Who was guarding Christ's tomb?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tenebrae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tenebrae

Guest
In Matthew 27:62-66 we read how the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate and asked for a guard to be set over the tomb. Pilate replied, “You have a guard; go and guard it as well as you know how.”
Does this mean that Pilate was not going to send any of his soldiers, but rather, he was telling the priests that they ought to use their own temple guards?
If so, then why, after the Resurrection, did the priests bribe what the
Gospel calls “soldiers” to say that the disciples had stolen the body while they were sleeping, and promise that if word got back to Pilate about this, they’d “…persuade him and keep you out of trouble.”
If they were temple guards, why would they be in trouble with Pilate?
 
The temple Guards could be referring to the Legionaries that are stationed to protect Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem.
 
The temple Guards could be referring to the Legionaries that are stationed to protect Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem.
Well actually, the nearest legions were all stationed in Syria, where the Legate was. There may have been a few small details of legionaries or lone centurions on detached duty here and there, but their tasks would not have had anything to do with daily operations in Judaea.

Rome did not govern Palestine directly; the image we usually have of Roman soldiers patrolling the streets of the Galilee and Judea on a daily basis is more likely mistaken. It was ruled in a more indirect manner: Rome utilized client (puppet) kings, ethnarchs, tetrarchs, or resident governors who, in turn, utilized local aristocrats, especially the Jewish high priest.

During the time of Jesus’ death (20s-30s AD), the province of Judaea was governed by the prefect (in our case, this would be Pontius Pilate). The prefect would have a small number of troops (perhaps 3,000 at the least) at his disposal, but for the most part they stayed away from Jerusalem because of Jewish sensitivities. There was a small Roman garrison stationed within Jerusalem, and other fortresses within the province were also lightly garrisoned, but day-to-day control was actually in the hands of the high priest (in this instance, Caiaphas), who had informal councillors and also a small formal council. Most councillors were aristocrats, and many were aristocratic priests. He also had the Temple guards - which were usually composed of Levites and were distinct from the Romans stationed in the Antonia Fortress nearby - who had the duty of being the security force of the Temple and the city during most of the year.

The Romans considered the high priest to be the responsible official in Jerusalem, the spokesman and the representative of the natives, if you will. If people wanted to deal with Rome, they had to talk to the high priest, and if Rome wanted to communicate with the people, the prefect summoned him. If something went wrong, the high priest held responsibility. During feastdays such as Passover, the prefect and extra Roman troops would usually go to Jerusalem in case of trouble, to make sure that the vast crowds did not get out of hand. It was in this situation that Jesus was “crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Now, Pilate is traditionally held to be of equestrian rank, the second aristocratic order below that of senators. This might have some basis in history, as the men whom emperors appointed as governors were often equestrians. As an equestrian, Pilate was not of high enough status to command a legion, hence his garrison would have been composed of auxiliary troops, mainly recruited from the free subjects of the Empire who did not hold Roman citizenship. This was in contrast to the legions, which only admitted Roman citizens.
 
In Matthew 27:62-66 we read how the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate and asked for a guard to be set over the tomb. Pilate replied, “You have a guard; go and guard it as well as you know how.”
Does this mean that Pilate was not going to send any of his soldiers, but rather, he was telling the priests that they ought to use their own temple guards?
If so, then why, after the Resurrection, did the priests bribe what the
Gospel calls “soldiers” to say that the disciples had stolen the body while they were sleeping, and promise that if word got back to Pilate about this, they’d “…persuade him and keep you out of trouble.”
If they were temple guards, why would they be in trouble with Pilate?
Well, each side has their own respective strengths and weaknesses.

The phrase given in your translation as “you have a guard” (εχετε κουστωδιαν) is actually ambiguous in the Greek. It could be understood as either being in the imperative - in which case Pilate would be granting the priests his own troops - or in the indicative, which would imply that Pilate told them to use their own guards.

But supposing that they were indeed Roman soldiers, some evidence could be presented as proof for this claim, such as: (1) the use of words such as stratiotēs (‘soldier’) and koustōdias (from Latin custodia, ‘guard’) would imply that these were Romans; (2) the apocryphal Gospel of Peter from the 2nd century clearly takes the guards to be Romans (it even mentions that they were headed by a centurion named Petronius!); (3) The Temple guards were highly trained Levites responsible for protecting the courts and gates of the Temple; slouching, sitting or even leaning on something while on duty was heavily punished - hence any blabber about the Temple police falling asleep while guarding the tomb of an executed criminal was unlikely; (4) as you mentioned, it is rather unlikely that the Temple guards under the high priest would get in trouble with the Roman prefect.
 
Well actually, the nearest legions were all stationed in Syria, where the Legate was. There may have been a few small details of legionaries or lone centurions on detached duty here and there, but their tasks would not have had anything to do with daily operations in Judea.
The two nearest legions to Judea were the 10th legion in Cyrrhus and the 12th legion in Raphanea. Barrabbas was an insurrectionist who had probably led a mass rebellion. I think a detachment from one of these legions was sent to clean this mess up
Now, Pilate is traditionally held to be of equestrian rank, the second aristocratic order below that of senators. This might have some basis in history, as the men whom emperors appointed as governors were often equestrians. As an equestrian, Pilate was not of high enough status to command a legion, hence his garrison would have been composed of auxiliary troops, mainly recruited from the free subjects of the Empire who did not hold Roman citizenship. This was in contrast to the legions, which only admitted Roman citizens.
Actually, the legate’s second in command was a senior tribune of equestrian rank. In this case, if the legate was absent, the senior tribune took command of the legion. This was the case in Egypt so that was what would have happened with Judea. Plus, Acts 21 states the commander of the Jerusalem garrison was a tribune. If the garrison was composed of auxiliaries then the commander would have been a prefect not a tribune. Josephus himself speaks of legionaries of the Jerusalem garrison up to the years leading up to the Jewish Revolt. Personally the 12th legion would have been a possible candidate since it was regarded as a Christian legion in the 3rd century A.D.
 
In Matthew 27:62-66 we read how the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate and asked for a guard to be set over the tomb. Pilate replied, “You have a guard; go and guard it as well as you know how.”
Does this mean that Pilate was not going to send any of his soldiers, but rather, he was telling the priests that they ought to use their own temple guards?
If so, then why, after the Resurrection, did the priests bribe what the
Gospel calls “soldiers” to say that the disciples had stolen the body while they were sleeping, and promise that if word got back to Pilate about this, they’d “…persuade him and keep you out of trouble.”
If they were temple guards, why would they be in trouble with Pilate?
They wouldn’t be Roman soldiers because sleeping on the job carries harsh punishment. For a Roman soldier to take a bribe from a Jew and to admit to the Governor for sleeping on the job is very unlikely. And the verse carries a big “if”. If they were Roman soldiers, Pilate WILL hear of it. No Jewish priest can protect a Roman soldier from the wrath of the Roman army.

(One reason I read somewhere is that corpses of common criminals would be considered as under Roman jurisdiction to be disposed in a public common grave. However, since Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, asked to claim the body and consent was given, jurisdiction came over to the Jewish side. And Pilate’s behavior showed that he didn’t want to have anything to do with it. Presumably the body of Jesus is now in private property and not public. It would be likely that the Jewish High Priest would come to know that a member of the Sanhedrin has claimed Jesus’s body when he approached Pilate about the guard. Or althernatively the High Priest knew about Jesus burial tomb and wanted a more credible deterrent by having Roman guards. )

But why would the temple guards get into trouble with Pilate? Supposedly only if the "theft " becomes an issue later, such as resulting in civil unrest. Then the temple guards will have a lot of explaining to do or be suspected of colluding with the grave robbers.
 
In Matthew 27:62-66 we read how the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate and asked for a guard to be set over the tomb. Pilate replied, “You have a guard; go and guard it as well as you know how.”
Does this mean that Pilate was not going to send any of his soldiers, but rather, he was telling the priests that they ought to use their own temple guards?
If so, then why, after the Resurrection, did the priests bribe what the
Gospel calls “soldiers” to say that the disciples had stolen the body while they were sleeping, and promise that if word got back to Pilate about this, they’d “…persuade him and keep you out of trouble.”
If they were temple guards, why would they be in trouble with Pilate?
Notice that it said, “…if word got back to Pilate…”. The “if” is important, which implies that they probably didn’t think it would. But just in case there was any repercussions, they would take care of it if Pilate make any noise about it for some reason.
 
In Matthew 27:62-66 we read how the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate and asked for a guard to be set over the tomb. Pilate replied, “You have a guard; go and guard it as well as you know how.”
Does this mean that Pilate was not going to send any of his soldiers, but rather, he was telling the priests that they ought to use their own temple guards?
If so, then why, after the Resurrection, did the priests bribe what the
Gospel calls “soldiers” to say that the disciples had stolen the body while they were sleeping, and promise that if word got back to Pilate about this, they’d “…persuade him and keep you out of trouble.”
If they were temple guards, why would they be in trouble with Pilate?
The Jewish leaders had a watch, some Levites were temple guards, men bearing the sword to watch at the doors/gates of the temple (1Chron 15:18, 24) I believe that the family name of the tomb guards was Obededom, because they had a special relationship with the ark of the Covenant (2 Sam 6:10-12). Mary the Ark of the Covenant kept watch with them at Jesus’ tomb and was there at the resurrection. One of many ways to know this is that a type cannot be greater than the antitype and Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead (Gen 22, Heb 11:19). The Blessed Virgin Mary was the only one in the gospel account who was present believing that God would raise Jesus from the dead, everyone one else believed this could happen only after it did happen.
Grace and peace,
Bruce
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top