spin wrote:Charles Wilson wrote:"He [Galba] did however put on a linen cuirass,
Linothorax
Thank you very much for that, spin.
The question becomes whether Galba made it into the "Historical Part" of the NT. I know that there will be a sizable percentage of readers who will say that there cannot be references to Galba since the NT is about "Jesus". OK. Fine.
Consider, however, what would be the facts if the assumption of "Galba in the NT" had Truth Value:
Matthew 7: 15 (RSV):
[15] "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves...
"False Prophets" => Emperor Galba and notice "Prophets" => PLURAL
"who come to you" => Marching from Spain, perhaps (Weak supposition at this point)
"sheep's clothing" => Here's where it begins to get interesting. The Toga, symbol of a Roman statesman, is a piece of clothing made from wool
"inwardly are ravenous wolves" => Galba, the glutton, succeeded by Otho. Vespasian swore his allegiance to Otho. At the assassination of Otho, the advisors, (and Mucianus), convince Vespasian to march on Rome. "Wolves" => PLURAL
Suetonius,
12 Caesars, "Galba":
"He then began his march to Rome in a general's cloak with a dagger hanging from his neck in front of his breast; and he did not resume the toga until he had overthrown those who were plotting against him..."
Which brings us to the curious passages of John and "Galba" (See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuirass et.al.):
"Not long after this he learned that Otho held possession of the Camp, and when several advised him to proceed thither as soon as possible — for they said that he could win the day by his presence and prestige — he decided to do no more than hold his present position and strengthen it by getting together a guard of the legionaries, who were encamped in many different quarters of the city. He did however put on a linen cuirass, though he openly declared that it would afford little protection against so many swords..."
John 19: 23 (RSV):
[23] When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom
From spin's Post we see that the Linothorax could be a complicated affair as is seen also in literature on the cuirass. A functioning Cuirass would have had some heft to it. It would not have been a linen T-Shirt with a Walmart sign printed on the front. Similarly, Galba stating something like, "I'll just take this Cuirass off the rack here 'n put it on" doesn't give the gravity of the situation. Galba is facing death and insurrection and he appears to know it.
It is easy to state then that the seamless garment of "Jesus" might not be a Cuirass. If that was as far as it went, maybe that would be the correct conclusion. As usual, however, there is more (verse 24 in part):
[24] so they said to one another, "
Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be..."
Interesting but the Pointer here looks elsewhere. How many soldiers were there?
Tacitus,
Histories, Book 4:
Mucianus entered the camp to examine more accurately the individual claims.
The victorious army, wearing their proper decorations and arms, he drew up with moderate intervals of space between the divisions; then the
Vitellianists, whose capitulation at Bovillae I have already related, and the other troops of the party, who had been collected from the capital and its neighbourhood, were brought forth almost naked.
Mucianus ordered these men to be drawn up apart, making the British, the German, and any other troops that there were belonging to other armies, take up separate positions. The very first view of their situation paralyzed them. They saw opposed to them what seemed a hostile array, threatening them with javelin and sword. They saw themselves hemmed in, without arms, filthy and squalid. And when they began to be separated, some to be marched to one spot, and some to another, a thrill of terror ran through them all.
Among the troops from Germany the panic was particularly great; for they believed that this separation marked them out for slaughter. They embraced their fellow soldiers, clung to their necks, begged for parting kisses, and entreated that they might not be deserted, or doomed in a common cause to suffer a different lot. They invoked now Mucianus, now the absent Emperor, and, as a last resource, heaven and the Gods,
till Mucianus came forward, and calling them "soldiers bound by the same oath and servants of the same Emperor," stopped the groundless panic. And indeed the victorious army seconded the tears of the vanquished with their approving shouts. This terminated the proceedings for that day..."
How many groups are there? Does it matter? It turns out that it doesn't in an absolute sense. They were all "soldiers bound by the same oath and servants of the same Emperor".
Thus, Tacitus appears to play a great, if unseen, role in the construction of the NT.
CW