[hijack]While Jewish religion still takes poorly to the idea of “Graven Images”, Israeli money DOES have portraits on it - although only on the bank notes, not on the coins. AFAIK the absence of portraits on the coins has nothing to do with the religious taboo on Human portrayal, but I could be wrong about that.
[/hijack]
(Sorry, nothing to contribute to the discussion itself)
Dani
If you’re looking for a demographic of the arrestors, John 18:12 might be the most helpful. There was a mixture of temple officials and some part of a Roman contingent, indicated by the presence of a [symbol]chiliarchos[/symbol] — the Koine term used for the leader of a cohort. There were five known cohorts in Judaea at the time: the Ala I Sebastenorum, the Cohors I Sebastenorum, the Cohors Prima Italica Civium Romanorum, the Cohors Secunda Italica Civium Romanorum, and the Cohors Prima Augusta. The first two were specifically assigned to Jerusalem on a permanent basis, and so the contingent likely included soldiers from one of them.
Thanks Liberal, speira does seem to be the contemporary greek word for an actual cohors
I found ‘Speira stratègis’ meaning a praetorian cohors and ‘speira Italikè’ which could be cohors II italica.
If you’re looking for accurate bits in what you perceive to be an imperfect record of historical events (guessing that’s where the OP is coming from?), you probably want to just ignore John’s gospel completely…
I thnk Lib was just elucidatin (quite well) John’s intent and not making a judgement of veracity. He was saying that John intended to indicate that some Roman soldiers were present at the arrest (which would also indicate that arrest occurred under Roman authority in John’s account), not necessarily that the story is historically accurate.
“John says there were Roman soldiers present” is not the same as saying “There were Roman soldiers present.”
All the Gospels agree that there were soldiers present. Does this necessarily imply Roman soldiers (or soldiers under Roman command) or would the High Priest, for example, have had at his disposal a troop of locally recruited soldiers so that, say, the Temple could be guarded and policed by Jews, not gentiles?
Another factor to keep in mind is that the arrest is supposed to have happened at Passover, a time when Jerusalem was flooded with thousands of people from around the country.
If you scroll up to read Lib’s exposition of the Greek word in question you will see that it specically referred to Roman soldiers.
Yes, but Lib is quoting from John, and MaleBox points out that, of the four, John’s gospel is probably the least reliable as a historical account.
The point becomes moot if, in first century Jerusalem, “soldiers” = “Roman soldiers”. If that’s the case, we don’t have to make a judgment about the veracity of John.
It probably is the least historical but we are not analyzing the story for historical veracity, only literary intent.
[symbol]SpeiroV[/symbol] (speiros) means an indeterminate “group or body” of soldiers. A detachment,
As Lib pointed out, though, John 18:12 makes reference to a [symbol]XiliarXoV[/symbol] (Chiliarchos) of the detachment. This means literally, “commander of 1000” and is a specific Roman rank similar to a captain in the army.
This is a rank that would have only been applied within a Roman military context, so address your question, a “detachment of soldiers” did not have to imply Romans but a chilarchos did.
John is the only gospel which mentions Romans, but it should be mentioned that the Matthew and Luke are really only echoing Mark (although Luke only says that it was a “crowd” while Mark and Matthew say it was a crowd dispatched by the temple priests), so we really have only two slightly opposed accounts. Ironically, John is the most anti-Jewish in its polemic. Mark and Matthew are really only critical of Jewish authority while John shifts amps up the rhetoric to a screed against Jewish people as a whole. Why John would include Roman soldiers in the arrest (which shifts the authority for the arrest away from the Jews) is an open question. Perhaps it has some basis in an authentic memory. Perhaps there is some other reason. Damned if I know what it would be, though.
[symbol]cwhjz[/symbol]
Damn it! I hit submit instead of preview. I was trying to figure out how to code a damn chi.
Also, damn it! I spelled [symbol]cilarcoV[/symbol] wrong. I forgot the stupid X was a xi instead of a chi.
Anyway, the word is [symbol]ciliarcoV[/symbol], not [symbol]xilarxos[/symbol] which is not actually a word.
Well, the title chilarchos was sometimes used to refer to non-Romans. (Remember, it was a Greek term first) For example, one account of the life of Alexander records that, after Alexander died, his general Antipater "appointed his son Cassander to be chiliarch. Seleucus was also given the title chiliarch. Earlier, the Greek records call Artabanos, the man who murdered the Persian king Xerxes, “chiliarch”.
Of course, the word might have restricted itself by the time the book of John was written, but, if you look at Mark 6:21, you’ll see the use of the word “chiliarchos” to refer to officers of Herod Antipas. While Antipas was a client king, he did have his own troops, and I don’t know if the term is being used there to refer to Roman officers or to Herod’s officers.
Hmmm…that’s a good point, I didn’t know it had been used in reference to Herod’s commanders. Still, they were Herod’s commanders not the priests, and Herod Antipas himself is not even mentioned in John’s gospel.
Also, Antipas, strictly speaking, was only a tertarch in Galilee, not Judea. Would he have had the authority to send his own guards out of his jurisdiction into Judea? And if so, why?
Perhaps an argument could be made that Antipas was worried about Jesus being called the “King of the Jews,” but if so, John doesn’t tell us that, and Antipas would have known that such a claim would be dealt with by Pilate anyway. As a matter of fact, Antipas was not really King of the Jews himself. Palestine was a Roman province at that time, and Antipas was a tetrarch, not a client king, and Pilate was the law in Judea, not Antipas.
I don’t see how it could have been Antipas’ men.
Dio is right. Herod the Great was declared King of Judaea by the Roman Senate, mainly due to his service as a general in the war against the Parthians. They recognized him as “a friend and ally to all Romans”, and provided him soldiers to help him seize the throne. Herod was not a Jew, and was highly resented by the Jewish authorities and people. He was an Idumean who, although worshiping the Judaic God, was looked down on as impure, somewhat like a Samaritan. And to make matters worse, his mother was an Arabian.
A bit of back-history: in the war, Jews had sided with the Parthians. Herod went to Rome and made an official request of Octavius to have the Senate order Mark Antony to support him in a triumphant return to rule over the rebels. Antony acceded, declared him to be the Jewish national leader, and provided two legions of troops — VI Ferrata and (most likely) III Gallica — to help Herod defeat Antigonus. Upon victory, he assumed the title of basileus, the highest possible title.
Herod immediately formed two cohorts, the Ala I Sebastenorum — composed almost entirely of Samaritans, and the Cohors I Sebastenorum. These were charged primarily with guarding his palace in Jerusalem and the fortress of Antonia. He formed three other cohorts as well (mentioned earlier), including one of cavalry. There was possibly a sixth cohort as well, although its name is not known. In any case, as basileus, he could always call upon the Syrian governor to send a legion if it ever became necessary — which he never did.
When Herod died in 4 BC, Augustus divided the kingdom among his three sons: Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and the east bank of Jordan; Philip, tetrarch of the Golan heights; and Herod Archelaus, ethnarch of Judaea, including Samaria and Idumea. As a ruler, Archelaus sucked so badly that the Jews and Samaritans joined together to demand of Rome that he be removed. Long story short, he was. In 6 AD, Rome made Judea an autonomous part of the province of Syria, and deemed that it be ruled by a series of prefects, the most famous of whom is probably Pontius Pilate. This move by Rome was telling. Prefects were not from the order of the Senate, but from the lesser order of the Knights. This meant that Rome considered Judaea to be a third-class province. The likely reason that it was given autonomy is because it was such a pain in the ass. It provided relatively little revenue to Rome, and therefore was not a great return on investment.
The reason that I mention all this is to point out that there was no such thing as a Jewish soldier, or a Jewish chilarchos. Whatever temple officials there were at Gesthemane, where Jesus was arrested, they were (minor) politicians and not soldiers. If there were any armed guards, they were almost certainly from one of the Roman cohorts. And since they drew swords, they were armed.
OK, so, to summarise:
All four gospels agree that Christ was arrested in the Garden at the instigation of the Jewish authorities. If there were any soldiers involved, they were Roman soldiers, since there weren’t any other soldiers around. But, if we accept the Gospel accounts, we infer that they were involved at the behest of the Jewish authorities.
John is the only Evangelist to suggest that there were soldiers involved in the arrest in the Garden. His language is consistent with their being Roman soldiers, which accords with the historical facts. John’s Gospel is the latest and least historical, so may not necessarily be accurate on this point. On the other hand, John is generally at pains to maximise Jewish involvement in the Passion, and minimise Roman involvement. There seems to be no obvious reason for him to describe Roman soldiers being involved in the arrest, other than a genuine belief that they were in fact involved.
None of this really bears on the OP. Even if there were Roman soldiers there to assist with the arrest (or, perhaps, to prevent an outbreak of trouble over the arrest) it was not up to them to find and identify Christ. The arrest was being instigated by the Jewish authorities, and almost certainly it was they, or there officials, who were going to have to find and identify Jesus. So Judas was there to assist them, not the Romans. And, according to the Gospels, it is they, and not the Romans, who paid Judas.
I think that is an excellent summary, UDS, but I would make two comments: one with respect to the reliability of John based on relative antiquity, and the other with respect to the usage by John of the terms Jew and Jewish.
Although I understand the rationale behind assigning greater credence to historical naratives on the basis of how contemporary they are, I submit that there are other factors, no less important, that ought to be considered in determining a narative’s historical accuracy and reliablity. Sure, it is true that, in general, if a work is excessively noncontemporary, there might be reason to doubt its veracity, or at the very least, its purity from hearsay. However, it is important to understand that one may not simply declare a work to be historically accurate merely because it is contemporary, nor may one declare a work to be dubious merely because it is not. As a matter of fact, if a narative is too contemporary, it might be suspect for that reason alone. Consider contemporary news reports about 9/11, the assassination of John Kennedy, and numerous other historical events of the modern communications age. Innacurate speculation often predominates initial reports, and it can be years before wheat and chaffe are separated, and even then, revisions can surface that are themselves based on less reliable early reports. Consider, for example, the grassy knoll and conspiracy theories permeating the culture even 40 years after Kennedy’s death. And this in an age when cameras place us live at events as they unfold. For a generation used to being immersed in instant news, it is easy to project the modern zeitgeist onto the ancient world. But that is a mistake. Owing to the very dearth of communications means in the first century, the fact that anything survived at all about Jesus’ life in puny Judaea is in itself remarkable. News and history were just as important to people at that time (although with a very different approach — less linear, more cultural) as they are today. Precisely because the populace was so illiterate, people who maintained histories were very highly regarded. There was no more important a community ritual than the telling of stories by visiting outsiders. People took time from their busy days to gather and listen to their reports. And just as certain people today have mastered specialized memory techniques, so did people then — except that the skill for people then was much more of a pressing need. Those responsible for passing history down through the generations were carefully chosen and demonstrated remarkable skills. If we compare an age where communication was both important and problematic with an age where we are postively saturated with a veritable Babel of communication, we are making a mistake. But aside from the matter of contemporanaeity, there are other, and equally significant, criteria for reliability — such as culture, prejudice, motive, context, and reputation.
Another mistake of zeitgeist overlay has to do with imposing modern usage of the term Jewish onto usage of the term in the first century, particularly with respect to the Gospels. Saying at that time that the Jews did this or the Jews did that had none of the racial and ethnic overtones that usage of the term has today. It was a political and religious reference, not a racial one. In Judaea, there were primarily Jews, Samaritans, Idumeans, and pagans, which consisted of Greeks, Romans, a few Egyptians, and a hodge-podge of other polytheists. Any references by John to a Jewish crowd or gang were meant to signify people who were sympathetic politically and religiously with the Sadducees or Pharisees (especially the Pharisees), the two primary Judaean political forces. Obviously, since Jesus Himself and practically all His disciples were Jewish, John did not intend to disparage all Jews as a race or culture. In fact, the usage of the term is so different today that the references ought to be translated differently. John was not an antisemite, and his references to Jews were not antisemitic. There is no need to tiptoe around them or attempt to excuse them. There is only the need to eradicate the ignorance surrounding them.
The Jews were, however, a people that had just rebelled against the empire.
This wasn’t taken lightly by the Romans, repression was extremely severe and their capital was rased to the ground.
This was not the time to propagate yourself as ‘Hi! We are from a new Jewish sect. Could you give us a moment of your time, please.’
It was probably wise to distantiate the new religion from the Jews.
Btw, Chiliarchos is not indicative of a Roman, it is a Greco-Macedonian rank.
Typical Roman officer rank would have been a centurio, in charge of a centuria (80 men).
There is no explicit rank for the commander of a cohors. In command of a cohors (6 centuriae = 480 men) would be either the centurio of the 1st centuria or a tribunus cohortis or even a prefect.
The Greek/Macedonian equivalent of the cohors would be a pentekosiarchia (512 men), commanded by a pentekosiarchos. A chiliarchia would be a unit with double that number.
There were some cohorts that were overstrength with extra centuriae, these would be called a cohors milliaria. The commander of such a unit would resemble the rank of chiliarchos more closely.
So anyone have any info if there were any armed jews at all?
No type of police force?
Are the temple guards a Hollywood invention?
Herod also seems to have had a Gallic body-guard. Wouldn’t that have been a photogenic arrest scene if Kelts had arrested Jesus.
Maybe. But John was hardly “distantiating” when he reported that Jesus said, “You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.” — John 4:22
Um, couple of things. For one, we can be fairly certain that any armed military officers in Jerusalem that day were not Greco-Macedonian. Second, the commander of a cohort was usually a pilus prior, a glorifed centurion to be sure, but a rank nonetheless that received roughly 60 times base pay, and became equestrian upon completion of his service. Third, the New Testament was not written in Latin. The Koine reference to a chilarchos in Gesthemane would be something like the English reference to a colonel in Libya — it is understood by all that a Libyan colonel is not equivalent to an American colonel. In fact, it is Lybia’s highest military rank. Finally, the Latin Vulgate, when it was written, specifically referenced a cohort: “cohors ergo et tribunus et ministri Iudaeorum conprehenderunt Iesum et ligaverunt eum”. — John 18:12 So, it was understood by Romans what the Koine was intended to convey.
Unless there were other units there, ethnic jewish ones, which we were wondering about.
Dio argued that as there was a chiliarchos, which is a Roman rank, therefore the soldiers must be Roman.
Chiliarchos is however not a Roman rank but a greek one and if there had been a 1000 strong jewish unit it would also have been commanded by a chiliarchos.
Indeed, the pilus prior being the centurion of the 1st ceturia of the cohort.
This was not a ‘glorified’ centurio. He was in actual command of his centuria.
This was the highest ranking centurio. The lowest ranking centurio would be the one commanding the last centuria. In a legion that would be the centurio of the 6th centuria of the 10th cohort. In a legion the pilus prior would have superior officers in the 4 tribunes and the legate commanding the legion.
In the auxilia the pilus prior could be the highest rank, as an auxilia unit was only one cohort strong. The Roman units in Iudea were all auxilia.