Centurion's servant | Douglas Wilhelm Hard

Many fundamentalist Christians enjoy making claims that the statements in the Christian scriptures that allegedly record the life and actions of Jesus could "stand up in a court of law."

Suppose you are in a court of law, and and two separate witnesses have taken the stand concerning the interactions between an executive officer of a company and significant sale to the owner of a major corporation in another country. Here are the sworn testimonies of these two witnesses:

The first witness states:

After the owner of Universal Y checked into the Trump Towers in New York, an executive officer came to him in the bar, appealing to him and saying, “We were discussing the possible sale of our product to be incorporated into your next project, but if we do this now, I'll cut an extra 5% off the per-unit-cost.”

And the owner said to him, “Sure, I'll come over and we can sign the paperwork.”

The executive answered, “Hey, while this is significant for us, and our product is both unique and superior to any possible alternative, it's not worth your time to come to sign this deal. Let's just shake on this, and tell your staff to approve the paperwork with an electronic signature, and we'll immediately start shipments. After all, this is just a minor issue for you, and when I tell my senior managers to make purchases, I just say ‘Go,’ and they go, and I need to talk to another, I just say, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my secretary , ‘Get me some coffee,’ and the secretary does it.”

When the owner heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “Wow, few people in America have such faith that they would engage in a business agreement on a handshake. Tonight, I'm having dinner at the Ritz, and a few others might drop by, but they'll just have to go to the bar next door.”

And the owner said to the executive, “We'll shake on this, and let's get get this product shipped.”

And the contract was entered into in that hour.

The second witness states:

When the owner of Universal Y finished talking to his friends, he entered the Trump Towers in New York. There was a potential contract with this owner, which the executive officer another company needed, but there were issues, and the contract might not be signed. The executive officer heard the owner was in town and sent his vice-president of sales and marketing, together with some of his staff, asking the owner to come and sign the contract, offering a 5% discount off the last-proposed per-unit-cost.

When the vice-president and his staff came to the owner, they pleaded earnestly with him, “This is a unique product, with significant benefits over anything produced by our competitors.” So the owner went with them down the street to the corporate offices.

The owner was not far from the corporate offices when the owner sent some of his staff to say to the owner: “Don’t trouble yourself, after all, this is a minor, though beneficial, deal for your company and you have more important meetings in New York, much more lucrative than this this one sale; that is why I'm not even coming to you personally. But say the word to your staff, and the contract with the promised discount will be signed. After all, when I tell my senior managers to make purchases, I just say ‘Go,’ and they go, and I need to talk to another, I just say, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my secretary , ‘Get me some coffee,’ and the secretary does it.”

When the owner heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to those following him, he said, “Truly I tell you, few people in America have such faith that they would engage in a business agreement on a handshake.”

Then the vice-president, his entourage, and the executive's staff who had been sent returned to the corporate office and found the updated contract signed digitally.

Is there any possible way in which both of these testimonies can be true? Could the executive simultaneously been continually speaking to the owner, while also never once interacting with the owner and only communicating with that individual through subordinates? This is exactly what happens in the gospels of Matthew and Luke with the story of the Centurion's servant, a story obviously taken from some common source labeled as Q, although it seems that either this source was modified by some third party before one of the two received the message, or one of the two authors explicitly. Let us look at the two narratives:

In Matthew:

When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.”

And [Jesus] said to [the Centurion], “I will come and cure him.”

The centurion answered, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me, and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.”

When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will take their places at the banquet with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.” And the servant was healed in that hour.

You are welcome to contrast this with Luke:

After Jesus had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum.

A centurion there had a slave whom he valued highly and who was ill and close to death. When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave.

When they came to Jesus, they appealed to him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us.”

And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house,

the centurion sent friends to say to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But only speak the word, and let my servant be healed. For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me, and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.”

When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him, and, turning to the crowd following him, he said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”

When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.

Please remember that these scriptures are divinely inspired, and thus, one would expect that an all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present being that wanted its human creations to worship it would have been aware of the issues with such discrepancies, and would have guided its authors to transcribe a more harmonious text; however, this is not what happened. The two stories contain narratives that would not hold up in court.

Analysis

When there is such a significant change between two narratives, one must ask which direction is more likely. Specifically, in Luke, we see a Roman Centurion, a leader of what was then the most powerful military in the world, demonstrating extreme dereference to Jesus: Not only did he have faith in Jesus's ability to heal, he did not even meet Jesus in person, instead, sending Jews and then his friends to communicate with Jesus. Now, the narrative in Matthew is still deferential, but not to the same extent: in Matthew, the Centurion still objects to Jesus coming to his home, saying "I am not worthy to have you come under my roof," but in Matthew, the Centurion is explicitly speaking to Jesus. In both cases, the Centurion is unassuming and deferential, but in Luke, the Centurion is subservient to the point of not even wanting to speak to Jesus. Additionally, in Luke, the Jews sent by the Centurion appear to also believe that Jesus can heal the slave or servant. Thus, if you were copying one of these, in which direction would you make the change? We should first note that both narratives are more than two hundred words and less than two-hundred and fifty, so abbreviating or expanding upon the story is not a justification in either way.

Suppose Luke was the original: In this case, either the author of Matthew made a change to the original story, or Matthew was copying from a copy authored by someone who made a change to the original story. In either case, the change explicitly makes the Centurion less deferential to Jesus and more presumptuous. The author would have explicitly read the extremes to which the Centurion was going to demonstrate subservience to Jesus, and decide that this was not necessary or appropriate for the story. The entire point of the story, however, is to show how this Roman Centurion was indeed a true believer in the power of Jesus, more than any any Jew. Additionally, the author copying the text would need to explicitly redact the very words of the Centurion that show such subservience: "therefore I did not presume to come to you." If it was your goal to demonstrate the awe inspired by Jesus of this Centurion, it would be absurd to both reduce the deference of the Centurion to Jesus while simultaneously eliminating the very words of the Centurion that explicitly describe this level of respect.

Alternatively, suppose Matthew was the original: In this case, the story began as one where the Centurion is speaking to Jesus, and while deferential ("I am not worthy to have you come under my roof"), the author of Luke or the author who made the change from whom the author of Luke is copying may simply have decided that this level of subservience did not have the impact necessary for a good story. Thus, the copier decided that it would be an even better story if the Centurion was made even more humble and submissive to Jesus, not even needing to be in the presence of this individual who was rejected by the Jews in Jerusalem. Such a change would make the story even more powerful as a tool for both evangelism, but also to demonstrate to Romans that even Roman officers believed in this individual. It also puts the Roman in a light better than that of all the Jews, for Jesus explicitly contrasts the faith of the Roman Centurion with the faith of the people of Israel.

Consequently, there does not seem to be significant justification for one diminishing the subservience of the Centurion to Jesus, and there are significant benefits to making the Centurion even more deferential and less presumptuous. Consequently, it is quite reasonable that either the author of Luke, or the one from whom Luke was copying, was transcribing the story, but changed the story to the form we now see in the gospel of Luke.

Motivations

What is the motivation for this story? It does not appear in Mark, and yet, if it was known that a military officer, equivalent to a Major or Lieutenant Colonel, was making such supplications to Jesus, first, you'd think that people like the author of Mark would have heard of it, and second, after forty years, the story would have been standardized. However, the story did exist, if in different forms, so why was it created? Perhaps one of the two situations occurred, but certainly not both, and if the story paralleled an actual circumstance, then it is more likely to be the story in Matthew, as we just previously discussed. It also seems that Jesus didn't have any Roman disciples or followers, so given the extreme deference this Centuriation allegedly gives to Jesus, why was this the only one such story?

The important point, returning to Mark, is that Jesus had had himself anointed, essentially identifying himself as either being the King of Judea, or some equivalent position, be it the Son of God, or some other position of authority. This put him in direct conflict with the Roman establishment, and Jesus did not endear himself to the Judean aristocracy and priesthood with his antics at the Temple; consequently, when it seems that Judas Iscariot became disillusioned in his teacher's growing self delusion and informed the Jews of this anointing, this was all they needed to have the Romans deal with this itinerant apocalyptic preacher from Galilee: he was a pretender to leadership over the Roman Province of Iudaea. The punishment for sedition is execution by crucifixion, and after a short trial, apparently with no evidence presented apart from the assertion that Jesus had had himself anointed, he was found guilty and executed that same day. At this point, it is easy to put yourself in the Roman's position: Jesus had been found guilty of sedition and executed. That the earliest Christians emphasize that Jesus had had himself anointed leaves no doubt that he was declaring himself King of the Jews, the Son of God, or the holder of some other position of authority, placing him in direct conflict with the Roman Imperial state. This executed traitor, however, has a following. Consider the following scenario:

Suppose Benedict Arnold was captured and executed by hanging at the end of the American War of Independence. After establishing independence, however, Benedict gains a following of Americans who venerate this individual, claiming that he is the lord and savior of America. His followers also claim that Benedict was falsely accused of treachery, and that he was in fact innocent. They even begin to use the gallows as a symbol of their following.

How would Americans react to such Benedictine followers of this executed and hung traitor? Likely no different from how the Romans treated the followers of Jesus: through suppression and occasional violence. As you read subsequent gospels, such as Matthew, Luke and John, the story of Jesus's trial and execution is changed: rather than just being the execution of an upstart itinerant apocalyptic preacher, instead of finding him guilty, Pilate is now declaring Jesus to be innocent, and in the end, it is the Jews who demand the execution of Jesus, and Pilate, for some reason acquiesces to this demand. Thus, the follower of Jesus can tell Romans that Jesus was actually innocent of sedition, and that even Pilate believed in Jesus's innocence. These fanciful stories contrast sharply with the trial and execution in the gospel of Mark. In addition to the four gospels we have, the followers in the fifth century penned a forgery named the Gospel of Nicodemus, also known as the Acts of Pilate. In the second century, they penned a forgeries of letters between Pilate and Caesar Tiberius, and a letter to Caesar Claudius, and there are forged letters allegedly between Herod Antipas and Pilate. There are even accounts of Pilate being brought before Caesar Tiberius to be found guilty of executing Jesus, with Pilate being beheaded. All of this fantasy is possible because Jesus was a provincial nobody brought before Pilate during the Passover, a preacher whom the Jews of Jerusalem handed over with allegations that he had had himself anointed, and his trial probably did not merit more than a footnote of the events of that day.

In parallel with such fantasies such as Pilate having declared Jesus innocent, it would have been useful and beneficial for the earlier followers of Jesus to be able to number among the followers of Jesus a Roman Centurion; hence the story of the Centurion's servant. Thus, whether or not this story is based in reality, the retelling in Luke exists only to emphasize how much more this Centurion was indeed subservient to Jesus: "Hey, here is a Roman Centurion who not only believed in the miracles of Jesus, but he was so deferential that he wasn't even presumptuous enough to meet with Jesus, and Jesus called the faith of this Roman Centurion greater than that of all of the Jews of Israel."

Apologetics

There are at least five possible explanations:

Prior to the Q source coming to both authors, one was modified by a third party, so the authors of both gospels simply copied the narrative as they received it from the Q source.
The Q source was common, but one of the two authors decided to change the story to satisfy some objective in the writing of that author's gospel.
The Q source only contained the statements found in the narratives, and the authors of Matthew and Luke needed to fill in the context, and
Both events happened, only the Centurion first sent emissaries, and only later came to meet Jesus personally.
Finally, the Centurion never met Jesus, but because the Centurion was speaking through his emissaries, the gospel author recorded the events as if the Centurion was speaking to Jesus.

Let's look at these, but first we need some background:

Matthew was likely written before Luke, and they were written independently, as the two authors cannot even agree as to the events that occurred prior to Jesus's baptism (Bethlehem-to-Egypt-to-Nazareth, or Nazareth-to-Bethlehem and back), or the events after Jesus's resurrection (in Galilee or near Jerusalem), nor can they agree as to whether Satan took Jesus to the Temple first and then the mountain, or first to the mountain and then to the Temple. With all the contradictions between these two gospels, it is really difficult to determine what may have been the original story circulating among early followers of Jesus. The analysis above, however, suggests it is much more likely for the narrative in Matthew to have been the original, and the author of Luke embellished the narrative found in that gospel.

If we look where this pericope and narratives that appear in the vicinity of this story in both of the gospels, we note that they appear soon after a major sermon (one not recorded in Mark) but beyond that, other stories immediately surround or follow this in both gospels::

In Matthew, this occurs soon after the Sermon on the Mount. Immediately following this sermon, Jesus performs many healings:

Jesus interacts with a man with a skin disease and heals him, and this man is clearly a Jew, as Jesus tells him to go "show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded,"
Jesus then enters Capernaum and interacts with the Centurion and heals the Centurion's servant but heals the servant without being in that servant's presence,
Jesus interacts with Peter's mother-in-law and heals her, but once again in her presence, and she, too, is Jewish, and
finally, many who were sick or possessed were brought to him, and in their presence, Jesus heals them,

after which Jesus goes into a boat and calms the storm. Thus, the interactions with the servant parallel the interactions with two others who are healed, but it seems that all Judeans who were healed were healed in Jesus's presence, while only the Centurion's servant was healed by Jesus's word alone. As for the journey of Jesus, it makes sense that Jesus came down from a mountain where he gave that sermon, he enters Capernaum, which is where Peter lived, and then gets into a boat to cross the Sea of Galilee.

In Luke, the pericope immediately follows the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus enters Capernaum where interacts with emissaries of the Centurion, and it is immediately followed by the story of the widow's son being resurrected in the town of Nain, a town that is roughly 20 miles southwest of Capernaum, and 15 miles from the Sea of Galilee. It says in Luke that this raising of the son occurred "[s]oon afterward" the healing of the Centurion's servant, and the story of the calming of the seas appears elsewhere in Luke: indeed, it appears in Luke in the exact same relative context as that the story appears in Mark.

Consequently, in both stories, the story of the Centurion's servant is inserted together with a great sermon (be it on a mount or on a plain); however, the insertion of these two appears at very different locations. In Matthew, these events are inserted at the very start of Jesus's ministry, at least, when compared to Mark, being intermingled with the events recorded in Mark with Jesus calling James and John, Jesus rebuking an unclean spirit, Jesus healing Simon's mother-in-law, and then a leper, and then a paralytic, after which Matthew is called. Luke records most of these at the start of Jesus's ministry, although the author includes a massive catch of fish, and only inserts the Sermon on the Plain, the Centurion's servant, and a few other events, between Jesus choosing his disciples, being anointed (only in Luke) and being confronted by his family. As both authors had access to Mark, and as both authors were divinely inspired, why would they not have this pericope appear in the same location relative to other events recorded in Mark?

For the first three possibilities, it is difficult to determine the true source of the contradictions: assuming that Matthew's was the original telling, then either the author of Luke made the change, or the author of Luke copied a variation on that story. The third case is, however, more tantalizing. Could it have been possible that the same common source that the authors used for the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain also only recorded the words spoken by Jesus, the Centurion, and possibly others? Here we see only the spoken words of the two narratives:

“Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.”

“I will come and cure him.”

“Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof,

but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed.

For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me, and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.”

“Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will take their places at the banquet with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

“Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.”

“He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us.”

“Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you.

But only speak the word, and let my servant be healed.

For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me, and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.”

“I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”

Notice that the author of Luke clearly contains the text “therefore I did not presume to come to you.” This does not appear in Matthew, for if the Centurion said this, this would make the text in Matthew nonsensical, for in Matthew, Jesus is talking to the Centurion. However, if this was in the original source, why would the author of Matthew so drastically change the story, and then take out the text that contradicts the changes? Was it so important for the author of Matthew to have Jesus speaking directly to the Centurion? Nothing in the surrounding stories required that Jesus speak to the Centurion, so this may be a clue that the text was originally closer to what was found in Matthew. Thus, it is unlikely the original source had that phrase, and if the original source only had what was said, it is unlikely that that text would be added by an intermediate scribe.

Thus, as it is unlikely that the author of Matthew deleted the words, the the source was just what was said, it likely had only what was in common::

“Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof;

But only speak the word, and let my servant be healed.

“I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”

Then we still have only two realistic possibilities:

This was in the original source (just what was said), and author of Luke embellished the story and added to what the Centurion said; or
The original story was already a narrative, and the author of Luke embellished the story, and added to what the Centurion said.

Additionally, recall that Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition: he had himself anointed, indicating he was elevating himself over Caesar Tiberius. Following an executed traitor would not have endeared Jesus's followers to the Romans, and numerous changes were made in Luke to the execution narrative to shift the cause of the execution of Jesus the punishment for sedition to Jesus being declared innocent by Pilate and having the execution occur only because the Jewish mobs forced Pilate to kill him. Similarly, the story in Luke puts Jesus in a very positive light with respect to the Centurion. Now, a Centurion commands a "Century," a unit of approximately 100 Roman soldiers. This puts a Centurion at approximately the equivalent rank of either a Major or a Lieutenant Colonel. Thus, having someone so senior both be aware of Jesus and to show such deferment to him would mitigate the issues associated with Jesus's execution and ameliorate the relationship between Romans and followers of Jesus: "Look, even Roman officers followed him and believed in him."

Consequently, it seems that the author of Luke had both a motivation to tell the story in the manner he did, and also introduced words into the mouth of the Centurion that support that those changes were explicitly introduced.

Going onto the fourth, a common tactic of apologists is to claim that contradictory versions of a story can be harmonized by claiming

neither story contains claims that the other did not occur, and
thus, both stories occurred independently.

For example, in the story when Jesus went to the wilderness, Luke does not say that Jesus was led to the top of a mountain, but rather, "the devil led him up and showed him...all the kingdoms of the world." It does not say in Matthew that Satan did not do this, so one could postulate that the actual events were:

Satan tells Jesus to turn the stones into bread.
Satan takes Jesus into outer space where one can see "all the kingdoms of the world" at that time (you can see almost all of Europe, Asia and Africa from a point above Oman).
Satan takes Jesus to the Temple in Jerusalem.
"Again", Satan took Jesus "to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory."

The apologist may claim that Matthew does not say that Satan did not first take Jesus "up" to show him the kingdoms of the world, and then later, Matthew prefixes the visit to the mountain with the word "again," indicating perhaps that Satan had already done this. Similarly, some claim that the Centurion first spoke through emissaries, but then went to see Jesus himself, and that both stories faithfully transcribe what happened, only neither author describe all the events (and, yes, people actually believe this...):

[Both] Jesus entered Capernaum.

[Luke only] A centurion there had a slave whom he valued highly and who was ill and close to death. When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave.

When they came to Jesus, they appealed to him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us.”

And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house,

When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him, and, turning to the crowd following him, he said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”

[Matthew only] [The] centurion [then, never-the-less,] came to him, appealing to him and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.”

And [Jesus] said to [the Centurion], “I will come and cure him.”

The centurion [reiterates], “Lord, [excuse my presumption by coming into your presence,] I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me, and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.”

When Jesus heard him, he was [again] amazed and [reiterated] to those who followed him, “Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will take their places at the banquet with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.” And the servant was healed in that hour.

[Luke only] When [the Centurion and] those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.

I have taken the liberty of adding a few additional sentences to try to more fully harmonize the texts (for example, having the Centurion return home with his emissaries); however, this simply has both the Centurion (first through his emissaries and then himself) say the same thing, and then Jesus have the identical response in both cases, making the same exclamation to those around him. However, this is a stretch of the imagination, at best, for one for whom the entire Christian scripture must be absolutely inerrant. Only a true believer would resort to such claims, for after all, the true believer is not interested in the truth, the true-believer is only interested in the belief.

Finally, the last alternative proposed is that Jesus never spoke to the Centurion, but because Jesus was speaking to the Centurion through intermediates, the one author just "got rid of the middlemen" in the narrative. This would mean that the variation in Luke is closer to the original, but this still means that the author of Matthew explicitly decided to remove the clear statement "therefore I did not presume to come to you." If Jesus actually said this, why would the author remove this from his lips? Additionally, while the text in Matthew is approximately 10% less than that in Luke, they are both between 200 and 250 words (at least, when translated into English). By making the Centurion less subservient to Jesus, this only diminishes the power of the story.

In conclusion, it seems that the author of Luke, in order to elevate Jesus in the eyes of a senior Roman commander and to have that commander so completely defer to Jesus, embellished the story that is recorded in Matthew. It was a story that could be told to Roman citizens or soldier to emphasize the respect held by a Roman commander for Jesus and the Jewish religion (the commander having allegedly built the synagogue for the Jews in Capernaum). Additionally, that Roman commander is praised by Jesus for having more faith than the Jews of Israel themselves!

Gnashing of teeth

In Matthew, when Jesus responds, the response seems unrelated to the issue at hand,

We can contrast this with verses found elsewhere in Luke:

There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrown out. Then people will come from east and west, from north and south, and take their places at the banquet in the kingdom of God. Indeed, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.”

In Luke, this is told within the parable of the narrow door, a parable not found in the other gospels. In both cases, Matthew and Luke, however, this narrative with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, a banquet, people coming from east and west, etc., appears at the end of another narrative and not as an independent statement. It seems that both the authors of Matthew and Luke found it useful to include this narrative, but one appended it to the Centurion's servant narrative, while the other appended it to the parable of the narrow door.

A centurion in Galilee?

Only one more issue that is not answered by anything above: Galilee was not part of the Roman Province of Iudeae at the time. It was only incorporated into a Roman province many years later, being a client state for some time after the life of Jesus. As such, there would be no reason for a Roman century to be based in that region: security would be the responsibility of Herod Antipas, the tetrarch or ruler of that region. However, this can be explained away easily enough by having the Centurion retire in Galilee. This, however, is also awkward, as the Centurion appears to speak in the present tense when he says: "For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me, ..." This, however, is just another minor thorn in the side of the Christian scriptures, but relevant only if you take the scriptures to be inerrant.