How many were crucified with Yeshua?

Hawk said:
This is the main reason I am not willing to trust most translations…..and instead will consult the original languages ………Upon arising questions.
Click to expand...
I came to this same conclusion while translating the gospels in college.
Hawk said:
It is very human to think others should have the benefit of your opinion……….
Click to expand...
It seems to be very human for others to reject any opinions that are not in alignment with their cherished doctrines.

What I find so amazing is that this information presents gospels that are in perfect agreement. To disagree is to affirm there are discrepancies or even outright contradictions. Whoever wrote these narratives were articulate and well educated.

When John says there are two on either side, or two on each side, that's what he means. There is no evidence anywhere that I can find in any Greek literature where translators insert these numbers to the phrase "enteuthen kai enteuthen"
 
shnarkle said:
When John says there are two on either side, or two on each side, that's what he means. There is no evidence anywhere that I can find in any Greek literature where translators insert these numbers to the phrase "enteuthen kai enteuthen"
Click to expand...
You are correct.

John 19:18 is translated incorrectly in just about every major English translation……except “Young’s Literal Translation”.

I trust Young’s more than most as Robert Young, at times…….even translated against his own theology, ”Scottish Free Church“, but wanted to stay true to the original language. He was criticized for this…….and lost some friendships.
 
Hawk said:
You are correct.

John 19:18 is translated incorrectly in just about every major English translation……except “Young’s Literal Translation”.

I trust Young’s more than most as Robert Young, at times…….even translated against his own theology, ”Scottish Free Church“, but wanted to stay true to the original language. He was criticized for this…….and lost some friendships.
Click to expand...

Young's Literal Translation translates this verse as, "where they crucified him, and with him two others, on this side, and on that side, and Jesus in the midst." This agrees with the other translations that there were only two and one was on each side of him.
 
Bob Dobbalina said:
You posted this before shnarkle’s post; the last post as of this writing, #15.
I’d like to learn what you make of their post; has it given you reason to reconsider?
Click to expand...
I am watching this thread play out - currently I have nothing else to add to the discussion.
 
puddleglum said:
Young's Literal Translation translates this verse as, "where they crucified him, and with him two others, on this side, and on that side, and Jesus in the midst." This agrees with the other translations that there were only two and one was on each side of him.
Click to expand...
Young’s does not add the word “one” to the text…..and when you remove the punctuation from the verse it is very easy to see that there were were two on each side.

Punctuation did not exist in the original Greek.

………”two others on this side and on that side”………

Robert Young, also the author of Young’s Analytical Concordance, found in most libraries…..was a Presbyterian, “Scottish Free Church” and as such also believed there were just three crosses….. and his accurate translation does indeed allow for four when you remove the punctuation.

He was true to the Greek!
 
puddleglum said:
Young's Literal Translation translates this verse as, "where they crucified him, and with him two others, on this side, and on that side, and Jesus in the midst." This agrees with the other translations that there were only two and one was on each side of him.
Click to expand...
When he says there are two others on this side and on that side, that's four others. When he says "on this side and that side" it is no different than saying "on each side". Therefore, there are two others on EACH side.
 
Rabbit hole interjection - while this is a curious conversation, I believe I am missing the motivation for this discussion. Does the number of others crucified with Christ impact doctrine in a manner I am failing to recognize? Or is this merely one of curiosity? Perhaps I missed something obvious stated in the thread which would answer this for me - if so kindly direct my attention to it please.

Just wanting to get context of the OP if I may. Not particularly important I suppose but just wondering. @Bob Dobbalina?
 
AMOSFIVE said:
Rabbit hole interjection - while this is a curious conversation, I believe I am missing the motivation for this discussion. Does the number of others crucified with Christ impact doctrine in a manner I am failing to recognize? Or is this merely one of curiosity? Perhaps I missed something obvious stated in the thread which would answer this for me - if so kindly direct my attention to it please.

Just wanting to get context of the OP if I may. Not particularly important I suppose but just wondering. @Bob Dobbalina?
Click to expand...
This is not a salvation issue in the slightest. It just reminds us to double check our beliefs with what the actual, original language says instead of just believing what we’ve been taught from tradition (Childhood)………

Our savior accused His Pharisee detractors of this very thing on more than one occasion……..traditions of men!

I personally am amazed at the many things I was taught in Sunday School……that are just not biblically true. It is tradition. Satan will cause good men to “tweak” doctrine in their teaching very innocently ……….and thus be led astray.
 
Hawk said:
This is not a salvation issue in the slightest. It just reminds us to double check our beliefs with what the actual, original language says instead of just believing what we’ve been taught from tradition (Childhood)………

Our savior accused His Pharisee detractors of this very thing on more than one occasion……..traditions of men!

I personally am amazed at the many things I was taught in Sunday School……that are just not biblically true. It is tradition. Satan will cause good men to “tweak” doctrine in their teaching very innocently ……….and thus be led astray.
Click to expand...
OK so I didn’t miss something thank you
 
AMOSFIVE said:
Rabbit hole interjection - while this is a curious conversation, I believe I am missing the motivation for this discussion. Does the number of others crucified with Christ impact doctrine in a manner I am failing to recognize? Or is this merely one of curiosity? Perhaps I missed something obvious stated in the thread which would answer this for me - if so kindly direct my attention to it please.

Just wanting to get context of the OP if I may. Not particularly important I suppose but just wondering. @Bob Dobbalina?
Click to expand...
Hawk did a fine job of answering your question; I’ve got nothing to add.
 
Hawk said:
Young’s does not add the word “one” to the text…..and when you remove the punctuation from the verse it is very easy to see that there were were two on each side.

Punctuation did not exist in the original Greek.

………”two others on this side and on that side”………

Robert Young, also the author of Young’s Analytical Concordance, found in most libraries…..was a Presbyterian, “Scottish Free Church” and as such also believed there were just three crosses….. and his accurate translation does indeed allow for four when you remove the punctuation.

He was true to the Greek!
Click to expand...
There were only two others crucified with Jesus according to the gospel tradition, including the Johannine version... when the soldiers go to break their legs (19:32) they go to "the first" (του πρωτου) and then to "the other" (του αλλου) --- that's two people total, not two on either side of him for a total of four as 19:18 is being misinterpreted to suggest. This verse is straightforward enough... "two others" (αλλους δυο) were crucified with him and arranged "on this side and on that side" (εντευθεν και εντευθεν) with Jesus in the "middle" (μεσον).

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
I would have thought that if five crosses were historically/scripturally correct, that's the number which tradition would have likewise deliver.

Usually it's 'tradition' fighting to get a seat at the grownup's table.

Bible skeptics are fond of saying that, where the bible is concerned, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. "Why doesnt the bible mention something so obvious?"

Trying to smuggle in two more criminals on crosses where the text is ambiguous at best and silent at worst, seems like gnat-straining.

And that's OK.

"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"


en.wikipedia.org

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
En Hakkore said:
There were only two others crucified with Jesus according to the gospel tradition, including the Johannine version... when the soldiers go to break their legs (19:32) they go to "the first" (του πρωτου) and then to "the other" (του αλλου) --- that's two people total, not two on either side of him for a total of four as 19:18 is being misinterpreted to suggest. This verse is straightforward enough... "two others" (αλλους δυο) were crucified with him and arranged "on this side and on that side" (εντευθεν και εντευθεν) with Jesus in the "middle" (μεσον).

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Click to expand...
19:18 where they crucified him, and with him two others, on this side, and on that side, and Jesus in the midst.

That’s the verse. Nothing in what you wrote on this thread negates or supports your interpretation. It can be understood as “two others on this side AND two others on that side” or, as tradition would have it, “two others, one on this side and one on that side.”
I’m inclined to believe the former because of other evidence not mentioned here. You stand with the traditional belief. So be it.

That the verse is “straightforward enough”…
says more about your scholastic standards and preference for traditions than it does about the question at hand.
 
Bob Dobbalina said:
19:18 where they crucified him, and with him two others, on this side, and on that side, and Jesus in the midst.

That’s the verse. Nothing in what you wrote on this thread negates or supports your interpretation. It can be understood as “two others on this side AND two others on that side” or, as tradition would have it, “two others, one on this side and one on that side.”
I’m inclined to believe the former because of other evidence not mentioned here. You stand with the traditional belief. So be it.

That the verse is “straightforward enough”…
says more about your scholastic standards and preference for traditions than it does about the question at hand.
Click to expand...
I could care less about traditions and my scholastic standards are among the highest on the forum... I notice you didn't bother responding to the evidence of 19:32. You're welcome to your "inclination" based on whatever undisclosed "evidence" you think you have...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
AMOSFIVE said:
Does the number of others crucified with Christ impact doctrine in a manner I am failing to recognize?
Click to expand...
Probably.
AMOSFIVE said:
Perhaps I missed something obvious stated in the thread which would answer this for me - if so kindly direct my attention to it please.
Click to expand...
The most glaring would be the fact that the most accurate translation provides the most accurate message. It also provides us with narratives that do not contradict each other.
AMOSFIVE said:
Just wanting to get context of the OP if I may.
Click to expand...
Each gospel contains themes that are emphasized, and numbers or numerology is a method employed throughout the bible. When we see the number 5 or multiples of 5, we see the theme of grace. It is 4+1. It is God adding His gifts and blessing to the works of His hands. The Heb. Ha'aretz (the earth), by "Gematria" (i.e. the addition of the numerical value of the letters together) is a multiple of four, while Hashamayim (the heavens) is a multiple of five. The Gematria of Caris (charis), the Greek for Grace, is also a multiple of five. It is the leading factor in the Tabernacle measurements. Five people crucified reinforces this theme.

The number 3 or multiples of 3 refers to Divine perfection and completeness. The third day completes the fundamentals of creation-work. The fourth, fifth, and sixth days are the counterpart and repetition of the first, second, and third, and correspond respectively. The number, three, includes resurrection also; for on the third day the earth rose up out of the deep, and the fruit rose up out of the earth.
 
A strong case can be made for there being more than just the Two Thieves. Note that there are Two Malefactors as well. ;)

Luke 23:32
"And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death."

Interesting comma placement, eh?

Here is the contradiction that must be resolved...

Matthew 27:44
"The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth."

So, both Thieves mocked and said mean things? Really? Yet one Thief is supposedly 'Saved' because he did not mock Jesus?

Oops...

Luke 23:40
"But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?"

Which is it? Did both Thieves mock Jesus, or was it only one?

The answer is that both Thieves mocked Jesus. It was one of the Malefactors that stood up for Jesus, and rebuked the other Malefactor that said...

Luke 23:39
"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us."

That is the theory anyhow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top