Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Hi All and especially Maryhellena,

Let's think about the capture scene in Mark's Gospel for a moment:

43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.” 50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

As it stands now, line 47 makes no sense. Jesus claims he is not leading a rebellion and therefore the crowd has no need for swords and clubs. But how can he say this after “one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.” Obviously the crowd did need swords and clubs to apprehend Jesus. Secondly, cutting off the ear of a servant (slave) means nothing. It would have been considered a small misdemeanor at best. Nobody would care about a slave getting an ear cut off in a sword incident. What people would care about would be having the ear of the high priest or the son of the high priest cut off. A mutilated man could not be high priest. Thirdly, there is no reaction to the deed. It does not lead anywhere and it does not mean anything in Mark. Mark never mentions it again.

If we move the line down however and have the deed done by Jesus, it changes the whole passage making it logical and much more dramatic. Read the scene with this line changed and rearranged to a much more logical position:

43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him. [line 47 removed]
48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.” Jesus drew his sword and struck the high priest, cutting off his ear.. 50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

Here Jesus cuts off the high priest’s ear in order to fulfill scripture by having his followers desert and flee from him.
This allows us to understand four things which are problematical in the original reading:
1. Why Jesus says that he is not leading a rebellion? His aim is not political reform, but religious reform, getting rid of the high priest. That is why he attacks the high priests and teachers of the laws and doesn't mention Herod's taxes.
2. Why we have a line connecting Jesus to the cutting off of a high priest’s ear? He gets his revenge on the high priest
3. Why Jesus says the line about Scripture being fulfilled? The line is about the scattering of Jesus' followers.
4. Why the disciples who have sworn allegiance to Jesus just a few hours earlier actually ran away? They knew that Jesus was going to be arrested, but Jesus cutting off the ear of the High Priest, shocked them.

Now and only now does Mark’s scene really make sense and the line make sense.

This also relates Jesus to Antigonus, the last executed king of Judea. He also cut off a high priest's ear/s - Hyrcanus'.

Ant. Josephus, Bk 14, Ch.13
10. And thus was Antigonus brought back into Judea by the king of the Parthians, and received Hyrcanus and Phasaelus for his prisoners; but he was greatly cast down because the women had escaped, whom he intended to have given the enemy, as having promised they should have them, with the money, for their reward: but being afraid that Hyrcanus, who was under the guard of the Parthians, might have his kingdom restored to him by the multitude, he cut off his ears, and thereby took care that the high priesthood should never come to him any more, because he was maimed, while the law required that this dignity should belong to none but such as had all their members entire

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi All and especially Maryhellena,

Let's think about the capture scene in Mark's Gospel for a moment:

43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.” 50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

As it stands now, line 47 makes no sense. Jesus claims he is not leading a rebellion and therefore the crowd has no need for swords and clubs. But how can he say this after “one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.” Obviously the crowd did need swords and clubs to apprehend Jesus. Secondly, cutting off the ear of a servant (slave) means nothing. It would have been considered a small misdemeanor at best. Nobody would care about a slave getting an ear cut off in a sword incident. What people would care about would be having the ear of the high priest or the son of the high priest cut off. A mutilated man could not be high priest. Thirdly, there is no reaction to the deed. It does not lead anywhere and it does not mean anything in Mark. Mark never mentions it again.

If we move the line down however and have the deed done by Jesus, it changes the whole passage making it logical and much more dramatic. Read the scene with this line changed and rearranged to a much more logical position:

43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him. [line 47 removed]
48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.” Jesus drew his sword and struck the high priest, cutting off his ear.. 50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

Here Jesus cuts off the high priest’s ear in order to fulfill scripture by having his followers desert and flee from him.
This allows us to understand four things which are problematical in the original reading:
1. Why Jesus says that he is not leading a rebellion? His aim is not political reform, but religious reform, getting rid of the high priest. That is why he attacks the high priests and teachers of the laws and doesn't mention Herod's taxes.
2. Why we have a line connecting Jesus to the cutting off of a high priest’s ear? He gets his revenge on the high priest
3. Why Jesus says the line about Scripture being fulfilled? The line is about the scattering of Jesus' followers.
4. Why the disciplines who have sworn allegiance to Jesus just a few hours earlier actually ran away? They knew that Jesus was going to be arrested, but Jesus cutting off the ear of the High Priest, shocked them.

Now and only now does Mark’s scene really make sense and the line make sense.

This also relates Jesus to Antigonus, the last executed king of Judea. He also cut off a high priest's ear/s - Hyrcanus'.

Ant. Josephus, Bk 14, Ch.13
10. And thus was Antigonus brought back into Judea by the king of the Parthians, and received Hyrcanus and Phasaelus for his prisoners; but he was greatly cast down because the women had escaped, whom he intended to have given the enemy, as having promised they should have them, with the money, for their reward: but being afraid that Hyrcanus, who was under the guard of the Parthians, might have his kingdom restored to him by the multitude, he cut off his ears, and thereby took care that the high priesthood should never come to him any more, because he was maimed, while the law required that this dignity should belong to none but such as had all their members entire

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

.
Note it was the ear of the servant of the High Priest - Mark 14:47

as is the case in Matthew & John

Matthew 26:51
With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

John 18:10 (KJV)
Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

There is no previous mention of a High Priest in Mark 14, but there is in Matthew 26 & John 18.
.

MrMacSon wrote:.
Note it was the ear of the servant of the High Priest - Mark 14:47

as is the case in Matthew & John

Matthew 26:51
With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

John 18:10 (KJV)
Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

There is no previous mention of a High Priest in Mark 14, but there is in Matthew 26 & John 18.
.

Surely, you don't expect to see, in the gospel passion narrative, that A = B. That the gospel passion narrative is a reflection the Roman execution of Antigonus. Things are not going to be spelled out. Parables, allegory, storytelling, allow for literary license.

Consider these quote from Thomas Brodie on literary connections:


While Brodie is working with the OT and the NT - the principle remains for any investigation of a literary source. In this case, the gospel story re the cutting the ears is a reworking of the Antigonus account in Josephus.

Hi maryhelena, I've probably missed this among so many posts now, but -- why the hell would anyone have cared enough about Antigonus in the later first century CE to bother concocting such a big reworking of his story? Your view is that his story just provided a convenient model for an invented bio of an originally mythical figure? But if so much invention went on as -- I think -- you hold that it did, how much relevance does the story of Antigonus hold for a hypothetical milieu, and set of agenda, a century or so later?

Forgive me for no doubt forgetting what you've written previously.

Are there other parallels with the stories of Hyrcanus, Aristobulus, and Antigonus and the gospel narratives? capitulation? ovetaking the temple? one as Judas?

Hyrcanus II was appointed a Jewish High Priest when his father (Alexander Jannaeus) died, and then also appointed King of Judea in 67BC when his mother died. Hyrcanus was the uncle of Antagonus (Hyrcanus was older brother to Antigonus's father, Aristobulus II).

Hyrcanus was, like their mother, sympathetic to the Pharisees; while Aristobulus II was, like their father, sympathetic to the Sadducees.

Aristobulus II rebelled within 3 months of Hyrcanus being appointed King and won: taking the Temple was the defining moving. Hyrcanus was relieved of his priesthood and kingship, but allowed an income from the office of the kingship.

Hyrcanus feared that Aristobulus was planning his death. According to Josephus, Hyycranus (with the help of his adviser, Antipater the Idumean) took refuge with Aretas III, King of the Nabataeans. Antipater aimed at controlling Judea by putting the weak Hyrcanus back onto the throne with the result that an army of 50,000 Nabataeans advancing on Jerusalem; they besieged the city for several months. During the siege, the adherents of Hyrcanus stoned the pious Onias (Honi ha-Magel, also Khoni or Choni ha-Magel) who had refused to pray for the demise of their opponents; and further angered many Jews by selling a lamb of the paschal sacrifice to the besieged for the enormous price of one thousand drachmae, but instead delivered a pig; an animal deemed unclean among the Jews and therefore unfit as a sacrifice.

During this civil war, the Roman general Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus defeated the Kingdoms of Pontus and the Seleucids, and then sent his deputy Marcus Aemilius Scaurus to take possession of Seleucid Syria.

As the Hasmoneans were allies of the Romans, both brothers appealed to Scaurus, each endeavoring by gifts and promises to win Scaurus over. Scaurus, moved by a gift of 400 talents, decided in favor of Aristobulus and ordered Aretas to withdraw his army.

When Pompey arrived in Syria in 63 BC, both brothers (and a third party that desired the removal of the entire dynasty) sent delegates to Pompey who favoured Hyrcanus over Aristobulus; deeming Hycanus, the elder, weaker brother, a more reliable ally of the Roman Empire.

In 40 BC, Aristobulus' son Antigonus Mattathias allied himself with the Parthians and was proclaimed King and High Priest. Hyrcanus was seized and his ears mutilated to make him permanently ineligible for the priesthood. Then Hyrcanus was taken to Babylonia, where for four years he lived with respect amid the Babylonian Jews.

In 36 BC, Herod I, after vanquishing Antigonus with Roman help, invited Hyrcanus to return to Jerusalem: Herod received him with every mark of respect, assigning to him the first place at his table and the presidency of the state council.

However, in 30 BC Herod charged Hyrcanus with plotting with the Nabateans and put him to death.

ficino wrote:Hi maryhelena, I've probably missed this among so many posts now, but -- why the hell would anyone have cared enough about Antigonus in the later first century CE to bother concocting such a big reworking of his story? Your view is that his story just provided a convenient model for an invented bio of an originally mythical figure? But if so much invention went on as -- I think -- you hold that it did, how much relevance does the story of Antigonus hold for a hypothetical milieu, and set of agenda, a century or so later?

Forgive me for no doubt forgetting what you've written previously.

Well, I'm pretty sure the Hasmoneans cared about Antigonus and the loss of their political power....Lets, not forget that Josephus claims Hasmonean decent...

Sure, viewing Antigonus as a model for the gospel Jesus passion narrative is interesting, in and off itself. But - if it's early christian origins that we are seeking - then any linkage to historical figures is a linkage that one would want to follow up. What else do we have? The gospel story makes a historical claim - it's Jesus figure was executed by a Roman official. That is the core of the gospel story and the event upon which Christianity rests it's whole belief system. That the gospel story is historicized fiction (re Thomas Brodie) still requires that one search for the origin and the purpose of that story. Why was it written? Who were the people that wrote that story and why did it matter to them?

Anyway, that's my focus - a need to get to the bottom of it all.....

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

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. The gospel story (and Acts) doesn't serve the aims of Jewish priestly claimants. And there is no linkage to Antigonus in the gospels. There are only a few points of similarity. 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. 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).

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.

you're preaching to the choir