Question About Numbers 15:32–36

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The fact that something existed and has been attested to, is not, as you continue to believe, somehow surmounted by the fact that we don't know how have the details for how it worked.

There are scores of questions about and mysteries lost in time about Columbus' first trip to the Americas, but that we don't know a number of things about it, how certain things were accomplished, doesn't mean it therefore didn't happen.

Historians will debate points large and small regarding some of the more famous battles in history, often with sharply divided camps over each question (I think the ones regarding Waterloo finally became passé or something), but nobody is proclaiming the battle didn't take place.

Nobody knows by what process by which the so-called Lycurgus Cup was created and only in the last decade have they been able to recreate it, but nobody is proclaiming it doesn't exist.

Perhaps a more mind-blowing example than the Lycurgus Cup are some seamless metal globes dating back to around 1589-90 and first made in the Mughal Empire's Kashmir region (but I believe some also got made in Lahore as well) and have been attributed to Ali Kashmiri ibn Luqman.

When they were uncovered in the mid 1980s not only did they completely mystify modern metallurgist as to how they were made back in the late 16th century, but it was considered technologically impossible at the time. Apparently they used a technique that stretches back thousands of years -- lost wax casting.

But again, the point was that just because they had no idea to accomplish something in the 1980s didn't mean they dismissed the fact that in the 16th century there was someone who did.


tl/dr: facts and evidence always trump incredulity

Again a somewhat irrelevant deflection to completely unrelated topics.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Jewish exemption from military service, and the way the romans perceived the Jews and Judaism in the late Roman republic and the early empire

Abstract

In 1914, Juster showed that there was some clear evidence for Jewish military service in the Roman Empire. Since then, especially in the first decade of the 21st century, others have followed suit and written articles which brought new evidence to light, in order to strengthen this assertion. However, through the ages, many scholars tried to claim that there were no such soldiers in the Roman army or at least, if there were, they were a negligible minority in Jewish society. They usually bring up Josephus’ writings, where he describes Jews repeatedly being granted exemption from military service in the second half of the 1st century BCE. But these exemptions never encompassed the entire Jewish population under Roman rule. Exemptions were given only to certain communities for a limited time. If there was a general exemption for all Jews, from all classes and all across the Empire, Josephus would have mentioned it in his writings. In addition, Josephus, who sat in Rome, with all the archives of the empire in his disposal, could not find even one local exemption after the year 14 BCE. So one can infer that such exemptions were not in existence after the year 14 BCE. That, by itself, is the best evidence that Jewish military service existed in the armies of the early Roman Empire. More importantly, the way the writings were phrased highlights how the Romans perceived Jews and Judaism, and their ability to see the difference between Jews as individuals, and between different streams and sects in Judaism. The exemptions raise some further assumptions. Firstly, on how the Romans conducted their affairs in the east. Secondly, about the difference between the administrative staff in the provinces and the politicians in the form of the province’s governor. Thirdly, about the Romans’ caution in not causing any precedents and countering any of the old laws. Much more can be learned from these exemptions as will be brought forward in the lecture.

Why are you repeating previous posts?

And without reading the full paper by Olshanetsky you cannot know what he has written.

[Sparko]

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how practising and observant Jews who volunteered to be in the Roman auxiliary army units could violate the first two commandments by swearing an oath of allegiance to the Roman emperor in front of the standards of that military unit.

So far there has been a deafening silence on this specific matter.

Why does it matter how they did it? As has been shown in this thread, history records that Jews DID indeed join the Roman army. Or are you still denying it?

[tabibito]

We must therefore assume that such individuals were not overly pious in the religious observations of their faith

must? Only if we consider a rationalisation necessary.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

must? Only if we consider a rationalisation necessary.

Given the Maccabean rebellion, the events of 4 BCE, the concerns of Judas in 6 CE, the incident with the standards brought by Pilate into Jerusalem, and the later deputation to Gaius [which included Philo] concerning his decision to erect a statue of himself in the Temple, it would seem that for pious and observant Jews issues pertaining to idolatry and/or of acknowledging foreign "heathen" overlords were matters of grave concern.

[tabibito]

Carl H. Kraeling. The Episode of the Roman Standards at Jerusalem. The Harvard Theological Review Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1942), pp. 263-289

The parallel account in the Antiquitates has a few details of value to add to our knowledge of the episode. It indicates that the occasion of the unfortunate developments was the transfer of a force (o-TpaT1t) from Caesarea to winter quarters at Jeru- salem, and clarifies the nature of the images objected to by stating that they were busts attached to the standards. Referring back to previous practice, it declares that because of the prohibition against images contained in Jewish law "the procurators of earlier days were wont to make entry into the city only with (or: for) standards lacking such ornaments" Pilate being the first to depart from this custom.

So -- standards as such were not the problem. The standards in question incorporated effigies of Caesar's head, (and there is some argument that the shields had unacceptable wording). Not all units had such standards. H_A seems to have stereotyped all Roman units as following the same procedures.
According to Philo (some of) the standards in question were set up in the temple.
Jews in other locales had no problem with standards, e.g. In Legatio ad Gaium, § 133, mention is made of shields which the Jews themselves set up in the synagogues of Alexandria in honor of the Emperor.
H_A seems to have fallen yet again into stereotyping all observant Jews as having the same attitudes and beliefs.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Carl H. Kraeling. The Episode of the Roman Standards at Jerusalem. The Harvard Theological Review Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1942), pp. 263-289

The parallel account in the Antiquitates has a few details of value to add to our knowledge of the episode. It indicates that the occasion of the unfortunate developments was the transfer of a force (o-TpaT1t) from Caesarea to winter quarters at Jeru- salem, and clarifies the nature of the images objected to by stating that they were busts attached to the standards. Referring back to previous practice, it declares that because of the prohibition against images contained in Jewish law "the procurators of earlier days were wont to make entry into the city only with (or: for) standards lacking such ornaments" Pilate being the first to depart from this custom.

So -- standards as such were not the problem. The standards in question incorporated effigies of Caesar's head, (and there is some argument that the shields had unacceptable wording). Not all units had such standards. H_A seems to have stereotyped all Roman units as following the same procedures.
According to Philo (some of) the standards in question were set up in the temple.
Jews in other locales had no problem with standards, e.g. In Legatio ad Gaium, § 133, mention is made of shields which the Jews themselves set up in the synagogues of Alexandria in honor of the Emperor.
H_A seems to have fallen yet again into stereotyping all observant Jews as having the same attitudes and beliefs.

The following images are from the reconstructed Saalburg Roman Fortress [Römerkastell] here in Germany. The first shows the reconstruction of the special shrine [the aedes or sacellum] where the standards would have been kept and guarded. The second is the reconstruction of the interior showing the insignia as well as votive offerings.



,




As I have explained previously a significant festival in the Roman military was the Rosalie signorum. On festival days, the signa were cleaned and anointed. Next to the altar in the courtyard of the praetorium, the signa were grouped together and decorated with crowns of roses and a supplicatio then followed. It is probable that portable imagines of the emperor were also decorated with garlands and wreaths on such occasions. The Rosaliae signorum are connected to the cult of the standards and offering a supplicatio to the signa is clearly significant. They also received sacrifices.

Now, perhaps you can provide some attested historical sources which details observant and pious Jews swearing their oath of allegiance to the Emperor in front of such standards of their unit which, by doing so, would violate the first two commandments; as would their participation [as members of that unit] in such ceremonies as outlined above.

[tabibito]

Now, perhaps you can provide some attested historical sources which details observant and pious Jews swearing their oath of allegiance to the Emperor in front of such standards of their unit which, by doing so, would violate the first two commandments; as would their participation [as members of that unit] in such ceremonies as outlined above.

I think that Rogue mentioned this one before. Two groups of Jews are indicated, with the group of observant Jews being deemed unfit for continuing service in or future entry into Roman government service, including military.

Entrance into the military service from any other occupation is denied
those who are living in the Jewish faith. Therefore any Jews who are either
engaged in government service or in the imperial army are permitted
the grace of completing their terms of of service and of terminating their
enlistments (since such persons are really more ignorant than unfriendly),
but in the future the grace we have now granted a few will not be continued.
We decree, moreover, that those devoted to the perversity of this
Jewish nation, who are proved to have entered the armed forces, shall
be deprived of their honor at once, being allowed no sufferance for past
good deeds.

Strange it is, if no observant Jews existed in the Roman Army, that rules should have been introduced to remove observant Jews from the Roman army.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I think that Rogue mentioned this one before. Two groups of Jews are indicated, with the group of observant Jews being deemed unfit for continuing service in or future entry into Roman government service, including military.

Entrance into the military service from any other occupation is denied
those who are living in the Jewish faith. Therefore any Jews who are either
engaged in government service or in the imperial army are permitted
the grace of completing their terms of of service and of terminating their
enlistments (since such persons are really more ignorant than unfriendly),
but in the future the grace we have now granted a few will not be continued.
We decree, moreover, that those devoted to the perversity of this
Jewish nation, who are proved to have entered the armed forces, shall
be deprived of their honor at once, being allowed no sufferance for past
good deeds.

Strange it is, if no observant Jews existed in the Roman Army, that rules should have been introduced to remove observant Jews from the Roman army.

Firstly none of that addresses my points, and secondly, do you have a source?

[tabibito]

Firstly none of that addresses my points, and secondly, do you have a source?

JEWS AND THE ROMAN ARMY - Brill


https://brill.com › Bej.9789004160446.i-589_027.pdf


That the edict dates to the fifth century isn't particularly a problem. Observant Jews were in the Roman Army.



Perhaps you can find something that allows for worship of a living emperor in the early first century. Or were soldiers required to swear an oath to formerly living emperors?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

JEWS AND THE ROMAN ARMY - Brill


https://brill.com › Bej.9789004160446.i-589_027.pdf


That the edict dates to the fifth century isn't particularly a problem. Observant Jews were in the Roman Army.

There is no evidence that practising observant and pious Jews were in the Roman army; and while no one is denying that those who considered themselves Ioudaioi could do military service in the Roman army, we are, again, back to the term Jew - was this an ethnic, geographical, or religious term? And the question remains could practising pious and observant Jews have subsisted within the Roman military which involved having to engage in those ceremonies I outlined in my previous post, including making sacrifice to the signa?

Perhaps you can find something that allows for worship of a living emperor in the early first century.

From the OCD [3rd Ed]

The Romans had long sacrificed to the ghosts of the dead [Manes] and conceived of a semi-independent spirit [genius] attached to living people. But the myth of a deified founder, Romulus, was invented only in or after the 4th century BCE under Greek influence, and developed in the new political circumstances of the late Republic. [....]Though the evidence is controversial, Caesar as dictator in 45–44 BCE probably received divine honours, based on Roman models [cults of Alexander [3] the Great and Hellenistic kings took different forms). After his assassination the triumvirs, supported by popular agitation, secured from the senate his formal deification in 42 BCE as Divus Iulius.

Worship of emperors and members of their families has two aspects, the worship of the living, including identification with the gods, and the apotheosis of the dead. It took different forms in different contexts: Rome; provincial assemblies towns; and in private. At Rome Augustus and later 'good' emperors avoided official deification in their lifetimes; Gaius [1] Caligula Caligula and Commodus were exceptional in seeking to emphasize their own divinity. Augustus was divi filius (son of the deified one), and enjoyed a mediating role with the divine, as implied by his name, and as a result of becoming pontifex maximusin 12 BCE. He also in 7 BCE reorganized the cults of the 265 wards of the city: henceforth the officials of the wards, mainly freedmen, worshipped the Augustan Lares and the Genius of Augustus. The worship appropriate for a household was now performed throughout the city. Poets played with the association of Augustus with the gods, and assumed that he would be deified posthumously. In 14 CE Augustus' funeral managed both to evoke, on a grand scale, traditional aristocratic funerals and to permit his formal deification by the senate; it was the precedent for all subsequent emperors up to Constantine.

There is also this:

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view...10803095959201

Worship of the Roman Emperor as a god. During his lifetime, in 44 bc Julius Caesar allowed a statue of himself to be erected with the inscription Deo Invicto (to the unconquered god) and declared himself dictator for life. His nephew and adopted son, Augustus (ruled 30 bc–ad 14), constructed a temple in Rome which he dedicated to Divus Julius (the divine Julius) and titled himself Divi filius (son of a god). Augustus and Tiberius each allowed a single temple to be dedicated to them during their lifetimes, the former in Pergamon and the latter in Zmyrna. Subsequent emperors gradually increased the influence of the Imperial Cult so that, after Hadrian (ruled ad 117–38), their power had become so absolute and so consolidated that the cult was effectively a civil religion and a test of loyalty.

[tabibito]

There is no evidence that practising observant and pious Jews were in the Roman army; and while no one is denying that those who considered themselves Ioudaioi could do military service in the Roman army, we are, again, back to the term Jew - was this an ethnic, geographical, or religious term? And the question remains could practising pious and observant Jews have subsisted within the Roman military which involved having to engage in those ceremonies I outlined in my previous post, including making sacrifice to the signa?




From the OCD [3rd Ed]

Worship of emperors and members of their families has two aspects, the worship of the living, including identification with the gods, and the apotheosis of the dead. It took different forms in different contexts: Rome; provincial assemblies towns; and in private. At Rome Augustus and later 'good' emperors avoided official deification in their lifetimes; Augustus was divi filius (son of the deified one), and enjoyed a mediating role with the divine, as implied by his name, and as a result of becoming pontifex maximusin 12 BCE. He also in 7 BCE reorganized the cults of the 265 wards of the city: henceforth the officials of the wards, mainly freedmen, worshipped the Augustan Lares and the Genius of Augustus. The worship appropriate for a household was now performed throughout the city. Poets played with the association of Augustus with the gods, and assumed that he would be deified posthumously. In 14 CE Augustus' funeral managed both to evoke, on a grand scale, traditional aristocratic funerals and to permit his formal deification by the senate; it was the precedent for all subsequent emperors up to Constantine.

The genius of Augustus and the Augustan Lares don't seem to be Augustus himself. Are you claiming that Roman soldiers were REQUIRED to worship either or both? And did Tiberius, the relevant emperor for the gospel records, make a claim to be a god and expect soldiers to worship him?

Not that the point is relevant to the debate anyway. Observant Judah Jews in the Roman army you can hand-wave off with nothing more than unwillingness to face the probabilities for support. The existence of Samaritan Jews in the Roman army is another matter.

Roth:
Samaritans float ambiguously from Jewish to non-Jewish in both
the ancient and the modern mind. As Roman soldiers, they are
generally seen as non-Jews, although in fact they were virtually
identical to Jews in religion, language and custom.

The exemption from recruiting auxiliary forces in Judea seems to
have been technically recognized, in that no cohort or ala is called
Judaeorum, until the Late Empire. This does not mean, however, that
these units did not have Jews in them. The Samaritan cohorts had the
same religious scruples and taboos as the Jews, which shows that the
exemption was based primarily on national, and not religious grounds.
It also indicates that Jews could accommodate doing military service in
the Roman Army.

So -- despite your objections to the contrary, it seems that Jews could find a way to accommodate doing military service. Just as well, given that Tiberius forcibly conscripted 4000 of them.

Unless you can come up with something more substantial than argument from disbelief, there is no point in continuing. A variety of sources attest that there was no insurmountable barrier to Jews serving in the military (until Rome lowered the boom.)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The genius of Augustus and the Augustan Lares don't seem to be Augustus himself. Are you claiming that Roman soldiers were REQUIRED to worship either or both? And did Tiberius, the relevant emperor for the gospel records, make a claim to be a god and expect soldiers to worship him?

Not that the point is relevant to the debate anyway. Observant Judah Jews in the Roman army you can hand-wave off with nothing more than unwillingness to face the probabilities for support. The existence of Samaritan Jews in the Roman army is another matter.

Roth:
Samaritans float ambiguously from Jewish to non-Jewish in both
the ancient and the modern mind. As Roman soldiers, they are
generally seen as non-Jews, although in fact they were virtually
identical to Jews in religion, language and custom.

The exemption from recruiting auxiliary forces in Judea seems to
have been technically recognized, in that no cohort or ala is called
Judaeorum, until the Late Empire. This does not mean, however, that
these units did not have Jews in them. The Samaritan cohorts had the
same religious scruples and taboos as the Jews, which shows that the
exemption was based primarily on national, and not religious grounds.
It also indicates that Jews could accommodate doing military service in
the Roman Army.

So -- despite your objections to the contrary, it seems that Jews could find a way to accommodate doing military service. Just as well, given that Tiberius forcibly conscripted 4000 of them.

Unless you can come up with something more substantial than argument from disbelief, there is no point in continuing. A variety of sources attest that there was no insurmountable barrier to Jews serving in the military (until Rome lowered the boom.)

I agree there is little point in trying to explain [in a few brief paragraphs] a very complex issue to someone who has a [self acknowledged] lack of historical understanding.

[rogue06]

Again a somewhat irrelevant deflection to completely unrelated topics.

I'm not even slightly surprised that you would choose not to see the relevancy.

[rogue06]

Why are you repeating previous posts?

And without reading the full paper by Olshanetsky you cannot know what he has written.

Another excellent example of your summarily handwaving away anything and everything that you don't like on the flimsiest of excuses.

Get a clue. An abstract is a summary of the paper. You won't find the paper itself disagreeing with its summary.