Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My take on the centurion in question, and his knowledge and/or relationship with Jesus:
The original Greek text describes Joseph as a "techton", an artisan skilled in the working of wood and stone, and maybe metal. Such a person would, among other things, fashion farm implements, things like ploughs, shears, pruning instruments.
Not to far a walk from Nazareth, the Romans were constructing the new city of Sepphoris I believe that Joseph and his sons were hired to work on the construction, and that every morning they slung their toolbags over their shoulders, and made the one hour walk, bag lunches in hands. Well, during lunch hour, Jesus preached, debated, engaged those around him. IMHO, the centurion was in command of the detail who were providing security to the construction site. Perhaps he knew Jesus personally. Especially if Jesus had invited him into a discussion or two over time.
I mean, after all, why would just any old Roman army officer know of Jesus?
Yes this is all speculation on my part. Yet it fits. A man who once upon a time knew Jesus, and later hears of the miracles, approaches his old acquaintance and asks for help.
As for the so called contradictions, they are not. The argument is based upon out of social context phrases based on texts that were written at least 50 years after the fact. 50 years ago I was 15. Can you trust anything my brothers and sisters say about anything regarding my father and mother based upon memories 50 years old?
Nazareth probably didn't exist at the time and I believe that Sepphoris was rather a Herodian city. Roman rule did not cover Galilee. But Antipas could have had advisors. A centurion would be versed in construction and military training. It is not unlikely that a Centurion could have sent Jews to speak for him, though sending the same message as in Matthew is a bit far -fetched. If the same message is remembered, you'd expect him to remember whether he sent Jews or went himself. appeal to different standards does not work here; rewriting a text does.
Exactly. I always found it funny that for a book which atheists claim is nothing more than just a collection of fairy tales, they sure dedicate a ton of time picking it apart, verse by verse. If you lose your faith because two verses don't perfectly agree with each other according to the modern English language then you didn't have much faith to begin with.
I'm happy to have amused you. I find the question of the methods of writing the gospels interesting. I first became aware of the problem of discrepancy when asked to read the Gospels seriously. Perfect agreement is not the issue, in English, Latin or Greek; it is glaring contradictions.
This only really only indicates that Luke rewrote Matthew to suit himself. Nobody says Luke was an eyewitness, but the texts suggests that he was rewriting text, not imperfectly recalling what someone told him.
What compounds the problem is that Mark does not have it at all. His is a short gospels and more pithy. He could have got this into a paragraph. It suggests that the story was added later.
John's version ios even more different. Jesus isn't in Capernaum at all. a messenger comes to Cana to ask for a Ruler or official (rather than a centurion) to have a household member healed. Jesus is asked to come and Jesus 'heals at a distance'. There is no display of Great Faith needed. Oddly, Jesus then sets out, apparently to see whether the cure worked, because a servant was sent out to announce that the boy recovered in the 'seventh hour'. The exact time! The whole tale apart from being totally different is decidedly fishy. (compare the healing of Jairus' daughter and the raising of Lazarus - and indeed the resurrection - for equal fishiness)
It is the sum of the factors that make one doubt these supposed 'eyewitnesses'. When one honestly considers the problems in the Gospels, Acts, genesis, Paul...and...most of the rest of the book...then it takes a lot of faith to stick the fingers in the ears and appeal to translation, different standards of reporting and various kinds of ad hom. to gloss over the problems and pretend they aren't there.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-18-2015 at 02:00 PM..
Again, there is nothing in the verse that specifically says the centurion had a face to face encounter with Jesus. It doesn't say that the centurion replied directly to Jesus. You have a dialogue exchange in Matthew which still could have taken place via third parties.
If that satisfies you, ok. Since Luke and John both have messengers, I see no reason why Matthew would have had an exchange of dialogue (involving the messenger taking Jesus' reply back, trotting back with the Centurion's response) and if the Centurion had sent elders, who not say so?
Matthew is far simpler and the apparent running ahead to announce that Jesus is a'comin' and the hasty scribbling of a note containing what is the verbal exchange in Matthew anyway. Luke just over -complicates matters and introduces yet more questions. If he could write what Jesus (or the elders) could read, why not give the message to the elders anyway?
I can understand (as your believing colleagues say, "I really do" ) that you dismiss discrepancies of this kind as explainable (and therefore there are no contradictions at all) but to me that is merely glossing over problems in the interests of maintaining faith.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-18-2015 at 02:03 PM..
Nazareth probably didn't exist at the time and I believe that Sepphoris was rather a Herodian city. Roman rule did not cover Galilee. But Antipas could have had advisors. A centurion would be versed in construction and military training. It is not unlikely that a Centurion could have sent Jews to speak for him, though sending the same message as in Matthew is a bit far -fetched. If the same message is remembered, you'd expect him to remember whether he sent Jews or went himself. appeal to different standards does not work here; rewriting a text does.
It has been suggested that Jesus, while living in Nazareth, may have worked as a craftsman at Sepphoris,[16] where, during his youth 'the largest restoration project' of his time took place.[17]Archaeological investigations at the site have led to numerous debates about the influence of this town on Jesus, and shed light on differences within Galilean society.
The research is complex and there are many arguments.
My trusted source once said that the sign on the road said "You are now entering and leaving Nazareth"
I told you my fairy tale. As a fairy tale, it cannot be debated
What possible social context could be applied here? What possible historical context?
Obviously the conditions that obtained in the Tetrarchy of Antipas. Not under Roman rule but quite likely with Roman military and political 'advisors'.
But that is merely avoiding the problem of the discrepancy in the story -action in favor of a strawman argument, really, and raising a different question about the social customs of the time that is more easily answered.
More contradictions? I rather like the one -in Luke again - where Jesus is sent over to Antipas to question and it is the Herodian soldiers who do the mocking and dressing Jesus up in a 'gorgeous robe' and Pilate, though he proposes a flogging and release, doesn't actually do it. But in Matthew, Mark and indeed John, this doesn't happen at all. The roman soldiers flog, mock and dress Jesus up and Antipas doesn't come into it at all.
For enough. But I am going with the translations from KJV to NIV and they all say the same general story. Translation -shopping does not help here. Mark has the centurion talk to Jesus himself; Luke has him send Elders and ..let me check...yes Jesus doesn't meet him at all; he sends a messenger (well he has to, after sending Elders, Luke can hardly having him go himself, anyway). Instead he opts for an elaborate message which is what he says directly to Jesus in Matthew. It all speaks of Luke reworking the same story that Matthew had as he sees a problem (rightly or wrongly) in a centurion talking to Jesus (they could both have had some Greek).
This of course only means that Matthew was the original of the two stories and you can say that was the correct one if you like. But it tells you something about Luke rewriting his text as he saw fit.
Or maybe Luke's source was different from Matthew's.
We're talking 50-60 years after the fact, after all. Of course memory fades. These people were not sitting around in the same room, after all. Each depended upon those who knew Jesus, or who knew people who knew people who knew Jesus. Obviously there can discrepancy in detail. This does not mean the general story is not correct.
PS John was a crazy person writing out of the weirdo church in Antioch. There is good reason that his gospel is so different from the others.
Nazareth probably didn't exist at the time and I believe that Sepphoris was rather a Herodian city. Roman rule did not cover Galilee. But Antipas could have had advisors. A centurion would be versed in construction and military training. It is not unlikely that a Centurion could have sent Jews to speak for him, though sending the same message as in Matthew is a bit far -fetched. If the same message is remembered, you'd expect him to remember whether he sent Jews or went himself. appeal to different standards does not work here; rewriting a text does.
If Nazareth did not exist, why do all four Gospels mention it many times? Why does Matthew make his awkward connection to some obscure scriptural reference as an explanation of why the family of Jesus moved to Nazareth unless there was such a place? The very first Gospel reference to Nazareth (Mark 1:9) says that Jesus 'came from' Nazareth. It is not until after this that the phrase Jesus of Nazareth appears, arguing against the Nazarene as title theory. Here is Mark 1 in Greek.
There are archaeological links to the time period of the Gospels that suggest "an insignificant hamlet" at the right place. If every "insignificant hamlet" in Judaea in that era did not exist unless its name was mentioned in records surviving from the 1st century, then we could conclude that there were very few "insignificant hamlets" in Judaea in the 1st century.
Taking Nazareth to have been an actual place seems more reasonable than other theories
If Nazareth did not exist, why do all four Gospels mention it many times? Why does Matthew make his awkward connection to some obscure scriptural reference as an explanation of why the family of Jesus moved to Nazareth unless there was such a place? The very first Gospel reference to Nazareth (Mark 1:9) says that Jesus 'came from' Nazareth. It is not until after this that the phrase Jesus of Nazareth appears, arguing against the Nazarene as title theory. Here is Mark 1 in Greek.
There are archaeological links to the time period of the Gospels that suggest "an insignificant hamlet" at the right place. If every "insignificant hamlet" in Judaea in that era did not exist unless its name was mentioned in records surviving from the 1st century, then we could conclude that there were very few "insignificant hamlets" in Judaea in the 1st century.
Taking Nazareth to have been an actual place seems more reasonable than other theories
That's a good question. There are a couple of theories, one being that it did exist, of course. Others that it was to conceal that Jesus was a nazirite, rather than a Nazarene. The one I'm favouring is that he did come from the area of Nazareth (gen-Nessaret) rather than a town that hadn't been built.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find the question of the methods of writing the gospels interesting. I first became aware of the problem of discrepancy when asked to read the Gospels seriously. Perfect agreement is not the issue, in English, Latin or Greek; it is glaring contradictions. 
) that you dismiss discrepancies of this kind as explainable (and therefore there are no contradictions 
