Question About Numbers 15:32–36

[tabibito]

Yes I know that. The Temple sacrificed on behalf of the emperor.

However, were practising and observant Jews prepared to take part in the religious ceremonies surrounding the signa of their military unit [including making sacrifice to the signa] as well as other necessary Roman military religious ceremonies, in which, as soldiers in the Roman army, they would have been required to participate?

Given that observant Jews were in fact soldiers, the logical conclusion would be that the modifications permitted the Jews in Jerusalem would be reflected in the legions and auxilia.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Given that observant Jews were in fact soldiers, the logical conclusion would be that the modifications permitted the Jews in Jerusalem would be reflected in the legions and auxilia.

On what evidence?

Do you imagine their commanding officer excused them from participating in the necessary religious ceremonies and rituals of the unit?

[rogue06]

Once again you engage in distortion. I simply made a remark concerning the existence of this individual. We do not know if he existed as he is not attested elsewhere. That does not mean he did not exist, it simply means we have no extraneous corroborative information about him.

On more than one instance you raised the specter that Cornelius was a fictitious personage seemingly based on your contention that a Jew (or in his case a "God-fearer") could not be in the Roman Army.

Again more distortion from you. I raised the question:

How could a centurion in an auxiliary Roman cohort have held religious beliefs that were in direct opposition to the religious ceremonies and rituals of his unit with which he would have had to conform as a serving officer?

Because that is sooo different

Again that short term memory of yours is playing up

Back on page 11 of this thread on the 18th I asked you [relevant section of quote only].

Please pay attention to the words themselves and not your interpretation.

Since that time, you started focusing solely on "practicing" Jews.

That doesn't say that you later adapted that tact but rather that you shifted your focus.

First it was you sneering at the existence of them based on your objection.

Now you won't deny they existed but rather shifted your focus solely on the latter part -- your objection.

If you are citing Roth where he quotes from Honorius that was in 418 CE.

This would be one of the instances where the point is not blunted by differences in time.

41A.D. or 420A.D., it does not matter. The same issues were present. Your same objections to observant Jews was present in both periods.

If it was impossible for them to be observant Jews and serve in the Army in the first century A.D., it would also be the case all through later centuries.

The point is still valid.

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 office 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 honur at once, being allowed no sufferance for past good deeds.

Thank you for reposting what was posted earlier.

That is a blanket ban on what was inferred by the word Jews in that quote, regardless of their observance of their faith.

Hmm. I guess you managed to miss the part about being "permitted the grace of completing their terms of office" but those who are "devoted to the perversity of this Jewish nation" (i.e., observant Jews) "shall be deprived of their honour at once."

In case you still don't understand, there are two classes of Jew here. Those who are still "devoted to the perversity of this Jewish nation" and those who aren't. The latter, more secular Jews, can be what's known as being grandfathered in, allowed to continue while OTOH, the former, the more religiously devout Jews, are not. They must leave post haste.

You made an over-generalised comment again back on page 11



No such evidence for Jews "regularly" serving in the Roman army exists. That is your invention.

Then it should be easy for you to show everyone during what the exact periods were that, since the first century, that you couldn't find Jews in the Roman Army.

As previously noted in an exchange with tab, there were almost certainly more Jews in the military ranks than previously thought. Previous estimates were primarily based on the percentage of Hebrew names they found.

Even then, there was a constant presence of Jewish soldiers, but the problem with that method is that it automatically excludes Jews with Greek or Latin names who were in the Roman Army. That they existed is attested to by the Talmud and the New Testament.

Then there are the issues with Syrians and Arabians and how Jews living there were often lumped in with those groups.

The point is that you'll find a Jewish presence in the Roman Army from at least the first century on and it was almost certainly a good deal larger than previously estimated.

From available sources it appears that those who considered themselves Jews did not join the Roman army in substantial numbers, although those who did so appear to have done so voluntarily. From which it would suggest that those individuals were either not practising Jews [their "Jewishness" was premised on their ethnicity or geographical location] of if they were practising Jews they were not overly pious in the religious observances of their faith.

"Not overly pious" is a nebulous term that opens the door to your favorite past time -- over-generalizations.

We have little on all the various Jewish sects that existed back then -- Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, Herodians (associated with the Pharisees), and others lost to the mists of time. You might have the volunteers coming from sects that are more accepting of secular society but who regard themselves as pious.

Finally, it is probable that much like the devout Christians in the Roman Army who were expelled by Diocletian's decree, they came up with various methods to deal with having to make sacrifice.

Perhaps you can answer this, given that tabibito neatly side-stepped it.

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.

Perhaps you can explain how observant and practising Jews could swear their oath of allegiance to the Emperor in front of such standards of their unit, and which, by doing so violated the first two commandments. Likewise their mandatory participation [as members of that unit] in such ceremonies.

I devoted an entire post explaining, complete with examples, of why your objection here isn't valid, which you failed to comprehend.

It doesn't matter if you can figure out all the details of how they did it when you have the evidence that they were in the Roman Army and must have found some sort of accommodation -- either with themselves (like the Christians mentioned above who would cross themselves as they made sacrifice) or on some sort of semi-official level.

Perhaps an outlandish example will suffice to illustrate this.

If we were to find human remains on the moon, the fact that we could only wildly speculate as to how they got there in no way shape or form nullifies the fact that they were there. They don't poof out of existence because we couldn't explain them.

No. They would remain a stubborn fact that we might not be able to explain but nevertheless still exist.

Or look at some of the famous math problems. Many go decades or centuries before being solved and many remain unsolved. That we don't have an answer doesn't make the problem go away -- only to magically reappear when someone comes up with the answer.

Define "one true God". Early Christians believed a great many different things about the nature of the Son/Christ.

Sorry. Not playing your game of definitions primarily because you were the one who introduced the term into this exchange.

Then you should have no difficulties in explaining how observant, practising Jews could have participated in those religious ceremonies in their military units which included sacrificing to the signa.

One does not follow the other.

Then again ... linear logic.

[rogue06]

Well well. Lookee that there: the Jews did have a work-around after all. I'm fairly sure it was mentioned earlier in the thread, but I didn't pick up on it at the time.


Jews were permitted to make sacrifices for, not to, the emperor.

That pretty much should be an end to H_A's chief objection, but I predict that she will find a way to continue

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

On more than one instance you raised the specter that Cornelius was a fictitious personage seemingly based on your contention that a Jew (or in his case a "God-fearer") could not be in the Roman Army.


Because that is sooo different


Please pay attention to the words themselves and not your interpretation.

Since that time, you started focusing solely on "practicing" Jews.

That doesn't say that you later adapted that tact but rather that you shifted your focus.

First it was you sneering at the existence of them based on your objection.

Now you won't deny they existed but rather shifted your focus solely on the latter part -- your objection.


This would be one of the instances where the point is not blunted by differences in time.

41A.D. or 420A.D., it does not matter. The same issues were present. Your same objections to observant Jews was present in both periods.

If it was impossible for them to be observant Jews and serve in the Army in the first century A.D., it would also be the case all through later centuries.

The point is still valid.


Thank you for reposting what was posted earlier.


Hmm. I guess you managed to miss the part about being "permitted the grace of completing their terms of office" but those who are "devoted to the perversity of this Jewish nation" (i.e., observant Jews) "shall be deprived of their honour at once."

In case you still don't understand, there are two classes of Jew here. Those who are still "devoted to the perversity of this Jewish nation" and those who aren't. The latter, more secular Jews, can be what's known as being grandfathered in, allowed to continue while OTOH, the former, the more religiously devout Jews, are not. They must leave post haste.


Then it should be easy for you to show everyone during what the exact periods were that, since the first century, that you couldn't find Jews in the Roman Army.

As previously noted in an exchange with tab, there were almost certainly more Jews in the military ranks than previously thought. Previous estimates were primarily based on the percentage of Hebrew names they found.

Even then, there was a constant presence of Jewish soldiers, but the problem with that method is that it automatically excludes Jews with Greek or Latin names who were in the Roman Army. That they existed is attested to by the Talmud and the New Testament.

Then there are the issues with Syrians and Arabians and how Jews living there were often lumped in with those groups.

The point is that you'll find a Jewish presence in the Roman Army from at least the first century on and it was almost certainly a good deal larger than previously estimated.



"Not overly pious" is a nebulous term that opens the door to your favorite past time -- over-generalizations.

We have little on all the various Jewish sects that existed back then -- Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, Herodians (associated with the Pharisees), and others lost to the mists of time. You might have the volunteers coming from sects that are more accepting of secular society but who regard themselves as pious.

Finally, it is probable that much like the devout Christians in the Roman Army who were expelled by Diocletian's decree, they came up with various methods to deal with having to make sacrifice.


I devoted an entire post explaining, complete with examples, of why your objection here isn't valid, which you failed to comprehend.

It doesn't matter if you can figure out all the details of how they did it when you have the evidence that they were in the Roman Army and must have found some sort of accommodation -- either with themselves (like the Christians mentioned above who would cross themselves as they made sacrifice) or on some sort of semi-official level.

Perhaps an outlandish example will suffice to illustrate this.

If we were to find human remains on the moon, the fact that we could only wildly speculate as to how they got there in no way shape or form nullifies the fact that they were there. They don't poof out of existence because we couldn't explain them.

No. They would remain a stubborn fact that we might not be able to explain but nevertheless still exist.

Or look at some of the famous math problems. Many go decades or centuries before being solved and many remain unsolved. That we don't have an answer doesn't make the problem go away -- only to magically reappear when someone comes up with the answer.


Sorry. Not playing your game of definitions primarily because you were the one who introduced the term into this exchange.


One does not follow the other.

Then again ... linear logic.

You could have saved all the prattle and just admitted that with regard to observant and practising Jews in the Roman army, you cannot answer this:

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.

Perhaps you can explain how observant and practising Jews could swear their oath of allegiance to the Emperor in front of such standards of their unit, and which, by doing so violated the first two commandments. Likewise their mandatory participation [as members of that unit] in such ceremonies.

[tabibito]

Perhaps you can explain how observant and practising Jews could swear their oath of allegiance to the Emperor in front of such standards of their unit, and which, by doing so violated the first two commandments. Likewise their mandatory participation [as members of that unit] in such ceremonies.[/box]

As stated before: observant Jews existed in the Roman army. As stated before: how that was achieved is a matter of conjecture. The "making sacrifices for rather than to" work-around is only a plausible possibility.

Perhaps you can explain how observant and practising Jews could swear their oath of allegiance to the Emperor in front of such standards of their unit, and which, by doing so violated the first two commandments. Likewise their mandatory participation [as members of that unit] in such ceremonies.

As stated before, they probably had some kind of work around or exemption. You demanded conjecture, I have complied.

You're no expert on all the variations of Jewish observance in the first century, so your confident assertions about Jewish religious practices in the first century aren't worth a brass razoo. At this point, you are only demonstrating that you won't allow facts have any influence on your opinions.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

As stated before: observant Jews existed in the Roman army. As stated before: how that was achieved is a matter of conjecture. The "making sacrifices for rather than to" work-around is only a plausible possibility.




As stated before, they probably had some kind of work around or exemption. You demanded conjecture, I have complied.

You're no expert on all the variations of Jewish observance in the first century, so your confident assertions about Jewish religious practices in the first century aren't worth a brass razoo. At this point, you are only demonstrating that you won't allow facts have any influence on your opinions.

So just more conjecture [and prattle] from an individual who has acknowledged:

I am not well versed in history.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That pretty much should be an end to H_A's chief objection, but I predict that she will find a way to continue

Do keep up at the back!

Yes I know that. The Temple sacrificed on behalf of the emperor.

However, were practising and observant Jews prepared to take part in the religious ceremonies surrounding the signa of their military unit [including making sacrifice to the signa] as well as other necessary Roman military religious ceremonies, in which, as soldiers in the Roman army, they would have been required to participate?

You also need to consider the religious aspect in swearing an oath to the emperor which all recruits would have been required to take.

[rogue06]

You could have saved all the prattle and just admitted that with regard to observant and practising Jews in the Roman army, you cannot answer this:

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.

Perhaps you can explain how observant and practising Jews could swear their oath of allegiance to the Emperor in front of such standards of their unit, and which, by doing so violated the first two commandments. Likewise their mandatory participation [as members of that unit] in such ceremonies.

Likewise we wouldn't be able to immediately answer how human remains got on the moon (in my example), but nevertheless, there they are defying any explanation.

You just don't get it, do you?

One does not need to explain every facet of something for it to be true. Things don't simply poof out of existence because we cannot spell out every single thing about it.

The fact that you keep trying to make disappear is that Jews were in the Roman Army. And all of the actual evidence, stubborn denialism not withstanding, indicates that some of those Jews were religiously devout. That indisputable fact is what we have to deal with. Not what some hausfrau wants based on her own prejudices, but reality. And the reality is that Jews of all types served in the Roman Army regardless of your objections to the contrary^[1].

That leaves us at focusing on how did they manage to deal with what you raise, because the evidence all indicates that they found a way -- either the same sort of exemptions afforded to the Jews in every area of Roman life were also extended in the military or they found ways to work around the problem -- like the later Christians did who were in the Army during Diocletian's rule. The very fact that they did have a way is indicated by their presence.






1. just like Christians managed to move about and stay in communication during the first two centuries A.D. in spite of your denial that they could do so based upon personal incredulity.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Likewise we wouldn't be able to immediately answer how human remains got on the moon (in my example), but nevertheless, there they are defying any explanation.

You just don't get it, do you?

One does not need to explain every facet of something for it to be true. Things don't simply poof out of existence because we cannot spell out every single thing about it.

The fact that you keep trying to make disappear is that Jews were in the Roman Army. And all of the actual evidence, stubborn denialism not withstanding, indicates that some of those Jews were religiously devout. That indisputable fact is what we have to deal with. Not what some hausfrau wants based on her own prejudices, but reality. And the reality is that Jews of all types served in the Roman Army your objections to the contrary^[1].

That leaves us at focusing on how did they manage to deal with what you raise, because the evidence all indicates that they found a way -- either the same sort of exemptions afforded to the Jews in every area of Roman life were also extended in the military or they found ways to work around the problem -- like the later Christians did who were in the Army during Diocletian's rule. The very fact that they did have a way is indicated by their presence.






1. just like Christians managed to move about and stay in communication during the first two centuries A.D. in spite of your denial that they could do so based upon personal incredulity.

Given that this exchange originated over the figure who appears in Acts ten, I would consider the most likely conclusion [assuming he actually existed and is not a narrative fiction] that Cornelius was a retired Roman centurion from an auxiliary unit who settled in Caesarea, or possibly originated from that area and returned to his natal city [which at the time had a large Jewish population], became a god-fearer and then got caught up in the new religious ideas being promulgated by Paul.

[rogue06]

So just more conjecture [and prattle] from an individual who has acknowledged:

It continues to amuse how you keep bringing up that tab acknowledges that history is not his forte, while he continuously runs circle around you, a self-professed historian who has disdainfully boasted "with regard to the discipline of history I know a great more than most of the contributors to these boards."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It continues to amuse how you keep bringing up that tab acknowledges that history is not his forte, while he continuously runs circle around you, a self-professed historian who has disdainfully boasted "with regard to the discipline of history I know a great more than most of the contributors to these boards."

And you have failed to address any of my points.

[rogue06]

Given that this exchange originated over the figure who appears in Acts ten, I would consider the most likely conclusion [assuming he actually existed and is not a narrative fiction] that Cornelius was a retired Roman centurion from an auxiliary unit who settled in Caesarea, or possibly originated from that area and returned to his natal city [which at the time had a large Jewish population], became a god-fearer and then got caught up in the new religious ideas being promulgated by Paul.

Given your spectacular and humiliating self-destruction the last time Acts was the topic, one would think you would have learned a little humility and not rush chin first into making pontifications regarding it.

But then invincible arrogant ignorance is invincible.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Given your spectacular and humiliating self-destruction the last time Acts was the topic, one would think you would have learned a little humility and not rush chin first into making pontifications regarding it.

But then invincible arrogant ignorance is invincible.

My comments appear [assuming this figure is based on a real individual] to be the most likely.

[tabibito]

My comments appear [assuming this figure is based on a real individual] to be the most likely.

One of two options (at least) with reasonable likelihood. Not that I can think of more than two.