A review by socraticgadfly
The Case for Proto-Mark: A Study in the Synoptic Problem by Delbert Burkett

challenging slow-paced

1.75

This is a (relatively) short review, as I took MANY notes, that I have not yet fully organized, but that will become the source of one, or more, blog posts on my second blog about philosophy and critical theology and religious study.

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.

Now, a few specifics.

I will give Burkett credit for his diligence. I will give credit to him for noting that the two-source theory has problems, even though he overstates them, in my opinion.

I will not give him credit for regularly going beyond that to regular shifting of the burden of proof, nor at least approaching circular reasoning himself in the process of his repeated claims of circular reasoning by two-sourcers.

I reject him conflating minor similarities with minor agreements. Mk 6:34 and parallels, for example, is a minor similarity, not a minor agreement. I reject him lumping agreements of omission with minor agreements, in part as an argument from silence. I got tired of section after section in Chapter 6 with the blanket phrase “since this claim is invalid.” And on Mk 1:34 and parallels? In Burkett’s understand of the use of a common Greek (and English) adjective by Mt and Lk, “up” is “down” and “black” is “white,” but, he’ll keep on attacking two-sourcers for their conjectures.
 
Seriously? It’s hard to take him seriously at this point. REALLY hard.

Not everything was this bad, but a fair amount was.

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.

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.