“Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?” ...

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

So I take the "Prophesy!" part as being Mark's idea of something that correlates with the "mocking" part of Is. 50:6.

I agree that there is an OT-allusion to Isa 50:6.

But I assume that an expectable objection could be the following: According to such literary interpretations, the word “prophesy” has only the function of a literary device that makes sense in the relationship between author and reader, but not at the level of the narrative. It assumes from the outset that the word has almost no meaning on the lips of the acting persons in Mark's account and gives no answer to the question of why the persons in GMark are saying “prophesy” to Jesus. The interpretation of Dean B. Deppe ("The Theological Intentions of Mark's Literary Devices") seems to me to be typical of current Markan scholarship.

MarkProphesy.png (213.17 KiB) Viewed 5301 times

I believe this is the reason why many (most?) readers still prefer the “unmistakably clear picture“ of Luke to interpret also Mark's and Matthew's accounts, at least in the sense as abbreviated versions of an original story that is better preserved in Luke.

And it looks to me like Matthew took Mark's "Prophesy!" as a reference to Jesus specifically knowing who had beaten him and that Luke was using Matthew, as per the Farrer hypothesis.

It seems to me that there are a growing number of scholars (nevertheless a minority) who assume that the word “prophesy” has a different intended meaning in GMark as in GLuke. However, I would not rule out the possibility that the word could have a different meaning in GMatthew too.

I would argue that for two reasons: The traditional meaning of the verb "prophesy!" and the normal use of the Greek word for „smote“ in the KJV (παίσας – paisas).

Luke 22:64 … and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote (παίσας – paisas) thee?

In Luke's version „the men that held Jesus“ play a guessing game with him so that he may use his second sight to declare which of them hit him right now. But such a understanding has nothing to do with the traditional meaning of the word „prophecy“.

I think that against the biblical background, the word „prophecy“ means to get a revelation or a message from God and the instruction to declare it to the people to prepare them in a current situation or for a future situation or to foretell important events of the future. From 1 Corinthians and the Didache we may get the impression that in NT times there were also minor prophecies, but clearly not in the kind of Luke's guessing game. In contrast, in Mark's account the word "prophesy!" occurs in the context of real prophecies as the temple destruction and the coming of the son of man, exactly what one would expect when the word "prophecy" is at stake. Therefore I tend to think that the word "prophesy!" is an alien in Luke's account.

The same applies to the word „smote“ (παίσας – paisas), an inflection of παίω (paió). If I have not overlooked something the normal use of this Greek word express always a little bit the result and not just the action itself. It means bring down by beating, wound by beating, punish by beating, humiliate by beating etcetera. It can be used for a single hit, but that would be a knockdown or a blow that inflicts a wound. It can be used for many hits, but then it refers to the whole process. In its normal use it makes no good sense in a question that distinguishes between different hits as alternatives to choice ("Which of us smote you?")

I think if you weigh these points then there could be the possibility that Matthew meant

„Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?“

as a rhetorical question with the intended answer that Jesus may recognize that it is God himself that brought him down. (There are few of such rhetorical questions in the synoptic gospels, the most famous may be Mark 4:41 “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”)

[Ben C. Smith]

The same applies to the word „smote“ (παίσας – paisas), an inflection of παίω (paió). If I have not overlooked something the normal use of this Greek word express always a little bit the result and not just the action itself. It means bring down by beating, wound by beating, punish by beating, humiliate by beating etcetera. It can be used for a single hit, but that would be a knockdown or a blow that inflicts a wound. It can be used for many hits, but then it refers to the whole process. In its normal use it makes no good sense in a question that distinguishes between different hits as alternatives to choice ("Which of us smote you?")

I think that the verb παίω is often used in a sense that implies a final result (such as smiting someone to death), but it can certainly mean one single countable blow. I like the English word "smite," though it be a bit old fashioned, as a gloss for this Greek verb for this very reason; "smite" can have the end result in mind, too, but does not have to, and can most certainly refer to a single observable blow.

In the Old Greek:

Numbers 22.28: 28 And Yahweh opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have smitten me this third time [ὅτι πέπαικάς με τοῦτο τρίτον]?"

2 Samuel 20.10: 10 But Amasa was not on guard against the sword which was in Joab's hand so he smote [ἔπαισεν] him in the belly with it and poured out his inward parts on the ground, and did not strike him a second time [καὶ οὐκ ἐδευτέρωσεν αὐτῷ]; and he died. Then Joab and Abishai his brother pursued Sheba the son of Bichri.

If blows ("smitings") can be counted one by one like this, then it is a trifle to identify the individual who smote each blow (at least, it would be without a blindfold). With such examples to hand, I do not see a problem with the soldiers in Luke asking Jesus which one delivered the blow.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think that against the biblical background, the word „prophecy“ means to get a revelation or a message from God and the instruction to declare it to the people to prepare them in a current situation or for a future situation or to foretell important events of the future. From 1 Corinthians and the Didache we may get the impression that in NT times there were also minor prophecies, but clearly not in the kind of Luke's guessing game. In contrast, in Mark's account the word "prophesy!" occurs in the context of real prophecies as the temple destruction and the coming of the son of man, exactly what one would expect when the word "prophecy" is at stake. Therefore I tend to think that the word "prophesy!" is an alien in Luke's account.

If Luke's purpose had been to characterize this episode as a valid request for Jesus to prophesy, I would agree with you on this. But I think that the whole point is the mockery. The challenge here for Jesus to "prophesy" is most pointedly not the request of the faithful in order to learn God's will for their lives; it is, rather, the teasing of a man who claims to be a prophet, but whose claims the mockers do not believe. The effect is: "If you were really a prophet, you would know which one of us just smote you" (but you are not a prophet, so of course you would not know). And, in a way, Luke has already prepared us for this kind of invalid testing of a prophet:

Luke 7.39: 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner.”

[JoeWallack]

Word Up

JW:
The other reMarkable characteristic of the "prophesy!":

14

65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands.

is that in addition to the quality of the prophecies, simultaneously establishing Jesus' innocence and the guilt of The Sanhedrin and Peter & the disciples, really the heart (so to speak) of the entire Gospel, you also have the quantitative value of the prophecies covering every tense (so to speak):

Tense	Verse	Commentary
Past	10 33 [saying], Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles: 34 and they shall mock him, and shall spit upon him,	Note here that "cover his face, and to buffet him" is not prophesied by Jesus. More support that "cover his face" is not original.
Present	14 30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that thou to-day, [even] this night, before the cock crow twice, shalt deny me thrice.	The middle part of the prophecies and therefore, I think the most important theme to the author. Peter denied Jesus' Passion.
Future	14 58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands. 10 shall deliver him unto the Gentiles:	The destroy the Temple prophecy charge at Jesus' trial is especially amusing, even by Markan Roman standards, as it was a true accusation which probably would have justified a death sentence, but supposedly the testimony did not agree. Than you have the other future prophecies which would all turn out to be true not long after, such as scourging, crucifixion and resurrecting.

Joseph

The New Porphyry