“A Forsaken Variant in Mark 15:34”

Jeff Cate
California Baptist University (Riverside, CA)
jcate@calbaptist.edu

Mark 15:34 (NA28)

καὶ τῇ ἐνάτῃ ὥρᾳ ἐβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ·
ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι;
ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον·
ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;

Witnesses for ὠνείδισας (“reviled”):

• 05/D (V cent) ὠνίδισας, cf. VL 5 (itd) dereliquisti
• VL 1* (itk *) (IV cent) maledixisti
• VL 6 (itc) (XII) exprobrasti
• VL 17 (iti) (V-VI) in opprobrium dedisti
• Αποκριτικος Η Μονογενης (Porphyry?) ὠνείδισας

Opinions on the Variant Reading:

 F. C. Burkitt (1900) favored ὠνείδισας
 Adolph von Harnack (1901) favored ὠνείδισας
 C. H. Turner (1924) favored ὠνείδισας
 Bruce Metgzer and most others favored ἐγκατέλιπές
 Bart Ehrman (1993) favored εγκατελιπες and considered ὠνείδισας a later, proto-Orthodox corruption
against Separationists
 Peter Rodgers, Text and Story (2011), favored ὠνείδισας

Two Lingering Questions – If ὠνείδισας is a proto-Orthodox corruption against Separationists, then…

1. Why is ὠνείδισας found only in Mark?... not Matthew 27:46?... cf. Irenaeus 3.11.7
 The Akhmim fragment (P.Cairo 10759; aka, “The Gospel of Peter”) expresses Separationist ideas but
is dependent on Matthew, not just Mark:
o Cf. GPeter 5:19 to Matthew 27:46; Mk 15:34
o Cf. GPeter 1:1 to Matthew 27:24
o Cf. GPeter 6:21 to Matthew 27:51-54
o Cf. GPeter 9:36-37 to Matthew 28:2-3
o Cf. GPeter 8:29-11:49 to Matthew 27:62-66; 28:4, 11-15
 Nag Hammadi Codex II, Tractate 3 (aka, “the Gospel of Philip”) expresses Separationist ideas but
is dependent on Matthew, not just Mark:
“My God, my God, why {} have you forsaken me?”
<The Lord> spoke these (words) on the cross. For there he w<as> separated.”1 (GPhilip 72a)
Cf. GPhilip 83 to Mt 1-2 or Lk 1-2; GPhilip 69d to Matthew 6:6; GPhilip 126a to Matthew 15:13;
GPhilip 69c to Mt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30; “kingdom of heaven” (GPhilip 24, 81a, 87, 96b, 97); GPhilip 81a
to Mt 3; GPhilip 89 to Mt 3:15; GPhilip 123b to Mt 3:10 or Lk 3:9; etc.

1 Translation of “The Gospel of Philip” by Hans -Martin Schenke, p. 197, in Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed. New Testament Apocrypha:
I—Gospels and Related Writings, rev. ed. (Westminster John Knox Press, 2003).
2. Why disharmonize a parallel by using ὠνείδισας? (cf. Mt 27:46; Ps 21:2 LXX)
Cf. Αποκριτικος Η Μονογενης (Porphyry?) – Luke 23:46; John 19:29; Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34-Western

Peter Rodgers, Text and Story: Narrative Studies in New Testament Textual Criticism (Pickwick, 2011)
observed “compositional echoes” when Mark melds two or more OT passages together:
 Mark 1:2-3, cf. Malachi 3:1; Isaiah 40:3 LXX
 Mark 1:11, cf. Psalm 2:7; Genesis 22:2 LXX; Isaiah 42:1
 Mark 11:17, cf. Isaiah 56:6-7; Jeremiah 7:11
 Mark 14:62, cf. Daniel 7:13-14; Psalm 110:1
 Mark 12:36 (Western), cf. Psalm 110:1; Psalm 8:6
 Mark 13:2 (Western), cf. Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45; 9:27
 Mark 15:34 (Western), cf. Psalm 22:1; 69:9 (also Ps 69:8, 11, 20, 21)

What about the Aramaic in Mark 15:34?... cf. Mark 3:17; 5:41

Problems with ἐγκατέλιπές in Psalm 22:1 and Mark 15:34:

 Psalm 16:10 (15:10 LXX), cf. Acts 2:31; 13:35
 2 Maccabees 1:5; 6:16; 7:16

Two Prayers of Jesus in Mark:

Mark 14:36 – Gethsemane
Mark 15:34 – Golgotha

Conclusions:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.