The case against Delbert Burkett's Proto-Mark claims, part 1

 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.

 

I wound up two-starring the book, as described two weeks ago here on site.

 

This is the first of a couple of more extensive posts on issues I found with the book. It's partially in notes form, not full sentences. It's rough version.

 

First thing Burkett gets wrong? Page 8: Lachmann (and others similar) are not proto-Mark. They’re a “common Synoptic source” arguers.

 

My answer? A “Cross Gospel” or similar, per Koester, may well have been used by Mark. That could also have been used by Mt and Lk, along with “actual Mark.” That would address minor agreements in the Passion accounts.

 

Otherwise, assuming my theory of Mark writing early 70s in Rome, spurred by Vespesian’s arrival as Emperior with Jewish slaves, including some Jesus people, in his train, either a deutero-Mark, or a proto-Mark revised just a year or two later by the same author, is possible.

Given the general train of canonical and non-canonical Gospel development, I reject any ideas of a Proto-Mark longer than the final, whether my theory on date and provenance of actual Mark is right or not.

The minor agreements issue can be explained in part by Mark using an earlier version of Q, a la Kloppenborg’s theory of its core not having John the Baptizer language and not being apocalyptic, vs Mt/Lk using Q2. They can also be explained in part by harmonization by later editors, as in hundreds of years later.

 

I also reject Burkett’s claim (also attacked by critics of his 2004 book) that there were two different Proto-Marks, one used by Mt and the other by Lk. The idea that there would be two different proto-versions that survived, and that both of them just happened to fall into the right hands 20 or more years later, but that final Mark would be the only one that survived today? Even for those highly critical of Streeter et al on the minor agreements, this should beggar belief. If it doesn’t, YOU beggar belief. (As I read through the book, I noted that at times, he was arguing for A version of proto-Mark, and at other times, for HIS two-Protos version, even though he tells readers to see his former book for details on that.

 

He later, citing Hengel, notes how many texts from the early Apostolic Fathers that we know of by title have disappeared. I don’t question that, but that’s also an argument from silence. AND, we don’t know how quickly after writing they disappeared.

 

Even without Burkett’s specific proto-Mark, I would still find a deutero-Mark more likely, especially, if allowing for my presumed background of Mark, it’s knocked out within 5 years of the original.

 

Seriously, think about the plausibility of two different proto-Marks. You then have either their author or somebody else editing both, not one, into a final Mark. And, doing that while still leaving the Greek rough and other problems, or else making those problems even worse, if not the original author.

Wrap-up note: Looking at the length of my notes, I'll likely have two more installments.