What makes a “Q” Gospel necessary? All scholars admit that there is absolutely no hard evidence for Q. Some scholars are uncomfortable with Q and actually prefer replacing it with a “Mark First” position. Nevertheless, if an oral tradition is presumed, there is absolutely no reason not to allow any one of the Gospel narratives to be the first written account. A known “oral” tradition makes “Mark First” unnecessary. It would also make Q unnecessary. Would it not?
I have argued in an earlier posting that accepting as true the 2nd and 3rd century witnesses, showing Mark is really Peter’s Gospel in written form, renders moot many scholars’ presumption that Mark is more primitive than the other Gospel narratives. While Mark (Peter’s Gospel) may, indeed, be among the first preached, it may not have been the first written account. It is true that Matthew and Luke were both written for specific reasons, but Mark is described by the early church fathers as a transcript of what Peter preached at Rome. It was not intended to be a written witness to prove anything. Rather, it was simply Peter’s testimony at Rome about Jesus, namely, what he had both seen and heard.
If the 2nd and 3rd century witnesses are true, namely that Mark is a transcript of Peter’s witness to the Roman church, this puts Mark’s written Gospel **before** 70 CE. Therefore, even if we try to place the other Synoptic Gospel narratives after the Jewish War, much of what they contain is verified by Mark before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, showing, no matter where one desires to place them in the last quarter of the 1st century CE, they accurately record what had been done and said in the ministry of Jesus, the Messiah in the first half of the 1st century.
 To be perfectly honest, however, I put both Matthew and Luke before Mark’s **written** account, which places all the Synoptics before the Jewish War with Rome.