In each of the canonical gospels, when the Temple guards and the Roman soldiers come to arrest Jesus, one of the disciples pulls out a sword and cuts off a slave’s ear. John 18:10 names the disciple as Simon Peter; the others leave him anonymous.
Now in any organized society, especially a Roman province with a history of having a low flash point for violence, interfering with an arrest, especially by using a weapon, would get you arrested as well. Yet nothing happens to Peter (or whomever); Jesus tells him to put up his sword, in one case heals the priest’s slave’s ear, and they all go off.
Has anyone got an explanation, or heard of an explanation, why Peter wasn’t arrested, too?
I had a thought, based on Fredriksen’s concern that none of the disciples were arrested with Jesus. In fact, two other people were crucified along with Jesus – the lestai, usually translated as bandits, but which Reza Aslan explains is also a code word for seditionists, whom the Romans often equated with bandits. (Luke 23:32 – and in particular 23:39-43 – Matt. 27:38 (but see Matt. 27:44), Mark 15:27, John 19:18).
Now, why would the Romans crucify a couple of bandits, given that crucifixion was normally used to make a political point? Maybe one of them WAS the disciple who attacked the slave?
dankoh said
I had a thought, based on Fredriksen’s concern that none of the disciples were arrested with Jesus. In fact, two other people were crucified along with Jesus – the lestai, usually translated as bandits, but which Reza Aslan explains is also a code word for seditionists, whom the Romans often equated with bandits. (Luke 23:32 – and in particular 23:39-43 – Matt. 27:38 (but see Matt. 27:44), Mark 15:27, John 19:18).Now, why would the Romans crucify a couple of bandits, given that crucifixion was normally used to make a political point? Maybe one of them WAS the disciple who attacked the slave?
How could the gospel authors know what kind of criminals they were, and how many they were, if everyone else fled? I suspect the two criminals are literary creations for Scripture fulfillment.
Go back to the source: the biographies of Julius Caesar.
Find out why Marc Antony was not killed along with Julius Caesar.
Then, you will have the answer to the question.
Part of the reason is that there was a call for Julius Caesar – Jesus Christ to be king in the Roman Republic after the Roman Republic had replaced their kings. Even Julius Caesar did not want to be king for his patriotism to that.
If I come across that part of the biographies of Julius Caesar, I’ll post the answer. I vaguely recall that by killing Julius Caesar they were killing tyranny but if they killed Marc Antony, the political motivation would have gone beyond independence/freedom from tyranny.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)