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

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

...
or ... Is there an invisible elephant in the room?

1) “Who is it that struck you?”

An argument against Q

In a fine post two years ago over at Vridar, Tim Widowfield explained a "slam-dunk" argument against the existence of Q, but also the defense against this argument.

Mark Goodacre puts it this way:

There are many, many Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. A good number of them can easily be explained on the assumption that Matthew and Luke are independently redacting Mark, coinciding in their attempts to polish up his literary style, to alter his harsh view of the disciples, his less reverential view of Jesus and so on. However, there is an irresolvable rump of arguments that simply will not go away. One of the most interesting occurs . . . when Jesus is being mocked:

Matthew 26.67-68	Mark 14.65	Luke 22.64
Then they spat into his face, and struck him; and some slapped him, saying, ‘Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?‘	And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, ‘Prophesy!‘ And the guards received him with blows.	Now the men who were holding Jesus mocked him and beat him; they also blind- folded him and asked him, ‘Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?’

(Goodacre 2001, p. 146)

On other occasions, Goodacre has emphasized the fact that these are five consecutive words (τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε) found in both Luke and Matthew but not in Mark. Moreover, they appear in the passion narrative, which the great majority of scholars believe Q did not have. Initially, on the surface at least, this argument seems quite sound.

The counter-argument

Tim continued.

But what happens when we start digging? ...
Goodacre is partially correct when he says that Q theorists find the taunting question in Matthew distressing. He writes:

On the whole, they are troubled by it since they realize that it challenges the notion of Luke’s independence from Matthew, the premise behind the Q theory. The leading defence here is that Matthew did not contain the words Who is it that struck you? The theory is that these words were added by Luke and that scribes of Matthew then interpolated them into their versions of Matthew. This is a process known as ‘conjectural emendation’, where a scholar proposes an emendation to the text with no warrant anywhere in the textual tradition — no known text of Matthew is without these words. Conjectural emendation is usually practised sparingly by Gospel scholars, and it is particularly problematic here, where the primary reason for practising it is to defend an already troubled synoptic theory, the Q hypothesis.

(Goodacre 2001, p. 146)
But he glosses over the undeniable fact that the Matthean account has oddities that require explanation. We’ve already mentioned the fact that the blindfolding of Jesus appears to be missing, which renders problematic the command to guess who hit him. Note well, too, that Matthew has not so much omitted Mark’s “cover his face” as converted it to “spit in his face.

Only in Luke’s gospel do we get the unmistakably clear picture of the captors taunting Jesus in a mocking game — which, along with the substantially different order of events, has led some scholars to infer that the third evangelist was following a secondary source. In fact, B.H. Streeter believed that both the veiling of the face and the taunting question (tis estin . . .?) were originally present only in Luke.

In Mark the mockers spit on His face and slap Him and cry, “Play the prophet now!” In Luke they veil His eyes and then, striking Him, say, “Use your prophetic gift of second sight to tell the striker’s name.” Each version paints a consistent picture; but, if one half of Luke’s picture is pieced on to Mark and the other half to Matthew (as in the ℵ B text), both are blurred, with the result that in the accepted text Matthew’s version dulls the edge of the taunt in Mark, but does not succeed in substituting the quite differently pointed taunt in Luke.

(Streeter 1924, p. 327)
Streeter continues by arguing that the passage in Matthew represents one of the extremely rare cases in which the text of one gospel has influenced another, with no extant copies left to prove it.

Assimilation of parallels is a form of corruption which can result, and, as I have shown, has often actually resulted, in producing an identical corruption along more than one independent line of transmission. I suggest that for once this has happened along all lines.

(Streeter 1924, p. 327)
In other words, we know that a great deal of variation exists among all manuscripts. It would seem likely that in at least some rare cases, every copy we have of a gospel is “wrong” at some point, and that the original reading is lost forever. Streeter reminds us that the NT manuscripts abound with variations.

The minor agreements which I have examined above include all that are sufficiently striking to be worth discussing in detail. The residue are agreements still more minute. Of these textual assimilation is the probable explanation. Indeed, it would perhaps be a better explanation of some of those which in the earlier part of this chapter I have attributed to the coincident editorial activity of Matthew and Luke. Very few of the scholars who have treated of this aspect of the Synoptic Problem appear to me to have an adequate appreciation of the immense amount of variation that exists, even between MSS. of the same family, in regard to just the kind of small points that are here involved, such as the order of words, interchange of prepositions especially in composition, substitution of one conjunction for another, the use of the article with proper names, and the like.

(Streeter 1924, p. 328, emphasis mine)
According to Streeter, scribes who were writing well before the first manuscripts we possess “corrected” their versions of Matthew so that “Who is it that struck you?” appears after “Prophesy, you Christ.”

It seems that Tim's goal was to explain the arguments and counter-arguments of an interesting example and to present a fair case. Nevertheless, I tend think that he could have added a point.

Goodacre replied to the counter view that Matthew's version may not be as strange as it seems at first glance. If many spit in Jesus' face then in Matthew's view Jesus may have seen little or nothing. Matthew may have considered that as sufficient. Tim showed that it is easy to explain why Matthew' could have omitted the veiling of the face:

Matthew wishes to remind us of Isaiah 50:6, in which the obedient servant of God endures similar abuse.

I gave My back to those who strike Me,
And My cheeks to those who pluck out the beard;
I did not cover My face from humiliation and spitting.
(NAS, 1977)

(Notice that since the translators of the New American Standard (1977 edition) were absolutely certain that this passage is a prophecy concerning Jesus, they capitalized the personal possessive pronouns.)
The suffering servant leans into the beating. He presents his cheeks gladly as they pull out his beard by the roots. He refuses to cover his face, despite the ultimate indignity — being spat on in the face. Matthew has thus taken a passage in Mark in which Jesus is spat upon, hooded, and beaten, and has modified it into an echo of the prophecy in Isaiah. They are fulfilling prophecy while at the same time asking him to, “Play the prophet, you so-called Christ!”

But the more I think about it the more it seems to me that in both versions, Matthew's and Luke's, is an invisible elephant in the room – the word “Prophesy!“ ...

[Secret Alias]

Have you noticed something odd in the Diatessaron here:

And they (the Sandhedrin) all said, Why should we seek now witnesses? we have heard now the blasphemy from his mouth. What then think ye? They all answered and said, He is worthy of death. Then some of them drew near, and spat in his face, and struck him, and scoffed at him. And the soldiers struck him on his cheeks, and said, Prophesy unto us, thou Mes- siah: who is he that struck thee? And many other things spake they falsely, and said against him.

Note Lactantius's citation of what appears to be a 'gospel-harmony':

But they (the Jews) took and brought Him before Pontius Pilate, who at that time was administering the province of Syria as governor, and demanded that He should be crucified, though they laid nothing else to His charge except that He said that He was the Son of God, the King of the Jews; also His own saying, Destroy this temple, which was forty-six years in building, and in three days I will raise it up again without hands,— signifying that His passion would shortly take place, and that He, having been put to death by the Jews, would rise again on the third day. For He Himself was the true temple of God. They inveighed against these expressions of His, as ill-omened and impious. And when Pilate had heard these things, and He said nothing in His own defense, he gave sentence that there appeared nothing deserving of condemnation in Him. But those most unjust accusers, together with the people whom they had stirred up, began to cry out, and with loud voices to demand His crucifixion.

Then Pontius was overpowered both by their outcries, and by the instigation of Herod the tetrarch, who feared lest he should be deposed from his sovereignty. He did not, however, himself pass sentence, but delivered Him up to the Jews, that they themselves might judge Him according to their law. Therefore they led Him away when He had been scourged with rods, and before they crucified Him they mocked Him; for they put upon Him a scarlet robe, and a crown of thorns, and saluted Him as King, and gave Him gall for food, and mingled for Him vinegar to drink. After these things they spat upon His face, and struck Him with the palms of their hands; and when the executioners themselves contended about His garments, they cast lots among themselves for His tunic and mantle. And while all these things were doing, He uttered no voice from His mouth, as though He were dumb. Then they lifted Him up in the midst between two malefactors, who had been condemned for robbery, and fixed Him to the cross. What can I here deplore in so great a crime?

[Secret Alias]

It is worth noting that for Ephrem an unblindfolded Jesus is taunted to recognize that the Devil or 'the evil one' is really striking him:

https://books.google.com/books?id=XPdBA ... IQ6AEIKTAA

[Ken Olson]

But the more I think about it the more it seems to me that in both versions, Matthew's and Luke's, is an invisible elephant in the room – the word “Prophesy!“ ...

This was an interesting review of the issues surrounding the striking agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark in "Who is it that struck you?," but I'm not at all clear on what the particular issue is with the word "Prophesy!" in Matthew and Luke (and Mark) that needs to be discussed, but hasn't been. Or have some people discussed it, but others refuse to acknowledge it? Does "Prophesy!" clearly point in some particular direction or raise some particular question, and if so, what is that?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Have you noticed something odd in the Diatessaron here:

And they (the Sandhedrin) all said, Why should we seek now witnesses? we have heard now the blasphemy from his mouth. What then think ye? They all answered and said, He is worthy of death. Then some of them drew near, and spat in his face, and struck him, and scoffed at him. And the soldiers struck him on his cheeks, and said, Prophesy unto us, thou Mes- siah: who is he that struck thee? And many other things spake they falsely, and said against him.

Very interesting. I would not have thought that the Diatessaron followed Matthew at this point and omitted the veiling.

I'm not at all clear on what the particular issue is with the word "Prophesy!" in Matthew and Luke (and Mark) that needs to be discussed, but hasn't been. Or have some people discussed it, but others refuse to acknowledge it? Does "Prophesy!" clearly point in some particular direction or raise some particular question, and if so, what is that?

Before that I would like to dwell on another point which seems essential to me.

Tim said that we get from Luke's account an “unmistakably clear picture“ and I think it's interesting to clarify in what sense GLuke is clear and in what sense GLuke is unclear.

The self-explaining sentence of Luke 22.64

I think most readers will feel that Luke 22.64 is a self-explaning sentence in which all elements seems to be part of a coherent train of thought.

Now the men who were holding Jesus
- mocked him and
- beat him;
- they also blind-folded him and
- asked him,
- ‘Prophesy!
- Who is it that struck you?’

In contrast, the command ‘Prophesy!’ in Mark's account seems to require an explanation and the lack of blindfolding in Matthew's account seems to agree at least not well with the question ‘Who is it that struck you?’. Imho in an oversimplified, but illustrative manner Clive Marsh and Steve Moyise wrote in “Jesus and the Gospels“

pophesy.png (123.05 KiB) Viewed 14022 times

Luke's muddled context

On the other hand, there is no hint in GLuke what this special kind of mockery might have caused. Luke has a different chronological order and placed the story not at the end of the Sanhedrin trial, but before the trial.

Tim wrote

The men holding Jesus before the trial in Luke are thus acting on their own without obvious provocation. They’ve heard no accusations, so far as we know, let alone a verdict.

Furthermore, there is no indication in Luke's story of why the soldiers came to the idea to mock Jesus in the role as a prophet. In Luke 22:54 they bring Jesus from the Mount of Olives to the house of the high priest, then Peter denies Jesus three times. Abruptly the scene changes and they start to mock Jesus. The logic of the mocking in Luke 22:64 is easy to understand, but the story has no background and is placed in a vacuum.

In contrast, the topic of prophecy is in the focus of Mark's accounts (not so much in Matthew's). There is the false testimony about the temple prophecy and Jesus' own prophecy about the coming of the son of man. The sentencing for blasphemy seems to be the cue to mock Jesus as a false prophet. A blasphemer may be not only in the general sense, but also in the literal sense almost the opposite of a prophet, because both Greek words are etymologically rooted in the same Greek word φημί (phémi - declare)

Mark	Matthew	Luke
53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes. 54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.	57 And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. 58 But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.	54 Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off. 55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them. 56 But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. 57 And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not. 58 And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not. 59 And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean. 60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. 61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. 62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly. 63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. 64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? 65 And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.
the Sanhedrin trial	the Sanhedrin trial	the Sanhedrin trial
55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none. 56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. 57 And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, 58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. 59 But neither so did their witness agree together. 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? 64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. 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 servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.	59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; 60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, 61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. 62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. 67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, 68 Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?	66 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, 67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: 68 And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. 69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. 70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. 71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

I think that there are two interesting things

- Luke's clear picture in a muddled context
- in Matthew's Sanhedrin trial the topic of prophecy is less in the focus than in Mark's account

[John2]

I think that there are two interesting things

- Luke's clear picture in a muddled context
- in Matthew's Sanhedrin trial the topic of prophecy is less in the focus than in Mark's account

It's taken me awhile to get my head around this discussion, but now I feel up to speed and I like what you're saying here, KK. I'm just a big Markan Priority guy and this observation suits that point of view well.

[Charles Wilson]

Mark 15: 1 (RSV):

[1] And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate.

John 18: 19 (RSV):

[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
...
[28] Then they led Jesus from the house of Ca'iaphas to the praetorium. It was early. They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.

Note that there is agreement between Mark and John on the Time Line. The Denial by Peter and then a "consultation" and then off to Pilate. Matthew has this immediately before Peter's Denial. Luke apparently has the guards whuppin' on Jesus before the meeting with the High Priest crowd. The Synoptics show an accretion of Story Line. It is possible to see this as the guards spitting on Jesus repeatedly. "Oh!" says Matthew:

[59] Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death,
[60] but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward
[61] and said, "This fellow said, `I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.'"
...
[67] Then they spat in his face, and struck him; and some slapped him,
[68] saying, "Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?"

Luke's accretion builds on this:

[63] Now the men who were holding Jesus mocked him and beat him;
[64] they also blindfolded him and asked him, "Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?"

Luke evidently sees something distasteful in this and has Jesus' face covered in...a blindfold, not spit. Meanwhile, the "Prophesy!" idea has been lost. You don't prophesy about things that are happening or have just happened.

Q: "What did Jesus Prophesy?" That he would be able to destroy the Temple and rebuild it in 3 days. This line has been lost and is now being redirected.

Mark has his Set Piece with the High Priest and his henchmen. John doesn't care. What is important to him is the meeting with Pilate.

[28] Then they led Jesus from the house of Ca'iaphas to the praetorium. It was early. They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.

There is a gap here in knowledge. "...And the evening and the morning were the first day..." This entire Tableau is centered around early morning as if the start of the day is morning. Something is missing, something vital.

All of which leads me to believe that Mark is "filling in" the data with the meeting of the High Priest et. al., "Jesus" and then the trip to Pilate. John is writing in a similar fashion and I believe it points to a common Source. This "Jewish Source" gets Transvalued very early.

After Mark's version, the temptation was to make the scene palatable. John, taking his cue from the Source, focuses on something else entirely. If, as Jay Raskin speculates, Mark literally cut pieces of the Story and left the rest for John, we may put together a plausible result.

CW

[John2]

I thought I saw a post from Ben pointing me to KK's comment (below) and I don't see it now but thought I'd give my two cents about it anyway.

In contrast, the command ‘Prophesy!’ in Mark's account seems to require an explanation....

I think that Mk. 14:65 too, like Matthew, is based on Is. 50:6, "I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting."

Mk. 14:65:

And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received him with blows.

So I take the "Prophesy!" part as being Mark's idea of something that correlates with the "mocking" part of Is. 50:6. After all, Mk. 6:2-4 says that Jesus "began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed ... And they took offense at him. Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.'”

Because Jesus had taught in the synagogue and many had heard him, he would have been known for thinking of himself as a prophet. So I don't see the "Prophesy!" remark as being about anything in particular in Mark, just as a mockery of Jesus thinking of himself as a prophet.

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.

[JoeWallack]

But the more I think about it the more it seems to me that in both versions, Matthew's and Luke's, is an invisible elephant in the room – the word “Prophesy!“ ...

This was an interesting review of the issues surrounding the striking agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark in "Who is it that struck you?," but I'm not at all clear on what the particular issue is with the word "Prophesy!" in Matthew and Luke (and Mark) that needs to be discussed, but hasn't been. Or have some people discussed it, but others refuse to acknowledge it? Does "Prophesy!" clearly point in some particular direction or raise some particular question, and if so, what is that?

JW:
Boy did you come to the right place. Brown discusses the "Prophesy!" area in his classic "Death" starting at 573. The first step in analysis is to consider Textual Variation. There does not appear to be any with just the word "prophecy!". The next step is to consider the general meaning of the offending word. The CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) translations are sometimes misleading since for GMark specifically they tend to have a context of subsequent Christian theology as opposed to Christian/popular Greek literature that existed at the time GMark was written. Here though the translation of "prophesy" seems correct.

The next step is to look at how "Mark" (author) has used the word. "Mark" often stylishly connects the same word in his narrative to emphasize a meaning. Generally overlooked here is that for a Gospel that is about the greatest prophet of all time, "Mark" only uses the word one other time in order to strengthen the connection/thematic meaning:

7

6 And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, But their heart is far from me.

Our favorite Gospel author has cleverly taken a Jewish Bible quote and used it to predict/foreshadow/prophesy Jesus in the Christian Bible. The Sanhedrin is honoring Jesus with its lips by asking/demanding that he prophesy, something you would only ask of a prophet. But the reason for asking, mocking/punishing/disbelief, is a a long way from honoring. Understand Dear Reader? This is the primary point of "prophecy" here, to convict the Sanhedrin (which of course is ironically convicting Jesus). The literal support for the use of "prophecy" at that point in the narrative is secondary. As has been pointed out here the "spitting" in the narrative is sufficient to support why Jesus is being asked who struck him. "Mark" does not add Jesus' face being covered because he wants Jesus here to parallel the blind man of 8:23:

8

23 And he took hold of the blind man by the hand, and brought him out of the village; and when he had spit on his eyes, and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, Seest thou aught?

After spitting on the blind man Jesus is asking if the blind man can see and when he indicates his sight is imperfect Jesus also pokes his eyes in order to restore his sight. I'm pretty sure than that "Mark" is not talking about literal/physical sight. So the Sanhedrin mistakenly has a context of physical sight. Don't be so literal McFly. You're too literal.

Next to be discussed is the irony of Jesus being asked to prophesy at this point in the narrative.

Nota Ben = Ben has rightfully pointed out to me that my post above ignores the "cover up his face" of 14:65. A reMarkable mistake on my part. I failed to mention that I do not think these words original based on:

Laparola

omit (Western non-interpolation?)] (see Matthew 26:27) D ita syrs copbo(mss)

In the words of Skar "Now where have I seen this before?". So my post above should be read with this/my assumption in mind. Still a reMarkable omission on my part. Thanks for the correction Ben.



Joseph

The New Porphyry

[JoeWallack]

JW:
CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) generally recognizes the irony that while the Sanhedrin is mockingly asking Jesus to prophesy and assuming that he is incapable of doing so, right under their long noses one of Jesus' primary prophecies, that Peter would deny him 3 times, is being fulfilled:

Description	Verse
Start of fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy that Peter would deny Jesus 3 times	14 54 And Peter had followed him afar off, even within, into the court of the high priest; and he was sitting with the officers, and warming himself in the light [of the fire].
Demand by Sanhedrin to prophesy	55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found it not. 56 For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together. 57 And there stood up certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, 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. 59 And not even so did their witness agree together. 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. 63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses? 64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death. 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.
Fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy that Peter would deny Jesus 3 times	66 And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest; 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, [even] Jesus. 68 But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. 69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This is [one] of them. 70 But he again denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, of a truth thou art [one] of them; for thou art a Galilaean. 71 But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak. 72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

Note that in the original narrative Jesus' prophecy is being fulfilled while he is being mocked for not prophesying. This suggests that GMark may have originally been written as a play with the scenes happening next to each other. In the subsequent Gospels GMatthew follows the structure above, GLuke breaks the structure by giving the complete Peter denial story before the prophesy request and GJohn exorcises the prophecy request. This is relatively good evidence regarding the relative dates of the Gospels.

Generally lost on CBS is the ironic nature of Jesus' important prophecy fulfillment here. While they are eager to accept the irony that "The Jews" failure to see Jesus as a Prophet here convicts them, they are not at all eager to accept the irony that Jesus' great prophecy here, which helps establish his innocence at the same time it establishes "The Jews" guilt, also convicts his hand-picked lead disciple of fulfillment of formulaic failure as a disciple.


Joseph

The New Porphyry