Misquoting Jesus

[markomalley]

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?

My bad! Apologies to both Cynic and you!

Trouble is folks strain at gnats when it's logically obvious without even getting in to all the nuances!

[Belle]

I know vee pee emphasized how absolutely precise and distinct the Greek language is/was, but was it really? I mean, we use "other" and "another" in any different ways and, according to most of what's been posted here, it appears to be the same case here. I remember reading somewhere but can't find it, that the Greek wasn't really as specific as we were led to believe.

And weren't these books written many, many years after the fact and not really by the people they are attributed to?

I'm also in the "what difference does it make?" camp. How does knowing how many were crucified with Christ make any difference in someone's life? What good does that knowledge do for anyone? *shrug*

[What The Hey]

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.

You responded: (which is apparently the central point of your argument)

Then why were these other two whom you are referring not mentioned in Luke? Luke was its own account!

Here is the answer to your question (and to some other people's question) why the robbers are not mentioned in Luke's gospel. VPW answered much the same question already in JCOP - Why Four Gospels - p.445.

... Among theologians, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the "synoptic Gospels." They are so called because these Gospels share a common outline of events, in contrast to the Gospel of John. However, in practice this categorization has been used to accentuate alleged discrepencies between John and the other three Gospels. To group the Gospels in this fashion is an unscriptural tool brandished by critics of God's Word to support their theories.

[isolating Luke's account apart from the Gospel of John and the other gospel writers would of course support your (and the theologians) opinion regarding the 4 crucified with Jesus Christ. VPW further states ...]

No one historical record, Biblical or otherwise, covers every detail regarding a given time period, event, or person. Volumes have been written on the American revolution in the late eighteenth century. Even when these writings are accurate, they may cover the period of the revolution from different viewpoints with different details. This does not necessarily mean they are contradictory; rather, these works often corroborate, augment, supplement, and elucidate one another. The same is true of the four gospels.

In John 10:35 Jesus Christ stated that "the scripture cannot be broken." In other words, no scripture is contradictory to another scripture. With this as a guiding principle, one can study the four Gospels to see how accurately they fit with one another. {Footnote # 2. This is in great contrast to many critics who search for and manufacture "contradictions" in attempts to show God's Word does not fit.} [This likewise accounts for a lot of the problems when dealing with heteros-allos].

... In studying Jesus Christ's earthly life and ministry, one Gospel may give details regarding an event not recorded in another Gospel. [The reason why the robbers are not mention in Luke's gospel.] Too often readers will assume that each Gospel must record all the details, not realizing God had a divine purpose in having four Gospels written which together give the fullness of His revelatation concerning Jesus Christ's life and ministry. If certain details are included in one Gospel but not in another, it is by God's own design and revelation that they were written in that fashion.

---------------------------------

I am simply not isolating one Gospel record of the crucifixion from the others when differentiating between the malefactors and the robbers - which of course, the theologians do. But if they insist on isolating the Gospel records from one another, then they have a real problem proving only two were crucified because both theives (or robbers) reviled Jesus according to the records that are given in Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32, while in Luke 23:39 and 40 only one of the malefactors "railed on him [Jesus]" while the other malefactor defended Jesus.

The bottom line is: when one isolates the Gospels from one another then one can support just about any doctrinal position they want in regards to the crucifixion. For example: How many different movies have been produced regarding the crucifixion of Jesus Christ? I lost count a long time ago, but every one of them has practically something different to say about it. The last one I saw was produced by Mr. Gibson. Making movies about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ may make a lot of money for Hollywood, but it simply does not make for a lot of good theology. IMO, the only thing coming close to being accurate in: "The Passion of The Christ" would have been the scouraging, and even that point is highly debatable.

I know you completely understood what I meant when I said, "The bible does not record what the malefactors did to deserve to be crucified. You completely understood I was refering to the crime the malefactors committed and not something else. The remark is of no higher caliber than Raf purposely quoting me out of context when I said: "There ... are ... four ... lights! [crosses]. He too knows I was refering only to the evil-doers crucified with Jesus Christ and not the total crucified. I have no problem answering genuine concerns and questions people may have (which only seems to be fewer and fewer at GSC). I just don't have the time to give for anyone's patronizing, that's all.

[Raf]

WTH,

It's become abundantly clear after each of your posts, which are far more patronizing than those who disagree with you, that you are letting your conclusions color the evidence, and not letting the evidence shape your conclusion.

A gospel writer uses heteros to distinguish people he mentions from people he doesn't mention? Not even worth rebuttal.

Matthew mentions only two, Mark mentions only two, Luke mentions only two and John mentions only two, yet the REASON they each mentioned only two is that the others mentioned the other two? That's not a reason, that's a dodge. It fails to answer the question.

If four people were crucified with Christ, why did NONE of the gospel writers just come out and say so?

Edited January 12, 2006 by Raf

[markomalley]

WTH,

KJV: malefactors is an adjective

KJV: theives is a noun

The two don't compare. As I said before, it's like comparing red to apple.

However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that you are simply trying to quote your own "theologian" (actually a homilest) as your ultimate authority and haven't taken on any of the arguments raised by anybody here. Since I do not accept the authority of the person you cite as your authority (I have shown multiple errors of his in this thread alone, therefore, I have reason to question his qualifications) and you apparently are not willing to engage based upon strictly examining the scriptures, then it appears we don't have much else to discuss here.

However, I do wish to thank you for the civility of your tone and the time you have spent. I also do appreciate the opportunity to show many other folks that this basic PFAL teaching was in error!

Have a nice evening!

[Raf]

The civility of his tone? Every one of his posts contains insults directed at other people. What made this civil?

[markomalley]

The civility of his tone? Every one of his posts contains insults directed at other people. What made this civil?

When he repeats arguments multiple times in an effort to prove a point that has been discounted, he has shown himself to be punch drunk. A gentlemen does not need to rub salt in the wounds. His argument has been totally disproven. He has utterly lost. Why be ugly?

[Raf]

Only because you're a critic of God's Word who can't see what's right in front of him, Mark. THERE ARE FOUR WHEELS ON MY CAR!

[TheInvisibleDan]

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.

I suspect that may well be the case here; the names do sound a tad Greek for that part of the world.

An interesting piece of trivia nonetheless.

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.

The earliest fragments of the "Diatessaron" are passed down to us primarily through St. Ephraem's commentary (through Armenian and Syriac copies) on that work.

There are some later texts of the Diatessaron preserved in Persian and Arabic.

Danny

[Raf]

Back on the "allos and heteros" front, Wierwille mangles his own definition in The Word's Way.

On p. 237, he wrote:

"heteros means "the 'other' or second of two when and where there are only two."

We have already shown that while there are verses where heteros can carry this meaning, there are also verses where it cannot possibly carry this meaning. There are also verses (turn the other cheek) where allos can carry the exact same meaning. This, too, has already been shown and is indisputable. While Wierwille did note that there are instances in which heteros can have a different meaning, I'm not aware of any such qualifying statement about his disproven (or at the very least inconsistent) definition of allos.

Okay, that said, let's flip to page 246, where Wierwille writes the following:

Luke 23:32

And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him...

The word for "other" here is not the word allos, but it is heteros because there were only two involved, two malefactors.

Did you catch it? He goes from heteros meaning "the other or second of two" to heteros meaning "two other."

If heteros means "the other or second of of two when and where there are only two," then the word other cannot be heteros. Quite the opposite: it MUST be allos if that definition is being used to prove anything. Why? Beacuse heteros is supposed to mean the other of two. Luke does not say "And there were also two 'second of twos when only two are involved.'"

I have one hand, and I have another (heteros) hand. That second hand is the second of two when only two are involved, because you're counting the first one. If I said I had one hand and two other hands, how many hands do I have? Three!

It says in Luke that TWO OTHERS were brought out. Two plus Jesus makes THREE, and therefore heteros CANNOT BE USED HERE.

But it is. There are two conclusions to choose from.

First possible conclusion: Wierwille's definitions of allos and heteros in these specific verses are correct. If so, there must be other manuscripts that use allos instead of heteros in that verse. But if that's the case, Wierwille has committed an error because he cites the use of heteros as an example of unbelievable accuracy.

Second possible conclusion: heteros is correctly used here, but does not mean in this case what Wierwille says it means in this case. If so, Wierwille has committed an error.

Either way, it's an actual error.

Edited January 16, 2006 by Raf

[GarthP2000]

Either way, it's an actual error.

Uh ohh! Now ya gone and done it! You're feeding the Smikeol troll Yet Again.

:o

[Cynic]

Don’t get discouraged, Raf. Just 9.75 x 10^77 more posts, and you’ll convince him or break him.

Edited January 16, 2006 by Cynic

[Raf]

=====

On the pro-four-crucufied-with-Jesus front:

I've checked the Greek word translated "midst" in John 19:18, and in every NT usage where it's translated "midst," it appears to mean either in the middle of one thing/person (the veil of the temple was torn in the midst) or among more than two things/people (in those days, Peter stood up in the midst...).

In every other usage other than John 19:18, the word "midst" is never used of one thing/person being between two other things/people. The word is translated "between" in I Cor. 6:5, but it appears to be an incorrect translation (can anyone judge between his brethren: the sentence is open to the mere possibility of two brethren, but appropriately, leaves itself open for many more than that).

So, if the usage of "midst" in John 19:18 is consistent with every other usage of "midst," then John must be saying that there were two crucified on either side of Jesus, not just one. Either that, or he used incorrect grammar, or there's another manuscript out there that uses "between" instead of "in the midst." Or I'm wrong.

Cynic:

I'm almost there. :)

[templelady]

If my earlier analysis of the word "with" does not clarity this situation ,but rather add yet another layer there can be still another explanation.

Two thieves were crucified with [sun] Jesus as were the two malefactors who were led with [sun] him then yet two others at a later tine with [meta] Him For a grand total of six crucified with Jesus.

If It can be asked were there only two or were there four? Then it is not an equally valid question as to whether there were not four but six??

And if six, does that not clear up the multiple nouns as well as the word "with"??

Four crucified with Jesus as teh same time

two crucified after.

[Raf]

On the pro-four-crucufied-with-Jesus front:

Heh heh heh. Of course, I meant "crucified."

I don't know if "cru-cu-fixion" is fatal. It may even tickle a little.

[templelady]

And to further add to the possibilities

we assume that they were crucified like this M T JC T M

we Assume that all the disciples and Mary were at the same spot

WE assume that all the disciples arrived at the same time

But what if the actual layout was more like this

........T.................. M

................JC

.....M..................... T

if you were positioned at the lower left then he would be between the two thieves

If the lower right between the two malefactors

There are just too many unknown variables to be able to resolve this by figuring our which noun we should be using

Edited January 16, 2006 by templelady

[dizzydog]

Trying to decide how many people were crucified with Jesus Christ makes about as much sense as trying to figure out how many people Rome crucified that year. It's clear Jesus was one of them, beyond that what's the purpose? To prove that there are no errors in the Word of God?

Some believe the bible is totally unreliable (can anyone say tattered?) anyway. For those who are convinced that salvation lies in Christ and that this is revealed in the scriptures they aren't going to be affected by 2, 4 or 400 people being crucified with Jesus Christ.

[Oakspear]

Dizzy:

In my opinion, Wierwille included this in his class (he apparently got it from Bullinger), not because he cared, or thought it was necessary for salvation, but because it afforded him an opportunity to demonstrate his superiority over the majority of Christian theologians.

It positioned him as the one who we should listen to, and mainstream Christianity as unreliable.

[Raf]

Why, it makes all the difference between an unerring, accurate Word and a crumbled jumble of writing. Yes, it matters. When we go to the bank, we demand accuracy. We ought to think it supremely important.

That's what my Focker in the Word taught me. :)

[Raf]

Another note on John 19:28.

Wierwille contradicts the Word's Way in the PFAL book.

Here's what The Word's Way says about John 19:28:

The word for "other" here is not the word allos, but it is heteros because there were only two involved, two malefactors.

Now, PFAL on the exact same subject:

Which Greek word had to be used to have the true Word? The word is heteros because only two categories are involved, Jesus and malefactors.

This is a blatant contradiction.

Now, the PFAL explanation is consistent with the definition provided, but it contradicts the explanation in The Word's Way.

Edited January 16, 2006 by Raf