Earlier I was contemplating the literary nature of Mark's gospel, and while I can fairly convincingly (to my mind, at least) explain most of it as purely literary, with a theological aim, something struck me particularly.
The itinerary from Galilee to Jerusalem is notoriously chaotic, forced and nonsensical.
Why does he start in Galilee in the first place?
Mark knows, from the outset, that his story ends in Jerusalem. If he truly has carte blanche, why the hell does he start in Galilee?
Doherty's "Galilean tradition" fails to convince me of its merit in explaining this, not least (not even close to least) because of its dependence on Q as representing the Galilean movement (without Q there is no Pre-Markan "Galilean tradition" in evidence). I've long suspected his case could be modified toward Mark without Q, and have suggested to Earl that it isn't essential to his case. But further reflection leads me to suspect that he saw something I didn't: It is essential, there needs to be a justification for Jesus in Galilee.
This doesn't mean it couldn't be modified sufficiently, but it would require such a degree that it really wouldn't be Earl's anymore, it would be a case inspired by Earl's, in the sense that Sanders is inspired by Schweitzer. I might play around with the idea a bit, color me intrigued.
Just thinking out loud...or thinking in text.