Thief on the cross

Theognome · #1 (**permalink**) 02-05-2009, 09:42 PM

Matthew 27:38 translates Lestes (I don't have a Greek 'font' on my confuser) as robbers. Luke 23 used Kakourgos translated as malefactor. Is the Matthew translation less accurate? Robbery (or thievery) was not a capital crime in ancient Rome, so I have doubts that robber is the best translation of the term. Can any Greek scholars give some clarity?

Theognome

Davidius · #2 (**permalink**) 02-05-2009, 10:15 PM

Yes, λῃστής means robber, and it does not seem to have a vast semantic range: robber, plunderer, pirate, etc. In the Oedipus Rex, Sophocles uses the word to describe the alleged robbers/highwaymen/brigands who slew King Laios.

As in the Oedipus Rex, the word may entail more than just theft. The "robbers" in the play killed King Laios along with all of his attendants, so keep in mind that the robbers likely committed murder as a means to obtaining loot.

Theognome · #3 (**permalink**) 02-05-2009, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

Yes, λῃστής means robber, and it does not seem to have a vast semantic range: robber, plunderer, pirate, etc. In the Oedipus Rex, Sophocles uses the word to describe the alleged robbers/highwaymen/brigands who slew King Laios.

As in the Oedipus Rex, the word may entail more than just theft. The "robbers" in the play killed King Laios along with all of his attendants, so keep in mind that the robbers likely committed murder as a means to obtaining loot.

Ah. Could the term be used to describe a rebel or insurrectionist? It would seem logical that if Barabbas was to be crucified for leading a rebellion, some of his followers would have been due for the tree at the same time.

Theognome

Davidius · #4 (**permalink**) 02-05-2009, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theognome

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

Yes, λῃστής means robber, and it does not seem to have a vast semantic range: robber, plunderer, pirate, etc. In the Oedipus Rex, Sophocles uses the word to describe the alleged robbers/highwaymen/brigands who slew King Laios.

As in the Oedipus Rex, the word may entail more than just theft. The "robbers" in the play killed King Laios along with all of his attendants, so keep in mind that the robbers likely committed murder as a means to obtaining loot.

Ah. Could the term be used to describe a rebel or insurrectionist? It would seem logical that if Barabbas was to be crucified for leading a rebellion, some of his followers would have been due for the tree at the same time.

Theognome

From a purely lexical standpoint, I believe that such a hypothesis would be highly speculative. On the other hand, I only have the Intermediate Liddell & Scott on hand, which is not as exhaustive as the big L&S. If you want, I can check the entry tomorrow between classes.

Theognome · #5 (**permalink**) 02-05-2009, 10:30 PM

That would be hyper-kewl. Thankye!

Theognome

Wannabee · #6 (**permalink**) 02-05-2009, 11:34 PM

As for cutting and pasting, I can do that and have it right here.

Apparently this includes every use of λῃστής in the NT.

Quote:

B. λῃστής in the NT.
1. In 2 C. 11:26 Paul mentions κίνδυνοι λῃστῶν among the many perils to which he was exposed in the discharge of his apostolic office. Here λῃστής bears the ordinary sense attaching to it in antiquity (→ 257 f.). Paul is thinking of the bandits who in their thirst for the goods of others lie in wait for the traveller in lonely places.
2. In Mt. 21:13 and par. Jesus, when He cleanses the temple, raises against the priestly aristocracy responsible for its holiness20 the charge that they have made that which God appointed an οἶκος προσευχῆς (Is. 56:7)21 into a σπήλαιον λῃστῶν, a den to which robbers can return as needed and in which they have an indispensable retreat. The meaning may best be seen from the corresponding statement in Jn. 2:16: οἶκος ἐμπορίου. His anger is directed against the linking of divine worship and trade, which, in connection with the priestly aristocracy, He saw before Him in the buying and selling of sacrificial animals in the forecourt of the temple, and in such a form that the temple and its cult were made to serve the ends of personal enrichment and the satisfaction of cupidity. In terms of its basic meaning (→ 257) λῃστής is here the right word for those who are censured. With the use of the phrase σπήλαιον λῃστῶν Jesus also quotes from Jer. 7:1122 and thus sets the temple and the priests under the declaration of judgment pronounced therein. Where the worship of God amounts to no more than ceremonial it not only will not prevent God’s judgment but will bring it on (Jer. 7:8 ff.).
3. In Lk. 10:30, 36 the λῃσταί could well be bandits (→ 257 f.), but they do not have to be. Since the Zealots had to sustain themselves as well as seeking to overthrow their enemies, it is quite possible that they are the λῃσταί of the story. Perhaps it is significant that the man who fell among thieves suffered injury to property and person, but did not lose his life. The parable makes it apparent that he was a Jew. We know that the Zealots took no more from their own countrymen than was necessary, unless there were other reasons (treachery etc.) for more extreme measures.23 If the man in the story suffered physical hurt, it would be because he resisted. Since the Pharisees continually tried to get Jesus to adopt a clear practical attitude to the Zealot movement, cf. Mt. 22:15 ff. and par., it could well be that in His answer to the scribe’s question about one’s neighbour Jesus intentionally tells this story of the man who fell among λῃσταί, and of his experiences, in order to express the fact that He does not sanction the way in which the Zealots think they serve God.24
4. Similarly, λῃστής in the parable of the Good Shepherd in Jn. 10:1 ff. may bear this meaning, though it is accompanied by a κλέπτης and could very well be taken literally in the context of the imagery, v. 1, 8. The λῃσταί here are all those, including the Zealots, who try to bring in God’s kingdom without regard to the person of Jesus and His divine approval, and who thus bring the community into danger of error and destruction. The material par. in the Synoptic Gospels is to be found in Mt. 24:4 ff. and par.25
This interpretation is suggested by the Palestinian usage (Joseph., the Rabb.), which is repeated in the Gospels (with the exception of the quotation in Mt. 21:13 and par.). Yet there are also signs that the figure behind the Johannine writings had connections with Zelotism.26 If so, it is understandable that he should preserve, in this form, a saying in which Jesus repudiates the movement.
5. There is an unmistakable reference of λῃστής to Messianism in Mt. 26:55 and par. in the saying of Jesus to His captors: ὡς ἐπὶ ληστὴν ἐξήλθατε μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων συλλαβεῖν με. “He who rejects the royal claim of Jesus ranks Him with the leaders of Zealot bands.”27 While this action takes place at the instigation of Jewish leaders,28 it is done through the Roman procurator. The setting is the Passover, the day for remembering the constitution of the people and the attainment of national freedom by the exodus from Egypt. The procurator actually allows the people to choose between the freedom fighter Barabbas and Jesus (Mt. 27:15 ff. and par.; Jn. 18:39 f.). The implied attempt to include Jesus in the Zealot movement and to stamp Him as a Zealot leader is given emphasis in the texts by the description of Barabbas as a λῃστής in Jn. 18:40, a στασιαστής (→ n. 10) in Mk. 15:7 (cf. Lk. 23:19), and a δέσμιος ἐπίσημος in Mt. 27:16.
The text gives us some reason to suppose29 that the first name of Barabbas30 was also Jesus, and that this was intentionally suppressed. It was a sorry jest on the part of Pilate that he allowed the people to choose between Jesus Barabbas and Jesus, the son of Joseph, of Nazareth, both being presented as men of the same stamp, i.e., Zealot leaders. It is true that in the present form of the texts Barabbas is not expressly called a Zealot leader. Yet some versions of Jn. 18:40 call him ἀρχιλῃστής, i.e., princeps latronum, instead of λῃστής.31 If the ἐπίσημος of Mt. 27:16 means leader on the model of Jos. Bell., 2, 585,32 we have a clear description of Barabbas as a leading Zealot, but this is not an assured interpretation.
When Jesus was crucified, and was thus punished as a political rebel against Rome, two others condemned as λῃσταί suffered with Him (Mt. 27:38 ff. and par.). The title on the cross marked Him as one of them, and indeed as one who aimed at the crown, as more or less all Zealot leaders had done from the time of the first Judas (→ 258, Mt. 27:37 and par.). His crucifixion as a λῃστής was at the request of His own people (Mt. 27:21 ff.), which decided against His Messiahism and in favour of that of the Zealots, and which thus elected war against Rome and its own crucifixion33 instead of the peace which the Messiah of God brings (cf. Lk. 19:42 with 19:38 and 2:14; → Χριστός). How far this decision affected the judgment of Judaism on Him is nowhere more clearly seen than when Celsus calls Jesus a λῃστής and thus seeks to dismiss Him as a false Messiah.34
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vols. 5-9 Edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 Compiled by Ronald Pitkin., ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976), 4:260-262.

This might be helpful as well.

Quote:

3027. λῃστής lēsté̄s; gen. lēstoú, masc. noun from leı̈́zomai (n.f.), to plunder. A robber, one depriving another of his property openly and by violence (Matt. 21:13; 26:55; 27:38, 44; Mark 11:17; 14:48; 15:27; Luke 10:30, 36; 19:46; 22:52; John 10:1; 18:40; 2 Cor. 11:26; Sept.: Jer. 7:11); metaphorically (John 10:8). The lēsté̄s, as in the case of the penitent one on a cross near Jesus, may have been a person who turned insurgent for some presumed righteous cause, thus seeking by the wrath of man to work out what he presumes to be God’s righteousness.
The difference between a lēsté̄s, commonly translated “robber” and kléptēs is that the latter does his work in a secret manner so that he may not be discovered. Violence is the characteristic of a lēsté̄s while stealth is the characteristic of the kléptēs. Judas was a thief (kléptēs [John 12:6]) doing no violence to anyone. He stole secretly. Barabbas was a robber (lēsté̄s [John 18:40 {cf. Mark 15:7}]). Palestine was infested by robbers to whom its walks and caves afforded a great deal of cover and shelter (cf. Judg. 9:25; Hos. 6:9; 7:1), hence, the expression “den of robbers” (Jer. 7:11; Matt. 21:13). The temple became a haunt of robbers. The dealers in the temple market were notorious for their extortion, but it gave them fancied security in their evildoing. It is probable that some of these robbers were really zealots in rebellion against the authority of Rome, so that there was an element of misplaced patriotism and even religion in their proceedings. Josephus identified robbers with zealots.
Syn.: kakoúrgos (2557), an evil worker, malefactor; kakopoiós (2555), an evil doer; hierósulos (2417), a robber of temples; kléptēs (2812), thief.
Ant.: agathopoiós (17), a benefactor; euergétēs (2110), one who does a good work.

Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary : New Testament, electronic ed. (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000, c1992, c1993), G3027.

Whitefield · #7 (**permalink**) 02-06-2009, 12:01 AM

I found this in Kittel in reference to λῃστής

Quote:

2. In Josephus it is constantly used for the Zealots who, along with those who help, accept or merely tolerate them, make armed conflict against Roman rule the content of their life, and are prepared to risk everything, even life itself, to achieve national liberty. The movement as such was called into being at the time of the tax evaluation under Quirinius. Under a certain Judas of Galilee it was a protest against the dominion of Rome thereby manifested, Ant. , 18, 4 ff. ; Bell. , 2, 117 f. But it had a prior history, as Josephus himself tells us. For the Hezekiah whom Herod, soon after the beginning of his reign, arrested and executed along with his companions through Phasael (cf. Ant. , 14, 158 ff. , Bell. , 1, 204 f. ), is called ἀρχιλῃστής by Joseph. (Ant. , 14, 159 ; 17, 271 ; Bell. , 1, 204 ), while his companions are λῃσται and their company is a λῃστηριον or robber band ( Ant. , 14, 159 f. ). Since no record is given of him, there is at least the possibility that Hezekiah was not a bandit but a political revolutionary, perhaps with Messianic aims.

This use by Josephus might help us understand Mark 15:7 better.