Did Peter attack the servents ears?

[studychristian]

Because as I read this morning the Gospel’s tellings of Jesus arrests, 3 of the 4 arrest say that a compannion or disciple of Jesus attacked the servents, but Gospel of John says it was Peter. Was it Peter, as in should we believe Gospel of John fully understood what happened at Jesus arrest, that attacked the servent?

 

[George_Stegmeir]

When did the English translation of the New Testament say that it was a servant that had his ear cut off by St. Peter? I grew up with the reading at Mass stating that it was one of the soldiers who had his ear cut off.

 

[studychristian]

I read in NIV, which is an Protestant version of the Bible and it says in Gospel of John that Peter cut off the ear of one of the men in the crowd using a sword

 

[Daizies]

So I compared the NIV, New Jerusalem Bible, and Douay-Rheims versions, and they all essentially say the same thing as each other. They all say it was the servant of the High Priest, and the Gospel of John identifies the companion mentioned in the other 3 as St. Peter. If I remember correctly, John’s gospel is the oldest of the four, and was likely that it was written after St. Peter’s martyrdom. Perhaps the other writers were trying to spare Peter some embarrassment? I don’t know, but I do find it interesting that the companion who cut off the servant’s ear was not identified in the gospels as St. Peter until after his death.

 

[Daizies]

I was talking with someone else about this, and he made a good point. Perhaps the reason St. Peter was not identified in the gospels written before his death is that he likely would have been killed for daring to attack the servant of the High Priest. So to allow him to continue his mission, he wasn’t named - and by the time St. John was writing his gospel, there was no longer the need to keep it silent. Interesting thought at any rate.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus.

John 19:10 [RSV-CE]

Note two things. It appears that he was not very skilled with the sword; He only got his ear.

Two, it was the right ear. Either Peter was left handed, or he hit him from behind.

Often wish John had given a bit more detail.

 

[Church_Militant]

Notice also what St. Luke’s account includes that the others do not.

[51] But Jesus answering, said: Suffer ye thus far. And when he had touched his ear, he healed him.

It’s surprising that they could carry on and still arrest Our Lord, but then the prophecies had to be fulfilled.

 

[patrick457]

When did the English translation of the New Testament say that it was a servant that had his ear cut off by St. Peter? I grew up with the reading at Mass stating that it was one of the soldiers who had his ear cut off.

Since John Wycliff. I mean, that’s what the text really says:

And behold - one of those with Jesus, having stretched out the hand, drew his sword, and having struck the slave of the high priest (doulon tou archiereōs), he took off his ear.

And they laid on him their hands, and kept hold on him; and a certain one of those standing by, having drawn the sword, struck the slave of the high priest (doulon tou archiereōs), and took off his ear.

And a certain one of them smote the slave of the high priest (tou archiereōs ton doulon), and took off his right ear, and Jesus answering, said, “Enough of this!” And having touched his ear, he healed him.

Simon Peter, therefore, having a sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest (ton tou archiereōs doulon), and cut off his right ear - and the name of the servant was Malchus. Jesus, therefore, said to Peter, “Put the sword into the sheath; the cup that the Father has given to me, shall I not drink it?”

 

[PoorKnight]

John 19:10 [RSV-CE]

Note two things. ** It appears that he was not very skilled with the sword; He only got his ear.**
Two, it was the right ear. Either Peter was left handed, or he hit him from behind.

Often wish John had given a bit more detail.

HA! Someone who finally saw what I’ve seen out of this! I’ve often said, what the heck was a fisherman doing holding a sword! If he’d have been a soldier / city guard Jesus would’ve had to raise another person from the dead!

Sorry, nothing to add to the OP just had to post this 'cause I’ve not found anyone else who realised this.

 

[patrick457]

HA! Someone who finally saw what I’ve seen out of this! I’ve often said, what the heck was a fisherman doing holding a sword! If he’d have been a soldier / city guard Jesus would’ve had to raise another person from the dead!

Sorry, nothing to add to the OP just had to post this 'cause I’ve not found anyone else who realised this.

You also have to remember that this probably isn’t even a proper sword (a la the Roman gladius) but a dagger or a knife - the all-purpose kind you would have carried with you. I know the analogy is a bit off, but it’s really comparable to attacking someone not with a Desert Eagle but with a kitchen knife or even a fork.