Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10745
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by Giuseppe »

I have found that Trocmé has been abundantly translated in English.

For example, in this little book (available on archive.org), by his hand:

Another difference concerns Jesus' attitude towards the temple. In 13.2, the Master predicts the ruin of this splendid monument - a prophecy which we read also in the parallels of Matt. 24-2 and Luke 21.5f. But in Mark 14.57-59, Jesus is accused falsely of having said that he would destroy the temple and then rebuild it. Matthew felt that there was an inescapable contradiction between those two texts, so much so that he toned down the whole episode of the testimonies against Jesus during the meeting of the Sanhedrin (26-59-619: instead of a number of witnesses, he mentions only two, who are indeed not said to have been truthful, but who at least agree between them, which was not the case with Mark's false witnesses, and who are not branded as liars, expect in an indirect way; in addition, the accusation they level at Jesus is only that he claimed he had the power to destroy the temple and to rebuild it. Luke simply does away with the whole episode. The contradiction seen by Matthew between Mark 13.2 and Mark 14.57-59 remains to this day and makes it very difficult to admit that the same writer should have put those two passages side by side in his book.

(Etienne Trocme, The Passion as Liturgy: A Study in the Origin of the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, p. 11)

I note that the author of this thesis agrees with Trocme's conclusion about Mark 1-13 and ark 14-16 beind two distinct books:

I agree with E. Trocme's suggestion that the Markan Passion-Resurrection Narrative (chs. 14-16) and the rest of the Gospel were independent units with their own pre-history before 'Mark' attached them together. [55]
Whether or not 'Mark' had already attached together these two sections before Luke wrote his Gospel is not clear, but what is clear, in Trocme's view, is that Luke did not have access to this unified Markan story (i.e., canonical Mark). Luke derived his Passion-Resurrection Narrative from another branch of the 'Markan' Passion-Resurrection tradition than 'Mark.'

Note 55, curiously, reads:

55. Etienne Trocme, The Passion as Liturgy: A Study in the Origin of the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (London: SCM, 1983). Early form critics also argued that before Mark wrote his Gospel, only the Passion-Resurrection Narrative was a unified story among gospel material.

(my bold)

I presume that the first of those 'early form critics' was just KL Schmidt, the author of the same book that has moved me independently (!) to wonder if the original proto-Mark was without the Passion story.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10745
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by Giuseppe »

Now, it is intriguing the hermeneutics of suspicion raised by the part in bold in the following quote:

Mark 13.37 is an excellent ending for the Gospel of Mark, since no part of chs. 1-13 points to the presence of a Passion narrative in the same book and some significant divergences are visible between chs. 14-16 and the rest of the gospel. It is therefore a likely conclusion that the Markan Passion narrative is only an appendix added on to the Gospel of Mark. It would thus be foolish to call that Gospel 'a Passion narrative with an extended introduction', as Martin Kahler put it nearly a hundred years ago, or to claim with Rudolf Bultmann that in the Gospel of Mark 'the centre of gravity has to be the end of the story, the Passion and Resurrection'. Such phrases only obscure the real facts. The evidence suggests that the Gospel of Mark originally had no room for a Passion narrative. It can even be claimed that chs. 14-16 were appended to that book only after it had existed for some time. [15] They are therefore likely to have had their own history before they were attached to the gospel. To this pre-history we now turn.

(p.12, my bold)

[15] Since the author of the Gospel according to Luke seems to have used as his source a copy of the Markan gospel ending at 13.37.

What could be happened during that 'some time' ? Surely, the increasing need of emphasizing the identity Jesus == Christ, against Marcion.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10745
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by Giuseppe »

Particularly intriguing is the interpretation of allusions to a future "death" of Jesus in Mark 1-13, of the kind of 8:34 "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me".
So Trocmé:

The answer to all the remarks made to that effect is simply that Mark 1-13 is full of allusions and prophecies of the fact of Jesus' sufferings, death and resurrection, but none of those passages points to a narrative of these events which would be part of the same book. No story is needed for the readers to know what the allusions and prophecies in question are about, since the Passion of our Lord was at the heart of Christian preaching. No story is announced by those allusions and prophecies, since these often point also to the Resurrection of Christ, which is nowhere narrated in the gospel, but only announced to the women at the tomb (16.6). Thus, if the Markan Passion narrative is found to be an appendix, mentions of the Passion elsewhere in the gospel can stand on their own feet; they are explicit enough (see 8.31; 9.31; 10.32-34) to make it quite clear what it means to follow in the steps of Jesus, which is the evangelist's main aim.

(p. 10-11)

A historicist reading has been made, since Trocmé talks about the "fact' of Jesus's sufferings" as a historical fact.

But what if a such fact was a mythical, celestial, cosmic 'fact' ?


Then one can't help to remember how the same prophecy is read in the Fourth Gospel (12:30-32):

Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

This gives the sense of the original meaning of the ascension, in proto-Mark or in its source:

While Jesus is going to be crucified in heaven, in the same moment he is already going to "draw all men", i.e. his true disciples, with him.

This opens the concrete possibility that the Transfiguration was the original crucifixion.

ADDENDA: the two crucified thieves were originally Moses and Elijah. In the place of the titulus crucis, the voice of the Unknown Father.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by John T »

maryhelena wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 2:58 am
and just for information - I don't engage in debate with Jesus historicists over the gospel figure of Jesus - I've far more interesting things to do.....
Then why offer your opinion?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Hamlet: Act II, scene II. :roll:
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 9:09 am Now, it is intriguing the hermeneutics of suspicion raised by the part in bold in the following quote:

... since no part of chs. 1-13 points to the presence of a Passion narrative in the same book ...

(p.12, my bold)
But unfortunately not true ...
Mark 10:32 And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, 33 saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. 34 And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.”

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by John T »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 3:52 am
maryhelena wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 2:58 am I don't engage in debate with Jesus historicists over the gospel figure of Jesus - I've far more interesting things to do.....
Idem for me. :cheers:
Duly noted. Please feel free to go on with your book review without addressing the obvious and fundamental errors. :silenced:
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 5:59 am
Now, Trocmé observes that Jesus in Mark 1-13 predicts the crucifixion of the Son of Man, not of himself.

So the crucifixion of the Son of Man, missing in Mark 14-16, could be only conceived as a cosmic crucifixion, given that the Son of Man is a celestial figure.

  • That's not what Trocmé says in the excerpt you give in the next post ;
    Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:07 am
    La réserve christologique de Marc 1 à 13 n'a pas son équivalent en Marc 14 à 16. Retouchée ou pas, la réponse de Jésus au grand prêtre (14/62) est dans le Marc canonique une acceptation des titres de Christ et de «Fils du Béni» (39), même si cette acceptation est un peu nuancée par la référence au «Fils de l'Homme» qui suit immédiatement. La confession du centurion (15/39), si bien mise en valeur et si chargée de signification; le beau geste de la femme qui oint la tête de Jésus (14/3 ss.); l'approbation au moins partielle par le Maître du titre de «roi des Juifs» que lui lançait Pilate (15/2): autant de passages où le caractère surnaturel et messianique de la personne de Jésus est fortement souligné dans les chapitres 14 à 15 et où l'on ne perçoit aucune réticence au sujet de l'utilisation des titres christologiques les plus élevés. L'écrivain qui glorifie si volontiers la personne de Jésus est-il le même que celui qui a mutilé la tradition rapportant la confession messianique de Pierre (8/27 ss.) pour substituer à sa conclusion naturelle un cinglant appel à l'heroisme missionnaire (40) et réservé à Dieu seul le droit de parler du Nazaréen comme de Son Fils (41)?Nous avons quelque peine à l'admettre.

    (p.185)
  • Translated

    The Christological reserve of Mark 1 to 13 has no equivalent in Mark 14 to 16. Retouched or not, Jesus' response to the high priest (14/62) is...an acceptance of the titles of Christ and "Son of the Blessed" (39), even if this acceptance is somewhat nuanced by the reference to the "Son of Man" that immediately follows. The confession of the centurion (15/39), so well highlighted and so loaded with meaning; the beautiful gesture of the woman who anoints the head of Jesus (14/3 ff.); the Master's at least partial approval of the title of "king of the Jews" that Pilate threw at him (15/2): so many passages where the supernatural and messianic character of the person of Jesus is strongly emphasized in chapters 14 to 15 and where there is no reluctance about the use of the highest Christological titles. Is the writer who so willingly glorifies the person of Jesus the same as the one who mutilated the tradition of Peter's messianic confession (8/27 ff.) to replace his natural conclusion with a scathing appeal to missionary heroism (40) and reserved for God alone the right to speak of the Nazarene as His Son (41)? We have some difficulty admitting that.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10745
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by Giuseppe »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 2:10 pm But unfortunately not true ...
Mark 10:32 And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, 33 saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. 34 And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.”

sorry, but the prophecy about the Son of Man points about a fact, not about a narrative. Jesus in Mark 1-13 denies that he is the Son of Man, while in Mark 14:62 he talks about himself as the Son of Man. The same point not understood at all by MacSon.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10745
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by Giuseppe »

Read here the two objections to Kunigunde's objection above:

In chs. 1-13, the use of titles like Son of man, Son of God and Christ is not frequent (10, 5 and 5 times) and is discouraged by Jesus himself (see 3.11f.; 5.7f.; 8.20f.; g.9-13). In the Passion narrative, which is less than one fourth of chs. 1-13 in length, the same titles are used more often (4, 2 and 2 times) and raise no objection on the part of Jesus (see 14.61f.; 15.39), who accepts being anointed by the woman (14.3-9) and being called King of the Jews by Pilate (15.2; see 15.26). There is a clear difference here


Mark 15.42 and 16.2 state very clearly that Jesus died on the cross on a Friday evening and that by early morning the following Sunday he had risen from the dead and left his tomb. The time interval between the two events was thus at most forty hours, according to the Markan Passion narrative. But in Mark 8.31, 9.31 and 10.33f., it is announced that the Son of man will be killed and then rise again after three days. My contention is that the phrase ‘after three days’ cannot mean ‘from a Friday evening to the small hours of the following Sunday morning’. Matthew and Luke were aware of that difficulty, since they both wrote ‘on the third day’ in the parallels to the three Markan prophecies of the Passion (Matt. 16.21; 17.23; 20.19; Luke 9.22; 18.33). That correction removes the incompatibility of the prophecies of the Passion with the Passion narratives in the synoptic gospels, since the Septuagint (see Hos. 6.2) equates ‘on the third day’ with ‘after two days’, just as the Hebrew Bible did. Both these phrases can be applied to the time interval from a Friday evening to the following Sunday morning. It might be objected that Matt. 27.63f. uses the phrases ‘after three days’ and ‘on the third day’ in close succession to describe the same period of time. But it is not so: ‘after three days’ applies to the length of the interval Jesus was said to have announced would elapse between his death and his Resurrection (v. 63); ‘until the third day’ indicates the time during which it was neces- sary to keep watch over Jesus’ tomb in order to prove that prophecy false, that is, from the Saturday to the Monday following the death (v. 64).

Page 21, my bold
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 8:58 pm Jesus in Mark 1-13 denies that he is the Son of Man, while in Mark 14:62 he talks about himself as the Son of Man. The same point not understood at all by MacSon.
That point was clear from Trocmé but not you

But this is still not clear:
Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 5:59 am So the crucifixion of the Son of Man ... could be only conceived as a cosmic crucifixion, given that the Son of Man is a celestial figure
Post Reply