The Gospels: A Comparative Reading - Part 1 The Centurion

And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last.  And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.  And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, “Truly, this man was the Son* of God!”

                                                                                                                 Mark 15:37-39

This doesn’t seem to make any sense.  The authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke all write that the curtain in the temple was torn at the time of Jesus’ death.  However, Mark’s centurion could not have known this as he was not in the temple at that time.  He was on Golgotha facing Jesus when Jesus died.  What would have made the centurion declare this man the “Son of God”?  He has just seen a crucified man die.  What else would he have expected?  Did he declare the next man to die to be another Son of God?  I doubt it. His declaration would have made more sense if Jesus hadn’t died as he would have been expecting.

The only other unusual event that occurred that day according to all three synoptic gospel authors was “darkness over all the land” between the 6^th and 9^th hours.  It seems like no one present thought this was very unusual since no one reacted to it during those three hours.  Perhaps the sky had become overcast with heavy dark nimbus clouds, which blocked most of the sunlight between those hours. 

      

            If those present had thought for a moment that the unusual darkness was a manifestation of God’s anger or displeasure at what they were doing the centurion would certainly have made his declaration earlier than he did, and the soldiers, chief priests and local folk would have been clamouring to get the three men (they wouldn’t have known which man’s imminent death would be angering God) down from the crosses before they died, in an attempt to avoid the full force of God’s perceived impending wrath.

            The centurion’s choice of words is curious.  Jesus was being mockingly referred to as the King of the Jews.  It would have made more sense if he had said, “Truly, this man was the King of the Jews”. Even Jesus, in Mark at least, was frequently referring to himself as the 'Son of Man'. Where would the centurion have gotten the ‘the Son of God’ designation from? He must have thought they were crucifying a man claiming to be a Christ, a king of the Jews, a potential rebel against the Roman Empire. No ‘Son of God’ reference from there either.
         
            And let's not forget that the centurion was a Roman and would very likely have worshiped the Roman gods, of which there were were many, and not the Jewish god.  If, for whatever reason, he thought that Jesus was divine he would have been more likely to say, "Truly, this man was the son of a god." or "Truly, this man was the son of Jupiter. ( or Mars  or .....).

            Matthew adds some new elements to this scene.  Not only does the temple curtain tear, but the earth shakes, rocks are split and tombs open, and holy men rise from their graves after the resurrection, and go into Jerusalem where they are seen by many. The centurion AND those that are with him, keeping watch over Jesus, utter, “Truly this was the Son of God.” See Matthew 27:51-54.  Earthquakes are a natural occurrence.  However, given the timing of the event one couldn’t fault them for reading something miraculous into it.  This would make their declaration more reasonable, but still wouldn’t solve the problem of their ‘Son of God” description for Jesus.  The dead rising from their graves after the resurrection obviously couldn’t have affected their declaration. 

In Luke’s version of the crucifixion the sky darkens and the temple curtain tears. Contrary to what the authors of Mark and Matthew record, the centurion declares,

“Certainly, this man was innocent.”  What new evidence has he seen that would lead him to draw this conclusion?

               

Interesting Notes:

1. The author of John’s gospel has no centurion story, no torn curtain, and no unusual events taking place at the time of Jesus’ death.
2. None of the four gospels agreed on the inscription written on the cross above Jesus.
3. Jesus’ co-crucified were robbers according to Mark and Matthew, criminals according to Luke, and ‘two others’ according to John. The Romans generally reserved crucifixion as the fate of those found guilty of sedition or insurrection. It seems unlikely that two common thieves would have been crucified alongside Jesus. It’s much more likely that their fate would have been a public flogging.
4. Philo-Judaeus was a local historian who lived in or near Jerusalem during the time Jesus was on earth and Matthew’s dead rose from their graves and wandered around the city.  In his writings about this period, Philo-Judaeus reported nothing of this, or nothing of Jesus himself for that matter.  Given that Philo-Judaeus later became a Christian and developed the doctrine of the Logos or Word, one would have thought that if he had seen, or knew anyone who had seen, any of these miraculous events he would have been thrilled to include references to them in his later writings, since they would have supported his theology. 

* Some versions of the bible have ‘a son’.