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: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Jair wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 9:44 am But another poster brought up Mark 10:32-33. This would need explaining, for without an explanation it trips up this hypothesis. Is the aforementioned passage a later interpolation?
evidently you have ignored the Trocmé's confutation of the Kunigunde's objection about Mark 10:33. I quote again Trocmé about Mark 10:33:

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

So Mark 10:33's prophecy alludes to a chronology different from what is implied by Mark 14-16.

I have to quote further about Trocmé.
A future day of october I will buy the book of a precursor of Trocmé on proto-Mark without the Passion story: Boismard.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 10:52 am Pilate a late addition?

Well now..... The Toledot Yeshu story has its Yeshu figure hung up in the time of a Queen Helene..... .maybe the Markan writer wanted to give the Yeshu story a rewrite and an update to the time of Pilate...
What is interesting is the strict connection of Pilate with the judaizing/catholic side of the story, pointed out by:
  • The Passion Story is a concentrate of midrash from OT stories designed to christ-ianize Jesus, i.e. to persuade that Jesus is really the Jewish Messiah;
  • The catholic Ignatius insisted particularly on Pilate;
  • The catholic Justin also insisted particularly on Pilate.
Accordingly someone has even doubted that Pilate figured in Mcn.

Someone has even claimed that the pre-Christians adored a deity called Jesus, but without death and resurrection.
Jair
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2022 4:38 pm

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

Post by Jair »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 11:21 am
Jair wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 9:44 am But another poster brought up Mark 10:32-33. This would need explaining, for without an explanation it trips up this hypothesis. Is the aforementioned passage a later interpolation?
evidently you have ignored the Trocmé's confutation of the Kunigunde's objection about Mark 10:33. I quote again Trocmé about Mark 10:33:

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

So Mark 10:33's prophecy alludes to a chronology different from what is implied by Mark 14-16.

I have to quote further about Trocmé.
A future day of october I will buy the book of a precursor of Trocmé on proto-Mark without the Passion story: Boismard.
Ah! I see what you mean now. I didn’t ignore the post where you quoted Trocme, I just wasn’t making the connections to the hypothesis the first time.

So there does seem to be a potentially good argument about separate chronologies of 1-13 vs 14-16.

I think there’s still an issue in the separating Jesus from Son of Man part of the hypothesis, separate chronologies notwithstanding, because in Mark 10:32-33 the writer seems to be directly equating Jesus with the Son of Man.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
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 should add, as another item of evidence pointing to catholic interests behind Pilate, the catholic origin of the episode in Acts about Paul being judged by Festus "about someone called Jesus. He had died but Paul kept saying He was alive" (25:19). That is the only catholic passage talking about an undated Jesus, without mention of Pilate.

Pilate preceding Festus, Pilate could be the best candidate for a catholic who had already fixed Paul under Festus.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Jair wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 11:37 am I think there’s still an issue in the separating Jesus from Son of Man part of the hypothesis, separate chronologies notwithstanding, because in Mark 10:32-33 the writer seems to be directly equating Jesus with the Son of Man.
the point is that the Passion story wants to persuade the readers that Jesus is the coming Son of Man because he has just answered that he is the Christ, before the high priest, in Mark 14:62.

While in Mark 1-13, Jesus's implicit identity with the Son of Man is not based at all on Jesus being the Christ, given also the explicit rejection of the title of Christ by Jesus in the Cesarea episode (8:30, 8:33).
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
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: Sun May 15, 2022 11:21 am I quote again Trocmé about Mark 10:33:
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’.

So Mark 10:33's prophecy alludes to a chronology different from what is implied by Mark 14-16.
Ben once demonstrated that in the Hebrew scriptures "after three days" may well mean or can mean "on the third day".
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 12:48 pm My contention was (and still is) that there are enough exceptions in antiquity, enough authors or editors for whom "after three days" and "on the third day" appear to be equivalent, to cast doubt on definitively divergent interpretations of "on the third day" and "after three days" in the early Christian writings.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
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 12:23 pm Ben once demonstrated that in the Hebrew scriptures "after three days" may well mean or can mean "on the third day".
not only the Hebrew scriptures, also the Septuaginta, according to Trocmé himself in the same quote above:

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.

So, if the use of two equivalent expressions was not a problem for a presumed "Mark" author of Mark 1-16, then why was it a problem for Luke and Matthew?
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
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: Sun May 15, 2022 12:47 pm
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 12:23 pm Ben once demonstrated that in the Hebrew scriptures "after three days" may well mean or can mean "on the third day".
not only the Hebrew scriptures, also the Septuaginta, according to Trocmé himself in the same quote above:

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.

So, if the use of two equivalent expressions was not a problem for a presumed "Mark" author of Mark 1-16, then why was it a problem for Luke and Matthew?
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.
Jair
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2022 4:38 pm

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

Post by Jair »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 11:56 am
Jair wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 11:37 am I think there’s still an issue in the separating Jesus from Son of Man part of the hypothesis, separate chronologies notwithstanding, because in Mark 10:32-33 the writer seems to be directly equating Jesus with the Son of Man.
the point is that the Passion story wants to persuade the readers that Jesus is the coming Son of Man because he has just answered that he is the Christ, before the high priest, in Mark 14:62.

While in Mark 1-13, Jesus's implicit identity with the Son of Man is not based at all on Jesus being the Christ, given also the explicit rejection of the title of Christ by Jesus in the Cesarea episode (8:30, 8:33).
I think I’m starting to understand the first point better. I can see an argument for separate chronologies there with slightly different original theologies.

As to your second point… either I am unable to remove my Christian lenses fully while reading 8:30, 33, or you have read more about the Greek in these verses than I have (or perhaps both) because I can’t find where Jesus denied being the messiah in the text. To my untrained eye, it seems to me that the writer is portraying Jesus keeping the messianic secret here, but where is the denial?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Jair wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 2:24 pmTo my untrained eye, it seems to me that the writer is portraying Jesus keeping the messianic secret here, but where is the denial?
well, we know that at least Marcion interpreted the Jesus's command to silence (to both Peter and the demons) as a denial of the titles (given to Jesus by Peter and the demons).

I am not saying that Mark 1-13 is marcionite (i.e. anti-demiurgist). I am saying that, in the eyes of the Catholic editor who added Mark 14-16, the risk was concrete, that Mark 1-13 could be read to support the marcionite anti-demiurgism (=the idea that Jesus was not the Messiah of YHWH but of an Alien God).
Post Reply