About Peter cutting off Malchus ear

[YoureMyBeloved]

If this isn't in the right section feel free to move.

The Gospel of John is the only that says Peter was the one who cut off Malchus ear.

Why the omission of the name in the other gospels?

Are they trying to protect Peter so he wouldn't be seen as a violent man?

Or because the author saw what happened?

 

[Achilles6129]

If this isn't in the right section feel free to move.

The Gospel of John is the only that says Peter was the one who cut off Malchus ear.

Why the omission of the name in the other gospels?

Are they trying to protect Peter so he wouldn't be seen as a violent man?

Or because the author saw what happened?

Probably because John was in a closer proximity to Peter than the others. Remember that John and Peter follow Christ into the high priest's courtyard in the GOJ.

 

[Rhamiel]

it is believed that the Gospel according to St.John was the last one written.
so many things that were not added in the previous Gospels

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

You would think Mark would have Peter doing that written therein. Mark's gospel is definitely the "action packed" Gospel of the 4.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If this isn't in the right section feel free to move.
The Gospel of John is the only that says Peter was the one who cut off Malchus ear.
Why the omission of the name in the other gospels?
Are they trying to protect Peter so he wouldn't be seen as a violent man?
Or because the author saw what happened?

neither/ none of your reasons.

simply put (read the whole Scripture) >> but here's a bit that explains perfectly >>

2 Timothy 3:16 ESV - All Scripture is breathed out by God ...
2 Timothy 3:16 English Standard Version (ESV) 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in ...

 

[elliott95]

If this isn't in the right section feel free to move.

The Gospel of John is the only that says Peter was the one who cut off Malchus ear.

Why the omission of the name in the other gospels?

Are they trying to protect Peter so he wouldn't be seen as a violent man?

Or because the author saw what happened?

Interesting observation. It is understood by Tradition that the author of Mark's gospel was a close follower of Peter, and the other three synoptics were heavily influenced by Mark.

Maybe it was in deference to Peter then.

 

[Jig]

If this isn't in the right section feel free to move.

The Gospel of John is the only that says Peter was the one who cut off Malchus ear.

Why the omission of the name in the other gospels?

Are they trying to protect Peter so he wouldn't be seen as a violent man?

Or because the author saw what happened?

I own probably more commentaries than I need to. I decided to look at a few to see what they had to say about your question. There wasn't much to find...

"When John published his Gospels, it was no longer possible to punish the assailant. Hence, his name, and also the name of the person assailed can now be mentioned."

William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, vol. 2, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 381.

Barnes seems to agree with this:
"His name is mentioned by neither of the other evangelists, nor is it said by the other evangelists who was the disciple that gave the blow. It is probable that both Peter and the servant were alive when the other gospels were written."

Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Luke & John, ed. Robert Frew (London: Blackie & Son, 1884–1885), 361.

Concerning Malchus' name being mentioned:

"Someone in the apostolic band, presumably the writer, remembered the man and his name. This incidental recollection is a hint that the Johannine account rests on eyewitness testimony."

Merrill C. Tenney, “John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: John and Acts, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 169.

Beasley-Murray doesn't see this as anything important:"The identification of the disciple who struck the High Priest’s slave as Peter (cf. Mark 14:47 par.) has no special significance for the Evangelist and may be assumed to have been in the tradition he received (the same applies to the name of the slave, Malchus)."

George R. Beasley-Murray, John, vol. 36, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 323.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

If this isn't in the right section feel free to move.

The Gospel of John is the only that says Peter was the one who cut off Malchus ear.

Why the omission of the name in the other gospels?

Are they trying to protect Peter so he wouldn't be seen as a violent man?

Or because the author saw what happened?

There are differences like that all over the gospels that reflect performance variations in oral storytelling. It's just a feature of oral culture.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Matthew 26:47-56 records a version of the arrest in the Garden. It mentions one of the bystanders using a sword, striking the High Priest's servant and cutting off the servant's ear; no names mentioned.

Mark 14:43-52 closely parallels the account in Matthew. Again one of the bystanders with a sword, striking and cutting off the servant's ear; no names mentioned.

Luke 22:47 mentions the possibility of armed resistance. Then 'one of them' cut off the servant's ear. No names yet. Luke mentions Jesus healed he servant's ear.

John 18:1-11 gives the most detailed account of the incident. It is the only one to identify Peter and Malchus.

Allow me to express doubt over the accounts attempting to cover for Peter. Too many of the Temple police were on hand for Peter NOT to have been seen and recognized.

I can see two possibilities. One is that the synoptic Gospel writers were trying to be brief in their accounts. The other - and more likely in my mind is the various statements were based on eye-witness observations. Those observations were made from different occasions, limiting vision and observation. So all the people present saw - or didn't see - different aspects of the event.

Ask any lawman, eyewitness testimony is typically the least solid type of evidence. I do not doubt the working of Divine Inspiration, but God never inspired writers to claim to see what they did not see in fact.

 

[elliott95]

Matthew 26:47-56 records a version of the arrest in the Garden. It mentions one of the bystanders using a sword, striking the High Priest's servant and cutting off the servant's ear; no names mentioned.

Mark 14:43-52 closely parallels the account in Matthew. Again one of the bystanders with a sword, striking and cutting off the servant's ear; no names mentioned.

Luke 22:47 mentions the possibility of armed resistance. Then 'one of them' cut off the servant's ear. No names yet. Luke mentions Jesus healed he servant's ear.

John 18:1-11 gives the most detailed account of the incident. It is the only one to identify Peter and Malchus.

Allow me to express doubt over the accounts attempting to cover for Peter. Too many of the Temple police were on hand for Peter NOT to have been seen and recognized.

I can see two possibilities. One is that the synoptic Gospel writers were trying to be brief in their accounts. The other - and more likely in my mind is the various statements were based on eye-witness observations. Those observations were made from different occasions, limiting vision and observation. So all the people present saw - or didn't see - different aspects of the event.

Ask any lawman, eyewitness testimony is typically the least solid type of evidence. I do not doubt the working of Divine Inspiration, but God never inspired writers to claim to see what they did not see in fact.

The problem I would have from your second accounting is that the Gospels, whoever they were written by, were apostolic in that they would have been in personal contact with Peter.
He especially would be in a position to know who did it.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I wanna know who the naked guy was that ran off during Jesus's arrest in Mark.

 

[Jig]

I wanna know who the naked guy was that ran off during Jesus's arrest in Mark.

What I find most interesting about these two verses (Mark 15:51-52) is that it seems almost unbelievable. Remember this happened on a chilling night.

And this guy only had on a thin linen cloth? In Mark 15:54 - two verses later (and an hour or so later) - Peter fully dressed including a cloak is huddling close to an open fire to keep warm.

Whoever this naked guy was - he must have been very COLD.

Who would take a hike to Gethsemane in inadequate clothing? The only plausible answer is: he was in a hurry to get there and didn't have time to put on warmer clothing.

 

[elliott95]

There are religious connotations to the white linen, which is associated with the priestly, and there is also the allusion to the scapegoat which is sent out to perish in the desert, according to Levitican sacrificial ritual practices.

In the Gospels, theology takes precedence, and the historical plot is usually incidental to the actual meaning of the story that is being conveyed.

There is every possibility that the name of Peter has some theological significance in the Gospel of John in relation to this ear-cutting event that it did not have in Mark.
I am unaware of what that would be though.

 

[YoureMyBeloved]

What I find most interesting about these two verses (Mark 15:51-52) is that it seems almost unbelievable. Remember this happened on a chilling night.

And this guy only had on a thin linen cloth? In Mark 15:54 - two verses later (and an hour or so later) - Peter fully dressed including a cloak is huddling close to an open fire to keep warm.

Whoever this naked guy was - he must have been very COLD.

Who would take a hike to Gethsemane in inadequate clothing? The only plausible answer is: he was in a hurry to get there and didn't have time to put on warmer clothing.

This or another hypothesis already suggested; maybe the boy was dead and has risen. This could also explain the linen cloth.

As for the answers to my question, maybe they wanted to protect Peter, maybe they didn't know but the author of John, maybe it means nothing...I just remembered the Gospel of Matthew says Jesus disciples asked him about the place they would prepare the Passover ;the Gospel of Mark talks about two disciples and the Gospel of Luke says the disciples were Peter and John and I don't know why would their names be omitted. :

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The problem I would have from your second accounting is that the Gospels, whoever they were written by, were apostolic in that they would have been in personal contact with Peter.
He especially would be in a position to know who did it.

Fair enough.

I'm not convinced that the sharing of memories would automatically result in a statement of fact not witnessed. But it surely could have been.

I have personally written any number of statements using the phrase "... I encountered a person, later identified as XXX." But I knew I was writing a statement to be reviewed and cross examined later. The writers of the gospels may not have realized their works were going to be carefully examined and cross examined for two millennia and counting.

All in all, your 'problem' is reasonable.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I wanna know who the naked guy was that ran off during Jesus's arrest in Mark.

One school of thought is Mark himself. He was young and apparently lived at home. The theory is his Mom confiscated his clothing to keep him home; Mom worried something was going to happen. So Mark took the sheet off his bed, wrapped up and snuck out.

It was Mark's way of getting some 'press time' and supplement his credentials as being one who actually knew what happened.

I like it and it seems reasonable. I will not lose sleep or bet my soul on it being true.

 

[YoureMyBeloved]

One school of thought is Mark himself. He was young and apparently lived at home. The theory is his Mom confiscated his clothing to keep him home; Mom worried something was going to happen. So Mark took the sheet off his bed, wrapped up and snuck out.

It was Mark's way of getting some 'press time' and supplement his credentials as being one who actually knew what happened.

I like it and it seems reasonable. I will not lose sleep or bet my soul on it being true.

Good theory!