Or actually, convince me that I should take anything other than the two-source hypothesis or a variation on it seriously. I would argue we have a redacted version of Mark's gospel meaning it could have been re-composed from a proto-Mark after Matthew and Luke were written but without making use of Matt/Lk. The other working hypothesis I can accept as reasonable (in fact I came up with it, although I'm sure someone else has already thought of this idea) is that Matt/Lk used a further redacted version of Mark that I will call "post-Mark", but that post-Mark did not survive.
I now draw your attention to The New Oxford Annotated Bible which is contains scholarly commentary on a less evangelical-bias than others - Introduction to Luke:
* "Luke's Gospel is dependant on other earlier writings, especially the Gospel according to Mark."
* "As for its date, all one can say with certainty is that Luke wrote this account after Mark composed his Gospel."
Scholar: Marion L Soards. This appears to leave no room for doubt that Luke was dependant on Mark.
Mark's introduction is less definitive:
* Mark "is generally thought to be the earliest and to have been used as a source for both Matthew and Luke."
Scholar: Richard A Horsley
It is stated definitively when listing the parallels:
* "A majority of scholars think that the Gospel of Mark was independently used as a source by Matthew and Luke."
* "A majority of scholars think that Matthew and Luke used a source that has not survived (known as “Q”)."
P.2266
Matthew's introduction states it definitively:
* "Some scholars have seen the Gospel’s replacement of Mark’s tax-collector Levi (Mk 2.13–17) with Matthew (9.9–13) as a sort of authorial signature. Yet, the fact that the Evangelist was so reliant upon Mark and a collection of Jesus’ sayings (“Q”) seems to point to a later, unknown, author. The Gospel’s time of writing is likewise unknown."
Scholar: JRC Cousland
And finally there is a section specifically on it called "The Sources of the Gospels" (pp.1744-5). It says this:
* "Luke knows most of Mark but has no parallels to Mk 6.45–8.26; whether Luke chose to omit this section or had a different version of Mark remains unclear. Detailed analysis of the traditions shared by Matthew, Mark, and Luke provides strong support for the view that Mark was the earliest Gospel. But, given its rough, draftlike composition, both Matthew and Luke revised it extensively."
I now draw your attention to The New Oxford Annotated Bible which is contains scholarly commentary on a less evangelical-bias than others - Introduction to Luke:
* "Luke's Gospel is dependant on other earlier writings, especially the Gospel according to Mark."
* "As for its date, all one can say with certainty is that Luke wrote this account after Mark composed his Gospel."
Scholar: Marion L Soards. This appears to leave no room for doubt that Luke was dependant on Mark.
Mark's introduction is less definitive:
* Mark "is generally thought to be the earliest and to have been used as a source for both Matthew and Luke."
Scholar: Richard A Horsley
It is stated definitively when listing the parallels:
* "A majority of scholars think that the Gospel of Mark was independently used as a source by Matthew and Luke."
* "A majority of scholars think that Matthew and Luke used a source that has not survived (known as “Q”)."
P.2266
Matthew's introduction states it definitively:
* "Some scholars have seen the Gospel’s replacement of Mark’s tax-collector Levi (Mk 2.13–17) with Matthew (9.9–13) as a sort of authorial signature. Yet, the fact that the Evangelist was so reliant upon Mark and a collection of Jesus’ sayings (“Q”) seems to point to a later, unknown, author. The Gospel’s time of writing is likewise unknown."
Scholar: JRC Cousland
And finally there is a section specifically on it called "The Sources of the Gospels" (pp.1744-5). It says this:
* "Luke knows most of Mark but has no parallels to Mk 6.45–8.26; whether Luke chose to omit this section or had a different version of Mark remains unclear. Detailed analysis of the traditions shared by Matthew, Mark, and Luke provides strong support for the view that Mark was the earliest Gospel. But, given its rough, draftlike composition, both Matthew and Luke revised it extensively."
Comment