#SynOptics
The three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the synoptic gospels. In these three synoptics, the names James and John occur together in 17 verses. But never in the 4th gospel!
October 6, 2026 at 10:46 PM
"Thompson has produced a welcome addition to the quest to isolate Origen’s text of the NT...useful to scholars, especially textual critics, interested in the transmission and reception of the Synoptics by Origen." S.HELTON, RQ 68:3.
Save 40%! #coupon REVIEW26 www.gorgiaspress.com/the-text-of-...
The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Writings of Origen
A study of the citations from the synoptic gospels that occur in the works of Origen that have survived in Greek. The citations, lemmata, adaptations and allusions have been collected and citations an...
www.gorgiaspress.com
September 22, 2026 at 9:05 AM
8:32 AM "Space Q" by 𝐕𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞
from 𝑆𝑦𝑛𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑠 (Reflective) #nowplaying
September 20, 2026 at 3:40 PM
And the absence of the "these are my mother and brother and sisters" incident from the synoptics in John makes this treatment of Mary by Jesus seem more one-sided and undeserved.
September 19, 2026 at 5:40 PM
The starkest evidence for this is in the synoptics (Mark, Matthew and Luke) when a Mary attends Jesus' crucifixion and then visits his tomb.

There she is described only as the mother of James/Joseph/Joses, names of Jesus' siblings - seemingly an extraordinary omission in the circumstances!
September 19, 2026 at 5:40 PM
Read "Findings: The Johannine Memory of Jesus as a Self-Standing Witness" by Paul N. Anderson in John, Jesus, and History, Volume 5: Jesus Remembered within the Johannine Tradition edited by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just, S.J., and Tom Thatcher buff.ly/o0WWUTx
September 19, 2026 at 4:53 PM
If John was the last canonical Gospel to be written, why did it omit nearly everything from the Synoptics? The Gospel of John was the first Gospel written, but it was kept secret as being too controversial. In the Gospel of John, Jesus claimed to be God.

#Booksky #Jesus #Christianity #History
September 19, 2026 at 5:24 AM
If John was the last canonical Gospel to be written, why did it omit nearly everything from the Synoptics? The Gospel of John was the first Gospel written, but it was kept secret as being too controversial. In the Gospel of John, Jesus claimed to be God.
September 19, 2026 at 5:21 AM
Thank you, Matt! Adding to the purity conversation beyond the Synoptics!
September 16, 2026 at 9:46 PM
oh yeah
yeah fair
iirc aren't the synoptics pretty poor greek? perhaps should've said those
fwiw yeah I think the OT (at least its Heb portions) is among the principal works of Hebrew literature
August 19, 2026 at 10:39 PM
In the Gospel of John, the only teachings of John the baptist have to do with the person of Christ Jesus. The author was less interested in a baptism of repentance, and more into Christology. Different gospel, different emphasis.

https://www.christalmighty.net/2023/12/elijah.html
John the baptist’s interview in 𝘑𝘰𝘩𝘯.
#### John 1.15, 19-28. The _Gospel of John_ doesn’t describe John the baptist’s appearance like _Mark_ and the other synoptics; John’s just _there_ , doing his ministry. The author assumed his readers would already know who John the baptist was—and already know a _lot_ of the Jesus stories, which is why the gospel was largely written to fill in the blanks in those stories. _John_ skips John’s birth story ’cause _Luke_ already told it; skips what John looked like and preached ’cause the synoptics already told it; he just goes straight to what John taught about Jesus. _John_ 1.15 KWL John witnesses about _Jesus_ ᴾ and _when he_ cried out, _he’s_ saying, “This is of whom I say, ‘The one who comes after me came into being before me.’ Because he’s first _over_ me.” The author only cared about _that_. So the gospel leapfrogged all John’s _other_ teachings, and the first we see of John is verse 15, and his testimony to the Judean leadership who wanted to know who he was. As told in this part here: _John_ 1.19-28 KWL 19And this is John’s testimony, when the Judeans of Jerusalem send priests and Levites out _to him_ so they could ask him, “Who are you¹?” 20 _John_ is in agreement _with them_ , does not resist _them_ , and agrees _with them_ : “I’m not Messiah.” 21They ask _John_ ,ᴾ “So… what, are you¹ Elijah?” He says, “I’m not.” “Are you¹ the Prophet?” He answers, “No.” 22So they say, “Who are you¹?— so we can give an answer to those who sent us. What do you¹ say about yourself¹?” 23 _John_ is saying, “I’m ‘a voice crying out in the wilderness: Straighten the Lord’s path!’ Is 40.3 like the prophet Isaiah said.” 24Those who were sent are from the Pharisees, 25and are questioning _John_ ,ᴾ and are telling him, “So why do you¹ baptize, if you’re¹ not Messiah nor Elijah nor the Prophet?” 26John answers them, saying, “I baptize in water. In your² midst, one has stood among you.² You’ve² not known him. 27{He’s} the one coming after me, {who has got in front of me}. I’m not worthy to loose his sandal strap.” 28These _events_ happen in Bethany-beyond-the-Jordan, where John is baptizing. Now y’might notice the three people John said he’s _not_ : * Messiah. * Elijah. * The Prophet. These three are major figures in the Pharisee End Times Timeline. Back then, same as now, people figured the End was coming, and might actually be upon us. And since John was getting a lot of attention, Pharisees wanted to know whether John considered himself any of these End Times guys. They likely had their doubts. But John silenced those doubts by quickly saying nope, he’s none of those guys. He’s just a voice in the wilderness, like Isaiah described, telling people to get ready ’cause the Lord is coming. And no, this “voice in the wilderness” is _not_ a specific prophecy about John the baptist. It’s just a verse John borrowed to describe what he was up to. Because _anybody_ who speaks up for God in a lawless, fruitless, godless culture is a voice in the wilderness. Any Christian can be such a voice. Many Christians have been. Likewise anyone who tells people to get ready for Jesus’s second coming—especially to a culture who’s more interested in _looking_ like they follow God instead of bearing actual good fruit—is a similar voice in a wild, undeveloped, untended land. Wouldn’t hurt to have more of them. #### But _isn’t_ John the baptist the second coming of Elijah? Part of the reason the crowds came to check out John was his lifestyle. His camelhair clothing and leather belt Mk 1.6, Mt 3.4 are deliberately meant to remind people of Elijah from the bible, the prophet of rain and fire who wore… well, the leather belt at least. 2Ki 1.8 John was mimicking Elijah. But of course he’s not _literally_ Elijah; he’s John bar Zechariah. Thing is, the Pharisees had precise End Times beliefs about Elijah. Christians aren’t the only ones with wild and wacky End Times theories. Plenty of religions have ’em. As did the Pharisees! They cherry-picked scriptures from _Daniel, Ezekiel,_ and other prophets, and spliced together their very own End Times timeline. _And_ they added books from the pseudepigrapha—books which _claimed_ to be written by famous Old Testament saints like Enoch, Moses, and Ezra, but weren’t really. Kinda like End Times prognosticators who quote the Left Behind novels and John Hagee’s false ~~prophecies~~ predictions far more often than _Revelation_. The most popular Pharisee theory of John’s day, claimed Israel would undergo 12 tribulations before the End. After the 12th ended, “the Prophet”—the very last prophet in history, a prophet like Moses Dt 18.15 whom Israelis were obligated to heed—would appear. Pharisees didn’t agree whether this Prophet was a whole new prophet, or the second coming of Elijah. (Elijah hadn’t died, remember? Went straight to heaven in a whirlwind. 2Ki 2.11) If you took _Malachi_ literally—and plenty still do—Elijah should be _literally_ coming back. Ml 4.5 Then he and this Prophet would work together. Others insisted nope, Elijah and the Prophet are the same guy. Pharisees expected Elijah to return the fathers’ hearts to their children and vice-versa. Ml 4.6 Once he magically achieved this, _then_ Messiah’d come, defeat Israel’s enemies, and rule the nation for 400 years. (Although some Pharisees believed in _two_ messiahs—one who’d die, Is 53 and one who’d reign.) John’s physical appearance looked mighty Elijah-like, 2Ki 1.8, Mk 1.6 so naturally Pharisees wanted to know what his deal was. John’s reply? _Not Elijah. Not the Prophet._ A lowercase-P prophet; a whole other guy. Nobody special. Thing is, John totally _is_ Elijah. Christ Jesus said so. _Matthew_ 17.10-13 NRSVue 10And the disciples asked him, “Why, then, do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” 11He replied, _“Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things, 12but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but they did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man is about to suffer at their hands.”_ 13Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist. It looks like John honestly believed he wasn’t Elijah. But Jesus is in a position to know precisely what John is—since he’s the same LORD who spoke to the prophet Malachi, and knew exactly what he meant when he foretold Elijah’s second coming. The angel Gabriel, who foretold John to John’s father, was likewise in a position to know: _Luke_ 1.16-17 NRSVue 16“He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. 17With the spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him, to turn the hearts of parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” John was divinely granted Elijah’s spirit, power, and commission. Clear-cut enough for you? Remember, John is human, and not infallible. You want infallible, you listen to Jesus. Elijah’s second coming was fulfilled by John. And regardless of the claims of today’s End Times prognosticators, it needn’t be fulfilled again. Any of ’em who puts the second coming of Elijah in their timelines is _ignoring Jesus_. Dangerous behavior for people who claim to follow him, right? So relax; it’s okay to ignore the prognosticators.
www.christalmighty.net
August 17, 2026 at 12:13 PM
the feeding of the multitude is in both the synoptics and john but in john it is attached to a whole discourse about people who only come to eat and not to have faith. i wonder if the johannine community attached it to real people in their time who came to them.
August 16, 2026 at 2:04 PM
The Johannine Literature seminar opens with a joint session with Synoptic Gospels and Historical Jesus, featuring Mark Goodacre and George van Kooten on John and the Synoptics. Further papers include work by David Woods, Amy White and Paulus de Jong. #BNTS2026
August 15, 2026 at 4:31 PM
The whole cockpit was built around that idea, with the Garmin G1000 running integrated checklists and clear system synoptics matched to solo workload. It is a big part of why so many owner-pilots use the Mustang as their own personal jet rather than hiring a crew.
August 12, 2026 at 2:41 PM
occurred to me that if you think john's arc is more descent (incarnation) then ascent (crucifixion as exaltation) versus the synoptics' focus on a scheme of ascent (ascension) and future descent (return in glory) then that is mostly congruent with talking about footwashing vs the lord's supper
August 7, 2026 at 1:25 AM
"his teachings" <- that's assuming two things:
1) they existed in the first place;
2) we know what they were.

The gospels are fictive. The synoptics are not independent, and neither is gJ. They are literary creations to teach converts.

Whatever memory survived, it would have been corrupted.
August 5, 2026 at 8:40 AM
The kingdom of God means something completely different depending on which Gospel you’re reading. In the Synoptics, it’s a future event breaking into history with apocalyptic urgency. In John, it’s a present spiritual reality reached through inward transformation.
ronnelchua.com/2026/07/31/6...
6. Two Eschatologies, Two Kingdoms
The concept of the kingdom of God varies between the Synoptic Gospels and John. The Synoptics emphasize a future, urgent transformation with ethical implications tied to imminent events, while John…
ronnelchua.com
July 31, 2026 at 11:18 AM
It's not true that the New Testament is more enlightened overall - depends which bits you compare from each. Revelation for instance is plainly more bloodthirsty than Jonah or Song of Songs. And Jesus lets thousands of pigs die in the synoptics.
July 29, 2026 at 6:26 AM
yeah once i read allison's thing about how john makes stories from the synoptics more specific (and therefore more vivid and interesting and often funnier) i started seeing it everywhere lol
July 23, 2026 at 12:37 AM
the historian dale allison basically says john likes to take stories from the synoptics and refine them to assign speech and action to specific characters to reinforce his goals for the story, which fits with this
July 23, 2026 at 12:21 AM
john was written later than the synoptic gospels; it used to be that ppl thought john represented a separate tradition and independent connection to the underlying stories but a lot of ppl now think john knew and extensively rewrote they synoptics to combine w/his own sources
July 23, 2026 at 12:18 AM
The Gospel of John shouldn't be apologized into consistency with the Synoptics Gospels
July 16, 2026 at 4:50 PM
I've read the synoptics a few times (though it probably wouldn't kill me to refresh myself, it has been a while. Taking a look at the Gospel of Thomas.

1 page in and I am already baffled. I'm guessing this isn't a lot more clear in the original Coptic.
July 14, 2026 at 7:38 PM