The case against Delbert Burkett's proto-Mark claims, part 3 — minor agreements and theology

   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 second 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. The first review part is here. The second is here.

This is a sidebar from my original notes on his book. It's based on a conversation at Reddit/s r/AcademicBiblical, and relates to Marcan priority in general. The conservation was based on my posting a copy of my original review.

Specifically, it's about how Marcan priority of any sort deals with omissions by both Matthew and Luke, as well as a brief look at major additions by both of them, as a preview of the issue of minor agreements of additional material. Both, per the header, are discussed in terms of (systematic) theology.

First, the minor agreements of omissions. In terms of pericopes, not just phrases, there's actually only four, as listed at Wikipedia's subpage within its Marcan priority page.

Of the four?

Parable of the Growing Seed? The Triple Tradition has a more advanced idea in the Parable of the Sower.

Healing of the deaf mute? I see this as most likely due to not accepting the Markan "messianic secret." And, yes, I have no problem with two authors independently reaching the same editorial judgment in this case. Ditto on healing of the blind man at Bethsaida, on both the likely reason for its omission and the independent editorial judgment.

The young man naked at Gethsemane, though it fueled thought related to Clement of Alexandria's Secret Mark letter? I see nothing theological there, one way or the other.

Minor omissions of Mt/Lk? Narrative material. Most of it much more minor than Bartimaeus. The "lectio difficulor" is actually another example of Mt/Lk expanding on/developing/changing Mt theology for a more "advanced" Christology. (Related: On the names issue, it's not just Bartimaeus, per a response to my interlocutor there.)

Now, the "major semi-agreements," if you will — above all, the birth and resurrection material.

This all goes back to Griesbach and his claim that Mark saw Jesus as "just a teacher" for an explanation of why Mark omitted so much Mt/Lk material if he wasn't first. If one rejects Markan priority, whether or not accepting a straight two-source theory, you HAVE TO, as I see it, attack the theological angle of Mt/Lk expanding on Mark. You HAVE TO. You have to undercut their main reason for doing this. I don't know how much more directly and simply to put it.

There's the somewhat but not really closely related issue of a general tendency toward expansion of gospels, including the non-canonical ones, as they get later and later away from Jesus, something I've noted before. As Ehrman says in multiple books of his, a lot of what a lot of Christians think they know about Jesus' birth is from the Proto-Evangelion, for example. This isn't set in stone, it's a general tendency. But, with that, it serves as circumstantial corroboration.