Legion near Judea at time of Jesus

[LonginusXXI]

I kind of drew a picture of a soldier from the Italian Cohort.
Any comments?
[attachment=12884]image_2015-10-06.jpeg[/attachment]

[attachment=12883]image.jpeg[/attachment]

[LonginusXXI]

There are some really good novels on this subject. The novel The Chief Centurion is really good if you ask me.

[Crispvs]

James,

It is possible that they could have looked like that (although Corbridge Type 'A' segmentata may not have been in service that early) but it would be safer to depict them in mail or scale, as both these armour types were in use throughout the empire, whereas the earliest evidence for segmentata in Judea comes from the camps around Masada and thus dates to around AD70. There is a distinct lack of evidence for segmentata in the region earlier than that, unless of course some has been found since I last saw an update on the matter. There is also a debate to be had about whether auxiliaries wore segmentata as well, with most people taking the view that they did not and others taking the view (based I believe on finds in the Batavian homelands) that some of them might have done.


Aaron,

"Then how did he know the correct tax money exchange for that time period? No way that could have been known for that time period unless it was a first hand account."

The presence of all three synoptic gospels in the library of the Qumran community shows that they must all have been completed before the temple was destroyed. What the rate of temple tax was would therefore be common and current knowledge. When you talk about the time period though, don't forget that we are probably dealing with a span of less than thirty years, which is not that long really. I have no problem recalling things in detail which happened thirty years ago, as well as the prices I paid for some things. I doubt people in the first century AD found it any more difficult to recall things over the same space of time.

"That isn't in the book of Luke."

Why would it have to be? Neither Matthew nor Luke were copying from each other, and each of them provides details which were unknown to, or omitted by, the other.

"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."

Actually, we cannot be nearly as precise as that. For Luke's gospel, all we know is that it was completed before he wrote the Acts of the Apostles (which he must have written in late AD62 or shortly after) and after Mark's gospel and 'Q'. For Matthew's gospel we have slightly less. All we know is that, like Luke's, it must have been written after Mark's and 'Q' and before AD68 or thereabouts. Similarly, we cannot be precise about the date of Mark's gospel, except to say that it must have been written before Matthew's and Luke's, which means that it could have been written as early as AD33 (although if it is true that Mark was Peter's secretary, then 33 may be rather too early) and potentially as late as AD60. However, the fact that Mark's gospel shows no knowledge of the account of 'Q' would suggest that it might be earlier than 'Q', which probably dates to the early AD40s at the latest.
http://www.livius.org/sources/about/q/

"I'd like to see your sources."

Gospel of Mark; Gospel of Matthew; Gospel of Luke; and the Acts of the Apostles. What sources are you using? ;-)

"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?"

Well, that is always possible, but the fact that all of the 'Q' passages in both Luke and Matthew are word for word the same (if you can read Greek you can confirm this from the Septuagent) argues against the sayings and events recounted in these passages being the eyewitness accounts of two people. Even if two people stand next to each other and witness the same things, go home to two different houses and then write accounts of those same things that very night, the chances of them both writing exactly the same words for every passage are thousands, if not millions, to one against.

Crispvs

[LonginusXXI]

The picture I drew was of a veteran of the Italian Cohort, and this cohort was recorded to have fought in the Germanic Wars in 9 A.D. Also armor was supplied by contractors so it could have been that this contractor was a Roman legionary who retired and a recruit could have bought his armor. Based on this, there could have been one or two guys in lorica segmentata, (this was a citizen cohort!) However, the main armor that was used by auxiliaries was scale and mail armor, so the possibilities of lorica segmentata used by these soldiers was probably very slim.

[LonginusXXI]

Yeah, the rest is just speculation for the most part.

[LonginusXXI]

Like Crispvs said, all the synoptic gospels might have had Q as their primary source. The only differences might have been their audiences, infancy narratives, and historical references. Luke actually has some interesting historical references in there, like the census under Quirinius. But alas, some of these references might be vague historically.

[LonginusXXI]

Also the Augustan cohort might have been the Cohors I Sebastenorum. Sebastov was Greek for Augustus.

[Tempestvvv]

James,

It is possible that they could have looked like that (although Corbridge Type 'A' segmentata may not have been in service that early) but it would be safer to depict them in mail or scale, as both these armour types were in use throughout the empire, whereas the earliest evidence for segmentata in Judea comes from the camps around Masada and thus dates to around AD70. There is a distinct lack of evidence for segmentata in the region earlier than that, unless of course some has been found since I last saw an update on the matter. There is also a debate to be had about whether auxiliaries wore segmentata as well, with most people taking the view that they did not and others taking the view (based I believe on finds in the Batavian homelands) that some of them might have done.

Crispvs

What about leather segmentata? (Yeah I know Hollywood :whistle: )
Jpeg from the Passion of Christ

[LonginusXXI]

You can also see some metal armor in there. This however is a very erroneous representation of the lorica segmentata found in Kalkreise.

[Crispvs]

Leather segmentata - Hollywood only I am afraid. Some people might still believe in the leather lorica, but they would cease to do so very fast once it came into contact with a real weapon.

An Italian re-enactor once tried to criticise my armour on the basis that it was metal and his, he proudly pointed out, was leather: 'the correct material'. I jovially drew my sword and offered to test its ability to withstand weapons as I regularly do with my own. He looked desperate and back-pedalled very quickly, suddenly well aware that the sharp point of a gladius would go though his 'armour' like the proverbial hot knife through butter.

Crispvs

[LonginusXXI]

The dude was probably reading Vegetius.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Vegetius doesn't even mention Leather Armor.

[LonginusXXI]

The picture I drew was of a veteran of the Italian Cohort, and this cohort was recorded to have fought in the Germanic Wars in 9 A.D. Also armor was supplied by contractors so it could have been that this contractor was a Roman legionary who retired and a recruit could have bought his armor. Based on this, there could have been one or two guys in lorica segmentata, (this was a citizen cohort!) However, the main armor that was used by auxiliaries was scale and mail armor, so the possibilities of lorica segmentata used by these soldiers was probably very slim.

[LuciusSallustiusPlautus]

In Acts 10:7-8 "When the angel who spoke to him had left, he called two of his slaves and a devout soldier from the ranks of those who served him", could the devout soldier possibly be the Centurion's Optio?

[LonginusXXI]

It was probably a trusted soldier but not a high ranking principalis like an optio.