Roman Special Forces at Jesus' Tomb
Comments
-
What force did crowd control in the Temple courts? What control did Rome exercise over that force? [What proof exists?]
I would wager that the force which did crowd control in the Temple was the κουστωδία mentioned in this passage. They would have been Jewish since gentiles were forbidden to enter beyond a particular point under penalty of death.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
What force did crowd control in the Temple courts? What control did Rome exercise over that force? [What proof exists?]
I would suggest a reading of Lk 22.1-6. Unless we are to understand that the soldiers (here called στρατηγοῖς) were Roman soldiers plotting together with the High Priests and Judas, we must understand that the Temple did have its own contingent of "muscle."
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
στρατηγός, οῦ, ὁ (στρατός ‘army, host’, ἄγω; Aeschyl., Hdt.+; ins, pap, LXX; EpArist 280; Philo, Joseph.; Mel., P. 105, 818; loanw. in rabb. Orig. ‘general’).
① the highest official in a Gr-Rom. city, praetor, chief magistrate pl. of the highest officials of the Roman colony of Philippi. This title was not quite officially correct, since these men were properly termed ‘duoviri’, but it occurs several times in ins as a popular designation for them (JWeiss, RE XII 1903, p. 39, 39f.—στρατηγοί governed Pergamum [Jos., Ant. 14, 247] and Sardis [14, 259]) Ac 16:20, 22, 35f, 38.—Mommsen, Röm. Geschichte V 274ff; JMarquardt, Staatsverw. I2 1881, 316ff; Ramsay, JTS 1, 1900, 114–16; FHaverfield, ibid. 434f; Zahn, Einl.3 I 378ff; AWikenhauser, Die AG 1921, 346f. Mason 86f.
② ὁ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ=commander responsible for the temple in Jerusalem, captain of the temple Ac 4:1; 5:24. Also simply ὁ στρατηγός (Jos., Bell. 6, 294, Ant. 20, 131) vs. 26. In the pl. (LXX; s. Schürer II 278, 7) στρατηγοὶ (τοῦ ἱεροῦ) Lk 22:4, 52.—Schürer II 277f and s. EBriess, WienerStud 34, 1912, 356f; Kl. Pauly V 388–91 (CIG 3151 στ. ἐπὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ).—B. 1381f. DELG s.v. στρατό. M-M. TW.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (947–948). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
0 -
② ὁ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ=commander responsible for the temple in Jerusalem, captain of the temple Ac 4:1; 5:24. Also simply ὁ στρατηγός (Jos., Bell. 6, 294, Ant. 20, 131) vs. 26. In the pl. (LXX; s. Schürer II 278, 7) στρατηγοὶ (τοῦ ἱεροῦ) Lk 22:4, 52.—Schürer II 277f and s. EBriess, WienerStud 34, 1912, 356f; Kl. Pauly V 388–91 (CIG 3151 στ. ἐπὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ).—B. 1381f. DELG s.v. στρατό. M-M. TW.
Was the captain of the στρατία not himself a στρατιώτης?
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
② ὁ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ=commander responsible for the temple in Jerusalem, captain of the temple Ac 4:1; 5:24. Also simply ὁ στρατηγός (Jos., Bell. 6, 294, Ant. 20, 131) vs. 26. In the pl. (LXX; s. Schürer II 278, 7) στρατηγοὶ (τοῦ ἱεροῦ) Lk 22:4, 52.—Schürer II 277f and s. EBriess, WienerStud 34, 1912, 356f; Kl. Pauly V 388–91 (CIG 3151 στ. ἐπὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ).—B. 1381f. DELG s.v. στρατό. M-M. TW.
Was the captain of the στρατία not himself a στρατιώτης?
Is this where I jump and say 'Yes' or was it 'No'. Sorry I forgot....[:S]
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
George, can Matthew 27:65 read with this sense?:
"Pilate showed them [the soldiers] and said, "You need soldiers. Take them and make the tomb as secure as possible."
0 -
George, can Matthew 27:65 read with this sense?:
"Pilate showed them [the soldiers] and said, "You need soldiers. Take them and make the tomb as secure as possible."
Naw. to take does not mean to already have in possession. And showed is not the same as said, which inferrs adding to the text....there is no implication that Pilate said, or implied, that they 'need' -ed soldiers.
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
George, can Matthew 27:65 read with this sense?:
"Pilate showed them [the soldiers] and said, "You need soldiers. Take them and make the tomb as secure as possible."
I shouldn't think so. Note how the command in Ac 23.23-24 if phrased.
23 Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος δύο [τινὰς] τῶν ἑκατονταρχῶν εἶπεν· ἑτοιμάσατε στρατιώτας διακοσίους, ὅπως πορευθῶσιν ἕως Καισαρείας, καὶ ἱππεῖς ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ δεξιολάβους διακοσίους ἀπὸ τρίτης ὥρας τῆς νυκτός,george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
So is the sense, "You already have custodians [of the temple]. Take them and make it as secure as you can"?
0 -
So is the sense, "You already have custodians [of the temple]. Take them and make it as secure as you can"?
That's pretty close.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Thanks. So they answered to the priests. So what's with verse 14?:
Mat 28:11 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
Mat 28:12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
Mat 28:13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
Mat 28:14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
Mat 28:15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
0 -
So is the sense, "You already have custodians [of the temple]. Take them and make it as secure as you can"?
Interestingly, UBS4 being translated as “custodians”, is that where you got this? but "[of the temple]" I could not find....
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
"custodian" was listed as a synonym for "watchman" in my favorite dictionary site: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/watchman
It means: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/custodian
which is also formally equivalent to KOUSTWDIA
I put ""of the temple" in brackets to indicate that it was for clarification.
I'm sold that in Matthew, the KOUSTADIAs are the custodians of the temple. Though verse 14 is then problematic.
0 -
RE: verse 14I'm sold that in Matthew, the KOUSTADIAs are the custodians of the temple. Though verse 14 is then problematic.
Could the 'custodians of the temple' be recruited as Roman auxiliaries? Then your past history as a custodian would be reflected in your being recruited.
OR were the 'custodians of the temple' expected to follow the same rules that the Roman auxiliaries did?
0 -
How do we know that the custodians of the temple were not Roman soldiers? (I mean, what primary source)?
0 -
How do we know that the custodians of the temple were not Roman soldiers? (I mean, what primary source)?
But, you are already adding to the text what isn’t there to suit your own desire, you already said that you added "of the temple" - now you are attempting to comment as to its credibility....isn't that misleading and attempting to claim something that the text does not speak?
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
How do we know that the custodians of the temple were not Roman soldiers? (I mean, what primary source)?
There is really only one primary source which would tend to indicate that the temple police would not have been Romans. That is the inscription in Latin and Greek which is also quoted in Josephus warning gentiles not to proceed beyond the court of the gentiles on pain of death. There is a hint of this in Ac 21 where one of the accusations against Paul was that he brought gentiles into the temple.
“When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, who had seen him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd. They seized him, shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this place; more than that, he has actually brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple.” (Acts 21:27–29, NRSV)
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
What other watch did the priests have?
0 -
Okay, thanks.
0 -
George Somsel
Welcome to the 5000 club – and thanks for joining this thread.
WoundedEgo
How do we know that the custodians of the temple were not Roman soldiers? (I mean, what primary source)?
Question: do we need proof that they were not Roman or that they were Roman? [Jesus has taught us to answer a question with a question]
As to primary source: we have a slight problem, Rome burnt Jerusalem to the ground in 70 ad and destroyed all of the evidence.
However some interesting finds:
In the Ante-Nicene Fathers: [the development of Christianity and Christian thought during the period immediately following the Apostolic Era.]The only mention of Roman soldiers is in
"The Gospel of Nicodemus",
“The Acts of Pilate” and
"The Gospel According to Peter"
In the Catena Aurea: [His work manifests an intimate acquaintance with the Fathers of the church and provides an excellent complement to the modern attempts to understand how the fathers read scripture]
There is no mention of Roman Solders at the tomb of Jesus.
[Note that I am only up to the ‘C’s in my research. Currently scanning to find relevant documents. Will later review in detail]0 -
I'm sold on this:
* they were temple custodians
* they were Jews
Does anyone have any evidence that either of these are not accurate?
Thanks.
0 -
I was in the Special Forces during the Sixties, and I am a lifetime member of the Special Forces Association. The term "Special Forces" grew out of the WW2 units, Darby's Rangers, Merrill's Maurders, and the OSS. The term Special Forces actually applies only to the U.S.Army's Green Berets. Today it is common to include the SEALS when talking about SF.
<p>
Throughout history most arnies have had special units of various type, but none were anything like the U.S. Army's Special Forces (Green Berets).
0 -
I was in a discussion tonight regarding the guards at the tomb.
The Greek indicates these were soldiers doing guard duty. If I wanted to make certain there was no resurrection, I would use the very best soldiers.
0 -
I was in the Special Forces during the Sixties, and I am a lifetime member of the Special Forces Association. The term "Special Forces" grew out of the WW2 units, Darby's Rangers, Merrill's Maurders, and the OSS. The term Special Forces actually applies only to the U.S.Army's Green Berets. Today it is common to include the SEALS when talking about SF.
Throughout history most arnies have had special units of various type, but none were anything like the U.S. Army's Special Forces (Green Berets).
True. And thanks for serving. I was told that I was 4F [not acceptable for military service] because of my eye site.
I was in a discussion tonight regarding the guards at the tomb.
The Greek indicates these were soldiers doing guard duty. If I wanted to make certain there was no resurrection, I would use the very best soldiers.
Yes, one would use the very best available - but what was available? Some versions read 'take a guard' and is often interpreted as 'I will give you a guard'. Others read 'you have a guard' and can be interpreted as 'use your temple guards' In my research it looks like the original source for Roman Soldiers is the Gospel of Peter. But that 'source' also says many other things that have NOT been accepted. My opinion on that is take all or nothing. If Roman Soldiers than also add that the Cross walked out of the tomb. [and other things]
0 -
The source I was using is the BDAG, which shows the Latin word for soldier, not guard.
0 -
When the priests bribed the soldiers to lie about what happened at the tomb, they offered to protect them from the Governor's wrath if he heard about it. That would lead me to think that they were Roman soldiers. (Matthew chapter 28:14)
Not certain one can be 100% sure, but the Governor's wrath would be more of a concern for Roman soldiers.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
What does this have to do with the Bible, again, Please?
Other than a personal quest in search of the holy grail...
Oh I know this is going to turn into a theo debate right? going back over the resources that KS4J coincidentally and conveniently provided, it could easily happen..
Thanks
Don't worry. I give you full permission not to read it.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
When the priests bribed the soldiers to lie about what happened at the tomb, they offered to protect them from the Governor's wrath if he heard about it. That would lead me to think that they were Roman soldiers. (Matthew chapter 28:14)
Not certain one can be 100% sure, but the Governor's wrath would be more of a concern for Roman soldiers.
Very good point. For what it's worth, I agree with you [8-|]
0 -
0
-
David, I imagine if they were temple guards Pilate would have no interest. Since the seal was based upon Roman law, it is unlikely that temple police would be used. Nor would temple guards need to be bribed. They would have simply been ordered by the high priests as to what they could say. After forcing Pilate to crucify Jesus, the priests likely felt they could control him.
At least that is most likely to me. But I just don't think anyone can say for certain.
When the priests bribed the soldiers to lie about what happened at the tomb, they offered to protect them from the Governor's wrath if he heard about it. That would lead me to think that they were Roman soldiers. (Matthew chapter 28:14)
Not certain one can be 100% sure, but the Governor's wrath would be more of a concern for Roman soldiers.
Question: What were the rules of engagement? Did Rome require all those that carried sharp pointy things to meet the same standards the Roman Soldiers had to meet? If they were Roman Soldiers how could the priests protect them? If they were Temple Guards they might be able to but not Roman Soldiers. But were the Temple Guards required to live up to Roman Standards???
The source I was using is the BDAG, which shows the Latin word for soldier, not guard.
κουστωδία 2892 [Is this the reference you mean?]
P Oxy II. 29420 (a.d. 22) (= Selections, p. 35) ἐν κ̣οσ[τ]ωδε[1][ίᾳ εἰσί is, so far as we know, the earliest ex. of this borrowed word. For the spelling κουστωδία, as in Mt 27:65f., 28:11, cf P Ryl II. 1892 (a.d. 128) δημοσίο̣(υ) ἱματισμο̣ῦ̣ κουστωδιῶ̣ν, “public clothing for the guards”: see also Hatzidakis Gr. p. 109. In a fragmentary report referring to the Jewish War of Trajan, P Par 68A. 8, we find κωστωδία—ταῦτα ἐγένετο ὅτι τινὰς ἐπὶ κωστωδίαν ἥρπασαν καὶ [τοὺς ἁρπασθέντ]ας ἐτραυμάτισαν: the word is similarly restored in BGU I. 3413 (ii/a.d.). M&M
A BORROWED word. Question did kids call every one in uniform a κουστωδία or just the Roman ones? Did the general population see the difference between a Soldier and a Guard?
And what early references, other then the Gospel of Peter, can you find before 1000 ad that says Roman?
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0
