Iskander

Mark says that a crowd with swords and clubs approached Jesus and goes on to say, ‘a certain one’ of those who were standing by, drew a sword and cut the ear of one slave. Mark also says that a certain young man was arrested but he managed to run away with other fleeing people.


Later writers extended his story and made this arrest less plausible but more pleasing to them.

sotto voce

How did naming the assailant please them?

Iskander

It is not important .The story was extended and made less plausible.

Roger Pearse

Most stories that are extended are extended to make them more plausible. Officer.

sotto voce

It certainly is. The contrast of a disciple's ideas before the resurrection with the same person's ideas very soon after the resurrection is important, and doubtless a contrast intended by the author concerned.

Proof?

How?

outhouse

none of the arrest really has a decent amount of historicity.

for all we know, he could have been arrested at the temple, if the temple incident has any historicity.


The night arrest makes perfect sense and it would be preffered over starting a riot in daylight.



the ear thing, I dont put any weight in, how can you? They are just writing in MJ as if he had a choice, but went in semi peacefully.



Its a great question as to why more were not arrested, If it has any historicity. i would think a small number of temple guards went in at night to grab jesus, went in on the whole group, grabbed their man and took off.

I guess im stating the arresting party was to small to take them all in, with as many people were in the area, campers would have been everywhere and they were more or less concerned with one individual.

Toto

As you can see, some Christian apologists think the story is plausible. Others, both Christian and non-Christian, who think that there is a historical kernel to the story, do not try to justify any of the details. The secular reconstruction of the historical Jesus only requires a Jewish wisdom teacher who was killed unfairly by either Jews or Romans (similar to the way John the Baptist was executed, perhaps.)

This would make a good question for the Bible Geek or the Human Bible. Robert M Price would know what apologists have said on this issue, or if they have even addressed it.

tanya

He also does not write "listen", as is found in Isaiah 51:4 and Galatians 4:21

In my opinion, you err, twice: once by claiming, without credible evidence, certainly not from the texts of those two references, that Paul's epistles were written before Mark's gospel, and once by misunderstanding the point that slicing off an ear was a routine way of letting someone know, that they either back off, or the next stroke will be slicing off a more important structure, e.g. the entire head, not just a tiny ear.

You mean, only Luke, was a physician, or perhaps, a surgeon....?

a. How do you know the occupation of any of the gospel authors? Do you then also know when and where the first copy of the gospel was published?

b. Do you intend to convey the notion that a fisherman or a farmer, or a goat herder, would not be able to comprehend the significance of restoring a severed organ? Do you write this to suggest that absent training in the medical arts, an author can not portray an action which is fundamentally oriented towards wound healing?

I obviously disagree with such a notion. I further have no idea who "luke" was, where he lived, or what his occupation may have been. I hope you are not going to cite Eusebius as your source of knowledge about "Luke".

Iskander

Mark describes a crowd with clubs and knives approaching at night like a contemporary urban ‘vigilante’ mob.

An informer identified the victim and some of the hostiles grabbed him. At some point outsiders became involved in some sort of brief fight, but soon all of them, companions of the victim and anonymous followers, run away in fear for their lives.

The story was extended, but in this case it was not made more plausible. Corporal

Iskander

John adds details, so does Luke, and so does Matthew.
Miracles are less plausible, for example