Why Jesus Cut off the High Priest's Ear

[Stephan Huller]

Of course the Essenes have relevance in this discussion. The same idea is echoed in Flaccus with regards to Jews possessing weapons in Alexandria. The only reason someone would want to exclude these discussions from the conversation is if they wanted to ram through a dishonest self-serving conclusion ... which of course, is the case most of the time in this forum.

I still don't know what the purpose is of pretending to investigate a topic and then avoiding listening to the obvious objections to the desired outcome. Are you all waiting for civilization to end so you can seed the beginning of a new understanding based on your own myths?

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi maryhelena,

Interesting points.

It's funny. I was working on something completely different, trying to figure out just Mark's logic in his construction of the passion narrative. It was seeing a number of non-sequiturs that made me realize that the capture scene as we currently have it couldn't be the way it was originally written. Jesus cutting off the High Priest's ear was necessary for the scene to make sense. As soon as I discovered that, I started wondering what high priest had an ear cut off, as I thought I recalled reading something about that. I was really surprised that it involved Antigonus. This is the second or third time (remember the chi-rho symbol coin thing) that I was working on something different and Antigonus just appeared and stuck his nose in. This suggests to me that it is a real connection and not something appearing by accident or chance in the material.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

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.

[/quote]

[maryhelena]

Hi maryhelena,

Interesting points.

It's funny. I was working on something completely different, trying to figure out just Mark's logic in his construction of the passion narrative. It was seeing a number of non-sequiturs that made me realize that the capture scene as we currently have it couldn't be the way it was originally written. Jesus cutting off the High Priest's ear was necessary for the scene to make sense. As soon as I discovered that, I started wondering what high priest had an ear cut off, as I thought I recalled reading something about that. I was really surprised that it involved Antigonus. This is the second or third time (remember the chi-rho symbol coin thing) that I was working on something different and Antigonus just appeared and stuck his nose in. This suggests to me that it is a real connection and not something appearing by accident or chance in the material.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Yep, it's all quite fascinating. And on top of the gospel and Josephus connection, there is the work of Greg Doudna on the DSS. Which does raise the question - is the long sought connection between the DSS and the gospel story - Antigonus?

There is only one context in the first century bce with which this
portrayal of violent death at the hands of gentiles for a ruler of Israel
corresponds, and that is the Roman invasion which ended the Hasmonean
dynasty in 37 bce. That Roman invasion was an army sent
by Mark Antony to install Herod as king, and it brought a violent and
horrific end to the regime of the last Hasmonean king and high priest,
Antigonus Mattathias. There was a siege and a massacre in Jerusalem
and the temple was looted by Roman soldiers. Antigonus Mattathias
was captured in Jerusalem and killed by gentiles in a foreign country.
And of particular interest in light of the allusion in Pesher Nahum is
the fact that Cassius Dio, the Roman historian, says that Antigonus
Mattathias was hung up alive on a cross and tortured in the process of
being executed by Mark Antony.

ALLUSIONS TO THE END OF THE HASMONEAN DYNASTY
IN PESHER NAHUM (4Q169)
Gregory L. Doudna

http://scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads ... 59-278.pdf

[maryhelena]

Additional quote from Greg Doudna.

And so it seems to me that the wicked ruler of these texts reflects
Antigonus Mattathias, and that the Lion of Wrath alludes to Mark
Antony who hung up alive Antigonus and perhaps other members of
Antigonus’s regime similarly unremarked in Josephus, and that key
Qumran pesharim such as Pesher Habakkuk, Pesher Psalms A, Pesher
Nahum, Pesher Hosea B and others all allude in their various ways to
the downfall of this last Hasmonean ruler, Antigonus Mattathias. And
it is surprising to me that this suggestion seems to be new. Despite
the striking correspondences between Antigonus Mattathias and the
Wicked Priest just named and no obvious counter-indication, so far as
I have been able to discover there has never previously been a scholarly
suggestion that the Wicked Priest might allude to Antigonus Mattathias.
And in asking how Antigonus Mattathias was missed I am
including myself, for I too missed this in my study of Pesher Nahum
of 2001. Now let us return to Pesher Nahum again.

http://scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads ... 59-278.pdf

Doudna has Antigonus as the 'Wicked Priest' and Hyrancus as the 'Teacher of Righteousness. This conflict seems to echo the gospel story conflict between Jesus and the High Priest....

"Was there a contemporary ex-high priest in exile whose supporters
would have reason to portray Antigonus Mattathias in the worst possible
light?

After his overthrow by Antigonus Mattathias, Hyrcanus II
echoes the basic features of the Teacher of Righteousness in being an
ex-high priest, expelled from the temple, cast into exile and opposed to
a regime in Jerusalem which fell in a brutal Roman conquest".