kakourgos is an adjective and lestes is a noun. A comparison between the two is like comparing red and apple. Nonsensical
The root word: Kakos, however, is a noun. Kakorgos is translated as malefactor 3 times and evil-doer once. In Luke 23:32, 33 and 39 it is translated as malefactor, where as in 2 Timothy 2:9 it is translated: evil doer. There is another word similar to Kakorgos: "Kakopoios" and it too is translated as malefactor and evil doer, however it is translated as evil doer far more often than Kakourgos. It is translated 4 times as evil doer and as malefactor only once. In John 18:30 Kakopoios is malefactor, but it appears as "evil doer" in 1 Peter 2:12, 14, 3:16, and 4:15. So which of these two words - Kakorgous or Kakopoios, are you going to insist upon being the noun and which one the adjective?
The bible does not say what the malefactors did to be crucified. Nor is it comparing the malefactors to the robbers but rather differentiating between them by use of the word heteros - it's not comparing them. As said earlier, every robber is a malefactor or evil-doer, but not every malefactor (evil doer) is a robber. By the use of word heteros, the malefactors that were led out with Jesus were not robbers themselves, but they certainly did do something (other than robbery) that deserved death by crucifixtion. That is what the word heteros establishes. Heteros is not there in Luke 23:32 to compare the malefactors to Jesus Christ, nor is it there to indicate Jesus was a different evil doer or a different malefactor than the two led out with him!
The only reason heteros is used is to show the difference between the two led out with Jesus and the "other" two that were brought and crucified later on. But when heteros is combined with allos in regards to the crucifixtion, the Word of God then reveals the order in which the legs of the "others" were broken. That is really all these two different Greek words heteros and allos do regarding the crucifixtion of Jesus. It only establishes that the malefactors were "off another kind" - that they were different than the robbers who were brought and crucified later. Both the robbers railed on Jesus but not the malefactors - only one of the malefactors railed on him. But when both useages - heteros and allos are combined in the record of the crucifixtion, the Word of God also establishes the order in which the legs of the robbers and the malefactors were broken.
Even without the contribution of these two different Greek words for "other" [heteros and allos] the Word of God is crystal clear a total of 4 were ultimately crucified along with Jesus Christ. Anyone who cares enough can see it themselves. All one simply needs to do is pay careful attention to the time frame during the crucifixion. They will also see that both robbers were brought later on, and both robbers (not one robber) railed on Jesus. The heteros/allos observation is mainly there as: "icing on the cake". But some people have a difficult and hard enough time handling just the cake part, let alone saying nothing of the 'icing'.
There ... are ... FOUR ... lights!!! - (Actually that would be crosses - not lights, Captain Picard!)
The root word: Kakos, however, is a noun. Kakorgos is translated as malefactor 3 times and evil-doer once. In Luke 23:32, 33 and 39 it is translated as malefactor, where as in 2 Timothy 2:9 it is translated: evil doer. There is another word similar to Kakorgos: "Kakopoios" and it too is translated as malefactor and evil doer, however it is translated as evil doer far more often than Kakourgos. It is translated 4 times as evil doer and as malefactor only once. In John 18:30 Kakopoios is malefactor, but it appears as "evil doer" in 1 Peter 2:12, 14, 3:16, and 4:15. So which of these two words - Kakorgous or Kakopoios, are you going to insist upon being the noun and which one the adjective?
This is getting to the point of being silly. First of all, we are not speaking of the word kakos. We are not speaking of the word kakopoios. We are speaking of kakorgous. Secondly, kakos is an adjective. Kakopoios is an adjective. Kakourgos is an adjective.
There is a form of linguistic shorthand where an adjective can imply a noun. It is used in several languages with which I am familiar.
For example: the word "stupid" is an adjective. "Stupid" describes a noun. "Stupid" is not a noun.
The statement: "He is stupid" is an example of this shorthand. "Stupid" doesn't become a noun in this usage, it implies a noun following it. (An Elipsis) "He is stupid" implies the noun "man" or "boy" or "idiot" or some other noun that the reader must infer from the text. But it is still an adjective.
The usages of the above words (kakos, etc.), are used much in the same way. In the case of kakourgos, it would be better rendered "one who does evil".
The bible does not say what the malefactors did to be crucified.
That's backwards. Malefactor is what they did wrong. They did not say who they were, just the description. (implying 'men' or some other noun to be the fill in the blank object noun)
Nor is it comparing the malefactors to the robbers but rather differentiating between them by use of the word heteros - it's not comparing them.
No, you are wrong again here. Please try to remember. Please. Please. Please. The word robber is never used in this scene. You can't compare something where the other object of comparison is not mentioned.
As said earlier, every robber is a malefactor or evil-doer, but not every malefactor (evil doer) is a robber.
In of itself, that is a true statement...however, it is also an irrelevant statement, since 'robbers' are not mentioned in the Luke account. Only unnamed people described as kakourgos.
By the use of word heteros, the malefactors that were led out with Jesus were not robbers themselves, but they certainly did do something (other than robbery) that deserved death by crucifixtion.
How about trying the easy explanation: maybe they were being qualitatively differentiated from Jesus. That is how it is used in the text.
That is what the word heteros establishes. Heteros is not there in Luke 23:32 to compare the malefactors to Jesus Christ,
Not to compare the malefactors to Jesus, but to point of the difference.
nor is it there to indicate Jesus was a different evil doer or a different malefactor than the two led out with him!
It does point out he was different, qualitatively, than the others...yup, it sure does...
The only reason heteros is used is to show the difference between the two led out with Jesus and the "other" two that were brought and crucified later on.
Then why were these other two whom you are referring not mentioned in Luke? Luke was its own account!
But when heteros is combined with allos in regards to the crucifixtion, the Word of God then reveals the order in which the legs of the "others" were broken.
I thought we were talking about Luke here. Which account do you wish to describe? Luke didn't mention the leg breaking, now did it?
That is really all these two different Greek words heteros and allos do regarding the crucifixtion of Jesus. It only establishes that the malefactors were "off another kind" - that they were different than the robbers who were brought and crucified later. Both the robbers railed on Jesus but not the malefactors - only one of the malefactors railed on him. But when both useages - heteros and allos are combined in the record of the crucifixtion, the Word of God also establishes the order in which the legs of the robbers and the malefactors were broken.
Even without the contribution of these two different Greek words for "other" [heteros and allos] the Word of God is crystal clear a total of 4 were ultimately crucified along with Jesus Christ. Anyone who cares enough can see it themselves. All one simply needs to do is pay careful attention to the time frame during the crucifixion. They will also see that both robbers were brought later on, and both robbers (not one robber) railed on Jesus. The heteros/allos observation is mainly there as: "icing on the cake". But some people have a difficult and hard enough time handling just the cake part, let alone saying nothing of the 'icing'.
There ... are ... FOUR ... lights!!! - (Actually that would be crosses - not lights, Captain Picard!)
And the rest of this is simply not worth parsing, because it is either repetitive or is a non-sequitor and so isn't worth breaking apart. Perhaps WW or another poster has patience to do this, but I don't anymore.
Fact of the matter is that each of the authors described what he saw or what he was told. There is a perfectly valid rationale for each writer writing about different details of an incident; however, it is simply unreasonable to assume that one author would write about two people crucified with Christ and another to write about two others crucified, while not mentioning the first two. It might be reasonable for one to write about two crucified and one to write another account describing a scene with with 200 that are described (one is doing a micro look and the other is doing a macro account). I could buy that. But this description:
R M C M R
based upon accounts of
R _ C _ R
R _ C _ R
_ M C M _
R M C _ _
is simply ridiculous...utterly silly. Why would two authors describe two people crucified with Jesus and not describe two that were hung closer to him? It violates common sense to say this. No author would do so; certainly two separate authors wouldn't both do it -- there is no rationale that could possibly explain why that would be the case. In addition, there is no evidence in the Bible to justify this. Not clear evidence. Not even subtle evidence. It just doesn't exist. Period.
The only reason heteros is used is to show the difference between the two led out with Jesus and the "other" two that were brought and crucified later on.
That is just plain wrong. Why is Luke going to distinguish these two from two other people he does not mention?
WTH, so determined are you to prove the thesis that "four crucified" is correct that you're twisting definitions and usages to suit that end. You are NOT letting the text speak for itself.
There ... are ... FOUR ... lights!!! - (Actually that would be crosses - not lights, Captain Picard!)
Actually, that would be FIVE, if you're right. But then, after such a wonderful lesson, we also did forget about the cross in the middle, didn't we?
It's not paranoia that gives me reluctance to spill out all the details of my life's drawing to what I'm doing now.
It's fatigue.
I've already posted in the past three years many such details only to see them rejected and even used against me. Why should I bother with your present probing? You know that you are dead set against me and my message. Your position is well documented here and I've read it.
For me to turn my attention, at your nagging, to spelling out the details of my life would take precious time away from my message, which is where the real action is.
Jesus said something that I think fits of those who seek supernatural intervention stories: If they don’t believe Moses and the prophets they won’t believe someone who’s raised from the dead. Likewise, if you don’t believe Dr’s ministry was of God and you don’t GREATLY cherish what PFAL taught you, there’s no amount of sensational storytelling by me that’s going to win your trust.
For me to try to accommodate you would be just a gigantic time waster from my perspective. I see the same in trying to answer all of WW’s accusations and twistings of my message. It would take away from the time I have to devote to my message.
I know that my message threatens the adversary’s grip on grads, so I expect all kinds of distractions to be thrown at me by his inspiration. WW tries to thwart me with huge volumes of pseudo logic and twisting my position, and now you are trying to distract me with goading words like paranoia.
I’m looking for those very few grads here who don’t have there head filled with soap opera garbage and who just haven’t heard that we were told to master written PFAL many times by Dr, only to be totally ignored by all leadership.
If you were that objectively interested in my story you’d have opened the books by now from what evidence I have already presented.
Jesus said something that I think fits of those who seek supernatural intervention stories: If they don’t believe Moses and the prophets they won’t believe someone who’s raised from the dead. Likewise, if you don’t believe Dr’s ministry was of God and you don’t GREATLY cherish what PFAL taught you, there’s no amount of sensational storytelling by me that’s going to win your trust.
you really are quite a piece of work Mike
what a disgrace and shame to say something like this
A) "heteros" never means "other when there's exactly two"
Actually, I think it's more accurate to say "heteros" means "other regardless of how many others are involved." It could be two. It could be more. The fact that it IS two sometimes bears no implication that in those instances it MUST be two involved, anymore than the fact that it's more than two sometimes means it MUST be more than two.
The "same kind/different kind" distinction doesn't always work either, for in parallel scriptures (two scriptures handling identical events), the words are interchangeable (allos in one gospel, heteros in another).
I've already posted in the past three years many such details only to see them rejected and even used against me.
[if I were to make a guess here, it's the
"Jesus told me he's very interested in pfal"
and "Jesus will be teaching from pfal at the Gathering Together"
stuff he's referring to.
If so, by "use against him", he means
"have repeated it a number of times."
I've repeated them and just let them speak for themselves.
I don't remember ever deconstructing them.]
Why should I bother with your present probing? You know that you are dead set against me and my message. Your position is well documented here and I've read it.
[There was a point that I asked questions with the
interest of a clear, straightforward representation of Mike's
position, with NO "spin" on it. Mike wouldn't agree to THAT one,
either. He'll only accept "positive spin" and neutrality is not positive
enough for him.]
For me to turn my attention, at your nagging,
[it's called "asking a question."]
to spelling out the details of my life
[it's called "explaining your pedigree", among other things.]
would take precious time away from my message, which is where the real action is.
[And yet, Mike complains about the action when his message
is in play. You'd think he'd want a change of pace.]
Jesus said something that I think fits of those who seek supernatural intervention stories:
If they don’t believe Moses and the prophets they won’t believe someone who’s raised from the dead.
[Jesus believed the Bible. Jesus expected others to
believe the Bible.]
Likewise, if you don’t believe Dr’s ministry was of God
[Which you are supposed to accept on Mike's say-so]
and you don’t GREATLY cherish what PFAL taught you,
[As opposed to GREATLY cherishing God's Word which it pointed to,
thus confusing the tool for the job]
there’s no amount of sensational storytelling by me that’s going to win your trust.
[i don't imagine what will win someone your trust.
However, the whole "I know better than all of you" shtick isn't it.
So, keep it up, for all I care.]
For me to try to accommodate you would be just a gigantic time waster from my perspective.
[Although it might actually get you somewhere due to variety]
I see the same in trying to answer all of WW’s accusations
[They're "critiques". You might be thankful I'm pointing out many flaws.
Not many people would bother making that much effort.]
and twistings of my message.
[i represent you fairly even when I disagree with you.
That someone CAN do that continues to elude you.
Old story.]
It would take away from the time I have to devote to my message.
[Matters little. You're not impressing your audience so far.]
I know that my message threatens the adversary’s grip on grads,
Nice "ad hominem" attack.
People disagree because they're working for the devil.
It works better when you scream it from a pulpit.
Or use it on a board you rule.
When others can communicate, it's just sad.
so I expect all kinds of distractions to be thrown at me by his inspiration.
[Coming soon-Ariel Sharon's illness is due to him not supporting Mikean doctrine.]
WW tries to thwart me with huge volumes of pseudo logic
[if you understood logic and could reason, this claim might
mean something. As it is, you're invoking something you don't
understand-sans examples, of course.]
and twisting my position,
[i represent your position accurately.
That's hardly "twisting" it.
"Twisting" is changing the meanings.
That's when someone takes clear texts and claims the clear meanings
are wrong, and there's an occulted, hidden meaning.
THAT's "twisting".]
and now you are trying to distract me with goading words like paranoia.
[Actually,
she asked an honest question.
It's your paranoia that distracted you from the question
and goaded you. Paranoia is handy when your life is in danger,
but a hindrance otherwise. ]
I’m looking for those very few grads here who
[Haven't read the Bible for themselves?
Haven't thought for themselves?
Let the Comforter lead them into all understanding like Jesus said?
Ignored all evidence that pfal was about the enterprise and only
secondarily about the Bible?]
don’t have there head filled with soap opera garbage
["Soap-opera garbage" must mean
"awareness of premeditation to commit felonies by vpw"
and
"awareness of the commission of felonies by vpw"
and
"conspiracy to conceal felonies by vpw"
and
"vpw being a poor Christian when the cameras were off".
Me, I would have thought "soap-opera garbage" was
"whatever Susan Lucci's characters did last month",
but that's me.]
and who just haven’t heard that we were told to master written PFAL many times by Dr,
[One teaching WAS a commercial for pfal.
It said other Christians didn't really know much-
which was false-
and that only pfal was legit-
which was also false-
and used both false premises to conclude that
the only true service to God was to study pfal.
I'm not sure if this is what Mike refers to as "mastery",
since my attempts to get a clear, fair explanation got us
to one method of "mastering", but nothing else,
especially not the definition of the GOAL.
This, of course, allows Mike to "move the goalposts".
This technique worked great after the PoP paper,
and Mike is hoping it will work here.]
only to be totally ignored by all leadership.
[Actually,
lots of people didn't need THAT commercial for
pfal to try to study and re-study pfal.]
If you were that objectively interested in my story
[You'd ask him to tell it. Oh, wait-you DID.]
you’d have opened the books by now from what evidence I have already presented.
[Which tells her nothing about YOUR STORY.
See, maybe she'd see a reason to crack open the
books if your story gave her one.]
[Meanwhile,
we were discussing a few Greek words and the crucifixion.]
Actually, I think it's more accurate to say "heteros" means "other regardless of how many others are involved." It could be two. It could be more. The fact that it IS two sometimes bears no implication that in those instances it MUST be two involved, anymore than the fact that it's more than two sometimes means it MUST be more than two.
The "same kind/different kind" distinction doesn't always work either, for in parallel scriptures (two scriptures handling identical events), the words are interchangeable (allos in one gospel, heteros in another).
Mike, I wanted you to have the opportunity to tell your story, so that I might see clearer your devotion to your cause. So as far as I'm concerned this topic is closed.
Now on to the four crucified with Christ-- I have been reading all the posts on this topic--and I must say as always I stand in Awe of the scholarship, depth of understanding, honest inquiry, and exchange of ideas among my fellow posters.
Forgive me If the next sounds like either a) I'm dense of B) I didn't pay attention.
My position has always been that a living language always has a "shorthand" about it, I think it was Mark who alluded to the use of "Stupid" in English.
I think we are drawing too fine a point between who--just as in English we use, criminal, malefactor, thief, bad guy, interchangeably in conversation sometimes even within the same comment --is it realistic to expect that the Greeks were not every bit as fluid in their language?
As to the number crucified-and this is pure Mo extrapolation here- This was the day before the Passover - I am sure there were many waiting in jail to be crucified (ie Barabbas)
When I envision that day I suspect that the Romans were busy all day with prisoners being crucified knowing that they were "working against the clock", since they could not risk the Jews wrath by doing crucifixations the nexr day. We know from history that Rome crucified many at the same time to drive home the message of her dominion and power, and what better day than the day before the holiest of days, Passover, to send that message to the masses of less than cooperative Jews..
So if, as I suspect crucifixions had already taken place in the earlier part of the day, is it possible that When Jesus arrived at Golgotha the two malefactors were already there and crucified, then they crucified the two thieves who must have been directly behind Jesus on the road leading there. This would account for much there would have indeed been five on that hill at the same time-- but is it not possible that the two malefactors were still alive but already on their crucifixes when Jesus arrived???
This is a bit preliminary. It's why I raised the subject, but I was wrong to draw a conclusion without further research. EDIT: I haven't double checked these references. I'm checking one of those Bible web sites, and could be mistaken in how I'm interpreting what I'm finding.
Matthew 13:5
Some (allos) fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
Luke 8:6
And some (heteros) fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.
Matthew 13:7
And some (allos) fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
Luke 8:7
And some (heteros) fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.
Matthew 13:8
But other (allos) fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
Luke 8:8
And other (heteros) fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Matthew 19:9
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another (allos), committeth adultery..."
Luke 16:18
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another (heteros) commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."
Galatians 1:18, 19
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
But other (heteros) of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Is Paul trying to imply here that Peter and James were a different kind of apostle from the others?
As to the number crucified-and this is pure Mo extrapolation here- This was the day before the Passover - I am sure there were many waiting in jail to be crucified (ie Barabbas)
When I envision that day I suspect that the Romans were busy all day with prisoners being crucified knowing that they were "working against the clock", since they could not risk the Jews wrath by doing crucifixations the nexr day. We know from history that Rome crucified many at the same time to drive home the message of her dominion and power, and what better day than the day before the holiest of days, Passover, to send that message to the masses of less than cooperative Jews..
So if, as I suspect crucifixions had already taken place in the earlier part of the day, is it possible that When Jesus arrived at Golgotha the two malefactors were already there and crucified, then they crucified the two thieves who must have been directly behind Jesus on the road leading there. This would account for much there would have indeed been five on that hill at the same time-- but is it not possible that the two malefactors were still alive but already on their crucifixes when Jesus arrived???
Mo,
That is the absolutely most logical explanation I have ever heard to attempt the justification of 4 crucified with Christ.
It doesn't square with scripture. (All scripture is RSV)
Matt 27:38 Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left.
Mark 15:27 And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left.
Luke 23:33 And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left.
John 19:18 There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them.
(Oh, btw, in an effort to pre-empt a piffle apologist or three, I am noting the following:
There is an expression enteuthen kai enteuthen used that I seem to recall from somewhere. It is rendered in the KJV "on either side one", you can see "one on either side" above in the RSV, also in the NASB, NKJV, Young's says "on this side, and on that side," Darby's says "[one] on this side, and [one] on that"
The Greek word enteuthen means "hence" or "from this place". The Greek word "kai" means "and." So it appears that the Young or the Darby translations look like they are about the best ones here.)
Each account has Jesus crucified with two, one on each side. Granted, the words aren't literally identical, but the meaning is pretty clearly the same.
Now, Mo:
The description you provided is:
M M -- initially
then:
M M J R R
as the layout
The account in Matthew and Mark say:
R J R
The account in Luke says:
M J M
The account in John says:
O J O
When you keep in mind the back-and-forth that WTH and I have had, it's pretty clear that robber and malefactor could easily be the same person. No reason why they couldn't. And "other" is about as generic as it can get!
But as I said, based upon historic reality, you are absolutely right that there could be many others crucified on that site on that day. But as far as specific people, I still only see two of them!
Mark I see what you are saying. But (knew there had to be one didn't you )
The accounts in the gospels are Christ centered- it is clear that the accounts were preserved by persons whose primary focus on the hill that day was the crucifixion of Christ.
If you are recording this event with your Lord and Savior being crucified before your eyes, the weeping of his mother and the grief of your fellow disciples surrounding you, ---when you record what else was going on on that hill --- Is it being recorded as a line by line "news report" or is it being recorded by a person in grief who records what he sees not in the clear logical progression of the dispassionate observer but the emotional upheaval of the grief stricken??
Sometimes I think we forget that the Bible was not written by logical robots but rather passionate people who react in the throes of strong emotion much as we would. If it were you on that hill or me, would we be recording what we saw as history or merely capturing vignettes seen through our grief to encapsulate that moment in time??
I remember many funerals in my life--but I would be hard pressed to remember exactly the sequence of the peripheral events.
I, again we are talking the BOOK OF MO here, doubt that the accounts were written at the time- given the time frame with the Passover, the earliest an account could have been written (since writing would be considered work, a violation of Mosaic law) would be 24+ hours hence--would even then the grief be too raw for writing a dispassionate account??
And if the account was written would the crucifixion of the others be seen by the writer as central to the event or merely a backdrop, mentioned in passing to preserve the feeling of the entire scene rather than the complete accuracy of the surrounding events not directly pertaining to Jesus Christ??
Mark I see what you are saying. But (knew there had to be one didn't you )
The accounts in the gospels are Christ centered- it is clear that the accounts were preserved by persons whose primary focus on the hill that day was the crucifixion of Christ.
If you are recording this event with your Lord and Savior being crucified before your eyes, the weeping of his mother and the grief of your fellow disciples surrounding you, ---when you record what else was going on on that hill --- Is it being recorded as a line by line "news report" or is it being recorded by a person in grief who records what he sees not in the clear logical progression of the dispassionate observer but the emotional upheaval of the grief stricken??
Sometimes I think we forget that the Bible was not written by logical robots but rather passionate people who react in the throes of strong emotion much as we would. If it were you on that hill or me, would we be recording what we saw as history or merely capturing vignettes seen through our grief to encapsulate that moment in time??
I remember many funerals in my life--but I would be hard pressed to remember exactly the sequence of the peripheral events.
I, again we are talking the BOOK OF MO here, doubt that the accounts were written at the time- given the time frame with the Passover, the earliest an account could have been written (since writing would be considered work, a violation of Mosaic law) would be 24+ hours hence--would even then the grief be too raw for writing a dispassionate account??
And if the account was written would the crucifixion of the others be seen by the writer as central to the event or merely a backdrop, mentioned in passing to preserve the feeling of the entire scene rather than the complete accuracy of the surrounding events not directly pertaining to Jesus Christ??
Mo,
You make my point beautifully. Better than I ever could have.
And...on one level...I agree with you (the analogy I like using is one of four different painters capturing the same scene)
But, to re-iterate something that I said earlier to WTH,
Fact of the matter is that each of the authors described what he saw or what he was told. There is a perfectly valid rationale for each writer writing about different details of an incident; however, it is simply unreasonable to assume that one author would write about two people crucified with Christ and another to write about two others crucified, while not mentioning the first two. It might be reasonable for one to write about two crucified and one to write another account describing a scene with with 200 that are described (one is doing a micro look and the other is doing a macro account). I could buy that. But this description:
R M C M R
based upon accounts of
R _ C _ R
R _ C _ R
_ M C M _
R M C _ _
is simply ridiculous...utterly silly. Why would two authors describe two people crucified with Jesus and not describe two that were hung closer to him? It violates common sense to say this. No author would do so; certainly two separate authors wouldn't both do it -- there is no rationale that could possibly explain why that would be the case.
So...what would have been the point of all this teaching on the number of bad guys in PFAL? It establishes Wierwille's credentials as someone who exposes the "lies" of mainstream Christianity. He sets up an "apparent contradiction" and explains it in such a way that his biblical detective skills are glorified, and the credibility of just about everyone in Christendom is maligned. Therefore...listen to VP Wierwille!
I mean, come on...who really gives a rat's foot about biblical trivia such as four crucified? It's all designed to set in cement Wierwille's interpretation as unassailable.
This is a bit preliminary. It's why I raised the subject, but I was wrong to draw a conclusion without further research. EDIT: I haven't double checked these references. I'm checking one of those Bible web sites, and could be mistaken in how I'm interpreting what I'm finding.
Raf, it appears that the listserv posts that Wordwolf hyperlinked earlier bear some far greater examination. Thanks for that. I can tell I have some work to do...
So...what would have been the point of all this teaching on the number of bad guys in PFAL? It establishes Wierwille's credentials as someone who exposes the "lies" of mainstream Christianity. He sets up an "apparent contradiction" and explains it in such a way that his biblical detective skills are glorified, and the credibility of just about everyone in Christendom is maligned. Therefore...listen to VP Wierwille!
I mean, come on...who really gives a rat's foot about biblical trivia such as four crucified? It's all designed to set in cement Wierwille's interpretation as unassailable.
indicates either numerical distinction, e.g., Luke 4:43; 5:7; or generic distinction, different in character, etc., e.g., Luke 9:29, "(the fashion of His countenance) was altered," lit., "became other;" Luke 23:32, "two others, (malefactors)," RV, where the plural serves to make the necessary distinction between them and Christ; Acts 2:4; 19:39 ("other matters"); 1 Cor. 14:21, AV, "other" (RV, "strange"); 2 Cor. 11:4 (2nd and 3rd parts, RV, "different;" in the 1st clause, allos, "another"). For the distinction between this and No. 1, see under ANOTHER.
Adding to what DMiller posted, following are Strong’s numbers, usages and definitions linked to the Interlinear Greek New Testament of the Online Bible Edition, Version 1.42.01 (see http://www.onlinebible.net ) :
243 allos al’-los
a primary word; TDNT-1:264,43; adj
AV-other(s) 81, another 62, some 11, one 4, misc 2; 160
1) another, other
For Synonyms see entry 5806 [see last entry, “Synonyms,” in this post]
*****
2087 heteros het’-er-os
of uncertain affinity; TDNT-2:702,265; adj
AV-another 43, other 42, other thing 3, some 2, next day 2, misc 7; 99
1) the other, another, other
1a) to number
1a1) to number as opposed to some former person or thing
1a2) the other of two
1b) to quality
1b1) another: i.e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different
*****
5806
Synonyms
See Definition for [allos] 243
See Definition for [heteros] 2087
243 as compared with 2087 denotes numerical in distinction from
qualitative differences; 243 adds (’ one besides’), 2087 distinguishes
(’ one of two’); every 2087 is an 243 but not every 243 is a 2087;
243 generally denotes simple distinction of individuals, 2087 involves
According to "The Acts of Pilate" (a work possibly known by Justin Martyr, and known by Tertullian and Epiphanius) , the names of the "malefactors" crucified with Christ are even given (p.459, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. I, W. Schneemelcher):
"...And let Dysmas and Gestas, the two malefactors, be crucified with you"
(Ch.x) And Jesus went out from the praetorium, and the two malefactors with him. And when they came to the place, they stripped him and girded him with a linen cloth and put a crown of thorns on his head. Likewise, they hanged up also the two malefactors [Coptic and Armenian add: Dysmas on the right, Gestas on the left]..."
Further on we read: "One of the malefactors who were crucified said to him: "If you are the Christ, save yourself and us." But Dysmas answering rebuked him: "Do you not all fear God, since you are in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly. For we are receiving the due reward for our deeds. But this man has done nothing wrong." And he said to Jesus: "Lord, remember me in your kingdom." And Jesus said to him: "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise (Lk.23:39ff.)."
From the "Gospel of Peter" ( NT Apocrypha, p.184):
"And they brought two malefactors and crucified the Lord in the midst between them. But he held his peace, as if he felt no pain...But one of the malefactors rebuked them, saying, "We have landed in suffering for the deeds of wickedness which we have committed, but this man, who has become the savior of men, what wrong has he done you?" And they were wroth with him and commanded that his legs should not be broken, so that he might died in torments."
Tatian through his Diatessaron (the earliest known compilation of the four canonical gospels into one narrative) betrays no information concerning more than two crucified with Christ.
I'de toss in a few excerpts from "the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ" and "The Urantia Book" but I think the older material will suffice for now. :)
I seem to recall a movie based on Hugh Schonfield's "The Passover Plot" depicting Christ being crucified among several others (a couple rows of crosses) - with only Roman guards present, sans the mocking crowds or grieving disciples and family members. It was actually quite an unsettling scene, to consider the thought that Christ died amidst such bleak isolation, though I have wondered if such wasn't closer to the way things actually happened. I'll have to re-read Schonfield's work here...
Okay I went a researching more in depth and this is what i found--a slightly different conclusion in specifics from my previous post in terms of who is who but still in keeping with my original thesis (teach me to talk first research later )
There are two words translated "with" sun and meta
</B>[John 19:18] Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
In my view, based on this, Matthew Mark and Like are talking about the same two persons while John speaks of two crucified with Jesus in the sense that they were all on the hill at the same time at some point (crucifixion takes hours) but not with Jesus in the sense of time as being simultaneously crucified, the men in John crucified after Jesus and the men in the first three Gospels.
According to "The Acts of Pilate" (a work possibly known by Justin Martyr, and known by Tertullian and Epiphanius) , the names of the "malefactors" crucified with Christ are even given (p.459, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. I, W. Schneemelcher):
"...And let Dysmas and Gestas, the two malefactors, be crucified with you"
(Ch.x) And Jesus went out from the praetorium, and the two malefactors with him. And when they came to the place, they stripped him and girded him with a linen cloth and put a crown of thorns on his head. Likewise, they hanged up also the two malefactors [Coptic and Armenian add: Dysmas on the right, Gestas on the left]..."
Further on we read: "One of the malefactors who were crucified said to him: "If you are the Christ, save yourself and us." But Dysmas answering rebuked him: "Do you not all fear God, since you are in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly. For we are receiving the due reward for our deeds. But this man has done nothing wrong." And he said to Jesus: "Lord, remember me in your kingdom." And Jesus said to him: "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise (Lk.23:39ff.)."
The problem I have with this is the problem with Byzantine text in
general. Later text shows writers who, often, could not resist
"jazzing up" the text.
Similar issues to these guys having names is how the Magi
became exactly 3 guys, who were also KINGS,
(but not from Libya),
and then having the names Gaspar, Melchior and Balthasar.
Tatian through his Diatessaron (the earliest known compilation of the four canonical gospels into one narrative) betrays no information concerning more than two crucified with Christ.
History's first known "harmonies" can illustrate what is common beliefs of the
time. If that's what you were hoping to illustrate-it does.
At the time of Tatian's Diatessaron (was that the Old Syriac one?),
the common belief was that there were two.
So, that was not a "recent invention".
Either it was the original belief, or it is a very old belief.
Since we don't have the documents Tatian worked from,
we can't prove more than that in this case, however.
Raf, it appears that the listserv posts that Wordwolf hyperlinked earlier bear some far greater examination. Thanks for that. I can tell I have some work to do...
I believe it was Cynic who posted those, but yes, they do bear examination.
I do note that some of the lexicons that have been posted show heteros as "the other of two." My problem with that is, at times allos is "the other of two" as well (turn the other cheek), so what's the big distinction?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
37
23
30
24
Popular Days
Jan 11
29
Jan 6
27
Jan 9
20
Jan 5
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 37 posts
WordWolf 23 posts
Mike 30 posts
markomalley 24 posts
Popular Days
Jan 11 2006
29 posts
Jan 6 2006
27 posts
Jan 9 2006
20 posts
Jan 5 2006
17 posts
What The Hey
The root word: Kakos, however, is a noun. Kakorgos is translated as malefactor 3 times and evil-doer once. In Luke 23:32, 33 and 39 it is translated as malefactor, where as in 2 Timothy 2:9 it is translated: evil doer. There is another word similar to Kakorgos: "Kakopoios" and it too is translated as malefactor and evil doer, however it is translated as evil doer far more often than Kakourgos. It is translated 4 times as evil doer and as malefactor only once. In John 18:30 Kakopoios is malefactor, but it appears as "evil doer" in 1 Peter 2:12, 14, 3:16, and 4:15. So which of these two words - Kakorgous or Kakopoios, are you going to insist upon being the noun and which one the adjective?
The bible does not say what the malefactors did to be crucified. Nor is it comparing the malefactors to the robbers but rather differentiating between them by use of the word heteros - it's not comparing them. As said earlier, every robber is a malefactor or evil-doer, but not every malefactor (evil doer) is a robber. By the use of word heteros, the malefactors that were led out with Jesus were not robbers themselves, but they certainly did do something (other than robbery) that deserved death by crucifixtion. That is what the word heteros establishes. Heteros is not there in Luke 23:32 to compare the malefactors to Jesus Christ, nor is it there to indicate Jesus was a different evil doer or a different malefactor than the two led out with him!
The only reason heteros is used is to show the difference between the two led out with Jesus and the "other" two that were brought and crucified later on. But when heteros is combined with allos in regards to the crucifixtion, the Word of God then reveals the order in which the legs of the "others" were broken. That is really all these two different Greek words heteros and allos do regarding the crucifixtion of Jesus. It only establishes that the malefactors were "off another kind" - that they were different than the robbers who were brought and crucified later. Both the robbers railed on Jesus but not the malefactors - only one of the malefactors railed on him. But when both useages - heteros and allos are combined in the record of the crucifixtion, the Word of God also establishes the order in which the legs of the robbers and the malefactors were broken.
Even without the contribution of these two different Greek words for "other" [heteros and allos] the Word of God is crystal clear a total of 4 were ultimately crucified along with Jesus Christ. Anyone who cares enough can see it themselves. All one simply needs to do is pay careful attention to the time frame during the crucifixion. They will also see that both robbers were brought later on, and both robbers (not one robber) railed on Jesus. The heteros/allos observation is mainly there as: "icing on the cake". But some people have a difficult and hard enough time handling just the cake part, let alone saying nothing of the 'icing'.
There ... are ... FOUR ... lights!!! - (Actually that would be crosses - not lights, Captain Picard!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The root word: Kakos, however, is a noun. Kakorgos is translated as malefactor 3 times and evil-doer once. In Luke 23:32, 33 and 39 it is translated as malefactor, where as in 2 Timothy 2:9 it is translated: evil doer. There is another word similar to Kakorgos: "Kakopoios" and it too is translated as malefactor and evil doer, however it is translated as evil doer far more often than Kakourgos. It is translated 4 times as evil doer and as malefactor only once. In John 18:30 Kakopoios is malefactor, but it appears as "evil doer" in 1 Peter 2:12, 14, 3:16, and 4:15. So which of these two words - Kakorgous or Kakopoios, are you going to insist upon being the noun and which one the adjective?
This is getting to the point of being silly. First of all, we are not speaking of the word kakos. We are not speaking of the word kakopoios. We are speaking of kakorgous. Secondly, kakos is an adjective. Kakopoios is an adjective. Kakourgos is an adjective.
There is a form of linguistic shorthand where an adjective can imply a noun. It is used in several languages with which I am familiar.
For example: the word "stupid" is an adjective. "Stupid" describes a noun. "Stupid" is not a noun.
The statement: "He is stupid" is an example of this shorthand. "Stupid" doesn't become a noun in this usage, it implies a noun following it. (An Elipsis) "He is stupid" implies the noun "man" or "boy" or "idiot" or some other noun that the reader must infer from the text. But it is still an adjective.
The usages of the above words (kakos, etc.), are used much in the same way. In the case of kakourgos, it would be better rendered "one who does evil".
The bible does not say what the malefactors did to be crucified.
That's backwards. Malefactor is what they did wrong. They did not say who they were, just the description. (implying 'men' or some other noun to be the fill in the blank object noun)
Nor is it comparing the malefactors to the robbers but rather differentiating between them by use of the word heteros - it's not comparing them.
No, you are wrong again here. Please try to remember. Please. Please. Please. The word robber is never used in this scene. You can't compare something where the other object of comparison is not mentioned.
As said earlier, every robber is a malefactor or evil-doer, but not every malefactor (evil doer) is a robber.
In of itself, that is a true statement...however, it is also an irrelevant statement, since 'robbers' are not mentioned in the Luke account. Only unnamed people described as kakourgos.
By the use of word heteros, the malefactors that were led out with Jesus were not robbers themselves, but they certainly did do something (other than robbery) that deserved death by crucifixtion.
How about trying the easy explanation: maybe they were being qualitatively differentiated from Jesus. That is how it is used in the text.
That is what the word heteros establishes. Heteros is not there in Luke 23:32 to compare the malefactors to Jesus Christ,
Not to compare the malefactors to Jesus, but to point of the difference.
nor is it there to indicate Jesus was a different evil doer or a different malefactor than the two led out with him!
It does point out he was different, qualitatively, than the others...yup, it sure does...
The only reason heteros is used is to show the difference between the two led out with Jesus and the "other" two that were brought and crucified later on.
Then why were these other two whom you are referring not mentioned in Luke? Luke was its own account!
But when heteros is combined with allos in regards to the crucifixtion, the Word of God then reveals the order in which the legs of the "others" were broken.
I thought we were talking about Luke here. Which account do you wish to describe? Luke didn't mention the leg breaking, now did it?
That is really all these two different Greek words heteros and allos do regarding the crucifixtion of Jesus. It only establishes that the malefactors were "off another kind" - that they were different than the robbers who were brought and crucified later. Both the robbers railed on Jesus but not the malefactors - only one of the malefactors railed on him. But when both useages - heteros and allos are combined in the record of the crucifixtion, the Word of God also establishes the order in which the legs of the robbers and the malefactors were broken.
Even without the contribution of these two different Greek words for "other" [heteros and allos] the Word of God is crystal clear a total of 4 were ultimately crucified along with Jesus Christ. Anyone who cares enough can see it themselves. All one simply needs to do is pay careful attention to the time frame during the crucifixion. They will also see that both robbers were brought later on, and both robbers (not one robber) railed on Jesus. The heteros/allos observation is mainly there as: "icing on the cake". But some people have a difficult and hard enough time handling just the cake part, let alone saying nothing of the 'icing'.
There ... are ... FOUR ... lights!!! - (Actually that would be crosses - not lights, Captain Picard!)
And the rest of this is simply not worth parsing, because it is either repetitive or is a non-sequitor and so isn't worth breaking apart. Perhaps WW or another poster has patience to do this, but I don't anymore.
Fact of the matter is that each of the authors described what he saw or what he was told. There is a perfectly valid rationale for each writer writing about different details of an incident; however, it is simply unreasonable to assume that one author would write about two people crucified with Christ and another to write about two others crucified, while not mentioning the first two. It might be reasonable for one to write about two crucified and one to write another account describing a scene with with 200 that are described (one is doing a micro look and the other is doing a macro account). I could buy that. But this description:
R M C M R
based upon accounts of
R _ C _ R
R _ C _ R
_ M C M _
R M C _ _
is simply ridiculous...utterly silly. Why would two authors describe two people crucified with Jesus and not describe two that were hung closer to him? It violates common sense to say this. No author would do so; certainly two separate authors wouldn't both do it -- there is no rationale that could possibly explain why that would be the case. In addition, there is no evidence in the Bible to justify this. Not clear evidence. Not even subtle evidence. It just doesn't exist. Period.
Enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Do you guys SEE this?
That is just plain wrong. Why is Luke going to distinguish these two from two other people he does not mention?WTH, so determined are you to prove the thesis that "four crucified" is correct that you're twisting definitions and usages to suit that end. You are NOT letting the text speak for itself.
Actually, that would be FIVE, if you're right. But then, after such a wonderful lesson, we also did forget about the cross in the middle, didn't we?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Now that we're really spending time on this "numerical" thing,
I've looked close enough to see there's no way it CAN be correct.
Now, supposedly,
"heteros" (different other) is used when referring to ONLY TWO
and
"allos" (other of the same kind) is used when referring to MORE THAN TWO.
==========
John 19:32
"Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other (ALLO)
which was crucified with him."
=====
Ok, there were either 2 people crucified with Jesus,
or there were 4 people crucified with Jesus.
Two of them had their legs broken before Jesus was approached.
They broke the legs of the first, and the "other" ("allo".)
Now, that either means the "other" was "of the same kind",
or he was "another of more than two."
Supposedly, if there were EXACTLY two on that side,
the word would have been "heteros",
or "your whole Bible would fall to pieces."
However, it is the other of the SAME KIND,
which means they were not of DIFFERENT KINDS-
which would be "heteros" again.
So,
"heteros" doesn't mean "exactly two"
AND
both criminals in this account were of the SAME KIND.
If one committed Crime A ("robbery")
and the other committed Crime B ("malefacting"),
then they would be of DIFFERENT KINDS-
which is one of vpw's major points to attempt to prove
there were 4 criminals.
So, the criminals approached before they came to
Jesus-using vpw's premises- are both of the SAME KIND-
both "robbers" or both "malefactors".
Therefore:
A) "heteros" never means "other when there's exactly two"
B) Jesus was approached after the legs of 2 criminals
of the same type were broken.
Under vpw's construct, there was one "robber" and one
"malefactor" on each side of Jesus,
but this is impossible if John 19:32 is correct.
(And John 19:32 is correct.)
==========
I would never have noticed this if WTH hadn't been so
insistent on this point.
I don't think this is the definitive "smoking gun" that
there were exactly 2 criminals,
but it strengthens that case at the expense of the
4 criminals case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
templelady,
You wrote: "Your paranoia speaks volumes"
It's not paranoia that gives me reluctance to spill out all the details of my life's drawing to what I'm doing now.
It's fatigue.
I've already posted in the past three years many such details only to see them rejected and even used against me. Why should I bother with your present probing? You know that you are dead set against me and my message. Your position is well documented here and I've read it.
For me to turn my attention, at your nagging, to spelling out the details of my life would take precious time away from my message, which is where the real action is.
Jesus said something that I think fits of those who seek supernatural intervention stories: If they don’t believe Moses and the prophets they won’t believe someone who’s raised from the dead. Likewise, if you don’t believe Dr’s ministry was of God and you don’t GREATLY cherish what PFAL taught you, there’s no amount of sensational storytelling by me that’s going to win your trust.
For me to try to accommodate you would be just a gigantic time waster from my perspective. I see the same in trying to answer all of WW’s accusations and twistings of my message. It would take away from the time I have to devote to my message.
I know that my message threatens the adversary’s grip on grads, so I expect all kinds of distractions to be thrown at me by his inspiration. WW tries to thwart me with huge volumes of pseudo logic and twisting my position, and now you are trying to distract me with goading words like paranoia.
I’m looking for those very few grads here who don’t have there head filled with soap opera garbage and who just haven’t heard that we were told to master written PFAL many times by Dr, only to be totally ignored by all leadership.
If you were that objectively interested in my story you’d have opened the books by now from what evidence I have already presented.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
you really are quite a piece of work Mike
what a disgrace and shame to say something like this
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, I think it's more accurate to say "heteros" means "other regardless of how many others are involved." It could be two. It could be more. The fact that it IS two sometimes bears no implication that in those instances it MUST be two involved, anymore than the fact that it's more than two sometimes means it MUST be more than two.
The "same kind/different kind" distinction doesn't always work either, for in parallel scriptures (two scriptures handling identical events), the words are interchangeable (allos in one gospel, heteros in another).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[WordWolf in boldface and brackets.]
[Meanwhile,
we were discussing a few Greek words and the crucifixion.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Please continue on that last point.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Let me retract and study that a bit more before continuing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Mike, I wanted you to have the opportunity to tell your story, so that I might see clearer your devotion to your cause. So as far as I'm concerned this topic is closed.
Now on to the four crucified with Christ-- I have been reading all the posts on this topic--and I must say as always I stand in Awe of the scholarship, depth of understanding, honest inquiry, and exchange of ideas among my fellow posters.
Forgive me If the next sounds like either a) I'm dense of B) I didn't pay attention.
My position has always been that a living language always has a "shorthand" about it, I think it was Mark who alluded to the use of "Stupid" in English.
I think we are drawing too fine a point between who--just as in English we use, criminal, malefactor, thief, bad guy, interchangeably in conversation sometimes even within the same comment --is it realistic to expect that the Greeks were not every bit as fluid in their language?
As to the number crucified-and this is pure Mo extrapolation here- This was the day before the Passover - I am sure there were many waiting in jail to be crucified (ie Barabbas)
When I envision that day I suspect that the Romans were busy all day with prisoners being crucified knowing that they were "working against the clock", since they could not risk the Jews wrath by doing crucifixations the nexr day. We know from history that Rome crucified many at the same time to drive home the message of her dominion and power, and what better day than the day before the holiest of days, Passover, to send that message to the masses of less than cooperative Jews..
So if, as I suspect crucifixions had already taken place in the earlier part of the day, is it possible that When Jesus arrived at Golgotha the two malefactors were already there and crucified, then they crucified the two thieves who must have been directly behind Jesus on the road leading there. This would account for much there would have indeed been five on that hill at the same time-- but is it not possible that the two malefactors were still alive but already on their crucifixes when Jesus arrived???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This is a bit preliminary. It's why I raised the subject, but I was wrong to draw a conclusion without further research. EDIT: I haven't double checked these references. I'm checking one of those Bible web sites, and could be mistaken in how I'm interpreting what I'm finding.
Matthew 13:5
Some (allos) fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
Luke 8:6
And some (heteros) fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.
Matthew 13:7
And some (allos) fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
Luke 8:7
And some (heteros) fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.
Matthew 13:8
But other (allos) fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
Luke 8:8
And other (heteros) fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Matthew 19:9
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another (allos), committeth adultery..."
Luke 16:18
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another (heteros) commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."
Galatians 1:18, 19
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
But other (heteros) of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Is Paul trying to imply here that Peter and James were a different kind of apostle from the others?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Mo,
That is the absolutely most logical explanation I have ever heard to attempt the justification of 4 crucified with Christ.
It doesn't square with scripture. (All scripture is RSV)
Matt 27:38 Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left.
Mark 15:27 And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left.
Luke 23:33 And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left.
John 19:18 There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them.
Each account has Jesus crucified with two, one on each side. Granted, the words aren't literally identical, but the meaning is pretty clearly the same.
Now, Mo:
The description you provided is:
M M -- initially
then:
M M J R R
as the layout
The account in Matthew and Mark say:
R J R
The account in Luke says:
M J M
The account in John says:
O J O
When you keep in mind the back-and-forth that WTH and I have had, it's pretty clear that robber and malefactor could easily be the same person. No reason why they couldn't. And "other" is about as generic as it can get!
But as I said, based upon historic reality, you are absolutely right that there could be many others crucified on that site on that day. But as far as specific people, I still only see two of them!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Mark I see what you are saying. But (knew there had to be one didn't you
)
The accounts in the gospels are Christ centered- it is clear that the accounts were preserved by persons whose primary focus on the hill that day was the crucifixion of Christ.
If you are recording this event with your Lord and Savior being crucified before your eyes, the weeping of his mother and the grief of your fellow disciples surrounding you, ---when you record what else was going on on that hill --- Is it being recorded as a line by line "news report" or is it being recorded by a person in grief who records what he sees not in the clear logical progression of the dispassionate observer but the emotional upheaval of the grief stricken??
Sometimes I think we forget that the Bible was not written by logical robots but rather passionate people who react in the throes of strong emotion much as we would. If it were you on that hill or me, would we be recording what we saw as history or merely capturing vignettes seen through our grief to encapsulate that moment in time??
I remember many funerals in my life--but I would be hard pressed to remember exactly the sequence of the peripheral events.
I, again we are talking the BOOK OF MO here, doubt that the accounts were written at the time- given the time frame with the Passover, the earliest an account could have been written (since writing would be considered work, a violation of Mosaic law) would be 24+ hours hence--would even then the grief be too raw for writing a dispassionate account??
And if the account was written would the crucifixion of the others be seen by the writer as central to the event or merely a backdrop, mentioned in passing to preserve the feeling of the entire scene rather than the complete accuracy of the surrounding events not directly pertaining to Jesus Christ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Mo,
You make my point beautifully. Better than I ever could have.
And...on one level...I agree with you (the analogy I like using is one of four different painters capturing the same scene)
But, to re-iterate something that I said earlier to WTH,
That's my issue with what you're saying...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
So...what would have been the point of all this teaching on the number of bad guys in PFAL? It establishes Wierwille's credentials as someone who exposes the "lies" of mainstream Christianity. He sets up an "apparent contradiction" and explains it in such a way that his biblical detective skills are glorified, and the credibility of just about everyone in Christendom is maligned. Therefore...listen to VP Wierwille!
I mean, come on...who really gives a rat's foot about biblical trivia such as four crucified? It's all designed to set in cement Wierwille's interpretation as unassailable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Raf, it appears that the listserv posts that Wordwolf hyperlinked earlier bear some far greater examination. Thanks for that. I can tell I have some work to do...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Give that man a kewpie doll!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
From Vine's Dictionary:
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Adding to what DMiller posted, following are Strong’s numbers, usages and definitions linked to the Interlinear Greek New Testament of the Online Bible Edition, Version 1.42.01 (see http://www.onlinebible.net ) :
243 allos al’-los
a primary word; TDNT-1:264,43; adj
AV-other(s) 81, another 62, some 11, one 4, misc 2; 160
1) another, other
For Synonyms see entry 5806 [see last entry, “Synonyms,” in this post]
*****
2087 heteros het’-er-os
of uncertain affinity; TDNT-2:702,265; adj
AV-another 43, other 42, other thing 3, some 2, next day 2, misc 7; 99
1) the other, another, other
1a) to number
1a1) to number as opposed to some former person or thing
1a2) the other of two
1b) to quality
1b1) another: i.e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different
*****
5806
Synonyms
See Definition for [allos] 243
See Definition for [heteros] 2087
243 as compared with 2087 denotes numerical in distinction from
qualitative differences; 243 adds (’ one besides’), 2087 distinguishes
(’ one of two’); every 2087 is an 243 but not every 243 is a 2087;
243 generally denotes simple distinction of individuals, 2087 involves
the secondary idea of difference of kind.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
According to "The Acts of Pilate" (a work possibly known by Justin Martyr, and known by Tertullian and Epiphanius) , the names of the "malefactors" crucified with Christ are even given (p.459, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. I, W. Schneemelcher):
"...And let Dysmas and Gestas, the two malefactors, be crucified with you"
(Ch.x) And Jesus went out from the praetorium, and the two malefactors with him. And when they came to the place, they stripped him and girded him with a linen cloth and put a crown of thorns on his head. Likewise, they hanged up also the two malefactors [Coptic and Armenian add: Dysmas on the right, Gestas on the left]..."
Further on we read: "One of the malefactors who were crucified said to him: "If you are the Christ, save yourself and us." But Dysmas answering rebuked him: "Do you not all fear God, since you are in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly. For we are receiving the due reward for our deeds. But this man has done nothing wrong." And he said to Jesus: "Lord, remember me in your kingdom." And Jesus said to him: "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise (Lk.23:39ff.)."
From the "Gospel of Peter" ( NT Apocrypha, p.184):
"And they brought two malefactors and crucified the Lord in the midst between them. But he held his peace, as if he felt no pain...But one of the malefactors rebuked them, saying, "We have landed in suffering for the deeds of wickedness which we have committed, but this man, who has become the savior of men, what wrong has he done you?" And they were wroth with him and commanded that his legs should not be broken, so that he might died in torments."
Tatian through his Diatessaron (the earliest known compilation of the four canonical gospels into one narrative) betrays no information concerning more than two crucified with Christ.
I'de toss in a few excerpts from "the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ" and "The Urantia Book" but I think the older material will suffice for now. :)
I seem to recall a movie based on Hugh Schonfield's "The Passover Plot" depicting Christ being crucified among several others (a couple rows of crosses) - with only Roman guards present, sans the mocking crowds or grieving disciples and family members. It was actually quite an unsettling scene, to consider the thought that Christ died amidst such bleak isolation, though I have wondered if such wasn't closer to the way things actually happened. I'll have to re-read Schonfield's work here...
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Okay I went a researching more in depth and this is what i found--a slightly different conclusion in specifics from my previous post in terms of who is who but still in keeping with my original thesis (teach me to talk first research later
)
There are two words translated "with" sun and meta
Sun
συν= plus
http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon
[Matthew 27:38] Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left
[Mark 15 :27] And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
[Luke 23:32] And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.
The other word translated "with" is Meta found in the Gospel of John
μετά= among between with -> gen after afterwards -> acc
http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon
</B>[John 19:18] Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
In my view, based on this, Matthew Mark and Like are talking about the same two persons while John speaks of two crucified with Jesus in the sense that they were all on the hill at the same time at some point (crucifixion takes hours) but not with Jesus in the sense of time as being simultaneously crucified, the men in John crucified after Jesus and the men in the first three Gospels.
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The problem I have with this is the problem with Byzantine text in
general. Later text shows writers who, often, could not resist
"jazzing up" the text.
Similar issues to these guys having names is how the Magi
became exactly 3 guys, who were also KINGS,
(but not from Libya),
and then having the names Gaspar, Melchior and Balthasar.
History's first known "harmonies" can illustrate what is common beliefs of the
time. If that's what you were hoping to illustrate-it does.
At the time of Tatian's Diatessaron (was that the Old Syriac one?),
the common belief was that there were two.
So, that was not a "recent invention".
Either it was the original belief, or it is a very old belief.
Since we don't have the documents Tatian worked from,
we can't prove more than that in this case, however.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I believe it was Cynic who posted those, but yes, they do bear examination.
I do note that some of the lexicons that have been posted show heteros as "the other of two." My problem with that is, at times allos is "the other of two" as well (turn the other cheek), so what's the big distinction?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.