Wasted Sapience

Just about every painting and made-for-TV adaption of the crucifixion show Roman legionarries crucifying Jesus. This would have been impossible, as there were no legions in Judea at that time. Also note how the soldiers stole his robe. Legionarries were the wealthiest Romans, and probably would not have done that. The nearest one would have been in Syria. Pilate would likely have had something more similar to a police force under his control.

Why does this matter? People often claim that the guard at Jesus' tomb would have been killed for falling asleep. True for a legionary, but maybe not for this police guard. People also claim that the Romans were familiar with death, and knew that Jesus was in fact dead when taken off the cross. Would one of Pilate's rent-a-cops have know this for sure?

spin

The Roman prefect seems to have had a cohort at his command, as can be gleaned from Josephus. They were probably not Romans, but from some other province.


spin

jgibson000

Do they really? Seems to me they show Roman soldiers. Is there a difference between a Roman soldier and a Roman legionaire? If so, what visually would be the clue or clues that distingusihes one from the other and that paintings and TV presentations of the crucifixion fail to show?

No legions, yes, but no Roman soldiers? Who was in the Fortress Antonia? Who was with Pilate in his palace at Caesarea Maritima?

Do you have something that backs up your claim about legionaires being the wealthiest of Romans? And did legionaires, even if wealthy, carry their wealth with them?

Maybe not? Would they or wouldn't they even if only part of a police guard? And where is your evidence that Pilate's guard were only "police" (what ever that means), and not Roman soldiers?

who are these "people"?

Why would they not?

And is there a point you are trying to make with all of this? If there is, is it the shopworn explanation of the resurrection that Jesus
wasn't really dead?

JG

Joan of Bark

I think WS is trying to imply that certain assumptions are made in any popular references to the time of Jesus. The vast majority of popular presentations of Jesus that I see make him caucasian.

Joan of Bark

What do you mean by 'shopworn'. Frankly, I rarely see this argument. Most arguments claim that he was never resurrected.

Lucretius

While it may be the case that there were no Legions in the area at the time if by that you mean complete Legion sized forces ,there would be nothing to say that there could not have been sections of a Legion on detached service as "police" or "bodyguards" one of the advantages that the Legions had was that they could be very flexible in their deployment if you were in a large scale battle then you would use "Legion sized" forces even mutiple Legions operating together however for other duties a Century or even a Manpile were used and these sort of detachments were common place .
This would also apply to Auxilliaries
The distinction between Legionaries and Auxilliaries would generally be only the type and quality of military equipment, Legionaries generally having better equipment but not always
Even IF they came from another province they are still ROMAN soldiers if we take that as menaing in the service of the Roman Empire as far as I'm aware there were no mercenary non Roman troops used at the time in the Middle East

jgibson000

How is "what you rarely see" determinative of whether something is shopworn or not?

JG

Vorkosigan

Jeff, you got so much to teach and could be such an asset here. Please don't answer a question with a question. Why don't you answer J of B with a statement like:

"The reason I used the term "shopworn" is that for many years in the 19th century and throughout the first half of the 20th century, scholars sought naturalistic explanations for the resurrection of Jesus -- for example, that he had only "swooned" or that there was a substitute body, or the disciples had stolen the body, and so on. A good example of this kind of thinking occurs in the turgid bestseller of Hugh Schoenfeld, The Passover Plot."

This isn't XTALK, the people here don't have the kind of background that would enable them to realize why it is a shopworn.

Michael

jgibson000

My point exactly. And yet they still present themselves and what they say as if they do. Note the certainty with which "Joan of Bark" made her(?) declaration about what was usual and what was not.

Are you telling me that she(?) was not implying that she was well grounded in the literature on Jesus death and well informed vis a vis the various theories that have been offered to explain what really happened in the matter of Jesus' "resurrection"?

In any case, it seems to me -- assuming what I do not assume to be the case, namely, that my "role" here is to teach -- that pointing out that someone has engaged in the fallacy of personal incredulity, is teaching.

Moreover, if you look closely at "Joan's" message, she(?) isn't asking for a definition of "shopworn". She(?) already knows what the term means. She's challenging my assertion that the swoon theory has been frequently used.

So I don't find your idea of what I should have said to the point.


Jeffrey

Steven Carr

Doesn't John's Gospel depict one of the soldiers as a 'chiliarch'?

What exactly does that mean?