Delbert Burkett Paper
- Dear List:
There had been some interest a while ago on the paper which Delbert
Burkett was planning on giving at the Southeastern Regional SBL
meeting in Chapel Hill, entitled "Conclusive Evidence Against Markan
Having just attended, I thought I would give a quick update.
Delbert's paper was well argued, and indeed stuck close to the title.
He argued that there is substantial evidence against Markan
priority, mainly in the following areas:
1. Mark's use of "polus", which is not replicated at all in the
other synoptics (Mark uses polla 9X, alloi polloi 3x, toiauto polla
2x, and polus in the Jairus daughter episode 7X. He asks- how likely
is it if Mark is 1st that Mt and Lk never use this word, which is
perfectly good greek?
2. Luke's use of "circular" language:
peri in local sense
of these, Luke alone uses some, 2X (vs. 13X in Mk), never in Mt.
Again, why would Luke and Matthew so studiously avoid this?
3. Markan theme of Jesus' desire for Privacy
4. Markan theme of teaching, didaskein and didaxh, very frequently
not picked up in Luke and Matt, even where it would seem to make
5. Then followed an extensive discussion of evidence that Mark was
conflating information in Luke and Matt.
- dual temporal and local expressions (e.g. the famous Mk 1:32 and
parr. passage, " when it was evening, when the sun was setting" in
which both parts are found differently in others.
He ultimately argued that the possibility of Mt and Luke differently
picking up two expressions can be expressed as a probability
function, and he calculated the odds against so many passages each
having this possibility to be very high (I don't remember the figure
-- one in a thousand perhaps).
At the end, he expressed equally disagreement with the Griesbach
hypothesis. He argued ultimately that the closest theory to fit what
he is thinking is the Rolland theory (which none of us had heard of
a Proto gospel gives rise to Revision A and Revision B.
Mark uses both Revision A and Revision B, conflating them to produce
Mt uses Revision A, plus Q & M for Matthew.
Lk uses Revision B, plus Q and L for Luke.
voila. Nice and complex -- kind of like Boismard.
I spoke with Delbert, and he will be posting the paper on his web
site soon for a closer reading.
Your handy scribe,
Mark A. Matson, Ph.D.
Asst. Director, Sanford Institute of Public Policy
Adjunct Professor of New Testament
Durham, NC 27713
- Jeff Peterson wrote:
>Any previously articulated narratives about Jesus that Mark retained inStephen Carlson commented -
>his Gospel are retained as expressing something Mark cared to express.
>I would agree with this, if the notion that the evangelists were authors
>(as implied by their converting disconnected notes into a narrative) means
>anything at all.
I would agree with both of you on this particular statement.
Please see my reply to Jeff.
E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk