- Stasiastes (στασιαστής) was a revolutionary
- Lestes (λῃστής) was a plunderer
- See Also: Christ for some history on xriw
- Lestes is not even close to a seditionist or insurrectionist.
- Stasiastoun shows up once in New Testament, and for Barabbas, never for Jesus.
- Barabbas is a revolutionary.
- Jesus is a plunderer. (see below)
- 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"
- see Hebrew Worship Part 1 for an analysis of Perates vs Peirates.
- 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
- 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.
- Shifted to a political slur meaning “rebel,” “terrorist,” or “insurgent”.
- 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.
Lestes (λῃστής)
Revolutionary, not so much
During the timespan of the bible writers (Septuagint 250BCE, GNT ~70CE)
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.
| 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) |
...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.
Bottom line:
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
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)
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, 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
So, Did Josephus Think “Lestai” Meant Insurrectionist?
But when he did that, it helped the Christians rebrand themselves as virtuous rebels. Paradoxical catch-22.
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?).