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.