Thieves or Revolutionaries - Which Were They?

[The_Wizard]

Yesterday, at Palm Sunday mass they read the Passion story and when they came to the crucifixion part I heard them say Jesus was crucified between two REVOLUTIONARIES. Let us get back to the sources documents. What was the meaning of the word use in the orginial?

 

[Barbkw]

…they came to the crucifixion part I heard them say Jesus was crucified between two REVOLUTIONARIES. Let us get back to the sources documents. What was the meaning of the word use in the orginial?

Thanks for the reminder. I heard the same thing and thought, “Barabas was the revolutionary.”

 

[patrick457]

Yesterday, at Palm Sunday mass they read the Passion story and when they came to the crucifixion part I heard them say Jesus was crucified between two REVOLUTIONARIES. Let us get back to the sources documents. What was the meaning of the word use in the orginial?

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.

 

[puzzleannie]

probably both, as the revolutionaries usually lived in roving bands outside the law and lived by thievery and other crimes as outlaws.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I’m inclined to believe they were zealots. Judas was a zealot, and I also suspect his betrayal of Christ was an attempt to force Christ’s hand. He’d seen all the miracles Christ had done, and His obvious supernatural power. He saw the way the crowd welcomed Him a week before. If anybody could get rid of the cursed Romans, Christ could. I think Judas betrayed Christ to try to force Christ to take action.

When Christ announced that there was a traitor amongst them, He even made a point that He would not be deterred from His crucifixion.

Matthew 26:23 - He answered, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!”

It’s almost as though Christ is trying a last ditch attempt to dissuade Judas from betraying Him, by emphasising the fact He will not be deterred from His self sacrificial course.

Since Barabbas would normally have been executed, and he was a revolutionary, then the chances are the other two were part of the same insurrection as Barabbas, and therefore not merely “thieves”.

 

[patrick457]

I’m inclined to believe they were zealots. Judas was a zealot, and I also suspect his betrayal of Christ was an attempt to force Christ’s hand. He’d seen all the miracles Christ had done, and His obvious supernatural power. He saw the way the crowd welcomed Him a week before. If anybody could get rid of the cursed Romans, Christ could. I think Judas betrayed Christ to try to force Christ to take action.

This is under the realm of ‘we don’t know’. The Gospels never say exactly whether Judas was a Zealot (some theorize it based on his surname ‘Iscariot’, but that’s also an area where the jury is still out), or the reason/s WHY he handed Jesus over to the authorities; they only record the fact. The scenario you give is plausible, but so too other ideas I could name off the top of my head now such as: (1) Judas was disillusioned with Jesus and His teaching and decided that enough is enough; (2) Judas was the negotiator in a prearranged prisoner exchange (after Jesus went to the Temple and drove off the money-changers) that gave Jesus to the Roman authorities by mutual agreement; or it could be as simple as (3) Judas realized that Jesus was a wanted man and tried to get out of potential trouble while he still could, all the while making a profit.

I even read of one interpretation which has Judas as a wealthy man (later revealed to be a Sadducee and a mole for the high priests in Jerusalem) - unlike most of Jesus’ peasant Galilean disciples, he is presented as hailing from Judaea - who sold Jesus off because he was tired of all the other disciples and their wild dreams and whatnot, and partly also to test Jesus’ predictions of His death and resurrection.

It even presents him as the one who got Barabbas (here the one who supports, or perhaps more correctly, uses Jesus from behind the scenes really; he NEEDS Jesus to be the Messiah because then the people will have a rallying cause to revolt against Rome) caught! Admittedly the comic as a whole has some huge problems from an orthodox Christian POV - were it to be released in say, America I could see the complaints coming - but its characterization of Judas is interesting nonetheless.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Yesterday, at Palm Sunday mass they read the Passion story and when they came to the crucifixion part I heard them say Jesus was crucified between two REVOLUTIONARIES. Let us get back to the sources documents. What was the meaning of the word use in the orginial?

While they have not been only thieves stricly speaking, revolutionaries is a little specious. Partisan marauders would be closest to the mark.

 

[bethndanny]

But this is more than just whether they were thieves or revolutionaries, more than just a translation issue. In Mathew’s account of the crucifixion the revolutionaries both abused him Mathew 27:44 -

The revolutionaries who were crucified with him also kept abusing him in the same way.

Luke’s account tells us that only one of the thieves hurled insults. Luke 39-43 -

One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

My son questioned this after mass Sunday, and I’d really like to have a good answer for him.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

But this is more than just whether they were thieves or revolutionaries, more than just a translation issue. In Mathew’s account of the crucifixion the revolutionaries both abused him Mathew 27:44 -
Luke’s account tells us that only one of the thieves hurled insults. Luke 39-43 -

My son questioned this after mass Sunday, and I’d really like to have a good answer for him.

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?

 

[bethndanny]

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.

 

[YankeeRC]

Yesterday, at Palm Sunday mass they read the Passion story and when they came to the crucifixion part I heard them say Jesus was crucified between two REVOLUTIONARIES. Let us get back to the sources documents. What was the meaning of the word use in the orginial?

Good question, I noticed as well.

And like bethdany I also wondered why in the Passion the two mocked Christ but then there was no account of one asking to be remembered “in your Kingdom” and the other being unrepentant. Why was that narrative of the “good thief and bad theif” omitted?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

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.

Ah, I must apologize. I thought we were considering if they revolutinaries or criminals and I misunderstood the scope of your concern. As for an answer, I propose the following:

Answer 1
Both men crucified with Jesus hurled insults at him. One of them may have recanted later for one of several reasons (e.g. after interacting with Jesus) and then later defended Christ. Logically, this would permit both depictions to be true and consistent with each other and not be mutually exclusive.

Answer 2
The accounts have been recalled slightly differently. It commonly happens when you eye witness accounts from different individuals. However, the moral and anagogical teachings have not changed. The authors are conveying a message of salvation. We are to learn about righteious behaviour; not to recount historical pedantics.

 

[bethndanny]

Ah, I must apologize. I thought we were considering if they revolutinaries or criminals and I misunderstood the scope of your concern. As for an answer, I propose the following:

Answer 1
Both men crucified with Jesut hurled insults as Christ. One of them may have recanted later for one of several reasons (e.g. after interacting with Jesus) and then later defended Christ. Logically, this would permit both depictions to be true and consistent with each other and not be mutually exclusive.

Answer 2
The accounts have been recalled slightly differently. It commonly happens when you eye witness accounts from different individuals. However, the moral and anagogical teachings have not change. The author is conveying a message of salvation. We are to learn about righteious behaviour; not to recount historical pedantics.

Nothing to apologize for, Soldier of God. I can accept either of your suggestions, though I do think that I prefer the first one. I do agree that there is no change in the intended message of salvation, regardless of the thief/revolutionary issue.

 

[Nelka]

Matthew 27: 38 Then two bandits were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left.

Mark 15: 27 And they crucified two bandits with him, one on his right and one on his left.

Luke 23: 33 When they reached the place called The Skull, there they crucified him and the two criminals, one on his right, the other on his left.

John 19: 18 where they crucified him with two others, one on either side, Jesus being in the middle.

 

[patrick457]

Good question, I noticed as well.

And like bethdany I also wondered why in the Passion the two mocked Christ but then there was no account of one asking to be remembered “in your Kingdom” and the other being unrepentant. Why was that narrative of the “good thief and bad theif” omitted?

Because the narrative only appears in the Gospel of Luke, for a start.

 

[NHInsider]

Good question, I noticed as well.

And like bethdany I also wondered why in the Passion the two mocked Christ but then there was no account of one asking to be remembered “in your Kingdom” and the other being unrepentant. Why was that narrative of the “good thief and bad theif” omitted?

Because it isn’t in Matthew’s account, only in Luke’s. Since neither of them were eyewitnesses (Luke was a later convert, Matthew was one of those who fled from Gethsemane) we can conclude that different accounts highlighted different details. And just like the varying accounts given by eyewitnesses to a car wreck - or a family party - it is not surprising that different people perceive and report things differently.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

This is under the realm of ‘we don’t know’. The Gospels never say exactly whether Judas was a Zealot (some theorize it based on his surname ‘Iscariot’, but that’s also an area where the jury is still out), or the reason/s WHY he handed Jesus over to the authorities; they only record the fact. The scenario you give is plausible, but so too other ideas I could name off the top of my head now such as: (1) Judas was disillusioned with Jesus and His teaching and decided that enough is enough; (2) Judas was the negotiator in a prearranged prisoner exchange (after Jesus went to the Temple and drove off the money-changers) that gave Jesus to the Roman authorities by mutual agreement; or it could be as simple as (3) Judas realized that Jesus was a wanted man and tried to get out of potential trouble while he still could, all the while making a profit.

I even read of one interpretation which has Judas as a wealthy man (later revealed to be a Sadducee and a mole for the high priests in Jerusalem) - unlike most of Jesus’ peasant Galilean disciples, he is presented as hailing from Judaea - who sold Jesus off because he was tired of all the other disciples and their wild dreams and whatnot, and partly also to test Jesus’ predictions of His death and resurrection.

It even presents him as the one who got Barabbas (here the one who supports, or perhaps more correctly, uses Jesus from behind the scenes really; he NEEDS Jesus to be the Messiah because then the people will have a rallying cause to revolt against Rome) caught! Admittedly the comic as a whole has some huge problems from an orthodox Christian POV - were it to be released in say, America I could see the complaints coming - but its characterization of Judas is interesting nonetheless.

I managed to find this reference on the web -

Judas is often identified as a Zealot, an attribute held by only one other disciple, Simon the Zealot. We know that Judas was probably a Zealot by his surname, Iscariot. Researchers believe this is a form of the title sicarii, meaning “dagger-men,” a group of ultra-Zealots who carried a knife with them at all times to be prepared to assassinate traitors and capitulators. In English, we could call him Judas the Daggerman.

 

[inkaneer]

Because it isn’t in Matthew’s account, only in Luke’s. Since neither of them were eyewitnesses (Luke was a later convert, Matthew was one of those who fled from Gethsemane) we can conclude that different accounts highlighted different details. And just like the varying accounts given by eyewitnesses to a car wreck - or a family party - it is not surprising that different people perceive and report things differently.

But this is inspired scripture. You would think the Holy Spirit would be working to keep things straight. I think the first scenario is the correct one.

 

[patrick457]

I managed to find this reference on the web -

That’s what I’m referring to when I said: “some theorize it based on his surname ‘Iscariot’, but that’s also an area where the jury is still out.” Some complain about the association between ‘Iscariot’ and ‘Sicarii’, as Josephus (who mentions them) places them in the context of the the late 50s and early 60s AD, which might imply that they began their activities somewhere in between those dates. A few also add that if Judas was a Sicarii, why did he not just assassinate Jesus by stabbing Him in a crowded place - the approved method among the band - instead of going through the trouble and contacting the authorities? (Of course, there would be those who argue here that Judas is either a creation of the Evangelists who was then retroactively inserted into the Jesus story, or that he is anachronistically given the name of a group that maybe did not exist at the time yet, but we won’t be dealing with that here. )

The etymology of Iskariṓtēs is uncertain, and aside from that, we also have:

1.) Iskariṓtēs is from Hebrew Κ-Qrîyôth ‘man of Kerioth’ (איש קריות). John refers to Judas as “son of Simon Iscariot” (6:71; 13:26), which may imply that it was not Judas, but his father, who came from there. We know of at least two places named Kerioth: one in Moab (Jeremiah 48:24, 41; Amos 2:2), and Kerioth-Hezron in the deep south of Judaea, also known as Hazor - identified by some as being identical to the modern-day Khirbet el-Qaryatein (Joshua 15:25). Those who espouse this idea often choose the Judaean Kerioth as being the possible place of Judas’/Simon’s origin. This idea may be strengthened by some manuscripts of John which read apo Karyōtou “from Karyoth” instead of Iskariṓtēs or Iskarioth.

2.) Iskariṓtēs is from Aramaic šqr’ ‘liar’ with the prosthetic aleph added for ease of pronunciation, or from ‘yš šqr’ ‘man of the lie’. The ‘man of the lie’ then is a traitor belonging to a typology similar to that of Ahitophel, the quintessential traitor who betrayed David when he was weak and weary, and who also hung himself after his plot (2 Samuel 17:23). The Targum to Psalm 55:3 translates “enemy” by “the liar” (šqr’).

3.) Iskariṓtēs is from Aramaic saqor, ‘to dye or paint red’; hence it could mean “red dyer,” perhaps a reference to a (former) occupation of dyeing, or that of his father.

There are also a few other etymologies, but this would be enough for the moment.

 

[Jennifer_G]

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.

Or maybe Mercenaries?