John 18: 19 - 23 (RSV):
[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
[20] Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.
[21] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
[23] Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"
Another curious factoid I found in Proofing Teeple's Book on GJohn. He states this:
"The Sinaitic Syriac manuscript of the canonical gospels has the central section of John 18 in this order: verses 12-13, 24, 14-15, 19-23, 16-18, 25."
Look for a moment at this fragment. In a way, this makes sense. There is a problem, however. The High Priest is asking a question about the "disciples and his teaching". Let's move Verses 21 and 22 to a position after 19:
[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
[21] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
This, as Jay Raskin might say, makes much better sense. The High Priest asks a question about the disciples and teaching. Jesus, with a little edge in his voice now, answers and gets a swift backhand in the snoot for his troubles. That might be reason enough for the Order since "Jesus, the Son of God", can't get all huffy about things. Isn't that all there is?
No, not really. Jesus doesn't refer to "His Disciples" at all. "Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said." Well! This has to be the Disciples, correct? Not necessarily.
Further, we are left with an awkward and interesting order:
[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
[21] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
[20] Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.
[23] Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"
With this ordering, "Jesus answered him..." appears twice consecutively. In fact, it reads better yet with 20 and 23 switched:
[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
[21] [Jesus answered the High Priest,] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
[23] Jesus answered [the officer], "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"
[20] [He turned to the High Priest and said,] "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.
This reads very smooth, if you can excuse the insertions. BTW, "...where all Jews come together..." may be such an addition, I dunno. "I always taught..." echoes the Synoptics, certainly.
I know, I know, don't go looking for trouble. I already reordered GJohn 11. Something isn't as smooth as it should be in the Order of these verses. The early Scribe may be onto something.
CW
John 18: 19 - 23
Re: John 18: 19 - 23
Jesus lied to the high Priest. He only spoke openly to his disciples. Everyone else was spoken to in parables. Matthew 13: 13,34. Luke 8: 10. Mark 4: 33. I'm not disagreeing with what you write, but after reading the above triggered other scripture teaching. I enjoy reading all the posts.
Re: John 18: 19 - 23
As you recognized, Charles,
John 19:20 does not fit where it is placed. Even Teeple's fine-tuning did not separate out this verse as from "G". I had not myself extracted it from "E" to "G" until you pointed this out. John 19:20 was drawn from the voluminous Discourse material, and should be G in my expansion of what Teeple regarded as pre-existing text. Conversely, I would shrink the boundaries of E to be more purely what the Editor added.
My revision would continue the narrative Source "S" from all the G and E verses that Teeple (so typically) hyper-criticized. I would have S start at John 19:15 unbroken through 19:22 except for said 19:20.
It may help clarity and perspective to add that I regard an expanded G as from Nicodemus and the more limited E to be from the Apostle John.
John 19:20 does not fit where it is placed. Even Teeple's fine-tuning did not separate out this verse as from "G". I had not myself extracted it from "E" to "G" until you pointed this out. John 19:20 was drawn from the voluminous Discourse material, and should be G in my expansion of what Teeple regarded as pre-existing text. Conversely, I would shrink the boundaries of E to be more purely what the Editor added.
My revision would continue the narrative Source "S" from all the G and E verses that Teeple (so typically) hyper-criticized. I would have S start at John 19:15 unbroken through 19:22 except for said 19:20.
It may help clarity and perspective to add that I regard an expanded G as from Nicodemus and the more limited E to be from the Apostle John.
-
Charles Wilson
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: John 18: 19 - 23
1. Thank you, Garon.
1 Peter 2: 22 (RSV):
[22] He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips.
Such is the problem of reconciling Scripture. It may have been the reason this group of verses in John 18 ended up as they did - Jesus cannot be seen as being rude, he must have his Disciples.
2. As usual, Adam, I thank you for this. I will probably add to the comments later via Edit or another Post.
Teeple, Literary Origin of the Gospel of John, p 148:
"G
"The use by the editor of a written source, "RQ, " which consisted of a collection of revelation discourses, or speeches, is a major feature in Bultmann's hypothesis. Schnackenburg, however, flatly rejects the existence of any "logia or discourse source" and “ascribes to the redactor the "clearly defined complexes of discourse which interrrupt the flow of the presentation . . . " Although Bultmann erred in his views on the nature and content of Q speech source, he, not Schnackenburg, is right on the issue of the existence of such a source.
"Some of the speech material definitely comes from a written source. It contains linguistic features not found in the writing of either the editor or the redactor. One feature in particular is prevalent enough and distinctive enough to prove the existence of a source G: the possessive adjective, with the article repeated with both the adjective and the noun occurs in John 29 times and every occurrence is in G. The fact that this construction never occurs in S, E, or R demonstrates that it is in a source and the source is not S. ..."
3.
On another thread, Michael BG asks me about the Methodology I use. One aspect I use is to look for an unusual word in a Story that just-sits-there waiting to be examined. In several places (John 21, for example), there is an unusual phrase, "Charcoal fire".
John 18: 15 - 18 (RSV):
[15] Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus,
[16] while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
[17] The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not."
[18] Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.
In an old, old Thread you will find a discussion of whether much of the Gospels, especially Mark, is taken from a Play. Notice the entire section verses 15 - 23 (With some manipulation of the awkward Verse 20) reads as a Play. It would difficult to have a Stage Scene with a roaring fire. A charcoal fire would be much easier to imply. We may yet get to the Amphitheater in Caesarea.
Imagine my surprise then when I found this:
" Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth
Folio 28a (In Part):
"On that day the doorkeeper was removed and permission was given to the disciples to enter. For Rabban Gamaliel had issued a proclamation [saying]. No disciple whose character does not correspond to his exterior may enter the Beth ha-Midrash.
"On that day Judah, an Ammonite proselyte, came before them in the Beth ha-Midrash. He said to them: Am I permitted to enter the assembly? R. Joshua said to him: You are permitted to enter the congregation. Said Rabban Gamaliel to him: Is it not already laid down, At Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord? R. Joshua replied to him: Do Ammon and Moab still reside in their original homes? Sennacherib king of Assyria long ago went up and mixed up all the nations, as it says, I have removed the bounds of the peoples and have robbed their treasures and have brought down as one mighty their inhabitants; and whatever strays [from a group] is assumed to belong to the larger section of the group. Said Rabban Gamaliel to him: But has it not been said: But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon, saith the Lord, so that they have already returned? To which R. Joshua replied: And has it not been said, And I will turn the captivity of My people Israel, and they have not yet returned? Forthwith they permitted him to enter the congregation. Rabban Gamaliel thereupon said: This being the case, I will go and apologize to R. Joshua. When he reached his house he saw that the walls were black. He said to him: From the walls of your house it is apparent that you are a charcoal-burner. He replied: Alas for the generation of which you are the leader, seeing that you know nothing of the troubles of the scholars, their struggles to support and sustain themselves! He said to him: I apologize. forgive me. He paid no attention to him. Do it, he said, out of respect for my father. He then became reconciled to him. They said: Who will go and tell the Rabbis? A certain fuller said to them: I will go. R. Joshua sent a message to the Beth hamidrash saying: Let him who is accustomed to wear the robe wear it; shall he who is not accustomed to wear the robe say to him who is accustomed to wear it, Take off your robe and I will put it on? Said R. Akiba to the Rabbis: Lock the doors so that the servants of Rabban Gamaliel should not come and upset the Rabbis. Said R. Joshua: I had better get up and go to them. He came and knocked at the door. He said to them: Let the sprinkler son of a sprinkler sprinkle; shall he who is neither a sprinkler nor the son of a sprinkler say to a sprinkler son of a sprinkler, Your water is cave water and your ashes are oven ashes?
There are notes aplenty that I left out except for 2 at the end of the Text:
Regarding "Cave Water": "And not living water as required, v. Num. XIX, 27."
Regarding "oven ashes": "And not from the Red Heifer."
Now, there is no "Numbers 19: 27". Numbers 19 only goes to 22 as far as I can see. There is, however, a verse 17:
Numbers 19: 14 -17 (RSV):
[14] "This is the law when a man dies in a tent: every one who comes into the tent, and every one who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.
[15] And every open vessel, which has no cover fastened upon it, is unclean.
[16] Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
[17] For the unclean they shall take some ashes of the burnt sin offering, and running water shall be added in a vessel;
I've quoted this before. Numbers plays an intersting Role in the Gospels. I believe it shows that "Jesus" was Unclean at the Passover, the FIRST Passover of the "Year of his Death". There can be a Second Passover each year and it covers those who have been near a dead body with cooking utensils or one who is a Sojourner. Joseph of Arimathea could not have attended the First Passover since he touched the body of Jesus. "As for Jesus?"
Who studied the Book of Numbers?
Yohanan ben Zakkai.
(Wiki-P): "Jewish tradition records Yohanan ben Zakkai as being extremely dedicated to religious study, claiming that no one ever found him engaged in anything but study...and he is known for establishing a number of edicts in the post-destruction era...He was challenged to resolve several biblical curiosities by a Roman commander, who was familiar with the Torah, but whose name has been lost in confusion. Among the issues were the fact that the numbers in the Book of Numbers didn't add up to their totals, and the reasoning behind the ritual of the red heifer...
"He is also quoted as saying:
"If you are holding a sapling in your hand and someone tells you, 'Come quickly, the messiah is here!', first finish planting the tree and then go to greet the messiah." "
"Is the Story of Peter getting into the Courtyard a Midrash of Judah the Ammonite being allowed into the Assembly of the Lord?" This gets more interesting by the moment.
CW
1 Peter 2: 22 (RSV):
[22] He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips.
Such is the problem of reconciling Scripture. It may have been the reason this group of verses in John 18 ended up as they did - Jesus cannot be seen as being rude, he must have his Disciples.
2. As usual, Adam, I thank you for this. I will probably add to the comments later via Edit or another Post.
Teeple, Literary Origin of the Gospel of John, p 148:
"G
"The use by the editor of a written source, "RQ, " which consisted of a collection of revelation discourses, or speeches, is a major feature in Bultmann's hypothesis. Schnackenburg, however, flatly rejects the existence of any "logia or discourse source" and “ascribes to the redactor the "clearly defined complexes of discourse which interrrupt the flow of the presentation . . . " Although Bultmann erred in his views on the nature and content of Q speech source, he, not Schnackenburg, is right on the issue of the existence of such a source.
"Some of the speech material definitely comes from a written source. It contains linguistic features not found in the writing of either the editor or the redactor. One feature in particular is prevalent enough and distinctive enough to prove the existence of a source G: the possessive adjective, with the article repeated with both the adjective and the noun occurs in John 29 times and every occurrence is in G. The fact that this construction never occurs in S, E, or R demonstrates that it is in a source and the source is not S. ..."
3.
You got me started! As always, I'm looking for Location, Location, Location. Who wrote the Jewish/Mishmarot material and inserted it into the NT? We know that at the Destruction of the Temple, Rabbinical Judaism was allowed to form and that there were Non-Rabbinical Communities in Galilee, especially Upper Galilee. See: Weitzman's Syriac Communities.Adam wrote: I would have S start at John 19:15 unbroken through 19:22 except for said 19:20.
On another thread, Michael BG asks me about the Methodology I use. One aspect I use is to look for an unusual word in a Story that just-sits-there waiting to be examined. In several places (John 21, for example), there is an unusual phrase, "Charcoal fire".
John 18: 15 - 18 (RSV):
[15] Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus,
[16] while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
[17] The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not."
[18] Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.
In an old, old Thread you will find a discussion of whether much of the Gospels, especially Mark, is taken from a Play. Notice the entire section verses 15 - 23 (With some manipulation of the awkward Verse 20) reads as a Play. It would difficult to have a Stage Scene with a roaring fire. A charcoal fire would be much easier to imply. We may yet get to the Amphitheater in Caesarea.
Imagine my surprise then when I found this:
" Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth
Folio 28a (In Part):
"On that day the doorkeeper was removed and permission was given to the disciples to enter. For Rabban Gamaliel had issued a proclamation [saying]. No disciple whose character does not correspond to his exterior may enter the Beth ha-Midrash.
"On that day Judah, an Ammonite proselyte, came before them in the Beth ha-Midrash. He said to them: Am I permitted to enter the assembly? R. Joshua said to him: You are permitted to enter the congregation. Said Rabban Gamaliel to him: Is it not already laid down, At Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord? R. Joshua replied to him: Do Ammon and Moab still reside in their original homes? Sennacherib king of Assyria long ago went up and mixed up all the nations, as it says, I have removed the bounds of the peoples and have robbed their treasures and have brought down as one mighty their inhabitants; and whatever strays [from a group] is assumed to belong to the larger section of the group. Said Rabban Gamaliel to him: But has it not been said: But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon, saith the Lord, so that they have already returned? To which R. Joshua replied: And has it not been said, And I will turn the captivity of My people Israel, and they have not yet returned? Forthwith they permitted him to enter the congregation. Rabban Gamaliel thereupon said: This being the case, I will go and apologize to R. Joshua. When he reached his house he saw that the walls were black. He said to him: From the walls of your house it is apparent that you are a charcoal-burner. He replied: Alas for the generation of which you are the leader, seeing that you know nothing of the troubles of the scholars, their struggles to support and sustain themselves! He said to him: I apologize. forgive me. He paid no attention to him. Do it, he said, out of respect for my father. He then became reconciled to him. They said: Who will go and tell the Rabbis? A certain fuller said to them: I will go. R. Joshua sent a message to the Beth hamidrash saying: Let him who is accustomed to wear the robe wear it; shall he who is not accustomed to wear the robe say to him who is accustomed to wear it, Take off your robe and I will put it on? Said R. Akiba to the Rabbis: Lock the doors so that the servants of Rabban Gamaliel should not come and upset the Rabbis. Said R. Joshua: I had better get up and go to them. He came and knocked at the door. He said to them: Let the sprinkler son of a sprinkler sprinkle; shall he who is neither a sprinkler nor the son of a sprinkler say to a sprinkler son of a sprinkler, Your water is cave water and your ashes are oven ashes?
There are notes aplenty that I left out except for 2 at the end of the Text:
Regarding "Cave Water": "And not living water as required, v. Num. XIX, 27."
Regarding "oven ashes": "And not from the Red Heifer."
Now, there is no "Numbers 19: 27". Numbers 19 only goes to 22 as far as I can see. There is, however, a verse 17:
Numbers 19: 14 -17 (RSV):
[14] "This is the law when a man dies in a tent: every one who comes into the tent, and every one who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.
[15] And every open vessel, which has no cover fastened upon it, is unclean.
[16] Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
[17] For the unclean they shall take some ashes of the burnt sin offering, and running water shall be added in a vessel;
I've quoted this before. Numbers plays an intersting Role in the Gospels. I believe it shows that "Jesus" was Unclean at the Passover, the FIRST Passover of the "Year of his Death". There can be a Second Passover each year and it covers those who have been near a dead body with cooking utensils or one who is a Sojourner. Joseph of Arimathea could not have attended the First Passover since he touched the body of Jesus. "As for Jesus?"
Who studied the Book of Numbers?
Yohanan ben Zakkai.
(Wiki-P): "Jewish tradition records Yohanan ben Zakkai as being extremely dedicated to religious study, claiming that no one ever found him engaged in anything but study...and he is known for establishing a number of edicts in the post-destruction era...He was challenged to resolve several biblical curiosities by a Roman commander, who was familiar with the Torah, but whose name has been lost in confusion. Among the issues were the fact that the numbers in the Book of Numbers didn't add up to their totals, and the reasoning behind the ritual of the red heifer...
"He is also quoted as saying:
"If you are holding a sapling in your hand and someone tells you, 'Come quickly, the messiah is here!', first finish planting the tree and then go to greet the messiah." "
"Is the Story of Peter getting into the Courtyard a Midrash of Judah the Ammonite being allowed into the Assembly of the Lord?" This gets more interesting by the moment.
CW
-
Charles Wilson
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: John 18: 19 - 23
One thing leads to another and I always try to find the n + 1 in the sequence.
In the above Post, I noted that I had included only 2 notes to the sentence given from the Babylonian Talmud, "...shall he who is neither a sprinkler nor the son of a sprinkler say to a sprinkler son of a sprinkler, Your water is cave water." One of them was:
Note: "And not living water as required, v. Num. XIX, 27."
If "running water" is referred to as "living water", then:
John 4: 7 - 12 (RSV):
[7] There came a woman of Samar'ia to draw water. Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink."
[8] For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.
[9] The Samaritan woman said to him, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samar'ia?" For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.
[10] Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, `Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water."
[11] The woman said to him, "Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep; where do you get that living water?
[12] Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?"
There is a joke in verse 9 about the Samaritan woman mistaking the person talking to her as a Jew. Moving on...
That this passage is concerned with lack of water is shown by verse 12. This is a deep well with an implied difficulty in getting even a gourd of water and yet the memory of it is that it once provided enough water to feed families and cattle. "...and he would have given you living water": The meaning is Transvalued again. "Where do you get that living water?"
Answer: At any stream or river. This is a discussion about almost desert-like conditions, not about a Religious Awakening (although it's a short step to that...).
CW
In the above Post, I noted that I had included only 2 notes to the sentence given from the Babylonian Talmud, "...shall he who is neither a sprinkler nor the son of a sprinkler say to a sprinkler son of a sprinkler, Your water is cave water." One of them was:
Note: "And not living water as required, v. Num. XIX, 27."
If "running water" is referred to as "living water", then:
John 4: 7 - 12 (RSV):
[7] There came a woman of Samar'ia to draw water. Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink."
[8] For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.
[9] The Samaritan woman said to him, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samar'ia?" For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.
[10] Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, `Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water."
[11] The woman said to him, "Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep; where do you get that living water?
[12] Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?"
There is a joke in verse 9 about the Samaritan woman mistaking the person talking to her as a Jew. Moving on...
That this passage is concerned with lack of water is shown by verse 12. This is a deep well with an implied difficulty in getting even a gourd of water and yet the memory of it is that it once provided enough water to feed families and cattle. "...and he would have given you living water": The meaning is Transvalued again. "Where do you get that living water?"
Answer: At any stream or river. This is a discussion about almost desert-like conditions, not about a Religious Awakening (although it's a short step to that...).
CW
-
Charles Wilson
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: John 18: 19 - 23
John 18: 19-21-22-23-20 (RSV, Edited):
[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
[21] [Jesus answered the High Priest,] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
[23] Jesus answered [the officer], "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"
[20] [He turned to the High Priest and said,] "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.
A coupla' final points about this passage:
Note that only verse 19 is a Non-Dialogue verse. In using our "Stage-Play-Language" idea, we have to be able to get across the idea as the scene unfolds that the High Priest is asking questions. The High Priest could easily have said something like, "Tell me about your Disciples. What have you taught them?" Similarly, the entire scene could have been written in descriptive language with no dialogue. "Jesus" could/should have responded, "Ask MY DISCIPLES what I said...". He did not.
As a "dialogue passage", look at this:
[19] The high priest [then questioned Jesus, "Have you told these people of yours that they will soon have freedom from Herod at Passover?"]
[21] [Jesus answered the High Priest,] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
[23] Jesus answered [the officer], "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"
The orphan Verse 20 now has a greater meaning. If Jesus admits that he is plotting a Coup against Herod and the Romans, he will probably be executed immediately. It is entirely analogous to Peter at the door denying Jesus. The rewrite of the Story hides the fact that this Priest - that is the character here - could tell students, for example, that they would have Eternal Remembered Glory if they would knock down the Eagle from the top of the Temple. He could not tell them that they should find Herod and kill him. The scene would be replayed. The students would tell, under torture, that a Priest told them to kill Herod - "I didn't tell them to kill Herod. I told them about Remembered Glory".
He has to tell the followers that Leviticus 26, for example, gives them hope that if they stand with God to Rededicate the Temple, God will stand with them (and eliminate Herod and the Romans...).
This gives evidence that Verse 20 is also slightly rewritten. At the end, Verse 20 appears as it does to hide the Semitic Story. "Jesus" has spoken openly. The High Priest understands although someone such as Nicodemus, "A ruler of the Jews", does not: "You must be born again". You must be free (From the Sumerian "Amargi", "Return to Mother") and throw off the Yoke of Bondage of Herod and the Romans. To hide that fact in plain sight, Verse 20 is inserted to deflect the dialogue with the appearance of continuing a "Jesus Story".
[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
[20] Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.
[21] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
[23] Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"
[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
[21] [Jesus answered the High Priest,] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
[23] Jesus answered [the officer], "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"
[20] [He turned to the High Priest and said,] "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.
A coupla' final points about this passage:
Note that only verse 19 is a Non-Dialogue verse. In using our "Stage-Play-Language" idea, we have to be able to get across the idea as the scene unfolds that the High Priest is asking questions. The High Priest could easily have said something like, "Tell me about your Disciples. What have you taught them?" Similarly, the entire scene could have been written in descriptive language with no dialogue. "Jesus" could/should have responded, "Ask MY DISCIPLES what I said...". He did not.
As a "dialogue passage", look at this:
[19] The high priest [then questioned Jesus, "Have you told these people of yours that they will soon have freedom from Herod at Passover?"]
[21] [Jesus answered the High Priest,] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
[23] Jesus answered [the officer], "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"
The orphan Verse 20 now has a greater meaning. If Jesus admits that he is plotting a Coup against Herod and the Romans, he will probably be executed immediately. It is entirely analogous to Peter at the door denying Jesus. The rewrite of the Story hides the fact that this Priest - that is the character here - could tell students, for example, that they would have Eternal Remembered Glory if they would knock down the Eagle from the top of the Temple. He could not tell them that they should find Herod and kill him. The scene would be replayed. The students would tell, under torture, that a Priest told them to kill Herod - "I didn't tell them to kill Herod. I told them about Remembered Glory".
He has to tell the followers that Leviticus 26, for example, gives them hope that if they stand with God to Rededicate the Temple, God will stand with them (and eliminate Herod and the Romans...).
This gives evidence that Verse 20 is also slightly rewritten. At the end, Verse 20 appears as it does to hide the Semitic Story. "Jesus" has spoken openly. The High Priest understands although someone such as Nicodemus, "A ruler of the Jews", does not: "You must be born again". You must be free (From the Sumerian "Amargi", "Return to Mother") and throw off the Yoke of Bondage of Herod and the Romans. To hide that fact in plain sight, Verse 20 is inserted to deflect the dialogue with the appearance of continuing a "Jesus Story".
[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
[20] Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.
[21] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
[23] Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"
Re: John 18: 19 - 23
Charles Wilson wrote:John 18: 19 - 23 (RSV):
[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
[20] Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.
[21] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
[23] Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"
CW
The problem here, is it is all a literary creation. It should not be considered a historical event.
Every sentence has a rhetorical theological motive to be arranged the way it is.
The certainty it is a heavily redacted piece often suggested to be done in 3 major stages leaves open possibilities. But you will need stronger evidence to show such text was redacted as you posit.
He probably was, plotting and executed immediatelyIf Jesus admits that he is plotting a Coup against Herod and the Romans, he will probably be executed immediately.
-
Charles Wilson
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: John 18: 19 - 23
Yep! This is almost a direct quote from conversations I've had with Joe A...some guy I know.outhouse wrote:The problem here, is it is all a literary creation. It should not be considered a historical event.
Yep!Every sentence has a rhetorical theological motive to be arranged the way it is.
Yep!The certainty it is a heavily redacted piece often suggested to be done in 3 major stages leaves open possibilities. But you will need stronger evidence to show such text was redacted as you posit.
Yep!outhouse wrote:He probably was, plotting and executed immediatelyIf Jesus admits that he is plotting a Coup against Herod and the Romans, he will probably be executed immediately.
CW
PS: I did not vote for Jeb! in the Primaries
Re: John 18: 19 - 23
That's it! George Snr, G-Dubya, & Jeb are Joseph, Jesus, & James!!Charles Wilson wrote: ... Jeb!...
-
Charles Wilson
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: John 18: 19 - 23
It we can show that Hillary is the Evil One, I might just go along with that Analysis.