Legion near Judea at time of Jesus

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Legio VI was in Raphanea.

Raphana is a different city in the Roman province of Judea, on the other side of the sea of Galilee, where XII Fulminata was stationed at some point (I don't know when).

[Nathan Ross]

there was the issue of an insurrection caused by Barabbas

Barabbas - if he existed - was probably a gangster or petty brigand, or the leader of a riot. If he had led a full-scale revolt that required the assistance of Roman legions (and Antioch is 18-20 days march from Jerusalem!), I'm sure there's no way that Pilate would have simply released the man - he'd have been on a cross before he could draw breath.

In short, there's no evidence for legionary troops in Judea c.AD30, and it seems very unlikely that any would have been there. However, you could say there's no actual evidence they weren't there either, so if you need to have some legionaries present around that period, strictly speaking nobody could conclusively prove otherwise!

[LonginusXXI]

Also in the Prima Cohors Italica Civicum Romanum, would one or two veterans have their plate armor and scutum? Just wondering.

[LonginusXXI]

Note that Jesus claimed to be a king, and if Pilate released him, well he would be in hot water with Tiberius. As to a vexillation from a legion, it could have been one cohort at best. People have suggested that the nearest legion to Caesarea was the Tenth Legion.

[LonginusXXI]

Barrabas was a lestai, A.K.A. bandit, not a petty gangster. He committed murder in a rebellion. Although not nesscarily a full scale revolt, it would have been very serious.

[Renatus]

Barrabas was a lestai, A.K.A. bandit, not a petty gangster. He committed murder in a rebellion. Although not nesscarily a full scale revolt, it would have been very serious.

The description of Barabbas changes, and escalates, from Gospel to Gospel. In Mark, he is said to be held 'with' others who had committed murder in an insurrection, without saying that he had actually participated in either offence; in Matthew, he is called 'a notable prisoner', again without stating his offence; in Luke, he is said to have participated in an insurrection and to have committed murder; only in John is he called a lestes. Thus, the Evangelists changed their descriptions of him to suit their particular narratives. Mark, the earliest and, possibly, the most reliable may say no more than that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time or, perhaps, that his being held with the others was purely coincidental. Seen in this light, the call for him to be released may reflect a view on the part of the crowd that he had been wrongly arrested and that the demonstration was pro-Barabbas, rather than anti-Jesus.

[LonginusXXI]

Since Jesus claimed to be a king, I think Pilate would be in hot water with Tiberius if he released him.

[Gunthamund Hasding]

Since Jesus claimed to be a king, I think Pilate would be in hot water with Tiberius if he released him.

James Romans tolerated Kings and they used them and even a good part of the roman policy was based on client kings exactly in the period we are talking about, I think that it has nothing to do with Jesus pretending to be a king. Is very hard to see the facts behind the Trial really.

As a literary license you could say yeah they were legionaries there, but strictly scientifically speaking you have no proof they were, I don't think that the events we are speaking were so important for the Rome so doubtfully that there were any legionaries around. I would incline to BELIVE they were not but I can't PROVE it either.

[LonginusXXI]

It is known that cohorts of a legion could be sent to quell a minor revolt. In the case of Barabbas, I think as many as 2 cohorts would have been sent. Then again, it is not cast in stone that there were legionaries in Judea, as there were only auxiliaries in the province.

[Renatus]

In the case of Barabbas, I think as many as 2 cohorts would have been sent.

We simply do not have the information to make this sort of judgment. As I have endeavoured to point out, the Gospels are inconsistent in relation to Barabbas. The most that we can say is that there was apparently some sort of disturbance in which one or more persons were killed and in which Barabbas may or may not have been involved but we have no idea whether this was widespread or merely a local issue nor how many were concerned in it. It certainly does not seem to have been so serious as to attract the attention of Josephus. You would be better concentrating on Pilate's action against the incipient rising of the Samaritans but, even then, we do not have any numbers.

[LonginusXXI]

John says he was a lestes. And John gives a more detailed account of the trial.

[Renatus]

John says he was a lestes. And John gives a more detailed account of the trial.

Yes, but he is alone in doing so and he is the furthest of the Evangelists from the actual events. As I mentioned earlier, the descriptions of Barabbas change from Gospel to Gospel and his degree of criminality becomes more and more severe with each change. It is highly unlikely that any of the Evangelists knew exactly what happened or what was said during the trial. Like any author without access to the formal record (if there even was one), they made up court scenes to suit the message that they wished to convey.

[john m roberts]

Since Jesus claimed to be a king, I think Pilate would be in hot water with Tiberius if he released him.

James Romans tolerated Kings and they used them and even a good part of the roman policy was based on client kings exactly in the period we are talking about, I think that it has nothing to do with Jesus pretending to be a king. Is very hard to see the facts behind the Trial really.

As a literary license you could say yeah they were legionaries there, but strictly scientifically speaking you have no proof they were, I don't think that the events we are speaking were so important for the Rome so doubtfully that there were any legionaries around. I would incline to BELIVE they were not but I can't PROVE it either.

The Romans were fine with kings. The problem was that Jesus claimed to be (supposedly) King of the Jews. The Romans already had a king of the Jews - their puppet, Antipas. Anyone else claiming the title was a rebel, and the punishment for rebellion was crucifixion.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

John says he was a lestes. And John gives a more detailed account of the trial.

Yes, but he is alone in doing so and he is the furthest of the Evangelists from the actual events. As I mentioned earlier, the descriptions of Barabbas change from Gospel to Gospel and his degree of criminality becomes more and more severe with each change. It is highly unlikely that any of the Evangelists knew exactly what happened or what was said during the trial. Like any author without access to the formal record (if there even was one), they made up court scenes to suit the message that they wished to convey.

It's like Chalons: the further in time from the battle, the more credit that is given to the Goths.

The fact of the matter is that there's simply not enough evidence to make any definitive conclusion about the professional Roman forces in Judea at the time.

[LonginusXXI]

John was an eyewitness.