Cutting off the ear of a slave.

[arnoldo]

Haenchen points out the curious emphasis Luke introduces -- that it is the "right" ear that was cut off. He opines that this would have required some considerable dexterity to achieve if aimed deliberately, in the night.

The source you cited in this thread opines it was a deliberate act devoid of dexterity necessarily.

Reflection on these two data leads to the intimation that the wound was not inflicted accidentally in the confusion of a nocturnal scuffle but was inflicted intentionally. The unarmed bystander seized the earlobe of the leader of the party which had come to arrest Jesus and cut it off. That is the impression left by the Marcan narrative and it intends to make a theological statement about the arrest.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44088945?se ... b_contents

[neilgodfrey]

Haenchen points out the curious emphasis Luke introduces -- that it is the "right" ear that was cut off. He opines that this would have required some considerable dexterity to achieve if aimed deliberately, in the night.

The source you cited in this thread opines it was a deliberate act devoid of dexterity necessarily.

Reflection on these two data leads to the intimation that the wound was not inflicted accidentally in the confusion of a nocturnal scuffle but was inflicted intentionally. The unarmed bystander seized the earlobe of the leader of the party which had come to arrest Jesus and cut it off. That is the impression left by the Marcan narrative and it intends to make a theological statement about the arrest.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44088945?se ... b_contents

Yes. For the second comment I was citing what I had read in Ernst Haenchen's Der Weg Jesu and Haenchen was probably citing someone else anyway. I offered the second comment merely for interest's sake. I don't believe for a second that there was anything remotely historical to the claim. (I restrained myself from commenting that perhaps the action was more plausible if the swordsman was left-handed.)

I am curious, though, why Luke singled out the right ear.

[maryhelena]

John 17.10-12: 10 Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus. 11 So Jesus said to Peter, "Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?" 12 So the Roman cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him....[/box]
Could there be any connection to this incident from the Year of the Four Emperors?

Malchus:

mal'-kus (Malchos, from melekh, i.e. "counselor" or "king"):

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/malchus/

Maybe there is symbolism at play here. It's not a slave of the high priest re the gospel story that is the focus here but an actual King and High Priest who had his ears bitten off in 40 b.c.e. (around 70 years previously re the gospel dating). Hyrancus II whose ears were bitten off by Antigonus - according to Josephus.

The gospel storytelling is one thing. However, within that storytelling history can be reflected through symbolism or illusion. In other words a political allegory through the medium of mythology, theology etc.