This is slightly off topic, but relevant.
This story is interesting. As most of you probably know, all gospels say that there were two men crucified with Jesus. Matthew and Mark tell us that both of the two men were insulting Jesus (
Matt 27:43-34,
Mark 15:27-32). Only Luke includes the account of the repentant thief, and Luke does not indicate that he ever changed his mind one way or the other.
I wonder, is there any indication that the unique Luke account was not a part of the original text? Many Christians acknowledge that the story of the adulterous woman in John 8 was probably not original. Might it be the case with this story as well?
After all, I think we have four good historical accounts, rather than just one, so that we can compare them and get the most accurate account.
It seems likely, in any case, that the person who wrote that account of the repentant man was not familiar with the accounts of Matthew and Mark. Perhaps Luke had a better witness who actually heard what the repentant man said, whereas Matthew and Mark heard only the loud insults and saw both men address Jesus and thought that both men were insulting Jesus. Of course it's possible that the repentant man did have a change of attitude.
I certainly hope that the story is part of Luke's original account and true. I like to know that this man probably had very little understanding of "theology". He believed in God ("Do you not even fear God ...?"), recognized his own sin ("And we indeed are suffering justly"), and simply honored and trusted in the King/Lord Jesus and his authority ("Jesus, remember me when you come into your kindgom."). These are what I consider to be the essential "doctrines" necessary for salvation.
(But I do wonder what sort of kingdom the man thought it would be. Did he think that Jesus was not about to die, or did he expect Jesus' resurrection, or did he simply trust Jesus would have some kind of kingdom despite his lack of understanding?)
Honestly, I would have to say that there's as good a case as any that Matthew's and Mark's accounts are more accurate, and that the account in Luke was added later, or else Luke included an account that was told to him by someone who misunderstood what happened. As you know, Luke was not one of the 11, and Luke claims up front that his account is based on his investigations of various previous accounts.
To tie in to the thread topic a bit, I would say that I would not read too much into the account in Luke, except to say that it was apparently not incompatible with a story that early (say, 2nd-3rd century) Christians would accept as true.
So what do you think? Kind of controversial, I guess.
) that the characters are also paralleled in jewish tales of the period. But that Jesus reversed the roles of the existing story that instead had a teacher of the law going to bliss, while the socially expendable went to a place of immediate punishment. such a story would be used by the pious but pompous to show how God accepts them and not the other.
