Question About the Synoptic Problem and the Priority of Matthew

[Tigers!]

I was inspired by the Chat-Bot to pursue the synoptic problem further. Here are my conclusions.
NONE of the following is taken from the Bot's output. I did use several sources suggested by Google.

There seem to be three main hypotheses:

(1) Mark and Q were the two early sources. Both Matthew and Luke borrowed from each of Mark and Q.
(2) Matthew was first; Mark and Luke both borrowed from Matthew.
(3) [Griesbach Hypothesis] Matthew was first; Luke borrowed from Matthew; Mark borrowed from both Matthew and Luke.

Do not forget the Farrer hypothesis

First let us review the demon named "Legion" (in Mark and Luke but not Matthew) and the "Miracle of the Swine." If Mark and Luke both copied Matthew, where did "Legion" come from? (This may be compatible with the Griesbach Hypothesis but we dispose of that below.) Where did this story take place? On the east bank of the Sea of Galilee, but near which town? Three possibilities are presented; in decreasing order of closeness to the Sea these are:
* Gergesa (Origen's version of Matthew) -- adjacent to Sea
* Gadara (Matthew) -- 10 km distant
* Gerasa (Mark and Luke) -- 50 km distant
Gergesa is most likely correct, and in "some manuscripts". One source shows this as a 3rd century correction.
Gadara is plausible, especially if Matthew's author thought this place-name would be more recognizable than the small village of Gergesa.
Gerasa appears wrong; perhaps the name was conflated with Gergesa.

If Matthew came first, why did BOTH Mark and Luke replace the place-name with the incorrect Gerasa?
But if Mark came first, Matthew simply applied geographic knowledge to correct an error.

The parable of the mustard seed in Mark (4:30–32) is different from the version in Matthew and Luke; this is cited as evidence for Griesbach's claim that Luke borrowed from Matthew. But much more parsimonious is that both Matthew and Luke acquired the parable from Q; and that this was a parable provided by Mark independent of Q.

Q is parables and sermons,

We do not have a copy of Q so how do you know that it is parables and sermons?

so that parable is easily disposed of, but Griesbach also places emphasis on a difference in the stories of Jesus' arrest.
Let us first note that in Matthew, Peter's betrayal comes after Jesus is spat on, but in Mark and Luke the betrayal comes first. So much for the idea that both borrowed from Matthew!

Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?

And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.

There are differences among all three versions. Luke is the only one that mentions neither "spit" nor "buffet" nor "palms of their hands" but does mention "blindfold." Griesbach may argue that Mark is the most divergent of the three (the question who is he that smote thee" isn't asked) but with the other differences using this as evidence for Mathean priority is an over-reach.

But why the divergence in this account anyway, since much of the synoptic texts are almost identical? Perhaps the detailed story of Jesus' arrest and trial, so very central to the cult, was so widely known that the Gospel writers didn't need to copy verbatim.

Marcan priority affirmed!

Yes indeed