It is a historical FACT that the Romans DID NOT CRUCIFY Robbers. Mathew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus..

Question

was crucified between two Robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for rebellious slaves and insurrectionists. So, who were the two gentlemen crucified with Jesus?

Answer 1

Interesting question.
Luke 23:33 refers to the other two fellas as "malefactors". John, in his gospel, merely refers to "two others".
But then, there is more to the story. In Mark 15:7, we are told that Barabbas, the famous prisoner who was released in Jesus' stead, was in prison for insurrection and for murder, which was committed during the insurrection. In Luke 23:18-19, we read again that Barabbas had been guilty of sedition, in the city of Jerusalem, and also names him as a murderer. In verse 25 of this same chapter, Luke sadly reports that Pilate, against his will, released Barabbas, a man held for sedition and murder, to the crowd.
It doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to suppose that the other two were friends, or at least associates, of Barabbas, the insurrectionist, and murderer.
Insurrection (sedition), and murder...and yet the crowds threatened to riot unless Pilate released him. It looks an awful lot as if Barabbas had the support of the High Priests and the Sanhedrin, as well. Unbelievable.
UNLESS he had been some sort of hero to them...
UNLESS the Jews of that time saw him as the messiah and king their decendants are still waiting for?

Answer 2

How do you know this is a FACT? Where's your sources? How do I know you're telling the truth that it's a historical fact the Romans didn't crucify robbers? Do you have proof? All I have that's "fact" is your word.

EDIT: Wikipedia claims under the Roman Empire crucifixion was used for "slaves, rebels, pirates and especially-despised enemies and criminals."

Answer 3

An absence of evidence isn't evidence lacking.

You have to understand the context of the Bible. Matthew and company are explaining that these men are thieves who are being crucified - no other information is given. Is it impossible to suggest that these are thieves that stole an Imperial standard?

Consider this potential scenario.

Pontius Pilate, this is a historical fact, broke typical custom by fully adorning his march into Jerusalem heralding the standards of Tiberius Caesar. This enraged the Jews, who saw this as idolatry, and Pilate was faced with a riot.

Is it impossible to suggest that these thieves did not steal one of those banners? Doing so would be an act of insurrection without a doubt, and certainly worthy of crucifixion.

Another scenario if you will.

These men were slaves of Pilate, who stole from him, and were now being executed.

What else?

Maybe they assisted in Barabass's revolt. They stole war material and gave them off to Barabass. They were caught and executed as a result.

That's without considering the fact that Pontius Pilate was the acting procurator and was allowed to carry out executions on a whim, and was fully within his rights to crucify a pair of thieves if he felt that that would deter crime in the city.

Answer 4

Hmm.

The account doesn't say much else about them. Who did they steal from? If they stole from the Roman government, the penalty could be crucifixion. Or they could be rebellious slaves who robbed people to support themselves.

The historian Luke called them κακοῦργος or evil doers.

You seem to have left that out.

Answer 5

In this entry, I am going to assert that the proper translation of the word that many Bible versions translate as "thief" or "robber" really means "insurrectionist" or "rebel" or guerrilla insurrectionist" in the context of this discussion. I will present some information from pp. 568-569 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 8,edited by Gaebelein, copyright 1984: This part is background about the meaning of the Greek word "lestes," (sorry that I can't put the proper marks on the e's in this typing situation). The word "lestes" is the word that many translations of the Bible translate as "thief/robber" in the account of the "thieves/robbers" crucified next to Jesus. If you are familiar with the process of translation, you will know that there are more meanings to words than just the first meaning that pops up in a dictionary. When a translators do their work, they must take into account a multitude of factors, including usage of the word at the time of the writing of the manuscript and historical context. This excerpt from the scholar's commentary deals with the historical context of the word "lestes" in the accounts in Matthew and Mark about the "thieves/robbers."

This particular scholar of the Book of Matthew starts by referencing Barabbas--the insurrectionist who was released from prison by Pilate instead of Jesus, who was referenced as a "lestes" in the Bible verses dealing with the proceedings before the crucifixion.

Now I am starting the long quote with the background about how the Greek word "lestes" should really be translated:

"'Barabbas' seems a strange name: 'bar Abba' means 'son of abba,' i.e. 'son of the father.' But there is evidence that the name or nickname was not unknown in rabbinic families . . . Perhaps Barabbas was the son of a famous rabbi . . . ; some MSS [manuscripts] preserve his name as 'Jesus Barabbas' . . . ; but with what authority we cannot now b e certain. Matthew says he was an 'episemos' ('notorious,' NIV) prisoner. NIV's translation of the word implies Barabbas was universally reprobated, but the Greek is neutral ('notable,' 'conspicuous') ; and in the only other NT [New Testament] occurrence of the work NIV renders it ['episemos' 'outstanding' (Romans 16:7). The point is not academic, for Barabbas was no ordinary villain but a 'lestes" (cf. Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19; John 18:40). Although 'lestes' can refer to a robber (as perhaps in John 10:1), it more probably refers to insurrectionists (cf. [Matthew] 26:55; John 18:40); and Josephus [first-century Roman-Jewish scholar and historian] constantly uses it of the Zealots. [In Matthew 26:55, Jesus was being betrayed by Judas and said to the crowd, 'Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?' In John 18:40, the reference is to Barabbas.] Neither theft nor violent robbery was a capital offense, but insurrection was. Revolts and blood shed fostered by guerrilla action were common (cf. Jos. Antiq. XVIII, 3-10 [i. 1]. 60-62 [iii.2]; in Luke 13:1), and Barabbas had been caught. In the eyes of many of the people he would not be a 'notorious' villain but a hero.
" It may be that the two who were crucified with Jesus were co-rebels with Barabbas, for Matthew 27:38 calls the 'lestai' (better [translations would be] 'rebels,' 'guerrillas,' or 'insurrectionists' than NIV's 'robbers'), and their crucifixion indicates they were judged guilty of more than robbery. The fact that three crosses were prepared strongly suggests that Pilate had already ordered that preparations be made for the execution of the three rebels. If so, Jesus the Messiah actually took the place of the rebel [Jesus] Barabbas because the people preferred the political rebel and nationalist hero to the Son of God."

Here is a different scholar commenting on Mark 15:27 on pp. 780-781 of the same volume:

"The two criminals crucified on either side of Jesus are called 'lestas.' a word normally meaning 'robbers.' Here, however, it means 'insurrectionists' (cf. [Mark] 14.48, where the NIV has 'Am I leading a rebellion'). They had probably been a part of the same insurrection that Barabbas was involved in (cf. [Mark]15:7) and had been sentenced at the same time as Jesus. They seemed to know that the charges against him were false (cf. Luke 23:41). His placement in the middle, between the two criminals, was probably to mock him as the insurrectionist par excellence. Rengstorf [another scholar] points out that the crucifixion of Jesus by the Jews was a decision 'against His Messianism and in favour of that of the Zealots, and which thus elected war against Rome and its own crucifixion instead of the peace which the Messiah of God brings. . . . How far this decision affected the judgment of Judaism on Him is nowhere more clearly seen than when Celsus [2nd-century Greek philosopher and opponent of Early Christianity, according to Wikipedia] calls Jesus a ['lestes.' 'insurrectionist'] and thus seeks to dismiss Him as a false Messiah.'"

Here is an excerpt from an interesting recent article on the subject from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-mansfield/crucifying-terrorists_b_3269066.html:

"It could be that answers to these questions are suggested in the biblical accounts of the execution of Jesus. Tradition tells us that there were two men crucified alongside Jesus and that they were 'thieves' or 'robbers.' It is more likely that they were terrorists and that they were killed at the side of the dissident rabbi from Nazareth because in Roman eyes he too was a terrorist, an insurgent against the authority of the empire.

"Most translations of the Bible indicate that the men crucified with Jesus were common criminals, outlaw lowlifes of the type known in all ages. In the original language of the New Testament, these men were lestai, 'bandits.' Yet this word does not mean merely 'thief' or 'one who steals.' It describes one

Answer 6

People who robbed Roman tax collectors. Duh!!

Robing a tax collector was an act of rebellion against Rome, and all acts of treason was punishable by crucifixion.

That question was an easy one.

Answer 7

The two criminals Jesus was crucified between where every bit as fictional as he was.

Answer 8

two sinners one who repented and the other one did not

Answer 9

Umm, you know that the bible is not fact, right?

Answer 10

Don't confuse the retards, darling