I never said I espoused them. I said the silence aspect in Mark cannot be dismissed as flippantly as some would like. Neither can the overly negative portrayal of the disciples. These scholars came to these conclusions because of some very glaring details in the text itself. Part of treating a viewpoint fairly is to steel-man it. 100 years of Biblical scholarship has pointed out the difficulties between John and the Synoptics. If I remember correctly, Origen already came to this conclusion in the second century (“the spiritual truth is often preserved in the material falsehood”).
Wrede’s view has been rejected by the majority of scholars, often for poor reasons and sometimes for better ones. But it did have a long lasting effect and changed the way Mark was viewed ever since. Its literary (as opposed to historical) nature was clearly brought to the limelight.
At any rate, if you want to see examples of the difficulties in reconciling a lot of John with the synoptics, many are outlined here:
John reframes a host of material. Doesn’t mean what John is saying is not true. What it means is we shouldn’t be uncritically merging these details as if the chimeric portrait of Jesus that results is what the historical Jesus actually said and did.
Vinnie