Complete textual-variant dossier
Adverse entailment established
Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.
1Passage and issue
Passage
Issue
The Aramaic cry appears in many spellings: Eloi or Eli, lama or lema, and several forms of sabachthani. Mark’s Greek interpretation remains stable enough to govern the meaning.
Variant class
Transposition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,” followed by “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
Authorized Version
“Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? … My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” — Mark 15:34
Edition note
The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.
Historical annotation witness
Erasmus’s Annotationes
Erasmus’s printed Greek text, his Latin annotation, and the Research Center’s evaluation are distinct evidence. Each edition remains separately identified because Erasmus revised the Annotationes across his five editions.
Not yet assessed. No inference about Erasmus’s silence has been made. A Latin annotation and translation will appear here only after an edition and exact locus have been verified.
The Erasmus annotation audit has not yet been completed for this locus. Do not infer from this status that Erasmus was silent.
Westminster and Dutch annotation witnesses
Westminster Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
Dutch Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
Forms beginning “Eli, Eli,” often assimilated to Matthew, with spelling and word-order variants in the transliteration and translation.
Translation or explanation
Forms beginning “Eli, Eli,” often assimilated to Matthew, with spelling and word-order variants in the transliteration and translation.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of 2 variation units within this record's range. The notes ground the relevant decisions in the weight and distribution of external attestation, scribal harmonization to a parallel passage, the likelihood that the competing form is a scribal correction or emendation; the printed confidence rating represented here is {B}. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on Mark 15:34, 15:34
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
No passage-specific ECM/CBGM editorial explanation is attached to this record. Official method sources describe the CBGM as a set of coherence procedures, not a decision-maker: editors define variation units and local stemmata and evaluate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence together with transcriptional, intrinsic, and other philological evidence.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
No UBS6 / intended NA29 main-text change is recorded for this passage in the controlled 169-change ledger.
No change row is attached to this passage.
UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.
5Doctrinal and four-point analysis
Effect class
Weakening of explicit biblical testimony
Exact proposition affected
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Doctrinal analysis
The psalm moves from dereliction through public mockery to vindication and worldwide praise, a horizon Mark’s resurrection account will complete.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Mark 15:34, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Mark 15:34 must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.
Consequences
Weakening of explicit biblical testimony: The psalm moves from dereliction through public mockery to vindication and worldwide praise, a horizon Mark’s resurrection account will complete.
Preconditions of intelligibility
The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.
This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.
6Argument for the received reading
External and historical evidence
Manuscripts vary among Eloi and Eli, lama and lema, and several spellings of the final verb. The bystanders’ Elijah response is an internal phonetic witness. Retain Mark’s Eloi form and the received transliteration, while allowing that English spelling cannot reproduce every ancient sound.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Dialect, pronunciation, and the copyist’s familiarity all affect the written forms. Such adjustments show scribes making a difficult bilingual line familiar rather than inventing the cry itself.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The evangelist anticipated that complexity by translating: the church is not left guessing what the dying Lord said.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Mark 15:34. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.
Canonical-coherence verdict
The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.
Response to the principal critical argument
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
Conclusion
The bystanders’ Elijah response is an internal phonetic witness. A form beginning with a sound like Eloi could be misheard as the prophet’s name in the noise surrounding the cross. Matthew’s Eli makes that association even closer. The crowd’s error does not establish a precise vowel, but it confirms that the transliterated cry and the narrative reaction were transmitted as one audible scene.
Retain Mark’s Eloi form and the received transliteration, while allowing that English spelling cannot reproduce every ancient sound. This is an agreement case at the level of meaning and a complex variation unit at the level of letters. The evangelist anticipated that complexity by translating: the church is not left guessing what the dying Lord said.
Logical entailment
The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.
Canonical-status rule: Physical printing is not canonical inclusion. If an edition prints a passage in double brackets while judging it secondary or non-original, it disagrees with the received text concerning the identity and extent of inspired Scripture.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Mark 15:34, the received text reads “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,” followed by “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? … My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” — Mark 15:34”. The assessed critical reading is “Forms beginning “Eli, Eli,” often assimilated to Matthew, with spelling and word-order variants in the transliteration and translation.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Mark 15:34, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,” followed by “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? … My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” — Mark 15:34”. The assessed critical form is “Forms beginning “Eli, Eli,” often assimilated to Matthew, with spelling and word-order variants in the transliteration and translation.”.
- The received and critical forms are not the same at this locus. Therefore, if the competing critical form is original, the received form is secondary rather than the authentic wording at this place. The immediate consequence is: At Mark 15:34, the received text reads “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,” followed by “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? … My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” — Mark 15:34”. The assessed critical reading is “Forms beginning “Eli, Eli,” often assimilated to Matthew, with spelling and word-order variants in the transliteration and translation.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The card classifies the change as a weakening of explicit biblical testimony, not by itself as a formal denial of the larger doctrine.
- If the received form at this place is secondary rather than original, then the authentic Hebrew/Greek text was not kept pure at this place in the received textual tradition; therefore the unqualified confessional preservation claim must be denied or redefined.
Ultimate preservation consequence
If the competing reading is original and the received reading is secondary, then God did not preserve and keep pure the authentic text at this place in the received textual tradition. The unqualified confessional claim that Scripture was kept pure in all ages must therefore be denied or redefined.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized VersionReceived Greek reading
- Digital ECM — Mark 15:34Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- German Bible Society — The Sixth Edition of the Greek New TestamentCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Mark 15:34
Received reading: “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,” followed by “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
Principal competing reading: Forms beginning “Eli, Eli,” often assimilated to Matthew, with spelling and word-order variants in the transliteration and translation.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? … My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” — Mark 15:34
Mark records the crucified Lord’s cry first in Semitic speech and then in Greek. The received form is “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” Manuscripts vary among Eloi and Eli, lama and lema, and several spellings of the final verb. Matthew’s parallel begins “Eli, Eli,” providing a constant source of assimilation.
Transliteration is not translation. Writers using Greek letters had to represent sounds from Hebrew or Aramaic without one universal spelling system. Dialect, pronunciation, and the copyist’s familiarity all affect the written forms.
Mark interprets what the crowd mishears
Every principal form is followed by the sense: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Mark’s interpretation controls the reader even when the surrounding crowd mistakes Eloi for a call to Elijah. That misunderstanding itself favors an opening sound like Mark’s received Eloi.
The cry invokes Psalm 22:1. It is not a denial of faith. Jesus says my God twice and prays Scripture while bearing judgment. The psalm moves from dereliction through public mockery to vindication and worldwide praise, a horizon Mark’s resurrection account will complete.
“Forsaken” must not be explained as a rupture within the divine essence. The Son truly endures the penal darkness and covenant curse in his human suffering while remaining the eternal Son united to the Father and Spirit. Textual spelling cannot solve that mystery, but it can preserve the historical voice in which it was expressed.
The Greek translation also varies in word order, usually under Matthew’s influence or the Septuagint’s wording. Such adjustments show scribes making a difficult bilingual line familiar rather than inventing the cry itself.
The bystanders’ Elijah response is an internal phonetic witness. A form beginning with a sound like Eloi could be misheard as the prophet’s name in the noise surrounding the cross. Matthew’s Eli makes that association even closer. The crowd’s error does not establish a precise vowel, but it confirms that the transliterated cry and the narrative reaction were transmitted as one audible scene.
Retain Mark’s Eloi form and the received transliteration, while allowing that English spelling cannot reproduce every ancient sound. This is an agreement case at the level of meaning and a complex variation unit at the level of letters. The evangelist anticipated that complexity by translating: the church is not left guessing what the dying Lord said.
Sources and further reading
- F. H. A. Scrivener, ed., The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
- Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010), text and apparatus.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on the stated passage.
- Psalm 22; Matthew 27:45–50; Mark 15:33–39.
7Related materials
Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.
- Record
- VAR-2048
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 1st century · Date Range
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Passage, principal readings, and stated editorial comparison checked against Scrivener’s received Greek text and the SBLGNT apparatus; exhaustive manuscript collation remains open. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis. Biblical readings are short scholarly quotations; cited editions and digital witnesses retain their stated rights and access conditions.
- Known limitations
- This staging record summarizes the principal variation unit and representative evidence. It is not a fresh collation of every extant manuscript, version, lectionary, or patristic citation.
Links from this record
No public outgoing links are recorded.
Records that cite or connect here
No public backlinks are recorded.
Corrections and evidence submissions
No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.
Chris Thomas, “Mark 15:34 — Eloi, Eli, or Another Form? The Cry of Dereliction in Greek Transmission,” VAR-2048, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas