Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-2h6rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-23T01:23:03.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Episode of the Roman Standards at Jerusalem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2011

Carl H. Kraeling
Carl H. Kraeling
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the great handicaps confronting the student of Christian origins is the paucity of specific information about Palestine in the period of Jesus and the early Church. The student can learn much that has an indirect bearing upon Palestine by acquainting himself with the history and antiquities of Syria, Transjordan and Egypt. He can obtain an adequate picture of the general course of events in Palestine itself from Josephus, and can recreate the outlines of its changing scene and changing conditions by piecing together many bits of unrelated information from earlier and later periods. But when it comes to strictly contemporary Palestinian remains and specific contemporary Palestinian events, he has to admit that his knowledge is regrettably limited and fragmentary. The cities, the towns, the public buildings, the private houses and their household effects in the Palestine of the days of Jesus and his apostles are known only imperfectly and vaguely, in the main from literary sources. The complete excavation of even one site with datable contemporary strata would clarify the picture tremendously. For a knowledge of contemporary events our most productive source is still Josephus, and from the allimportant procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, 26–36 A.D., Josephus has only three episodes to narrate. They are the episode of the standards, the episode of the new aqueduct, and the episode of the sacred vessels supposedly buried on Mt. Gerizim.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , October 1942 , pp. 263 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1942

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Such strata should exist at Pella, Sepphoris and Bethsaida-Julias, but save in the case of the first-mentioned the obstacles to their excavation are still insurmountable.

2 So Schuerer, , Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, etc., Vol. I (5 ed.), 1920, p. 460Google Scholar.

3 Cf. Broughton, T. R. S. in Beginnings of Christianity, ed. Jackson and Lake, Vol. V, 1933, pp. 441–443Google Scholar.

4 Jesus in the Light of History, 1942, p. 224. Olmstead believes the cohort arrived in Palestine in 6 A.D., when Archelaus was deposed.

5 It is, of course, the Fourth Gospel which introduces the Romans into the account of Jesus' capture, whereas the Synoptic Gospels mention only the servants of the High Priest, servants whose violence and authority were proverbial (Talmud Babli, Pesachim 57a). The legendary character of the account in John 18 is revealed not only by the fact that it mobilizes an entire cohort (σπεῖρα) with its tribune (χιλίαρχος), but also by the improbability that even a detachment of the Roman auxiliaries would have delivered its prisoner to the High Priest instead of to the Roman procurator.

6 Cf. Broughton, loc. cit.

7 To this period it seems necessary to assign the episodes from Peter's missionary work along the Palestinian sea coast given in Acts 9–11. Cf. Lake, K. in Beginnings of Christianity, Vol. V, 1933, p. 468Google Scholar.

8 I see no justification for reference to this as a “legionary” cohort. Very little is, of course, known about the cohortes civium Romanorum voluntariorum, but whether they were composed of slaves who upon enrollment received the rank of freedmen, or whether as in later days they were made up of freeborn citizens seeking an easier berth than that which the legions offered, they are not in any sense “legionary.” On these cohorts cf. Kromayer-Veith, Heerwesen u. Kriegführung der Griechen u. Römer, 1928, p. 497.

9 The parallel account of Antiquitates XX, 5, 3 = § 106 neither confirms nor denies this interpretation.

10 Antiquitates XX, 6, 1 = § 122. The word for the infantry detachments is not σπεῖρα but τάγμα. The latter is, however, used by Josephus not of a vexillatio, but of an established formation. In Bellum II, 3, 1 = § 40 it is applied even to a legion. In this instance it will not be incorrect to take it as a synonym of σπεῖρα.

11 The picture is thoroughly clear even though in the parallel account of the episode (Bellum II, 12 = § 236) Josephus mentions only the ala.

12 The meaning of δεξιολάβος and its textual variant δεξιοβόλος is quite uncertain.

13 On the general subject of standards cf. A. J. Reinach in Daremberg-Saglio, s.v. signa; Domaszewski, A. v., Die Fahnen im römischen Heere, Abhandlungen des archäologisch-epigraphischen Seminares der Universität Wien, Vol. V, 1885Google Scholar; and Kromayer-Veith, op. cit., esp. pp. 402 ff., 520 ff.

14 To avoid confusion we shall use the term signum here wherever this particular type of standard is meant, keeping “standard” as the generic term throughout.

15 Die Fahnen, especially pp. 27, 69–73.

16 So e.g. Zwikker, W., “Bemerkungen zu den röm. Heeresfahnen in der älteren Kaiserzeit,” Röm.-Germ. Kommission, 27. Bericht, 1937Google Scholar [1939], pp. 7–22.

17 For the argument that the standard of the ala was the vexillum cf. H. Lehner, “Die Standarte der ala Longiniana,” Bonner Jahrbücher, Vol. 117, 1908, pp. 278–286.

18 Rostovtzeff, M. I., Monuments in the Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow dedicated to Alexander II, Vol. IV, 1913, pp. 149–153Google Scholar [in Russian].

19 R. Delbrück, Antike Porphyrwerke, 1932, Tafel 60a.

20 Neuffer, E., “Die silberne Signumscheibe aus Niederbieber,” Festschrift für August Oxé, 1938, pp. 141–196Google Scholar and Fig. 1.

21 On the date of the episode cf. below, pp. 282–283.

22 It is not certain, of course, that the 70 horsemen and 200 δεξιολάβοι of Acts 23, 23 were actually vexillationes.

23 Cf. Domaszewski, , “Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres,” Bonner Jahrbücher, Vol. 117, 1908Google Scholar, and idem “Die Fahnen,” pp. 51–52.

24 On the honorary nature of such cognomina as Augusta, Traiana, etc., cf. Cichorius, R.-E., s.v. cohors.

25 So Broughton, op. cit., pp. 443–444.

26 So Schuerer, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 462.

27 Antiquitates XVII, 6, 2–3 = §§ 149–157.

28 It is apparently because of a tendency to differentiate between images used and not used for idolatrous purposes that the Jews of other periods and of other localities found it possible to employ figured painting and sculpture in the round in the decoration of their synagogues and houses.

29 On the whole, cf. Domaszewski, Die Religion des römischen Heeres, 1895, reprinted from Westdeutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichte u. Kunst, Vol. XIV, 1895.

30 So Domaszewski, op. cit., p. 12.

31 Bibliography and specific evidence for the cult acts are conveniently accessible in Hoey, A. S., “Rosaliae Signorum,” HTR, Vol. XXX, 1937, pp. 15–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. pp. 17–20. Cf. also Fink, , Hoey, and Snyder, , “The Feriale Duranum;” in Yale Classical Studies, Vol. VII, 1940, esp. pp. 115–120Google Scholar. The Feriale represents the official religious calendar of an auxiliary cohort, the cohors XX Palmyrenorum.

32 Cf. Domaszewski, op. cit., pp. 9–19, and for a concrete example the Praetorium of Dura, The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Report V, 1934, pp. 201–237, and esp. pp. 213–215. The shrine usually contained, besides the signa, an image of the Emperor. Cf. H. Kruse, Studien zur offiziellen Geltung des Kaiserbildes im römischen Kaiserreiche, 1934, pp. 51–79.

33 Cf. particularly Hoey in Feriale Duranum, pp. 116–118.

34 Legatio ad Gaium, §§ 299–305. A clupeus aureus voted to Augustus by the Roman Senate was set up in the Curia Julia (cf. the record of the action in the Monumentum Ancyranum, ed. J. Gagé, Res Gestae divi Augusti, pp. 144–145). Tiberius, who rejected the honor of a corona civica, accepted a clupeus (cf. P. L. Strack, Untersuchungen zu der römischen Reichsprägung I, pp. 57 ff.). It may well be that copies of clupei set up in Rome were dedicated to the emperors in provincial and military praetoria.

34a In Legatio ad Gaium, § 133, as Nock reminds me, mention is made of shields which the Jews themselves set up in the synagogues of Alexandria in honor of the Emperor. They were probably analogous in character to those put up by Pilate in the Palace of Herod. That the Jews of Jerusalem objected to the latter, while the Jews of Egypt themselves erected the former, is probably not entirely a matter of the difference between Palestinian and diaspora Judaism. From Legatio, § 137 it is evident that when the rabble of the city mounted the statue of Gaius as a charioteer in the famous diplostoon at Alexandria, the effect of the action was to turn the synagogue into a precinct sacred to the Emperor. The Jews of Jerusalem may have feared that Pilate's action might be interpreted to have the same effect.

35 The Palace of Herod lay at the northwest corner of the city, near the site of the present Citadel, while the Antonia stood on an eminence at the northwest corner of the Temple precincts. For descriptions of the structures, cf. Josephus, Bellum V, 4, 4 =§§ 176–183 and V, 5, 8 = §§ 238–245. For the literature on the controversy cf. Preuschen-Bauer, Wörterbuch2, 1928, s.v. πραιτώριον.

36 Cf. Cagnat, in Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire, s.v. Praetorium.

37 An instance of what is apparently a purely civil Praetorium is provided by the excavations at Gortyna. Cf. Guarducci, M., “Le Iscrizione del Praetorio de Gortina,” Rivista del R. Istituto d'Archeologia e Storia dell'Arte, Vol. I, 1929, pp. 143Google Scholar ff.

38 Dura provides an excellent example of a military Praetorium inside the city limits. Cf. Excavations at Dura-Europos, Report V, 1934, pp. 201–237. There are other examples, for instance Palmyra. On the effects of the overly close association of the soldiers with the life of the cities cf. the comment of Rostovtzeff in Excavations at Dura-Europos, Report VI, 1936, pp. 302–303.

39 Excavations at Chersonesus and Olbia have provided examples of military strongholds established at strategic points in the defenses of important cities. For bibliography on these excavations cf. the articles by Rostovtzeff s.v. Chersoneso in Enciclopedia Italiana, and by Diehl s.v. Olbia in R.-E.

40 Its stragetic importance is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Titus, having captured the northern suburbs in the siege of 71 A.D., directed the brunt of his further assault against the Antonia. Once this key position was in his hands, he was able to take the Temple and the rest of the city without difficulty. Cf. the account of the siege in Bellum V–VI.

41 Bellum V, 5, 8 = § 244. The word used to describe the force is τάγμα. On its meaning cf. above n. 12.

42 This is admitted by virtually all commentators upon Acts.

43 The conclusion that the Antonia was the military Praetorium does not necessarily imply that it was the scene of Jesus' trial. Pilate may well have conducted non-military trials at his residence in the Palace of Herod. Neither are the remains of the paved courtyard of the Antonia to which Vincent points (op. cit., pp. 102–107 and Plates VII–VIII), and which he regards as the λιθόστρωτος of John 19, 13 decisive. Paved rather than landscaped courtyards are familiar features of certain types of dwellings (e.g. private houses at Delos, cf. W. A. Laidlaw, A History of Delos, 1933, pp. 240–243), and one or more may readily have existed in the Palace of Herod. It may of course be that the author of the Gospel of John has arbitrarily associated the pavement of the Antonia's court, which in later days served as an open square, with the scene of Jesus' trial. But this would not be decisive.

44 For a detailed description, complete with photographs, plans and elevations, cf. Vincent, L. H., “L'Antonie et le Prétoire,” RB, Vol. XLII, 1933, pp. 83–113Google Scholar.

45 Antiquitates XVIII, 4, 3 = §§ 90–95.

46 The protest against the iconic standards and the shields could be thought of as succeeding because both were recent innovations, while the protest against the aniconic signa failed because they had been tolerated since the days of Archelaus' death, and because some form of signum was essential to the life of the military garrison.

47 Antiquitates XVIII, 4, 3 = §§ 90–95.

48 So apparently Schuerer, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 489 and more recently Olmstead, op. cit., pp. 50–51. Of the episodes from the procuratorship of Pilate narrated by Josephus that of the standards comes first in both the Bellum and the Antiquitates.

49 The text is conveniently accessible in G. Dalman, Aramäische Dialektproben, 1896, p. 2.

50 So Dalman, op. cit. in the Vocabulary s.v. םימיא; Fränkel, , MGWJ, Vol. III, 1854, p. 444Google Scholar, n. 9, and more recently Zeitlin, S., Megillat Taanith, 1922, pp. 87–88Google Scholar.

51 These matters would be still further substantiated if Eusebius is correct in saying that “Philo also witnesses to these things saying that Pilate set up the imperial standards (σημαίαι) in the Temple at night,” Demonstratio Evangelica VIII, 2, 123 (ed. Heikel, GCS, Vol. XXIII, p. 390).

52 II Maccabees 6. On the nature of the policy and its relation to the Jerusalem episode, cf. Bickermann, E., Der Gott der Makkabäer, 1937, esp. pp. 90–116Google Scholar.

53 The former is the view of E. Bevan, CAH, Vol. VIII, 1930, p. 508, and C. C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church, 1941, pp. 25–27, while the latter is the view of Bickermann, op. cit., p. 112.

54 Philo, Legatio ad Gaium, §§ 203–260, cf. Josephus, Bellum II, 10 = §§ 184–203.

55 Whether the “abomination of desolation” was the (cult) image or the new altar erected in the Temple is in dispute but need not be an issue in the present context. In the period of the New Testament the words were clearly taken to refer to the image of a person (cf. Mk. 13, 14).

56 Cf. Bacon, B. W., The Gospel of Mark, 1925, pp. 53–98Google Scholar, and Torrey, op. cit., pp. 22–40.

57 Op. cit., pp. 147–149.

58 Cf. on the whole subject K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, 1919.

59 The time reference contained in the words “at that very time” is a familiar device used to enliven the narrative. Cf. the frequent use of “at that hour” by Luke (2, 38; 10, 21; 13, 31; 20, 19; 24, 33) and its introduction in 20, 19 where the Markan source (Mk. 12, 12) has no time reference.