Miss Kelly was taken aback by yesterday’s Gospel referring to the two men crucified alongside Christ as “revolutionaries.” We’re used to seeing them called the Good Thief and the Bad Thief and in fact, the Revised Standard Version translation of this Gospel (Mark 15:27) calls them “robbers”. So Miss Kelly asks why does the New American Bible translation, which is used as the basis for the lectionary at Mass, call them revolutionaries.
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 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?
The original Greek word used in that verse is “leisteis” (Nestle-Aland; NTG 26th) which can mean either “thief” or “revolutionary,” according to my copy of Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon, 2nd edition. Bauer’s attests that it is used in both senses in ancient Greek writings and throughout the New Testament and Old Testament Septuagint. 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. Why did they do so? That’s another question, but at least in this case its use is supported both by the Greek text and the contextual tradition.
Technorati Tags: koine, New Testament, translation
I had the same moment of eye-rolling when I was first going over the Narrator part for the Mass.
My Greek/Latin version is not at hand, but is it also ‘leisteis’ in both 15:7 and Mark 15:27 (which describes the two theives)? Or did they use different terms?
The Vulgate Mark 15:27 has “duos latrones”, which is translated as two ‘robber, brigand, bandit, pluderer’. Mark 15:7 makes reference to Barabbas making a murder ‘in seditione’, which is in ‘sedition, riot, strife, rebellion’.
My objection is similar, but less strident, in that I thought the Vulgate is considered to be normative among Catholics (especially in a coin-flip sort of situation like this), and changing it seems to have been arbitrary from that perspective. I feel the same way about a lot of the NAB.
As I said in my post above 15:7 and 15:27 use the same word.
Regardless of the multiplicity of interpretations possible for the word leisteis, the change in the lectionary is wrongheaded for one very significant reason: tradition.
The word “thief” and “thieves” has been part of our collective Christian (not just Catholic) patrimony for two thousand years. This is not just something to sweep away cavalierly.
There is, I’ll agree, an interest in properly translating Sacred Scripture; it is the inspired Word of God, and we should seek to understand it as fully as is possible.
However, there is also a compelling liturgical interest at stake here, and that is the need for believers not to be unnecessarily jarred during a ritual action of the Church.
Had this been a case of a critically important word having been mistranslated for centuries (say, for example, Jesus’ word “It is finished” as opposed to “It is completed,” a case could be made for introducing the change into the liturgy (as opposed to the translation of the Bible). But a relatively inconsequential term, such as the descriptive of the crime of those crucified beside Him, introduced into the liturgy only creates cognitive dissonance, without the concomitant benefit of critically changing the understanding of the faithful.
It seems to me, as an observer, that this sort of “update” serves only to demonstrate the linguistic skill of the translator without regard to the overall good of the full and active participation in the liturgy so desired by the fathers of Vatican II.
Fr. J. Clark writes,
“Regardless of the multiplicity of interpretations possible for the word leisteis, the change in the lectionary is wrongheaded for one very significant reason: tradition.
The word ‘thief’ and ‘thieves’ has been part of our collective Christian (not just Catholic) patrimony for two thousand years. This is not just something to sweep away cavalierly.”
With all due respect to Father, I don’t believe that he has evidence that the concept of “thief/theives” is part of Apostolic Tradition for 2,000 years. Rather, there may just be a (little-t) tradition, based on the Vulgate’s “latrones.” That could have been an accidental mistranslation of the Greek, or that word could also have meant “rebels” to some speakers of Latin. [We may never know.]
I see that the revised NT of the NAB has this:
v7 A man called Barabbas was then in prison along with the rebels who had committed murder in a rebellion.
v27 With [Jesus] they crucified two revolutionaries, one on his right and one on his left.
These two verses go together well. I have always also found persuasive the argument of unlikelihood—i.e., that mere “thieves” would have been crucified, rather than punished less severely.
God be with you.
The abridgements they use in Mass are all messed up. Catholics rarely notice it because Catholics rarely read scripture.
They grate on my nerves because I remember the KJV I grew up with, and before you jump down my throat, you need to know I’m a Catholic now and I love the Church. But you guys have translation problems, big time.
It seems your translators know neither English nor biblical languages very well. I’d have expected better.
BTW, they left several important parts completely out—ie “Remember me, Lord, when you come into your kingdom,” and to John, “Behold, your mother.” For starters.
Most of the “last words” were also completely omitted with no explanation. That wasn’t scripture; that was a 2nd grade book report.
There was also an extra thing in there about women following Jesus around during his life and serving, whatever that means.
Are you noticing. like I am, that this thing morphs from year to year??
michigancatholic—it “morphs” from year to year because of the cycle of readings. We are in year B, which means that Mark is primary Gospel used—and Mark’s Gospel does not match up exactly with the Matthew, Luke, or John. The Church doesn’t conflate the texts of the Gospels in the liturgy.
This is just a sub-optimal translation. The actual word used means robber – in the sense of someone who plunders – not in the sense of someone who sneaks around thieving. The word is used to mean thieves about a bazillion times in the Gospels. It simply does not mean “revolutionary”. Revolution – “stasis- uprising” is a totally different word. Lots of uprisings were lead by plunderers.
And there is an very unsavoury Marxist tast to the word “revolutionary”- why not say rebel?
Click and see: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1144726250-3779.html
I’m sure the Blue Letter Bible is fine, butI assure you that Bauer’s is a very authoritative source and both “thief” and “rebel, revolutionary, etc.” are equally valid usage. If you’d like I could offer you the citations for the usage from Bauer, although you’d probably have to find a good college library to look them all up in.
The Internet is all well and good as a resource, but in very technical areas the web sites are often still not as good as the textbooks yet.
As to whether the NAB translators should have used thief or revolutionary, it’s interesting to note that they didn’t change it from thief in the other Synoptics.
Oh and MichiganCatholic,
They didn’t leave anything out. The Gospel of Mark, which is what we used this year, doesn’t include any of those verses.
I don’t mind the word “revolutionary” here. After all, both revolutionaries were crucified. The good one admits that it was just that they were killed, and repents, converts to Christianity and is saved. But the bad one attacks Christ and suffers even more. There is no salvation through politics alone.
Did Che Guevara repent and embrace Christ before he died? There is no evidence that he did. If anything, I would expect this part of the NAB to be criticized as anti-Communist.
Dom,
I cannot wait until we start seeing the cleansing of the temple in this new light:
“And he said to them, “It is written: ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a den of revolutionaries”. – Mt 21:13.
Pretty relavent today he he he…..
MS
I’ll be honest with you all. I’m a pretty lousy catholic, which is pretty bad since I’m a convert and really want to be a good catholic.
But I’ll tell you what. I’ve learned to edit out about 80% of what I hear in favor of prayer and the Catechism, because I’ve had so much crap foisted on me in the name of ICEL or whatever the pc de jour is. I’m pc’d out.
I’ve been witness to more liturgical abuses and outrages than I’d ever thought could exist. I’ve laughed and cried at the same time, it’s been so bad and stupid. I’ve spent too much time standing on the front lawns of Catholic churches in disgust and astonishment. Ever have one of those “run out and look at the sign” moments?
I go to Mass to go to Mass and receive the Eucharist which the priest, the sqawking liturgist and ICEL almost certainly can’t mess up, no matter how hard they try.
And when the readings start I remember the beautiful translations of my protestant childhood and recall those instead to hear the word of God. So shoot me.
Your NAB is a sad translation-rejected even by the Vatican. (See adoremus.org if you don’t believe me.) It sounds like an elementary school reader. And if that isn’t bad enough, ICEL changes it to make it “proclaimable.” So what you hear isn’t even the NAB, not even in 3 versions. It’s not all there, and it’s transmogrified at that.
Yes, I know we use an ABC cycle. I”ve never compared A, B or C, of course, from the book of mass readings. If I want to hear scripture, I go get a real bible.
I certainly hope Benedict XVI puts some reverence and order into the Mass. We need decent, reliable translations, as well and it would be nice if they didn’t sound like grade school workbooks. They don’t have to. Scripture is beautiful.
Hey Michigan – you think it is bad now – you should have been with us in the 1970’s….
This is what Pope Benedict XVI says in his book: On the Way to Jesus Christ (Ignatius, 2005, p.96-97)
“On the climax of the trial, Pilate has the people choose between Jesus and Barabbas. One of the two will be set free. But who was Barabbas? Usually we think only of the formulation found in the Gospel of John: ‘Now Barabbas was a robber’(John 18:40). But the greek word for ‘robber’ had acquired a specific meaning in the political situation of Palestine at that time. Il was the equivalent of ‘freedom fighter’ or ‘member of the resistance’. Barabbas had taken part in an insurrection and furthermore – in this connection – had been accused of murder (Lk 23;19, 25) When Matthew says that Barabbas was a ‘notorious prisoner’ (Mt 27;10) it shows that he was one of the prominent members of the resistance movement, probably the one who actually instigated that uprising. In other words: Barabbas was a messianic figure. The choice, Jesus or Barabbas, is not concidental: two messianic figures, two forms of messianic belief stand in opposition. This becomes even more evident when we reflect that ‘Bar-Abbas” means ‘Son of the Father’ It is a typical messianic appellation, the cultic name od a prominent leader of the messianic movement.
…..From Origen we learn yet another interesting detail: In many manuscripts of the Gospel, well into the third century, the man in question is called ‘Jesus Barabbas’ – Jesus, Son of the Father. He appears as a kind of doppelganger (double) for Jesus, who of course understood the same claim in a completely different manner. The choice, then is between a Messiah who wages battle, who promises freedom and an earthly kingdom of one’s own, and this mysterious Jesus, who proclaims that losing oneself is the way to life. Is it any wonder that the crowds prefer Barabbas?”
Eureka! The reason some translate “lestes” as revolutionary is because Josephus uses this word when referring to the Zealots. That is the basis for this theory that the word for thief connoted a revolutionary in 33AD. It is possible that this theory is right. But it is more likely that Josephus was calling the Zealots a bunch of brigands.
Michael, I came into the Church in 1985. I heard it was worse in the 70s, which amazed me….. I believe it though. People were still shocky and touchy when I showed up.
In my experience, in this neck of the woods, it really hit its low around 1990. (I live out in the country.)
Or maybe 5 years was just my wake up time? Arrrgh. heh.