Thieves or Revolutionaries - Which Were They?

[TMC]

I think that today we would call them “terrorists” if we disagreed with their cause and “freedom fighters” if we agreed with their cause.

 

[TMC]

I have a couple of questions. Why does it matter if they are revolutionaries, criminals or otherwise? Many people were crucified, some of them were righteious and some of them were deplorable as human beings. Does it change the anagogical and moral teachings of the passages?

I think it matters. I think the reason the evangelists are pointing out that Jesus was crucified among those that were trying to change the earthly government of Israel is that it parallels the reason that Jesus was also crucified - because he was trying to change the spiritual governance of Israel and all mankind.

The revolutionaries were likely Zealots that believed that getting rid of Rome and instituting a Jewish government would bring God’s people back to God. Jesus taught us, and showed us, that the change that needed to be made then (and needs to be made by each of us today) is more basic. He was trying to bring all God’s people back to God with a spiritual revolution of the heart and mind, rather than a secular and worldly revolution of governments. His crucifixion among worldly revoluntaries points out both the parallels and the differences between their efforts.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I think that today we would call them “terrorists” if we disagreed with their cause and “freedom fighters” if we agreed with their cause.

I would have to agree with this statement.

 

[majcram]

I am new to Catholicism and was a bit surprised to hear the two men crucified with Christ as revolutionaries. So, I decided to do a little amateur research. I went to the oldest known complete bible, the Codex Sinaiticus, to see what was actually written (Greek). Matthew 27:38, according to the Sinaiticus, refers to the men as “Robbers”. I suppose it is possible that these men were stealing from Romans, especially Roman soldiers which would have made their crimes worthy of death. The Caesar would have wanted to make examples of men who would dare steal from his legion.

 

[patrick457]

I am new to Catholicism and was a bit surprised to hear the two men crucified with Christ as revolutionaries. So, I decided to do a little amateur research. I went to the oldest known complete bible, the Codex Sinaiticus, to see what was actually written (Greek). Matthew 27:38, according to the Sinaiticus, refers to the men as “Robbers”. I suppose it is possible that these men were stealing from Romans, especially Roman soldiers which would have made their crimes worthy of death. The Caesar would have wanted to make examples of men who would dare steal from his legion.

Welcome to CAF!

Actually, there’s no difference between the various texts in Greek at this point. To quote myself (sorry about that):

The word Matthew and Mark used was lēstai, the same word John uses of Barabbas in his Gospel (lēstēs, 18:40). Lēstēs comes from a root meaning “to win,” “to seize;” hence it properly means “one who seizes prey.” In antiquity, it meant a soldier or mercenary who has an implicit right to booty (Jeremiah 18:22 Septuagint). But it usually has a bad sense, e.g. for undisciplined troops, then for robbers, bandits, etc., with an implied use of force.

While it could mean “thieves” as we traditionally translate the word, the Greek word - as it is used in the Septuagint, the New Testament, and even Josephus, who uses the term to describe the Zealots - specifically meant people who killed and destroyed while plundering, not simply those who stole without violence - which would be called kleptes (i.e. ‘kleptomaniac’). Within the context, Rome would not have wasted its energies crucifying petty thieves, only those who are actively engaged in insurrection (cf. Barabbas). The idea comes close to “seditionists”, those who foment resistance against the established order, and who would not shirk from preying on the common population in self-support.

Barabbas, according to Mark, was a man who committed murder " in the insurrection" (stasis).

 

[Contarini]

But this is inspired scripture. You would think the Holy Spirit would be working to keep things straight.

Maybe I would have at one time, but the illusion vanished a long time ago.

It seems pretty clear to me from the Bible that the Holy Spirit is not interested in “keeping things straight.” Perhaps that is just an odd obsession of ours

Edwin

 

[inkaneer]

Maybe I would have at one time, but the illusion vanished a long time ago.

It seems pretty clear to me from the Bible that the Holy Spirit is not interested in “keeping things straight.” Perhaps that is just an odd obsession of ours

Edwin

Sort of takes the air out of the sola scriptura balloon doesn’t it? I mean if the Holy Spirit is “not interested in ‘keeping things straight’” then how can anyone say that Sripture is the only authority or even the final authority?

 

[majcram]

To say that the Romans would not bother themselves to crucify petty thieves might be too broad an assumption to make. The fact is that Rome often crucified robbers, especially while outside of Rome. Consider this, the use of the term λῃσταῖς (lēstais) which is robbers used in Luke 10:30 where Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan. Were these robbers also revolutionaries? Also, notice that Jesus implied that these robbers were also potential murderers because they left the victim for dead. Yet, the Lord did not refer to them as murderers, only robbers.
I realize that you are framing this argument largely on the basis of discerning what the Romans and Pilate would have done, but also consider that in those days there was rampant thievery. Jews were pressed by the Romans under a very burdensome system of taxation. The Romans primary purpose for crucifiction was to completely shame the offender and to dissuade any future offenders who might consider committing similar crimes. Crucifiction was not a punishment reserved only for certain high crimes, nor was it reserved only for men. Women were sometimes crucified as well. History tells us that only Roman citizens, especially those of higher class, would be spared the cross. There were exceptions, but this was the norm.
Crucifiction was often handled very differently outside the boundaries of Rome. Crucifictions were sometimes performed as a means of uplifting the morale among Roman soldiers.

Pilate was not particularly loved by the Jews. He had to maintain the proper balance between being feared by the Jews, and being seen as competent by Rome. Suppressing sedition would have been high on Pilates to-do list. This would certainly appease Rome. Pilate would also have to please the Jews, especially wealthy merchants who carried their bounty over well traveled roads exposed to robbers who lie in ambush. This menace would not have been suffered for long.

Perhaps I am too much a stickler for biblical accuracy?

 

[patrick457]

To say that the Romans would not bother themselves to crucify petty thieves might be too broad an assumption to make. The fact is that Rome often crucified robbers, especially while outside of Rome. Consider this, the use of the term λῃσταῖς (lēstais) which is robbers used in Luke 10:30 where Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan. Were these robbers also revolutionaries? Also, notice that Jesus implied that these robbers were also potential murderers because they left the victim for dead. Yet, the Lord did not refer to them as murderers, only robbers.

That’s exactly the point! “Bandits” or “marauders” would also be a nice term.

I realize that you are framing this argument largely on the basis of discerning what the Romans and Pilate would have done, but also consider that in those days there was rampant thievery. Jews were pressed by the Romans under a very burdensome system of taxation. The Romans primary purpose for crucifiction was to completely shame the offender and to dissuade any future offenders who might consider committing similar crimes. Crucifiction was not a punishment reserved only for certain high crimes, nor was it reserved only for men. Women were sometimes crucified as well. History tells us that only Roman citizens, especially those of higher class, would be spared the cross. There were exceptions, but this was the norm.
Crucifiction was often handled very differently outside the boundaries of Rome. Crucifictions were sometimes performed as a means of uplifting the morale among Roman soldiers.

Yes. It was one of Rome’s effective propaganda methods; so effective, that crucifixion was something you’d never bring up in a polite conversation. And yes, the Romans did also crucify women from time to time.

Whoever will want to exact punishment on a male or female slave at private expense, as he [the owner] who wants the [punishment] to be inflicted, he [the contractor] exacts the punishment in in this manner: if he wants [him] to bring the patibulum to the cross, the contractor will have to provide wooden posts, chains and cords for the floggers and the floggers themselves. And anyone who will want to exact punishment will have to give four sesterces for each of the workers who bring the patibulum and for the floggers and also for the executioner.

Pilate was not particularly loved by the Jews. He had to maintain the proper balance between being feared by the Jews, and being seen as competent by Rome. Suppressing sedition would have been high on Pilates to-do list. This would certainly appease Rome. Pilate would also have to please the Jews, especially wealthy merchants who carried their bounty over well traveled roads exposed to robbers who lie in ambush. This menace would not have been suffered for long.

This is true. You must remember though that the popular image of Romans perpetually patrolling the streets and bullying the local populace is at best, inaccurate for the period. The Roman prefects (after AD 41, procurators) and most of the auxiliaries under their control were for most of the year in the capital of Caesarea Maritima with other gentiles, far away from the sight of the Jews. Local magistrates - such as the high priest and his council - ran daily internal affairs for them and were held to be the responsible officials. The prefect only showed up in public during certain seasons such as Passover when there was a particular potential for unrest.

Perhaps I am too much a stickler for biblical accuracy?

Good for you then.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: Judas, most of the evangelists are pretty silent on the point, but Matthew points out throughout his Gospel that Judas was both holding the money bag and embezzling from it, and that most of his negative outbursts were about money. As the former tax collector, he was the one most likely to have noticed this, and he certainly wanted the record to be clear.

Now, it’s possible that Judas had other reasons besides covering up his embezzlement. But “follow the money” is a pretty good rule, even in the Bible.

Re: bandits, it’s a lot like Robin Hood’s outlaws. People who were against the government or in trouble with it, and people who were in favor of breaking the law, tended to end up in the same band of bandits. Crime can be a great way to finance revolution and terrorism, which is why terrorist and revolutionary groups used to pull a lot of bank jobs and kidnappings for ransom back in the Seventies.

 

[maryj]

I think it matters. I think the reason the evangelists are pointing out that Jesus was crucified among those that were trying to change the earthly government of Israel is that it parallels the reason that Jesus was also crucified - because he was trying to change the spiritual governance of Israel and all mankind.

The revolutionaries were likely Zealots that believed that getting rid of Rome and instituting a Jewish government would bring God’s people back to God. Jesus taught us, and showed us, that the change that needed to be made then (and needs to be made by each of us today) is more basic. He was trying to bring all God’s people back to God with a spiritual revolution of the heart and mind, rather than a secular and worldly revolution of governments. His crucifixion among worldly revoluntaries points out both the parallels and the differences between their efforts.

I’ve also read that Barrabas was thought of by this group to be a “Messiah”

 

[patrick457]

Re: Judas, most of the evangelists are pretty silent on the point, but Matthew points out throughout his Gospel that Judas was both holding the money bag and embezzling from it, and that most of his negative outbursts were about money. As the former tax collector, he was the one most likely to have noticed this, and he certainly wanted the record to be clear.

I think you meant John’s Gospel.

Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table. Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” **He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.** Jesus said, “Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my burial. For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”

===

After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus’ side, so Simon Peter motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking. So that disciple, leaning back against Jesus, said to him, “Lord, who is it?” Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.” Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the poor. So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night.

(John 12:1-8; 13:21-30 ESV)

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I read somewhere that crucifixion was reserved for either those who challenged the imperial rule of Rome violently or nonviolently, or for chronically defiant slaves. Therefore, the men Jesus was between must have been revolutionaries or zealots, not theives.

Jesus himself was a non-violent revolutionary, but only in the sense that he challenged the Roman way of: violence leads to victory which leads to peace, with: non-violence leads to God’s justice which leads to peace (true peace).

 

[majcram]

I know it seems that I terribly belabor this point, but I think there is a much larger implication at work. Perhaps the best indicator of who these two men were lies in their own words.

Luke 23:39-41, "One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!” 40* But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 “And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

Particularly notice what the one robber said in rebuke to the other robber, “…And we indeed are suffering justly.” If these men were revolutionaries would they believe they were suffering justly for their acts of rebellion? Our experience with modern day terrorists teaches us that even they tend to be unrepentant for their actions. In fact, they refer to themselves as martyrs.

Listen, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Peace and love to all of you. I am only saying that we must resist the urge to amend the scriptures for the purpose making certain theological arguments. His word is sufficient, alone. Once we begin making little changes here and there it is quite possible to cause unforeseen error among the faithful.

I understand the idea that these robbers actually being revolutionaries makes for a tidy illustration of the Jews struggle against evil by their own might and their true salvation coming from the hand of God. I just don’t think we need to rewrite scripture to illustrate that point.

I have to get to work now so I don’t have time to write much more. Let me end by saying this. As you know, in those days the crime of thievery was not considered to be as severe as being a robber. Thieves committed petty crimes for the most part, done sporadically and usually driven by an immediate need like hunger, or thirst. Of course there were thieves for whom the act was a symptom of some underlying psychological problem. They would hardly be crucified for stealing bread.

However, a robbers fate would have been much different. A robber is to a thief what a member of the mafia is to the actress who nabs a handbag from Macy’s. Robbers quite often left their victims for dead if they did not kill them outright. Both acts are crimes, but the latter much more severe.

Again, I believe we must resist the urge to think we know better than the scribes and elders of antiquity. Leave it unleavened. It is sufficient for our salvation.

Peace

 

[majcram]

After doing a bit more research, I found that this new interpretation of Matthew 27:38 was done by the United States Catholic Conference of Cardinals, not the Holy See. I did not know this going in. Therefore, I think we will be using the See’s version of the Holy Scriptures, the Vulgate (English Translation) from now on. I am Catholic and shall always remain.

Could you please mention the Vulgate to other members of this site who might not be comfortable with the USCCB’s new interpretation?

 

[TMC]

I’ve also read that Barrabas was thought of by this group to be a “Messiah”

That is how the Pope explains it in his book on Jesus - Barrabas was a violent revolutionary who many viewed in messianic terms - his’ name even means “Son of the Father” (bar Abbas). Thus the crowd’s choice of Barrabas over Christ was actually a choice for violent and wordly revolution over non-violent and spiritual revolution.

 

[patrick457]

After doing a bit more research, I found that this new interpretation of Matthew 27:38 was done by the United States Catholic Conference of Cardinals, not the Holy See. I did not know this going in.

Just one correction: it’s not really ‘new’, and it’s not limited to the USCCB.

Therefore, I think we will be using the See’s version of the Holy Scriptures, the Vulgate (English Translation) from now on. I am Catholic and shall always remain.

Note: the Vulgate is the translation of the Scriptures in Latin. I should note that the Holy See actually has the NAB up on its website.

 

[majcram]

Just one correction: it’s not really ‘new’, and it’s not limited to the USCCB.

Note: the Vulgate is the translation of the Scriptures in Latin. I should note that the Holy See actually has the NAB up on its website.

Thank you for pointing this out. I am now more informed than I was. Sincerely, thank you.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Soldier of God, to ME it doesn’t matter whether they were thieves, revolutionaries, or whatever. Of bigger concern to me is what I mentioned, whether it was one or both that hurled insults. Isn’t the repentance of the thief in Luke’s account one way we explain the baptism of desire? Nothing will shake my trust in God, faith in Jesus Christ, or belief in the Church He established, but I sure would love a way to explain this to my 9 year old.

Both ‘thieves’ mocked Jesus. However, Disma the good thief was touched by grace and told the unrepentant thief Jesta to shut up. That is basically my understanding of it. It is also a tradition supported by the Synoptic Gospels.