It is not a Proof Text, of course, since the High Priest could have asked anything. We have the bare statement and that might be as far as it could go. It might be Complete Fiction, a rewrite of some Text from a Nicholas of Damascus or a Symbolic Report from a completely different Story.
Who knows?
Events do not occur in a Vacuum, however and the Story as given contains hints of a greater Scheme, a Non-Metaphysical Scheme at that.
First, the Thread Posting:
For Readability Purposes, I duplicate the suggested modification:Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:39 pm 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?"
Somewhere, back in the Stacks, is a Post concerning this Passage in John. The Passage is awkward. The Dialogue is not smooth. Something appears misplaced.
If you exchange the positions of the verses you can get to this:
[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
OK so far...
[21] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
This makes sense. The HP asks and Jesus answers. Then:
[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 placement also makes sense. One of the "Officials" thinks that answer is a little on the Smart-Ass side. He strikes Jesus.
[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?"
"Jesus answered him..." is doubled. The change is Intentional. One might even switch 20 and 23 and combine the result into one Saying (Over 2 verses here):
[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?"
[20]"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.
The rearranged Passage reads thus:
[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?"
[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?"
[20]"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 in a very smooth manner. There is, however, a problem. It points to uncomfortable facts: Jesus spoke openly in the Temple and to all the Jews who came there. Further, Jesus said nothing secretly.
***
What is going on here?
I believe that this Section was very important in the Original and was seen as Necessary for Inclusion in the NT but also had to be Deflected from its Original Point. The Original appears to point to the idea that the Message was well known to all who heard and was willingly received by those who heard, i.e. "The Jews". That cannot be. The Message Must be about the person, the savior/god Jesus. "...And we all know about Them Jews...". So the John Passage gets a slight edit to change the Intent.
This would have a greater meaning for a "Q" Document, however. "What was the Intent of the Passage in "Q"?"
Did it contain the same Material as in John? That would imply that "Q" was an intermediate Document, giving Original Material that had been already Processed for later Consumption in a Luke or a Matthew.
This requires further examination of John as "Corrector" of the Synoptics again. Not that John knew "Q" but why would the Corrections be needed in the first place, from a Book that was as hostile to Jewish Sensibilities as John is?
"Can you help me out here, Bernard?"
CW
[Edit Note: I stated above that verse 19 reads OK but if you look at it carefully, it reads as a "Summary". There may be much that is left out from a transition from a posited "Original Story" to the result we find in John, in this case.]
John 18: verses reordered, 19, 21, 22, 23, 20 (RSV):
[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?"
[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?"
[20]"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 reading follows a "Common-Sense" manner of speaking: The High Priest asks, Jesus answers but in a manner that deflects from the Direct Question. The Officer strikes Jesus and Jesus answers the Officer ON POINT.
Then, a Key Phrase: "...I have said nothing secretly."
This appears to be a Contradiction.
Mark 4: 10 - 14 (RSV):
[10] And when he was alone, those who were about him with the twelve asked him concerning the parables.
[11] And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables;
[12] so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven."
(BTW, look at "Kingdom of God" in verse 11 and compare with the companion Thread on Matthew's "Realm of Heaven". There is certainly something else going on here.)
There is another idea that is suggestive and certainly not a Proof Statement. It promotes Jay Raskin's view (Christs and Christianites) on Mark and John coming from a common Source:
Acts 12: 12, Acts 12: 25, Acts 15: 37 - 39 (RSV):
[12] When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.
***
[25] And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, bringing with them John whose other name was Mark.
***
[37] And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark.
[38] But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphyl'ia, and had not gone with them to the work.
[39] And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus
This is too smart by half. "Mark" and "John": Two people? Or two books that were split for Intent?
Just a thought.
On the suggestion that there may be something to this, however, we may carefully piece together a Plausible Scenario: "What did the High Priest say?" If there is no Contradiction in what Jesus said to hide things in the Synoptics against John having Jesus speaking openly, how are the 2 Linguistic Views reconciled?
***
This is a Dangerous and Deadly game. Jesus, in the Sub-Plot, is arguing against the High Priest. The High Priest knows it. Elsewhere, for example, Josephus writes of the ascension of Archelaus. The Crowds were demanding lower taxes, release of Political Prisoners and the appointment of a High Priest with "Greater Piety and Purity". Here, the Crony and Corrupt High Priest (Who may nonetheless have Prophetic Powers!...) knows that if Jesus succeeds, he will not only be out of a job but also the he might - no, probably - be killed.
The High Priest therefore MUST Trap Jesus into Betraying himself by his Speech:
1. First Iteration: "What did YOU say? What words did YOU USE concerning __________?..."
Jesus is not going to allow that: The "Truth of the Matter" is that "Jesus spoke freely to all Jews and everyone heard him", Right? However, what they heard were Parables - Jesus spoke freely but the words he spoke carried no specific POLITICAL Threats. The focus is on what the People heard (i.e., nothing) and what the disciples heard - The Parables are explained but the Disciples are too stupid to understand.
2. The High Priest has Informers. The Roman Thesis finds Titus and Domitian at War with each other in the Roman Court concerning the use of Informants. IT WOULD SEEM REASONABLE to fill in the Blanks of the Question above, based on Informer Reports:
Second Iteration: "What words did you use?...
A."We have heard that you said that you would destroy this Temple and build a new one in three days...
B. "We have heard that you will throw out the Romans, our Patrons and drive out the Herodians, our Rulers...
This focuses on Jesus' Indirection:
[21] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
If the soldiers ask the people, they get no Indictable Answers. If they ask the "Disciples" (In quotes for a reason here), they get gobble-de-gook: "Look-it, he explained it all to us but I don't have a clue as to what he was talking about...By the Way, when's Lunch?")
3. This is followed, naturally enough, by a chop on the noggin by the soldier, who sees what is happening. "The High Priest axed youse a question, BOY. Answer it or I'll learn ya' some more manners..."
Jesus answers the Officer CLEANLY. No Indirection. "W - T - F, Officer?" Seriously. You got Anger-Management Issues, don'cha?"
4. Then, the Truthful Answer...Sorta...:
"I have said nothing secretly."
AND
"And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables."
The Political Story reveals itself.
Jesus stands in front of someone who will kill him. The High Priest knows that if this Priest succeeds at the coming Passover and Feast, he and every one around him will be gone or most probably dead.
The Details are somewhat elastic but the Thrust of the Dialog seems a bit more certain.
CW