Roman Special Forces at Jesus' Tomb

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....

yeah, thats right up there with it being a 'roman' seal' - ? not specific nor implied.

Eurapion, I think./?

George Somsel said:

Which seal team was that?    Note that it says ἔχετε κουστωδίαν·  Would the priests have a detachment of Roman soldiers under their control?

EDIT: John 18:3

I come to some of the same conclusions.  My logic runs like this:

1. 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).
2. I see no evidence that Roman special forces (Praetorians? Bucelleri?) were stationed in a backwater province like Judea.
3. 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.

George Somsel said:

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./??]

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. 

David Ames said:
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?

Well if we accept what is in those reports that makes our current “Bible” fallible  - meaning that they are not accurate nor complete….I got the Matrix reloaded....ltr.

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

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.

David Ames said:

He KNOWS Greek

He has a restaurant just down the street.  [;)]

David Ames said:

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. 

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.

George Somsel said:

WoundedEgo said:

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]  

WoundedEgo said:

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.

So is the sense, "You already have custodians [of the temple]. Take them and make it as secure as you can"?

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. 

"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.

How do we know that the custodians of the temple were not Roman soldiers? (I mean, what primary source)?

WoundedEgo said:

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)

Okay, thanks.