h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Jesus had given the go-ahead that evening; see Luke 22:35-38. The slicing and splicing are described in Luke 22:49-51. There is a parallel account in John 18:10-11, where the disciple is named as Peter and the servant as Malchus. This is an echo in John 18:26-27, where Malchus's cousin thinks he recognises Peter.

Thanks Andrew,
It seems from your above sources that JC instructed, in fact ordered, that 2 swords be purchased (Luke 22), and subsequently it was either the high priest or his servant Malchus who had his ear sliced off with one of these swords when he was attacked by one of JC's men (Simon Peter was it?) who must have been acting on instructions from JC albeit instructions that were quickly revoked. (Luke 22 / John 18). The unfortunate man's ear was swiftly replaced by JC. His last miracle?

Now it's interesting as an aside, in a way, that JC's 1st miracle, changing water into wine, and the last miracle(?) replacing the sliced-off ear were both carried out under the influence of alcohol.

LL

"in the presence of alcohol." I should have said.

From the account in Luke it seems clear the swords were already in the upper room when Jesus said those words, not that they were bought afterwards (there was no time). From his cure of Malchus one can deduce that Simon Peter misunderstood him, at least as regards resisting at his arrest, and that is what the early commentators thought.

In particular, when the disciples said "there are two swords here", Jesus responded, "it is enough", as though to say, "very well, leave it" (source: Theophylact).

Andrew,
I read in one of your earlier biblical references that Jesus instructed a couple of his disciples to sell their coats and use the cash to buy 2 swords. If they had had time to carry out this order there would presumably have been 4 swords brandished by the Jesus's Jungs (to coin a German term).

Simon Peter must have been something of an expert swordsman by the way to take a man's ear off with one stroke. Who trained him in swordplay? The Romans? Could well be. Jesus after all was leader of a sect that was in some ways convenient for the Romans. Pay your Roman taxes! he told the people.

Anyway be all that as it may the point is what need hath God's only son of swords and accomplished swordsmen?
LL

If memory serves (and I don't guarentee it) the original word for the "band of men" that came to arrest Jesus was cohort - ie a substantial body of Roman soldiery. Presumably trouble was expected.

Yes Noggin (the Nog?), Trouble was expected. That's true. But JC was always looking for trouble. He was never a pacifist. Trouble was his raison d'etre. Right at the beginning of his ministry he said so.

My question still stands. If He was "the Son" why send for swords? He knew the cohort was coming. In fact he sent Judas to fetch them. It was always his intention to be arrested and fulfill Torah or Old Testament prophecy.

The world's most famous suicide and longest suicide note as one cynic said?

Hello Lucky

I agree with you that there isn't really enough evidence from the Gospels to say that Jesus was a pacifist as the term is understood, but on the specific point of the swords... Jesus's words were made in the context of the earlier instructions he was referring to (cf. Luke, 9:1-5 and 10:1-11). The new instructions were addressed to the disciples in general in the face of future persecutions. They weren't aimed at just a couple of his companions, nor were they meant for the arrest that night - this is shown not only by his words 'it is enough', but also the account of the arrest itself.

The word 'cohort' appears in the original of John's Gospel, 18:3; the other gospels call it a 'crowd'. There was a cohort in Jerusalem stationed at the Antonia Tower, under the authority of a Tribune. It is doubtful that all 600 soldiers went to arrest Jesus, but likely that some of them did: the Jewish authorities, who had their own temple guard - also referred to in the same verse as 'officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees' must have sought some assistance from the military.

They did expect trouble; how else could the Romans be persuaded to send their men to help? But it's a quite a big step from agreeing with that - and the fact of the twelve apostles having two swords between them - to the speculation that Simon Peter and the other apostles were trained swordsmen... and to cap it all, trained by the Romans! Simon Peter's stroke shows skill only if you suppose that he actually aimed to slice off Malchus's ear. To me it looks more like inexpertise.

Hi Andrew

Based on my limited experience of swinging sharp metal implements about, many cuts to the ears and shoulders occur when someone ducks their head out of the way of a downward stroke. Downward strokes to the head smack of amateur swordsmanship - a good thrust to the chest or a belly-slash are more effective.

At the end of the day who gives a monkey's cuss (except 1.4 billion Christians I suppose)?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Math,
He can't use a "belly slash" or any stroke likely to kill or cause potentially fatal injury. After all they are preaching all that love your neighbour as your brother stuff. In the heat of potential battle the swiftly slashed-off ear was a good choice. An expert swordsman without doubt!
Andrew,
Why not trained by the Romans in swordplay? Pilate was always loathe to try Jesus whose sect appears to have supported the Romans to some extent, even on the tricky Roman tax question. "Pay Caesar in his own coin!" as I too would have been tempted to say in the circumstances.

I just found another bit of violent conduct in the good book. It says Jesus "made a whip of cords" and drove all from the temple. (John)

So he needs swords and also a whip. Not very eloquent is he?

And yet he can be eloquent in a frightening way for he says:
"Anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement" and "anyone who says 'you fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell" (Mat.5.22)

It's a bit of primitive carrot and stick religion isn't it?

Hardly Mozart and certainly not cricket!

but I do believe nether of those things are apparently anywhere near 2000 years old,
it was a completely different society to the one we live in
to judge all things by modern standards is an injustice

Hi Lucky

The soldiers & priests were about to take Jesus to a predictable fate. It was a brutal time and it was very unlikely that Caiaphas would stand for anything less than a painful death for any dissenter, particularly one who'd threatened the old priest's livelihood in the temple itself.

Simon Peter would have known this. I think his amateurish attempts to defend his master are exemplified by the stroke. If you want to warn someone, yet not kill them, then a hand is an easier target.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Lucky and Andrew

Why not trained by the Romans in swordplay?

Because the roman techniques of sword-fighting did not concentrate on elegant swishing around with a side-edged blade but on stabbing and thrusting movements with a gladius.

--

Jez - who has a friend who re-enacts as a roman auxiliary...

Thanks for the technical info on Roman swordfighting skills! They trained themselves in their Zealot hideouts then?

Dr Anthea Ace, the references to Mozart and cricket are meant as references qualities of musical genius combined with a degree of childlike innocence and the cricket is meant to stand for fair play. In all, Christianlike qualities if you like. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that the gentle Jesus meek and mild image is totally false. Jesus was a real bloke with normal human failings. Wasn't he?

Thanks Math and OJ! - impressively knowledgeable.

Hello Lucky. Many Christians would agree that this image of Jesus is excessively sentimental. Sugary statues irritate me too. But I'm not sure why you think it's a defect to be otherwise... Why should the Son of God not make use of a whip to clear the large outer court of 'his' temple? As man he used things as you or I might.

This does not add up to being war-like, or indeed being 'normal'. He gave up personal rights and he taught others to do the same; however, some rights are not personal but derive from one's office, e.g. as a parent, so they can't be laid aside, in fact they shouldn't. It's not a defect to exercise them.

Andrew,
I think I was brainwashed as a child by my Sunday School teacher who once gave me a silver coin, a sixpence, for being a good student.
Anyway to your point - the temple perimiter was I believe the size of 9 football pitches so it wasn't designed just for praying. It was more like a fortress. Much of the actual building in the middle was covered in gold and contained gold and silver. Now it was no doubt a long standing tradition for people to use this vast open space or a portion of it as a market place. I think Jesus' message would have been more to the point if instead of flailing around with his whip of cords he'd addressed the subject of all that temple gold. Personally I think Vincent Van Gogh was 'holier 'in this respect (hope that's not blasphemy) because at least he gave church property and money away to the Belgian miners so they could afford to buy food. At least he did that, until he was sacked by the Church for doing it.
Yes, Jesus's tactics and his manner do bother me.

Sixpence?!? Luxury...!

The outer court had stalls for changing money and selling animals (and birds, I think) for sacrifice in the temple, and no doubt there were abuses. The temple received extra, and it was the ordinary pilgrim who paid. The rites of sacrifice were obligatory for purification - for an example see Luke 2:24 - so profiteering would be objectionable.

Jesus objected elsewhere to the scribes and pharisees swallowing up the properties of widows, or accepting money from people that would have been better given to the needy. But as far as I can see he did not object per se to valuable materials being used in worship. There is also the incident of the 'widow's mite', recorded by Mark and Luke, which is a reflection on the true value of one's giving - but implies that it is right.

Without knowing more about Van Gogh did I can't really comment, but I think it could be seen more as a conflict with the Church. He might actually have been doing what he thought Jesus would have done.

Interesting that Van Gogh should have come into this. He had something in common with both Simon Peter and Malchus.

Happy New Year, Andrew.
Van Gogh was a trainee priest who sold the candleabra and so on to get money for the starving miners who were one strike in Belgium. There's a famous painting called The Potato Eaters which show a typical family in dire straits. When he was sacked from the church he went to London and got a job in an auction house where he learnt about paintings. He then returned home and began his painting career. He only managed to sell 2 paintings in his lifetime. He shot himself in a corn field painting Crows in a Cornfield series which he saw as ominous and then walked back to his lodgings at a pub where he died.
It's not sure that Van Gogh cut off his own ear. Some scholars think that Paul Gaugin did it. There was certainly a row between the two artists who shared accomodation. The next thing was that Van Gogh ran into the house of a prostitute he knew with a piece of his ear wrapped in his handkerchief. Paul Gaugin was Van Gogh's best friend. There is no way the Van Gogh would betray him. If you can get a book of Van Gogh's letters to his brother Theo they are very interesting reading. They are intelligent and far removed from the rantings of a madman as some people like to portray Van Gogh.

Thank you Lucky! You have presented Van Gogh in a new light, and it's a very interesting one. I will definitely read some more about him.

I like the account of the him selling the candelabra to give the proceeds to the starving miners: it sounds like a good act (what used to be called a 'work of mercy'), but at the same time I can understand why the Rector of the seminary (presumably) expelled him.

Happy New Year.