DCHindley

Josephus was talking about David's time.

When the author of the gospel of Matthew speaks of a centurion in Galilee in Jesus' time, he is NOT speaking of a Roman officer, but an officer in Antipas' military. As a client prince, Antipas ran his own government, including military. Considering Antipas inherited a portion of his father Herod the Great's kingdom, this presumably included the the remnant of his father's army that operated there. It is clear from the source I cited that Herod had a mainly Jewish army. Considering that Agrippa II, who had received the former tetrarchy of Philip in 53 after it had been run by the Romans since 39 (14 years), still managed to install several Jewish commanders in his army (some of them defected to the rebels), I don't think that it is too unreasonable to assume that Antipas, who inherited an army straight from his father, also had a predominantly Jewish army command.

The point was that you can't go by the title alone to determine the ethnicity or worship habits of the soldier. That centurion could well be a Jew as observant as any Hasmonean priest-king ever was. I swear that folks on these boars would dispute a statement that matter is made of atoms. "No, no, quarks" "No, mu masons", "no, strings" ... and on it goes, ad infinitum, ad absurdum.

DCH

God Fearing Atheist

Haha. But that was my point, DCH. You had a post about the organization of Antipas' forces. Obviously, if Antipas had them structured along Roman lines, an εκατονταρχης in Capernaum wouldn't be unusual.

What I was trying to get across is that even if Antipas had organized things along totally different, non-Roman lines, it would still not be enough to conclude the solider were Roman and/or gentile. Josephus was talking about David's time. Josephus presumably did not think David's army was a mirror of the Roman one. But Josephus could still speak of him appointing a "centurion".

In other words, you could be an εκατονταρχης without being a member of the Roman or a Roman-inspired military. That's all. Settle down.

Rick Sumner

How do we reconcile a Jewish centurion with the pretty flagrant reference to Is.25.6 in Matt.8.11? Isaiah was not referring to the diaspora, and given the support it lends to Matthew's overarching theme of Jewish rejection/Gentile acceptance, it seems unlikely to me that Matthew would be redefining it.

ETA

There is also a striking parallel to Naaman from 2Kgs.5. Likewise a Gentile.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

DCHindley

Your OP was not very clear, then.

So, you weren't actually seeking discussion, but making a statement?

At first glance, your OP seemed to suggest that, aside from the author of "a few papers" you have read, Mark Chancey and Dale Allison, the norm is for critics to see this Centurion as a Roman soldier.

Sorry I thought I could clarify what significance the title of the officer could have had regarding his ethnicity (Jewish or gentile). How foolish of me. Critics have known for many many years that there were no Roman soldiers in Antipas' Galilee. There are still differences of opinion over the extent that Herod or his descendants used mercenary forces as opposed to Jews. It used to be assumed that almost all his troops were recruited from non-Jewish subjects, but it looks as though the pendulum has started to swing in the other direction.

Even so, there were far more Gentiles in traditionally Jewish areas than is generally assumed. Check out David Fiensy, The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Edwin Mellen Press, 1991).

IMHO, Matt 8:5-13 is written in a way that portrays the centurion as a gentile god-fearer, with Jesus predicting that such gentiles will be welcomed into God's kingdom while the "sons" will be excluded to their chagrin. It reflects a "replacement theology" that I believe characterized the "Christianity" from which the authors of the synoptic gospels sprang.

What the heck was the point of your OP, anyways? Are you, really, questioning recent proposals (by Crossan et al) that de-Judaize Jesus by making him a Cynic, or perhaps a thoroughly Hellenized fellow who eats bacon for breakfast?

DCH

God Fearing Atheist

DCH,

I'm hestiant to respond again because my comments, no matter how benign, seem to throw you into a conniption. But i'll try one final time.

My OP was about the status of the "centurion", right? Was he a Jew or a gentile? Several papers i've read, including, but not limited to, those authored by Dale Allison, suggest that contrary to the prevailing opinion, he could have been Jewish.

Other commentators think he was a gentile, right? Some of those commentators believe he was a gentile member of Antipas' military. Some other recent commentators, like Don Hagner, assume he was a Roman and that it would therefore "go without saying" that he was gentile.

In light of these disparate notions, I asked for thoughts. Did anyone see anything wrong with the listed reasons the former group gave? Is there something I missed from the case from the former group?

You responded with a long post about the structure of Antipas' forces, which was all well and good. Among the things said was that "assuming Herod Antipas retained the general organization of his father's military, this "centurion" (Greek hEKATONTARXOS or hekatontarchos) in Matt 8:5 could very well have been an officer in Herod Antipas's army." Given that this is a discussion forum, I discussed this. I said that, given how the word was used in Josephus and the LXX, we would not necessarily need to suppose a Roman-like organization to think of the "centurion" as member of Antipas' army. Just a benign little point of emphasis.

I thought it was all pretty clear.

Rick Sumner

Not necessarily wrong, per se, but they're all pretty easily rebutted. How Josephus or the LXX use the term really doesn't matter, we know how Matthew uses the term in 27.54. Are you aware of a reason, other than distinct possibility, to favour a different meaning here?

Verse 10 might not necessarily be contrasting Jew with Gentile, but that doesn't mean that it's not most likely. Matthew contrasts Jew with Gentile at length in his gospel. He doesn't put much effort in to explicitly contrasting Jew with better Jew.

The "east and west" of verse 11 seems, to me, to be about as explicit a statement to gentile as we're likely to find here. Matthew has taken pains to establish the "east and west" in question as being Gentile. The Magi from the East, and Rome from the West (in the aforementioned centurion of 27.54) bracket the life of Jesus. Far from being indicative of the diaspora, I think Matthew is here emphasizing that the centurion in question is a Gentile.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

God Fearing Atheist

Those are all good points, cal.