"Eli eli" at the ninth hour is a prayer? (Mark 15:34)

[Stefan Kristensen]

2 Kings 2:12, Elisha is crying to Elijah, but he refers to him as 'Father', even though his father according to 1 Kings 19:16 was Shaphat, similar confusion in the New Testament, with Jesus being the son of 'Eli' and 'Joseph, see Luke 3:23.

I think Elisha is shouting to God, not to Elijah.

The first part of the name Elisha (אלישע) can also be a definite article, so in poetry,

It can?

[Stefan Kristensen]

...

On the hours of prayer in Tertullian On Fasting:

In like manner they censure on the count of novelty our Stations as being enjoined; some, moreover, (censure them) too as being prolonged habitually too late, saying that this duty also ought to be observed of free choice, and not continued beyond the ninth hour,-- (deriving their rule), of course, from their own practice. Well: as to that which pertains to the question of injunction, I will once for all give a reply to suit all causes. Now, (turning) to the point which is proper to this particular cause--concerning the limit of time, I mean--I must first demand from themselves whence they derive this prescriptive law for concluding Stations at the ninth hour. If it is from the fact that we read that Peter and he who was with him entered the temple "at the ninth (hour), the hour of prayer," who will prove to me that they had that day been performing a Station, so as to interpret the ninth hour as the hour for the conclusion and discharge of the Station? Nay, but you would more easily find that Peter at the sixth hour had, for the sake of taking food, gone up first on the roof to pray; so that the sixth hour of the day may the rather be made the limit to this duty, which (in Peter's case) was apparently to finish that duty, after prayer. Further: since in the self-same commentary of Luke the third hour is demonstrated as an hour of prayer, about which hour it was that they who had received the initiatory gift of the Holy Spirit were held for drunkards; and the sixth, at which Peter went up on the roof; and the ninth, at which they entered the temple: why should we not understand that, with absolutely perfect indifference, we must pray always, and everywhere, and at every time; yet still that these three hours, as being more marked in things human-- (hours) which divide the day, which distinguish businesses, which re-echo in the public ear--have likewise ever been of special solemnity in divine prayers? A persuasion which is sanctioned also by the corroboratire fact of Daniel praying thrice in the day; of course, through exception of certain stated hours, no other, moreover, than the more marked and subsequently apostolic (hours)--the third, the sixth, the ninth. And hence, accordingly, I shall affirm that Peter too had been led rather by ancient usage to the observance of the ninth hour, praying at the third specific interval, (the interval) of final prayer.

These (arguments), moreover; (we have advanced) for their sakes who think that they are acting in conformity with Peter's model, (a model) of which they are ignorant: not as if we slighted the ninth hour, (an hour) which, on the fourth and sixth days of the week, we most highly honour; but because, of those things which are, observed on the ground of tradition, we are bound to adduce so much the more worthy reason, that they lack the authority of Scripture, until by some signal celestial gift they be either confirmed or else corrected. "And if," says (the apostle), "there are matters which ye are ignorant about, the Lord will reveal to you." Accordingly, setting out of the question the confirmer of all such things, the Paraclete, the guide of universal truth, inquire whether there be not a worthier reason adduced among its for the observing of the ninth hour; so that this reason (of ours) must be attributed even to Peter if he observed a Station at the time in question. For (the practice) comes from the death of the Lord; which death albeit it behoves to be commemorated always, without difference of hours yet are we at that time more impressively commended to its commemoration, according to the actual (meaning of the) name of Station. For even soldiers, though never unmindful of their military oath, yet pay a greater deference to Stations. And so the "pressure" must be maintained up to that hour in which the orb--involved from the sixth hour in a general darkness--performed for its dead Lord a sorrowful act of duty; so that we too may then return to enjoyment when the universe regained its sunshine. If this savours more of the spirit of Christian religion, while it celebrates more the glory of Christ, I am equally able, from the self-same order of events, to fix the condition of late protraction of the Station; (namely), that we are to fast till a late hour, awaiting the time of the Lord's sepulture, when Joseph took down and entombed the body which he had requested. Thence (it follows) that it is even irreligious for the flesh of the servants to take refreshment before their Lord did.

Ah yes, Pentecost in Acts 2 is in the third hour. And here the prayer in the ninth hour is also connected to Jesus' cry on the cross.

[Stefan Kristensen]

Well, if Jesus' cry on the cross is an "urban legend", then the whole of Mark's story is an urban legend. I suppose we could call it that. But I never considered 2 Kings 2:12 a possible background for Mark 15:34, thanks for that. Also, Elisha's "tearing his (old) clothes in two pieces" is interesting.

.
The Elijah-Elisha narrative ... is...a literary model for the Gospels ..//.. the Gospels’ foundational model is the Elijah-Elisha narrative. By shifting the emphasis of the Primary History —from history toward biography, and from history toward the (prophetic) word— the account of Elijah and Elisha prepared the literary way for the writing of the Gospels. Thus the Elijah-Elisha narrative constitutes the key bridge between the foundational narratives of Judaism and Christianity.

Thomas L Brodie "The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model of the Gospels"

.
Much of the story called the Gospel of Mark follows the story of Elijah and Elisha from 1 and 2 Kings ... For anyone seeking to understand the Gospels, I strongly recommend reading the entire books of 1 and 2 Kings.

... In the Gospel called Mark, John the Baptist represents Elijah ... Readers are told this at the very beginning of the story through the use of literary allusion. In fact, readers are clued in to the fact that the story will parallel much of 1 and 2 Kings right from the beginning. The author uses an implicit reference to the Hebrew scriptures when the author describes the character of John the Baptist.

Price, R.G. Deciphering the Gospels ... (Kindle Locations 300-304; 316-334). Lulu Publishing Services

No doubt that the Elijah-Elisha cycle is a fundamental part for the whole gospel narrative. We have to study these stories carefully, just as the gospel writers evidently did.

[Ethan]

It is clear that the story of Elijah is not exclusive too the Old Testament, because OVID was also aware and wrote down a version.

Ovid, Metamorphoses 2. 319 ff (trans. Melville) (Roman epic C1st B.C. to C1st A.D.) :
Phaethon, driving the chariot of the Helios, was struck down by the thunderbolt of Zeus , Phaethon, flames ravaging his auburn hair (capillo), falls headlong down, a streaming trail of light, as sometimes through the cloudless vault of night a star, though never falling, seems to fall. Eridanus receives him, far from home, in his wide waters half a world away. And bathes his burning face.

Capillo - Hair
Capella - Goat

2 Kings 2
11 - There appeared a chariot and Horse of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
13 - He took up also the mantle(Goat Hair) of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan;
14 - And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters

I believe the original story was composed by Thespis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thespis

[Stefan Kristensen]

Ok, to sum up: Acts indicates that prayers were done in the sixth and ninth hour. That it was an early Christian practice to pray in the third, sixth and ninth hour is indicated in early Christian literature such as Clement and Tertullian. The text of Tertullian on fasting quoted above by Stephan Huller even specifically connects the ninth hour with Jesus' death, although it's not quite clear to me whether he's talking about fasting or praying.

And in the early literature of the Apostolic Tradition as related by Hippolytus there are three prayers instituted specifically connected with the hours which provide the structure of Jesus' crucifixion.


Acts says that the Pentecost event took place in the third hour, but we don't hear about them praying explicitly. However, I think it can be deduced from Luke's writings that there was an idea about praying that in praying you come in contact with the divine, through the holy spirit. It is the holy spirit that works in prayers or something to that effect, therefore, if the third hour is understood as an hour of praying, then it makes sense that the Pentecost event would happen then, in this way, with them "all together in the same place" (Acts 2:1).

It could be that Luke intends us to understand quite naturally that they were praying, as they gathered "all together in the same place", but that he doesn't feel the need to say so. After all, that's one of the things they do constantly in Acts as part of their new community and service to God, they pray.

There is such an incident in the case of Cornelius, where he is praying, but Luke doesn't feel the need to tell us, apparantly because that's what Cornelius does. In Acts 10:2-3 Luke tells us:

He was a devout man who feared God with all his household; he gave alms generously to the people and always prayed to God. One afternoon at around the ninth hour he had a vision in which he clearly saw an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius".

We don't hear that Cornelius is praying here in the ninth hour, but Luke probably intends his readers to understand this, because (1) Cornelius is such a pious fellow who always prays, and (2) the time indicator of "around the ninth hour" is then naturally what tells us that he is praying. Because he was indeed praying, even though Luke doesn't tell us here. In the third hour the next day Peter is praying and then he travels to Cornelius' house:

Cornelius replied to Peter, “Four days ago at this very hour, in the ninth hour, I was praying in my house when suddenly a man in dazzling clothes stood before me.

And what happens next here, in the ninth hour, is the 'Gentile Pentecost' where the holy spirit comes upon all the house of Cornelius.


And in the Talmud it is specifically stated that there were three daily prayers for the Jews, evening, morning and noon.

Josephus tells us that there were two daily sacrifices, in the morning and in the afternoon, "in the ninth hour".

We also know that prayers were generally regarded as sacrifices, a sweet smell rising up to God in heaven (including somewhere in Rev.), also in accordance with the Jewish practice of making prayers a substitute for the temple sacrifices.

Also, in Luke 1:10 in the incident where John the Baptist's father, Zechariah, gets a message from God, that his prayers have been answered, this happens in the liturgical circumstance of his incense offering where "the whole assembly of the people was praying outside":

Now at the time of the incense offering, the whole assembly of the people was praying outside.

[Ben C. Smith]

Where can I learn of Goodacre's hypothesis?

The hypothesis originates with Goulder (whom I have read) and Trocmé (whom I have not). But Goodacre summarizes and expands it a bit here: http://markgoodacre.org/swan.pdf.

ETA: Oh, and Goodacre also mentions Carrington (whom I have also not read).

Thanks. I think there are lots questions that Goodacre answers way too quicly or not at all in this paper, such as what exactly Paul means by "proclaiming" the death of Christ when eating the Lord's supper. If I understand him correctly (but I've only read this one paper, of course) then he assesses that the evidence supports that in Paul's time there was a coherent narrative in place concerning Jesus' passion, and not concerning his ministry, and that it is this also shows in gMark?

I think that is the gist of that part of his argument, yes. "On the night in which he was delivered up" does presuppose some sort of account or chronology; that part should not be controversial. You have to understand, though, that I myself harbor doubts as to the authenticity of 1 Corinthians 11.23-28: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2650. So my assessment of the hypothesis is already going to be different than that of somebody who has no issue with 1 Corinthians 11.23-28. And there is more to the hypothesis than just what Goodacre writes, too. There is also Goulder, for example.

For my money, the concentration on the regularly spaced hours in Mark is already best explained by some sort of liturgical angle based upon the three daily Jewish prayers. The three hours representing the three days of death, burial, and resurrection is an attractive hypothesis, but it does not explain both intervals (3 to 6 and 6 to 9). Amos 8.9 explains the focus on noontime, but it fails to explain the three hour intervals themselves. And both of these hypotheses put together still fall short, since the interval of 3 to 6 is explained by neither. So I reach for other explanations, and a liturgical explanation (to wit, that Mark was either following or innovating a liturgical observance of Jesus' death) fits the bill. Clement of Alexandria shows that the intervals could indeed be seen as liturgical, and Andrew proved the same on this same thread from the Apostolic Tradition. So it is hardly a stretch to suppose that the intervals in Mark were originally created precisely for that purpose. We know from the Quartodeciman debate that Christians were observing the Lord's death very early.

None of this means that the notion is in any way proven. It is just an hypothesis. But it is one that I am entertaining until a better one should come along, at which point I will gladly switch trains. But so far none has. The only other option so far that is really in the running is the historical one: Mark records what just happens to be the manner and timing of Jesus' historical death. But the liturgical hypothesis makes more sense to me.

[Ben C. Smith]

2 Kings 2:12, Elisha is crying to Elijah, but he refers to him as 'Father', even though his father according to 1 Kings 19:16 was Shaphat, similar confusion in the New Testament, with Jesus being the son of 'Eli' and 'Joseph, see Luke 3:23.

I think Elisha is shouting to God, not to Elijah.

The first part of the name Elisha (אלישע) can also be a definite article, so in poetry,

It can?

Ethan does not know Hebrew: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3972&p=93406#p93406. Everything that he writes on any topic ought to be taken with a truckload of heavy duty curing salt, and nothing that he writes with respect to the Hebrew language ought to be considered at all.

[Secret Alias]

Origen makes a connection with the parable of the vineyard with the 11th hour = the resurrection

[Ethan]

Talking about SALT, Why does the story of Elijah put emphasis on Sodium Chloride.

2 Kings 2:20 - And he said, Bring me a new cruse, and put salt therein. And they brought it to him.
2 Kings 2:21 - And he went forth unto the spring of the waters, and cast the salt in there, and said, Thus saith the LORD, I have healed these waters

These are the questions theologians can't answer.

[Secret Alias]

Can't this idiot shut up?