That's historical revisionism and there is no logical basis for it. The explanation for assuming the men were Roman seems to rest entirely on the word chiliarch, a Greek word that was used to refer to officers in several different nations' militaries.
The Bible refers to Romans countless times but it specifically doesn't use the word Roman to refer to the people who arrested Jesus. It specifically says the men were sent by the priests and pharisees.
Roman soldiers didn't take orders from Jews. If the Romans arrested him why wouldn't they have taken him directly to Pilate instead of taking him to the Jewish priests? If the Romans ordered Jesus's arrest and not the Jewish priests why does Pilate seem to have no interest in prosecuting Jesus?
lol I have, was gunna ask you the same thing. I've read the entire new testament, how much have you read?
Well your memory sucks then, because you didn't even remember who arrested Jesus
did find this for you though, so you don't have to take my word for it https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/18-12.htm
That's historical revisionism and there is no logical basis for it. The explanation for assuming the men were Roman seems to rest entirely on the word chiliarch, a Greek word that was used to refer to officers in several different nations' militaries.
The Bible refers to Romans countless times but it specifically doesn't use the word Roman to refer to the people who arrested Jesus. It specifically says the men were sent by the priests and pharisees.
Roman soldiers didn't take orders from Jews. If the Romans arrested him why wouldn't they have taken him directly to Pilate instead of taking him to the Jewish priests? If the Romans ordered Jesus's arrest and not the Jewish priests why does Pilate seem to have no interest in prosecuting Jesus?