The Mark as fiction and Matthew and Luke misunderstanding that proposal...

[rgprice]

Not persuasive. Both draw on OT. No clear disjunction.

Every scene in the Gospel of Mark draws on the OT, so I'm not really sure what to say about that...

[StephenGoranson]

All four canon gospels draw on TaNaK; that is not disputed.
It is the claim that gMark was fiction and that gMatthew was fooled by gMark that is disputed.
That proposed disjuncture is not persuasive.

[rgprice]

Mark crafts a fictional scene using literary allusions, like the example of the triumphal entry. Then Matthew comes along and says, "this happened in order to fulfill scripture", which necessarily indicates that Matthew is interpreting the scene as a literal event that happened "in accordance with" the scripture that Mark was making a literary allusion to.

Marks' use of the scripture is by definition fictional. He is inventing a scene. Matthew is interpreting the literary reference as a literal parallel between a real event and the Jewish scriptures. I don't know what could be clearer...

[StephenGoranson]

No, not clear.