Were Jesus and the Two Thieves the only ones crucified?

[patrick457]

Hello everyone.

I was kind of thinking, whereas art (and a lot of movies) commonly depict Jesus and the Two Thieves as the only occupants of Calvary (and thus only the three crosses stand on that hill), would it not be a stretch to think that there were also other crucifixion victims already hanging on Golgotha that day, not counting those already dead and are being left for predators to consume (basically some kind of mass execution)?

Those other victims may have already been hanging for some time when Jesus and the two thieves came carrying their crossbeams and do not do anything important to be recorded (unless they taunted Jesus, but since anything of the sort is not recorded in the Gospels is unlikely), thus the Gospels say that only the ‘two thieves’ were led to be crucified along with Jesus.

Any comments, corrections, or solid evidence to the contrary welcome. Please note that this is just a theory of mine and is not something I say is fact.

 

[scott1228]

Well, certainly probable that there were other crucifixions in other parts of the empire on that day. It was the common method of execution of non-Roman citizens.

There were thousands that suffered this fate, before and after the Lord, some of whom were Christians.

 

[ljprevo]

Even our 1st pope, St. Peter, who requested and was crucified upside down. He felt he was no worthy to be crucified right side up as our Lord Jesus was.

 

[patrick457]

Well, certainly probable that there were other crucifixions in other parts of the empire on that day. It was the common method of execution of non-Roman citizens.

There were thousands that suffered this fate, before and after the Lord, some of whom were Christians.

Thanks for the replies.
Specifically, what I’m asking is about ‘would it be quite a stretch to say that there are more than three people hanging on crosses on Golgotha that day despite conventional depictions and popular imagination (not counting those dead ones left on their crosses as fodder for vultures and wild beasts)?’

 

[sheila0405]

Hello everyone.

I was kind of thinking, whereas art (and a lot of movies) commonly depict Jesus and the Two Thieves as the only occupants of Calvary (and thus only the three crosses stand on that hill), would it not be a stretch to think that there were also other crucifixion victims already hanging on Golgotha that day, not counting those already dead and are being left for predators to consume (basically some kind of mass execution)?

Those other victims may have already been hanging for some time when Jesus and the two thieves came carrying their crossbeams and do not do anything important to be recorded (unless they taunted Jesus, but since anything of the sort is not recorded in the Gospels is unlikely), thus the Gospels say that only the ‘two thieves’ were led to be crucified along with Jesus.

Any comments, corrections, or solid evidence to the contrary welcome. Please note that this is just a theory of mine and is not something I say is fact.

Did you see the 2 hour History Channel program on crucifixion? Some historians believe that Jesus was one of many who were killed, and also that his cross was a Tau. Check it out: interesting stuff, because science and history add to the knowledge that Jesus was in control of His own destiny that day. He laid down His own life, then took it up again. Such a mystery! Lawless men killed Him, yet He willingly commended His spirit into God’s hands.

 

[puzzleannie]

there is nothing wrong with the speculation, but it seems from the context of the passion narratives that this was a “special event” both mass entertainment for the crowds as was the Roman specialty, a demonstration of Roman power and sovereignty, and that the thieves were chosen (and Barrabas freed) to emphasize the denigration of Jesus from prophet to felon, and the authority of Rome to make that declaration.

 

[ForMary]

It is most likely that many were crucified that day, on previous days and definitely after. Also, most, did not die as quickly as Jesus did, nor were their bodies taken down as quickly.

It is thought by some historians that many bodies were left to rot upon the cross as reminders to the population that the Romans were in charge; the reminders did not have to be looked upon as the stench would be in the air and carried on the wind. Gruesome? Yes, but it makes it all the more real and awesome.

When we venerated the cross last Friday, just touching that heavy wood, puts a reality perspective on it.

The quick death and removal could be further testaments to the divine plan.

 

[patrick457]

Did you see the 2 hour History Channel program on crucifixion? Some historians believe that Jesus was one of many who were killed, and also that his cross was a Tau. Check it out: interesting stuff, because science and history add to the knowledge that Jesus was in control of His own destiny that day. He laid down His own life, then took it up again. Such a mystery! Lawless men killed Him, yet He willingly commended His spirit into God’s hands.

Again and again, thank you for the replies.
I do not have the History Channel (obviously I’m in Japan and we don’t have cable), I did watch this National Geographic documentary on the internet that relates very much the same thing.

Also, I do wonder whether these unsung companion(s) of Jesus, if any, sided with the Bad Thief (Gestas, Gesmas, Dumachus) taunting the Lord to descend from the wood, or with the Good Thief (Dismas, Demas, Titus), realizing their faults and also asking for forgiveness, or both. How great that was!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I have seen it suggested that crucifixions were suspended for the time of the Holy Days. Thus the two thieves were enjoying a brief reprieve. When it was decided to crucify Jesus, Pilate grabbed the other two in the interest of efficiency. They were quite angry at Jesus for cutting their time short.

No evidence for this, but a reasonable speculation.

 

[patrick457]

I have seen it suggested that crucifixions were suspended for the time of the Holy Days. Thus the two thieves were enjoying a brief reprieve. When it was decided to crucify Jesus, Pilate grabbed the other two in the interest of efficiency. They were quite angry at Jesus for cutting their time short.

No evidence for this, but a reasonable speculation.

Considering the above speculation, we would have the following scenario:

-The two thieves were granted a reprieve from execution, that is until it was decided that Jesus be executed, in which case they were also taken out along with Him (Lk. 23: 32)

-The three goes through the streets and arrive at Golgotha outside the walls carrying their crossbeams, where victims who were crucified previously are still hanging on their crosses, either dead or alive. The soldiers (a crucifixion team usually comprised of four soldiers plus a centurion) then crucify the three, with Jesus inbetween the two thieves and keep watch (Mt. 27: 35-38, Mk. 15: 35-38, Lk. 23: 33-34). As any belonging of the victim automatically becomes public property free for the taking, the soldiers divide and gamble for various articles of clothing (such as Jesus’ seamless tunic).

-Passersby, the soldiers, the two thieves, and perhaps the other victims (again if any) mock Jesus (Mt. 27: 39-44, Mk. 15: 29-32, Lk. 23: 35); Dismas (the good thief) eventually repents of his words, admonishes Gestas (the bad thief), who taunts Jesus to come down from His Cross and asks for remembrance in Jesus’ Kingdom, to which Jesus makes him a promise (Lk. 23: 39-43).

Again, comments, corrections and criticism (if any) welcome.

 

[robert_ambrose]

i would say that the roman guards in charge of the tomb may have suffered crucifixion,the roman law was that if one allowed any prisoner to escape , that guard would suffer the same fate due the prisoner, remember when paul’s chains fell away from him ,and the guards became very frightened.

 

[patrick457]

i would say that the roman guards in charge of the tomb may have suffered crucifixion,the roman law was that if one allowed any prisoner to escape , that guard would suffer the same fate due the prisoner, remember when paul’s chains fell away from him ,and the guards became very frightened.

This is quite possible, however we need to consider that these soldiers are more likely Roman citizens; and thus, are not subject to crucifixion, but rather to decapitation (if they ever were executed) as crucifixion was only administered to Roman citizens in cases of high treason.

 

[pickguard1]

I recently posted a question to the apologists on this exact same question, but with a more direct focus - namely, were there (at least) 4 people crucified with Jesus? I asked this because I noticed a discrepancy in the different Gospel accounts of the Passion. Matthew and Mark both have the two thieves mocking/railing/denouncing Jesus, but Luke, on the other hand has one mocking Jesus and the other defending him (the Good Thief). Unlike Patrick, I don’t see this as necessarily meaning one of the thieves repented. Looking up other opinion/research articles about this, it seems that the orginial Greek for the different Gospels has two different words for the “thieves” - namely, “robbers”, and “malefactors.” Also, the different Gospels have different accounts of the timeline. Matthew 27:35-38 states that Jesus was crucified, then the soldiers divide his garments. Then, two thieves were crucified with him (after dividing his garments). They then later mocked him (Matthew 27:44). Mark 15:24-32 says pretty much the same thing. Then, Luke 23:32-33 has two “malefactors” that are led “with” Jesus and are crucified with him before his garments are divided. Then, in Luke 23:39-42 one robber blasphemies Jesus while the other defends him. Finally in John 19:18 Christ is crucified with two robbers “one” on each side. But I have read reseach articles that claim the the original Greek had no word for “one” in it, and that it was later inserted to fit the common perception of only one thief on either side. So according to these articles the correct translation should be “with two robbers on each side”.

I haven’t gotten a response from the apologists to clear up whether there were only two, and there is some bad translation going on (which would be VERY problematic), or if there were four, or possibly even more, and that is why the different Gospels don’t contradict each other.

Opinion - comments?

 

[patrick457]

I’ll just answer this shortly for the moment, but I’ll try to augment and expand on it later.

Looking up other opinion/research articles about this, it seems that the orginial Greek for the different Gospels has two different words for the “thieves” - namely, “robbers”, and “malefactors.”

Correct. Matthew and Mark both use lestai (traditionally translated as “thief” but is more along the lines of “insurrectionist” or “bandit”), while Luke uses kakourgoi (“criminals”, “malefactors”). Even so, that does not necessarily mean that there were four thieves crucified in the same time as Jesus - a “bandit” (lestes) can be – and is – also a “criminal” (kakourgos), after all.

If we’re going to apply this logic – that a “criminal” and an “insurrectionist” must be different sets of people – we might as well say that there were two Barabbases, as John 18:40 calls him a “robber” while Luke 23:19 and Mark 15:7 both call him an insurrectionist and murderer. Also, if St. Paul is called a “believer” in one place, and an “apostle” in another, is this proof there are two or more different Pauls?

Also, the different Gospels have different accounts of the timeline. Matthew 27:35-38 states that Jesus was crucified, then the soldiers divide his garments. Then, two thieves were crucified with him (after dividing his garments). They then later mocked him (Matthew 27:44). Mark 15:24-32 says pretty much the same thing. Then, Luke 23:32-33 has two “malefactors” that are led “with” Jesus and are crucified with him before his garments are divided. Then, in Luke 23:39-42 one robber blasphemies Jesus while the other defends him.

I can’t see why one of the two “thieves” who actually made it into the story would not repent of His own words and have a change of heart. The centurion who presided over the execution himself professed at Jesus’ death that He was “righteous” and “the son of God”! It only took a small amount of time with Jesus for Nathaniel to change from an indirect insult to awed belief. If Jesus could change these people’s hearts in so short a time, I can’t see why He could not do the same for a criminal.

Finally in John 19:18 Christ is crucified with two robbers “one” on each side. But I have read reseach articles that claim the the original Greek had no word for “one” in it, and that it was later inserted to fit the common perception of only one thief on either side. So according to these articles the correct translation should be “with two robbers on each side”.

The late E.W. Bullinger (the one who popularized this “four men crucified the same time as Jesus”) condemns Bibles that say “one on either side” because the word “one” isn’t in Greek. But he turns right around and says that the Greek equals “two on this side and two on that side,”-- and he is adding the word “two” a second time even though it isn’t in Greek. So, by this logic, Bullinger made the same error of adding a word, just as he condemned the translation of doing!

 

[pickguard1]

Correct. Matthew and Mark both use lestai (traditionally translated as “thief” but is more along the lines of “insurrectionist” or “bandit”), while Luke uses kakourgoi (“criminals”, “malefactors”). Even so, that does not necessarily mean that there were four thieves crucified in the same time as Jesus - a “bandit” (lestes) can be – and is – also a “criminal” (kakourgos), after all.

I agree that making distinctions between robbers and criminals or thieves or murderers may just boil down to use of synonyms or different descriptives of the same people. This for me is probably the least persuasive portion of the argument that I read.

I can’t see why one of the two “thieves” who actually made it into the story would not repent of His own words and have a change of heart.

I also don’t dispute the possibility - even probability of one of the thieves being converted on the spot. It just seems to me that the fact that this isn’t stated leaves open the possibility that the good thief was someone other than the thieves spoken of in Matthew and Mark.

The late E.W. Bullinger (the one who popularized this “four men crucified the same time as Jesus”) condemns Bibles that say “one on either side” because the word “one” isn’t in Greek. But he turns right around and says that the Greek equals “two on this side and two on that side,”-- and he is adding the word “two” a second time even though it isn’t in Greek. So, by this logic, Bullinger made the same error of adding a word, just as he condemned the translation of doing!

I had no idea where this argument forst came from. But inserting a second “two” obviously is just as incorrect as inserting any other words there. But, if indeed there is no “one” in the original Greek, how are subsequent translations justified in adding it? Is there a hidden context or implication in the orginial Greek that the phrase was intended to mean “one” on either side? Or, could the translation actually simply be - two others on each side? Also, I looked at the Latin Vulgate of the Douay Rheims version (and I am no Latin master) but I believe the Latin translates that passage without the “one” that English does? John 19:18 “ubi crucifixerunt eum, et cum eo alios duos hinc et hinc, medium autem Jesum.” I looked up the phrase “hinc et hinc” and got the translation as “on each side”, but I don’t see any indication of the Latin word for “one” in the sentence. Again, is the English then mis-translated, or am I missing a linguistic subtlety?

Also, does anyone know if there is any difinitive Church teaching on this?

 

[patrick457]

I had no idea where this argument forst came from. But inserting a second “two” obviously is just as incorrect as inserting any other words there. But, if indeed there is no “one” in the original Greek, how are subsequent translations justified in adding it? Is there a hidden context or implication in the orginial Greek that the phrase was intended to mean “one” on either side? Or, could the translation actually simply be - two others on each side?

The argument usually used here is the difference of the Greek words used. I quote from here:

The word “other” in John 19:32 (“and of the other which was crucified with him”) is another key to further substantiate that four men were crucified with Jesus. In the Bible, there are two Greek words translated “other.” One is heteros and the other is allos, and their usage is for two different situations. In John 19:32, allos is used because more than two may be involved. The two malefactors and the two thieves (robbers) make four. Therefore, the soldiers broke the legs of the first and of the other (allos) of the four involved.

In Luke 23:32, the English word “other” is also used: “And there were also two other heteros], malefactors, led with him to be put to death.”

While it is true that heteros suggests a difference in type more often than allos, the two words are usually interchangeable, and the choice of word depends more on who the writer is than on its use. The Gospel of John and Revelation use allos about 50 times, but use heteros only once. Mark uses allos about 23 times, but uses heteros only once. Luke is just the opposite, using heteros about 50 times in Luke and Acts, but using allos only 16 times. Thus, one would be surprised if Luke didn’t use heteros to describe a criminal, or if John didn’t use allos.

At times Luke quotes the same words of Jesus which other Gospels do, but Luke uses heteros where the others use allos. For instance, in the parable of the sower, Matthew 13 and Mark 4 use only allos to refer to the seed, while Luke 8 (which uses mostly the same terms throughout) uses only heteros. When Matthew 19 and Mark 10 quote Jesus’ censure of a man who divorces one woman and marries another, they use allos while Luke uses heteros. Matthew 21 and Mark 12 quote Jesus’ parable about an owner who sends an allos servant, while Luke 20 states he sent an heteros servant.

Plus, while it is said that “allos is used because more than two may be involved”, the Gospels also use allos to refer to turning the other cheek (Mat. 5:39), a cripple’s other hand (Mat. 12:13) and the “other disciple” who went into the tomb with Peter (John 20:8). Are we then to infer that these refer to three cheeks, a four-handed man, and, say, five “other disciples”?

 

[patrick457]

Also, let’s see the original Greek of John 19:18:

“Opou auton estaurosan, kai met’ autou alloun duo entheuten kai entheuten, meson de ton Iesoun.”

Literally, “where/Him/they-crucified,/and/with/Him/other/two,/to-one-side/and/to-another-side,/in-the-middle/and/the/Jesus.”

Were there to have been four thieves rather than two, tessera (“four”) would have been used by John in John 19:18 instead of duo (“two”), or duo would have to be repeated. By itself, the adverb entheuten means simply ‘from this or that direction’, or ‘to one or the other side’ - depending on one’s perspective. Writing duo only once would infer that there were but two criminals near Jesus, one to one side and one to the other (enteuthen kai enteuthen), clarified by the phrase ‘with Jesus in the middle’.

The final blow is in John 19:32, wherein it says that soldiers broke the legs “of the first and of the other which was crucified with Him,” in the singular. But if there were four men, John should have written, “of one of the others who had been crucified with him.”

So why add “one”? It is a given that one could not translate something ultra-literally into another language without tweaking a few things, such as grammar or word order, to make it fit better. So adding “one” into the text to make the sentence more clearer in English, IMO, makes more sense (given the context in John 19:32) than attempting to add “two” into it.

Also, I looked at the Latin Vulgate of the Douay Rheims version (and I am no Latin master) but I believe the Latin translates that passage without the “one” that English does? John 19:18 “ubi crucifixerunt eum, et cum eo alios duos hinc et hinc, medium autem Jesum.” I looked up the phrase “hinc et hinc” and got the translation as “on each side”, but I don’t see any indication of the Latin word for “one” in the sentence. Again, is the English then mis-translated, or am I missing a linguistic subtlety?

Hinc et hinc is a literal translation of the Greek enteuthen kai entheuthen. The Latin, when literally translated, will look like:

“where/they-crucified/Him,/and/with/Him/another/two/to-one-side/and/to-another-side,/the-middle/of-them/Jesus.”

The original 1582 Rheims New Testament render John 19:18 as (spelling as in the original):

vvhere they crucified him, and vvith him tvvo others, on the one side and on the other, and in the middes IESVS.

And John 19:32 as:

The souldiars therefore came: and of the first in deede they brake the legges, and of the other that vvas crucified vvith him.

Also, does anyone know if there is any difinitive Church teaching on this?

There is really “no definitive Church teaching” as to whether there were only three persons hanging on Golgotha that day, as art and popular thinking have often depicted it, or whether Jesus and the two criminals were part of a mass execution done by the tens or even (less likely though) by the hundreds; at least, no Pope had (or ever will IMHO) proclaim a dogma supporting one or the other belief, since it is, after all, a sort of trivial thing that does not have any bearing on the Faith.

 

[pickguard1]

Thanks for the informed response Patrick! I don’t know any Greek, so the nuances of that language are lost on me, and the Latin I do know is from the Latin Rite itself, and a beginning Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin my mom got for me several years ago. I think it clears the issue up for me.

However, I disagree that the matter is trivial, as my (and for that matter, most people’s) reading tends to be uninformed of all the translation issues. The issue isn’t so much how many were crucified, but whether or not the Bible is being translated correctly, and can we be sure it is correct? Of course the Church always has the authority to define and interperet Sacred Scripture, but if one were to be led to the arguments about these passages that I found, I see how one could easily be led to believe that maybe at the very least, the English translation currently approved by the Church is wrong, which leads to all kinds of problems. I personally know that the Church can’t be wrong on this, but was looking for clarification on whether or not it was OK to subscribe to the more than two theory, or if there was any definition.

Of course, the Church typically only pronounces on things once they become an issue for a large enough group of the faithful to demand clarification, and I haven’t heard of any major efforts to attack the concept of only two thieves with Christ, or that all modern translations are corrupt, etc. So, you may very well be right that there might not ever ever be a definition in this matter.