So far, we have looked at what Matthew, Mark, and Luke record about the crucifixion. Finally, if we compare John’s account with this, we are confirmed in the fact that there were three crosses on Golgotha. Interestingly, John does not mention robbers or criminals, but only others who were crucified with the Lord.
John 19
17 And He carried His own cross and went out to what is called the Place of the Skull, in Hebrew, Golgotha,
18 where they crucified Him, and with Him two others, one here and one here, and Jesus in the middle.
Common Translations
The rendering of verse 18 is almost identical in the common translations:
KJV:
Where they crucified Him, and with Him two others, one on either side, and Jesus in the middle.
NKJV:
Where they crucified Him, and with Him two others, one on either side, with Jesus in the middle.
Revised State Translation:
There they crucified Him, and with Him two others, one on either side, with Jesus in the middle.
One on each side
The article’s criticism of the translation—one on each side—is justified, because it doesn’t say that, but what about the author’s proposed rendering?
John places different emphasis again, apparently having the image of five crosses etched in his memory, and speaks of “others (),” namely the others who were crucified with him. Their place was “two from here and from here” ( ), namely, two counting from the right and two from the left of the center, Jesus’ cross.
Two Others
The article interprets “two others, from here and from here, and Jesus in the middle” as two crucified people on either side of Jesus, but is that correct? If we look at the literal text, the NCV translation comes closest.
NCV:
where they crucified Him, and with Him two others, here and here, and Jesus in the middle.
The expression “others two” (Greek: allous duo) appears three more times in the Bible and in all other texts where it appears means “two others”; see Matt. 4:21; Matt. 25:17; Matt. 25:22.
in his place
The word rendered here in the NCV (Greek: enteuthen) is composed of the parts “in” + “his” + “place.” If we were to render the verse this way, it would read:
where they crucified Him, and with Him two others, in-his-place and in-his-place, and in the middle Jesus.
the breaking of the legs
Thus, we see John confirm that there were three crucified. We encounter this again a little further on. The Jews had asked Pilate to break the legs of the crucified, because the Sabbath was approaching and they were therefore not allowed to remain (John 19:31). By breaking the legs, the crucified could no longer rise and died sooner.
John 19
32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with Him.
33 And they came to Jesus, and seeing that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
They broke the legs of the first and of the other (singular). But they did not break Jesus’ legs. If there had been more crucified men hanging there, it should have said: they broke the legs of the first and of one of the others, but that is not the case.
The article states:
John reports that Jesus died first. The soldiers observed this when they arrived at his presence. They had already crushed the legs of two crucified men. Since we now know that the criminals were crucified first, and then the robbers, and that one man from each pair hung on the cross to the right and left of Jesus, the soldiers must have passed one robber first and then one criminal. The other criminal and the robber hung on the cross on their way past Jesus’s.
Assumption
This assumes that the soldiers walked a route together, passing two crucified men on one side of Jesus, before arriving at his presence. What happened to the other two crucified men is not mentioned. But the soldiers’ supposed route is an assumption, because why wouldn’t they have split into two groups and “worked” from the outside in, finally arriving at Jesus’s presence? This was especially true since haste was required (John 19:31).
A difference
The only apparent discrepancy we find in the Gospels is that, according to Matthew and Mark, those crucified with him reviled him (Matt. 27:44; Mark 15:32). According to Luke’s account, it was one of the other crucified who blasphemed him. The other stood up for Jesus and rebuked him (Luke 23:39-43). The most logical conclusion is that both of the crucified initially joined in the crowd and reviled Jesus, but one of them repented.
Four accounts
We have four Gospel accounts that complement each other. They are four different people who witnessed events and recorded them. Each of these writers noticed different things and recorded them in their own way. Matthew was a tax collector (Matt. 9:9) and undoubtedly well-versed in administration. Mark is known to have been a companion of Peter, but also of Paul and Barnabbas (1 Peter 5:13; Acts 12:25; 2 Timothy 4:11). Luke was a physician (Col. 4:14) and a historian (Luke 1:1-4). And John was a fisherman (Matt. 4:21).
All of them were different people with different professions and their own lives. They didn’t contradict each other, but recorded everything from their personal experiences. Wouldn’t it be strange that, if there were five crucified people, none of the four evangelists specifically mentioned this?