Jesus: Messianic Pretender as Arisotlean Tragic Hero

  • Thread starter Thread starter lmbarre
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your analysis completely ignores the point that Christ predicted his own death numerous times. And, even more notably, Isaiah foretold it several centuries before his birth. It also fails to address the resurrection.
 
Abe Lincoln, zombie slayer. Just look at his hat. His damn hat.
 
Your analysis completely ignores the point that Christ predicted his own death numerous times. And, even more notably, Isaiah foretold it several centuries before his birth. It also fails to address the resurrection.
Please address my arguments for regarding gMark as a probable thesis. It is imporatnt for you to argue for the compositional unity of the text since I have challenged that view explicity.

LM
 
Please address my arguments for regarding gMark as a probable thesis. It is imporatnt for you to argue for the compositional unity of the text since I have challenged that view explicity.

LM
No, it’s really not.

a) you don’t have the real “gMark” to go by; you provide nothing but conjecture, and you provide no reasonable criteria by which to suppose that your selected portions of the gospel are contextually incompatible additions.

b) other synoptic gospels present some of the passages in question without the insertions you cite.

c) you predictably choose those portions of the gospel which are most problematic to your thesis as “suspected insertions.”

d) your entire thesis presumes that “gMark” is the only reliable source of the original Christian tradition; a notion widely rejected by most biblical scholars.

e) you also ignore the fact that independent sources, i.e. the letters of Paul, express firm belief and personal experience of the resurrection of Christ and also predate the gospels.

f) the gospel of John, which is not dependent on Markan sources, includes Christ predicting his own death and an account of the resurrection.

g) some of your criteria for deciding whether something is an addition is downright silly: any use of the word “amazing” or “immediately” renders a passage suspect? Literary idiosyncracies are not evidence of anything but the author’s grammatical preferences.

h) you commit the grave scholarly sin of eisegesis on a massive scale: your interpretation of the centurion’s statement as well as Jesus’ pre-mortem exclamations are without any foundation other than your own bias. And again, this completely ignores the Old Testament prophecies of the “suffering servant” as well as Jesus’ own predictions, in both the synoptic and Johannine testimonies, of his betrayal and death, and, ultimately, his resurrection. And, with regards to his exclamation, " My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?", being the realization of his error, this is perhaps the most easily refuted of your charges. This is, actually, a direct quote from Psalm 22 (the very first verse, in fact), which is itself a blatant prophecy of his crucifixion. From Psalm 22: “They pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; 18 They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.”

Ultimately, the last sentence is the most telling of all: “I for one prefer the latter.” And that’s what the whole analysis amounts to: fitting the text to your preferences while ignoring the broad cultural and historical context into which it fits.
 
No, it’s really not.

Yes it is.

a) you don’t have the real “gMark” to go by; you provide nothing but conjecture, and you provide no reasonable criteria by which to suppose that your selected portions of the gospel are contextually incompatible additions.

I think you are under characterizing my exegesis as “conjecture.” It is widely recognized in scholars of both Testaments the many works have undergone editorial expansion. Not only the gospels but also Paul’s authentic letters. The Pentateuch is certainly not a unified composition. Do you hold that it is?

An insertion will leave its marks by disrupting a narrative flow after which the narrative is continued. The alleged expansion has a different topic, complete in itself, separating it from their present contexts. This is how expansions are often recognized. It is quite common in Gospel scholarship to designate proto or pMatthew, pLuke and pJohn. It is most obvious that the Gospel of John has been expanded. See Raymond Brown, “The Community of the Beloved Disciple,” or any other critical commentary.

b) other synoptic gospels present some of the passages in question without the insertions you cite.

That does not demonstrate that Mark is of composite authorship. It only shows that Matthew and Luke knew Mark and not gMark.

c) you predictably choose those portions of the gospel which are most problematic to your thesis as “suspected insertions.”

No, I demarcate gMark and Mark by pericopae which include obvious Markan and highly repeated themes such as the use of the adverb, immediately" and the words that express “amazement” at Jesus. I also argue that Mark 15:39 is likely regarded as the conclusion of gMark and that the following two episodes are a block united by the theme of the activity of certain women. These woman are immediately introduced following the alleged conclusion of gMark, which resolves the dramatic themes introduced in the passion narrative.

d) your entire thesis presumes that “gMark” is the only reliable source of the original Christian tradition; a notion widely rejected by most biblical scholars.

I do not presume anything. I argue on the basis of style and content that certainly gMark predates Mark (c. 70 CE) and that its message is one that makes an argument that offers a Aristotlean explanation of Jesus as a tragic hero. You seem to simply ignore the argument that indeed Jesus is portrayed as a classic Tragic Hero.

e) you also ignore the fact that independent sources, i.e. the letters of Paul, express firm belief and personal experience of the resurrection of Christ and also predate the gospels.

I do not think that Paul predates gMark. gMark is addressing a concern that would spring up quite soon after Jesus’ crucifixion. What was Jesus–a classic tragic hero, and what was Jesus not–the apocalyptic, Jewish Messiah.

f) the gospel of John, which is not dependent on Markan sources, includes Christ predicting his own death and an account of the resurrection.

gMark predates John, It is commonly thought that the “Passion Narrative” is quite early, extending back to the 30’s.

g) some of your criteria for deciding whether something is an addition is downright silly: any use of the word “amazing” or “immediately” renders a passage suspect?

Yes it does, due to the sheer amount of the use of these motisf. * Euthus* occurs I 42 times in Mark as compared to the other 7 other occurrences of the adverb in the other gospels. You do not recognizing that I am using a valid means of isolating a redactional layer in a composite composition. Such is used in both Old Testament source and redaction criticism and also in Pauline literarure. It’s just silly to you.

Literary idiosyncracies are not evidence of anything but the author’s grammatical preferences.

Why is that?
 
h) you commit the grave scholarly sin of eisegesis on a massive scale: your interpretation of the centurion’s statement as well as Jesus’ pre-mortem exclamations are without any foundation other than your own bias.

Whether my interpretation is exegesis or eisogesis in the matter under debate. You are simply dogmatically claiming now that your criticisms are correct and my interpretation is invalid.

And again, this completely ignores the Old Testament prophecies of the “suffering servant”

Isaiah 53 is not a prophecy. It is a eulogy. The servant here is likely Zerubbabel, who like Jesus, got caught up in an apocapytic frenzy as shown by Haggai’s prophecies based upon the completion of the second Temple:

2 Speak now to Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, governor of , and to Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and to the remnant of the people, and say, 3 Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory? How does it look to you now? Is it not in your sight as nothing? 4 Yet now take courage, O Zerubbabel, says Yahweh; take courage, O Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest; take courage, all you people of the land, says Yahweh; work, for I am with you, says Yahweh of Armies, 5 according to the promise that I made you when you came out of Egypt. My spirit abides among you; do not fear. 6 For thus says Yahweh of Armies: Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; 7 and I will shake all the nations, so that the treasure of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the Yahweh of Armies. 8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says Yahweh of Armies. 9 The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former, says Yahweh of Armies; and in this place I will give prosperity, says the Yahweh of Armies.

And also this prophecy from Haggai:

20 The word of Yahweh came a second time to Haggai on the twenty-fourth day of the month, 21 “Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I am about to shake the heavens and the earth, 22 and to overthrow the throne of kingdoms; I am about to destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations, and overthrow the chariots and their riders; and the horses and their riders shall go down, every one by the sword of his fellow. 23 On that day, says the LORD of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of She-al’ti-el, says Yahweh, and make you like a signet ring; for I have chosen you, says Yahweh of Armies.”

“I am about to shake…” That did not happen and the figure of Zerubbabel mysteriously disappears from our sources.

as well as Jesus’ own predictions,

That the Markan prediction of Jesus passion, death and resurrection are Markan expansions or not is the prior issue. Again we find a distinctly Markan use of repetion to where find his prediction made three times.

in both the synoptic and Johannine testimonies,

These, as I have argued post-date gMark’s, Roman perspective on what Jesus was.

of his betrayal and death, and, ultimately, his resurrection.

I have advanced arguments that the burial and resurrection account in Mark are Markan and do not likely belong to gMark.
 
And, with regards to his exclamation, " My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?", being the realization of his error, this is perhaps the most easily refuted of your charges. This is, actually, a direct quote from Psalm 22 (the very first verse, in fact), which is itself a blatant prophecy of his crucifixion.

The source of his citation is not the crucial issue. Why did he cite this verse?

You subscribe to the notion that prophecies are real, most likely informed a Christian fideism. Indeed, this is likely the basic reason that you resist my interpretation. Such would be entirely predictable.

From Psalm 22: “They pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; 18 They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.”

Many critical scholars hold that these motif were injected into the account and are non-historical and seen as an attempt to show that Jesus “fulfilled” these prophesies. I share that view.

Ultimately, the last sentence is the most telling of all: “I for one prefer the latter.” And that’s what the whole analysis amounts to: fitting the text to your preferences while ignoring the broad cultural and historical context into which it fits.

I do not ignore the cultural and historical context. Indeed, I show how my interpretation of gMark is quite stoic in the major role that Fate plays in the story. I show its literary context from the perspective of contemporary Roman culture. I argue that the classic description of a tragic hero is entirely contemporary and that the author was someone like Seneca who was about as old as Jesus.

I offer my assessment because I think it appropriate. Trajedy is simply a more profound and more siblime than is comedy. Do you perfer comedies? Fine. I do not. Your criticisms remain hovered above the specific exegetical claims I make. In effect, they do not meet and evade the specifics of my argument. For example, what is the probable interpretation of Jesus announcement that the high priest “will see?” At the Great Judgment? “When he is older?” Indeed, it is something that everyone hearing him will see while they are at least alive. Does the portayal of Jesus conform to the character and fate Aristotle’s tragic history or not? Does a plot development from an attiude of supreme confidence to abject dispair not resolve the dramatic question and so end with an epiphany as do tragedies in general?

I submit that your criticisms miss the mark as they oftenf ail to meet my arguments. I think you simply ignore crucial details and your arguments are evasive by being generalizations. You allege a bias to me and yet think that your fideism is not informing to criticisms. You are a Christian, are you not? You believe in supernatural prophecy, do you not? You believe that Jesus rose from the dead, do you not? You believe that you are eternally saved, do you not? You are affiliated with some Christian group, are not? Your beliefs are informing your interpretations, are they not?

Whom do you think you are fooling to accuse me of tendentious thinking? Sir, please, I implore you. I am not convinced that your intellectual allegience is to an objective interpretation of this literature. It is limited and directed by your fideism as is any strong ideology, religious or otherwise.

Let me also say that I am in no means a religious person. I have no idealogical commitments. Theologically, I am a pantheist, in case anyone who reads this may be wondering.

LMB
 
  1. Aristotle didn’t really define the tragic hero, or any specific hero of tragic plays. In the Poetics, he talks about which kind of plays won prizes and attracted audiences, and what sort of structures in them seemed to make them more successful and powerful audience-pleasers.
  2. Jesus didn’t have any kind of tragic hubris or flaw. You can’t really compare him to any Greek tragic figure, except maybe Socrates. And if the Messiah was meant to die, as the Gospels and prophecies make clear, it’s not a matter of being a “pretender” that killed Jesus (or made Him rise again). Everything proceeded as He willed it. And that’s sure as heck not a characteristic of Greek literature!
  3. That said, it’s no insult to the Evangelists if they used literary tropes of the Greeks to explain happenings in Israel. The authors of both books of Maccabees did the same, just as the authors of Esther and Tobit used Persian literary tropes. And using literary tropes to describe events doesn’t mean that the events you describe didn’t happen.
 
  1. Aristotle didn’t really define the tragic hero, or any specific hero of tragic plays. In the Poetics, he talks about which kind of plays won prizes and attracted audiences, and what sort of structures in them seemed to make them more successful and powerful audience-pleasers.
Your claims are are contradicted by more sources. Here is one.

ohio.edu/people/hartleyg/ref/aristotletragedy.html
  1. Jesus didn’t have any kind of tragic hubris or flaw.
an Indeed he did. He thought he was a mythological figure, Danie’s “son of man” named in the Daniel 7:13. He thought he was the promised “Messiah,” and according to the story said so quiet unequovally in his answer to the high priest. "Are you the Messiah? “I am.”

It was this hubris that was so painfully demonstrated by fate to be excessive and most grandiose and proven to be false. He did not usher in the messianic kingdom to which he alluded. This is all in my essay.

You can’t really compare him to any Greek tragic figure, except maybe Socrates.

I maintain the the comparison is most valid.

And if the Messiah was meant to die, as the Gospels and prophecies make clear,

The final form of the Gospels reflect a later development in Jesus veneration. It is a standard practice among critical New Testament scholars that the gospels are a mixture of the authentic words of Jesus and the later Christain beleifs. The Jesus Seminar, dedicated to determing where were the actual words of Jesus among to all of them recorded in the "Five Gospesl (The gnostic Gospel of Thomas is included) amout to about 18% of the words ascribed to him.

it’s not a matter of being a “pretender” that killed Jesus (or made Him rise again). Everything proceeded as He willed it. And that’s sure as heck not a characteristic of Greek literature!

The Christian view of the Messiah is a reinterpretation of the notion, making a “first” and a :second coming. The Jewish establishment, and the author of gMark, judge him not to be the Messiah because he did not usher in the Messianic Age. Jews still maintain this entirely reasonable position. In Acts 1, the disciples ask Jesus if it was at this time that he was going to 'restore the kingdom to Israel?," that is, create a Jewish monarchy, indeed, a preeminent Jewish monarchy in which the Messiah would rule the world from a Jerusalem kingship. Luke-Acts provides a new priortiy. They should be concerned about the establishment of the Messianic age but should instead busy themselves with proclaiming the Gospel:

1:6 So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 1:7 He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.”

So your characterization that Aristotle did not profile his tragic hero is contradicted by many sources and seems eroneous. Simply search the internet for “tragic hero.”
  1. That said, it’s no insult to the Evangelists if they used literary tropes of the Greeks to explain happenings in Israel. The authors of both books of Maccabees did the same, just as the authors of Esther and Tobit used Persian literary tropes. And using literary tropes to describe events doesn’t mean that the events you describe didn’t happen.
But Jesus is portrayed as a Tragic Hero whose does conformed to charaterization and plot… That is precisely gMark’s point. Both the characterization of Jesus and the plot of his story confirms quite closely to the story of a Tragic Hero, right down to a final “epiphany” as voiced by the centurion in 15:39.

I hardly think that my sources have invented as much as you claim and rather think that you are simply wrong in this regard. Either they are or you are.
 
It’s a very good idea, but pretty basically developed.

A few suggestions:
  • study Aeschylus’ ‘Prometheus’- in which Prometheus, for his gift to mankind, is ‘crucified’ on a cliff by Zeus. The dialogue is rich in Christian idea like redemptive suffering, etc. In fact, the speeched of Prometheus are Christ-like, dying for his love of humanity, but confident in eventual ‘resurrection’ (when Zeus and the current cosmis order is overthrown)
  • the theme of ‘mistaken (or concealed) identity’- the Markan Messianic Sceret- compare with Sophocles Oedipus Rex- where the revelation of identity (for Christ, as Son of God), is linked with a tragic fate
  • The minial role of ‘characterization’ in Mark seems consistent with Aristotle’s idea of the primacy of plot in tragedy in his Poetics.
I recommend you read all of Aeschylus and Sophocles (only 14 surviving plays altogether). The parallels between their ideas and Mark’s Gospel are amazing.

Which just shows, I suppose, the desire for a Christ even among the pagans- the same tragic human realities. “Only through suffering does man become wise”.
 
It’s a very good idea, but pretty basically developed.

A few suggestions:
  • study Aeschylus’ ‘Prometheus’- in which Prometheus, for his gift to mankind, is ‘crucified’ on a cliff by Zeus. The dialogue is rich in Christian idea like redemptive suffering, etc. In fact, the speeched of Prometheus are Christ-like, dying for his love of humanity, but confident in eventual ‘resurrection’ (when Zeus and the current cosmis order is overthrown)
  • the theme of ‘mistaken (or concealed) identity’- the Markan Messianic Sceret- compare with Sophocles Oedipus Rex- where the revelation of identity (for Christ, as Son of God), is linked with a tragic fate
  • The minial role of ‘characterization’ in Mark seems consistent with Aristotle’s idea of the primacy of plot in tragedy in his Poetics.
I recommend you read all of Aeschylus and Sophocles (only 14 surviving plays altogether). The parallels between their ideas and Mark’s Gospel are amazing.

Which just shows, I suppose, the desire for a Christ even among the pagans- the same tragic human realities. “Only through suffering does man become wise”.
Thank you for your pertinent suggestions. Two nights ago I read the Poetics. I am convinced that Aristotle would have very much appreciated and approved of pMark’s work. I went into more detal here if you are interested:

freewebs.com/lmbarre/jesusastragichero.htm

Now I need funding to properly execute my research!

Regards,

LMB
 
  • the theme of ‘mistaken (or concealed) identity’- the Markan Messianic Sceret- compare with Sophocles Oedipus Rex- where the revelation of identity (for Christ, as Son of God), is linked with a tragic fate
The messianic secret theme, I might add, is related to the other themes found within the gospel (I’m not referring to proto-Mark here), all of which overlap with each other: the blindness motif, the insider-outsider distinction, and the cross. If the Markan Jesus is a tragic hero, I think it is because the cross is a central theme of the work as a whole.
 
To the OP: care if I give my comments to part of your article?
Reconstructing the historical Jesus begins with his alleged words rather than alleged deeds of Jesus simply because as words are comparatively less ambiguous. Over the course of historical Jesus research, scholars have developed criteria by which to decide if a given saying goes back to Jesus or not. Among these is a criterion known as “The Criterion of Embarrassment.” It states that the later church would not invent statements of Jesus that prove to be self-embarrassing. Therefore, an embarrassing statement in the tradition is early and most likely goes back to Jesus. I suggest that the most embarrassing thing that Jesus allegedly said is found in Mark 15:34:
'eloi 'eloi lama sabachtani
"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?

On the face of it, the question and its implication is most embarrassing, even scandalous, and many desperate Christian explanations rush to cover its embarrassing character. Even so, it remains an embarrassing item for the church and to the traditional story of Jesus to this day–Jesus thought his God forsook him!
Quoting myself from another thread:

The ‘criterion of embarrassment’ is one of the criteria many historical Jesus scholars use in determining the authenticity of a given tradition (another is multiple attestation), and a particular favorite at that. As the name implies, it basically involves looking at a particular Jesus tradition preserved in the gospels and seeing whether it contains material that could have been potentially ‘embarrassing’ for the early Christians but which was still recorded by the Evangelists.

The baptism of Jesus is a classic textbook example: as it is commonly put, this tradition about Jesus being baptized by John is ‘embarrassing’ in that it could be construed as implying that John is superior to Jesus. The way it is often explained, the Evangelists make reference to this episode but they seem to have devised ways to ‘soften the blow’: Mark does not dwell over the event too much (“In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan”), Matthew records John at first hesitating to baptize the highly-superior Jesus, Luke only implies that Jesus was baptized (“Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying…”; he does not say directly “by John,” as Matthew and Mark does), and John omits directly telling about the baptism, only making reference (via John the Baptist’s dialogue) to the descent of the Holy Spirit (“I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him…”). Other examples include Jesus’ reaction to the Syro-Phoenician/Canaanite woman and the cry “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” at the cross.

That being said, there is a problem with the the term ‘criterion of embarrassment’. It seems to imply that early Christians are ‘ashamed’ of these traditions, which begs the question: why have they chosen to preserve it if it was so ‘embarrassing’? Hence, some people have proposed alternative, less subjective terms like ‘against-the-grain’ traditions. Another thing that people need to beware of is an uncritical, wooden use of this criterion: chopping off material simply because they are ‘with-the-grain’.
 
I should add that this cry of Jesus is really a hard piece of work. On the one hand, this seems to be an ‘embarrassing’ / ‘against-the-grain’ (whichever term you prefer) tradition, but on the other hand, the narrative itself at this point is so drenched with Scriptural allusions that one could be tempted to ask whether the cry could be a ‘historicization’ of Scripture. (If we choose here to follow John Dominic Crossan’s idea of the passion narratives being ‘prophecy historicized’, that is. 🤷)

15:23 And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. (= Psalm 69 (68):22 LXX “And they gave gall as my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” Note that Matthew has a more overt parallel at this point.)

15:24 And they crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. (= Psalm 22 (21):19 “They divided my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots.”)

15:27 And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. (= Isaiah 53:12 “And he was reckoned among the lawless.” A particular textual variant (the missing verse 28) actually quotes this passage perhaps under influence from Luke 22:37.)

15:29-30 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads… (Psalm 22 (21):8; 109:25 “All who saw me mocked at me; they talked with the lips; they moved the head;” “And I, I became a reproach to them; they saw me; they shook their heads.” Also cf. Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20 for the mockery.)

15:33 And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. (= cf. Amos 8:9-10.)

15:36 And someone ran and filled a sponge with vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.” (= Psalm 69 (68):22 again.)

15:40 There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. (Greek apo makrothen; Psalm 38:11 LXX “My friends and my fellows approached opposite me and stood, and my next of kin stood afar off (apo makrothen).”)
The above text is actually a butchered, partial translation of Psalm 22:1. The word, ‘eloi is neither Hebrew nor Aramaic. The psalm reads, ‘eli while another form of “my god” in Hebrew is 'elohi with the Aramaic equivalent being 'alahi. It appears that Jesus failed to remember the correct Hebrew form of “My God.” He tried but failed to quote accurately. This is why the remainder of the quote is in good Aramaic, his native vernacular. Jesus knew that he misspoke the Hebrew word for “My God” and so abandoned the attempt and resorted to a translation.
The form that Jesus came up with moments before he died not only proves to be embarrassing, but also satisfies another criterion used to isolate the authentic words of Jesus–Orality. If we seek to account for the unattested form, 'eloi, the conclusion is at hand that Jesus mistakenly conflated two Hebrew words, 'eli, which is the form in Ps 22:1, and 'elohi, a common form in Hebrew for “my god.” Accordingly, Jesus took the holem (long o vowel in Hebrew) and unconsciously inserted it into 'eli, thereby producing and indeed inventing the form as we have it in Mark. Thus, it appears that we have here an oral expression since it is highly unlikely that some scribe would misquote Ps: 22:1 who would have had the correct form before him. That this is true is clinched by the fact that Matthew, working form Mark’s written form, corrects Mark to the Psalm. Matthew was embarrassed by Mark’s form. Therefore, these words satisfy two of the criteria for isolating the words of Jesus.
I think you’re reading too much into the transliteration Elōi. You’re correct that a number of people argue that the transliteration of the Aramaic 'elāhī into Greek is a bit off, but IMHO at this stage we could never be sure whether this is Jesus’ fault or Mark’s. Assuming that Matthew did change Mark’s transliteration I personally don’t think this is so much out of ‘embarassment’ (where is the embarassment?) but to draw a more clearer parallel to ‘Elijah’.

As an aside, I should mention here the fact that the different manuscripts themselves could not agree on how to spell these words: whether it was ēli - as in Matthew - or elōi, lama or lema or lima, and sabachthani or sabaphthani or sabaktani or zaphthani. Also, there’s a particularly interesting quote from Judges 5:5 (version B) in the Septuagint: ὄρη ἐσαλεύθησαν ἀπὸ προσώπου κυρίου Ελωι τοῦτο Σινα ἀπὸ προσώπου κυρίου θεοῦ Ισραηλ. “Mountains quaked from before the Lord Elōi, this Sinai, from before the Lord, God of Israel.” The word isn’t found in the Hebrew version (or in Greek version A), but this is a rather curious instance of Elōi.
 
I should add that this cry of Jesus is really a hard piece of work. On the one hand, this seems to be an ‘embarrassing’ / ‘against-the-grain’ (whichever term you prefer) tradition, but on the other hand, the narrative itself at this point is so drenched with Scriptural allusions that one could be tempted to ask whether the cry could be a ‘historicization’ of Scripture. (If we choose here to follow John Dominic Crossan’s idea of the passion narratives being ‘prophecy historicized’, that is. 🤷)

15:23 And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. (= Psalm 69 (68):22 LXX “And they gave gall as my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” Note that Matthew has a more overt parallel at this point.)

15:24 And they crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. (= Psalm 22 (21):19 “They divided my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots.”)

15:27 And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. (= Isaiah 53:12 “And he was reckoned among the lawless.” A particular textual variant (the missing verse 28) actually quotes this passage perhaps under influence from Luke 22:37.)

15:29-30 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads… (Psalm 22 (21):8; 109:25 “All who saw me mocked at me; they talked with the lips; they moved the head;” “And I, I became a reproach to them; they saw me; they shook their heads.” Also cf. Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20 for the mockery.)

15:33 And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. (= cf. Amos 8:9-10.)
*
This is perhaps a stretch.*

15:36 And someone ran and filled a sponge with vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.” (= Psalm 69 (68):22 again.)

48 Immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink. 49 But the rest of them said, “Let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him.”

Note that Mark makes bad sense, that the one offering the drink said, “Wait . . .” Matthew makes good sense as he has others tell the one with the drink to “wait.”

It does not seem that Matthew is correcting Mark. This may be evidence that Matthew and pMark are drawing upon a common source, a source older than pMark, pMark being older than Mark (c 70 CE). So Mark–>pMark–>common source!
 
Continued.

15:40 There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. (Greek apo makrothen; Psalm 38:11 LXX “My friends and my fellows approached opposite me and stood, and my next of kin stood afar off (apo makrothen).”)[/INDENT]

Kind of a stretch also.

This verse I argue belongs to the first line of Mark’s addition to the ending of pMark in 15:39.

I think you’re reading too much into the transliteration Elōi.

Not according to Aristotle’s Poetics, who discusses diction down to the proper vowels to be used.

You’re correct that a number of people argue that the transliteration of the Aramaic 'elāhī into Greek is a bit off,

A bit off is kind. It is incorrect spelling.

but IMHO at this stage we could never be sure whether this is Jesus’ fault or Mark’s.

Note that the crowd seized upon the mistake. It is a fundamental part of the tragic plot that Jesus would misprounce the word “my God.” His breath was failing, and he had not the strength to vocalize the he! So he slurred and committed what he would have thought was next to, if not, blasphemy! But this is part of the drama the pMark portrayed with such exquisite detail. Your references to Mark seem to convey the impression that you do not distinguish Mark and pMark, which makes all the difference.

Assuming that Matthew did change Mark’s transliteration I personally don’t think this is so much out of ‘embarassment’ (where is the embarassment?) but to draw a more clearer parallel to ‘Elijah’.

The embarssament is that Jesus certainly did not quote the Hebrew of Psalm 22:1, nor did he succeed in prouncing 'elohi. Matthew indirectly reflects the embarassing mistake by correcting to the Psalm with 'eli.

As an aside, I should mention here the fact that the different manuscripts themselves could not agree on how to spell these words: whether it was ēli - as in Matthew - or elōi

As I said, which reading explains the other? Matthew is widely regarded as later and dependent on Mark, so he appears to be making a correction based upon the Psalm.
In Matthew, Jesus quoted correctly, in pMark, he did not.

, lama or lema or lima, and sabachthani or sabaphthani or sabaktani or zaphthani.

I take that Jesus realized his mistake according to pMark and so reverted to his venacular Aramaic. As to the other altenative, I should think that the proper Aramaic spelling is the correct reading, unless two spellings were in use.

Also, there’s a particularly interesting quote from Judges 5:5 (version B) in the Septuagint: ὄρη ἐσαλεύθησαν ἀπὸ προσώπου κυρίου Ελωι τοῦτο Σινα ἀπὸ προσώπου κυρίου θεοῦ Ισραηλ. “Mountains quaked from before the Lord Elōi, this Sinai, from before the Lord, God of Israel.” The word isn’t found in the Hebrew version (or in Greek version A), but this is a rather curious instance of Elōi.

This is, in fact, as far as I have found, the only occurrence of the form, 'eloi. “This Sinai” seems to be a gloss in the MT, aiming to identify the “quaking” moutains with Mt Sinai. So the Vorlage seems to read smoothly as:

“Mountains quaked before Yahweh,
from before Yahweh, the god of Israel.”

The MT has no “my god,” no 'eloi.

In any case, the occurrence in the Greek can in no way be a justification of 'eloi in Mark, wouldn’t you agree?
 
The messianic secret theme, I might add, is related to the other themes found within the gospel (I’m not referring to proto-Mark here), all of which overlap with each other: the blindness motif, the insider-outsider distinction, and the cross. If the Markan Jesus is a tragic hero, I think it is because the cross is a central theme of the work as a whole.
I think we have more than enough evidence to ascribe to the theory of pMark. It is also common knowledge that Mark is “a passion narrative with an introduction.” I trace pMark backward from 15:39 to Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem. We also can accept with some measure of certainty that the texts that encompass the three examples I cited are pMark material and that the passion narrative was never independent of prior “events.” The statement that “he delivered others but cannot deliver himself,” makes reference to a ministry prior to his arrival at Jerusalem.

In the three Markan expansion is presented, the first is the most obvious. This alone is enough to conclude that an underlying narrative has been supplemented by a later hand. I submit that there is also compelling evidence that pMark ended at 15:39 and that the following two episodes of the burial and empty tomb are indeed Markan expansions as well.

That Mark uses the adverb euthus occurs no less that 42 times shows that this is a major Markan theme. Thus, every pericopae in which it is found is likely an expansion. Noting that Mark favors repetition, we also determine that the major theme of an “amazement” at Jesus, is also indicative of an expansion. This Markan theme comes to a climax when the young man dressed in white exhorts the women “not” to be astonished.

A climatic event in pMark is when Jesus prays to his god with the quoted question, “Why have you forsaken me?” Thus, according to pMark, Jesus did not want to die, nor did he expect to die. This idea stand in bold contrast to the thrice repeated predictions of Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection. Here again we note Mark’s fondness for repetition and also see how he has radically reinterpreted pMark.

Bringing all of these considerations together, we achieve an approximate estimation of what material belong to which version of the Gospel. But even if we cannot obtain the confidence one would wish, I submit that we do have enough textual evidence to define pMark as a tragedy that very much is informed by Aristotle’s Poetics. That pMark portrayed Jesus as a tragic hero is much in evidence constitutes a quite probable conclusion.

I have no dellusion that the thesis needs to be fully researched and propounded in detail. Hopefully, I will obtain the means to do so. I venture to say that pMark’s composition is a literary masterpiece of the highest order, one that Aristotle himself would greatly admire and experience much gratification that his Poetics so directed our anonymous author.
 
This is a good point at which to note that there is increasing doubt about Markan priority among biblical scholars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top