Legion near Judea at time of Jesus

[Renatus]

John was an eyewitness.

Where do you get that from? John's Gospel is generally considered to have been written in about AD 100-110. In fact, none of the Evangelists is considered to be contemporary with Jesus. They simply collected and wrote down stories that had been circulating in the oral tradition for decades, hence the differences.

[Purplest]

I think that after Jesus's arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane the apostles have know actual knowledge of what took place at Pilate's interrogation of him or what happened to him until he was lead out for crucifixion. They weren't there. Remember they had to be totally afraid of what may happen to themselves. They could have only witnessed his way to Galgotha and the crucifixion itself. The gospels weren't written till later. It's hard to take the gospels as fact. I, a practicing catholic, believe that a lot of the gospels are confusing if you look at historical facts. some of it is open to speculation. Don't get me wrong...you either believe or you don't,,,,

Thomas

[LonginusXXI]

"An eyewitness has testified and his testimony is true..." Seriously we need to get back on topic.

[Renatus]

"An eyewitness has testified and his testimony is true..." Seriously we need to get back on topic.

John alluding to someone who claimed to have witnessed the crucifixion does not make him an eyewitness to the trial.

This thread concerns the troops in Judaea in the time of Jesus and the question has been raised as to what would have been required to suppress the alleged rebellion of Barabbas. Discussion of the reliability of the sources is not necessarily off-topic.

[LonginusXXI]

When he said "an eyewitness" it was probably code for "Seriously, I was there!" Anyway if this continues it will probably go into the authenticity of the gospels, and the question of a higher power. I think we should get back on topic.

[Renatus]

When he said "an eyewitness" it was probably code for "Seriously, I was there!"

That is a matter of interpretation. If modern scholarship is right in thinking that John's Gospel was written in AD 100-110, it is almost impossible for him to have been an eyewitness. However, I agree with you that we had better agree to differ, otherwise we may find ourselves straying into territory that some members may find offensive.

[Purplest]

Excuse me. But I beg to differ! I think we need to explore and look at all the information we can get. I've commented in this conversation and am enjoying the information and thoughts on this topic. I think we should let this go where it leads us. Especially since there is so very little verification to the original topic of what legion was there at this time. I, as I said are a practicing catholic, believe the catholic church and the gospels they preach have a lot of questions. Again, especially since they were written so long after Jesus's trial and crucifixion. I think the romans would have a more accurate view of this than the apostles. The apostles would have been biased to promote they're new religion, where as the romans had nothing to gain. To them he was just another trouble maker. Let this thread take us where it leads us....The more the information and views, thoughts on this the better!

Peace,
Thomas

[LonginusXXI]

So what would the soldiers have looked like?

[Nathan Ross]

what would have been required to suppress the alleged rebellion of Barabbas.

Whether it was a rebellion, a riot or an insurrection, I'm sure the normal auxiliary garrison of Jerusalem and Judea would have been fully capable of dealing with it. That was their job, after all! There would be no need for Pilate to summon help from the legions, even if he had the authority to do so.

So what would the soldiers have looked like?

There's an illustration in Graham Sumner's first Roman Military Clothing book of an auxiliary soldier and centurion in Judea cAD30, the soldier in 'plain clothes' riot-control outfit. Neither wears armour - unless a battle was expected, this would probably be their likely everyday appearance, I think.

There's a common assumption that all Roman auxiliaries were dressed and equipped in the same way across the centuries - a bit like this perhaps. But troops in the east, in the early decades AD, quite possibly looked a lot more like their Herodian precursors. Locally-made equipment may have been common, and perhaps only the unit standards identified them as Roman. There are very few armour finds from the period, I believe - and lorica segmentata is almost unknown in the east at this date (the soldier in segmentata at Gamla was from Legio V Macedonica, and came from the Danube).

[LonginusXXI]

Also how was Pilate supposed to supervise Judea, Samaria, and Idumeanea with 5 cohorts? And would Pilate have legionaries in his guard cohort? Also what strength would Pilate take with him to Jerusalem?

[Crispvs]

"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."

Actually, it is not that unlikely. Even though none of the apostles could have been present, it was not a secret trial and there would have been many people who could have talked about it afterwards to other members of the public. There were the false witnesses who were present to give trumped up testimonies; there would have been guards; there would have been servants and perhaps most significantly, two members of the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea are known to have been sympathetic to Jesus. Nicodemus had met with him a few days earlier and Joseph donated a tomb and may well have spoken with some of Jesus' disciples at a later date. Even if neither Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea had been present, there would still be enough witnesses to the trial to feed salacious details back to the rest of society withing hours.


"I think that after Jesus's arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane the apostles have know actual knowledge of what took place at Pilate's interrogation of him or what happened to him until he was lead out for crucifixion. They weren't there. Remember they had to be totally afraid of what may happen to themselves. They could have only witnessed his way to Galgotha and the crucifixion itself."

See my comment above.


"The gospels weren't written till later."

It depends on what you call later. Suetonius wrote Divvs Ivlivs around a hundred and fifty years after Caesar died. All four gospels were written far sooner than that, even John's. Mark has always been said to have been the same man as Peter's secretary Mark, so presumably had his account from Peter. His is the earliest account. Matthew uses Mark's gospel, as well as a lost source known as 'Q' which seems to have been unknown to Mark and so was presumably written around the same time or shortly after Mark's gospel. Jona Lendering has shown that 'Q must have been written before the mid AD40s. We know nothing about Matthew himself other than that he was Jewish. He was clearly not the apostle Matthew, as Matthew the apostle would not need to quote 'Q' to recount his own experience. Luke's gospel must have been complete by around AD60 as he followed this with the Acts of the Apostles, which must have been completed shortly after AD62, as the latest official mentioned in it is known to have left office in AD62. He also quotes 'Q' but he and Matthew do not appear to have had knowledge of each other's gospels when writing their own. We cannot date Matthew's gospel as accurately as Luke's, but as all three of these gospels have now been identified among the Dead Sea Scrolls, they must all have been complete before AD69, when the community whose library the scrolls represent was destroyed at that time.

Therefore Mark's gospel and 'Q' were probably written within ten years of Jesus' crucifixion, Luke's gospel was written cAD55-60 and Matthew's gospel some time between c.AD45 and AD68. All three could thus potentially have been informed by people who witnessed many of the events they describe.


"It's hard to take the gospels as fact."

No harder than Suetonius, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Valleius Paterculus or even Tacitus, and all of these are more reliable than Caesar, whose own account often differs from things he evidently told Cicero in letters.


"I think the romans would have a more accurate view of this than the apostles. The apostles would have been biased to promote they're new religion, where as the romans had nothing to gain. To them he was just another trouble maker."

Perhaps the Romans had nothing to gain, but that might not have been the case with the chief priests, who appear to have been the ones calling the tune. There is good reason to think that they were able to blackmail Pilate into doing what they wanted. One thing they did not want was a messianic claimant with a strong following who might challenge their authority. There had been messianic claimants before who had gained strong followings and it was in the chief priests' interests to get the Romans to nip the next one in the bud as quickly as possible.

As to the Romans' view, we don't have that much to go on. Pilate supposedly said he found no fault with Jesus and other than that, as the original 'Acta Pilati' was probably destroyed in Diocletian's purge, we have only Tacitus' very neutral statement on the matter. The soldiers who mocked Jesus and dressed him as an imitation king were Herod Antipas' men, not Romans.


Lastly, back to the original topic.

James, I get the impression from your various postings, that you feel that any insurrection or uprising would have required legionaries to come to the aid of the auxiliaries already stationed around Judea. This leads me to suspect that you feel that the auxilia were not up to the job - in other words, incompetents not worthy of being soldiers. Therefore I have my own question for you: why do you hold this view?


Crispvs

[LonginusXXI]

I think the auxiliaries could get the job done, but Pilate was very limited in his men, (5 cohorts & 1 cavalry regiment) so if a full scale rebellion happened, Pilate would be screwed! Plus, the ethnicity of the soldiers (Samaritans, Idumeans) was a problem, (these groups were all hostile to the Jews) and these recruits might not have been the most disciplined men in the province. I think Pilate would have probably requested some legionary troops because of lack of discipline and bandits, (there's not much you can do with 2400 infantry and a small force of cavalry.)

[Purplest]

What I meant in regards to the apostles not having any knowledge of what took place at Pilate's interrogation of Jesus. I meant no first hand knowledge. Basically it's what they were told by others. Whether it was by those sympathetic to Jesus or not. And we know how things can be. Some people tell the truth and some tell you what they want you to hear. Whatever suits there own agenda.

What I meant by the gospels being written latter. Even if as you say, some were perhaps written only ten years after Jesus's crucifixion. That's still ten years. Think of how much could be left out, misinterpreted. lost in translation. We're talking word of mouth mostly. Think of right now how different a story changes from one person to the next or how different a story can be told by two people who witnessed the same thing.

The catholic church preaches that there was a centurion and roman troops which lead Jesus out to be crucified and actually did the crucifixion. They also say that Pilate posted sentries at Jesus's tomb after the crucifixion at the request of the Jews for fear that someone would steal the body. Well if these were comprised of undisciplined, etc. troops, then this would explain how supposedly all of them fell asleep during Jesus's resurrection. And we know roman legionaries were very well trained and disciplined and this kind of thing wouldn't have happened for fear of the consequences. Your thoughts?

Thomas

[Nathan Ross]

there was a centurion and roman troops which lead Jesus out to be crucified and actually did the crucifixion.

Although only four soldiers, apparently (if the number trying to divide the tunic is anything to go by!). Plus a centurion to oversee things. There's little suggestion that Pilate or his Roman troops had much fear of a major insurrection breaking out.

Pilate was very limited in his men, (5 cohorts & 1 cavalry regiment) so if a full scale rebellion happened, Pilate would be screwed!

There may have been more - and some of the cohorts could have been milliarian (thousand strong), as Cohors I Sebastenorum Milliaria was in later years. If there was no large-scale fighting, this number could have been sufficient to supervise a small province: later evidence (1st-2nd century) suggests that Cohors I Thracum was based at Hebron, with subunits at Mampsis, En Gedi and possibly Beth Guvrin. Deploying troops in smaller units scattered over a wide area like this would act as a deterrent to minor troublemakers, and would allow them to act in a paramilitary or policing role to keep the peace.

We know there was no large-scale fighting in Judea during this period - Tacitus (Histories 5.9) writes that sub Tiberio quies - "Under Tiberius, nothing happened"...

[Crispvs]

"Even if as you say, some were perhaps written only ten years after Jesus's crucifixion. That's still ten years."

Well, it might have been as much as ten years. Then again, both Mark's gospel and 'Q' could have been written two weeks after, for all we know. Ten years is simply the maximum likely timespan within which these works cold have been written (going by Jona Lendering's thinking in the matter of 'Q'). It is also worth bearing in mind that all three synoptic gospels were written well within living memory of the events they describe and could thus not be very far off what was already generally believed without losing credibility. If you are going to write about events which many people reading your work are likely to remember, you don't really want them then to go about the streets shouting for everyone to hear about what a liar and a charleton you are. You have to stay pretty close to the facts as everyone understands them for at least the majority of what you are saying. You have a bit more leeway to make fantastic claims if you looking back over three hundred and fifty years and want to talk about Alexander following a pair of snakes to the temple of Zeus Amon.


"And we know how things can be. Some people tell the truth and some tell you what they want you to hear. Whatever suits there own agenda"

True, but when it is likely that two members of the Sanhedrin, who both knew the characters and motivations of their fellow council members well and who had probably also seen the proceedings with their own eyes, were available for Peter, and thus Mark, to consult, the possibility for additional agendas and Chinese whispers is greatly reduced.


"The catholic church preaches that there was a centurion and roman troops which lead Jesus out to be crucified and actually did the crucifixion."

Technically, that is true. However, few in the church (as with the rest of society) are specialists on the Roman army. To the average person's understanding, a Roman soldier would be exactly that: a soldier in the huge , homogenous and super-disciplined Roman Army who, like all his comrades, came from Rome and spoke Latin. That is all they need to understand anyway - they are not specialists and the nature of the soldiers is at best incidental to them. Those of us who study these things in more depth (which includes everyone posting here in this thread) necessarily have a greater understanding of what many would consider the minutiae of the matter.

So yes - there was a centurio and at least four Roman soldiers, but the centurio would have given his orders in Greek and may have been a provincial himself and the soldiers were auxiliaries in well established units which recruited their men in Samaria, who would have spoken a Semitic language but who, like everyone else, also spoke Greek.


"They also say that Pilate posted sentries at Jesus's tomb after the crucifixion at the request of the Jews for fear that someone would steal the body. Well if these were comprised of undisciplined, etc. troops, then this would explain how supposedly all of them fell asleep during Jesus's resurrection. And we know roman legionaries were very well trained and disciplined and this kind of thing wouldn't have happened for fear of the consequences. Your thoughts?"

I don't believe that the guards on the tomb were Roman soldiers. According the Matthew's account, the chief priests and Pharisees requested Pilate to authorise a guard over the tomb. Pilate, presumably aware of the blackmail they could exert on him agreed, but rather than saying that Pilate mounted a guard, Matthew says he gave them the authorisation they had requested and then told then to make the arrangements themselves. The priests and Pharisees then went and saw to it that the tomb was sealed and mounted a guard. Nowhere does it say that the guard was composed of Roman soldiers, and given the context, it seems far more likely that they were temple guards, who would have been under the orders of the chief priests anyway. This would seem to be confirmed by the statement that the guards went to see the chief priests afterwards rather than a centurio or tribune, as a Roman soldier would have done, and together with the chief priests (and in exchange for a bribe) cooked up a story about having fallen asleep on duty which would have earned any soldier in a Roman unit the severest of punishments. The chief priests also undertook to smooth the matter over with Pilate (who they probably had over a barrel anyway). Temple guards then, not Roman auxiliary soldiers.

The more we look at it, the less we seem to see of actual Roman soldiers. In fact, for all the talk of Roman soldiers during the trial, crucifixion and burial, the only ones we can safely say were members of the Roman garrison are the centurio and the four soldiers who divided up the clothing of the crucified men. The men who carried out the arrest were a mixture of priests, temple guards (presumably) and general club wielding ruffians, as far as we can tell. The soldiers who subjected Jesus to abuse and mocked him by dressing him as a faux king were probably Jewish soldiers of Herod Antipas' personal retinue, and the guards on the tomb were temple guards under the orders of the chief priests.


Crispvs