A "Proto-Mark"? Color me unconvinced in general

The Case for Proto-Mark: A Study in the Synoptic Problem by Delbert Burkett
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I recently read Delbert Burkett’s “The Case for Proto-Mark.” That was after someone on the AcademicBiblcal subreddit recommended his previous book, “Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark,” where he first broaches his idea of TWO Proto-Marks.

 

That book was back in 2004, and I thought the second book, being much newer, would have more information. Unfortunately, it talks just about the idea of “a” Proto-Mark while referring readers to his previous book for details on the idea of PM-A, used by Matthew, and PM-B, used by Luke.

 

I dropped a brief review on Goodreads, linking to longer at StoryGraph, but I wanted to do a set of blog posts in much more academic-like depth.

 

Sidebar: I had asked the Redditor if Burkett discusses dates, or loci, of composition on any of the canonical gospels (or Proto-Mark[s]) in that first book. He was going to check his notes, but never responded, probably in part because I said I had gotten this one on ILL. Sadly, Burkett has none of that in this book, which also lessens its value.

 

And, that value is, per the icon? Two stars.

 

Let’s dig in on the first post, tackling his basic thesis, from my detailed notes, partly explicating his basic thesis already.

Burkett’s thesis is basically this:
1. The two-source theory has too many shortcomings to be salvageable
1A. This includes, more in passing than in active discussion, the idea of Mark vs a deutero-Mark salvaging the two-source theory.
2. Therefore, we turn to proto-Mark, which he is at pains to stress is compatible with other theories besides an updated two-source theory … and
2A. More specifically, Burkett’s idea of both a proto-Mark-A, used by Matthew, and a proto-Mark-B, used by Luke. (That’s explicated much more, it appears in his previous monograph “Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark.”)

My response?
1. While the two-source theory’s problems are greater for sure than Streeter claimed, and may be somewhat greater than more modern people like Fitzmayr say, they’re not as severe as Burkett claims and certainly not irresolvable
2. His passing by deutero-Mark largely in silence is “interesting”
3. His stipulation that two versions of proto-Mark are required is tendentious at worst, unnecessary within a proto-Mark theory in general. (One could have just one proto-Mark and a final mark, and have Mt use one and Lk another, or have both use just the one proto-Mark)
4. Burkett’s failure in this book to discuss datings of either proto-Mark, or a final Mark, or a proposed developmental, editorial and redactional history of Mark should be seen as militating against his other claims in general.
5. Burkett’s failure to discuss in depth, or even semi-depth, a defense of his particular idea of a Proto-Mark A AND a Proto-Mark-B, not even in the conclusion, yet nowhere saying he has rejected this idea of his previous book, is also problematic. Yes, he says, in essence, that’s not his focus, but, he could have incorporated bits of that in his conclusion chapter, IMO. I say that because I am not that convinced of just a single Proto-Mark, and while he tries to spin Occam in his favor, I find multiple proto-Marks even less likely.

As for the bottom line?

It was fun to dig into some serious gospel criticism. That, as well as Burkett's diligence, rescue him from a flat one star. For more of why he fell to two stars, or rather one-and-fractional stars, go link: here. And, yes, I said my review here was relatively short; that one is relatively relatively short.

My Bayesian probabilities will now go 10 percent on some version of a proto-Mark, tho 0 percent on his two-proto idea, while still saying that this is within the two-source tradition, rejecting his idea that it's outside that. Deutero-Mark goes to 30 percent, whereas before this, some version of the traditional two-source theory would be at 80 percent, and is now at 60 percent, and a deutero-Mark would be at 20 percent, not 30.

View all my reviews

The old 'We don't have a god in Buddhism, so karma isn't punishment' BS rises again

That was raised by the second of two people I blocked last week on the DebateReligion subreddit. The first was a "just asking questions about definitions" Hindu troll, one of a general subtype of social media trolls who always claims the burden of proof is totally and solely yours.

Anyway, Mr. Rootin Tootin or whatever his name is, apparently blocked me from replying to his second response to him. (I'm not genius-level yet on Reddit, so I don't know how you block commenting if you're not the OP, which I don't think he was, but I digress.) 

So, I updated my first sub-response with what would have been my sub-sub-sub-response, then blocked him. But, again, I digress.

His big claim was that because Buddhism has no deity, karma can't be considered punishment.

Bullshit. If you're reincarnated as something "worse," and there's a metaphysical law, which karma is, as to WHY you're reincarnated as something worse, it's punishment. It's not for your health.

Sidebar: How do Buddhists claim that there are reincarnations as something "worse" if everything here is illusion? Better yet: How do they claim that reincarnation is real, or the karma behind it is real, if everything here is illusion?

Now, I know that at this point, some Buddhist sage, like Jesus telling the young rich man that he's not far from the kingdom of god, is going to tell me I'm not far from enlightenment.

And, he or she would be right: I'm enlightened as to just how much petard-hoisting bullshit you spout.

Anyway, back to the Reddit nutter. He talked about "Lord Buddha" this and that. Sounds kind of deity-like to me, and of course that's an issue of note in taking a good critical comparative religion look at the varieties of Buddhism. (And, we haven't even talked about Pure Land and similar, which rejects reincarnation vs a one-off afterlife.)

Part two on Rootin Nutter? His talk about "Lord Buddha" and this life made it sound like we were currently living in a Buddhist version of reincarnation like the stereotypical Christian versions of heaven skewered by Mark Twain and others. That, in fact is part of why I blocked him. I didn't want to waste time even trying to wade through that much blather. I wish I had copied his nonsense before blocking him. Seriously, it came off as an (alleged) Buddhist version of something Twain caricatured in "Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven."

Part three on Rootin Tootin Nutter? Sounds like he (surely a guy) was awfully "attached" in the decidedly no-no in Buddhism sense to this current reincarnation.

This is likely to be the start of a miniseries, with separate posts addressing other problems with karma and reincarnation in both a theistic religion and a nontheistic one.

While you're here, though? Reincarnation has other problems, biological, metaphysical, logical and more, whether you're Hindu or Buddhist, or Jain, or New Ager or whatever.

Oh, Buddhism was a religion when I first blogged about that, still is a religion, and still still is. 

And, karma is still as offensive as hell. Pun intended in a non-funny way by this secularist.