Romans, as we have seen, not on mere thieves, but rebels. Barabbas had been one of these, and though he "lay bound with them that had made insurrection with liiin, who had committed murder in the insurrection," i\Iark (xv, 27) has the same word, \j/(T7-//c, '' robber," wliiili is applied to him by John (xviii, 40). It is most ])rol)able that these "malefactors'" were two of his com- panions. ' Our Lord was condemned under the same charge of insurrection (Luke xxiii, 2), and the man whose case we are considering says to liis fellow-suf- ferer, "Thou art under the same sentence," tv Ttji avTt^ K/jifiuTi, and ailmits that they both were guilty of the charge, while our Lord was innocent of it (ver. 40, 41). It is impossible, then, to determine the degree of his criminality without knowing what provocations he had received under the despotic and arbitrary rule of a lioman governor such as Pilate, how far he had been active, or only mixed up with the sedition, etc. The notion that he was suddenly and instantaneously con- verted on the cross is grounded entirely u])on the r/en- eral statement of Matthew, " the thieves also which were crucified with him cast the same in his teeth" (xxvii, 44) ; whereas Luke, in his relation of the inci- dent, is more exact. Instances of Matthew's style of speaking, which is called umpUf cation, abound in the gospels, and in all writers. Thus, " the sohliers brought him vinegar" (Luke xxiii, 36; John xix, 29), "one of them did so" (^Nlatt. xxvii,,48; Mark xv, 3G). "The disciples had indignation" (Matt, xxvi, 8), "some of them" (Mark xiv, 4), " one of them" (John xii, 4). So in Mark xvi, 5; Matt, xxviii, 2, there is mention of one angel only : but in Luke xxiv, 4 ; John xx, 12, there is mention of two. This is substantially the explanation given by Cyprian {I)e Passione Z'«7m'?ii), Augustine {De Cons. Evang. iii, 16), and others, which assumes a sy- necdoche or syllepsis or enallage. The captious objec- tions to the narrative of Luke as inconsistent with that of Matthew and Mark, and the inference drawn from them that both are more or less legendary, are there- fore puerile (Strauss, Lehen Jesii, ii, 519; Ewald, Chri- stns, in Ge.«c/i. v, 438). It is far from certain that either faith or repentance of this " thief" was the fruit of this particular season. He must have known something of the Saviour, otherwise he could not have said ovc'tv droTTOv iTTfjaEf, "he hath done nothing amiss." He may have been acquainted with the miracles and preaching of Jesus before he was cast into prison ; he may have even conversed with him there. He was convinced of our Lord's Messiahship, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." His crime possibly consisted of only one act of insubordination, and he might have been both a sincere believer, and, with this one exception, a practical follower of Christ. Kocher (ap. Bloomfield, Recen. Si/nop.) tells us that it is a very ancient tradition that the thief was not converted at the cross, but was previously imbued with a knowledge of the Gospel. — Kitto. See Kuincil, Macknight, etc. ; and the monographs cited by Yolbe- ding. Index Prugrammatum, p. 63 ; Hase, Leben Jesu, p. 212.
Thigh {T^"^"^, garek; Sept. firjpdc ; 'Vu]g. femur), properly the part of the bodj' from the legs to the trunk, of men, quadrupeds, etc. (Gen. xxxii, 25, 31, 32; Judg. iii, 16, 21 ; Psa. xlv, 8; Cant, iii, 8), occurs in several phrases of special significance in the Bible.
1. Putting the hand under the thigh ai^pears to have been a very ancient custom, upon occasion of taking an oath to any one. Abraham required this of the oldest servant of his house, when he made him swear that he would not take a wife for Isaac of the daughters of the Canaanites ((ien. xxiv, 2-9). .Jacob recpiired it of his son .losejih, when he bound him by oath not to bury him in Egypt, but with his fathers in the land of Ca- naan (xlvii, 29-31). The origin, form, and import of this ceremony in taking an oath are very doid)tfiil. .\bcn-Ezra says, "It ap|)ears to me that it was the cus-
THIGH
361
THn.0
torn in that age for a servant to place his hand on his master's thigh, at the command of the latter, to show that he considered himself subject to, anil undertook, his master's bidding ; and such is at present the custom in India." Grotius thinks that, as the sword was worn ui)on the thigh (comp. Judg. iii, 10, 21; I'sa. xlv, 3; Cant, iii, 8), this custom was as much as to say. If I falsify, kill me. Not a few commentators, ancient and modern, explain it of laying the hand on or near tlie sectio circumdsionis, to protest by that solemn covenant of God, whereof circumcision was the badge and type, in the Abrahamic family. So R. Eleazar says, •' Before the giving of the law, the ancient fathers swore by the covenant of circumcision" {I'irke, c. -19). The Targum of Jonathan ben-Uzziel explains it '^rbin'O nTitrj::, " ill sectione circumcisionis mere ;" the Jerusalem Tar- gum,'^'O'^p T"!"^ rinp, "sub femore foederis mei." Dr. Adam Clarke adopts the former of these two explana- tions {Commentary on Gen. xxic, 9). This interpretation supposes a meiosis, or metonymy such as is supposed by some to attend the use of the word with regard to the effect of the water of Jealousy (Numb, v, 21, 22, 27). Bochart adduces many similar instances (//ieroz. 11, v, 15). We may also refer to the margin or Heb. of (ien. xlvi, 26 ; Exod. i, 5 ; Judg. viii, 30. No further allusion to this ceremony in taking an oath occurs in Scripture, miless the phrase "giving the hand inider" refer to it. (See Heb. or margin of 1 Chron. xxix, 24, and "giving the hand," 2 Chron. xxx, 8; Jer. 1, 15; Ezek. xvii, 18.) See Oath.