In The Coming Temple, a documentary that you’ll find on YouTube (), it is stated that the Second Temple wasn’t where the Dome of the Rock is at all — this hypothesis will hardly be new to many of you.
In its time, the Antonia Fortress sat there instead, which could technically make the Western Wall a remnant of this military building. This in itself would have a life of its own, but according to the doucumentary, it also points at a quite a large building, capable of hosting a legion.
The temple would have been at quite a distance from the fortress. This involves water streams, measurements and other considerations.
I don’t know the historical value of this documentary. It is interesting to watch and follow its reasoning, at least for a neophyte like me.
For what I know, Jerusalem didn’t host that many soldiers. I read somewhere that Pilate had a few hundred men at his disposal. I remember Dr. Ehrman saying in a talk that the bulk of the military presence was in Syria. I read 3 legions.
Incidentally, the experts in the documentary also states at some point that the usual depiction of the Antonia Fortress is too small.
I want to restrict myself to a readable post here but this comes from another line of questioning I have.
This is my first post here. Also, I’m not a native speaker of English. My apologies for all the weird things I unintentionally write.
It is an interesting documentary, with some nice location images. Their main arguments seem to focus on the spring as a source of water and the size of what would have been the Roman fort. (There was a bit too much “it is clear” for my comfort, but that may just be me.) Towards the end, I though it was curious that they are eager to avoid WWIII over the current temple mound (if we are not already about to enter that with Ukraine), but rather eager for the end of the world.
I might have preferred that someone present the other side of the argument, but that is presumably mostly a matter of tradition and I can see that no one of any stature may have wanted to participate.
Edit: And that is an amazing model.
Welcome JustMe! Make yourself to home. Beer’s in the fridge.
There are legions (pardon the pun) of archeologists who would give up important body parts to be able to do extensive exploration of the Temple Mount. Unfortunately if that was allowed to happen a substantial portion of the human race would go absolutely apesh*t and we would never hear the end of it. Shame really.
Thanks for the warm welcome.
I get how sensitive the question of the Temple Mount can be. Building the Third Temple would also make quite a few people nervous.
It remains an interesting documentary with audacious propositions, but it is inconclusive (to no one’s surprise, I guess). I’m not getting into the experts credentials with regards to the highest standards of academia, but they’re articulate and quite convinced.
The thing that bugs me most is the assumption of a large roman military presence of the order of a legion (6000) plus support staff (4000) that wouldn’t fit in the current Antonia Fortress suggestion which, I suppose, tries to match what Pilate’s level of responsibility and territory would command.
I found an ** you do not have permission to see this link **, Military Forces in Judaea 6–130 ce, that may enlighten the question.
In fact, I’m trying to figure the ambience in Jerusalem when Jesus came for Passover with his followers. That has been depicted a few times already, I know, and there’s no accurate portrait possible, but the details are generally scattered and not always reconcilable.
You’re welcome.
I wish more was known, it is a fascinating topic.
I’m more after the military presence during Passover in Jerusalem around 30 CE, especially with regards to the size of the Antonia Fortress and the general question of what military power Pilate had at his disposal when he sent Jesus to his death. The level of tension in the city would be somewhat revealed by details of that order.
But, this article sets the table pretty well.
It’s unrelated, but I found this quite interesting :
Indeed, Fuhrmann begins his book by citing the arrest of Paul by the Jerusalem cohort in Acts 21.27-40! Extortion is a common theme in military papyri from Egypt and Lk. 3.14 tells an incident where John the Baptist admonished soldiers to be content with their wages and stop extorting Galileans. John the Baptist, Jesus, and James the Just were all captured and executed by soldiers according to New Testament texts, entirely consistent with the policing duties found in papyri. A centurion at Capernaum (so Mt. 8.5-13; Lk. 7.1-10) might help protect administrators and tax collectors stationed in a combination border-town/port- village. All of this points to a more subtle and unappreciated issue: combat was a remarkably small part of the soldiering life, as primitivist and moderate models of ‘Roman strategy’ emphasize. Few soldiers ever went to war, mostly being shuffled around provinces as other duties required. Consequently, we should not be surprised that the New Testament narrative literature rarely associates the military with warfare.
The composition of the various corps is also something worth noting. Legions, cohorts, alae, as well as the remarks on ethnicity in the various type of military units.
This is getting long. A few words about the presence in Jerusalem. It’s a whole legion that settles there after the Jewish War (X Fretensis). It stays there for a 150 years…
I’m more after the military presence during Passover in Jerusalem around 30 CE, especially with regards to the size of the Antonia Fortress and the general question of what military power Pilate had at his disposal when he sent Jesus to his death. The level of tension in the city would be somewhat revealed by details of that order.
Agreed. Such information might bolster a pet theory of mine that the historical Jesus was arrested on the Temple Mount and ultimately executed as a direct result of the “incident” in the Temple. If the incident in the Temple was historical then certain interesting questions arise. How could Jesus have caused a disturbance in the Temple at a time of heightened tensions, when the authorities were on guard for just such a disturbance, and then gotten off the Temple Mount unmolested as it indicates in the gospels? Any such disturbance would have been seen as an implicit attack on the Temple system (which of course rested on an ongoing collaboration between the Temple authorities and Rome) punishable by death. To the Jews a religious crime. To the Romans a political one.
The traditional view is that during Passover Pilate would have been present in Jerusalem with a large military force. Jesus could have been arrested by the Temple guards and then immediately turned over to the Romans or perhaps even arrested by the Romans themselves. If Jesus was arrested by the Temple guards and turned over to the Romans this might be the source of the tradition that Jesus was betrayed. The story of the trial before the Sanhedrin seems improbable as described and probably springs from the attempt by the gospel writers to shift blame for Jesus’ execution from the Romans to the Jews. (And for the same reason Jesus’ trial before Pilate seems suspect. Every capital criminal got an interview with the governor? Really? Did the Romans have no legal bureaucracy at all? Jesus’ followers would have considered him special but why would the Romans have done so?)
I can easily share your vision of the event. It’s also quite an interesting thought experiment to conduct.
I found this excellent article by Dr. Paula Fredericksen : ** you do not have permission to see this link **. It’s not an academic paper, but it’s vivid and learned, probably written expressly for the WSJ. It answers your questions to some extent (most things keeping their proper dose of speculation in that matter).
The military aspect is starting to take shape for me. There’s some information in Dr Fredericksen’s article and some more here : ** you do not have permission to see this link **. It’s quite precise in fact.
The big military power is in Syria, but the Romans know that Judea isn’t extremely stable although the Herod is doing a good job. Strategically, the Parthian thing weighing, it wouldn’t be sound to allocate more troops there.
Pilate wouldn’t be ranking high enough to lead a legion (6,000 men). It requires senate level authority, but he nonetheless has 3,000 men under his command. Sedition is ingrained in religious belief and political talk at street level. Pilate is there for 10 years (26-36), so, seen from Rome, he’s certainly the man for the job. I don’t know which metrics could apply, but he seems quite reactive if Jesus’ case is exemplary. Or, more broadly, if Jerusalem swells a few times a year, enormously so when Passover comes, and there’s frequently potential for trouble, his style of reportedly cruel, expeditious and abundant punishment keeps things under control.
Going back to the Antonia Fortress, the numbers given on livius.org don’t call for an extremely large building. This doesn’t clarify the location of the building if we also circle back to the documentary a the beginning of this thread.
Oh…
Weirdly enough, I’m not a subscriber of the WSJ and I have access to the totality of that article (but not to others). Call it the Invisible Hand… of the Market.
This said, this is not where I found the article first. It came out in a Google search. It was here :
** you do not have permission to see this link **
It’s the integral text of the article, but I found it hard to read. I could have made it bigger in the browser, it’s html text. The WSJ original piece happened to be next in the Google results.
I’ve heard Prof Fredericksen speak locally on a book tour and I’ve read one of her books. She is Jewish and focuses much of her work on the Jewish milieu of Jesus. My impression, which I would be happy to have someone confirm or contradict, is that she does not accept the historicity of Judas and the betrayal of Jesus. The character of Judas would have developed perhaps as part of the attempt to shift blame from Rome to the Jews for the crucifixion. My “pet theory” of course calls the existence of Judas into question as it does the historicity of the trial before the Sanhedrin.
The two books I bought are her “From Jesus to Christ” and “Jesus of Nazareth.” If she addresses the historicity of Judas in either (or both) I will post what she has to say, with appropriate citations. I am currently reading “God: An Anatomy” so it may take a little while.
Real or not, what a rich character this Judas is.
I’ve watched a mythicist documentary a while ago that pretty much wrapped the whole Jesus narrative in a Roman construct, Cesar’s Messiah. The whole thing was quite consistent and interesting. It does clash with more solidly seated academic views, I believe , Dr. Ehrman’s among others. Here on October 25th, 2019:
“I occasionally (in fact, just last week) get asked if I think Judas Iscariot was a real person or a fictional character, wholly made up. I have a definite view about that. Real person. Actually one of Jesus’ disciples. And the one who betrayed him to the authorities leading to his arrest and crucifixion.”
On May 26th 2020, he concluded a post on Judas with this:
[I should point out — this is not in my book — that the fact that *all* the sources call him “Iscariot” and yet *none* of them shows any indication of knowing what the term means shows shows that none of them made the term up AND that he was widely known about throughout the Christian tradition from an early time — another piece of evidence that he wasn’t simply made up]
I’d like to know more about Dr. Fredericksen’s take on Judas.
I’ve always thought the idea that the Romans invented Christianity to be rather funny since the plan kind of backfired didn’t it?
TTHorne56 I’ve read one of those two books you mentioned but I can’t remember which one. It struck me at the time as odd when she discussed the passion of Jesus and she skipped over the betrayal by Judas with nary a mention. That’s what made me first suspect she might not accept that he was a historical figure.
The main problem I think with doubting Judas is the criterion of embarrassment. It does seem odd that Christians would invent a story about one of Jesus’ own followers betraying him. It tends to reflect on Jesus’ judgement of character. But then in the gospels none of the disciples comes off very well. The story of Judas might not only reflect the shifting of blame from the Romans to the Jews but it also serves to redirect opprobrium away from the rest of the disciples onto the one figure of Judas.
Thanks Robert. I guess we can steer this here boat back on its original course.
Unfortunately most folks’ idea of the Roman presence in Palestine is based more on the movies than any knowledge of the actual situation in Jesus’ day. As has been pointed out the legions were in Syria. Pilate spent most of the year with his small force at Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast. He only came to Jerusalem for festivals. My point here is that it’s entirely possible that Jesus might have never seen a Roman soldier in the flesh until he was an adult.
That’s what I see too, Stephen.
Technically, Pilate had a few cohorts of auxiliaries. Those soldiers were recruited locally for the most part and were ethnically close to the population they surveilled.
“Auxiliaries, like legionaries, served the government of Rome, but were divided into two distinct military types: cohors (σπεῖρα) and ala (εἰλη)—infan- try and cavalry, respectively—with a few mixed units termed cohors equitata as well. The most noteworthy aspect about auxiliary soldiers is that they were almost exclusively non-citizens who were awarded Roman citizenship after completing military service; this citizenship grant was indicated by the gift of a ‘military diploma’” — Christopher B. Zeichman — Military Forces in Judaea 6–130 ce: The status quaestionis and Relevance for New Testament Studies
After 70 CE, the composition of auxiliaries is questioned and reformed. Dr. Zeichman, same article :
After 70 ce, maintenance of ethnic and regional homogeneity among auxiliary units became a peripheral concern across the empire, as it was evident that local loyalties could counter officers’ military goals.
It can easily be believed that dominance is exerted through the client king, Herod in that case, and that force doesn’t have to be displayed constantly and everywhere, probably even less so in rural, less populated areas.
There’s still a source of worry for Pilate in my understanding. If Jerusalem swells so much comes Passover and there are currents of sedition in the attendance, would he have enough men (around 3K) to control a rebellious mob of many thousands, maybe many tens of thousands ? Could he have called for support from the legions in Syria then? How long would it take for these troops to march to Jerusalem? Would Pilate have any other option than retreating in Cesarea with his few cohorts meanwhile? No clear answer, I guess. Maybe, I’m pushing that vision too far. Things were quiet enough to be managed without much risk.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert