"And They Crucified Two Revolutionaries"

Last Sunday was Palm Sunday, with its lengthy and dramatic gospel reading.  Jesus rode on a donkey through the Gates of Jerusalem, celebrated the Last Supper, prayed in the Garden of Gesthemane, was betrayed by Judas and denied three times by Peter, was brought before Pontius Pilot, and subsequently crucified on the cross.  The priest read from the missal:

  "On the third hour, they crucified him. And the inscription bearing the charge against him was, The King of the Jews. And they crucified two revolutionaries, one on his right side and one on his left side."

Excusez-moi?  They crucified two revolutionaries?  I'd always heard these two described as robbers, which is what's written in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke in my 1962 St. Joseph's Bible.  John's gospel simply refers to two men.  No doubt some very wise and learned progressive Catholic scholars have unearthed evidence that the two men crucified on either side of Jesus were not simple thieves.  Apparently they were freedom fighters who sought to bring down the patriarchal, military/industrial complex and stick it to the Man, in order to bring social justice to the oppressed proletariats.  Ayy gevalt. Who changed the words and why?

UPDATE: OK, I was a little strident here.  It turns out there are indeed differences in translation, and the original Greek word "leisteis" could mean rebel or revolutionary or thief.  Read here at Bettnet for more discussion.  Nonetheless, it's been traditional for a very long time to portray the men on crosses on both sides of Christ as robbers or thieves.  Do the people who make these word changes realize how jarring they are to hear?  It would be appreciated if the Church would explain itself a bit more here.  Why the word changes at this point in time?  (BTW,  I'm hearing that the Catholic version of the Bible borders on abysmal.)

Comments

[Joseph Cangelosi]

I first noticed this last year and remarked to the priest at the end of Mass "What's this about revolutionaries?" He indicated a change in "translation". I continued to think of it, almost wrote a letter to Bishop Meyers (NJ) and decided against it. But I continue to speculate that it is about Capital Punishment. If you want to change Catholic sentiment against Cap. Pun., you can't have a Gospel reading where the "good thief" says to the "bad thief", "we deserved our fate", but Christ was innocent.

I can't think of another reason that makes sense. By now we should have the aramaic, hebrew, and roman dictionaries down pat.

[Janjan]

Well, aparently Barrabas was an anti Roman agitator, so "revolutionary" might not be too hard a stretch.

[misskelly]

Except that Barrabas wasn't one of the people crucified next to Christ. Barrabas was let go. But yes, given the situation in Jerusalem, the Romans were no doubt quite concerned with those who were against Roman rule.

[Domenico Bettinelli Jr.]

The original Greek word used in that verse is "lestoi" which can mean either "thief" or "revolutionary." It is used in both senses in ancient Greek writings. Mark 15:7 uses a derivation of the word to refer to Barabbas as a revolutionary.

I guess the translators of the New American Bible decided to use "revolutionary" instead of the more traditional image of the two crucified thieves. Incidentally, the Revised Standard Version uses "robber".

[Joe Sherlock]

Hi .

I just wanted to let you know that you've been quoted in the Wednesday (4/11/06) edition of my blog, 'The View Through The Windshield.'

I hope you enjoy my blog and visit it often. If you do, tell your friends.

Thanks.

Joe Sherlock
'The View Through The Windshield'
http://www.joesherlock.com/blog.html

PS - I enjoy your writing.

[Phyllis Roberson Schott]

Just wondered if you happen to be the Joe Cangelosi who grew up in Baltimore, MD and attended City College. I attended Eastern High right nearby, and was thinking about all the goings-on during h.s. with girls plotting against other girls. Please write back if you are or know the Joe C. that I am talking about.
Thanks.