Diogenes the Cynic

1. Why was Peter not arrested after cutting a dude's ear off? They were already arresting Jesus for less than that. Is it at all historically plausible that anyone could have attacked a "servant of the High Priest" with a sword while defending a fugitive insurgent that the servant had brought Temple guards to arrest and not been arrested (if not killed on the spot)?

Have any apologists tried to address this or explain it?

2. Would either the Romans or the Temple guards actually go out in the middle of the night to make the arrest? They had to walk across a bridge over a ravine (the Kidron Vally, which lies between the Temple mount and the Mount of Olives) to search for a cave at the foot of the Mount of Olives. How easy or practical would this have been?

Sheshbazzar

Don't believe everything you read.

Roger Pearse

Both "objections" involve imagining what ought to have happened, based on our own understanding of human nature and how ancient society worked, and then objecting that the biblical account is different.

I'd grade any student who used that methodology with a gamma, whichever ancient text they used it on. That approach isn't historical analysis, but rather vituperation.

No offence meant to you, Diogenes, btw. I find that many people read so much of this type of stuff that they don't see the assumptions in it, but to those of us who don't, it sort of sticks out like a sore thumb. It's a bad way to do things, and won't produce any valid results.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

Jesus healed the ear. No problem.

And they had to arrest him at night because he was preaching to crowds during the day who would have rioted. These are the same crowds that later called for his death.

Diogenes the Cynic

I wasn't raising objections, Roger, just asking the questions because I don't know the answers.

Why wasn't Peter arrested is a fair question, I think and so is wondering how unusual it would have been to send a Temple posse out hunting the Mount of Olives in the dark. It's not like they had street lights or anything.


The reason these questions have come up for me is related to a book I'm writing in which I'm trying outline a realistic and plausible hypothesis of Christian origins - essentially a non-supernatural HJ novel. I've been researching and making false starts at this project for the better part of 20 years and have been frustrated by the lack of data and the virtual impossibility of discovering anything reliable, so I've decided to just do my best to be realistic, plausible, stay within known evidence and not introduce any silly new theories (e.g. "Passover Plot" or "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" type nonsense).

I'm trying to at least achieve realism, since journalism is unavailable to me, and I was writing my Gethsemane scene (I'm keeping it since Jesus had to be arrested someplace and the Gethsemane site actually does have some plausibility to it) and I'm finding it difficult, just purely in terms of writing believable fiction, to explain why Peter would not be arrested after attacking the Temple posse with a sword.

sotto voce

'But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.' Lk 22:51-53

'Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, because they were afraid of the people.' Lk 22:1-2

'Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples.' Jn 18:2 NIV

tanya

Realistic?

plausible?

Please read it again: Luke 22:51

καὶ ἁψάμενος τοῦ ὠτίου ἰάσατο αὐτόν

and having touched the ear, he healed him.

Two possibilities arise:

A: he applied pressure to stop the hemorrhage, "healed him" then indicates only superficial remedy, but the disfigurement and concomitant diminution in hearing ability remained. Is that interpretation consistent with Koine Greek habits with respect to "iasato"? In other words, would other authors, of that era, employ "iasato" to indicate application of pressure to stop the bleeding? Is there a different Koine Greek method available to differentiate "healing", from "pressure to stop the blood loss"?

B. Jesus touched the ear, and by magic, the guard's ear was restored completely. No sign of injury, no hearing loss, no bleeding, no disfigurement.

The text, in my opinion, does not differentiate between these two possible interpretations. Since all four gospels relate this anecdote, why does only Luke elaborate the myth that Jesus "healed" Malchus?

Even those forum members who imagine that the gospels represent accurate historical accounts, ought to be in agreement, that failure to describe a miraculous episode, such as the restoration of hearing or vision, in three of the four gospels calls into question the veracity and credibility of the singular source, Luke, describing the event.

DCHindley

Ahh, you must have stayed awake in Sunday School! :innocent2: Me too.

DCH (we should have a smilie that shows a salute, comedian Benny Hill style, using the wrong hand)

arnoldo

John writes that servant who Peter struck was named Malchus (John 18:10) . Later, John writes that Peter evaded getting arrested a second time when a relative of Malchus recognized Peter ( John 18:26). The second evasion of arrest by Peter seems more implausible than his first, IMHO.

everettf

Just curious, Is there any thing written at this time outside of the bible? Anything to back it up?
It seems to me that people study the bible to prove the bible is right.

Just a 77 year old that hasn't read that obnoxious bible and wont. Where are the original texts that back it up?