The Meaning of λῃστής (lēistḗs)

Introduction

Hillman's novel translation of lēistḗs, never before encountered in any lexicon, is of primary importance to his narrative and portrait of Jesus, and ultimately, the justification to revive his alleged "Christian Mystery." Hillman's stated vision is to offer to the World his "Christian Mystery" route to experiencing "aionic life," the only valid born-again experience, which he claims was the original "Christianity" practiced by Jesus Christ. Our modern society abhors pederasty, but in the culture of Jesus' time, all the ritual actions he alleges Jesus performed with children were both essential for his Mystery rite and also "normal" and legal. Pederasty in Classical and Roman times was not a crime, but from the 2nd century BC through late antiquity, kidnapping, piracy for enslavement of freeborn people including children, was frowned upon, but made illegal only for freeborn Roman citizens to be enslaved. It would make a valid reason for why Jesus was hated and arrested. It would also perfectly accord with the Ancient Greek maxim, "Greed stains your soul with the stench of ruin" which Hillman has proudly tattooed in Greek on his left forearm. So, through various outlandish interpretations of Biblcal narrative, Hillman reimagines Jesus as a profiteer from the rite through running a prostitution ring with an accountant (Matthew), pandering his "children" to clients under the guise of fishing on the Lake of Galilee and demanding the handover of all property on pain of death (Acts 5). But all of those actions pale into insignificance, according to Hillman, in comparison to the outrage of trafficking the children, which he could pin to a word Jesus uttered at his arrest in all four gospels. This word is lēistḗs, which he alleges to mean child-trafficker.

The lexicological task is to ascertain the following:

1. Definitions of lēsitḗs and peiratḗs in Classical Greek

2. How lēstḗs should be understood in both Koine Greek and the New Testament context 

3. How the Biblical authors, themselves, used lēistḗs in the context of the arrest of Jesus

4. The established Greek word for trafficker in both Classical and New Testament texts 

5. Hillman's introduction of his definiton in Season 2 Episode V in a show called "Jesus, a sex-trafficker?"

1.Classical Definitions

Hillman has displayed both of the LSJ definitons for lēistḗs and peiratḗs several times, even noting in the lēistḗs definition, it says "later peiratḗs" but without further clarification, but which will be done in point 2.

At this point it is worth mentioning that the reference in the LSJ to lēistḗs in Lycophron's ode, Alexandra, who was the interpreter of the sybil, Cassandra, is metaphorical and in point 5 for its more detailed study, it will be shown why it is neither about a literal pirate, nor about the kidnap of children.

There is another online lexicon which Hillman uses and which has a useful definition of peiratḗs. This is a reconstruction of the Lexicon of unusual Greek words by Hesychius, dated around 5th-6th c. BCE. The dictionary should be used with caution for Koine connotations of words, since the time interval during which words could have evolved between his time and the New Testament authorship is equivalent to the shift from Chaucerian English to modern. Because the online resource is a scan of a rather yellowed old book, Hillman copies the words to present on his shows. So far, he has faithfully reproduced the original words and definitions he chooses to show. But an example from this lexicon is Hesychius' entry for peiratḗs as the plural, peiratai.

In the preceding recording, Hillman misuses the definition by Hesychius to claim that Abraham was also a child-trafficker for cult purposes. He succeeds in making this sound credible to his followers through much repetition of his novel definition of lēistḗs and also how he has created an association of not only "pirate" with the word, lēistḗs, but also that it refers exclusively to child-trafficking. He has led his audience to this understanding without justification, since Hesychius' intention for the use of lēistḗs was not as "pirate," but as robbers since the booty they stole was never confined just to human children.

His followers are observed very often to bypass critical thinking in order to confirm what they believe is Hillman's accurate teaching. Below is an example where, despite thinking they are "a community of rational thinkers," the information in the attached video clip, clearly shows they are not. They do not question the implication of the "later" change in the word used for "pirate" - but this will be featured in the next point, below.

So confident is Hillman that he has established his new definition of lēistḗs with his audience, that he has now coined his own adjective to describe the Mystery cult of the traffickers in action - lēistic.

2. Definition of lēistḗs in Koine Greek and the New Testament context of the arrest

Greek words, like those in all living languages, were constantly evolving. One of the most radical changes of the language happened after the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE. His legacy was a vast empire stretching from Egypt to India encompassing scores of conquered lands, ethnicities and languages. The Grecian dominance continued under his four generals with free trading across the empire requiring a means of communication with the locals. Therefore, Koine (common) Greek developed as the lingua franca throughout the Empire for the next six centuries and was the langauge of all the Biblical authors. Hillman may well be aware of the history of the language's evolution, but will not always accomodate it in his translations, especially when the Classical connotation alone will provide the required connection to his chosen interpretation. 

Through the fourth century, BCE, the Classical definition of lēistḗs as a sea-going robber - a pirate - ceased in Koine Greek, as noted in the LSJ in both the definitions of lēistḗs and peiratḗs. The language in which all Biblical texts were written is Koine Greek, which means that the definition of lēistḗs in these texts applied only to land-based robbers, bandits, outlaws. There was a further semantic shift through the pen of Jewish Historian, Joesphus. He used lēistḗs to refer, disparagingly to the many Jewish rebels against Roman rule involved in various forms of armed resistance as "bandits." Because they could be viewed as attempting to forcefully steal their sovereignty from Rome, lēistḗs can, indeed, be an appropriate term for these rebels which he employed 114 times in his works puplished in the early 90's CE.  Because the majority of critical scholarship demonstrates that the gospels evolved through several stages and none were completed until after the publication of Josephus' works, a connotation as "rebel" is, indeed, a viable translation of lēistḗs in the arrest scene. Hillman is familiar with this connotation, but will avoid engaging with it, as the following clip shows:

Hillman employs another online resource when he wishes to display New Testament Texts. The study tool at www.biblehub.com is very versatile with links to the Greek and the definitions and usage of each word in not just Biblical, but also Classical texts. It can also display many parallel versions of each verse, such as Mk 14:48 where Jesus utters the word, lēistḗs. It can be seen that some of the more contemporary versions are aware of the connotation which Josephus introduced.

léstés: a robber

Original Word: λῃστής, οῦ, ὁ

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

Transliteration: léstés

Phonetic Spelling: (lace-tace')

Definition: a robber

Usage: a robber, brigand, bandit.

HELPS Word-studies

3027 lēistḗs – a thief ("robber"), stealing out in the open (typically with violence). 3027 /lēistḗs ("a bandit, brigand") is a thief who also plunders and pillages – an unscrupulous marauder (malefactor), exploiting the vulnerable without hesitating to use violence.

New International Version

“Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?

New Living Translation

Jesus asked them, “Am I some dangerous revolutionary, that you come with swords and clubs to arrest me?

English Standard Version

And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me?

Berean Standard Bible

Jesus asked the crowd, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would an outlaw?

Hillman has correctly pointed out that being an outlaw or robber would not logically cause the agitation of the armed mob and temple guards accompanying the Jewish elders, nor his execution by crucifixion. (There are no Roman soldiers, involved as a SWAT team as Hillman often asserts, either.) The gospels record several occasions when the religious leaders reacted with threat and jealousy wishing to kill Jesus (e.g. in Mark 3:1-6), but none more so than his recent actions to shut down the Temple for a day, driving out the money changers and all the animals waiting to be slaughtered. This is when he declared God's house was meant to be (only) a place of prayer - not a place for extortion, by the High priestly family under Annas, the "godfather," through the requirement of animal sacrifice. Professor James Tabor has exegeted the accounts of the angry Jesus half-quoting Jeremiah 7:11, "Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, declares the LORD." The Hebrew word, פָּרִצִ֗ים (pā-ri-ṣîm) was translated into the Greek LXX as lēistai, robbers, but also described a predatory animal tearing up its victim in Isaiah 35:9 as well as being used for murderous tyrants. The idea of violent predation still justifies the translation into Greek as lēistḗs. But, for Hillman, the way that he has interpreted the word as "trafficker" (of humans for cultic rites) has facilitated his proposition that all manner of Hellenistic cult practices occurred in the Temple and the extortion there was being run by a rival group of "traffickers." His own novel translation of lēistḗs has enabled him to make his own interpretation where an entirely new libertine mystery religion with traffickers supplying the youth for cultic ritual is in the texts of the Bible from Genesis through Revelation and beyond into New Testament Apocrypha and heresiologies. Through this, he claims that Jesus and his followers were merely continuing the practice of this ancient Bronze age Mystery begun by Queen Medea through which aionic life might be attained.

It must also be emphasised, that Hillman has turned the exclamation of slightly sarcastic surprise on the lips of Jesus as recorded in all four gospel accounts, into a guilty self-confession of his actual identity. The texts neither state this nor even imply he was acknowledging his guilt. All Hillman can insinuate is based on guilt by association, which only has relevance should his own New Satanic Version of Mk 14:51-52 be valid. Hence, I will reiterate the vital importance of ascertaining what might be the most likely meaning of lēistḗs as intended by the Biblical authors, and which interpretations are lexically and historically the least viable or are completely invalid.


3. Lēistḗs in Biblical Texts

The word is not common, but some contexts in which lēistḗs is found, readily identify the intended connotation. As noted above, it can refer to the "robbers" expelled by Jesus from the Temple, or the "bandits" who attacked the traveller who was helped by the good Samaritan and who endangered Paul in his travels (2 Cor 11:26). But there could be a third connotation being employed at the arrest scene.

Although there exists ambiguity, there are several primary pieces of textual evidence from relevant passages which illuminate the way that lēistḗs might best be understood in the arrest scene. Even the most cursory reading of the leadup to the arrest will establish that it was engineered by the Jewish authorities and not the Romans. Although they wished him dead, they had no jurisdiction under their Roman overlords to execute anyone (John 18:31). They had to devise a charge by which it would be guaranteed that the Romans would put him to death. Luke gives an account of their plan in chapter 23:1-3, 13-19

Then the whole council rose and led Jesus away to Pilate. And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this man subverting our nation, forbidding payment of taxes to Caesar, and proclaiming Himself to be Christ, a King.” So Pilate asked Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” “You have said so,” Jesus replied. ...

... Then Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined Him here in your presence and found Him not guilty of your charges against Him. Neither has Herod, for he sent Him back to us. As you can see, He has done nothing deserving of death. Therefore I will punish Him and release Him.”

But they all cried out in unison: “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!” (Barabbas had been imprisoned for an insurrection [stasis] in the city, and for murder.)

In all of Jesus' three trials that are recorded, there is no mention, whatsoever of any  question about sex crimes or trafficking. Every account confirms that he was found guilty of rebellion and crucified as "King of the Jews."

I have highlighted the description of Barabbas, in Luke 23:19, for it provides some essential information on how the gospel authors, themselves defined, lēistḗs. This is not an isolated description of him for it is repeated in Mark 15:7 

"And a man named Barabbas was imprisoned with the rebels [sustasiastḗs, co-insurrectionist] who had committed murder during the insurrection [stasis].

His identity and crime for which he was about to be executed, is clearly not child-trafficking, as Hillman claims, despite being identified as a lēistḗs in John 18:40 

ἐκραύγασαν οὖν πάλιν λέγοντες Μὴ τοῦτον, ἀλλὰ τὸν Βαραββᾶν. ἦν δὲ ὁ Βαραββᾶς λῃστής. 

The verse has been variously translated with the intended rebellious definiton of lēistḗs and also with the older understanding as a robber.

New International Version

They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising.

New Living Translation

But they shouted back, “No! Not this man. We want Barabbas!” (Barabbas was a revolutionary.)

English Standard Version

They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber.

Berean Standard Bible

“Not this man,” they shouted, “but Barabbas!” (Now Barabbas was an insurrectionist.)

Surely the case for the correct identity of the definition of lēistḗs in the context of Jesus' arrest has been settled with these textual facts? The authentic sources give us the answer! But if further proof is needed, then a brief survey of Greek literature will reveal what the actual word is for "human trafficker."

4. The established Greek word for trafficker in both Classical and New Testament texts

Since it has been clearly demonstrated that lēistḗs is not the word intended to be understood as "trafficker" a search of the literature reveals which word does have that denotation. It is andrapodistḗs:

The LSJ has omitted a refernce to the New Testament occurrence of this Greek word for human trafficker in 1 Tim 1:10. Here, it has been variously translated without using the word, "trafficker," but that reality is evidently conveyed in these translations of 

πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται,

American Standard Version

for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

For fornicators, for males who lie down with males, for kidnappers of free men, for liars, for oath breakers and for all things opposed to the sound teaching

Amplified Bible

for sexually immoral persons, for homosexuals, for kidnappers and slave traders, for liars, for perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine

This is the sole occurrence of andrapodistḗs in the Bible, but an excellent example in Classical texts is found in Aristophanes' play, Plutus.521

Χρεμύλος

κερδαίνειν βουλόμενός τις

ἔμπορος ἥκων ἐκ Θετταλίας παρὰ πλείστων ἀνδραποδιστῶν.

Πενία

ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἔσται πρῶτον ἁπάντων οὐδεὶς οὐδ᾽ ἀνδραποδιστὴς

κατὰ τὸν λόγον ὃν σὺ λέγεις δήπου. τίς γὰρ πλουτῶν ἐθελήσει

κινδυνεύων περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς τῆς αὑτοῦ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι;

In translation, it reads:

Chremylus

Some greedy slave-dealer from Thessaly —the land which supplies so many.

Poverty

But if your system is applied, there won't be a single slave-dealer left. What rich man would risk his life to devote himself to this traffic?

It is also significant that despite Hillman's oft repeated claim that the notorious human traffickers from Thessaly were called lēistḗs, this is not the word of choice by Aristophanes when he wished to emphasise the commodity in which these lēistai (pirates/brigands) from Thessaly were trading. Aristophanes used the expected term, andrapodistḗs to describe them as traffickers in human slaves.

Surely Hillman as the well read philologist that he is, cannot have failed to have ever encountered this word, andrapodistḗs? Indeed,  he has not, for I have frequently attempted to make a comment on his videos when the opportnity arose, all of which he has either hidden from public view or deleted. Further to that, while reading a text, he encountered a form of the related verb, andrapodizō, casually translating it "to kidnap" and moved on translating the text on display. This happened at a time after he had made me a "hidden user" which disabled my ability to take clips from his videos and before I had devised a way to resume. Unfortunately, I currently cannot locate where I had made note of it, but will embed a screen recording when I can. In fact, I have discovered from reviewing the clips I have taken that Ammon has deleted that small section from the episode of concern where he talked about this.

Having said that he started describing the poem while conveniently forgetting to have the Greek text ready for display. He emphasised how the mothers are mourning the loss of their daughters who will never marry and die on a distant shore because of the "lēistḗs (Pirate?) of the Cyprian Goddess (Aphrodite) who sinned against the laws of marriage." Therefore, he claims lēistēs as "pirate" means child-trafficker, here. But really, it needs the context of the few verses before (which he did not show) and the succeeding verses to ascertain how Lycophron intended his audience to understand lēistḗs. The omission of context is one of the key shortcomings of his methodolgy and gives him full rein to introduce a connotation from a very different context.

In truth this section has Cassandra retelling the story of the Locrian Maidens a brief version of which is summarised here). They were a tribute to Athena to be paid for a thousand years, of two unmarried maidens because of her curse incurred by their ancestor's sacreligious crime. Many ancient authors mention them, but Lycophron's version tells of them tending the shrine of the goddess Agriska until they die, upon which a replacement is selected by lot. His version differs from another source which says:

 
In Ilion, Locrian maidens or children are said to have been sacrificed to her [Athena] every year as an atonement for the crime committed by the Locrian Ajax upon Cassandra ; and Suidas (s. v. iroivri) states, that these human sacrifices continued to be offered to her down to BC 346.

The context of the section where lēistḗs occurs is set by the preceding verses which say that maidens wishing to avoid the domestic yoke through marriage to an ugly man can appeal to Cassandra and go serve her at her shrine under her protection.They became one of Cassandra's erinyes, her avengers against men with their faces painted with drug-dye and carry staves.  Lines 1141-43 are the section of particular interest:

πένθος δὲ πολλαῖς παρθένων τητωμέναις

τεύξω γυναιξὶν αὖθις, αἳ στρατηλάτην

ἀθεσμόλεκτρον, Κύπριδος λῃστὴν θεᾶς,

δαρὸν στένουσαι, κλῆρον εἰς ἀνάρσιον

πέμψουσι παῖδας ἐστερημένας γάμων.

AW Mair's translation has freely rendered this passage:

"And to many women robbed of their maiden daughters I shall bring sorrow hereafter. Long shall they bewail the leader who sinned against the laws of marriage, the pirate [lēistḗs in the accusative case] of the Cyprian goddess, when they shall send to the unkindly shrine their daughters reft of marriage. ... And they, aliens in an alien land, shall have without funeral rites a tomb, a sorry tomb in wave-washed sands."

The girls obliged to be sent to fulfil Athena's curse were the incongruous lot. Cassandra says that in revenge, she will repay sorrow to those many mothers bereft of their daughters who would die unmarried on a distant shore stolen by this metaphorical lēistḗs. But their "robbery" is not for the trafficking reason which Hillman implies. The immediately following verses explain that any who were selected had to make their way barefoot with loosened hair by night to avoid the anger of the male citizens standing watch for them, weapons in hand until they reached the sanctuary. The girls were not handed over to pirates, nor abused for cultish sexual practices. Their duties included tending the outer area of the Shrine, and from the evidence of the inscritption included in the refernce above to "ancient authors," they were later afforded hosptiality and every courtesy of their host nation. 

Hillman chose this text because of the phrase, lēistēs of the Cyprian Goddess being the reason for the mourning of the mothers. Despite Ammon's misapplied introduction, this text has nothing to do with any pirates and quotas of children for sex-trafficking. But rather it relates the revenge of the affronted Athena against Locria, a region in ancient Sparta, the homeland of Ajax the lesser, a Spartan general in the Trojan war. On his way home with his ships from Troy, he stopped at Athena's shrine where Cassandra was the Oracle and raped her inside that sacred space. Cassandra described him in this text as the robber of her Aphroditic sexual love, "who sinned against the laws of marriage" by raping her. Lēistḗs is in its primary meaning here as a violent thief, or robber - not even a pirate, which is only a secondary meaning of the word.

Even if lēistḗs were translated, "pirate," it refers to the commander of the Spartan fleet and his rape of Cassandra, which obligated the taking of children in tribute to avenge his crime - not the abduction of children for the cult sex trade. The text, itself is about the duty bound enactment of a curse which involves young maidens sweeping the floors of a shrine and not as cult prostitutes. And yet, by creating this definiton and providing so-called circumstantial evidence, again from his own interpretation of the facts, he smears Jesus with the unjustified allegation of being a trafficker of children for their use in cult sex rites.

By misusing this section of Alexandra, Hillman paints a grossly inaccurate portrait of Jesus. He follows this insinuation with further ones, by misquoting two other Biblical passages. First he claims that Jesus laying his hands to bless little children was interrupted by distressed parents telling him to stop touching them. (He had previously redefined haptō, the word for "touch" as "molest, handle sexually.") Saying this, is no accident for he repeats it regularly. Likewise, by showing the Greek word, skandalizō, correctly translated "to offend or cause to stumble/fall" and which never applies to Jesus in any NT text, his "quotation" of Jesus saying "don't scandalize me" is unjustified. Yet, he stresses how important it is that his listeners trust him and the texts which he uniquely interprets for them!

Conclusion

In this investigation, the invalidity of Hillman's definition of lēistēs as "child-trafficker" has been thoroughly demonstrated. Therefore, his interpretation of the words of Jesus as a guilty confession of being a child trafficker, has no foundation in lexicological fact; consequently, neither does his edifice of further "expositions" based upon this interpretation. Repeatedly his own interpretations strongly contradict the Biblical text in other passages such as those highlighted, here. Therefore, despite his qualification in Classical philology, Hillman has demonstrated that both his handling of several passages of Koine Greek in the Bible and in his Lady Babylon theory built upon his own "translations," cannot be trusted.

A final note

Below is a recording taken from Hillman's show following an interview where I first featured his derivation of trafficker from Lycrophon's poem.

In fact, I can agree with Hillman that AW Mair's translation (the entire context is in lines 1132-74) found in the Perseus site does struggle to convey all the information of the Greek text. An example is the omission of the phrase referring to the maidens as "the incongruous lot." But could it be possible that Hillman is declining to comment because he knows he will be unable to refute what I have presented?