Mark---> Luke-Acts ---> John ---> Matthew.
https://archive.org/details/newtestamen ... &q=Matthew
Obviously it is easy to refine this model by introducing Marcion, without the mention of which the entire discourse becomes a complete nonsense:
Mark ---> Marcion ---> Luke-Acts ---> proto-John ---> John ---> Matthew.
Note that I have divided proto-John from John because, per Turmel, proto-John is a cainite/marcionite gospel, i.e. a gospel where YHWH is hated as Satan himself.
But then, if the Tarazi's suggestion is correct that the man called "Mark" felt the need to write the Gospel of John (i.e. Mark and John are one and the same author), then the theology of Mark is, mutatis mutandis, the same of proto-Mark, i.e. an anti-YHWH theology.
Parvus would be right, then, when he writes:
I see the Gospel of Mark as being originally Simonian. Its author was able to reject Israel and its god but keep Jesus by remaking him into Simon under another name. It accomplished this by basically saying: “Look! The Jews failed because they failed to recognize who Jesus was (Simon) They misunderstood him. They misunderstood the kind of Reign of God he proclaimed. They thought he was proclaiming an imminent kingdom which would subject the other nations to the Jews. He was actually proclaiming a Reign far better than that. But to bring it about he had to first trick the gods of this world – including the god of the Jews – into trying to kill him.”
https://vridar.org/2023/03/08/a-simonia ... ent-272894