Why Jesus Cut off the High Priest's Ear

[maryhelena]

MH, surely you're not saying that the "origin and purpose" of the story we have in the gospels was to further a Hasmonean recovery of political and/or priestly power (and money) in the later 1st cent. CE.

No, I'm not saying that.

The gospel story (and Acts) doesn't serve the aims of Jewish priestly claimants.

Indeed.

And there is no linkage to Antigonus in the gospels. There are only a few points of similarity.

Thus, from "a few points of similarity" one can discern a historical underpinning to the gospel passion narrative.

Thomas Brodie: "While much biblical narrative may not be historical, it has a powerful
history-related aspect; the fiction has been historicized; it has been written in
such a way that it resonates with the realities of history and of human
experience. It is like history, or, as is sometimes said, history-like."

my bolding

As Protagoras is made to say in Plato's dialogue of that name, "everything is like everything else in a certain way." The points of difference between the gospel Jesus and Antigonus outweigh the similarities.

No, "the points of difference" indicate that the gospel figure of Jesus is a composite literary figure.

Whatever the agenda of the authors, it is not credible to propose that their agenda is to further the goals of Hasmonean descendents or "those who loved them" (to crib from the TF).

Are you suggesting that you know what are "the goals of Hasmonean descendents"?

Sorry, but I don't see positive evidence for such speculations. They seem to fail on the parsimony front.

Similarly with the OP. One can invent a text in which Jesus cuts off the ear of the High Priest's servant. Sorry, Jay. I agree that the Gethsemane story has many sketchy elements. But when Jesus becomes the guy cutting off the ear, we're not discussing anything for which there is evidence.

We are dealing with a story! A story that could have been written any which way the authors choose....Yes, we have to deal with the words as we have them - but we discard history, Hasmonean/Jewish history, at our loss. Yes, the story is important - but so too is the history from which it sprung.

-----------

footnote re a point in your earlier post:

Your view is that his story just provided a convenient model for an invented bio of an originally mythical figure?

I don't subscribe to the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory. There is no need for a Pauline celestial christ figure to be historicized as the gospel Jesus. All that theory does is give the historicists theory a leg up on the probability scale....

[maryhelena]

therefore the crowd has no need for swords and clubs

Apparently, it was OK for travelers to carry weapons:
Josephus' Wars, II, VIII, 4 "... they [Essenes] carry nothing with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them, for fear of thieves."

Cordially, Bernard

And you have evidence that the Essenes were historical??

So, all Jesus carried was a weapon for fear of thieves? Why then would the Romans send a large number of soldiers to arrest him?

Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, John 18:3 and 18:12 state that Jesus on the Mount of Olives was
confronted by a speira – a Roman cohort of 500 to 1,000 soldiers. This suggestion of a battle
preceding Jesus’ arrest...

JESUS AND THE “EGYPTIAN PROPHET”
Lena Einhorn,
http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upload ... .11.25.pdf

She further says:

In addition to this, Josephus makes no note of crucifixions of Jews between 4 B.C.E. and 46
C.E., except in Testimonium Flavianum. He mentions them, however, under Varus (4 B.C.E.),
Tiberius Alexander (46 to 48 C.E.), Cumanus (48 to 52 C.E.), Felix (52 to ca. 59 C.E.), and
Florus (64 to 66 C.E.), as well as during the Jewish War (66 to 73 C.E.).

The only crucifixion Josephus relates during the time of Pilate is that of the wise man Jesus ....

“Under Tiberius all was quiet.”.....Tacitus in Hist. 5.9-10

The gospel Jesus crucifixion story, its passion narrative, is out of place historically. Yes, Lena Horn wants to go forward to the time of the Egyptian (a figure that cannot be historically verified...) But history, Hasmonean history, tells us to go backwards to 37 b.c.e., and the Roman execution of Antigonus, the last King of Judea of "pure Jewish blood'. (Jewish Encyclopaedia.)

[MrMacSon]

.
The only crucifixion Josephus relates during the time of Pilate is that of the wise man Jesus ....

....

The gospel Jesus crucifixion story, its passion narrative, is out of place historically ... But history, Hasmonean history, tells us to go backwards to 37 b.c.e., and the Roman execution of Antigonus, the last King of Judea of "pure Jewish blood'. (Jewish Encyclopaedia.)

Of course, as you know, Antigonus may have been crucified

[ficino]

I contend that the NT is dripping with Hasmonean Glories, written in an aggressive style in opposition to the Roman Culture, contra Atwill, f'rinstance. That it appears hidden is a testimony to Transvaluation through the centuries but, "To Me...", it goes much beyond mere unrelated data points.

The Hasmonean Thesis is complex, crossed referenced and Quite Sound.

Charles, can you formulate that thesis in a way in which in principle it is falsifiable? I mean "falsifiable" as obtains within the disciplines of ancient history and/or literary criticism, of course, since we deal in probabilities. Or perhaps someone else has already formulated a "falsifiable" thesis. I'm not up on Atwill. I should think at the outset that a claim that the gospel Jesus is a Transvaluation of Hasmonean Antigonus transvalued by later Romans rests on many assumptions. So it needs to show that it explains the data better than, say, the thesis that Jesus was a real wandering apocalyptic preacher in the earlier 1st cent. CE. Occam's Razor is very sharp; I've cut myself with it, so I know!

Will it be possible in principle to disprove your Hasmonean/Roman transvaluation thesis, and if so, how would the refutation be sketched out? On what sort of tests will it stand or fall?

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi All,

Here is a bonus understanding that we get when we conclude the it was Jesus striking off the ear of the High Priest during the arrest scene.

In the scene before the arrest in Book 14, we have Jesus telling them the exact prophesy:

27 “You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written:

“‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.’

The Shepherd is the High priest. The Sheep are Jesus' followers.
If we do not see Jesus as striking the high priest in the arrest scene, the statement by Jesus (14:49) "But the Scriptures must be fulfilled" and the statement "I will strike the shepherd" makes no sense. Once we have Jesus striking and slicing off the High Priest' ear right after this. the statement about "I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered" and "Scriptures must be fulfilled" make perfect logical sense.

Note also that it is the High Priest himself who prosecutes Jesus at his trial a few scenes later in Mar 15:

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

They all condemned him as worthy of death

The High Priest must have been really angry at Jesus cutting his right ear. These scenes make much more sense if we assume that originally Mark's text or the text he was using had Jesus doing this to the High Priest.

[maryhelena]

Hi All,

Here is a bonus understanding that we get when we conclude the it was Jesus striking off the ear of the High Priest during the arrest scene.

In the scene before the arrest in Book 14, we have Jesus telling them the exact prophesy:

27 “You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written:

“‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.’

The Shepherd is the High priest. The Sheep are Jesus' followers.
If we do not see Jesus as striking the high priest in the arrest scene, the statement by Jesus (14:49) "But the Scriptures must be fulfilled" and the statement "I will strike the shepherd" makes no sense. Once we have Jesus striking and slicing off the High Priest' ear right after this. the statement about "I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered" and "Scriptures must be fulfilled" make perfect logical sense.

Note also that it is the High Priest himself who prosecutes Jesus at his trial a few scenes later in Mar 15:

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

They all condemned him as worthy of death

The High Priest must have been really angry at Jesus cutting his right ear. These scenes make much more sense if we assume that originally Mark's text or the text he was using had Jesus doing this to the High Priest.

Putting the gospel story into a political setting is instructive:

The High Priest is Hyrcanus. He puts the question to Antigonus. "Are you the Messiah?". Antigonus answers - "I am". Hyrcanus, the Roman appointed High Priest, is denied the office re the cutting of the ears - and Antigonus becomes King and High Priest - and throws off the Romans for 3 years. A messiah figure that liberates the Jews....albeit for a short time.

A side issue that is interesting is the two high priests in gLuke. .."during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas:. The Jesus passion narrative is set within a context of two High Priests.......

Historically, re the Antigonus and Hyrcanus conflict, there were, in effect, two Jewish High Priests.....albeit one in Babylon.

When Hyrcanus was brought into Parthia king Phraates treated him more fairly, being already aware of what an illustrious family he came from, and so he set him free from his chains and gave him a residence in Babylon, where there was a large numbers of Jews. These honoured Hyrcanus as their high priest and king, as did the whole Jewish nation as far as the Euphrates, which was gratifying to him. But when told that Herod had taken over the kingdom he took new hope, as he had remained fond of him and expected Herod to remember his past favours, for saving him when during his trial when he stood in peril of execution and rescuing him from the impending punishment. He used to talk of this matter with the Jews who came eagerly to see him. They tried to get him to stay on with them, reminding him of the services and honours they showed him which were no less than the honour shown to their high priests or kings, and further, that he could not enjoy such honour at home due to the physical deformity he had suffered under Antigonus,

Antiquities 15.ch.2.2.

[Bernard Muller]

to maryhelena

And you have evidence that the Essenes were historical??

Josephus and Philo of Alexandria wrote a lot about them. Also Pliny the elder mentioned them.

So, all Jesus carried was a weapon for fear of thieves? Why then would the Romans send a large number of soldiers to arrest him?

Where does it say Jesus was carrying a weapon?
And you are taking a passage of gJohn as truth: which is very surprising since you think all gospels are completely made up stories.
As for me, I don't rely on gJohn, the most elaborated gospel and certainly the least historical, but I think gMark version of the arrest is more realistic (by a group of armed Jews put together by the chief priests).
Furthermore, gJohn has a large number of soldiers, presumably Romans, given to Judas by the chiefs priests & Pharisees. That does not make any sense: those chiefs priests & Pharisees did not have (hundreds of) Roman soldiers at their disposal.

In addition to this, Josephus makes no note of crucifixions of Jews between 4 B.C.E. and 46
C.E., except in Testimonium Flavianum.

You cannot expect Josephus to relate of every crucifixions.
And the Testimonium Flavianum is a very late interpolation.

“Under Tiberius all was quiet.”.....Tacitus in Hist. 5.9-10

Quiet in the sense there were no major unrests and rebellions.
However Josephus reported three major incidents during Pilate's rule. And Philo of Alexandria wrote about Pontius Pilate:
"and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned" (On the embassy to Gaius, XXXVIII)

Cordially, Bernard

[maryhelena]

to maryhelena

And you have evidence that the Essenes were historical??

Josephus and Philo of Alexandria wrote a lot about them. Also Pliny the elder mentioned them.

And the gospel writers wrote about Jesus - so, therefore, Jesus must be historical......

So, all Jesus carried was a weapon for fear of thieves? Why then would the Romans send a large number of soldiers to arrest him?

Where does it say Jesus was carrying a weapon?

From your previous post...

therefore the crowd has no need for swords and clubs

Apparently, it was OK for travelers to carry weapons:
Josephus' Wars, II, VIII, 4 "... they [Essenes] carry nothing with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them, for fear of thieves."

What was the point of your reference if not to suggest that if Jesus was carrying a weapon that it would be all-right to do so? That was the basis for my remark.....

And you are taking a passage of gJohn as truth: which is very surprising since you think all gospels are completely made up stories.

Without evidence to suggest the contrary - the gospel story is just that - a story....

As for me, I don't rely on gJohn, the most elaborated gospel and certainly the least historical, but I think gMark version of the arrest is more realistic (by a group of armed Jews put together by the chief priests).
Furthermore, gJohn has a large number of soldiers, presumably Romans, given to Judas by the chiefs priests & Pharisees. That does not make any sense: those chiefs priests & Pharisees did not have (hundreds of) Roman soldiers at their disposal.

In addition to this, Josephus makes no note of crucifixions of Jews between 4 B.C.E. and 46
C.E., except in Testimonium Flavianum.

You cannot expect Josephus to relate of every crucifixions.
And the Testimonium Flavianum is a very late interpolation.

“Under Tiberius all was quiet.”.....Tacitus in Hist. 5.9-10

Quiet in the sense there were no major unrests and rebellions.
However Josephus reported three major incidents during Pilate's rule. And Philo of Alexandria wrote about Pontius Pilate:
"and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned" (On the embassy to Gaius, XXXVIII)

Cordially, Bernard

Josephus and Philo can write whatever - history requires evidence...Sure, we can take opinions and find some worth in them but one can't build a case for early christian history on opinions. For example, we know that Antigonus existed - the Hasmonean coins. Whether or not he cut off the ear of his uncle Hyrancus - there is no evidence for that. The ear story in Josephus is of interest because the gospel story also has an ear cutting story. i.e. there is a literary borrowing between the gospel story and the writing of Josephus. That is what is important in the ear cutting story.

[Bernard Muller]

And the gospel writers wrote about Jesus - so, therefore, Jesus must be historical......

Why bring about the gospels here? It is a diversion.
Do you think Josephus, Philo & Pliny the elder invented the Essenes?

What was the point of your reference if not to suggest that if Jesus was carrying a weapon that it would be all-right to do so? That was the basis for my remark.....

That still does not have me saying Jesus carried a weapon. Just people in his entourage having weapons does not make him and them rebels.

Cordially, Bernard

[maryhelena]

And the gospel writers wrote about Jesus - so, therefore, Jesus must be historical......

Why bring about the gospels here? It is a diversion.
Do you think Josephus, Philo & Pliny the elder invented the Essenes?

Bernard, the Essenes are not part of the OP. You brought them into it re carrying weapons....

What was the point of your reference if not to suggest that if Jesus was carrying a weapon that it would be all-right to do so? That was the basis for my remark.....

That still does not have me saying Jesus carried a weapon. Just people in his entourage having weapons does not make him and them rebels.

Cordially, Bernard

I never said you said Jesus carried a weapon......I commented on your reference to the Essenes....