God Fearing Atheist

So, Matt 8.5-13. Several papers i've read recently suggest that the centurion might better be identified as a Jew based on the following:

-εκατονταρχους can refer to those commanders of a hundred men in Jewish militaries (e.g. Josephus An. 6.3.5; 7.10.1, etc).

-There was seemingly no Roman military presence in Galilee until the early part of the second century CE (according to, e.g. Chancey's The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (or via: amazon.co.uk)). At the very least, it would have been unusual for Rome to station troops in a relatively peaceful client kingdom.

-Verse 10 need not be contrasting the centurion's gentile faith with (the lack of) Jewish faith. It could be contrasting the faith of that particular Jew with that of the others. Dale Allison offers 9.33 as another example of this sort of construction.

-Once we excise the gentile aspect, the "east and west" of v. 11 would more clearly refer to the diaspora, which is the meaning we find all over the Jewish literature.

Any thoughts on these points? Are there any other reasons for supposing the centurion was understood by the Evangelist as non-Jewish?

No Robots

Fascinating. Seems reasonable to me.

Toto

The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (a summary of his arguments.)

Matthew: A Shorter Commentary (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Dale Allison is on Google books. He notes at p 120 that this centurion could be part of Antipas' administration, and therefore Jewish. But he also notes that Roman centurions are treated very favorably in the NT; they are all pious and worthy of respect. The story seems to make more sense if the centurion is a Roman.

But in any case, Matthew was not written in first century Galilee. This would not be the only anacronism or geographical improbability in the gospels.

thentian

It is quite likely that this centurion was one of Herod's men since this was in Galilee, but if so he was a mercenary officer not necessarily of jewish origin.

There were roman officers in palestine throughout the period from 4BCE to 66CE, the highest ranked being prefects, like Pilate. Prefects were of the equestrian class and did not command legions, so I'm not sure how many (if any) centurions were under their command. One auxilliary equestrian unit seems to have been stationed permanently in Caesarea (where Herod had a palace). However, there were also legions in close proximity. Legio III Gallica tended to hang around in Egypt (there was another legion stationed permanently in Alexandria), but was part of the army that crushed the jews in the jewish war. Legio X Fretensis was mostly in Syria, but one source says they were in Iudaea in the 2nd decade. They were instrumental in crushing the jewish rebellion. Two other legions were VI Ferrata and XII Fulminata, but their exact whereabouts at the time is not so easy to determine. One source says the 6th was in Iudaea from 9 BCE to 66 CE, but not exactly where. They were both part of the army in the jewish war, and the 12th was the legion which suffered the disgrace of losing their eagle at the beginning of it.

The above is from my notes when I was trying to figure out if there was a known centurion by the name of Petronius (see gPeter) in Jerualem during the crucifixion.

Cheers!

God Fearing Atheist

Just for the record, I was thinking of Allison's more recent The Jesus Tradition in Q (or via: amazon.co.uk), chapter 8.

Toto

review of The Jesus Tradition in Q

DCHindley

Per the article "Jewish Military Forces in the Roman Service" by Jonathan P. Roth (2004):

"When Herod died in 4 BC, Archelaus, his son, oversaw a parade of his soldiers (stratiotai) marching in bands or contingents (kata stiphos). The same term is used a few lines later to refer to the royal bodyguard (doryphoroi) of Thracians, Germans and Gauls who marched in Herod’s funerals.

Elsewhere, however, we hear of the speira as the basic unit. At one point, Josephus refers to five Roman cohorts (speiras) and five Jewish ones operating together.

Our sources generally use Greek terminology to refer to the titles of officers and the names of military units, but it is usually difficult to say if they are being used as technical terms, in some general sense or translating a Latin term. Chiliarch for example, might refer to the Seleucid officer commanding a 1,000 man infantry unit, or be a general term for a sub-commander or translate the Latin tribunus militum. Speire might be the Seleucid unit of 256 men, a general term for unit, or translate cohors an Roman infantry unit of 480 men.

There is no evidence for the use of any Hebrew or Aramaic military terminology by the Herodians. It is quite likely, however, that it was. Herod had served alongside Romans all through the civil wars, and was particularly close to Mark Antony. It is probable that when he built up his forces, he organized, trained and armed them in the Roman fashion, and probably used Roman officers in addition to his own Jewish one. In fact, many of these Jewish officers may well themselves served in the Roman army in the 50s, 40s and 30s BC." [section breaks are mine, as is the bolded type, added for emphasis]

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=4&gl=us [this file does not appear to be available as a PDF at yorku.edu any longer, unless it was moved, but the HTML version was cached by Google, at least for the time being]

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. In Roman armies, a Centurion could command a basic unit of 80 men up to a whole cohort, depending on his seniority and experience. As for his rank in modern US military terminology, see below ...

"In comparison to a modern military organization, [Roman Legionary and Auxiliary] centurions covered a whole range of ranks. Ordinary century commanders would be equivalent to a modern army lieutenants or captains. The senior centurions leading cohorts would be equivalent to lieutenant colonels. The Primus Pilus with his senior staff role might be considered equivalent for a modern colonel."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion

A Cohort is defined as follows:

Originally, the cohort was a sub-unit of a Roman legion, usually consisting of 480 legionaries including six centurions. The cohort itself was divided into six centuries of 80 men commanded each by a centurion. However, the first of ten cohorts had five double-sized centuries totaling 800 men.

Various terms described precise types of military cohorts:

In the Imperial Roman praetorian forces, there were individual cohorts with an establishment strength of 500 (cohors quingenaria) or of 1000 (cohors milliaria), as well as mixed infantry and cavalry units (cohors equitata) that existed in parallel.
Various terms describe precise types of auxiliary cohorts:

Cohors alaria: allied or auxiliary unit.
Cohors classica: auxiliary unit originally formed of sailors and marines.
Cohors equitata (LA): unit of auxiliary infantry with attached mounted squadrons.
Cohors peditata (LA): infantry unit.
Cohors speculatorum (LA): guard unit of Mark Antony composed of scouts.
Cohors torquata (LA): auxiliary unit granted a torques (military decoration).
Cohors tumultuaria (from tumultus, "chaos"): irregular auxiliary unit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohort_(military_unit)

This of course assumes that Antipas' army followed roughly Roman organization, but whether the exact sizes of units was the same I don't know.

If they were based on a Macedonian model, exact details about the organizaton of Seleukid armies is scarce, but it seems that infantry armies were composed of StratEgiai of 4,000 men each, each with four Chiliarchies of about 1,000 each, each with four Speirai of 256 men, further subdivided into four Tetrarchies of 64 men, subdivided into four 16 man units variously known as Dekades, SEmaiai, Lochoi or "files". The "hekatontarchos" (Centurion) of Matt 8:5 would then be a commander of a Tetrarchy, Speira, or larger unit if a senior commander.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XV0...Za7rHzYcyHiE_w

DCH

judge

How do you know?

God Fearing Atheist

Yes, if, in fact, the Evangelist imagines him to be a gentile. Which of course, is the question.

God Fearing Atheist

DCH,

The question of how Antipas' organized his military is an interesting one, but, it seems to me, not very important as far as the religion and ethnicity of Matt's centurion goes. It seems prima facie reasonable to suppose that when Josephus, for example, talks about David appointing χιλιαρχους και εκατονταρχους (An. 7.10.1), he didn't suppose the king's army was organized along Roman lines. We can hardly suppose those behind the LXX (where it occurs at, e.g. Exod 18.21, Num 31.14, etc) could have either.