Good thief gone? Revolutionaries and saints rising from graves........confused.

[arkwright]

Aristotle did not write in English.

I know , but we have scholars who translate .

 

[FrDavid96]

I know , but we have scholars who translate .

Yes we do.

And the idea of using a word that means “coming around in a circle and returning to an earlier point” is a much later concept. The word was borrowed from astronomy to be used in a political context.

Not every rebellion is a revolution, because not every rebellion is an attempt to return to an earlier state.

 

[cornbread_r2]

I did not say otherwise.

I misread the context. Apologies

 

[SMHW]

Yes we do.

And the idea of using a word that means “coming around in a circle and returning to an earlier point” is a much later concept. The word was borrowed from astronomy to be used in a political context.

Not every rebellion is a revolution, because not every rebellion is an attempt to return to an earlier state.

Father David, I don’t dispute that the word revolutionary means what you say it does but I think you are in a minority.

I think that today most English speakers, when using the word to refer to a person, equate revolutionary with rebel. And when used as an adjective, I think most people understand the word to mean “new” rather than a return to a former state.

I don’t think most people even consider that the word originated with astronomy and thus should be interpreted in light of circular motion.

 

[arkwright]

Yes we do.

And the idea of using a word that means “coming around in a circle and returning to an earlier point” is a much later concept. The word was borrowed from astronomy to be used in a political context.

Not every rebellion is a revolution, because not every rebellion is an attempt to return to an earlier state.

Yes , Copernicus used the term , but he did not write in English which seems to be a problem for you .

I will leave you to play your silly game of “semantics” with everything going round in circles , and with your nonsensical notion that “revolution” did not start until it was used in the context of the American Revolution .

 

[christus_vincit]

In one sense, the word “revolution” does mean to come “full circle” back to a different form of government. But this form of government may only be “better” in the eyes of the revolutionaries.

In the case of the American Revolution - the government which was in mind to be “revolved to” was the glory days of the Roman Empire. This doesn’t necessitate that all revolutionaries are trying to “revolve to” a noble form of government, though.

 

[FrDavid96]

Father David, I don’t dispute that the word revolutionary means what you say it does but I think you are in a minority.

I think that today most English speakers, when using the word to refer to a person, equate revolutionary with rebel. And when used as an adjective, I think most people understand the word to mean “new” rather than a return to a former state.

I don’t think most people even consider that the word originated with astronomy and thus should be interpreted in light of circular motion.

Think about it this way:

How many times do we hear a sales pitch that goes something like this:
“This new product is revolutionary…” meaning it’s a good thing?

How many times do we hear something like:
“that idea is revolutionary” meaning that it’s a good idea?

If I make any of the following comments:
George Washington was a revolutionary
Thomas Jefferson was a revolutionary
Ben Franklin was a revolutionary
in 1976, we celebrated the 200th anniversary of the revolution

What sort of ideas come to your mind? Do you think of them as people you admire and want to emulate?

 

[FrDavid96]

In one sense, the word “revolution” does mean to come “full circle” back to a different form of government. But this form of government may only be “better” in the eyes of the revolutionaries.

In the case of the American Revolution - the government which was in mind to be “revolved to” was the glory days of the Roman Empire. This doesn’t necessitate that all revolutionaries are trying to “revolve to” a noble form of government, though.

But would you agree that it could mean those things? (the positive values)

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes , Copernicus used the term , but he did not write in English which seems to be a problem for you .

I will leave you to play your silly game of “semantics” with everything going round in circles , and with your nonsensical notion that “revolution” did not start until it was used in the context of the American Revolution .

If you would bother to read what I’m writing instead of just trying to make an argument for the sake of being argumentative, you might see what I’m trying to say here.

 

[ProVobis]

No but it’s one of the drawbacks of a 3-yr cycle.

In the EF, we hear Luke’s account of the Passion and the good thief on Holy Wednesday.

 

[ProVobis]

I know , but we have scholars who translate .

Still, when you have 20 such translators, you will end up with 20 different translations. How they manage to arrive at a consensus completely escapes me.

 

[SMHW]

Think about it this way:

How many times do we hear a sales pitch that goes something like this:
“This new product is revolutionary…” meaning it’s a good thing?

How many times do we hear something like:
“that idea is revolutionary” meaning that it’s a good idea?

I walked away from my computer after posting and was thinking I should have changed “new” to “new and better” so I think we agree on that point.

If I make any of the following comments:
George Washington was a revolutionary
Thomas Jefferson was a revolutionary
Ben Franklin was a revolutionary
in 1976, we celebrated the 200th anniversary of the revolution

What sort of ideas come to your mind? Do you think of them as people you admire and want to emulate?

Yes, I do admire them and I believe the United States has generally had a positive impact on the world.

However I disagree that the majority of the English speakers in 2014 put as positive a spin on the word revolutionary as you do (when it is used to refer to someone who is willing to use violent means to change a government.) In fact I think the word rebel might have an edge over* revolutionary*. Now that could all change tomorrow since English keeps evolving.

As far as the Barabas and the criminals crucified with Jesus, I think the best word today to describe one of them might be insurrectionist.

 

[FrDavid96]

I walked away from my computer after posting and was thinking I should have changed “new” to “new and better” so I think we agree on that point.

Yes, I do admire them and I believe the United States has generally had a positive impact on the world.

However I disagree that the majority of the English speakers in 2014 put as positive a spin on the word revolutionary as you do (when it is used to refer to someone who is willing to use violent means to change a government.) In fact I think the word rebel might have an edge over* revolutionary*. Now that could all change tomorrow since English keeps evolving.

As far as the Barabas and the criminals crucified with Jesus, I think the best word today to describe one of them might be insurrectionist.

You see, that’s my point. There are times when we view people whom we call “revolutionaries” as heroes. The word can be used either way.

When we look at the Gospels, it’s important for us to have a certain perspective; that being that Christ was crucified in spite of the fact that he was innocent. When the Evangelists tell us that Christ was crucified between two criminals that makes an important point. It’s not just secondary, but it’s an essential element of our entire Christian faith—an innocent man was crucified as if he were guilty of some crime.

When we use words such as “criminal” or “thief” we all agree that they deserve some kind of punishment. We can debate the issue of the death penalty and/or how severe such punishment should be, but the point is that they deserved to be punished—they were anything but innocent, and certainly not heroes.

Now, if we see the 2 criminals on either side as “revolutionaries” that changes things. A revolutionary might be a hero to one and a traitor to another. Indeed, that’s true of every revolutionary. That’s why the word choice can confuse the message of the gospel. Depending on how we feel at the moment, we might sympathize with them. We might think “Gesmas was just a freedom-fighter who was crucified along with Christ, and he did not deserve his punishment anymore than Christ did.” That makes Christ no longer an innocent victim, but just one more among many killed by an occupying Roman empire. We might be tempted to think that Gesmas bitterness at his fate was justified—one more freedom-fighter fell victim to an occupying army.

Are the two who were crucified with Christ revolutionaries like George Washington, or revolutionaries like Vladimir Lenin? Were they freedom fighters or were they criminals?

 

[arkwright]

If you would bother to read what I’m writing instead of just trying to make an argument for the sake of being argumentative, you might see what I’m trying to say here.

If you read my initial posts to what you said you should be able to see that it is not me who is being argumentative .

I addressed what you were trying to say , and one can only conclude that you are wrong if you take the English language seriously and don’t play around with words and history .

 

[Havard]

I’ll say! When I hear that word, I think Sandinistas (spelling? ) or SDSers etc. It is an inappropriate word to use and gives a political connotation to the Gospels, which is also inappropriate.

I agree that revolutionary implies a political connotation, and that revolutionaries are generally more accepted than “average criminals”.

Case in point, Che Guevara tshirts are popular among university students, whereas you don’t find many educated folks wearing shirts with Al Capone or other well-known, non-political criminals on them.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I can appreciate the difficulty in choosing an appropriate modern English word.

Given the situation, it’s very likely that they were some kind of insurrectionists, that they somehow were trying to overthrow Roman rule; at least without excluding the possibility that they were being executed for some other crime such as thievery.

The problem is that the word “revolutionary” often has a very positive connotation in American language. Therefore, that word causes confusion as we read or hear the Passion Gospel. The translation leaves us with the impression that they were innocent victims of a repressive government, and they were just as much martyrs as the Christ crucified in the middle.

It’s just one more example of the awful translations we are forced to suffer.

I’ve heard that crucifixion was only used for people who were trying to overturn the Roman Empire. That’s why Jesus was crucified, they thought he was trying to declare himself King. It was not used for thieves. More likely they would lose a hand or something.

The gospels claim that on either side of Jesus hung men who in Greek are called lestai, a word often rendered into English as “thieves” but that actually means “bandits” and was the most common Roman designation for an insurrectionist or rebel.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I’m American, but I don’t get that connotation at all.

I don’t either. In fact, when I hear the word I also think of Communists and Castro. And in the case of the American Revolution, I think of revolting against the British in order to be freed from British rule. Merriam Webster has the definition as causing a fundamental or great change.

I could be revolting against a government. I could have a revolutionary new idea. None of which implies returning to something.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’ve heard that crucifixion was only used for people who were trying to overturn the Roman Empire. That’s why Jesus was crucified, they thought he was trying to declare himself King. It was not used for thieves. More likely they would lose a hand or something.

The gospels claim that on either side of Jesus hung men who in Greek are called lestai, a word often rendered into English as “thieves” but that actually means “bandits” and was the most common Roman designation for an insurrectionist or rebel.

Crucifixion wasn’t limited to those who wanted to overthrow Rome—it was just the favored method to deal with them because it was a public display.

Isn’t a bandit a type of thief? When I hear “bandit” I think of people who hide along isolated stretches of roads waiting to rob travelers. The point is that they are objectively criminals.

As I wrote a few posts ago, I can appreciate the difficulty of translating an ancient text into modern English. What I take issue with is a word choice that causes some ambiguity as to whether or not they were deserving of some kind of punishment.

 

[CarmelJerome]

I became skeptical about the wonders of the American Revolution back in high school in the late 1970s, and probably lost a writing competition because of that skepticism. ‘Revolutionary’ ought to resound in the ears like “regicide” or “guerilla” or “terrorist” – instead my co-citizens continue the strange adulation of ‘revolutionary’ when it comes to the promiscous libertine Franklin, the slave-owning & slave-spawning Jefferson, and the pope-hating Adams.
It's curious that people who detest the current state of affairs in the U.S. fail to see that it's the inescapably logical conclusion of the idealization of the founding actions and theories. It's impossible to go by St. Paul, or by the standard teachings, even of St. Thomas regarding justification for rebellion, and get approval of the American revolution - which was really about the fourth generation revolution descending from England's revolution against the Church -- from him.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Crucifixion wasn’t limited to those who wanted to overthrow Rome—it was just the favored method to deal with them because it was a public display.

Isn’t a bandit a type of thief? When I hear “bandit” I think of people who hide along isolated stretches of roads waiting to rob travelers. The point is that they are objectively criminals.

As I wrote a few posts ago, I can appreciate the difficulty of translating an ancient text into modern English. What I take issue with is a word choice that causes some ambiguity as to whether or not they were deserving of some kind of punishment.

Why don’t you like the idea of two seditionists being crucified with Jesus? It shows how brutal the Roman Empire was. If you didn’t pay homage to the Emperor and the Roman gods, you were in big trouble, (although they did allow Jews to practice their religion). But once Christians got into the picture, they weren’t treated very nice at all! In fact, I think most of Revelation is about how horrible the Roman Empire was. In any case, all men are sinners, so whether they were thieves or seditionists, they were no doubt sinners!