![]() Auxiliary soldiers were mostly non-citizens who were awarded Roman citizenship in exchange for military service. Auxiliaries, like legionaries, served the government of Rome, but were divided into two distinct military types: cohorts and alae – infantry and cavalry, respectively – with a few mixed units termed cohors equitatae as well. ![]() Roughly equal in number to the legionary soldiers across the Empire were auxiliaries. Roughly 30 legions were active at any given time within the Empire and each consisted of approximately 5400 soldiers and officers. Legions primarily consisted of infantry soldiers, with a few cavalry or archers present among their ranks. With the exception of Egypt, all provinces with at least one legion were required to have a governor with Senator status. Legions primarily garrisoned in major imperial provinces, such as Syria, Pannonia, and post-War Judaea. Though a legionary could theoretically come from any province within the Empire, the requirement of Roman citizenship had consequences for demographics: legionaries were more likely to speak Latin than non-citizen soldiers, they were usually recruited from the most heavily Romanized cities and provinces, their citizenship held inherent prestige that afforded them privilege over both civilians and other soldiers, etc. Unlike most other soldiers, legionaries were Roman citizens before they were recruited. Their allegiances were to the emperor and whichever general they served, not to any particular king, religious group, or province. First, legionaries were employed directly by Rome. Legionaries differed from other soldiers of the early Roman period in several respects. This image of identifiably Roman soldiers occupying the land of Palestine operates on the assumption that biblical soldiers were all legionaries. There were several different types of soldiers in the Roman East during the New Testament period and the differences between these soldiers were significant the languages they spoke, the government they worked for, their relationship to the civilians they encountered, their pay, and many other specifics differed considerably. As deeply engrained as this image is in the popular consciousness, it is not entirely accurate. Jesus' blood was not shed by a Roman soldier's spear, thrust into his side.Thanks in large part to Jesus-movies and swords-and-sandals cinematic epics (e.g., Ben-Hur, Masada, Spartacus), there is a widespread perception that distinctively Roman soldiers infested Palestine during the life of Jesus – often signaled in such films by highbrow British accents in contrast with the unpretentious American dialect spoken by Jews. The piercing of Jesus' body by a spear did not cause his death. ![]() Blood oozing from a wound inflicted after death does not qualify as the shedding of blood required of an atonement offering. However, it is an interpolation unsupported by the best of the ancient New Testament manuscripts. John's sequence of events is contradicted in some manuscript versions of Matthew 27:49 which state, " And another took a spear and pierced his side, and there came out water and blood." This addition to the verse places the time of the inflicting of the wound as prior to Jesus' death. Chronologically, John 19:33 established the time of the inflicting of the wound in Jesus' side ( John 19:34) as subsequent to his death. ![]() John 19:34 claims that " one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water." According to John 19:33, the Roman soldiers did not break Jesus' legs because he was already dead. Did a Roman soldier shed Jesus' blood? Let's find out Answer:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |