Of Q and Markan Priority

[Stuart]

There is growing sentiment for Marcionite priority, or some core prototype gospel it was built upon. Vinzent postulates the prototype was a first version of the Marcionite that was used by the others - I think this is close, but incorrect, although it matters not, the key is some prototype existed first. (I diverge and think there where 2 forms of the prototype, but this does not impact the subsequent order, just the initial building block)

This has two impacts. It dovetails nicely into Farrer hypothesis of Luke being built on Matthew and another Gospel; Farrer himself said Mark, and Goodacre continues that. But Marcion works just as well as Mark for this Gospel. In both cases Q become unnecessary. The Marcionite priority postulates a layer of Q would have been written by Marcion, then a layer by Matthew, and a final layer by Luke.

Where Mark fits in this is after the proto-Marcionite, somewhere in parallel with Matthew and Marcion. The new view reduces the likelihood there was dependence on Mark. But it still places Mark among the first complete gospels.

SPECULATION: From my own view, Mark is a 2nd generation gospel, put together as a compilation from two prototypes, one that underlay Marcion and another that underlay Matthew. The church fathers rarely quote from Mark until the 3rd century which is odd of it were early and accepted as Catholic. There really is no evidence it circulated in heretical camps and then came into the Catholic fold. From this it suggests to me it was put together form much the same reason Luke was, to set the record straight. While Luke went and added all the secondary material from many prior gospels, Mark chose to go back to the most primitive sources and compile those into one. A minimalist approach to Theophilus' request, while Luke went the more expanded route to try and set the record straight given the divergence of the Matthew and Marcionite views. Mark excluded them from consideration, Luke included both.


Note: I use the names Marcion, Matthew, Mark, and Luke as the author's names, but these are placeholders; we have no clue who the actual authors of any of them were.

[gmx]

I don't remember where I saw it, but if you have never seen Streeter's reasoning challenged, you have not read enough yet. I've read some unpublished doctoral dissertations, so I won't claim you have not read all the scholarly standards. However, the Consensus on many issues is just convention never proven.

Even Farmer is aware that Streeter's "5 Heads" have been systematically disproven. However, it is Streeter's logical fallacies and unwarranted conclusions which are disputed, not the evidence on which he bases them. His observation that Luke holds to Mark's order wherever Matthew doesn't, and vice versa, is I believe well understood, well attested, and generally not disputed.

And yes, I accept my complete novice status in the subject matter at hand.

[gmx]

I don't remember where I saw it, but if you have never seen Streeter's reasoning challenged, you have not read enough yet. I've read some unpublished doctoral dissertations, so I won't claim you have not read all the scholarly standards. However, the Consensus on many issues is just convention never proven.

Also, I would appreciate any guidance you might have as to 21st century synoptic literature that would firstly testify to the current scholarly consensus, and secondly, to describe where the chief lines of argument are currently drawn...