

Assuming you are presenting it accurately, I don't see how this argument
really leads to any firm conclusion.  The material in John (I'm not sure
exactly what is referred to here, but I'll take for granted the similarity
to the Matt./Luke "Q" material) IS different; hence, one could have almost
any relationship between the two, right up to John getting it straight from
Jesus' mouth.


The version of the "usual theory" I have heard has Matthew and Luke
independently relying on Mark and "Q".  One would think that if Luke relied
on Matthew, we wouldn't have the grating inconsistencies in the geneologies,
for one thing.


This is the part that is particularly new to me.  If it were possible that
you could point me to a reference, I'd be grateful.



Because it closes up the gap between (supposed) writing and the existing
copy quit a bit.  The further away from the original, the more copies can be
written, and therefore survival becomes more probable.




I'm not really impressed with the "theology" argument.  But I'm really
pointing this out as an "if".  And as I pointed out earlier, one cannot make
these arguments about I Peter; I see no reason not to accept it as an
authentic letter.



The best analogy would be reporters talking to the participants, which is
not so bad.


But the statement of divinity is not in that section, and in any case, it's
agreed that the most important epistles predate Mark.