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.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
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: Sun May 15, 2022 1:06 pm Giuseppe, did you at least read Ben's post?

Ben's point was not to pit a Bible verse against another but to show that there are also verses with a different meaning. Trocme ignored these other verses.
ok, but I think that Matthew and Luke knew the Bible better than Ben, therefore if they used the same expression to refer the precise day (by correcting de facto Mark), then they were probably disturbed by what appeared to their eyes as an anomaly in an entire Mark 1-16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »


A sign of this is that, in spite of constant parallelism with Mark, only some 30 per cent of the words in Luke 22.54-71 are common to the two narratives. In short, if Luke had edited the Markan narrative here, it would be a very far-reaching editing job for which no real motive existed; it is therefore a better hypothesis to assume that the Markan and the Lukan texts are based each on its own tradition, both traditions going back to the same archetype, from which they diverged progressively.

The trial before Pilate (23.1-25), in the midst of which is inserted a trial before Herod (vv. 6-12) which has no counterpart in the other canonical gospels, is told, even apart from that parenthetical story, in a way which seldom coincides with the Markan narrative. The main features of the Lukan account are the political accusations launched against Jesus by the Jewish leaders (v. 2) and the triple attempt made by Pilate to free him, after having declared him to be innocent (vv. 13-16, 20, 22). Leaving aside the apologetic aspect of this attitude of the Roman governor, I want to stress the literary significance of this feature, which gives to this pericope a structure that has no counterpart in Mark. Only 17 per cent of the words used by Luke in that pericope are paralleled in the Markan story if we leave aside the Herod episode; if it is included, Luke's vocabulary is even less similar to Mark's, with only 12.6 per cent of its words found in the parallel. Those percentages make it impossible to claim that the Markan narrative here was the source of Luke. Luke may have edited more or less drastically the tradition he used, but it was no doubt a tradition that did not depend on Mark.

(p. 33, my bold)

Since there is no doubt that Matthew is based on proto-Luke (Mcn), then, if Luke was not based on the Passion story in Mark 14-16,... the conclusion follows.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:31 am
A sign of this is that, in spite of constant parallelism with Mark, only some 30 per cent of the words in Luke 22.54-71 are common to the two narratives. In short, if Luke had edited the Markan narrative here, it would be a very far-reaching editing job for which no real motive existed; it is therefore a better hypothesis to assume that the Markan and the Lukan texts are based each on its own tradition, both traditions going back to the same archetype, from which they diverged progressively.

The trial before Pilate (23.1-25), in the midst of which is inserted a trial before Herod (vv. 6-12) which has no counterpart in the other canonical gospels, is told, even apart from that parenthetical story, in a way which seldom coincides with the Markan narrative. The main features of the Lukan account are the political accusations launched against Jesus by the Jewish leaders (v. 2) and the triple attempt made by Pilate to free him, after having declared him to be innocent (vv. 13-16, 20, 22). Leaving aside the apologetic aspect of this attitude of the Roman governor, I want to stress the literary significance of this feature, which gives to this pericope a structure that has no counterpart in Mark. Only 17 per cent of the words used by Luke in that pericope are paralleled in the Markan story if we leave aside the Herod episode; if it is included, Luke's vocabulary is even less similar to Mark's, with only 12.6 per cent of its words found in the parallel. Those percentages make it impossible to claim that the Markan narrative here was the source of Luke. Luke may have edited more or less drastically the tradition he used, but it was no doubt a tradition that did not depend on Mark.

(p. 33, my bold)

Since there is no doubt that Matthew is based on proto-Luke (Mcn), then, if Luke was not based on the Passion story in Mark 14-16,... the conclusion follows.
I must stress the fact that my findings of Mark on the topic of Thomasine parallels is that Mark is reluctantly and tentatively copying, very carefully, bits and pieces at first. He over explains, makes many mistakes, and is up for the mammoth task of adding Tanakh to someone else's story while putting all the content into a context of his own - and he has added the entire resurrection thing already in his mind

We must give Mark a quite different treatment for his virgin voyage here - don't underestimate the number of balls he had to juggle simultaneously.
And of course the entire reason for writing an extra gospel is because you don't seem the existing one(s) good enough - so the relative amount of (dis)agreement never is a valid argument for anything unless you have made a very solid case for the REASON for writing this extra gospel - which no "scholar" ever does, because they're braindead
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:24 am unless you have made a very solid case for the REASON for writing this extra gospel - which no "scholar" ever does, because they're braindead
What prevents me from proclaiming that proto-Mark (=Mark 1-13) is the first gospel, despite of the fact that Jesus commands the silence about him being the Jewish messiah, in a way dangerously reminiscient of Marcionite theology,

...is that even proto-Mark has John the Baptist in the incipit, which is intrinsically anti-marcionite in the DNA.

So this research is leading me basically to doubt that Mcn had Pilate.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:33 am
mlinssen wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:24 am unless you have made a very solid case for the REASON for writing this extra gospel - which no "scholar" ever does, because they're braindead
What prevents me from proclaiming that proto-Mark (=Mark 1-13) is the first gospel, despite of the fact that Jesus commands the silence about him being the Jewish messiah, in a way dangerously reminiscient of Marcionite theology,

...is that even proto-Mark has John the Baptist in the incipit, which is intrinsically anti-marcionite in the DNA.

So this research is leading me basically to doubt that Mcn had Pilate.
Ow, now there's a thought!
If the Romans added the trial to mitigate the circumstances - then what would Mcn have had? Was there even a trial or simply some tribal execution?
I think we need to separate Pilate from the trial, meaning that having the trial could be one redaction and then having specifically Pilate as the actor could have the greater function of having a date to it

There's Peilatos for all I know - how consistent is this name in the 3 big books that we have, Bezae Sinaiticus and Vaticanus? If there's no variation then he's likely a redaction
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:41 amWas there even a trial or simply some tribal execution?
two options, mutually exclusive:
  • In Marcion there was no trial, no execution at all: his Jesus being too much noble to be reduced to a suffering entity, even if only as a ghost on the earth. At most, the Transfiguration was the original Ascension and the original Crucifixion (Moses and Elijah being the two thieves on the right and on the left of Jesus). So Georges Ory.
  • Some tribal execution. Stromholm thinks that the stauros idea (Jesus being hanged on a stake) has its origin among gentilizers. The death of Saint Stephan (stoning + hanging) would be based on a previous story about the death of Jesus.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:55 am
mlinssen wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:41 amWas there even a trial or simply some tribal execution?
two options, mutually exclusive:
  • In Marcion there was no trial, no execution at all: his Jesus being too much noble to be reduced to a suffering entity, even if only as a ghost on the earth. At most, the Transfiguration was the original Ascension and the original Crucifixion (Moses and Elijah being the two thieves on the right and on the left of Jesus). So Georges Ory.
  • Some tribal execution. Stromholm thinks that the stauros idea (Jesus being hanged on a stake) has his origin among gentilizers. The death of Saint Stephan (stoning + hanging) would be based on a previous story about the death of Jesus.
Likely. The word is λῃστής, a typical Thomas word

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... %7Csth%2Fs

A robber, pirate, E.Alc.766, X. Cyr.2.4.23, etc.; opp. κλέπτης, Pl.R.351c; esp. by sea, buccaneer, later πειρατής, And.1.138, etc.; “λῃστοῦ βίον ζῆν” Pl.Grg.507e; ληϊστὴς κατεστήκεε Καρχηδονίων he began a course of piracies upon them, Hdt.6.17, cf. Th.1.5, 8, 6.4; “οἱ λ. αὑτοὺς ποριστὰς καλοῦσιν” Arist.Rh.1405a25; of irregular troops, IG12(2).526 (Eresos).
II. metaph., “λ. ἐναργὴς τῆς ἐμῆς τυραννίδος” S.OT535; “Κύπριδος” Lyc. 1143; λῃστὰ λογισμοῦ, of love, APl.4.198 (Maec.).

I still don't know what he has in mind with this word, but it always in only 2 logia:

ⲗⲏⲥⲧⲏⲥ Robber Noun 21, 103

Both handle the same situation, and it seems that you're on a journey and that the pirates cross your path - but these don't do any robbing or thieving at all

Don't know really. It's the common execution in Egypt and surrounding nations. Certainly nothing Judean

The funny thing about Stephan of course is that it's the exact same word as the crown of thorns
Στέφανος.jpg
Στέφανος.jpg (539.63 KiB) Viewed 704 times
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Thanks to Sinohue, I am learning about another proponent of Mark as paulinist. Here is a review, in particular this point is one I have noted even in Mark 1-13 alone, without the additional part Mark 14-16:

The second chapter is concerned with mapping Mark’s narrative and structure as well as identifying the key theme of the cross. Díaz believes that Mark “has the mystery of the cross as its guiding axis” (44) and the “cross of Jesus is essentially directed against all religious illusion and brings man to recognise his own humanity” (43). Thus, Mark, just like Paul, is driven by a crucicentric narrative.

This raises an intriguing interrogative:

if Mark 1-13 is really "driven by a crucicentric narrative", if it “has the mystery of the cross as its guiding axis”, a guiding axis imposed artificially by the author/editor "Mark" on a riotous collection of previous logia et acta about an undated Jesus, then are we sure that the original author of Mark 1-13 had exactly in mind the crucifixion as described in Mark 14-16 ?

Or should we think about a different cruxifixion? One that will happen in heaven, along the path to the celestial Jerusalem?

The answer will be never given, I fear.

At any case, KL Schmidt's analysis has persuaded me that the paulinism in Mark is an addition, just as the crucifixion was.

The paulinism found in Mark 1-13 can be the same paulinism that is responsible of the added Passion story in Mark 14-16,

...or I should postulate the existence of two paulinists:

  • A) a more radical paulinist, who imposed the Paulinist framework on the sources behind Mark 1-13, and only on them, and who had in mind a lost Passion story (localized in heaven?)
  • B) ...and a less radical paulinist, who added the Passion story of Mark 14-16.

A reason in support of (A) is that the crucifixion for Paul was a so exalted event that it couldn't be reduced to a so 'human too human' appearance, not even as mere appearance. It could be alluded, not even described.
Post Reply