I never claimed to prove they (the synoptic gospels) were made up, although Lapwing made this accusation.What lapwing wrote:
The substance of what you mean seems to be:
1. The Resurrection accounts in the gospels have nothing in common so they were made up
2. The pre-Resurrection accounts in the gospels have common passages so they were made up
Notice that word "seems". That's how it seemed to me. Also in any communication, error can be caused by both the sender and receiver. Since it is normally write once, read many, the onus is more on the sender to ensure clarity.
Mark has the text: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” Matthew relates the same story, same context, and this sentence is copied verbatim, but inserts the phrase, “except for unchastity” in the middle of it. Luke relates this text the same as Mark
It's not quite as simple as that if you take a step back and look a bit wider at each version.
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery
So note that Mark considers the man or woman doing the divorcing+remarrying whereas Luke considers the man who divorces his wife and remarries, and the man who marries a divorced woman. Matthew here only considers the man who divorces and remarries and then adds his exception. Note Mt 5:32 as well though.
In the smaller subtext Asherah has focussed on note that Mark adds at the end "against her". Otherwise, the Greek is identical between Mk and Mt from "anyone ... adultery" apart from Matthew's additional proviso.
It has been argued that Matthew is only emphasising a legal fact that was known anyway. In the case of unchastity, divorce was automatic (Mt 1:19 and Mishnah Yebamoth 2:8; Sotah 5:1). This also harmonizes with the earlier Mt 5:32.
Note that, in cases, like these, unlike the sayings on the cross, we are given a summary of Jesus' teaching. The gospels do not give us every word that Jesus said on a subject or in any one event. Recall that when Jesus is walking to Jairus' house we get the phrase "So Jesus went with him". An atheist-literalist would say that meant they walked in complete silence. A theist-realist would say Mark saw no need to report the conversation or didn't know it's content.
According to Mark, Jesus carries the cross in silenceMistake. No words recorded does not mean Jesus was silent. This is an example of where an atheist becomes a hyper-literalist when trying to score points. Ditto the thieves on the cross.
This argument about reasons being "ad hoc" seems (notice "seems") to be implying that one can't take account of the content of the text.
The Gospel was written anonymously 30-40 years after the alleged events. It was written in Greek (and Greek scholars tell us it is not a translation), while Jesus’ followers were Aramaic speakers. Jesus’ disciples almost definitely illiterate – it’s highly unlikely they could write in their native tongue, and the notion that they could write in Greek is extremely remoteThis has been batted about so much the umpire has run out of new balls (cricket analogy).
The Gospel contains some geographical errorsWe're all agog for you to say what you mean here!
NB: I think an extended argument abut the synoptic problem and harmonization deserves a new OP and thread.