My question has to do with the two thieves crucified with Jesus. I grew up believing that one cursed Jesus and the other asked for forgiveness. In Matthew and Mark, it said that the thieves hurled insults at Jesus. Luke indicated that one thief hurled insults while the other asked for forgiveness, whereas John does not mention the thieves at all! I believe that one thief continued to curse and one did finally ask for and did receive forgiveness. Why are there discrepancies among the gospel accounts? I want to be able to give a true and reasonable answer (pun intended) if I ever get asked this question. I am not sure how I would go about explaining the differences, although I myself am quite comfortable with the way Luke records the event itself. -- Rohan Cruickshank (Research Triangle Park, North Carolina)
This is a good example of discrepancies, or "surface contradictions," in the gospel accounts. It is a testimony to the integrity of the writers and compilers of the New Testament that minor discrepancies were allowed to stand. The temptation to blur the differences was surely there.
I myself see no problem in harmonizing a way to a solution: the thief who found salvation repented of his cursing while on the cross itself. Under extreme stress, people may allow words out of their mouths that would never be heard under normal circumstances. This explanation is not psychologically implausible, at any rate. Another possibility is that people heard the cursing of two or more criminals and attributed it even to the penitent thief, who perhaps never cursed at all. The downside of this interpretation is that we would be admitting a certain degree of error in the initial report. (But does it matter?)
Yet you ask, Why are there discrepancies? Differences in reporting the events exist in the gospels because the Spirit is emphasizing different truths to us in the various passages. A few of my thoughts on the different emphases:
* The repentance of the thief, who was apparently a lower class person, is important to the theology of Luke, who stresses the plight of the poor and their place in the kingdom of God. Similarly, Luke pays special attention to the situation of women in the world and in the life of Jesus, much more than the other evangelists (for example in chapters 1, 7, and 8).
* This account is part of the inspired word of God, but Matthew, Mark, and John did not include it. (The gospel writers had to make decisions over what to include, and perhaps even more over what to exclude! See the last verses of John.)
* If God had not intended to stress different points in the four gospels, he could have (and probably would have) given us just one gospel. Evidently the Spirit thought it important that we read each gospel with sensitivity to its distinctive focuses.
* That his last-minute conversion is passed over in the three other gospels should not concern us, for it is only peripheral to the concerns of the evangelists (the death of Jesus).
Finally, I think you would find Gordon Fee's and Douglas Stuart's How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth extremely helpful--as would most of my readers. I strongly recommend this work, now in its third edition.
This article is copyrighted and is for private use and study only.
