Interview with Yuval Peleg

[Minimalist]

Excavator at Qumran.


http://heritage-key.com/blogs/owenjarus ... ea-scrolls

I asked him about his theory that Qumran started off as a military site. I also questioned him on his idea that the Dead Sea Scrolls were deposited in the Qumran caves by refugees who were fleeing the Roman army after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

[kbs2244]

Intresting point of view.
He dosn't seem afraid of stepping on toes.

[Minimalist]

In the past people have gotten hung up on the concept of a "fort" by insisting in thinking of it in terms of a Roman legionary camp or something. Peleg introduces an element of rationality by suggesting that an outpost would be a better concept. An outpost at that point, overlooking the trail to the east makes perfect military sense. Anyone stationed there was there not to fight but to warn. There was no faster communication method at the time than a horse and rider.

Ancient propaganda combined with modern concepts of mass warfare has combined to mis-represent the numbers involved in ancient warfare. The Romans overran Judaea with 4 legions ( 20,000 infantry) and probably an equal number of auxilia (archers, slingers, spearmen, cavalry, etc.) Those 4 legions constituted a significant portion of the Roman Army at the time.

[Rokcet Scientist]

[...] The Romans overran Judaea with 4 legions ( 20,000 infantry) and probably an equal number of auxilia (archers, slingers, spearmen, cavalry, etc.) Those 4 legions constituted a significant portion of the Roman Army at the time.

What was the size of the Roman garrisson in Palestine/Judea thereafter? Especially between 5 BC and 70 AD?

do1ɟ-dı1ɟ

[Minimalist]

A good question. The answer varies a bit over time. Tiles marked by the Tenth Legion were found at Caesarea from the late 1st century meaning that at least a portion of the legion was there helping in the construction but they were part of the Syrian Army and spent the bulk of their time keeping an eye on the Parthians and Armenians. Herod the Great had a small armed force for internal control.

When Herod died there was a serious revolt which required the intervention of P. Quinctillius Varus (of later Teutobergerwald infamy) who brought at least 2 legions down from Syria to crush the revolt and install Herod's sons on their various thrones.

From then (c 3 BC) to 6 AD there was virtually no Roman garrison as these were quasi-independent kingdoms within the Roman Empire. In 6 the Judaeans petitioned Augustus to remove King Archelaus and become a Roman Praefecture. Josephus claims there was unrest at this move and probably some segments of the population were pissed off about it but whatever happened was not serious enough to warrant calling in the legions and were suppressed by local forces. The petition was granted and the first praefect, Coponius, was appointed. He seems to have had a force of about 3,000, mainly in garrisons at Caesarea and Jerusalem. These 3,000 would have been auxilliary troops, probably raised locally and mainly infantry except for a small cavalry wing which would have accompanied the praefect on his travels. There would have been no "field force", per se.

These conditions seem to have existed without change for quite some time. Josephus runs through a list of the first five praefects in a paragraph with no indication of trouble. When Pilate arrives he seems to have decided to re-arrange the garrison by sending a cohort from Caesarea to Jerusalem and removing the cohort that was there. Josephus makes a big deal about the "image" of Caesar on the standard but again, whatever happened was not serious enough to warrant calling in the legions.

Pilate was relieved in 36. In 41, Herod Agrippa was made king of Judaea (in substantially the form it had been when Herod the Great ruled) and the Romans would have had no garrison although it is certainly reasonable to assume that whatever garrisons were there would simply have been transferred to Herod Agrippa's command. When Herod Agrippa died in 44 his son, Herod Agrippa II was judged to young to rule and the region reverted to direct Roman rule under a series of Procurators. Serious trouble had brewed because of a number of Roman provocations and the removal of certain privileges which Augustus and Tiberius had granted. Unlike the earlier period of the praefects when the concern was merely maintenance of public order by stationing of garrisons the procurators seem to have commanded a similar sized force but it was an actual army which responded to trouble spots. Things went downhill from there until the Great Revolt in 66. After 70 the Tenth Legion was stationed at Jerusalem as a warning.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Cheers! That fills in a few blanks for me!
Would I be correct in characterizing Roman occupational forces in the region at the time as 'present, but not oppressive/heavy-handed' up until 70 AD?

[Minimalist]

No.

For whatever reason the Romans preferred to let someone else run Palestine and they settled on a member of the Herod family whenever they could. Again, these things changed over time but Herod Agrippa I was a boyhood friend of both Caligula and Claudius which sort of explains that attachment. One can only speculate that the Romans (who regarded Judaea as the armpit of the empire, anyway) were far more concerned with defending against the major power in the region which was Parthia. It was only in 40 BC that the Parthians had overrun Jerusalem and installed their own puppet who was thrown out by Herod in 37.
Augustus and Tiberius had granted significant exemptions to normal Roman routine and both Josephus and Philo indicate that Pilate was concerned enough by the prospect of a delegation going to Rome to complain about him to Tiberius that Pilate backed off. Thus, under Augustus and Tiberius the Judaeans actually had things pretty good. Herod was a major builder and not only did his projects add to the wealth of the country (the port of Caesarea was an economic brainstorm of monumental proportions) employed many thousands of workers. The country was peaceful and prosperous and, if there was ever a time in their history that the "Jews" did not need a "deliverer" it was under the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. But.

That all ended when Caligula became emperor.

Anti-Jewish riots broke out in Alexandria, Egypt as a result of complaints by the Greek inhabitants that the Jews were being given preferential treatment. This seems to have involved (at least as a pretext) the refusal of the Jews to place altars to Caligula (who had decided he was a god) in their shrines. Caligula ordered his governor, Petronius, to install statues of the emperor in the temple of Jerusalem. Petronius, still watching the Parthians and Armenians probably, stalled to the point that Caligula sent a letter ordering him to commit suicide. That letter arrived after the news informing Petronius that Caligula had been assassinated. The crisis averted things quieted down until Herod Agrippa died and the Romans had to resume direct rule. The procurators who followed were of varying quality but they primarily viewed themselves as military men who were there to keep order and, as Josephus reports, there constantly seemed to be some rabble-rouser or other causing disturbances.

The cycle of provocation-retaliation grew and the Romans were far from innocent. The last three procurators, Festus, Albinus and Florus all figured out ways of insulting or robbing the Jewish population. So, I would say that your initial characterization was correct until Caligula went off the deep end.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Shakespeare could have used that material for at least another 100 plays.

[Minimalist]

Mozart worked a little of it in to La Clemenza Di Tito.

http://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/ ... aspx?id=24

[kbs2244]

Min,
I love these history lessons.
They give me background information that helps me understand a lot of the reasons for things happening at the time.
Thanks.

[Minimalist]

You're welcome, kb. I dug out my old Roman History text from college and found the passage that I had recalled for R/S. It's, A History of Rome to AD 565 by Boak and Sinnigan, 5th edition pub. 1965. ( I took the class in 1969. )

Under Caligula is a short section marked "Conflict with the Jews."

His demand for the acknowledgment of his deification by all inhabitants of the Empire brought Gaius (Caligula) into conflict with the Jews, who had been exempted from this formal expression of loyalty. In Alexandria there was a large Jewish colony, hated by the Alexandrians for claiming citizenship in the city and enjoying exceptional privileges. These seized the opportunity of a visit of Herod Agrippa, king of a petty Jewish principality, to insult the Jewish community by burlesquing him and his followers. Then, in order to avoid the consequences of this mockery of Gaius' friend, they tried to show their loyalty by forcing the Jews to worship images of the princeps (Caligula). Refusal of this demand furnished the mob with a pretext for sacking the Jewish quarters and forcibly installing the statues in some synagogues. The Jews sent a delegation to plead their case before Gaius but could obtain no redress. In the meantime, Gaius ordered Petronius, the legate of Syria, to set up his statue in the temple at Jerusalem, by force, if necessary. The prudent Petronius, seeing that this would bring about a Jewish revolt, delayed obeying the order and then the death of Gaius relieved him of the necessity of executing it at all.

It was this very passage which fueled my interest in the historical period. My professor, never one to miss an opportunity to encourage research, directed me to the library where there was a set of books which contained the original Greek or Latin text on one side of the page and the translation on the other. The volume he sent me to was Philo of Alexandria's "Embassy to Gaius" (referenced above) which really got me thinking about how erroneously that particular age had been depicted by the church....not by the gospels which barely mention Rome. This whole idea of the Jews being oppressed by the Romans falls on the other side of the divide discussed above. When Jesus, if he lived at all, died (prior to 37) the region was peaceful and prosperous.

There's one other point which bears some mention and deals with Pilate in particular and Roman politics in general. Tiberius was in his late 50's when he became Emperor and by 26 AD (coincidentally, the year of Pilate's appointment) he had at the age of 68 withdrawn from Rome to his palace on Capri. The day-to-day affairs of running the Empire were thus left in the hands of Lucius Aelius Sejanus. Sejanus would send whatever orders he needed to Capri for Tiberius to sign and went merrily on his way. Thus, it is more than likely that Pilate was actually appointed by Sejanus with just a cursory rubber stamp from the Emperor. This could explain Pilate's somewhat boorish behavior upon his arrival and his apparent fear to allow any sort of delegation to seek an audience with Tiberius about his conduct. This was a guy who wanted to fly below the radar, especially as his patron, Sejanus, had been executed in 31 after planning a coup. It took a while but Tiberius appointed a new governor of Syria (Lucius Vitellius) who eventually got to Jerusalem and removed Pilate as praefect. Josephus' account of Pilate's removal (that he executed a number of Samaritan rebels) makes little sense. Killing rebels was his job.

[kbs2244]

I will have to do a search to see if I can find that textbook.
Most of my history study of the era has been written from a definite Biblical slant.

I am familiar with the original language on one page and the English on the facing page concept.
I have copy of the NT that way.
They call it an interlinear translation.
Greek on the left and English on the right.
The English is in the same word for word sequence as the Greek.
I don’t read Greek but it helps to get the original meaning sometimes.

And if there is a word where the nuance may be important,
since “the Greeks had a word for it,”
I do have it there for research.

[Minimalist]

I don’t read Greek but it helps to get the original meaning sometimes.

Neither do I but I couldn't agree more. Bart Ehrman makes the point about the poor translations available to the writers of the KJV.