Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 8:47 am I suspect, to the contrary, that the cry from the cross was their main prooftext for a concept they wanted to be true for other reasons.

My 'therapy' would be, please, if you can give an explanation of this your point. What do you mean with "their" in the quote above? Are you claiming that who invented the Jesus's cry on the cross:

• 1) had in mind only the Psalm 22 without no knowledge of a Separation idea on a celestial Stauros because the latter was late Valentinian speculation

• 2) had in mind the Psalm 22 but with a secret allusion (for insiders) to a Separationist Crucifixion

• 3) had in mind the Psalm 22 but in order to eclipse the Separation idea on a celestial Stauros (my view)

• 4) had in mind a historical Jesus (sic) who cried really these words (double sic).

Thanks for the answer.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 8:54 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 8:47 am I suspect, to the contrary, that the cry from the cross was their main prooftext for a concept they wanted to be true for other reasons.

My 'therapy' would be, please, if you can give an explanation of this your point. What do you mean with "their" in the quote above?

By "they" I mean separationists (in the classical sense) who interpreted the forsaken cry as evidence for their viewpoint that there is no way that a god or a hero could suffer and die on the cross. The forsaken cry in Mark is, on its own, no more separationist than it is in the Psalm. It had to be interpreted in that direction by people with other motives for imagining a split on the cross.

Are you claiming that who invented the Jesus's cry on the cross:

• 1) had in mind only the Psalm 22 without knowledge of a Separation idea on a celestial Stauros because the latter was late Valentinian speculation

Pretty much this, yes (the highlighted part only). I think that the allusions to Psalm 22 (and, indeed, the construction of much of the story from Psalm 22) predate what we usually mean by separationism.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:32 am

Are you claiming that who invented the Jesus's cry on the cross:

• 1) had in mind only the Psalm 22 without knowledge of a Separation idea on a celestial Stauros because the latter was late Valentinian speculation

Pretty much this, yes (the highlighted part only). I think that the allusions to Psalm 22 (and, indeed, the construction of much of the story from Psalm 22) predate what we usually mean by separationism.

Ok, it is now more clear. But, please remove this my further curiosity: do you continue to think so even if the Earliest Gospel (or, in your scenario, uniquely one of the two sources in the hands of the Earliest Harmonizer Separationist) had the following final:


STOP. NO FURTHER SEQUEL.

Do you mean that even so, the Jesus's cry doesn't assume a (polemical or friendly) allusion to a previous Separation idea (as for example the celestial stauros) but only and always the Psalm 22 and nothing other ?

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:40 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:32 am

Are you claiming that who invented the Jesus's cry on the cross:

• 1) had in mind only the Psalm 22 without knowledge of a Separation idea on a celestial Stauros because the latter was late Valentinian speculation

Pretty much this, yes (the highlighted part only). I think that the allusions to Psalm 22 (and, indeed, the construction of much of the story from Psalm 22) predate what we usually mean by separationism.

Ok, it is now more clear. But, please remove this my further curiosity: do you continue to think so even if the Earliest Gospel (or, in your scenario, uniquely one of the two sources in the hands of the Earliest Harmonizer Separationist) had the following final:

Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). And Jesus breathed his last.

STOP. NO FURTHER SEQUEL.

Do you mean that even so, the Jesus's cry doesn't assume a (polemical or friendly) allusion to a previous Separation idea (as for example the celestial stauros) but only and always the Psalm 22 and nothing other ?

Because I have never really thought that any early passion source (written or otherwise) ended, full stop, at the forsaken cry, I would have to think through the implications.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:46 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:40 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:32 am

Are you claiming that who invented the Jesus's cry on the cross:

• 1) had in mind only the Psalm 22 without knowledge of a Separation idea on a celestial Stauros because the latter was late Valentinian speculation

Pretty much this, yes (the highlighted part only). I think that the allusions to Psalm 22 (and, indeed, the construction of much of the story from Psalm 22) predate what we usually mean by separationism.

Ok, it is now more clear. But, please remove this my further curiosity: do you continue to think so even if the Earliest Gospel (or, in your scenario, uniquely one of the two sources in the hands of the Earliest Harmonizer Separationist) had the following final:

Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). And Jesus breathed his last.

STOP. NO FURTHER SEQUEL.

Do you mean that even so, the Jesus's cry doesn't assume a (polemical or friendly) allusion to a previous Separation idea (as for example the celestial stauros) but only and always the Psalm 22 and nothing other ?

Because I have never really thought that any early passion source (written or otherwise) ended, full stop, at the forsaken cry, I would have to think through the implications.

Ok, I would leave you all the time necessary for thinking about it. But I hope that you show in next days your thoughts about it.

Good Easter

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:49 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:46 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:40 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:32 am

Are you claiming that who invented the Jesus's cry on the cross:

• 1) had in mind only the Psalm 22 without knowledge of a Separation idea on a celestial Stauros because the latter was late Valentinian speculation

Pretty much this, yes (the highlighted part only). I think that the allusions to Psalm 22 (and, indeed, the construction of much of the story from Psalm 22) predate what we usually mean by separationism.

Ok, it is now more clear. But, please remove this my further curiosity: do you continue to think so even if the Earliest Gospel (or, in your scenario, uniquely one of the two sources in the hands of the Earliest Harmonizer Separationist) had the following final:

Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). And Jesus breathed his last.

STOP. NO FURTHER SEQUEL.

Do you mean that even so, the Jesus's cry doesn't assume a (polemical or friendly) allusion to a previous Separation idea (as for example the celestial stauros) but only and always the Psalm 22 and nothing other ?

Because I have never really thought that any early passion source (written or otherwise) ended, full stop, at the forsaken cry, I would have to think through the implications.

Ok, I would leave you all the time necessary for thinking about it. But I hope that you show in next days your thoughts about it.

Good Easter

Sure, and Happy Easter.

In the meantime, why do you think there was a full stop after the forsaken cry? I know I have read something from you about that recently, but I was never quite sure whether I was getting the full argument.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:59 am In the meantime, why do you think there was a full stop after the forsaken cry? I know I have read something from you about that recently, but I was never quite sure whether I was getting the full argument.

Removing any possible addition as suspected to be an "interpolation with repetition", one arrives at that specific final.

For a rapid example, in Mark (respectively verse 34 and 37) we have the repetition of the loud Jesus's cry, proving the episode "confusion Elijah/Eloi" to be an interpolation. If we repeat de rigueur the same process for any possible repetition (removing the related interpolation), we gain the original skeleton of the story (having only the trial before Pilate, question of Pilate, answer of Jesus, flogging and crucifixion of Jesus, cry of Jesus, finis).

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 10:19 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:59 am In the meantime, why do you think there was a full stop after the forsaken cry? I know I have read something from you about that recently, but I was never quite sure whether I was getting the full argument.

Removing any possible addition as suspected to be an "interpolation with repetition", one arrives at that specific final.

For a rapid example, in Mark (respectively verse 34 and 37) we have the repetition of the loud Jesus's cry, proving the episode "confusion Elijah/Eloi" to be an interpolation. If we repeat de rigueur the same process for any possible repetition (removing the related interpolation), we gain the original skeleton of the story (having only the trial before Pilate, question of Pilate, answer of Jesus, flogging and crucifixion of Jesus, cry of Jesus, finis).

For me, repetition is simply not enough to prove interpolation. I have used repetition as one argument among many for specific interpolations, but its use by itself would imply that original works are never written with repetition, which is manifestly false. Is there anything besides repetition that you are using to identify these interpolations?

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 10:46 am but its use by itself would imply that original works are never written with repetition, which is manifestly false. Is there anything besides repetition that you are using to identify these interpolations?

to my knowledge, considering the general argument (because in the details I can't describe now in a single post the entire argument), the "anything" is the specific fact that in the our Passion stories the repetitions are really too many, and some of them raise too much paradoxical situations. Think for example about the repetition of the trial, (or the repetition of the flogging). The repetition of the trial is expected if we have originally only a trial before Pilate and there is need of charging the Jews by a second trial before the sinedrites.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:09 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 10:46 am but its use by itself would imply that original works are never written with repetition, which is manifestly false. Is there anything besides repetition that you are using to identify these interpolations?

to my knowledge, considering the general argument (because in the details I can't describe now in a single post the entire argument), the "anything" is the specific fact that in the our Passion stories the repetitions are really too many, and some of them raise too much paradoxal situations. Think for example about the repetition of the trial, (or the repetition of the flogging). The repetition of the trial is expected if we have originally only a trial before Pilate and there is need of charging the Jews by a second trial before the sinedrites.

I can see where such considerations may come into play for some elements of the passion narrative, but not all repetition signals interpolation. In fact, most probably does not.