Interpreting Mark 15:34--'eloi 'eloi lama sabachthani

[Minimalist]

Be fair, Cinj, so far all Barre is doing is touching on the historical-critical method which, as Bart Ehrman notes in Misquoting Jesus is commonplace even in seminaries.

The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and
now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the “historical critical”
method. It is completely different from the “devotional” approach to the Bible one learns in church. The devotional approach to the Bible is concerned about what the Bible has to say—especially what it has to say to me personally or to my society. What does the Bible tell me about God? Christ? The church? My relation to the world? What does it tell me about what to believe? About how to act? About social responsibilities? How can the Bible help make me closer to God? How does it help me to live?

The historical-critical approach has a different set of concerns and therefore poses a different set of questions. At the heart of this approach
is the historical question (hence its name) of what the biblical writings meant in their original historical context. Who were the
actual authors of the Bible? Is it possible (yes!) that some of the authors of some of the biblical books were not in fact who they claimed,
or were claimed, to be—say, that 1 Timothy was not actually written by Paul, or that Genesis was not written by Moses? When did
these authors live? What were the circumstances under which they wrote? What issues were they trying to address in their own day?
How were they affected by the cultural and historical assumptions of their time? What sources did these authors use? When were these
sources produced? Is it possible that the perspectives of these sources differed from one another? Is it possible that the authors who used
these sources had different perspectives, both from their sources and from one another? Is it possible that the books of the Bible, based on
a variety of sources, have internal contradictions? That there are irreconcilable differences among them? And is it possible that what the
books originally meant in their original context is not what they are taken to mean today? That our interpretations of Scripture involve
taking its words out of context and thereby distorting its message?

This is a fairly solid basis for scholarship. Fundies prefer the "devotional" approach which he outlined above. I don't see that from Barre, at all.