Timothy, I finally got around to changing the text of chapter 2 of my book to "Some scholars believe that the Gospel according the Mark was the first account of the life of Christ to be written."
I could also say, "Some scholars believe that Mark's Gospel was written before those by Matthew, Luke and John."
The main reason I brought this up was that I feel a sense of urgency in Mark to get the important facts and issues across quickly and clearly. If there was a "Q" document, I have no way to know about it's tone or sense of urgency. Maybe this is important to me because I feel pressed to say what is on my heart in a concise way as well.
This one would put you in the ballpark, "Some scholars believe that Mark's Gospel was written before those by Matthew, Luke and John." That is 100% historically correct and it aligns with archaeological evidence. That approach works with me because it aligns with a historical Jesus that there is in fact Roman records for. When speaking with unbelievers, I stress that, yes, there really was a man named Jesus who lived in Judea at the turn of the 1st century. That is a fact as far as we know. The approach forces the ears of the unbeliever to accept we as a person, just like them. That is harder to **** off as a "Christian nut."
You are doing great and I want to read it once done and will be your first customer if you print it.