MadMez

My interests include Roman military history, and I was looking at various sources to back up a wargame I'm playing using "The Siege of Jerusalem" rules by Avalon Hill. My cohorts aren't doing to well so..I'm trying to find an excuse to bring in a Legion to the province before 30 CE, but there was only one instance that I can find, and that's in 41 CE, acording to Tacitus in his "Histories".

Anywayyyyyyyy....

In surfing I came across this site...

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate01.htm

..and found it very informative and an easy read (important for me - ah-hem) and thought I'd ask if the author's statement:

"An attempt is made to show that Pilate was sincerely interested in Jewish culture and did his best to prevent unnecessary violence."

How does all this gel with the experts here?

Peter Kirby

Acts 10:1 says, "There was a certain man in Caesarea named Cornelius. He was a centurion from the Cohort known as The Italian." Recently I quoted Luke Timothy Johnson writes on Acts 10:1: "The reader is reminded at once of the earlier centurion (=leader of 100 men) who sent mesengers to Jesus with a request for help (Luke 7:1-10). There is archaeological evidence for a Second Italian Cohort (speira = app. 600 men) stationed in Syria around 69 C.E., but we have no evidence supporting the presence of the unit named here in Caesarea for the period 41-44 C.E.; see Josephus, Antiquities 19:365-366." (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 181)

Here is what Josephus says:

"[Death of Herod, denial of new territory to his son Agrippa junior.] Accordingly he sent Cuspins Fadus to be procurator of Judea, and of the entire kingdom, and paid that respect to the deceased as not to introduce Marcus, who had been at variance with him, into his kingdom. But he determined, in the first place, to send orders to Fadus, that he should chastise the inhabitants of Cesarea and Sebaste for those abuses they had offered to him that was deceased, and their madness towards his daughters that were still alive; and that he should remove that body of soldiers that were at Cesarea and Sebaste, with the five regiments, into Pontus, that they might do their military duty there; and that he should choose an equal number of soldiers out of the Roman legions that were in Syria, to supply their place. Yet were not those that had such orders actually removed; for by sending ambassadors to Claudius, they mollified him, and got leave to abide in Judea still; and these were the very men that became the source of very great calamities to the Jews in after-times, and sowed the seeds of that war which began under Florus; whence it was that when Vespasian had subdued the country, he removed them out of his province, as we shall relate hereafter."

If 'The Italian', which Luke says was present in Caesarea in 41-44, were the regiment that was on duty in Palestine, which Josephus says was removed out of the province (of Syria-Judea) by Vespasian, why do we have archaeological evidence for an 'Italian' cohort in Syria starting only in 69 CE? (Note that the Syrian armies often did double duty for the Judean backwater/subprovince. The Syrian governor was the leading military figure in the area, not the procurators and prefects of Judea, who would not have enough men to fight wars.) The answer is clear to me: a Lucan anachronism, writing in the period after the destruction of Jerusalem and before the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled, extrapolating its presence in the region to the time before the Jewish revolt. This statement in Acts is innocent of a close reading of Josephus, by the way. Perhaps he heard of the planned changing of the guard from Syria to Caesarea on the death of Herod and wrongly inferred that the cohort currently in Syria, the Second Italian Cohort, was then in Caesarea, shortly after the death of Herod.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Argument from "it must have been so"

But then why did Josephus have to write his long expositions of Judaism to explain the Jews to the Romans 50 years or so later?

His only strong argument comes from the design of a coin. But most of his evidence for Pilate's moderation seems to come from the gospels, and from arguing that Philo and Josephus had their own agendas. He also accepts the Testamonium without discussing its problems.

He has no argument against the idea that the gospels reflect an attempt by early Christians to shift all of the blame for the crucifixion onto the Jews, while attempting to appease to the Romans.

In short, not very persuasive on that issue.

MadMez

And quick, too!

I'm off to lose some more auxiliary troops, thanks again.

Rick Sumner

Josephus isn't explaining so much as he's apologizing, though the two, of course, aren't mutually exclusive.

Regards,
Rick

livius drusus

He's put together a pretty cool website for a damn dirty imposter.

keyser_soze

Try Elaine Pagel's "Origins of Satan". Apparently, he was an asshole, and deliberately induced mobs and anger. You'll find her book quite helpful in this area I'm sure.