Solve the Synoptic Problem

[Aractus]

Or actually, convince me that I should take anything other than the two-source hypothesis

[Starlight]

Or actually, convince me that I should take anything other than the two-source hypothesis or a variation on it seriously.

What about a multi-source hypothesis: That numerous short written fragments were in general circulation among Jesus' followers each half a page to a page in length and giving an account of a single event/teaching? And then each gospel writer either included all the fragments their community had into a single narrative, or selectively choose from among the fragments available to them, and added a bit from oral teachings they'd heard?

At the end of the day is there any demonstrable difference in predictions made between a multi-source hypothesis and a two-source hypothesis?

The other working hypothesis I can accept as reasonable (in fact I came up with it, although I'm sure someone else has already thought of this idea) is that Matt/Lk used a further redacted version of Mark that I will call "post-Mark", but that post-Mark did not survive.

Secret Mark? That's a trigger-word on this site.

[Aractus]

What about a multi-source hypothesis: That numerous short written fragments were in general circulation among Jesus' followers each half a page to a page in length and giving an account of a single event/teaching? And then each gospel writer either included all the fragments their community had into a single narrative, or selectively choose from among the fragments available to them, and added a bit from oral teachings they'd heard?

Oh sure there's patchwork all over the place. I'm not suggesting otherwise, and Mark is no exception to that.

[psstein]

The Minor Agreement of Matthew 26:67-68 and Luke 22:64 is very difficult to explain on a strict understanding of the Two-Source Hypothesis. It is better explained on the Farrer Hypothesis.