Legion near Judea at time of Jesus

[Purplest]

I tend to agree with most of what y'all are saying. The historical evidence does back up a lot of it. It's just strange that the catholic church always tends to lead you to believe that it was roman soldiers that did a lot of these things. And a lot of the church's depictions lead you the same way. Look at a lot of the catholic church's sculptures, paintings, the stations of the cross, etc. Most all are shown as roman soldiers and not anyone else. Again though, as you stated, most people do not know a lot about the roman army. Enjoyed y'alls input and its food for thought.

Cheers,
Thomas

[LonginusXXI]

Also I'm pretty sure if word of a rebellion got to Tiberius, Pilate would be quickly recalled.

[LonginusXXI]

I think you should check this out.
https://bible.org/article/roman-military-new-testament

[Purplest]

That was an interesting article. Gives a lot of information and a lot to take into account. Thanks for sharing it.

Thomas

[Nathan Ross]

I think you should check this out.
https://bible.org/article/roman-military-new-testament

Far too many mistakes in this article, I'm afraid. Many of them are basic (Pilate was not 'praetorian prefect'!). The ones relating to this subject are:

"The term here (stratiwtai) simply indicates a Roman regular Legionary as opposed to provincial auxiliaries"

No it doesn't. It just means 'soldier'. Auxiliaries were regular soldiers of the Roman army - no reason to assume any legionaries involved.

"There were no units of a thousand in the Roman Legions. There were units of a thousand found among auxiliary units, but these soldiers were clearly Roman regulars... A Tribune was a staff officer. They had no role on the battlefield."

As before, auxiliaries were 'Roman regulars'. Thousand-strong (milliaria) auxiliary cohorts were commanded by tribunes, who were not 'staff officers'. We know of a couple of milliarian cohorts in the Roman garrison of Judea.

"An inscription in the Forum Sempronii in Rome mentions a tribune of the Italian Cohort of the Tenth Legion (X Fretensis)"

No it doesn't! (and Forum Sempronii was a town in Umbria, not a place in Rome).

The inscription (CIL 11, 06117) is to Maesius Rufus, an equestrian officer who served as tribune of XV Apollinaris (NOT X Fretensis!), which fought in the Jewish war of the AD60s and was later based in Cappadocia, and then as tribune (auxiliary commander) of Cohors II Italica milliaria voluntariorum, which we've mentioned before, in Syria. There is no evidence for an 'Italic cohort' being part of a legion.

"Ray Stedman believes that the Augustan Cohort was that Imperial Guard."

Not very likely. There were plenty of auxiliary cohorts named Augusta, with at least one in Judea around this time. No source that I'm aware of calls the Praetorian Guard the 'Augustan Cohort'.

[LonginusXXI]

http://new-birth.net/contemporary/hr119.htm

[LonginusXXI]

So what strength would Pilate take with him to Jerusalem?

[Nathan Ross]

So what strength would Pilate take with him to Jerusalem?

As governor, he may well have had a small unit of singulares (bodyguards) drawn from the units under his command. If we assume he had five cohorts and an ala in various places around the province, and at least one of the cohorts was stationed in Jerusalem, he may not have needed to bring new troops to the city. Alternatively, if the bulk of his troops were in Caesarea and the coastal cities, he may have travelled to Jerusalem with a cohort - either 500 or 1000 strong, depending on how he judged the local situation. But most of this is guesswork - we don't have the evidence to know more!

[LonginusXXI]

Here is a post with the same topic.

[i]While no legion was actually stationed in Palestine, the Gospels refer to a cohort that mocked Jesus. There are several possibilities:
1. It was auxiliary troops, mostly units inherited from the various Herodian Kings that had been deposed. This is the most likely event. Such troops were not organized in legions, but in cohort-size units.

2. It could have been a detachment from a legion stationed in nearby Syria (Antioch). At that time, there were usually four such. While records are incomplete, the most likely candidates are III Gallica, VI Ferrata, X Fretensis and XII Fulminata.[/i}

Also auxiliaries were attached to legions so it would not be uncommon for a legion vexillia to be in Judea.

[Gunthamund Hasding]

I tend to agree with most of what y'all are saying. The historical evidence does back up a lot of it. It's just strange that the catholic church always tends to lead you to believe that it was roman soldiers that did a lot of these things. And a lot of the church's depictions lead you the same way. Look at a lot of the catholic church's sculptures, paintings, the stations of the cross, etc. Most all are shown as roman soldiers and not anyone else. Again though, as you stated, most people do not know a lot about the roman army. Enjoyed y'alls input and its food for thought.

Cheers,
Thomas

Thomas the church might be blinded by the latter stories of the martyrs, when the army was harsh in punishing Christians. Many stories that go that way.

I am a member of the orthodox church and I think that the depictions of the soldiers are the least credible. we just painted our church here where I live and well I would rather see late byzantine soldiers as Romans, none of the soldiers in the Crucification and Resurrection scenes look like romans.

I think that you can't use any of the representations in the church, at least that I am aware o,f to describe roman soldiers

[Renatus]

On Pilate generally, see Helen Bond's excellent article here:

http://ecole.evansville.edu/articles/pilate.html

[Hasdrubal]

Wasn't Matthews a first hand account? It had to be. He talked to Peter about retrieving two drachmas for the temple tax. So we know Matthew was a first hand account because that was the tax before the temple was destroyed.

[Crispvs]

Possibly, but probably not, as Matthew the apostle and the Matthew who wrote the gospel were two different people who share the same name. Although this is not what you will hear from most people, examination of the texts of both the gospel of Matthew and that of Luke leaves little or no room for the possibility that they could have been the same man. Parts of these two gospels are word for word the same, not just in modern translation but in the original Greek as well (the 'Q' passages). It could be suggested that one of them copied the other's work, as they both copied passages from Mark's gospel, but this suggestion would not stand up under proper examination. Enough of the things contained within each are independent of the other to show that neither could have seen the other's work before writing his own. Thus (for example) Luke mentions shepherds coming to see the newborn Jesus, while Matthew mentions the Magi, who may have visited as much as two years later.

As neither gospel could have been copied from the other, that has led to the realisation that the identical passages in Matthew and Luke must stem from a lost work that both are independently quoting from, which has become known as 'Q'. In fact, more of 'Q' may be preserved in these two gospels than we are aware, but it is only where they have quoted the same pieces that we con identify them as originating in 'Q'.

Whatever the case, if Matthew had been writing a first hand account (as Matthew the apostle would have been able to do) he would not need to quote another work to do so. His own experience would inform him. Therefore, the 'Q' passages effectively prove that we are dealing with two different Matthews. There is, of course, the possibility that Matthew the gospel writer was a member of the wider group of Jesus' disciples, like Nathaniel or Levi, to name two. If so, he would have some first hand knowledge, but would be unlikely to write the detailed account that one of the chosen twelve could. Whether or not he was a disciple, it still begs the question then of who the author of 'Q' might have been. It is not outside the realm of possibility to think that it might have been the work of one the twelve, meaning the the 'Q' passages might indeed be parts of a first hand account. Without a surviving copy though, we cannot know the answer to that.

Crispvs

[Hasdrubal]

Then how would he have got the tax money correct for that time period. Which is why biblical scholars say it's a first hand account. I believe that's only in the book of Matthew. It doesn't mention that in the Book of Luke.

From what I'm seeing the Book of Luke was written sometime between 60-61 AD. Matthew written somewhere between 50-60 AD, and Mark was in 51 AD. That's what I'm getting from the majority of biblical scholars.

[Hasdrubal]

Then how did he know the correct tax money exchange for that time period? That isn't in the book of Luke. No way that could have been known for that time period unless it was a first hand account.

Where are you getting your time periods from? The book of Luke was written sometime between 60-61 AD. The book of Matthew was written sometime between 50-61 AD, and the book of Mark was written sometime between 50-60 AD.

I'd like to see your sources.

Also don't you think there's a possibility that if they were both disciples of Jesus Christ that the reason their gospels are closely the same is due to seeing the same thing?