stephan huller

I have been trying to make sense of this reference that Irenaeus makes to the interpretation of a heretical variant of the gospel narrative at Luke 7:1 - 10. The problem is that Irenaeus quotes the Luke 7:8 in a way that does not appear in any of our canonical gospels and he specifically says that the heretics understand that the 'centurion' is a symbol of the god of the Jews:

Here is the difference between the gospel fragment and Luke 7:8:

Notice however how different the Diatessaron is here when compared to Luke and Matthew - there is no mention of a centurion, only a chief of the synagogue which makes sense interpreting him as the 'god of the Jews' (as this is frequently done in Philo and other sources - i.e. taking the religious head of the Jewish community as the god of the Jews):

Here is Luke 7:1 - 10:

I am wondering whether (a) Irenaeus cites the centurion but the heretics read 'chief of the synagogue' and (b) where does he get the idea that the centurion 'joined himself to Jesus.' This doesn't appear anywhere in the narrative.

stephan huller

The Diatessaron clearly preserves the original text which has now been broken up between Luke and Matthew (centurion) and John (official):

John 4:46 Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum. 47 When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death.

48 “Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.”

49 The royal official said, “Sir, come down before my child dies.”

50 “Go,” Jesus replied, “your son will live.”

The man took Jesus at his word and departed. 51 While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living. 52 When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, “Yesterday, at one in the afternoon, the fever left him.”

53 Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.” So he and his whole household believed.

54 This was the second sign Jesus performed after coming from Judea to Galilee.

stephan huller

I haven't cited Matthew yet but the basic idea is that Irenaeus's heretics must have had a version of this story where the figure of the centurion is a Jewish 'chief' - but why on earth does it say that such a chief would have "soldiers and servants under my authority; and whatsoever I command they do"? This is puzzling, just reading the Diatessaron as it reads now. What class of Jew had soldiers under his command?

stephan huller

Next let's try and match the lines of the Diatessaron:

And when Jesus entered Capernaum, the servant of one of the chiefs was in an evil case, and he was precious to him, and he was at the point of death.

L: When Jesus had finished saying all this to the people who were listening, he entered Capernaum. There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die.

M: When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”

J: Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum. When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death.


And he heard of Jesus, and came to him with the elders of the Jews; and he besought him, and said, My Lord, my boy is laid in the house paralysed, and he is suffering grievous torment. And the elders urgently requested of him, and said, He is worthy that this should be done unto him: for he loveth our people, and he also built the syna- gogue for us. Jesus said unto him, I will come and heal him. That chief answered and said, My Lord, I am not worthy that my roof should shade thee; but it sufficeth that thou speak a word, and my lad shall be healed. And I also am a man in obedience to authority, having under my hand soldiers: and I say to this one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant that he do this, and he doeth it. And when Jesus heard that, he marvelled at him, and turned and said unto the multitude that were coming with him, Verily I say unto you, I have not found in Israel the like of this faith. I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall recline with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: but the children of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: and there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said to that chief, Go thy way; as thou hast believed, so shall it be unto thee. And his lad was healed in that hour. And that chief returned to the house and found that sick servant healed.

stephan huller

FAUSTUS said: You quote from the Gospel the words, "Many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven,"(1) and ask why we do not acknowledge the patriarchs. Now, we should be the last to grudge to any human being that God should have compassion on him, and bring him out of perdition to salvation. At the same time, we should acknowledge in such a case the clemency shown in this act of compassion, and not the merit of the person whose life is undeniably blameworthy. Thus, in the case of the Jewish fathers, Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, who are mentioned by Christ in this verse, supposing it to be genuine, although they led wicked lives, as we may learn from their descendant Moses, or whoever was the author of the history called Genesis, which describes their conduct as having been most shocking and detestable we are ready to allow that they may, after all, be in the kingdom of heaven, in the place which they neither believed in, nor hoped for, as is plain enough from their books. But then it must be kept in mind that, as you yourselves confess, if they did attain to what is spoken of in this verse, it was something very different from the nether dungeons of woe to which their own deserts consigned them, and that their deliverance was the work of our Lord Christ, and the result of His mystic passion. Who would grudge to the thief on the cross that deliverance was granted to him by the same Lord, and that Christ said that on that very day he should be with Him in the paradise of His Father?(1) Who is so hard-hearted as to disapprove of this act of benevolence? Still, it does not follow that, because Jesus pardoned a thief, we must approve of the habits and practices of thieves; any more than of the publicans and harlots, whose faults Jesus pardoned, declaring that they would go into the kingdom of heaven before those who behaved proudly.(2) For, when He acquitted the woman accused by the Jews as sinful, and as having been caught in adultery, He told her to sin no more.(3) If, then, He has done something of the same kind in the case of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, all the praise is His; for such actions towards souls are becoming in Him who maketh His sun to rise upon the evil and upon the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.(4) One thing perplexes me in your doctrine: why you limit your statements to the fathers of the Jews, and are not of opinion that the Gentile patriarchs had also a share in this grace of our Redeemer; especially as the Christian Church consists of their children more than of the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You will say that the Gentiles worshipped idols, and the Jews the Almighty God, and that therefore Jesus had regard only to the Jews. It would seem from this that the worship of the Almighty God is the sure way to hell, and that the Son must come to the aid of the worshipper of the Father. That is as you please. For my part, I am ready to join you in the belief that the fathers reached heaven, not by any merit of their own, but by that divine mercy which is stronger than sin.

2. However, there is a difficulty in deciding as regards this verse too, whether the words were really spoken to Christ, for there is a discrepancy in the narratives. For while two evangelists, Matthew and Luke, both alike tell of the centurion whose servant was sick, and to whom these words of Jesus are supposed to have applied, that He had not seen so great faith, no, not in Israel, as in this man, though a Gentile and a Pagan, because he said that he was not worthy that Jesus should come under his roof, but wished Him only to speak the word, and his servant should be healed; Matthew alone adds that Jesus went on to say, "Verily I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and from the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast into outer darkness." By the many who should come are meant the Pagans, on account of the centurion, in whom, although he was a Gentile, so great faith was found; and the children of the kingdom are the Jews, in whom there was no faith found. Luke, again, though he too mentions the occurrence in his Gospel as part of the narrative of the miracles of Christ, says nothing of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If it is said that he omitted it because it had been already said by Matthew, why does he tell the story at all of the centurion and his servant, since that, too, has the advantage of being recorded at length in Matthew's ingenious narrative? But the passage is corrupt. For, in describing the centurion's application to Jesus, Matthew says that he came himself to ask for a cure; while Luke says he did not, but sent elders of the Jews, and that they, in case Jesus should despise the centurion as a Gentile (for they will have Jesus to be a thorough Jew), set about persuading Him, by saying that he was worthy for whom He should do this, because he loved their nation, and had built them a synagogue;(5) here again taking for granted that the Son of God was concerned in a pagan centurion having thought it proper to build a synagogue for the Jews. The words in question are, indeed, found in Luke also, perhaps because on reflection he thought they might be genuine; but they are found in another place, and in a connection altogether different. The passage is where Jesus says to His disciples, "Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for many shall come seeking to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the Master of the house has entered in, and has shut to the door, ye shall begin to stand without, and to knock, saying Lord, open to us. And He shall answer and say, I know you not. Then ye shall begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in Thy presence, and Thou hast taught in our streets and synagogues; but He shall say unto you, I know not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, entering into the kingdom of God, and you yourselves cast out. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God."(1) The part where it is said that many shall be shut out of the kingdom of God, who have only borne the name of Christ, without doing His works, is not left out by Matthew; but he makes no mention here of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. In the same way, Luke mentions the centurion and his servant, without alluding in that connection to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. Since it is uncertain when the words were spoken, we are at liberty to doubt whether they were spoken at all.

3. It is not without reason that we bring a critical judgment to the study of Scriptures where there are such discrepancies and contradictions. By thus examining everything, and comparing one passage with another, we determine which contains Christ's actual words, and what may or may not be genuine. For your predecessors have made many interpolations in the words of our Lord, which thus appear under His name, while they disagree with His doctrine. Besides, as we have proved again and again, the writings are not the production of Christ or of His apostles, but a compilation of rumors and beliefs, made, long after their departure, by some obscure semi-Jews, not in harmony even with one another, and published by them under the name of the apostles, or of those considered the followers of the apostles, so as to give the appearance of apostolic authority to all these blunders and falsehoods. But whatever you make of that, as regards this verse, I repeat that I do not insist on rejecting it. It is enough for my position, that, as I said before, and as you are obliged to confess, before the coming of our Lord all the patriarchs and prophets of Israel lay in infernal darkness for their sins. Even though they may have been restored to light and liberty by Christ, that has nothing to do with the hateful character of their lives. We hate and eschew not their persons, but their characters; not as they are now, when they are purified, but as they were, when impure. So, whatever you think of this verse, it does not affect us: for if it is genuine, it only illustrates Christ's goodness and compassion; and if it is spurious, those who wrote it are to blame. Our cause is as safe as it always is [augustine against faustus 33.1]

stephan huller

The figure of the head of the Jewish community who has soldiers and slaves under his command has to be the high priest. The high priest had his own Jewish troops (called ὑπηρέται, hyperetai in the Gospels). These primarily had police responsibility, but were also used for other functions. Heracleon, Origen Commentary on John denies that any healing was done at Capernaum. I wonder if the original locale was Jerusalem.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephen,

Nice to see Augustine questioning the text. I particularly like the phrase "Since it is uncertain when the words were spoken, we are at liberty to doubt whether they were spoken at all."

Since we don't know when any words of Jesus were spoken, obviously, we are at liberty to doubt if any words were spoken at all.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

stephan huller

its faustus

DCHindley

The "captain" of the temple (ὁ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱερου, Acts 4:1; 5:24)?

This official, who polices the temple facilities, is only mentioned once in Josephus, (War 6.294). The super heavy door to the temple "opened of its own accord." When the soldiers guarding the temple (οἱ τοῦ ἱεροῦ φύλακες) reported this to the captain, he had to rush out with a company of men to close it.

He was different than the Roman captain of the temple guard (σφραγῖδι τῶν τε ἱερέων, Ant 18.93, 94) who handed over the high priestly vestments as needed for cultic purposes. This latter was actually the commander of the Antonia fortress.

Would the Romans put a Judean Centurion in charge of troops guarding temple vestments (to keep factions from taking possession of them in an uprising against a Roman appointee)?

DCH

stephan huller

Interesting suggestion. I still think the locale isn't Capernaum but Jerusalem. Somehow the gnostics thought this person was the symbol of the Creator repenting. I think the high priest (who is consistently identified as sympathetic to Christianity in John and has soldiers Jn 18:2 and servants) is the guy. But you might be right too.