Ulan wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 12:26 pm
But I won't clog up Kunigunde's thread with this, so that's it from me.
You are always welcome
imho in order to better understand Schmidt's theory, it is best to imagine four steps along which Schmidt developed his theory. Schmidt never said that explicitly but it gradually emerges from his book.
1. Form and genre of the sources of the Gospels
2. Criticism of each individual pericope
3. Criticism of the connection of the individual pericopes
4. Conclusion
1. Form and genre of the sources of the Gospels
I have already mentioned that Schmidt considered the Gospel of Mark to be the oldest gospel and that it is based on sources. Schmidt differentiated the sources between a collection of many individual, self-contained pericopes (Mark 1-13) and a coherent report (Mark 14-16). According to Schmidt, Mark took the pericopes of Mark 1-13 from oral tradition and he had a very old written report (Mark 14-16).
The oral and written sources were unliterary and went back to reports from eyewitnesses.
2. Criticism of each individual pericope
In his criticism, Schmidt started from an ideal, realistic and easily understandable eyewitness report, just as he imagined it. On this basis he criticized each individual pericope of Mark, observing that the pericope sometimes contains literary additions, sometimes from Mark, but especially from Matthew and Luke.
For example, he criticized the verses GMark 1:4-8 regarding topography as follows
- The exact location of the baptism at the Jordan is not specified.
- The information about the desert is a literary addition by Mark.
- There is no place in Palestine where the Jordan river lies in a desert.
- The statements in Mark 1:5 “the whole region of Judea and all Jerusalemites” are literary exaggerations by Mark.
- Further chronological and topographical details in GMatthew and GLuke are merely literary additions.
According to Schmidt, Mark has no knowledge of local geography and is not interested in it.
Therefore, only little information about the baptism of John on the Jordan can be considered as the original source report and as the historical core handed down in oral tradition.
Schmidt wrote
Two different accounts are interwoven in the text now available (Mark 1:4-8)
a) a story about a preacher in the desert and
b) a story about a baptizer at the Jordan.
...
The older and historical account is that John baptized in the Jordan area.
...
This hypothesis can be assumed to be correct insofar as the inserted story can be taken out of the context again without difficulty.