the whole story differs from one person to the next. Maybe Matthew and Mark didn’t think the good theif’s situation was relevant to the point they were trying to convey.

I personally feel that the slight differences in all the Gospels are what determine its truth and authenticity. If all four were exactly the same, it would almost seemed rehearsed. Also, if they were exactly the same, there would only be a need for one Gospel.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

As I recall Luke is also the only Gospel to relate the parable of the Prodigal Son and some other parables. He seems to have emphasized forgiveness much more than the other three. Thus it is reasonable that this incident would be emphasized by him.

 

[LilyM]

It’s a bit like the different accounts of the Resurrection - one has Mary and the other women being afraid after their visit to the tomb and not telling anyone, another has them running with ‘fear and great joy’ to tell the Apostles.

I tend to think they actually went to the tomb TWICE (if you saw an empty tomb there’s a good chance you’d return later just to check that it REALLY was empty!) and, as mentioned in accounts of this second occasion, received confirmation from the angel, which emboldened them to tell the others.

 

[patrick457]

Four Gospels, four different accounts. When a crowd witnesses a car accident and the police arrive on the scene and start interviewing all the witnesses, they always get different versions of what happened. No one is lying, necessarily. Different people see different things. What is crucial to the whole story differs from one person to the next. Maybe Matthew and Mark didn’t think the good theif’s situation was relevant to the point they were trying to convey.

I personally feel that the slight differences in all the Gospels are what determine its truth and authenticity. If all four were exactly the same, it would almost seemed rehearsed. Also, if they were exactly the same, there would only be a need for one Gospel.

Totally agree.

 

[patrick457]

It’s a bit like the different accounts of the Resurrection - one has Mary and the other women being afraid after their visit to the tomb and not telling anyone, another has them running with ‘fear and great joy’ to tell the Apostles.

I tend to think they actually went to the tomb TWICE (if you saw an empty tomb there’s a good chance you’d return later just to check that it REALLY was empty!) and, as mentioned in accounts of this second occasion, received confirmation from the angel, which emboldened them to tell the others.

I tend to think of that as happening like:

The women (with Mary of Magdala) went to the tomb at dawn. Finding the tomb open, Mary M. went back to tell the other disciples while the other women went in, where they met the Angel/s, who tell them Jesus is risen, prompting them to flee the Tomb in fear, that is until they meet Jesus. Mary M. then went to the tomb with Peter and the beloved disciple, who both enter and see the tomb empty while Mary is outside, crying, that is until she saw Jesus herself.

 

[patrick457]

As I recall Luke is also the only Gospel to relate the parable of the Prodigal Son and some other parables. He seems to have emphasized forgiveness much more than the other three. Thus it is reasonable that this incident would be emphasized by him.

Don’t forget Jesus’ words during the crucifixion: “Father, forgive them” and “Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

 

[tobias]

As a traveling companion of Paul’s, one can see why Luke would be the one who would include the good thief in his account of the Gospel, since their ministry was specifically to the gentiles. An affirmation that Christ willingly took up His cross to save all who would believe in him. John was the apostle at the cross, but did not include this in his account, why? John’s was the last Gospel written, and the material was already covered and he did not cover much of what the 3 synoptics already had.

I agree with Augustine who said that this one account of repentance at the end was given that we know it’s possible, but no others that we not be complacent.

 

[tm30]

Four Gospels, four different accounts. When a crowd witnesses a car accident and the police arrive on the scene and start interviewing all the witnesses, they always get different versions of what happened. No one is lying, necessarily. Different people see different things. What is crucial to the whole story differs from one person to the next. Maybe Matthew and Mark didn’t think the good theif’s situation was relevant to the point they were trying to convey.

I personally feel that the slight differences in all the Gospels are what determine its truth and authenticity. If all four were exactly the same, it would almost seemed rehearsed. Also, if they were exactly the same, there would only be a need for one Gospel.

Cardinal Ratzinger made a beautiful comment on this very thought. He was responding to the notion that a single Gospel could be crafted out of the four. He said that such a notion was ridiculous, because the four Gospels act as a “choir” singing the same truth, but with different parts. You can’t remove the bass or the soprano without losing the fullness of the music. In the same way, all four Gospels are necessary to deliver the fullness of the single Truth of the Good News.

 

[narnia59]

Thanks to you all for your replies. I found them very helpful and interesting.