Lestes (λῃστής)

work in progress

Revolutionary, not so much

During the timespan of the bible writers (Septuagint 250BCE, GNT ~70CE)

Stasiastes (στασιαστής) was a revolutionary
Lestes (λῃστής) was a plunderer

Things evolve. And Lestes is no exception. After the Roman state Christian theocracy began 429CE, made paganism illegal in 491CE, and Latin took hold reframing many originally Greek/Hellenic concepts, words, and translations of those words, were manipulated or reframed into a Christian Lens.

Just like "xriw meaning anointed" didn't happen till much much later (blame Latin and then Olde English with the post-Christian regime change in Rome and dark-age rule over Europe, redefining the word "Christ" xriw to a Christian lens), so therefore we shouldn't be reading xriw as anointed then... we have +500 years before Septuagint of history of xriw word use, to touch the surface, apply salve or unguents.

1300 CE	ointment	anoint (using ointment) (Olde English)
400 CE	unguentum	unguo (using unguentum) (Latin)
800 BCE	χρῖσμα	χρίω (using χρῖσμα) (Ancient Greek)
1500 BCE	μύρον	μυρίζω (using μύρον) (Ancient Greek)

See Also: Christ for some history on xriw

...Lestes at the time of the bible writers, was a plunder of booty: a robber, predator, brigand, marauder, seize as booty or prey. Someone who doesn't care and will go after someone. It's not a stasiaston (στασιαστής), which is someone who stirs up sedition, insurrectionist or revolutionary.

Lestes is not even close to a seditionist or insurrectionist.
Stasiastoun shows up once in New Testament, and for Barabbas, never for Jesus.

Bottom line:

Barabbas is a revolutionary.
Jesus is a plunderer. (see below)

We can't use interlinear or English translations... which contains mistranslations from later reframing from Latin, later Hebrew, or Victorian authors. Even the LSJ has some victorianisms to watch out for.

Mark 14-51-52 labels Jesus a lestes

See Mark 14-51 Translation from Source where jesus asks "why do you come at me as if i was a LESTES?", and where the context is with a n4k3d kid in a park runs away leaving behind a surgical/medical grade bandage that was "on his nakedness"

And with a n4k3d kid in a park, and the stormtroopers closing in, that context is.... well, it's not a rebel... robbery of souls perhaps, plunderer of human booty, fraud charlatan manipulator staged miracles, etc... insurrection doesn't fit the context.

Crucifixion is used if the theft occurs in a religious building, and Jesus committed a crime by shutting down the dove sellers for a week before he was crucified, trashed the cashier. His disciples were defined in the Bible as criminals (hamartolo). High priests went after him.

We also know that crucifixion was used for traffickers, from Julius Ceaser.

It would seem he died for his own sins, here.

Many translations after the Greek have employed figurative metaphor to make those more limited languages (like the Ancient Hebrew 7000 word dead language from pre-400BCE) make sense, lulling us in to accepting poetic meaning (and Christian reframing of negative words into virtuous heroics). But the Ancient Greek has detail that doesn't require that metaphor. But it's important to be aware of the evolution past 400CE of the derivative languages (like Latin and English, and the rebooted Hebrew of ~1000CE during the Masoretic), and their influences on the later Victorian Greek lexicon (LSJ).

To confuse λῃστής (plunderer) with στασιαστής (revolutionary) is to erase the linguistic and legal distinctions present in the Greek sources themselves. We must read lēstēs with the ears of a Hellenistic Greek, not with the assumptions of a Latinized Christian or a Victorian glossator. The Hellenistic world knew the difference between a predator and a patriot.

Pirates (Peirates == Perates)

see Hebrew Worship Part 1 for an analysis of Perates vs Peirates.

Hesychius ( tells us that Perates (people who cross the limits of boundaries) and Peirates (pirates) were the same thing, coming from the same root.

Philo tells us the Ancient Greek Hebrews were Pirates... and that he wouldn't want to be one.

What about Josephus

Josephus (37 to ~100 CE) wrote during the time (75 CE - 100 CE) that the New Testament was being written (50-110 CE), labeling those insurrectionists as lestes. While they were insurrectionists, he was using Lestes to paint a more criminal picture of them, not to say that Lestes == Insurrectionist. Subtle difference.

Through his writings, Josephus reframed lestai (λῃσταί) to mean “insurrectionists,” though he leaned on its classical connotations of "plunderer" “robber” and “bandit” to morally delegitimize them. This was a rhetorical strategy.

Josephus was not a Christian apologist glorifying that movement — far from it. He was a Jewish historian working under Roman patronage, and his orientation was shaped by survival, diplomacy, and a political balancing act between his Jewish heritage, his Roman benefactors, and his own personal history as a former rebel.

Josephus was born into a priestly aristocratic family in Judea.
During the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE), he initially fought as a general in Galilee but later surrendered to the Romans.
In The Jewish War, Josephus consistently uses the word λῃσταί (lestai) to describe:
- Zealots
- Sicarii (dagger-men)
- Messianic claimants (e.g. The Egyptian, Theudas)
- Rebels during the siege of Jerusalem
He uses lestai with clear disapproval, describing them as violent criminals, self-interested brutes, or fanatics who brought ruin upon the Jewish people.
Josephus did believe lestai were insurrectionists. That’s how he framed them to Roman audiences, to show that the Roman war wasn’t against Judaism, but against criminals

Josephus, the 1st-century Romano-Jewish historian, played a key role in shaping how Roman and post-Roman audiences perceived resistance movements in Judea. In his major works — The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews — he often uses the Greek word lestes (λῃστής) to describe Jewish rebels, zealots, and insurgents. Obviously this term is not a neutral label; understandably (by it's definition) it carried a strongly negative political and moral connotation in Roman discourse, and in >1000yrs of classical Greek literature.

Josephus called insurrectionists “lestai”, participating in a broader effort to highlight the criminal, rather than making space for the ideological or messianic. This linguistic move helped support Roman authority by branding opponents of the empire not as freedom fighters or patriots, but as mere outlaws.

HOWEVER

There was a precedent for that word "lestes", previously before Josephus wrote that. Josephus would be a good example of how the propagandists were redefining & reframing things, from a Jewish and Roman Lens.

Josephus rebranded the ancient word Lestes to Insurrectionist, around the time of

Classical Greek Usage (800 BCE – 100 BCE) (Homer to the Hellenistic period), lēstēs (λῃστής) meant:

Robber / bandit, plunderer / pirate, raider of villages or coastlines
Also used to mean slave trafficker, raider, or warlord-turned-bandit
Odyssean pirates were often called λῃσταί — and were not always seen as evil, just dangerous or outside the polis.

Josephus's Usage (~75–95 CE), writing under Roman imperial patronage, the word lēstēs:

Shifted to a political slur meaning “rebel,” “terrorist,” or “insurgent”.

So, Did Josephus Think “Lestai” Meant Insurrectionist?

Linguistically? No. He knew the classical meaning — he was a highly educated Greek writer.
Politically and strategically? Yes. He used the term to equate rebel activity with robbery, casting it as morally and socially illegitimate.
He weaponized the word to redefine insurrection as banditry, making rebellion against Rome (or even the Temple elite) seem criminal rather than heroic or religious.

But when he did that, it helped the Christians rebrand themselves as virtuous rebels. Paradoxical catch-22.

Herodotus - Histories

Herodotus - Histories - Book 5, Chapter 6, Section 1&2 : Translated By A. D. Godley

"Among the rest of the Thracians, it is the custom to sell their children for export and to take no care of their maidens, allowing them to have intercourse with any man they wish. Their wives, however, they strictly guard, and buy them for a price from the parents. [2] To be tattooed is a sign of noble birth, while to bear no such marks is for the baser sort. The idler is most honored, the tiller of the soil most scorned; he is held in highest honor who lives by war and robbery."

τῶν δὲ δὴ ἄλλων Θρηίκων ἐστὶ ὅδε νόμος: πωλεῦσι τὰ τέκνα ἐπ᾽ ἐξαγωγῇ, τὰς δὲ παρθένους οὐ φυλάσσουσι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐῶσι τοῖσι αὐταὶ βούλονται ἀνδράσι μίσγεσθαι: τὰς δὲ γυναῖκας ἰσχυρῶς φυλάσσουσι καὶ ὠνέονται τὰς γυναῖκας παρὰ τῶν γονέων χρημάτων μεγάλων. [2] καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐστίχθαι εὐγενὲς κέκριται, τὸ δὲ ἄστικτον ἀγεννές. ἀργὸν εἶναι κάλλιστον, γῆς δὲ ἐργάτην ἀτιμότατον: τὸ ζῆν ἀπὸ πολέμου καὶ ληιστύος κάλλιστον.

Conclusion....

To truely understand, we must read these texts with a Hellenic Lens.

Many apologists / propagandists piled in to support the overthrow. It was a quick ~200 years between ~65CE to 391CE when the erasure was legalized (paganism became illegal). The lestes apostles spun up their own ministry, it's all they knew having grown up in that cult. People with the christian lens (sympathetic to them) redefined the word to "revolutionary" later. As if dying on a cross reserved for heinous crimes was a revolution of some kind (i guess because he shut down the doves of another religion?).