Roman Special Forces at Jesus' Tomb
Roman Special Forces at Jesus' Tomb
When you run aground Ask Logos Forum: Am [still or again] investigating whether they were Roman or Jewish Guards at the tomb of Jesus.
AMG Bible Illustrations in the article “YOU CANNOT STOP A REAL RESURRECTION!” defines {koustodia} as the Roman army’s special forces.
Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary says that they were the Temple Guard
The Complete Word Study Dictionary says custody, watch, guard, sentinel
BDAG “a group of soldiers doing guard duty, a guard composed of soldiers”
And BDAG refers us to M&M
But none of these [except AMG] note anything special about the guard.
Searched for “special forces” and did not find anything useful [King David had ‘special forces’ but no hint they were anything like today’s special forces]
The article in AMG does not list any helpful information in tracking down what the author was thinking. Are there any other independent mention of Roman special forces? Or does the AMG article assume that the reader has no access to any Greek Tools? [[as in they expect the reader to accept what they say and question nothing!]]
[[Apr 13-18, 2011 was the date on the last thread [that I found] on Roman / Jewish Guards]]
[[http://community.logos.com/forums/t/32250.aspx?PageIndex=1]]
[[and as ‘we’ said before – it is still a split call]]
Have made some progress. [[It looks like the Gospel of Peter was the first to mention Roman Guards ~150ad]]
But need help on ‘special forces or {koustodia} I am at the (Scholar's Platinum (JG)) level Plus
Comments
- It seems unimportant to me whether the temple guards were Jewish (racially/religiously) or Roman (relatively few Roman soldiers were born into, had bought, or had earned Roman citizenship).
- I see no evidence that Roman special forces (Praetorians? Bucelleri?) were stationed in a backwater province like Judea.
- The fact that the guards at the tomb were both assigned by and answerable to Pilate, infers that they were likely a Roman Quaternion (the smallest squad of soldiers and the most likely to be assigned guard duty: one for each watch of the night so that three could sleep/eat/lounge while one was "on watch"), and gives some credence to the belief that they were Roman soldier vs. temple guards.
- It seems unimportant to me whether the temple guards were Jewish (racially/religiously) or Roman (relatively few Roman soldiers were born into, had bought, or had earned Roman citizenship).
- I see no evidence that Roman special forces (Praetorians? Bucelleri?) were stationed in a backwater province like Judea.
- The fact that the guards at the tomb were both assigned by and answerable to Pilate, infers that they were likely a Roman Quaternion (the smallest squad of soldiers and the most likely to be assigned guard duty: one for each watch of the night so that three could sleep/eat/lounge while one was "on watch"), and gives some credence to the belief that they were Roman soldier vs. temple guards.
I did some serious reading some years back and the best reading was that it was an informal band of soldiers, the number being undetermined, and they were most likely the same delegation that was assigned to the priests. Any thing else would be somewhat speculative. But there was a tidbit that i remember reading that since there was a seal it had to be some special group of soldiers, but then they would not have taken a bribe - would they....
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
I did some serious reading some years back and the best reading was that it was an informal band of soldiers, the number being undetermined, and they were most likely the same delegation that was assigned to the priests. Any thing else would be somewhat speculative. But there was a tidbit that i remember reading that since there was a seal it had to be some special group of soldiers, but then they would not have taken a bribe - would they....
Which seal team was that? [;)] Note that it says ἔχετε κουστωδίαν· Would the priests have a detachment of Roman soldiers under their control?
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
Note that it says I did some serious reading some years back and the best reading was that it was an informal band of soldiers, the number being undetermined, and they were most likely the same delegation that was assigned to the priests. Any thing else would be somewhat speculative. But there was a tidbit that i remember reading that since there was a seal it had to be some special group of soldiers, but then they would not have taken a bribe - would they....
Mt is the only gospel with this particular pericope. Also, Mt is the only one who uses κυστοδία. Since it reads ἔχετε "you have" rather than indicating that Pilate was going to supply a guard, I would assume that these were temple guards and therefore Jewish. Note also that after the fact the guards (again, only in Mt Mt 28.11-15) report not to Pilate but to the High Priests.
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
Mt is the only gospel with this particular pericope. Also, Mt is the only one who uses κυστοδία. Since it reads ἔχετε "you have" rather than indicating that Pilate was going to supply a guard, I would assume that these were temple guards and therefore Jewish. Note also that after the fact the guards (again, only in Mt Mt 28.11-15) report not to Pilate but to the High Priests.
George,
Yes. I find that an attractive comment. It is as though he[Mt] was anticipating some repercussions from his writ. Also, noting Mt 27.27 that when they were before Pilate that they were in proper respect – Battalion[σπεῖραν], quite the same as that used of Jn 18.3[σπεῖραν] which would possibly indicate that this ‘band’ was from Pilate. Note v12: So the band of soldiers…their captain…the officers of the Jews, indicating that this band ws maybe a directive of Pilate – why else would they need their ‘captain’?
But we do not find this support in 27.65-66.
[28:14 - NA27 includes the word 'αὐτός' in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity./??]
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
I suspect much of the answer to the issue doesn't lie in the guards themselves per se. The writer of Matthew made it clear that the tomb was unguarded half the time, and I'd have to assume that point was intentional. When the guards arrived I very much doubt they'd literally open a tomb to make sure a dead body was inside (especially after a crucifixion). I think Matthew was thinking far ahead of his readership.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
This is what I have been working with in Logos 4:
(guard, Roman, solders) NEAR (tomb, sepulcher)
1902 hits in 625 articles in 286 resources
And YES, I did read all 625 articles in the 286 resources.
Many were on Roman tombs but I did find 194 resources useful
Per the link by M.J. Smith: on Reasons to think the guard was a Roman guard:
Quote:
Why would the Jews make a request to Pilate to secure the tomb if they did not need his soldiers to do so?
My answer: With lots of maybes
The temple guards carried long sharp things (spears) or short sharp things (swords) and perhaps the rules were that the temple guards needed ‘permission’ to operate outside the temple except when trying to arrest a subject and then they had to file reports within a day or two (the Thursday taking of Jesus) [[maybe]]
Quote:
The word used by Pilate, koustodia, is a word commonly used to refer to Roman soldiers
My answer: Koustodia, as the article also notes, does not prove that they were Roman. Most of the time soldiers were Roman so most of the time one said ‘soldier’ one meant Roman but [maybe] not always
Quote:
Why would the Jewish leaders need to soothe over the governor if they weren’t his soldiers?
My Answer: [[Maybe]] there was some control by the Romans over the temple guard. [Maybe] they were to perform up to Roman standards. [Maybe] Many of them were former Roman soldiers. Or maybe if they did well as temple guards they might be offered jobs as Roman auxiliaries.
[[by the way I was just looking for help on the ‘special forces’ part. But the rest is welcome, Thanks]]
(guard, Roman, solders) NEAR (tomb, sepulcher)
If you're searching for sepulcher it's probably a good idea to include the spelling sepulchre.
You might also want to include grave.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
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
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
I come to some of the same conclusions. My logic runs like this:
"I read dead people..."
I come to some of the same conclusions. My logic runs like this:
1) this whole topic is very unimportant and not a salvation issue. My current study leads to Gospel of Peter as starting the talk about Roman Guards at the tomb
2) Thank you. no 'special forces' in Judea. [[My study got hung up on what 'special forces' Rome had in Judea at that time]]
3) Reading one Pilate assigns some of his as the guard. Reading two Pilate allows them to use their own temple guard. [[And most of the readings using Roman seem to just accept it as if it was a known fact. That is they give no proof]]
3a) answerable to Pilate. If we assume (for this statement only) that the temple guards were Jewish (racially/religiously) would they have had to meet Roman standards of conduct? Would the Romans be watching every move they made? And would they need permission from Pilate to work outside the Temple?
4) and where do we find any 'proof' for any of the above? [search string and reference found please]
1) this whole topic is very unimportant and not a salvation issue. My current study leads to Gospel of Peter as starting the talk about Roman Guards at the tomb
[...]
WOW? what a pandora's box.
I feel like I just got bamboozled by a hypothetical that went hyperbole-istic.....built on a persumptuose sophistry that could be encapsulating the cogency of the argument.
Tuche`
hhmmm Peter did you say - Where?
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
Interesting debate. If I try to do a quick search on koustodia, (Internet search not just a Logos search), I do not see it in any other context than here.
It would seem probable that the word koustodia refered to an assignment for these soldiers rather than to a type of soldier.
If we look at the concept of special forces, we should avoid considering the word special in the relatively recent north american context of special forces as it is highly unlikely these were members of the praetorian guard. It more probably derives from the earlier English concept of special forces which were local volunteers (not unrewarded volunteers) who would be available when called upon to supplement regular forces; akin to the national guard concept; but not necessarily Roman Citizens, more like locally recruited auxiliaries under the command of a Roman officer.
It is not impossible that the regular day job for these specials was as Temple Guards who could be called up at will by the local Roman Governor to serve him as specials under Roman command. In guarding a tomb, these specials might have been in effect doing the same type of job as they normally did at the Temple, acting in a koustodia assignment.
In deciding whether these were regular Roman soldiers or locally recruited specials or auxiliaries, consider for a moment how easily they explained their way out of responsibility for their apparent negect of duty in letting an apparently dead prisoner escape...... If they were under the command of temple authorities, their commander would not likely be so easy on them. If they had been regular Roman soldiers, would their Commanding Officer have been so easy on them. If they were temple guards acting under Roman Command, given Pilate did not want any part of the crucifixion of this innocent man, and made sure it would be seen as it indeed was, at the instigation of the Temple authorities, then the Roman authorities would have likely used the occasion for ironic laughter at the incompetence of the temple guards and their lame excuses.... they lost a body, who cares in the Governors Palace.
According to BDAG (and if I'm reading the abbreviations correctly) the term is a Latin loan word... so I'm thinking they were Romans:
κουστωδία, ας, ἡ (POxy 294, 20 [22 A.D.]; PRyl 189, 2; BGU 341, 3; s. Hahn 233, 6; 234, 7 w. lit.—Lat. loanw., custodia, also in rabb.) a group of soldiers doing guard duty, a guard composed of soldiers Mt 27:66; 28:11. ἔχειν κουστωδίαν take a guard 27:65.—M-M.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (563). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
According to BDAG (and if I'm reading the abbreviations correctly) the term is a Latin loan word... so I'm thinking they were Romans:
κουστωδία, ας, ἡ (POxy 294, 20 [22 A.D.]; PRyl 189, 2; BGU 341, 3; s. Hahn 233, 6; 234, 7 w. lit.—Lat. loanw., custodia, also in rabb.) a group of soldiers doing guard duty, a guard composed of soldiers Mt 27:66; 28:11. ἔχειν κουστωδίαν take a guard 27:65.—M-M.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (563). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Similarly in M & M
P Oxy II. 29420 (a.d. 22) (= Selections, p. 35)
ἐν κ̣οσ[τ]ωδε[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.).
Moulton, James Hope and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930.
I don't think, however, that in view of the Egyptian usage we can simply assume that it was a Roman detachment. The fact that they reported to the High Priests rather than to Pilate would appear to indicate that they were under Jewish control. The statement of Pilate that ἔχετε κουστωδίαν would seem to indicate that they were under the control of the High Priests prior to Pilate's advice to make the tomb secure. He didn't say that he was going to give them soldiers for the task, but he stated that they had a guard already.
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
According to BDAG (and if I'm reading the abbreviations correctly) the term is a Latin loan word... so I'm thinking they were Romans:
Yes, BUT it also could be the common word used for any ‘solder’ or ‘guard’ as most of the solders and guards seen were Roman. Then if you see a solder you say {koustodia} without further checking. [I did say BUT] Also a BUT – BUT Not one English translation [In Logos 4] directly calls them Roman. [the footnotes may call them Roman but they did not put Roman into the Bible Text] [When I checked BDAG and M&M I was looking for something the said ‘special forces’]
Also see the reply by George Somsel – He KNOWS Greek – I just guess. [I try to do my homework]
I still have a few MONTHS of work to do on this subject – Thanks for the comments
What force did crowd control in the Temple courts? What control did Rome exercise over that force? [What proof exists?]
Comments on: “”historically more probably””
In the US finding that someone is ‘probably’ the one that did the crime is NOT enough to put them in jail. We need proof. [And yes, too many end up in jail because they are ‘probably’ the one that did it but that is not how it is supposed to work]
Also we do not ask what is popular when we are looking for facts. We do not vote on what the FACTS are - we research. [Some used to think that the flat earth was the center of all]
“”historically more probably”” Can you provide References that have done the research and not just stating what they THINK? [As I told others, If they are in my Logos 4 library I will check them out – if you ask for help and you are given help you check it out [One poster doubled my work load but that is what happens when you ask for help] ] – Thanks for the comments
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
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
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.
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
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
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
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
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 Wesley
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-|]
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?
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 Wesley
David Ames:
Looking back what is it that Pilate had to fear?
If Pilate wanted to make sure that no rebellion would start, would he use a group of temple guards?
I believe he would have used the best “guard” that he had.
I think that when we see a guard it means a group of many, not just one.
As to the priests offering a bribe, why would they need to pay any temple guard that would be under their control?
The bribe would only need to be paid if it were a group of roman soldiers.
L4 BS, L5 RB & Gold, L6 S & R Platinum, L7 Platinum, L8 Baptist Platinum, L9 Baptist Platinum, L10 Baptist Silver
2021 MacBook Pro M1 Pro 14" 16GB 512GB SSD, running MacOS Monterey iPad Mini 6, iPhone 11.
I used Google with the search terms: Jewish Roman soldiers Jesus tomb
It brought up many hits - some informative, some repetitive and a few kooks. A good discussion of the pro/con positions
http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/jewish-or-roman-guard/
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Same search terms can find a number of results in a Logos library:
One article has an obvious observation:
Keep Smiling [:)]
Jewish Roman soldiers Jesus tomb
Gave me 28111 360 185
Had used
(guard, Roman, solders) NEAR (tomb, sepulcher)
1902 hits in 625 articles in 286 resources
What I need to do next is read “The Death of the Messiah, Volume 1 and 2” And the 'Gospel of Peter'
[by the way I was just looking for help on the ‘special forces’ part. But the rest is very very welcome, Thanks]]
Related search idea is:
(guard, Jewish, Roman, solders) WITHIN 12 WORDS (tomb, sepulcher) WITHIN 33 WORDS Jesus
By the way, Lexham Bible Dictionary is one of the Faithlife Study Bible resources => Join the Faithlife Beta!
Keep Smiling [:)]