Bibliographia. Annotated Bibliographies (www.bibliographia.co)

by Raul Corazzon | e-mail: rc@ontology.co

Studies on Synopsis, Concordances, Harmonies of the Gospels

Contents

The Bibliography is composed by the following sections:

Studies (mainly from 1964) in alphabetical order:

1: A - Bro

2: Buc - Day

3: De - Fee

4: Fit - Gou

5: Gre - Klo

6: Kni - Mey

7: Mic - Pat

8: Pea - Row

9: San - Tri

10: Tuc - Z

Bibliography of styudies on Synopsis - Concordances - Harmonies (Current page)

Bibliography

  1. Aland, Kurt, ed. 1978. Vollständige Konkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament: unter Zugrundelegung aller modernen kritischen Textausgaben und des Textus receptus. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Band 1/I; Band 1/II; Band 2 (1978-1983).

  2. ———, ed. 1996. Synopsis Quattuor Evengeliorum: Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis edidit Kurt Aland. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

    First edition 1963; 15th corrected edition 2005.

    "The plan of the Synopsis in detail can be seen directly from using it, and therefore only a few observations need to be made here.

    The headings in several languages will facilitate the use of the Synopsis beyond the area where German is understood. The Latin and English texts do not represent simply a wooden translation from the German, but provide headings for the respective sections in accord with usage current among those who use Latin and English (at the same time account is taken of the advantages of assimilation whenever possible). The chapter and verse references for the leading texts (which, in their succession, form the consecutive text of the Gospels) are printed in medium bold-face type. References at the beginning and at the end of these sections, so far as they are not given in their original order, indicate clearly the connection between them. In addition to these leading texts there will be found primary and secondary parallels. The primary parallels are printed in normal type and can be recognized by the fact that their chapter and verse references are not printed in medium bold-face type; the secondary parallels are immediately recognizable by being in smaller print. In each case both kinds of parallels are supplied with references by number and page to the place where they are printed as leading texts. A critical apparatus is provided not only for each principal passage but for the principal parallels also, for an investigation of mutual relationships requires the consultation of textual variants. The subject apparatus for each section supplies references within the text as weil as parallels from the Old and New Testament which will serve to illustrate the text. In other words, here is a concise commentary which will direct the user to further material, and thus in academic instruction teacher and student alike will no doubt be spared much trouble both in dictating and in writing down information." (from the Preface to the First Edition)

  3. ———, ed. 1996. Synopsis of the Four Gospels. Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. Stuttgart: German Bible Society.

    First edition 1972; 15th edition 1987.

    Numerous copies of the comprehensive edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum are in international circulation, as is shown by the publication of six editions in just over six years. It is therefore unnecessary to say anything further about it here, except to justify the publication of this Greek-English edition. A short description of its structure will accomplish this: The Greek part of this diglot edition agrees exactly with the comprehensive edition in its structure, arrangement of parallel texts, and critical apparatus. The last has even been enlarged by the addition of newly discovered papyri and uncials. Omitted are the appendices (the Gospel of Thomas and the witnesses of the early Church Fathers concerning the origin of the Gospels) and the additions to the individual pericopes from the apocryphal Gospels and the Church Fathers. A number of less important secondary parallels has been dispensed with. Their texts, previously given in small print, have been replaced by references. In this way, the Greek part has been made clearer and more concise.

    The decisive reasons for these modifications were that the user of the Greek-English Synopsis is chiefly interested in the texts of the Gospels and much less in the witnesses of the early Church and in noncanonical supplementary material. He frequently wants to use primarily the English part and is only concerned to be able to compare the translation at certain points with the original text. This is now possible for him to do in a completely systematic manner. For this reason, the English part consists of the text of the Revised Standard Version. In addition the critical apparatus lists all variant readings occurring in the Authorized Version, the American and English Revised Versions, and the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version insofar as they are of any relevance (cf. the Introduction to the English part, p. XI). The user therefore not only has before him at all times several different possible translations of the Greek text and can choose between them, but he also has a concise survey of the development of official and semi-official Bible translations in the English language. The Revised Standard Version has been chosen as the basic text since it enjoys such general approval. Not only is it the translation most widely used at present but it is also a comparatively literal translation of the Greek text." (From the Preface to the First edition)

    "The second edition of the Synopsis of the Four Gospels in 1975 was characterized by a change of texts: the Greek text was adapted to the 26th edition of Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum graece, and the 3rd edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, and the English text was conformed to the second edition of the Revised Standard Version. In the present sixth edition the earlier apparatus, which is now dated, has been replaced by the apparatus familiar to the reader from the 26th edition of Nestle-Aland, increasing the usefulness of the Synopsis. For this edition the corrected apparatus of the 4th printing was reviewed once again." (From the Preface to the Sixth edition)

  4. Bachmann, Horst, Slaby, Wolfgang, Aland, Kurt, and Werner, Helmut, eds. 2015. Concordance to the Novum Testamentum Graece of Nestle-Aland, 26th edition, and to the Greek New Testament, 3rd edition/ Konkordanz zum Novum Testamentum Graece von Nestle-Aland, 26. Auflage, und zum Greek New Testament, 3rd edition. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Contents / Inhalt: 1. Preface - Vorwort; 2. Directions for use - Anweisung zum Gebrauch; 3. Concordance - Konkordanz; 4. Appendix.

    "The present concordance was produced because, in addition to the users of the "Complete Concordance to the Greek New Testament on the Basis of All Modern Critical Text Editions and the Textus Receptus" (ed. Κ. Aland, 2 vols. Berlin/New York, 1983) there are larger groups of students and parish pastors who are interested in owning an overview of the words in the New Testament which is as far as possible complete. Thus the limited selection in Schmoller is insufficient for them. On the other hand, they believe they do not necessarily need the complete tradition of the text as offered by the "Complete Concordance." In the latter the readings of all the critical editions from Tischendorf to the present (and the Textus Receptus) are given under each entry. The present concordance, however, only employs the text of Nestle-Aland26 (in its contents identical with the Greek New Testament3) as its basis. In the "Complete Concordance" the occurrences of all words in the New Testament are offered with a full text.

    (...)

    Schmoller's concordance only offers a limited selection. Those of Bruder and Moulton are 100 years old and are based on an antiquated text. Thus we believe the present concordance fills a real gap and - within the limits described - presents a welcome tool for the exegesis of the New Testament." (From the Preface by K. Aland, H. Werner)

  5. Baird, J. Arthur, and Freedman, David N. 1971. A Critical Concordance to the Synoptic Gospels. Wooster, Hoio: Biblical Research Associates.

  6. Barr, Allan. 1995. A Diagram of Synoptic Relationships: In Four Colors. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

    Second Edition with a New Introduction by James Barr.

    First edition 1938.

    "The Preface and Introduction which my father wrote for the original edition of his Diagram was concerned principally with pragmatic questions. He introduced the organization and use of the Diagram and furnished the practical explanations necessary for the use of it by the reader; and along with this he provided a minimal statement of the critical theories implied, such as the existence of the document Q and the use of the symbols M and L for the material peculiar to Matthew and Luke respectively." (p. 1)

    (...)

    "The advantage of the Diagram as a mode of presentation is that it displays very clearly and on one visual plane six things that are highly essential: (a) the relative lengths of a passage as between Gospels (e.g.

    where Mark has a passage that is also in Matthew and/ or Luke, the Marc an version is commonly longer); this is displayed because the Diagram is to the scale of 32 verses to one inch; (b) the extent of material which is found in Mark and also in one or both of the other two Gospels; this is indicated by red; (c) the existence of material which is peculiar to one of the three Gospels; this is indicated by white in Matthew, by yellow in Luke, and by green for the small amount of material peculiar to Mark; (d) the existence of material which is common to Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark; this is indicated by blue; (e) differences in order as between Mark and the other two Gospels, or between Matthew and Luke; these are indicated by lines drawn between one column and another; (f) passages in Mark which are absent from either Matthew or Luke are indicated with a heavy black block at the appropriate side. All this can be quickly seen by the student of the Bible without having to look up references or turn over pages." (p. 4)

  7. Benoit, Pierre, and Boismard, Marie-Émile. 1973. Synopse des quatre Évangiles en français avec parallèles de apocryphes et de Pères. Paris: Les éditions du Cerf.

    Deuxième édition revue et corrigée par P. Sandevoi; trois volumes. Première édition 1965-1967).

    Tome I: Textes; Tome II: Commentaire par M. É. Boismard avec la collaboration de Arnaud Lamouille et Pierre Sandevoir; Tome III: L'Évangile de Jean, commentaire par M. É. Boismard et A. Lamouille avec la collaboration de Gérard Rochais.

    "Le premier volume de cette Synopse mettait « sous les yeux des lecteurs les textes confrontés des quatre évangiles » de façon à « souligner leurs différences et leurs ressemblances » (vol. I, p. VII). Ce deuxième volume en est un commentaire, section par section, dont le but est d’aider le lecteur à scruter les textes évangéliques afin de « mieux comprendre leurs parentés littéraires, la genèse de leur rédaction, leurs emprunts mutuels et leurs sources » (ibid.). C’est, en un mot, la « préhistoire » de nos évangiles actuels qu’il s’agit de reconstituer. Depuis longtemps, les commentateurs ont essayé de trouver une théorie qui puisse rendre compte de toutes les données littéraires de ce qu’on a l’habitude d’appeler le « problème synoptique»; il faut bien avouer que pas une n’a réussi à s’imposer. Même la théorie des « Deux Sources », qui

    a pourtant connu un succès certain et, encore maintenant, est tenue pour un « dogme » indiscutable par beaucoup de commentateurs, surtout en Allemagne, se trouve soumise à de virulentes attaques venant d’horizons divers. Le fait même que le problème synoptique continue à susciter études et polémiques est un indice qu’il se pose en termes complexes ; s’il est possible de lui trouver une solution (ce qui n’est pas certain), cette solution ne peut être que complexe. Dans cette Introduction, nous voudrions exposer les grandes lignes d’une théorie que nous avons élaborée en étudiant toutes les péricopes évangéliques; nous donnerons ensuite une justification de cette théorie en renvoyant de façon systématique au commentaire de la Synopse." (Tome II, p 15)

    "En présentant le tome II de la Synopse des Quatre Évangiles en français, nous écrivions : «Ce volume a pour but de proposer une explication de la genèse littéraire des quatre évangiles ; il donne donc le primat aux analyses littéraires. La valeur théologique des textes n'est cependant pas négligée, dans la mesure où elle interfère arec leur évolution littéraire. Malgré tout, on ne trouvera pas, dans les notes, un commentaire détaillé et complet de chaque péricope évangélique. Pour cette raison, nous avons renoncé à rédiger des notes sur les sections johanniques qui n'ont pas de parallèle dans les Synoptiques... Le problème littéraire posé par les textes johanniques pourra faire l'objet d'un volume ultérieur » {p. 7). Ce projet s'est réalisé. Ce tome III de la Synopse, qui paraît sous le titre : L’évangile de Jean, se situe dans la même perspective que le tome II. Il s'en distingue toutefois sur deux points. D'une part, les analyses de vocabulaire et de style y sont beaucoup plus poussées. D'autre part, les développements et les synthèses théologiques ont souvent une ampleur plus considérable que les analyses littéraires. Pour faciliter l'accès de ce volume aux personnes qui sont peu familiarisées avec le travail exégétique, nous avons, dans chaque note, groupé en deux parties distinctes les analyses littéraires et les développements théologiques ; ceux qui ne voudraient pas se lancer dès l'abord dans le dédale d'analyses souvent subtiles pourront commencer par lire la dernière partie de chaque note où nous donnons le sens des récits ou des discours de Jésus à leurs divers niveaux rédactionnels. Il reste qu'analyses littéraires et développements théologiques sont étroitement liés, à tel point que, souvent, les premières ne trouveront leur achèvement qu'à la lecture des seconds. En général, les discours sont d'un abord plus difficile que les récits. Pour se familiariser avec la méthode que nous avons suivie, nous suggérons au Lecteur de se laisser guider par la Samaritaine, personnage, au reste, peu farouche {note § 81)." (Tome III, p. 7)

  8. Boismard, Marie-Émile, and Lamouille, Arnaud. 1986. Synopsis Graeca Quattuor Evangeliorum. Leuven: Peeters.

  9. Bruder, Karl Hermann, ed. 1842. Ταμιεῖον τῶν τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης λέξεων sive Concordantiae omnium vocum Novi Testamenti graeci, primum ab Erasmo Schmidio editae. Leipzig: Karl Tauchnitz.

  10. Crook, Zeba A. 2011. Parallel Gospels: A Synopsis of Early Christian Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.

  11. de Lang, Marijke H. 1993. "Gospel Synopses from the 16th to the 18th Centuries and the Rise of Literary Criticism of the Gospels." In The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism, edited by Focant, Camille, 599-607. Louvain: Louvain University Press.

    "From the 16th century until the time of Griesbach, no less than 24 synopses of the Gospels and works of a synopsis-like structure appeared. The new genre of the synopsis rose up in the 16th century beside the much older and more popular genre of the harmony. In the harmonies of the Gospels, the texts of the four Gospels were integrated into one continuous text so that a single flowing overview of the works of Jesus was achieved. At this point, the harmonies become irrelevant for our study due to the fact that the Gospels as individual writings are completely lost in the harmonies. Moreover, the harmony prevents the

    reader from confronting the problem of the discrepancies and the similarities between the Gospels, a problem which motivates and encourages the reader to further investigate the formation of the Gospels.

    Because of these factors, the harmonies have played no significant role in the development of the historical and literary criticism of the Gospels.

    From the very beginning, two works have had a profound influence upon the way synopses were arranged: 1) Augustine's treatise De consensu evangelistarum, which appeared around the year 400; and 2) the Harmonia evangelica published by the German Lutheran Andreas Osiander in the year 1537." (pp. 600-601, notes omitted)

  12. ———. 2020. "The Decline of the Gospel Harmony: Loss or Gain?" In Theological and Theoretical Issues in the Synoptic Problem, edited by Kloppenborg, John S. and Verheyden, Joseph, 19-36. New York: Bloomsbury.

    "The year 1774 is usually marked as an important year for New Testament scholarship.

    It was the year Johann Jakob Griesbach published his gospel synopsis, a presentation of the texts of the first three gospels in columns side by side." (p. 19)

    (...)

    Understandably, several experts on the history of the Synoptic Question have supposed that Griesbach's synopsis was also the point of departure from which he developed his solution of the synoptic problem, in his case the Two Gospel Hypothesis. It is true that no other synopsis before his time had ever been meant for such a purpose.

    (...)

    "In my dissertation of 1993 on the history of the gospel synopsis from Calvin to Griesbach, I also took Griesbach's synopsis as a turning point in the history of synoptic studies. However, I have come to wonder if this view does not need to be qualified.

    The influence of Griesbach's theory on the synoptic discussion at the end of the eighteenth century turned out to be marginal: the Two Gospel Hypothesis disappeared and surfaced only in 1825 when Heinrich Saunier adopted it.(7) In particular, the question has to be reconsidered whether there was indeed a direct link between Griesbach's synopsis and his solution of the Synoptic Problem in the form of the Two Gospel Hypothesis.

    In this chapter, I would like to address two questions. The first is: Was the decline of the gospel harmony after the publication of Griesbach's synopsis a loss or a gain? This entails the issue of how the genre of the old-fashioned harmony related historically to the new genre of the "unharmonized" synopsis.

    My second question is: How clear-cut exactly was the "paradigm shift" in synoptic studies that was brought about by Griesbach's synopsis? Or, to rephrase this question more strongly: Can we speak at all of a turning point or paradigm shift with regard to Griesbach's synopsis?" (p. 20)

    (7) See John S. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2000), 282.

  13. Dungan, David Laird. 1980. "Theory of Synopsis Construction." Biblica no. 61:305-329.

  14. ———. 1985. "Synopses of the Future." Biblica no. 66:457-492.

    Reprinted in: D. L. Dungan (ed.)., The Interrelations of the Gospels. A Symposium led by M.-E. Boismard - W.R. Farmer - F. Neirynck, Jerusalem 1984, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. pp. 317-347.

  15. Easley, Kendell H, and Cox, Steven L. 2007. HCSB Harmony of the Gospels. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers.

  16. Elliott, James Keith. 1980. "Textual Criticism, Assimilation and the Synoptic Gospels." New Testament Studies no. 26:231-242.

    Reprinted in: J. K. Elliott, New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles, Leiden: Brill 2010, pp. 417-430.

    "The main object of textual criticism is to establish as accurately as possible a text approximating to the original words of the original authors.

    As far as the text of the synoptic gospels is concerned, one of the main problems in establishing the text is the amount of cross-fertilization in the MSS whenever the gospels are in parallel. Scribes were prone

    to assimilate the gospel they were copying to a parallel text in another gospel." (p. 231)

    (...)

    "The principles which were applied to some of the variants in Mark seem therefore not to have been consistently acknowledged in other variants. This observation ought to make us cautious in using the UBS3

    text or of our accepting uncritically the explanatory notes in Metzger’s Commentary. Our concentrating here on the UBS3 text is significant, because the 9th edition of Aland’s Synopsis (= Syn9) (3) has a text substantially the same as UBS3 (which also agrees with Nestle–Aland in the forthcoming 26th edition of that text) whereas the 8th edition of Aland’s Synopsis was based on Nestle–Aland25 (= N–A25). The majority

    of scholars who will work on the synoptic problem in the future are likely to base their work on the text of Syn9 It is important therefore to see how far that text is reliable and in particular to what extent

    assimilated readings have been allowed to appear as the text rather than as part of the marginal apparatus." (p. 232)

    (3) K. Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 9th edition (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies [UBS], 1975).

  17. ———. 1986. "An Examination of the Text and Apparatus of Three Recent Greek Synopses." New Testament Studies no. 32:557-582.

    Reprinted in: J. K. Elliott, New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles, Leiden: Brill 2010, pp. 385-416.

    "Serious study of the synoptic problem can be undertaken only with the aid of a Greek synopsis. At the present time three such synopses are readily available:(1) Aland’s Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, the 13th

    edition of Huck extensively revised by H. Greeven and the recently published text by B. Orchard. In this article these synopses are referred to as follows: Aland as Syn when all editions are intended, otherwise

    as SynA=1–8 or SynB=9–12 to differentiate between the two major editions of the text, the earlier of which has a text comparable with the twenty-fifth edition of Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (= N-A25)

    and the later a text comparable with N-A26; Greeven’s revision as H-G; and Orchard’s text as Orchard.

    Syn and H-G print the parallel columns of the synoptic gospels in the sequence Matthew, Mark, Luke. Orchard, whose text was produced in order to assist those scholars who feel such a sequence prejudicial

    against the neo-Griesbach theory, prints the parallels in the sequence Matthew, Luke, Mark. It is my task in this article not to discuss these three editions as aids to a particular attempted solution to the synoptic problem but to examine the texts and apparatuses with special reference to H-G and Orchard but with comparisons with Syn also.(2) What is immediately striking is that each of the three has a different text despite the claim of one of them (SynB p. xi) to be the ‘Standard Text’ of the future." (p. 557)

    (1) R.J. Swanson ‘s Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels the Greek edition of which at present covers only Matthew and its parallels has been discounted from this article, so too has W.R. Farmer ’s Synopticon dismissed by H.F.D. Sparks in his review in Journal of Theological Studies 1971 as of use only in conjunction with a conventional synopsis. Farmer’s exercise cannot be considered a new synopsis in its own right.

    (2) A full discussion of the text found in SynB is to be found in my reviews of UBS3 and N-A26 in Novum Testamentum 20 (1978) pp. 242–77 and JTS 32 (1981) pp. 19–49.

  18. ———. 1986. "Printed Editions of Greek Synopses and their Influence on the Synoptic Problem." In The Four Gospels 1992 (Festschrift for Frans Neirynck), edited by van Segbroeck, F., Tuckett, C. M., van Belle, G. and Verheyden, J., 337-357. Leuven: Peeters.

    Reprinted in: J. K. Elliott, New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles, Leiden: Brill 2010, pp. 431-458.

    "I have attempted on several occasions(2) to preach that decisions about the Synoptic Problem ought not to be made on the basis of the text in any one Synopsis but that one should make use of the alternative

    readings to be found in the critical apparatus and that one should not imbue the editor of any one printed text with an omniscience that enabled him to produce a definitive version of the text. In reality I

    recognise that such preaching generally falls on deaf ears. Most writers on the Synoptic Problem still base their discussions on one printed text and with scarcely an acknowledgement that the apparatus is of

    help. However, one notable exception among scholars of the Synoptic Problem is Professor Neirynck, and that is why this present study is offered in grateful tribute to an indefatigable contributor to and critic

    of the international synoptic debate. Neirynck is all too well aware of the differences in printed synopses and the effect these can have on aspects of the Synoptic Problem: he is also alert to the textual variants." (p. 338)

    (2) Most recently in D.L. Dungan, The Interrelations of the Gospels (BETL, 95), (Leuven: University Press – Peeters, 1990) pp. 348–359. My article [The relevance of textual criticism to the synoptic problem] is reprinted in J.K. Elliott, Essays and Studies in New Testament Textual Criticism chapter 12 (Cordova: El Almendro, 1992) (= Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria 3).

  19. ———. 1993. "Resolving the Synoptic Problem using the Text of Printed Greek Synopses." Filología Neotestamentaria no. 11:51-58.

    Reprinted in: J. K. Elliott, New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles, Leiden: Brill 2010, pp. 459-467.

    "In the Neirynck Festschrift(1) I listed under several categories differences between the Greek text printed in the synopses of Aland(2) (= Syn) and Greeven(3) (= HG) and with cross-references to the synopses of Orchard(4) and Boismard-Lamouille(5) (= BL) in order to demonstrate the effect editorial text-critical decisions could have on an investigation into, or on statistics relevant to, the resolution of the Synoptic Problem. In that article I tried to present mere lists without commentary. In the present article I shall endeavour to make the dry presentation of lists into a practical exposition of how these texts (on which most exegetes will base their conclusion about the Synoptic Problem) can lead the unsuspecting along differing paths. For my examples below I shall use samples that reveal different aspects of literary interrelationship. We are concerned here only with those variants that are the cause of differences in the printed editions." (p. 51)

    (1) F. van Segbroeck et al. (ed.), The Four Gospels 1992 (Leuven: University Press and Peeters) pp. 338–57 “Printed Editions of Greek Synopses and their Influence on the Synoptic Problem”. Reprinted here as Chapter 26.

    (2) K. Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 131985).

    (3) A. Huck, Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien. Synopsis of the First Three Gospels 13th edition revised by H. Greeven (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1981).

    (4) J.B. Orchard, Synopsis of the Four Gospels in Greek (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1983).

    (5) M.-E. Boismard and A. Lamouille, Synopsis Graeca Quattuor Evangeliorum (Leuven and Paris: Peeters, 1986).

  20. Farmer, William R. 1979. Synopticon: The Verbal Agreement between the Greek Texts of Matthew, Mark and Luke Contextually Exhibited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    "This Synopticon is designed to supplement existing aids to Gospel studies. It stands in a tradition which began with the earliest systematic attempts to compare the work of one evangelist with that of another. Ammonius of Alexandria constructed an aid to Gospel studies which made it possible to compare passages in Mark, Luke and John with their parallels in Matthew. This was accomplished by copying the relevant portions of the other Gospels alongside the full text of Matthew. Eusebius noted that this procedure often destroyed the sequence of the material in Mark, Luke and John. He also complained that it presented only those parts of these Gospels which had parallels in Matthew. In order to facilitate the study of similar passages in all four of the Gospels, and to preserve the sequential arrangement which each evangelist gave to his material, Eusebius developed a cross reference system which was widely accepted and remains useful today.

    The basic format for most modern synopses was established by J. J. Griesbach in 1776 with the publication of his Synopsis Evangeliorum Matthaei Marci et Lucae una cum iis Johannis pericopis. . . . Most subsequent synopses have varied only in their use of John and in the degree to which relevant citations and parallels from apocryphal and patristic literature are included." (Introduction, p. VII)

  21. Funk, Robert Walter. 1985. New Gospels Parallels. Volume 1: The Synoptic Gospels. Phildalphia: Fortress Press.

  22. Gaston, Lloyd. 1973. Horae Synopticae Electronicae: Word Statistics of the Synoptic Gospels. Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature.

  23. Greven, Heinrich. 1978. "The Gospel Synopsis from 1776 to the Present Day." In J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776-1976, edited by Orchard, Bernard and Longstaff, Thomas R. W., 22-49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    "Griesbach's synopsis and its significance for Gospel research can be properly judged only when it is seen in the total context in which it belongs: namely that Christianity has never fully satisfied itself or been quite at ease with the fact that what it knows of its Master has been handed down to it in four books which - unanimous as their witness is - do differ from one another in numerous details. Whatever theological motives may underlie this, the Church has never, or at least never for long, wanted to accept the four Gospels simply as they are. The replacement, connected with the beginnings of the Syrian Church, of the four Gospels by Tatian's Diatessaron is no doubt the most violent attempt up to now, and so one not repeated, to cut the Gordian Knot. But also the Eusebian Canons cautiously try to put some order into the Gospels' mixture of agreement, divergence and contradiction. The problem, here only sketched out, is discussed at length by Augustine. In his De consensu evangelistarum he shows that the Gospels present a clear and complete picture of the persons and things about which they narrate, and that the occasional contradictions are either no contradictions at all, are insignificant, or serve the purpose of clarification. His harmonizing is sometimes forced and can hardly prove acceptable to a critical reader, but he has no intention of turning the four Gospels into a single work, behind which the four Evangelists would have to retire. So the early Church already took in hand a theme of Biblical scholarship that was afterwards always with it, obviously not without being variously illuminated by the historical currents of the human spirit and of theology. The ways in which this theme is expressed are diverse. The trend of the scribes, more or less observable everywhere, to harmonize the text of the canonical Gospels (mostly with Matthew) belongs to it, as does a broad stream of harmonizing Gospel interpretation which is handed down in the exegetical tradition." (pp. 22-23, a note omitted)

  24. Hawkins, John C. 1909. Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the study of the Synpotic Problem. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Second edition, revised and supplemented. (First edition 1898).

    "The origin, mode of composition, and mutual relations of the three Synoptic Gospels form so obscure and so complex a subject of inquiry that it has come to be generally known as the 'Synoptic Problem'. Among the many modern attempts to deal with it, this volume has a limited and merely preparatory purpose, which I have tried to indicate upon its title-page. It is called by the plural name 'Horae Synopticae', because, while it is the outcome of a good many hours spent in examination of the Synoptic Gospels and in tabulation of the results thus obtained, those results are presented separately and almost independently in the successive sections of the book, no attempt being made to combine them as foundations or supports of any system or theory. And the sub-title is ' Contributions to the study ' - rather than to the solution - ' of the

    Synoptic Problem', because I have only been trying to help in that preliminary process of collecting and sifting materials which must be carried much further than it has yet been before we can be ready for the solution of the Problem - or, as I would rather express it, of such parts of it as are not now insoluble." (Preface to the First Edition, p. V)

  25. Hoffman, Paul, Hieke, Thomas, and Bauer, Ulrich. 1999. Synoptic Concordance: Vol. 1: Introduction / Einführung. A[lpha] - D[elta] Berlin: De Gruyter.

    A Greek Concordance to the First Three Gospels in Synoptic Arrangement, statistically evaluated, including occurrences in Acts.

    "At the beginning of each entry a chart with the New Testament word statistics gives information about the distribution of the key word in the whole New Testament."

    (...)

    "The synoptic statistics give in three lines (Mt, Mk, Lk) a classified statistical overview of the number of occurrences of the key word in the Synoptic Gospels. A chart containing a three-digit statistical code classifies the synoptic situation in several columns.

    The first digit stands for Matthew, the second for Mark, the third for Luke."

    (...)

    "The term “triple tradition” refers to all verses of the Gospel of Mark as well as to those verses of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that have a parallel in Mark.

    If the Synoptic Concordance speaks of the “triple tradition”, there is always a Markan verse at issue. In the statistical code the second digit is either “1” or “2”. On the two-document hypothesis one can speak

    of the Markan tradition.

    The term “double tradition” refers to all verses of the Gospel of Matthew with a parallel in Luke, but not in Mark, and to all verses of the Gospel of Luke with a parallel in Matthew, but not in Mark.

    If the Synoptic Concordance speaks of the “double tradition”, a Markan verse is not at issue. In the statistical code the second digit is “0”. On the two-document hypothesis one can speak of the Q tradition.

    The term “Sondergut” refers to all verses in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that have no parallels in the other two Synoptic Gospels." (p. 8)

  26. ———. 2000. Synoptic Concordance: Vol. 2: E[psilon] - I[ota]. Berlin: De Gruyter.

  27. ———. 2000. Synoptic Concordance: Vol. 3: K[appa]-O[mikron]. Berlin: De Gruyter.

  28. ———. 2000. Synoptic Concordance: Vol. 4: P[i] - O[mega]. Berlin: De Gruyter.

  29. Huck, A., and Greeven, H. 1981. Synopsis of the First Three Gopsels, with the Addition of the Johannine Parallels. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.

    Thirteenth edition.

    German title: Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien, mit Beigabe der johannischen Parallelstellen.

  30. Kloppenborg, John S. 1988. Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes & Concordance. Santa Rosa (CA): Polebridge Press.

  31. ———. 2011. "Synopses and the Synoptic Problem." In New Studies in the Synoptic Problem, Oxford Conference, April 2008. Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett, edited by Foster, Paul, Gregory, Andrew, Kloppenborg, John S. and Verheyden, Joseph, 51-85. Leuven: Peeters.

    Reprinted in: S. Kloppenborg, Synoptic Problems: Collected Essays, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 120-154.

    "Since Griesbach’s time, it is safe to say that every study of the synoptic problem has relied on the tool of the synopsis. The modern three- or four-gospel synopsis in a complex tool, displaying not only the texts of

    the gospels for comparison, but often including an apparatus criticus with text-critical data, and other apparatus with indications of citations of or allusions to the Hebrew Bible (rarely an actual display of the text

    in Hebrew and Greek), parallel texts drawn from the Pauline epistles, patristic writers, and extracanonical gospels (rarely, however, displayed in parallel with the synoptic texts), section titles, and a conspectus locorum.

    Not all of these features of the synopsis are oriented to the same task: some assist in the close verbal comparison of the texts of the Synoptics; others facilitate seeing the role of harmonization in the textual

    tradition of the gospels; others allow the user to see the variations in gospel texts as they are variously performed in the Synoptics, patristic writers and extracanonical gospels; and still other features are designed

    to display the varying degrees of indebtedness that gospels texts have to the Hebrew Bible.(8)

    The modern synopsis, then, has multiple functions, with the inevitable result that not all synopses are equally suited to every task.(9) My interest in this paper is not to offer a general survey of synopses and to comment on their advantages and disadvantages for a variety of critical operations, but instead to focus on the issue, raised by Bernard Orchard, David Dungan, and others, as to whether synopses are in principle ‘neutral’ in regard to synoptic source theories." (p. 53, a note omittted)

    (8) See the survey of synopses by G. Lasserre, Les synopses: élaboration et usage (Subsidia Biblica, 19), Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1996.

    (9) See the survey by J.K. Elliott (Which is the Best Synopsis?, in Expository Times 102 [1991] 200-204) who agrees that the choice of synopsis depends on one’s purpose, but nonetheless suggests that, if pressed to recommend one synopsis, he would recommend Huck-Greeven.

  32. ———. 2014. "Gospel Parallels/Parallel Gospels." Biblical Theology Bulletin no. 44:156-161.

    Abstract: "Zeba Crook’s Parallel Gospels, mainly for use by undergraduates and students who lack Greek, takes the genre of the Gospel synopsis in innovative and helpful directions. Crook’s addition of texts of the “Sayings Gospel Q” and the Gospel of Thomas enhance the utility of his synopsis; Crook’s innovative and controversial English translation is designed to maximize the user’s ability to see small differences and critical similarities; and his display and alignment of parallels lets the user see what other many synopses obscure."

  33. Miller, Robert J., ed. 2010. The Complete Gospels. The Scholars Version. Salem, OR: Polebridge Press.

    Fourth edition revised and expanded.

    "IThe Complete Gospels offers its readers several distinctive features.

    First, it is the premier publication of the Scholars Version translation of the gospels, and represents the efforts of a group of independent scholars to capture die meaning of the original documents in living American English and in a text that is entirely free of ecclesiastical control.

    The Complete Gospels is also the first publication to include both the canonical gospels and their principal extracanonical counterparts under one cover. Within this anthology can be found:

    • the lost Q Gospel, in a reconstructed text that is the fruit of years of critical scholarly work. The Q Gospel is a crucial literary source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

    • the first publication for the general reader of the Signs Gospel, which many believe underlies the canonical Gospel of John, and is thus older than the Fourth Gospel.

    • the first publication for the general reader of the fragmentary Gospel of the Savior, which was discovered in the 1990s, as well as the Gospel of Judas, which came to light in 2006.

    • the first publication of the miscellaneous collection we call “Orphan Sayings and Stories”—anecdotes and sayings that never found a firm place in the manuscript tradition of any particular gospel, but which nevertheless survived as notes in one or more manuscripts." (p. 3)

  34. Morgenthaler, Robert. 1971. Statistische Synopse. Stuttgart: Gotthelf-Verlag.

  35. Moulton, William Fiddian, and Geden, Alfred Shenington. 2004. Concordance to the Greek New Testament. London: T & T Clark.

    Sixth edition fully revised, edited by I. Howard Marshall.

  36. Neirynck, Frans. 1970. "Hawkins's Additional Notes To His "Horae Synopticae"." Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses no. 46:78-111.

  37. ———. 1986. "Once More: The Making of a Synopsis." Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses no. 62:141-154.

  38. ———. 1987. "A Concordance of the Synoptic Parallels." Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses no. 63:375-383.

  39. ———. 1988. Q-Synopsis: The Double Tradition Passages in Greek. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

    In the order of Luke.

  40. ———. 1991. The Minor Agreements in a Horizontal-Line Synopsis. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

  41. ———. 1999. "A New Synoptic Tool." Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses no. 75:407-418.

  42. Neyrinck, Frans, and van Segbroeck, Frans. 1984. New Testament Vocabulary: A Companion Volume to the Concordance. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

    With the collaboration of Henri Leclercq.

  43. Orchard, Bernard. 1978. "Are all Gospel Synopses Biased?" Theologische Zeitschrift no. 34:149-162.

  44. ———, ed. 1983. A Synopsis of the Four Gospels, in Greek, Arranged According to the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. Macon: Mercer University Press.

  45. Petersen, William L. 1997. "From Justin to Pepys: The History of the Harmonized Gospel Tradition." In Studia Patristica. Vol. XXX: Biblica et Apocrypha, Ascetica, Liturgica, edited by Livingstone, Elizabeth A., 71-96. Leuven: Peeters.

    Reprinted in: Jan Krans, Josepeh Verheyden (eds.), Patristic and Text-Critical Studies, The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen, Leiden: Brill 2012, p. 272-300.

    "Treatments of the harmonized gospel tradition usually follow one of two paths. Either they focus on only Tatian and his Dialessaron, or they deal with only a single pericope or witness.

    Both of these norms will be transgressed in this study, for it seeks to offer an overview - a tour d'horizon, if you will - of a literary genre: gospel harmonies.

    Tatian will, of course, loom large in this scheme, but· our survey will not be limited to him and his Diatessaron. Rather, we will take bird's eye view of gospel harmonies, commencing with their pre-Tatianic origins in the writings of Juslin Martyr (who died sometime between 163 and 167 CE), and continuing down through the late Middle Ages. We will conclude with lhe Chemnitz-Leyser-Gerhard harmony, published in I 652. Compiled by three generations of Germans, this harmony was not, however, the only one circulating in the seventeenth century, for at the same time the library of the English diarist Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) contained a Middle English manuscript (now in the library of Magdalene College, Cambridge, catalogued as MS Pepys 2698, and known to scholarship as the 'Pepysian Harmony') which is today recognized as the sole surviving witness in English to Tatian's Diatessaron(1)." (p. 71)

    (1) 1he Pepysian Harmony. ed. M. Goates (EETS O.S. 157; London, 1922).

  46. Read-Heimerdinger, Jenny, and Rius-Camps, Josep, eds. 2014. A Gospel Synopsis of the Greek Text of Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Comparison of Codex Bezae and Codex Vaticanus. Leiden: Brill.

    "The purpose of this edition of the Synoptic Gospels is to provide an objective tool for New Testament study and research that has hitherto not been available." (p. IX)

    (...)

    "It is intended that this new Gospel Synopsis should give an insight into the subtle and complex nature of the variation between early New Testament manuscripts. It becomes readily apparent that the type of variation found among the three Synoptic Gospels, which is something of a minefield in itself (or ‘a maze’ to take up Goodacre’s term), also exists among the manuscripts. This fact compounds, of course, the difficulty for synoptic studies. But to adopt the easy solution of disregarding the complexity is to work with an illusion and to risk producing misleading results.

    In the first instance, the Gospel Synopsis serves directly as a means to compare Codex Bezae with Codex Vaticanus, and to establish the nature of their relationship as well as their distinctive features. This is potentially of great importance for textual studies for, apart from the insight given into the two manuscripts, it will allow more precise notions of editorial and scribal activity, in particular with regard to harmonisation, to be formulated.

    The value for synoptic studies, on the other hand, is that it offers a tool for examining with a higher degree of accuracy than has been possible with the current Greek editions the interrelatedness of the Gospel texts. By shining light on the amount and the nature of textual variation that existed in the early centuries, it disturbs the false sense of security often present in synoptic studies and reveals how the issues of the order of the Gospel writings, the relationships among them and their connection with other traditions and sources are even more intricate than is usually envisaged. In setting out the three Gospels in turn, the aim has been to facilitate the study of the different forms and the connections between them.

    Of particular value for synoptists is that the entire text of the manuscripts in continuous form is made available, so enabling a complete reading of any given passage of each of the Gospels, where the significance of variant readings is enhanced as they are seen working together within their context." (p. XVII)

  47. Schmoller, Alfred, ed. 1998. Pocket Concordance to the Greek New Testament = Handkonkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: German Bible Society.

    Based on the Text of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (28th Edition)

    and The Greek New Testament (5th Edition).

    Revised by Beate von Tschischwitz at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research Münster/Westphalia (Ninth edition 2014).

    "When Otto Schmoller produced his "Ταμιεῖον τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης εγχειριδιον oder, Handconcordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament" in 1869, it filled a real need in the market. The fact that his work has been reprinted up to the present demonstrates that the need for a pocket concordance continues unabated. But since 1938, when Alfred Schmoller adapted his father's work in the seventh edition to the 15th/16th edition of Erwin Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece, "Schmoller" has not been compared with modern editions. In view of the progress made in New Testament textual criticism this situation requires urgent attention.

    The German Bible Society resolved therefore to adapt "Schmoller" to the text of Nestle-Aland26 and GNT3. The Greek vocabulary presented no problem, but the notes on the vocabulary of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate which Alfred Schmoller had added in the seventh edition of the concordance raised a question. Would it be worth the expense of correcting this supplemental information against modern critical editions, especially when despite their acknowledged significance they are no substitute for the use of Septuagint and Vulgate concordances?

    In view of the fact that today's reader is primarily if not exclusively concerned with the Greek text, it was decided to adapt only the Greek text and to let the notes on the Septuagint and Vulgate texts remain unchanged. This would require a resetting of only the lines requiring changes in the Greek text. The data for the text of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, therefore, do not reflect the state of modern critical editions, although the notes on the text of the Vulgate in particular continue to serve as a valuable resource for persons interested in the history of the Latin text of the Bible." (From the Introduction)

  48. Solages, Bruno de. 1959. A Greek Synopsis of the Gospels: A new way of solving the synoptic problem. Leiden: Brill.

  49. Sparks, H. F. D. 1964. A Synopsis of the Gospels: The Synoptic Gospels with the Johannine Parallels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

  50. Swanson, Reuben J. 1984. The Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

    Revised edition (First edition Dillsboro: Western North Carolina Press, 1975).

  51. Throckmorton Jr., Burton H., ed. 1992. Gospel Parallels: A Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

    Based on 9th ed. of the Huck-Lietzmann Greek Synopsis (1936). 5th ed. Nashville: Nelson, 1992.

  52. Tyson, Joseph B., and Longstaff, Thomas R. W. 1978. Synoptic Abstracts. Wooster, Ohio: Biblical Research Association.