J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
John 18:10
To strike someone on the right ear one would have to be holding the sword in ones left hand, or be standing behind him. Wonder why St John specified the right ear.
- Status
To strike someone on the right ear one would have to be holding the sword in ones left hand, or be standing behind him. Wonder why St John specified the right ear.
G
Gorgias
Guest
No; it’s just that a right-handed person couldn’t be standing directly in front of him and get to his right ear. If they were at a 45 degree angle to one another – or, if the slave turned and ducked as Peter swung – then he easily could’ve cut his right ear…
M
Mintaka
Guest
John probably specified because while Malchus was still alive, he probably had people coming up to look at his ear all the time, comparing it to the ear that had never needed healing.
I hadn’t noticed before this year that in John, he says that the last servant who bugged Peter (the one who’s noted to be a girl in other versions) was a relative of Malchus. And since John apparently knew the high priest and his household pretty well, these were all folks he knew.
Heck, they might have been bugging him to put it in.
“John, make sure you put in my granddaddy’s ear! It was the right one!”
“I know it was the right one. Every year, Malchus made sure to show it off. And he was always giving Peter heck about it.”
“Then don’t forget to put it in!”
“Arggggh… fine… just to get you off my back…”
I hadn’t noticed before this year that in John, he says that the last servant who bugged Peter (the one who’s noted to be a girl in other versions) was a relative of Malchus. And since John apparently knew the high priest and his household pretty well, these were all folks he knew.
Heck, they might have been bugging him to put it in.
“John, make sure you put in my granddaddy’s ear! It was the right one!”
“I know it was the right one. Every year, Malchus made sure to show it off. And he was always giving Peter heck about it.”
“Then don’t forget to put it in!”
“Arggggh… fine… just to get you off my back…”
T
Telstar
Guest
I’m not sure why you would think that. Since Peter was carrying a sword, I’m sure he must have been very adept at using it. His intent was to protect Jesus. I sincerely doubt that he was trying to kill the man, but he was certainly trying to send a clear message for him to back off and leave Jesus alone. If Peter was standing slightly to the left of the man, then his right ear would have been a clear target. Right?
G
GEddie
Guest
We don’t know how much of a swordsman SP was. And for all we know, he could have bought it right after our LORD said to do so.
For that matter, a two-handed sword could be swung either way, and where it hit would depend which way both bodies were moving at the moment of impact.
ICXC NIKA
For that matter, a two-handed sword could be swung either way, and where it hit would depend which way both bodies were moving at the moment of impact.
ICXC NIKA
D
Della
Guest
I saw a documentary in which a man who is an expert in ancient weapons describe the “sword” Peter would have carried. It wasn’t a Roman sword, which was broad and short but more like a large two-edged tapering knife–the kind Jesus probably meant when he said that the Spirit is like a two-edged sword. The expert said that most first century Jewish men carried them for personal protection from thieves on the road and for eating. So, with that in mind, Peter probably was lefthanded if he make his strike from the front.
B
bitznbitez
Guest
Either way the apostles weren’t a bunch of pacifists. I mean at the last supper they produced no less than 2 swords. Simon Peter and… blind guess SImon the Zealot.
P
patrick457
Guest
To be fair, we don’t know whether Simon was really a Zealot, since zelotes could very well be just be an adjective (‘zealous’) than a job description (‘Zealot’ - i.e. a freedom fighter/terrorist, depending on your POV).
Though yeah, the later Sicarii did carry short, curved daggers.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
P
patrick457
Guest
Well, there was really no such thing as a two-handed sword at that part of the world during that time period then. There was the falx (which was wielded with both hands) but that was more like a scythe than a sword.
S
steve53
Guest
Nice find. Is that an actual Sicarii first century curved dagger? Where can it be seen?
Mark121359
Well-known member
M
Mintaka
Guest
Most of the Biblical lefties were in the tribe of Benjamin. A hot-tempered, high-handed bunch of soldiers who were tough to fight. A lot of those guys were slingers (very scary stuff in ancient troops!), and they had some ambidextrous swordsmen.
P
patrick457
Guest
I don’t think so, though maybe it could very well be a Roman sica.
B
bitznbitez
Guest
Where does this information come from ?
S
Sarcelle
Guest
As a lefty myself, I find this factoid very interesting.
P
patrick457
Guest
I think a better (if longish) answer would be, “We have nothing in our available sources that suggest Peter was left-handed, nor anything that suggests that he wasn’t.” In other words, the gospels neither confirm nor deny.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
I have read, and think reasonable, that left-handers were not suited to fight as swordsmen. Their shield would be on the right and sword on the left. It would break the defensive line of shields, and would be ill placed for self defense. Therefore they went for slings and bows.
D
Della
Guest
Another tidbit from the ancient weapons expert I saw in the documentary, he said that cutting off an ear was done to mark someone who had betrayed/grossly insulted someone. So, Peter wasn’t trying to kill the man, but merely to mark him as a traitor. It was an act of vengence not of attempted murder. Apparently, Peter knew that man–and for some reason felt he deserved the blow more than the others with him. John seems to have known the man as well because he was familiar with some of those who worked in the High Priest’s household. So, it probably wasn’t a rash, random act that Peter did, but aimed at a particular person for a particular reason. By healing the man Jesus showed that we are not to exact revenge/vengence in his name.
This doesn’t mean, of course, that people can’t be held accountable for crimes, rather we are not to take personal actions against others we believe have wronged us. All this to say, that if Peter struck from the back, he’d have done it with his right hand. But, if Peter wanted to make a statement, he would probably have struck from the front. It could be the man turned to avoid the blow and so his right ear was struck as Peter came at him from the front. The scriptural account doesn’t go into all the details. The Gospel writer had no need to explain the situation to his readers, who would have been familiar with the cultural setting and the weapons involved. He merely wanted to show that Our Lord had no intention of resisting and that he, even in that moment, wanted to teach us to love our enemies.
This doesn’t mean, of course, that people can’t be held accountable for crimes, rather we are not to take personal actions against others we believe have wronged us. All this to say, that if Peter struck from the back, he’d have done it with his right hand. But, if Peter wanted to make a statement, he would probably have struck from the front. It could be the man turned to avoid the blow and so his right ear was struck as Peter came at him from the front. The scriptural account doesn’t go into all the details. The Gospel writer had no need to explain the situation to his readers, who would have been familiar with the cultural setting and the weapons involved. He merely wanted to show that Our Lord had no intention of resisting and that he, even in that moment, wanted to teach us to love our enemies.
- Status