John 18: 19 - 23: "What Did the High Priest Say?"

[Charles Wilson]

I have been Puzzled by this Section recently and have been arranging and rearranging verses to find some sense in this. The following was from another Thread and gives John 18: 19 - 23 and a rearranged version that reads in a "More Smooth" manner, at least in my way of thinking. What is curious and the focus of this Thread is verse 19. It reads as a Summary of a longer set of questions.

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:

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.]

For Readability Purposes, I duplicate the suggested modification:

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

[lsayre]

The duplicated retort that "Jesus answered him" appears to perhaps be an indication of a redactional stitch. That which resides between such 'stitches' is often presumed to be an interpolation.

[Charles Wilson]

Teeple:

S
19 Then the high priest asked Jesus [arth.] about his disciples and about his teaching.

E
"Answered him Jesus [an. in P66, B, S; lac. in P75], "I openly have spoken to the world; I always taught in a synagogue and in a temple, where all the Jews come together, and in secret I spoke   

nothing. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask the ones having heard what I spoke to them. Behold [ide], these know what things I said. " [E substitutes for Jesus’ answer in S.]

S
22 And when he said these things, one of [part. gen.] the servants standing by gave a slap to Jesus [arth.], saying, "Thus do you answer the high priest?"

E
23 Answered him Jesus [an.], "if I spoke wrongly, testify about the wrong; but if well, why do you strike me?"
***

Just as I get started, something comes up. Will finish this later but notice that Teeple has identified "S" => "Source" and "E" => "Editor". "Source" does not necessarily indicate "A Source Document" and "The Redactor" was the final arbiter as to what went into the "Last Version", but the "Editor" made the major part of the Final.

In short, you're onto something again.

CW

[lsayre]

Of course the "I am not" proclamation (denial) by Peter seen in John 18:17 is repeated identically by Peter in 18:25, meaning that everything between these repeated words of Peter (which rather likely were only written once in the original) may potentially be a later insertion. Thus there appear to be multiple layers of insertions here.

[Charles Wilson]

John 18: 17 - 18 (RSV):

[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.

Much to go over here and I cannot do it justice at this moment.

'Cept to say that the VERY IMPORTANT verse 18 gives a look at the Chamber of the Hearth and the Chamber of the Flame. In the Synoptics, the people are sitting. This is the Chamber of the Hearth. In the Chamber of the Flame, they may only stand - It is Priestly and Holy. Peter makes it into the Chamber of the Flame and is therefore Priestly.

I am not arguing against what you assert here. This Section is very deep. The insertions may have been made by Those-Who-Were-There, such as Zakkai. As such, this is Uncharted Territory. BeLIEVE me when I tell, you...

CW

[Charles Wilson]

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/arti ... service-of

"Priestly Guard.

"A strict watch over the Temple was maintained, the guard being composed of three priests and twenty-one Levites. The priests were stationed one at the Chamber of the Flame ("Bet ha-Niẓoẓ"), one at the Chamber of the Hearth ("Bet ha-Moḳed"), and one at the Chamber (attic) of Abṭinas (see diagram, page 95). The Levites kept guard as follows: one at each of the five gates of the mount entrances; one at each of the four corners within the mount enclosure; one at each of the five important gates of the courts; one at each of the four corners within the court; one at the Chamber of Sacrifice; one at the Chamber of Curtains; and one behind the "Kapporet" (Holy of Holies). The captain of the guard saw that every man was alert, chastising a priest if found asleep at his post, and sometimes even punishing him by burning his shirt upon him, as a warning to others (Mid. i. 1).

"The priests were divided into twenty-four patrols ("mishmarot"), which were changed every week. The patrol was quartered partly in the Chamber of the Flame and principally in the Chamber of the Hearth, both of which were on the north side of the inner court ("'azarah"). The latter chamber was a capacious one, surmounted by a dome. Half of the chamber extended outside the court to the "ḥel," a kind of platform surrounding the courts, which was considered as secular, in contrast to the sacred premises within, where the priests were not allowed to sit down, much less to sleep. A fire was always kept burning in the outer extension, at which the priests might warm their hands and bare feet. Here also they might sit down and rest for a while. At night the elder priests slept here on divans placed on rows of stone steps one above another. The younger priests slept on cushions on the floor, putting their sacred garments under their heads and covering themselves with their secular clothing (Tamid. i. 1). The elder priests kept the keys of the Temple, putting them at night under a marble slab in the floor; to this slab a ring was attached for lifting it. A priest watched over or slept on the slab until the keys were demanded by the officer in the morning.

"The king when visiting the Temple had no rights beyond those of the ordinary Israelite; only the kings of the house of David were privileged to sit down in the 'azarah (Soṭah 41b; Tamid 27a)..."

John 18: 17 - 18 (RSV):

[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

Note verse 18. Everyone is standing. Servants and Officers.

Mark 14: 53 - 54 (RSV):

[53] And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled.
[54] And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire.

Peter is sitting with the Guards.

John 18: 15 - 18, 25 - 26 (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.
***
[25] Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are not you also one of his disciples?" He denied it and said, "I am not."
[26] One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?"

This is at, therefore, the Chamber of the Hearth and at the Door to the Chamber of the Flame. One man is a servant of the High Priest, A "Kinsman" of the man whose ear was lopped off. "Kinsman" is a Technical Term, not at all denoting familial relationship. I note the slightly radioactive use of "Simon Peter" instead of simply "Peter". This "Kinsman" is standing and would denote that he is at least Priestly as well.

Which brings us to your Point, lsayre. I humbly request a "Chapter and Verse" Authority on the Technique of using a Duplicated Phrase such as "I did not" as an Organizational Technique to alert Editors and Redactors that an agreed upon Insertion is to be made "Here =>".

If True, this would help in the Recognition of the Construction of John. Teeple is most interesting in this. Teeple is a certified Greekie and he uses Text with References to other verses for the Authors of John to argue Points. Moffatt rearranges verses at will and his Translation has faced criticism (From my Grandmother...) for the Holy Text being Out of Order.

So: Assume "I am not" Brackets Insertions. What is written?

1. Peter is being "Set-Up" for his Denial Scene which, to me, indicates a telescoping of two Stories. YMMV.
2. Jesus confronts the High Priest, which is an argument over Death. The Survival Theorem is on the table.

22 And when he said these things, one of [part. gen.] the servants standing by gave a slap to Jesus [arth.], saying, "Thus do you answer the high priest?"

"We have a winner! Tell 'im what he won, Don..."

lsayre, if what you say is True, then I am convinced that the Insertion(s) made between verses 17 and 25 come from someone who KNEW the Inner Operations of the Priesthood. I push Nicholas of Damascus all the time (and Keeper of Herod's Seal, Nicholas' Brother Ptolemy) but it is possible that Nicholas doesn't understand a Semitic Idiom ("You must be Born Again") and therefore would probably have some but not enough knowledge of Priestly Workings to compose the Sections we are looking at.

Thus there appear to be multiple layers of insertions here.

You ain't kiddin'.

Best,

CW

[lsayre]

Which brings us to your Point, lsayre. I humbly request a "Chapter and Verse" Authority on the Technique of using a Duplicated Phrase such as "I did not" as an Organizational Technique to alert Editors and Redactors that an agreed upon Insertion is to be made "Here =>".

There is no magic in the words. Only in that they are repeated. The theory has it that the redactor (perhaps strategically, or perhaps arbitrarily) chooses a place for his insertion and then to terminate the insertion he repeats (or very closely repeats) the phrase leading into the place at which he placed his redactional 'seam', whereby to stitch the seam closed with the phrase repetition and place the unawares reader right back into the nominal flow of the original text. The redactor could be seen as effectively stitching a patch (or seam) of new cloth into old cloth. Or inserting new wine into an old wineskin.

I honestly can't recall where I encountered the defining outline for this particular redaction methodology. I assuredly take no credit for it. I've been aware of it for many years (to decades) though.

[Stuart]

IMO the first version of John, which lacked Peter completely read something like this (I include a couple relevant lines about the arrest):

18.2 Now Judas, who handed him over, also knew the place; for Jesus often met there with his disciples. 18.3 So Judas, procuring a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons.
// 18:4-9 were present, 18:10-11 was added by the Catholic redactor
18.12 So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus and bound him.

18.13 First they led him to the high priest. 18.19 Then the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.

18.20 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. 18.21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said." 18.22 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?" 18.23 Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"

18.28 Then they led Jesus to the praetorium.

The scene before Pilate is pretty much unchanged from the original to the end of chapter 18.

Salient points: The high priest is not named in the original. Annas and Caiaphas were added, as was the bit about expedient for "one man should die for the people" (alien theology to the original author). Also Peter's denial is missing in the original version, as Peter is entirely missing from the first version. The original was from a Johannine sect that had no need for Peter. Curiously the removal of the Peter elements also removes all the anti-Judas elements, hence I concluded the original saw Judas as carrying out a scared mission in handing over Jesus, not a betrayal. Cainite type theology - which is consistent with chapter 8 of John and elsewhere that disparages Jewish prophets and the Jewish God (8:44), even makes John the baptist, whom the first author's sect as a positive image of, refute that he is a Jewish prophet (1:21).

The names and details of the high priest and his father in-law are drawn from Josephus to add color. Peter's story is drawn from the synoptic accounts, his redemption (20:2-10, chapter 21) are the creation of the second author.

Back to the OP. There were no questions asked in the account. The entire role was simply that the Jewish leaders got the Roman governor to do their bidding (18:35). The questioning happens back in chapters 7 and 8, and the motive back in 5:17-18

5.17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working still, and I am working." 5.18 This was why the Jews sought to kill him, because he called God his Father, making himself equal with God.

The chief priests (bishops) and pharisees (preachers) are rather thinly disguised Christian clerical opponents of the Johannine sect (note the putdown in 19:15 of the chief priests, that is bishops). The subordination of Jesus to the Father is a key theological point in the emerging Catholic leadership, whereas the more gnostic heretical sects held Jesus as their God. It is a point which shows up in the Marcionite Galatians 1:1, when Paul declares that Jesus "rose himself up from the dead" rather than God the father who rose him up. It's almost Modalist.

It is quite amazing to me that the redaction of John left so many obvious heretical elements in place. But then again politics likely ruled here. The objective was to Catholicize the Johannine followers, which meant altering their gospel to incorporate key Catholic points. I suspect this is why Jesus calls Peter, "Simon, son of John" in his redemption story, 21:15-19. This tells the Johannine followers that Peter is the successor of John, sanctioned by Christ himself, and that this has the blessing of John himself (verses 1:40-1:42 were likely added for the same reason). While John was to become the patron saint of Asia replacing Paul, Peter was to be the patron saint of the Church, of the Catholic movement.

How is that for a radically different view?

[Charles Wilson]

I think that you are well on your way to a possibly complete, Systematic and Consistent view of the NT. This is all we may be able to achieve, BTW, although it pains me to consider the Jesus-as-Julius-Caesar Crowd. The Reuchies have their followers as well. I may yet form a LONG Post commenting on your individual points.

I do believe that Peter and his Story came first. The Mishmarot Priesthood Story preceeded the Roman Thesis. The Genius of the Authors of the NT, however, was in the telescoping of the Original with a rewrite of the Priestly Stories into a form that pleased the Flavians.

In that sense, we're not too far apart in that we could identify individual Strands that were written for effect.

Good Stuff, Stuart!

[Charles Wilson]

Acts 12: 25 (RSV):

[25] And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, bringing with them John whose other name was Mark.

History!!!

Bar-n-Abba(s) and Saul return to...Rome.

Who was the Son of the Father? In this instance, that would be Titus.
Who was "Saul"? That would be Mucianus.

What were they doing? "Completing a Mission".

"...And what Mission was that?"

The Destruction of Jerusalem and the elimination of Judea as a Threat to Rome.
What was found in the Spoils and Plunder brought back to Rome from the Sack of Jerusalem?

"John whose other name is Mark."
This is Post-70 and is therefore looking back but again, this is too smart by half.
John-Mark is brought back to Rome and is then rewritten into the Ascension of the Flavians, the Original Unified Story being split into John and Mark.
Mark needs a rework.
John, as we follow Teeple's Insights, gets reworked by 4 or 5 Authors, the Final Editor putting John into the shape we have it now.

YMMV, but...

HISTORY?!??

CW