Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Furthermore, even in cases in which the repetition may be suspicious, it does not necessarily mean that anything suspicious happened during the penning of the text. It may have happened beforehand. For example, it is possible that the two feeding miracles in Mark simply come from different story sources. There was one feeding story, and then that story changed enough in the retelling and wound up looking different enough that it now appeared that there were two feedings, and the author of Mark incorporated both. Mark incorporating both stories at the authorial level is not my preferred reconstruction of how the two feedings came to appear in the same gospel, please note, but it is possible, and I have had to make the effort to rule it out.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:14 am
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.

but for what matters in this thread, my interest is only to prove that the confusion Eloì/Elijah and the burial are additions. To remove the burial, it is sufficient, in my view, to raise suspicions about the introduction of Joseph of Arimathea. The his introduction as "secret" disciple of Jesus (so much "secret" that he was enumerated even among the worst enemies of Jesus: the sinedrites) is too much apologetically functional to the goal of make the story continue with a different final.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:21 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:14 am
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.

but for what matters in this thread, my interest is only to prove that the confusion Eloì/Elijah and the burial are additions. To remove the burial, it is sufficient, in my view, to raise suspicions about the introduction of Joseph of Arimathea. The his introduction as "secret" disciple of Jesus (so much "secret" that he was enumerated even among the worst enemies of Jesus: the sinedrites) is too much functional to the goal of make the story continue with a different final.

Well, I do suspect that the burial is secondary. But to my eye the most likely candidate for the end of the gospel has always been either the rending of the veil or the centurion's statement, or possibly even the last breath. I readily admit that I have no special argument against other possible endings, including the forsaken cry; it is all highly speculative to begin with, and ruling out possibilities in this kind of case can take a long, long time.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:25 am the rending of the veil or the centurion's statement,

about the rending of the veil, it is a curious repetition of the theme of separation. But I should read again the arguments to exclude the centurion's observation.

Unfortunately, I don't find an explanation for the removal of the centurion's statement. Possibly the reason to remove him is that he does an antithetical point against the high priest's accusation in the first trial, himself in turn a repetition (hence, an addition) of the second (but original) trial before Pilate.

At any case, I don't see a so great difference between a final on the last breath and a final with the centurion's statement. In both the cases, something happens that has to be interpreted by the readers. My point is that the original readers had the Separationist idea in mind, polemically or symphatetically.

Hence my "hostility" here is addressed entirely against Joseph of Arimathea, working as trait d'union between an old final and a new final.

All the other items talk about a Separation in action:

• The rending of veil: a separation per se

• The eclipse: a separation per se

• The parable of Sower: a prophecy of a Separation per se

• The centurion's statement: even if it was a cynical sarcastic statement, it would confirm that a divine victory has to be seen just behind the forsaken cry. And that victory can only be the Separation between the visible loser (the victim on the cross) and the invisible winner (YHWH).

• The confusion Elijah/Eloi: a Separation between a coming precursor (Elijah) and an already arrived precursor (John the Baptist was Elijah).

Hence I raise again the question: do you think that, without Joseph of Arimathea etc, the original author was still totally unaware of the idea of a Separation happening during the crucifixion ? And therefore was he innocently basing only on the Psalm 22?

Obviously, if Joseph of Arimathea was original, all my discourse is totally speculation.

Ben, I have read again Hebrews 5:7 and yes, I think that you are right to consider that the Earliest Belief, even if in disagreement with Paul, had a Jesus ascended in extremis both body and soul.



Heard? Therefore saved from death.

Interesting. Thanks.

Another evidence that a previous narrative had a Jesus entirely victorious by sudden disappearance from the cross is the fact that the forsaken cry seems to break bluntly the expectation of the reader.

I mean: Jesus seems to be too much sure of his own coming victory.
Even before the sinedrites.

Hence I wonder if the forsaken cry was designed to remove that extreme self-confidence of Jesus as more embarrassing than the forsaken cry itself.

I mean: there are two Jesuses.

• A Jesus who wants to meet death, extremely sure of his final victory

• A Jesus who fears the death, as a mere mortal.

I wonder: who could consider the not-human impassibility of Jesus before the death as embarrassing ?

My suspicion is that, by making Jesus decisively more humble by the forsaken cry, the reader could be more persuaded that Jesus recognized his inferiority in comparison to the god who "adopted" him.