A DIAGRAM OF SYNOPTIC

RELATIONSHIPS

ALLAN BARR

Second Edition
With a New Introduction by
JAMES BARR

T&TCLARK
EDINBURGH
 T&T CLARK LTD
59 GEORGE STREET
EDINBURGH EH2 2LQ
SCOTLAND

Copyright© T&T Clark Ltd, 1995

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior permission ofT&T Clark Ltd.

First published 1938

This edition 1995

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Typeset by Waverley Typesetters, Galashiels

Manufactured in Great Britain
 INTRODUCTION TO
THE SECOND EDITION
by JAM E s BAR R, F . B •A .

Distinguished Professor ofHebrew Bible, Vanderbilt University,

and Regius Professor ofHebrew, Emeritus, Oxford University

T HE 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. Into the more general implications
for biblical hermeneutics he did not go. Since the time when he wrote
(the original publication was in 1938, and his actual composition of the
material was some considerable time before that), public interest in
hermeneutic questions has greatly increased. Meanwhile the initiative of
the publishers, Messrs T. & T. Clark, has made possible the publication of
a new edition, and it seems good therefore to add a further Introduction,
which will seek to place the question of relations between the three
Synoptic Gospels within the full context of modern discussions of
interpretation.
One of the main features of the Bible is that it contains a number of
passages, or complete books, that are parallel to each other, whether
roughly or closely, and that tell the same story or deal with the same
matters, but in different 'ways. In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) we
have two versions of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20.2-17 and
Deuteronomy 5.6-21). Some of the commands are practically identical
as between the two versions but others contain substantial differences. In
Hebrew poetry, Psalm 18 is paralleled by another version in 2 Samuel 22,
which is closely similar in general but has many differences in detailed
wording. Among historical texts, a substantial piece concerning the reign
of King Hezekiah is found in two versions, one in 2 Kings 18-20 and the
2 THE GOSPELS AND MODERN HERMENEUTICS
other in Isaiah 36-39. Most strikingly of all, the Books of Chronicles
retell at length the material told in Samuel and Kings. Very often
Chronicles uses the exact words of these older books (hardly anyone
doubts that Chronicles as a complete work belongs to a much later
date); and yet on the other hand at other points it introduces new material,
but leaves out aspects that in Samuel and Kings were very significant.
Thus, for example, Chronicles omits almost all mention of the reign
of Saul apart from his death and likewise omits the chronological
data, customary in Kings, concerning the kings of northern Israel. It
omits large portions of the story of David which might seem discredit-
able, such as his adultery with Bath-sheba, his murder of her husband
Uriah, and the series of family feuds and conflicts within his family,
including the rape of Tamar, the murder of Amnon, the rebellion of
Absalom and its disastrous effects upon David. It explains that it was
Satan (I Chron. 2I.I) who incited David to make a census of the nation,
and not God as had been stated in 2 Samuel 24.1. This story, culminating
in an important statement of expiation, is at least retained by Chronicles
in full detail, though with further modifications; but the companion
story of expiation over the sons of Saul and the Gibeonites, contained in
2 Samuel 2I.I-I4, is left entirely absent. Where Samuel!Kings make it
clear that David had been told not to attempt the building of the temple
and that it was Solomon who undertook its construction, Chronicles has
David provide the complete plan for the project (I Chron. 28.u-I9),
including the organization of the Levites, temple singers and so on
(I Chron. 23.I-26.28). Again, Chronicles introduces the repentance of
King Manasseh (2 Chron. 33.I0-20; contrast the handling of this reign
in 2 Kings 2I.I-I8), and as a whole conveys a very different impression of
that story and its theological purport.
Many more examples could be added, but these are sufficient for our
purpose. They show us that, within the Hebrew biblical tradition, it is
fairly common for parallel texts to be created, in which an older form has
been used by a later writer or writers and has been modified by
amplification, omission, alteration of wording and change of position; and
that the effect of such modifications was, at least potentially, to alter the
historical depiction conveyed by the text or to alter the religious and
theological impression created, or both.
The reader should notice therefore that these similarities plus
differences between parallel texts are not hypothetical relations, the
product of the scholarly imagination: on the contrary, they are there in
the texts themselves, there to be seen "synoptically", as soon as one
arranges the texts in parallel columns. The production of passages, or of
whole books, in a relation of community and difference that can be
studied synoptically is a well-established feature of biblical literature,
evidenced by the Bible itself.
 THE GOSPELS AND MODERN HERMENEUTICS 3
In the Christian Bible the Gospels are the supreme example. Surely
the most venerated of all texts, and practically the sole source for the story
of Jesus, they form an absolutely central case for all discussion of inter-
pretation. But they are also the supreme case for the kind of parallelism
that invites and requires a synoptic investigation and understanding. To
this there is indeed one great exception: the Fourth Gospel, John. For
though it tells in a sense the same story, starting (after a theological prologue
quite different from anything in the other three Gospels) with John the
Baptist and ending with Passion and Resurrection, much of the material
contained is of a quite different sort from that found in the other three. The
parables which are so characteristic of the latter are mostly unrepresented in
John, while John has lengthy discourses of a kind not found in the others.
Thus John does not lend itself to a consistent synoptic eo-examination with
the other three in the way in which the other three lend themselves to eo-
examination with one another. There are indeed numerous points at which
comparison is profitable. Thus in the matter of the order of events, which
is an important criterion, John places the expulsion of the money-changers
from the temple by Jesus at the very beginning of his story (John 2.1r22),
making it the very first event after the original call of the disciples and the
wedding in Cana, while all the other three Gospels place it within the last
days before Jesus' death (Mark 11.15-I9 and parallels), thus making it a part
of the climactic story of the Passion. In spite of the existence of such
examples, however, it remains true that much Johannine material cannot be
profitably correlated with the other Gospels in the way in which the material
of the other three can be correlated. At many points at which the same
matter is handled, these three have the very words in common to a
considerable extent. True "synoptic" study attaches therefore to the three
"Synoptic" Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. 1

For a synoptic study the presentation of the material through a

Diagram, as developed by my father, has many great advantages. It has
indeed to be complemented with a copy of the full text, since only a full
text provides the necessary detail. And the full text is best presented in the
form of a Synopsis, which displays the full text of all three Gospels, each in
its own sequence. And, needless to say, precise perception of the detail is
possible only with the text in Greek. The Synopsis recommended by my
father was that of Huck, which originally printed the Greek text but
is now available also with the text in English. A more complex edition is
that of Aland. 1

'A number of the published Synopses, however (see next note), do include John, but
this tends only to make them more complex and difficult to use.
' Among Synopses which are currently available we may list:
Huck, A., & Greeven, H., Synopsis of the First Three Gospels with the Addition of the
]ohannine Parallels (13th edition, Tiibingen: Mohr, 1981). A modern edition of the
traditional Huck Synopsis, in Greek.
4 THE GOSPELS AND MODERN HERMENEUTICS
Here a note of warning may be sounded, which was not included in
writing by my father but was assuredly there in his mind. Alongside the
various Synopses that exist, there also exist what are called Harmonies of
the Gospels (or other similar title), and some readers may suppose that
they are equally useful for the purpose. This is not so. The purpose of a
Harmony in many cases, as the name suggests, is to eliminate or
harmonize the differences between the Gospels, in order to produce a
smoothly-running narrative which appears to comprise all the Gospel
material without variation of detail or of chronology. In fact this can be
done only by suppressing differences. Where this is done, investigation
into the relations between the Gospels is impeded. A Synopsis is not a
Harmony but a full presentation of the text of all three Gospels in parallel,
and it highlights the differences because it is through them that a deeper
knowledge of the Gospels can be attained.
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.
The differences in order are a matter of great importance. They are
best seen on left and right of the Mark column, where red lines indicate

Throckmorton, B. H., Jr., Gospel Parallels: A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels (3rd
edn., New York and London: Nelson, 1967). A Synopsis with the English text of
RSV, following the 9th edition of the Huck-Lietzmann Synopsis.
Sparks, H. F. D., A Synopsis of the Four Gospels (London: Black, 1974).
The Aland Synopsis exists in several forms:
Aland, K., Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (Greek only; 13th edition, Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1985)
Aland, K., Synopsis ofthe Four Gospels (English edition, United Bible Societies, 1982)
Aland, K., Synopsis ofthe Four Gospels (Greek-English edition: German Bible Society,
Stuttgart, 1972)
 THE GOSPELS AND MODERN HERMENEUTICS 5
passages in the same order as Mark and black lines indicate passages that
are not in Marcan order. Thus, to take one of the most striking instances,
Luke places the Rejection at Nazareth (Luke 4.16-30) at a much earlier
stage in the story than is indicated by Mark (Mark 6.1-6) and Matthew
(Matthew 13.54-58). Where something like this happens it is clearly
marked by the black lines crossing over the red ones.
The importance of complementing the Diagram with a full text
has been mentioned above, and is to be emphasized in cases of different
order. The scale of the Diagram is such that differences in the order of
entire passages can be indicated, but it is not always possible to mark
differences in the order of smaller elements within individual passages.
Thus the important passage of the Temptations is marked in blue,
because it is found in Matthew and Luke (Matthew 4.1-u, Luke 4.1-13)
but not in Mark. But space does not permit indication of the differ-
ence of order within that passage, in that the three temptations come
in a different sequence: the temptation which comes third in Matthew,
i.e. the suggestion that the devil would give Jesus all the kingdoms of
the world, comes second in Luke. 3 The Diagram, therefore, deals with
differences in the order of passages on the larger scale, but by its nature
cannot indicate small-scale differences of the same kind within the
passages.
It is the differences in the order of whole passages, however, that are
of central importance for the understanding of the Synoptic Gospels.
Where passages occur in Mark, the corresponding passages in Matthew
and Luke are found in large proportion in the Marcan order (see red lines
on either side of the Mark column). Where the order is different, which
is less common, we see black lines cutting across these red ones: thus a
group from Mark 1-3 come in a different order in Matthew, another group
in 5-6. On the Lucan side, the marked difference of order in the rejection
of Jesus at Nazareth has been mentioned just above.
Equally clear in the Diagram is the way in which both Matthew and
Luke have organized their material which is not also in Mark (white and
blue in Matthew, yellow and blue in Luke). Both Gospels begin with a
substantial section that is peculiar to that Gospel. Matthew has a large
portion (the "Sermon on the Mount", chs. 5-7) which is non-Marcan,
another considerable amount, mixed with material shared with Mark, in
chs. w-13, and several other blocks thereafter. Luke has a substantial
block from 6.20 to the end of eh. 7 and a very long section from the end
of eh. 9 to late in eh. 19 which contains some of the most famous Lucan
passages (e.g. the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son)
and has only limited portions shared with Mark. Both Matthew and_Luke

'On this cf. J. Barr, Escaping from Fundamentalism (London: SCM, 1984) = Beyond
Fundamentalism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), p. 79·
6 THE GOSPELS AND MODERN HERMENEUTICS
had non-Marcan material at the end in the Passion and Resurrection
narratives, and Luke especially so. Such arrangements of material are
easily traced in the Diagram.
The material (coloured blue) that is common to Matthew and Luke,
but absent from Mark, introduces a problem of a different kind, for
here scholars have thought of a source or document Q which in itself is
no longer extant. The exact character of this grouping of material may
be disputed: whether it was a unified (oral or written) document, or a
group of different sources, and just how much it contained-whether,
for example, all that was in Q is what is represented in the non-Marcan
passages common to Matthew and Luke, or whether it contained
other elements which are now lost. Most of it consists of sayings of
Jesus (hence the term Logia sometimes used) but there are some narra-
tive passages also. Some have sought to resist the idea of Q altogether,
and this might lead towards the idea that Luke followed and used
Matthew. Such arguments may be partly based on textual evidence; but
it is likely that they are also motivated by a dislike against any sort of
"positing" of hypothetical entities which do not exist as actual texts.
Against this it may be replied that hypothetical thinking of exactly
this kind is absolutely appropriate and correct for problems of exactly this
sort. The very same question recurs in many areas of biblical inter-
pretation other than the Gospels. Here again therefore our study of the
Gospels leads us to some of the central hermeneutical questions of the
present day.
My father prepared the Diagram with the aim, as he says, of
presenting the facts upon the basis of which sources might be
delimited; and these facts were, in essence, the percentage of verbal
correspondence, verse by verse, between two or three Gospels (see
his Introduction, pp. 13-14). The Diagram in itself did not aim to present
any one particular solution to "the Synoptic Problem", i.e. the
question in what sequence, from what combination of sources, at
what dates and through what agency the three existing Gospels had
come into existence. Nevertheless his Introduction clearly favoured
the sort of thinking represented, on the highest academic level, by
B. H. Streeter (The Four Gospels, 1924). According to this view, Mark
is the earliest of the Gospels and must have been written within
about forty years of the death of Jesus. Q was earlier than Mark but
was not a Gospel, being mainly a collection of sayings and containing
no Passion Narrative. Matthew and Luke independently used Mark and
incorporated with it, in very different ways, the Q material and their
own peculiar material. When scholars speak of the "Two-Document
Hypothesis", they mean that Mark and Q were the two basic docu-
ments. Actually, the same could equally well be called the "Four-
Document Hypothesis", since the peculiar matedal of Matthew and of
 THE GOSPELS AND MODERN HERMENEUTICS 7
Luke (M and L) could properly be added. Some of the reasoning for these
positions is concisely stated in the Introduction. 4
The view thus stated has remained the dominant one but has not been
unchallenged in more recent years. In particular, there has been a revival
of support for the older theory of J. J. Griesbach. 5 According to him,
Matthew's Gospel was written first; Luke followed and amended Matthew;
and Mark's Gospel was written third, combining the material of both
Matthew and Luke. Another approach has been to retain Marcan priority
bur to dispense with Q, suggesting that the agreements between Matthew
and Luke which formed the basis for the hypothesis of Q could be
explained by Luke's following Matthew. 6 Yet other suggestions have been
made and others are likely to emerge from the lively surge of modern
hermeneutic discussion. Nevertheless, as already stated, the view taken
by my father has remained and still remains the dominant one. In any
case the material is here displayed in such a manner as to provide the
necessary evidence for the discussion of alternative views, in so far as that
can be done without going into greater detail than is possible within a
diagrammatic presentation.
But it is not my purpose here to argue for one or other solution to the
Synoptic Problem, and most users of the Diagram will use it more as a
means of becoming acquainted with the nature of the question and less as
a step towards solving it. My present remarks are directed more towards
general considerations about the nature of Scripture, considerations
which are powerfully forced upon our minds by the nature of these
Gospels and which remain valid in whatever way the Synoptic Problem is
understood.
At the time of his writing my father thought that "if the priority of
Mark is established, it is clear that this Gospel is the main source for our
knowledge of the sequence of events in Jesus' Ministry" (below, p. 16).
Not everyone today would agree with this. Even if Mark is the earliest of
the four complete Gospels, it was still up to forty years removed in time
from the death of Jesus, and thus not in proportion so very distant from
the times assigned to Matthew and Luke (dated about A.D. 80-90). More
important, many now think that Mark, even when taken as the earliest
complete Gospel, may have been motivated not by an instinct for exact
4 For a good recent study intended for the general reader, see G. H. Stanton, The Gospels

and]esus (Oxford University Press, 1989)

5 For an energetic argument in favour of the Griesbach hypothesis, see W. R. Farmer,

The Synoptic Problem (1964); for a balanced evaluation in short space see C. M. Tuckett,
"Synoptic Problem", in R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden, A Dictionary of Biblical
Interpretation (London: SCM, 1990), 659-661, and at greater length C. M. Tuckett, The
Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke. A New Paradigm (Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the
6

New Testament Supplement Series 20, 1989).

8 THE GOSPELS AND MODERN HERMENEUTICS
historical reporting but rather by strong theological convictions which
have caused him to mould and shape his narrative in the way he has done
-just as is the case with Matthew and Luke, and most obviously with
John. This leads us on into the area in which the similarities and
differences between the Gospels may be most significant: the conceptions
of historical and theological truth within the Bible.
One of the surprising things in biblical interpretation is the survival
of the idea that the Bible had historical accuracy or "historical reliability",
in face of the fact that the Gospels, to Christians the most central and
essential of writings, provided the clearest of evidence to the contrary.
The explanation may at times be that people normally read only one
Gospel at a time; or else, when they do compare them, that they brush
aside the differences as if they were insignificant. Individual writers and
editors may indeed have aspired to historical accuracy and may have
thought that they had achieved it; but the result, when the sources and
books are taken together, is such as to show that they did not all succeed
in this; and of course it may not have been their concern in the first place.
I have already cited above one of the most glaring and obvious cases,
namely the placing of the expulsion of the money-changers from the
temple at the earliest stage ofJesus' ministry by John. Unless one makes
,the account a farcical one by arguing that the incident happened twice,
there is no alternative to supposing that the writers, or one at least of
them, felt free to place the event differently according to their different
conceptions of its theological significance, which significance is indicated
by the context and narrative position in which the story is placed. And,
although Matthew, Mark and Luke are agreed (as against John) in placing
the incident at this point, the way in which they integrate it, each to its
own context, and the language as used by each, indicate a different
theological emphasis for each of them. 7 The different writers attached
different values to the Temple. "By sandwiching" the incident "between
the two halves of the story of the cursing of the fig-tree" (unlike Matthew,
who has both the cursing of the tree and its withering after the incident,
and unlike Luke, who has nothing about the fig-tree at all-all of them
differences that are clearly marked in the Diagram) "Mark himself
evidently intended that each story should illuminate the other". 8 The
different setting in the other two Gospels is one of the clues to their
different general theological conception.
Other incidents present evidence of a similar kind. In the healing of
Jairus's daughter (Matt. 9.18-26; Mark 5.21-43; Luke 8. 40-56) Matthew
begins the story with the information that the girl has already died, while in

7 For a discussion see Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis, eh. u "The

Cleansing of the Temple", pp. III-II9.

'Tuckett, Revival, p. u~.
 THE GOSPELS AND MODERN HERMENEUTICS 9
Mark and Luke she is not dead but extremely ill and near to death; in
them it is only at a later stage that other persons come with the news that
the girl is dead (Mark 5.35; Luke 8.49). It is not possible that both
versions are factually accurate. 9 In the story where it is suggested for the
sons of Zebedee that they should sit on Jesus' right and left in his glory, in
Matthew it is their mother who makes the request on their behalf, in Mark
it is they themselves (Matthew 20.20ff., Mark r0.35ff.); Luke does not have
the story at all, but one phrase from it is found at an earlier point (Luke
12.50) and the following part of the unit is found far later, in the Passion
Narrative and thus in a quite different context (Matthew 20.24ff., Mark
ro.4rff., but Luke 22.24ff.; in the Diagram notice black block on the right
side of the Mark column at this point, and broken black line across to the
later parallel in Luke).
Differences of this kind are numerous, and it should not be thought
that they present a difficulty for the appreciation of the Gospels. On the
contrary, they are part of the very nature of the Gospels. They are a
difficulty only for the conception that complete historical accuracy,
"historical reliability" or the like, represents correctly the mode of truth
possessed by the Gospels. Where detailed historical reliability is insisted
on, the only effect will be to prove that the Gospels are not historically
reliable. A belief in the general trustworthiness of the Gospels, in the
sense that the life. and teaching of Jesus is adequately conveyed by them
and that their theological interpretation of them is authoritative for
Christianity, can be sustained only when the insistence on detailed factual
accuracy is abandoned. Accurate registration of facts cannot be the mode
of truth with which the Gospels operate.
For one of the main effects of synoptic study is to indicate that the
relations between the Gospels are literary relations. The writers are not
to be envisaged on the analogy of three witnesses to a motor accident,
who see the same event but remember it and describe it in three different
ways. The analogy is entirely false. Some of the Gospel writers were
certainly not eye-witnesses; very likely, none of them were. They were, at
least in part, persons who were dealing with a story that already existed in
writing, one which they deliberately and consciously took it in hand at
one point to use word for word, at another to modify, to abbreviate, to
delete, or to enlarge and supplement. They were independent thinkers
who emphasized different aspects of a great common tradition and used
the diversity of the Gospel material to express these in their different
communities and contexts.
Thus they give different versions of events and speeches and different
delineations of the theological problems, different modes of use of the

9 See discussion in J. Barr, Escaping from Fundamentalism (London: SCM, 1984) =Beyond

Fundament{llism (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), p. 8o.

10 THE GOSPELS AND MODERN HERMENEUTICS
Old Testament/ 0 different Christologies and different pictures of Jesus.
The modern scholar tends to read the Gospels as complete narratives, but
in doing so he or she finds understanding through the ways in which older
materials-oral traditions, earlier Gospels, quotations from the Old
Testament, documents no longer extant-all alike have been moulded into
a new entirety. But this sort of understanding would not have come to
be, would not have been possible, but for the interest of generations in
the Synoptic Problem and the identification of Gospel origins, sources,
dates and modes of combination. The small-scale differences at particular
points, some of which, as already mentioned, are too small in scale to be
made visible in the Diagram, have to be correlated with the large-scale
differences between the complete Gospels; between them however there
stand the medium-scale differences, which are essential for the under-
standing of both, and these are made admirably visible in the Diagram.

'"For a major recent study see D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson, It is written:

Scripture Citing Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), which includes
chapters on each of the four Gospels, along with other subjects.
 A DIAGRAM OF SYNOPTIC
RELATIONSHIPS

PREFACE

T HE Diagram has been designed to assist the reader of the Synoptic

Gospels by giving an accurate presentation of their relationships in
a single conspectus, and to enable the student's eye by the use of
line and colour to contribute to his understanding of Synoptic questions
both in their outline and in their details. While the work is based upon a
minute study of the Greek text and a knowledge of Greek is required for a
thorough investigation of these relationships, the reader of the English
New Testament will be able to use the Diagram for a general survey of the
structure and sources of the Gospels and for such detailed study as the
comparison of passages in a translation permits. The Greek text adopted
in the preparation of the Diagram is approximately that underlying the
English Revised Version, but one or two verses of doubtful validity are
represented in the Diagram in order to show their affinities.
The Gospels are represented by columns, drawn to such a scale that
the relationships even of the individual verses can be indicated. Parallel
passages are shown in the same colour, and are connected by lines or
printed references between the columns. Colour is also used to distinguish
between close and distant resemblances of parallels, a matter of great
importance in the material common to Matthew and Luke and in certain
parts of Luke related to Mark. Matthew is twice represented, so that its
relation to Mark is shown in one column, while the material for the study
of Q is conveniently collected between the other column representing
Matthew and that representing Luke. All doublets which appear to have a
bearing on Synoptic comparison are noted with their parallels at the
appropriate places alongside each of the columns.
It has been my aim to apply objective principles in determining
parallels, and chiefly that of the proportion of verbal correspondence
between passages, combined in some cases with consideration of context.
The Diagram therefore does not profess to delimit sources, either by way
of inclusion or exclusion, but to present the facts on which such
12 PREFACE
delimitation may proceed. I have, however, made use of doublets in
Matthew and Luke to distinguish between similar Marcan and non-
Marcan passages in these Gospels.
The beginner in Synoptic studies is enabled by the devices of the
Diagram to see at a glance the relative length of the three Gospels, the
large proportion of Marcan matter included in the other Gospels, their
omissions of Marcan sections, their adherence to or deviation from
Marcan order, the distribution of Marcan matter in Matthew and Luke,
the extent and connection of non-Marcan matter in Matthew and Luke,
the proportion and distribution of matter peculiar to each Gospel, and so
on. And it is hoped that sufficient detail is provided in the Diagram to
make it permanently useful to the more advanced student, for whom it
will illuminate special studies such as that on the theory of Proto-Luke
and provide a work of reference for all Synoptic studies.
A brief survey of the Synoptic Problem is combined with the
directions given for the use of the Diagram. The survey has been drawn
up to aid especially those students who are using the Diagram without the
guidance of a teacher or a textbook on the Synoptic Problem.
In the preparation of this Diagram I have consulted the works of
many writers on the Synoptic Gospels, and I can make only a general
acknowledgement of my indebtedness to them. I wish, however, to
mention particularly Huck's Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien, in which
the Greek text is arranged in a form indispensable for a work of this kind.
My warm thanks are due to Prof. G. H. C. Macgregor, D.Litt., D.D.,
and Prof. Wm. Manson, D.D., for helpful suggestions, and to Rev. A.
Morton Price, B.D., for valuable assistance kindly given in the correction
of the proofs.
ALLAN BARR
EDINBURGH 14th February 1938.

In a succession of reprints some improvements have been made in the

details of the Diagram. For the present impression the pages of
Introduction have been revised in the light of recent discussion.
January, 1976 A.B.
 INTRODUCTION
A BRIEF SURVEY OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
WITH DIRECTIONS FOR THE USE OF THE DIAGRAM

T HE three Gospels usually distinguished by the titles "according to

St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke", are called Synoptic, because they
present in a large measure a common view of the life of Jesus. For
a knowledge of their sources, authorship and historical value we are almost
wholly dependent upon a comparative study of the Gospels themselves.
The Diagram is designed to aid such comparison. It presents a general
survey of Synoptic relations. Itself the product of a close examination of
the texts, it should be used in conjunction with detailed study of the
Gospels, the student referring to the Diagram from time to time in order
to ascertain the relation of any passage under study to the whole Synoptic
material. It is a great advantage to have an edition of the Gospels (best in
Greek) in which they are arranged in parallel columns, and to mark off in
the text the similar and dissimilar elements in them by a system of
underlining.
MATTHEW, MARK AND LUKE.-Besides indicating chapter and
verse positions the columns of the Diagram show divisions of the subject-
matter, corresponding to the units of narrative, etc. (pericopae) of which
the Gospels are composed, but in some cases adjusted in length for
convenience of Synoptic comparison. These divisions are here called
"sections". The Diagram indicates by red colour the sections in the three
Gospels in which both Matthew and Luke, or one of them, show
considerable verbal correspondence with Mark. It will be seen that almost
the whole of the Marcan material is incorporated in one or both of the
other Gospels. Of Mark's 662 verses 609 are represented as having
parallels in Matthew. In the case of Luke, figures are less definite. The
Diagram shows 357 verses of Mark's closely paralleled in Luke, but in
addition, some 95 verses of Mark are represented in the sections (chiefly
those shown in red and yellow) where Luke is apparently combining
Marcan with other material, and where a lower degree of verbal
correspondence with Mark is found. In the sections indicated in red,
I4 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
more than half, on an average, of the actual words used are found in both
Matthew and Mark or both Luke and Mark. There is a somewhat lower
degree of correspondence if account is taken of the order of shared words,
and a higher degree if equivalent expressions are considered. Especially
in their record of the words used by Jesus and others the three Gospels
tend to coincide. The degree of verbal correspondence is sufficient to
prove literary dependence in one direction or another; at the same time
the variations of the evangelists in their common material indicate their
freedom in the editorial (redactional) handling of the traditions. A glance
at the Diagram will show that much of the Marcan material is condensed
in Matthew and Luke. 609 verses of Mark are represented by 523 in
Matthew and 357 verses of Mark by 325 in Luke. The long-prevailing
view that Mark was an abbreviator of Matthew (or Luke) cannot be
maintained in respect of their common material, nor is it easy to explain
why Mark, if dependent upon Matthew and Luke, should expand· the
portions he selects for inclusion, and yet omit so much valuable material
from these Gospels. Only about 30 verses of Mark have no parallel either
in Matthew or Luke. A few of these, as in 9, r5f., 21ff., are merely
descriptive expansions of the narrative-a common feature of Mark-
which here happen to extend over a verse or two. Mk. 7, 31-37 corresponds
at some points to Matt. 15, 29-31.
The student should pay great attention to the order (sequence) of the
Marcan material in Matthew and Luke. This is indicated in the Diagram
by connecting lines between columns A, B and C. Wherever two of these
lines cross, a deviation from the order of Mark is indicated. It will be
seen that in no case do Matthew and Luke agree in departing from the
order of Mark. In Matthew the transpositions chiefly affect chaps. 4, 8, 9
and ro; in Luke a detailed study of the Passion-narrative of chaps. 22, 23,
will reveal a number of minor differences of order in addition to those
shown in the Diagram. Luke also places a number of distant parallels to
sections of Mark in a non-Marcan context; these are connected by broken
lines in the Diagram. On the assumption of the priority of Mark, the
Diagram indicates by black connecting lines the passages that seem most
likely to have been moved from the Marcan order in these transpositions.
The most widely accepted conclusion is that Matthew and Luke used
a writing substantially the same as our Mark as one of their sources. This
view is chiefly based upon the verbal correspondence, agreement in order,
and the details of the Gospels when compared, but on none of these in
isolation from the others. Theoretically, mere agreement in wording and
order would admit of an opinion (long held and still occasionally
advocated) that Mark was composed by drawing from Matthew and Luke.
The student must test this and other hypotheses in view of the additional
material of Matthew and Luke and the interests and methods of each of
the evangelists as seen in their own Gospels. With regard to order, the
 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM I 5
arrangement of Matthew's and Luke's material at special points (e.g. in
Matt. chaps. 3-10) must be studied in relation to the principles of
arrangement (in word-order, sentences and sections) shown throughout
these Gospels. This may well be decisively in favour of the priority of
Mark.
When the three Gospels are compared in detail many of the
departures of Matthew and Luke from Mark can be explained as tending
to improve harsh and ungrammatical phrases of Mark, to remove
redundancies and unessential matter or to heighten expressions of
reverence for Jesus (e.g. Mk. I3, I9; I, 32; 2, 25; 6, I7-29; 4, 38; 6, 5, 6 and
parallels). The preservation of the original Aramaic words of Jesus is
another sign that Mark is primitive (e.g. 5, 4I; 7, 34; I5, 34). Minor
agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark seem to conflict with this
view. They may be accounted for by assimilation in the early history of
the text, coincidence in the emendation of Mark or the overlapping of
Mark and other sources used by Matthew and Luke. Some scholars hold
the view that Luke was acquainted with and made limited use of Matthew's
Gospel. Explanations can be suggested, if not proved, for Luke's omission
of considerable portions of Mark (as indicated at the side of column B).
MATTHEW AND LUKE.-Matthew and Luke show agreement in
some of their non-Marcan material. This is coloured blue in the
Diagram, and the relevant facts are presented in columns C and D. There
is every grade of correspondence from exact identity to agreement in
scattered words. In the Diagram, IJI verses of Matthew are represented as
closely parallel to I5I of Luke, and 90 of Matthew as more distantly
corresponding to 94 of Luke. The evidence points to the use by Matthew
and Luke of another written Greek source, to which the symbol Q
(German, Quelle, Source) or the tide Logia (Sayings) is usually given. It
is a hypothetical document, and it is impossible to reconstruct it with
certainty. The student, however, should go as far as he can towards
ascertaining its contents. As Matthew and Luke each omit part of Mark,
so they each probably omit part of Q, some of which may be lost
altogether, and some may appear among the material peculiar to Matthew
and Luke. On the other hand, some of their more distantly related
passages (e.g. Matt. 25, I4-30, Luke I9, u-27) may have come not from Q
but from two different sources to the evangelists. The Q material occurs
in very different order in the two Gospels, a fact which is no doubt partly
due to Matthew's method of fitting all his material into the Marcan
outline; but a skeleton order of Q may be seen in the sections occurring in
similar sequence in the two Gospels and indicated by connecting lines
between columns C and D in the Diagram. The question of the over-
lapping of Mark and Q is very important. It is shown by the frequent
occurrence in Matthew and Luke of doublets, chiefly short sayings, usually
once in a Marcan and once in a non-Marcan context in the same Gospel.
 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
(These and their parallels are noted alongside the columns). Differences
of wording between the members of a doublet (seen esp. in Luke) suggest
different sources. There is also clearly overlapping in Matthew's and
Luke's parallels to Mark I, 7, 8, I2, I3; 3, 22-30, and other passages. Some
short passages which have Marcan affinities (e.g. Matt. I3, 3I, 32, Luke I3,
I8, I9) may owe more to Q than to Mark. If Mark and Q are independent,
such common elements come from traditions earlier than either of them.
The variation in the degree of correspondence in the Q sections presents a
difficulty. Yet the cases of low correspondence would be matched in
Matthew and Luke if they were compared directly, without reference to
Mark, in their Marcan material, and in some of the passages an over-
lapping of Q and other sources may reasonably be offered as an
explanation of their difference (cf. Matt. 5, 3-12, Luke 6, 20-26). Some
Q sections (e.g. Matt 6, 25-34, 11, ri9; Luke I2, 22-3I, 7, 24-35) show
very close correspondence sustained over several verses. Most of the Q
material consists of the teaching of Jesus, but some narrative passages are
included (e.g. Matt. 8, 5-I3, Luke 7, I-IO). It is most unlikely that Q
contained a narrative of the Passion; otherwise the presence of common
non-Marcan material in Matt. chaps. 26, 27, Luke chaps. 22, 23 would be
expected. So Q should not be reckoned as an early Gospel. Q may be
confidently assigned to a somewhat earlier date than Mark, which must
have been written within about forty years of the death of Jesus.
Recognition of Mark and Q as the principal sources constitutes the "two-
document theory" of Synoptic origins.
MARK.-If the priority of Mark is established, it is clear that this
Gospel is the main source for our knowledge of the sequence of events in
Jesus' Ministry. The arrangement in some places is topical rather than
chronological, but the narrative hinges on certain great events (e.g. Mark
I, 9-11; 3, I3-I9; 8, 27-33; 9, 2-8; 11, I-IO; I4, 22-25) which reveal the
nature of Jesus' Messianic vocation. The special characteristics of Mark,
his vivid realism in narrative; his portrait of Jesus as at once human and
unique in supernatural endowment, and the prominence he gives to Jesus'
suffering and death, are brought out by a comparative study of Mark with
Matthew and Luke.
MATTHEW.-When the Mar can and Q material is subtracted from
Matthew, 282 verses peculiar to this Gospel (as shown in white in the
Diagram) of the total of 1069 verses remain, in addition to art indefinite
proportion of the 93 verses of the mixed sections (red and white, blue and
white). These are not necessarily derived from one source only, but they
reveal the characteristic interests of the evangelist. The question whether
part of this material is based upon another written source is answered in
the affirmative by some scholars, who hold the view that Matthew used a
collection of sayings (symbol M) circulating in Jerusalem and showing a
strong interest in Jesus' attitude to the Jewish Law. Perhaps this view lies
 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 17
beyond the range of conclusive proof, but the student will find this and
other interests of this Gospel (such as the fulfilment of Old Testament
prophecy, Jesus' teaching on the Kingdom of Heaven, life in the "Church")
prominent in the matter peculiar to Matthew. It is important to observe
his careful arrangement of his material from the various sources in
appropriate contexts of Matk. It is his method of collecting and uniting
his material that gives to columns A and D the striped effect in their
colouring. Good examples are seen in chaps. 10, 13, 24, 25.
LUKE.-Luke contains even more special material than Matthew.
The Diagram shows 491 verses in yellow, in addition to an indefinite
proportion of 173 verses of the mixed sections (red and yellow, blue and
yellow) out of the 1150 verses of the whole Gospel. L is regularly used as
a symbol of this material. A glance at the Diagram shows that Luke's
method of combining his sources is very different from that of Matthew.
Instead of introducing cognate material from his other sources at
numerous points of Mark, Luke, in the greater part of his Gospel, has
solid blocks of Marcan material alternating with blocks of combined Q
and L material. (Even the few Marcan verses indicated in the Diagram
among the latter may well have come not from Mark but from an
overlapping source.) This fact, along with Luke's considerable omissions
from Mark, his preference for alternatives to Marcan narratives (e.g. Luke
4, 16-30; 5, I-n; 7, 36-50; 10, 25-28) and other considerations, has led to
the disputed Proto-Luke theory. It is held that Q and L had already been
combined by Luke or a predecessor in the form of a Gospel covering the
whole Ministry from the Baptism to the Resurrection, and that the
Marcan sections were incorporated into its scheme, not Q and L into
Mark. That Q and L were combined, either before the composition of
the Third Gospel or in the act of composing it, is obvious, but whether
Q + L in itself formed a continuous Gospel is far from certain. The
junctures between Marcan and non-Marcan material throughout Luke
should be examined to test the hypothesis that the Marcan sections are
fitted into an already existent framework. Opinions differ as to the extent
of Luke's dependence upon Mark in the Passion-narrative. In the
Diagram, the verses of Mark most clearly used in the mixed sections of
Luke's Passion-narrative are shown at the right of column B. If the Proto-
Luke theory were confirmed, it would involve an early date for L. Both
Matthew and Luke, as we have them, are usually assigned to a date about
A. D. 8o-9o. The special characteristics of Luke, such as his emphasis on
Jesus' interest in the poor, the sinful, the outcasts and women, and on the
universality of the Gospel message, are brought out by a study of Luke's
special material and his treatment of Mark and Q.
THE STUDY OF INDIVIDUAL PASSAGES.-If a passage in one
of the Gospels is being studied, the student should consult the Diagram
to find its setting in the structure of the Gospel and its relation to any
18 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
parallels in the other Gospels. If a doublet occurs in the passage, the
other member of the doublet and the parallels of both in the other Gospels
should be collected and compared. In the study of Matthew both
columns A and D should be used.
The Fourth Gospel lies outside the scope of the Diagram, but study
of that Gospel involves reference at numerous places to the Synoptic
framework, and the Diagram provides a convenient means for such
comparison.
 A
DIAGRAM OF SYNOP"riC RELATIONSHIPS D
S! MATTHEW
c MATTHEW
IN RELATION TO MARK
Vert ical Scale: 32 verses to I inch.

Passages common to St. Mark and one or both of the

LUKE IN RELATION TO LUKE
other Gospels CHAPTER
CHAPTER
CHAPTER
1
I
Passages of St. Mark absent from one of the other
1 Genealogy of Juus
Gospels are marked at the appropriate side of column B. 1 Genealogy of Jesus

Annund.,tlon of Birth of
John the Baptist I'· " •••th of J ....
Passages peculiar to St. Mark
I'· " Birth of Jesus
Annunciation of Birth of
The Magi
Non-Marcan passages common to St. Matthew and Je~u~

2 . ll
The Magi
St. Luke
V. 39
I'· "

John the B&ptln

Passages peculiar to St. Matthew M:~~y·s Visit to Eliubeth
1.., 3
V, [0, 1111 7, 19 3 .7 John'• Passages peculiar to St. Luke lk.l, 17=v. 12 I •· 13
v. 10, **7, 19

J~~·-~~~~T~h~e~T~o~m~p~ta~<~l~o o~,~~~~~l--~4
57
Passages shown in two colours contain a mixture of V.
Birth of John
The Temptations the elements represented by these colours.
4 Lines connecting corresponding sections :
----<t lk. 4, 3- ll = vv. 3-I_I_• _ _ ."
.1~
i G•llloc

5:;----F.18i:::::~0~~~;, c.uu
Marcan sections
in Marcan order
Birth of Jesus
r lk. 6, 20-ll,

lk. 14,
cr. vv.
34,35, d. v. ll
1-12 Se rmon on the Mount
Beatitudes 5
{ not in Marcan order lk. 11, 3), d. v. 15
v. Mk.. 9, SOa "· 21 lk. 16, 17= Y. 18
Circumci,ion and Pre-sentation lk. 11, 57-59=vv. 25, 26 -
v, . Mk. -4, 21
of the Child . 21

.21 Substituted sect ions and} tin Marcan order lk. 16, 18, cf. vv. ll, 32 '· 27 - vv. 29,30, **18,8, 9 (11 Mk. 9, 43-47)

vv . 29, 30, *" 18, 8, ') (11 Mk. 9, 4:1-47)

·" I
- distant parallels not in Marcan order
V. 41
The Boy Jesus in the Temple
l lk. 6, 27-30} ~
32-36 .... vv. 38-48
. 33
. 38
v. 32. **19, 9 (11 Mk. 10, 11, 12)

v. ]1, *"19, 9 (11 Mk. 10, 11. 12) -;:;:;;: I ;

John the Bapt;o< Lo,. of

3 9-~ll~i~,.=.•==~
en;;~~ p,,
Non-Marcan passages corn mon to St. Matthew and

6
St. Luke showing correspondence of order
"· !9, 20, cr. Mk. 6, 11, 18
John's Preaching
n. 7-9= Mt. 3, 7-10

v. 17- Mt. ), 12
lk. fl, 1-4, d. n. 1.,
6
T he Locd'• Pcayec n. 14, IS, d. Mk:\11\,~"· (26)
• . 2l
~~: ::: ;!: ;:::: ~~ ~ r~ ~
~ Ganealogy of Juus Lk. 16, l 3= v. 24
Anxiety
lk. 12, ll-31 = VV. 25-J)
..,, lk. 6, ]], 38) = VV. I-S i
Anx iety

4 Tne Temptations w . 3-B - Ht. 4, l-lla 4 1,42

lk. 11, 9-ll = YV. 7-1 I 1
"1 .., 16
lk. 6,.31= V. 12
Lk. 6, 43-46, d. vv. 15-21
'"
Tho
• Ro
· Ga<o
vv. 16-20, ..,.11, l3-lS
43-45)
~I Lk. 6,
V.
lk. 13, 16, 27, d. vv. 22. 23 v. 19, -1, 16 (11 lk. 3, 9)
VV. [6-20, U[l, ))-)5 (11 l k . 6,

,...
V, IJ Reject ion at Naureth lk. 6, 47-49 = vv. 24-27
43-45 )
v. 19, u], 10 (ll lk. 3, 9 )

8
B
'1'. 31
lo. . . . . . Lk. 7, 1- IO= w . S-10, 13 The Centu~ion or Capernaum
lk. ll, 28, 29- vv. 11, 12
¥. 41, d. Mk.l, 11, 12 I
Th~ C<O!nturion of Capernaum l l< 0, S7J.O..,..,.,, 19- 11
. I i
I ! of ' Stocm
.I I !Of i
Legion Exo~cised

S! MARK
. 2l - S<llllng of • Stocm
v. 28 Legion Exorcised \
I '· 21
Healing of a Paralytic
C•ll of L.;i ·'
Healing of a Paralytic
.,. "' 9
9 Heilling of a Paralytic
~I
"'

;: 1··
~ " iQ~"""Io.
ofifuti"i·~~
'~ I•· 18 Raising of Jairus'
I of Coco oo Woman with Issue

vv.
v. 18 Raising of Jairus' Daughter vv. 27-ll, cf. 20,29-34 (111)
Woman with hsue of Blood CHAPTER ~ I : of the H•ood I•· 21 i : of ' Blind I"'

{l s~);~~~~~~~~~fOT~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~;;~,,"
lk.... 14. 15=V"''. 32-34
~I i vv. 20-ll, d. Me. 5, 1-12 lk. 11, 14, IS)

27-31. d . lO, 29- 34

•. 2~~,10
1
r;:-u
•I :J I

~
~ ::j;:;) ~
::.:!" ·~. ~r~-H"L7,
M< S, ,._.,

,_,
lk. 10, 2=vv. 37, .l R

lk.
lk.
10, 9, d. vv. 7, 8
10, 4-8 \ d •
... 12
10
Lo ve of Ene m ies ;: :~ ~., 4.:
: ···
1 2:S_ lk.
10-12 1 · vv. -1s
10, 3, d. v. 16
v.
V. IJ
Minion of the D isciples
v. IS, -11, 24
V.[§, UIJ, 24 Mission of the Disciples I '· n. 4~-~~ 1c~ 1! IS-21
3(<4-27
lk.
Lk.
11, 1!, 12. d. vv. 19,20
6, 40, d. vv. 24, 25
vv. -17, 22. *"14, 9, 13 (lis Mk. ll,
9, 13, lk. 21 , 12, 17, 19)
vv. 17, 12, ••14, 9, 13 (lis Mk. ll, I. 9- n. lk. 12, 2-9= vv. 26-33 v. 26 Exhortation to Fcarlenne.ts
'· 13, llc..ll, 12, 17, 19)
Exhortation to Fearletsnen v, ~s;£Mk. 4, "-:.
.. vv. 1-IO ~ Mt. 8, 5-10, ll lk. 12,
14,25-27, vv.~~4-~3~6~f~§~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3~'~'~·~"~·~l9,
cf. vv. 37, ]8 l v.
of 34 .. 34, 3S, Lk. 24,
9, 23,
2S 24) Mk. 8,
'
vv. 38, 39, **16, 24, 2S (11$ Mk. 8, rof a ''
T he Cen t ur!on of C apernaum lk. SI- 53, d.
lk.l7,3] = v,)9
*"16,
v.40,*"18,S(llsMk.9,37,lk.9,48)
(lis

,_~,, 11
Lem 1
3-4. JS, Lk. 9, 23. 24) i i of
•' lk. 7, 18-23= vv. 2-6 The i
2
.20
V, 40, ** 18, s (ll$ Mk. 9, 37. lk. 9, 48) ... 41 v. 11 Raising of a Widow's Son
''
Healing of a Paralytic vv. 18-23 - Mt. 11,2- 6 lk. 7, 24-l8= n. 7-11
The The lk. 16, 16=VV. 12, () V. ]
11 I'·7 V. 10 - Mk. I, 2 / ''
'
"· 27=Mk. I, 2
I '· 24"V.
Jesus' Testi mony to t he Baptist
vv. 24-l8= Mt. 11,1- 1r
lk. 7,li-3S= vv. 16-19 Jesus' Testimony to the Baptist v. 14, cf. 17, 10-13 (11 Mk. 9, 11 - 13)

v. 14, cf. 17, 10-13 (U Mk. 9, 11-13) Jesus' Testimony to the Baptist vv.ll-lS = Mt. 11, 16-19 lk. 10, 13- IS = vv. 20-24 wo.. "PO" i s of Galilee
I '· " 24, ""10, IS (ll lk. 10, 12)

I~~Jl:::c~c£'~~W3oe••~
."Po~o~ii~e''3iiG~alllll~ee~t--
I ' Anointing in the House of
Lk. 10, 21, ll= VV. 25-27
Y.

"· 36
'
......of
v. 24, '"'"10, IS (U lk. 10, 12) orr a Pharisee
.' vv. I I, 12, cl. lk. 4, 4.-l
' I i
of Corn on Sabbath
12
...: ll
lk. 14, 5, cf. vv. 11, IU.
12 Plucking of
: of the
Co~n on Sabbath
I Hand '
''
'
8/ I' I
[""""""""'! lk.11, 14, IS=vv. 22-24
lk.ll, 18-20= vv. 26-28
~~-
!~· ~-
I r

Beelzebub
I H aod

vv. 22-24, "'*9, 32-34 (11 lk. 11,

of Multitudes
\ / 17, !!;12, 2 (11 Mt. 10, 26) 1 lk. ll, ll = v. 30 v. J.l 14, IS)

! 4~=V. J~~~:j~~ ·~··~]l~~~~~:-;;;d~~·~,"~"~~~~~~'~'~·3~3~-35,**7,

n . ll-24. u9, ll-l-4 (11 lk. 11. "- n v. 18, **19,26 (11 Hc.lS, 29 ) ! 2 1
1<, IS) :.y, -,- Beelzebub k. lj I S= w. 3-35 vv. 38, 39, ""16, I, "h, 4 ~~ Mk. 8,
,

4 '
vv.3l-lS,u7,16-20(11lk.;,~·~3~,44~)j§~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l---
tk. , 6, 29-32= vv. 38-42
lk. 11, 12) 16-20 (Ji lk. 6, 43, +1)
vv. l8, 39, UJ6, I, U,, -4 (11 Mk. 8, v. ]) . I \, :/
I
I' Legion Exorcised lk. 11, 24-26= vv. 43-45
. i
11. 12) '· 38

-5::-i·~1 · ";i;:~'""'l~· ~~-~·~~- ~~===t"-·_·_''_·34 /

•.46 JH"'' '·
: ~
IS
26 1 ~'· ~ll§~l~ot~e~r!p~re~ta~t~io~o~of~th~e~S~o~w~•~·~~~
I I I \I
\ l,./ 6, 38
V. 24-
vv. 30, :32.>~ Lk-13, 18,19 I
I
I:
v. 40
Raising of Jalrt.~s' Daughter
Woman with Issue of Blood 101
·-.;,;·~.,
v. 12, 29 (11 lk. 19, 26)

.~~ :::
Th e Pu~po s e o f Pa rables

u8·-t;:;~~·~~~·~....~--~~~;;~---
1'·
.·
v,-14
'· 12. ••2$, 19 (11 Lk. 19,1)3 Sowoc or v. 12 - Mk. 4, 2S
'· ·~
!of the Storm /
\ \\ vv. 1-6, cf. 10, 1-12 (ll~iMq V
I .
1
• - · ···- Twelve
Lk. 10, 23, 24=VV. 16, 17 1
I'· 18 o of <he Sowec

.18 o of the Sowoc I ' · 24 Tho Whm '"' <he Tore•

v. 6 Le8ion Exorci•ed v. 10 -~nl!offi~e
- Lk. 13, 20, l l=v.33 ~,.
~ 24 Wh~t t~h•r,
Ta~co~•~~
1 \ .'
I ', v.2],*•14,27(11Mt. ,J0,38) Fe•
Th• '"' 36
,' \ v.24,.,.17,33(11Mt.•IO,l9) 1 Y. lnterpn~tlltion of Ta~u
v. 26, .,.12., 9 (11 Mt~'JO, 33)
j::!:ld~
7~ Dcag
/ \
IV- 36 Interpretation of Tares
1r '' II The TraMfiguration Net- Tho

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"'
- n~ . '· 21

'VJ~
Raising of Jairus' Daughter ' r I . S3 ...
1oy

. ~a
1 \ , /
Woman with Issue of Blood
14
14 Deoth of •• v. 6b = Mt. 9, 35•
v. 7=Mt. 10, I
€f~~~~;;~~~~~~~~~;;;rf--
- 0~\
'· 7' I 1
I at

of the Twelve
Ir /

'
V. 48b, un, 26 t (lls Mt. 10, 26, 27,
\ Hk. I0,4l,+1)
...... o. 16 /
\ /
l v.SI
I v. 57 ' TT
.
1

i
I
1 of 1 vv. 57- 60 - Ht. S, 19-22
__j: v. ll
n

I
·••

r of "'"
I'· 13 of Five Thousand '· 17
. Death of the Baptist I \ . /

d:.r: \ I LV
11 (\
Minion of the Seventy
V. l = Mt. 9,37, 38
vv. 3-12. cf. Mt. 10, 7- 16
I··"
V. 28
Walking on the Su

..,.
V. 22
w.,lking on the Se& L
I - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --1
YV. 11• I8 'd. l k. l, 19, 20
vv. 19- 29
I 12.
""·16- **9 ·
v• •
1-6
ll) i '(I""
M Mk )
\ , ,t.'ra'·•
, s , •·
,., k. 9,
(11
·I
~
i vv.ll- IS - Mt.ll,l0-24
__J
v. l4 = Mt. 9, 36 lv.lO
FCiading of five Thousand
/ '~,
1•
, / r::- I
I •·
i vv. 21, 22"" Mt,ll, 25-27
VV. 23, 24- Mt. IJ, 16, 17
15
15 1 Lk. 6, 39=v. 14

\ )~t~j~'
H,,, ·~ P~a~c~a~b~le~-~T~h~o;G~o~o~d~S~a~m~a~c~l~<a~"~ ~-;:,
Washing o( Hands ' ' ' 29
V, Jl 6, 30-7, 37, d . 8, 1-26 (11 Mt.) •. ·45 Walking on the Sea
/
77-il.~'~~~~
I v. Martha and MarY l-4. cf. Mt. 6' 9-ll
The .. I ,1 ', ' 1 vv.9-13 =: Mt.7,7-ll

Lk.12,S4-S6. d."·"'·•!JJ--1:~~v.'~':.~~~~~~~
1 32

· ·~o;}f';fE::
~~'~T i;~~~~J16
/ \, - .:. Y'l'. 14, IS = Ht. 9, 32- 34,
1
Iv. ' Asklnll and 11, 22--24
1v.
~~~·~.3~2~~~-~~~M~•~•"'~~~~j---
Washing of Hands I' 11 vv. 18-20 .., Mt. 11,26-28
B<':leli"i:Dul:i - v. ::U - Hc. 11.30
1
/ \, • -- : - ·
I "· 1. 1 -=- vv. 24-16 - Mt. 11. 4l-4S S The Leav"n of the i

~
/ / \ ~ ... 16. 29-l2 ... Mt. l:l, 38-41

I:·:,
- ---~:~'· ~i\7t===~·=··~·~,~·,ffic~·~·~fe~·~·~~o~"====~L:·::··~t. ~6. 1·
Lv~ ~ v. Jl. d . Mt. s, IS
" · I. 2'· <. • • ll, ]8 , 39 : ll, The Louoo of'"'
V. l-'f The Syroph<Enician Woman I'·" v. iH.
1
us, 16 (11 Mk)J, 21)
1 \
1 .. 29 vv. 34. 3S = Mt. 6, 22,23
9
;•12, 1s. 39 (!1 Lk. 11,
... ~ .
1I 9
VV. 3 -'Jll_,
Y.ll PriCh«lon ol 1

'of~.
~~~~1~~·~17~~~~·:·1'e!·:··~~~~~~~~~~~~--
{ ,(, ,21 ,
,'
, ,
I
• "' r<>· He. 23, 23-36 o nUli-1~•39P"~~~

vv. 14, "25, ••10, 38. 39 (Il l lk. l4, 27. I v. 24 ~

~
Feeding of Four Tho~o~s&nd r ' ' ·~\)
43, u20, -16 /(lis Mt. 23, 7,
v.-:.
7
De nun cia ti o n of t he ~-! _:_•-
~~- ll, 6, 7 The Tran$figuration 1717, 33 )

nl-~~r:'~t~~----;:::·:·~·=,~··:·~M:::::::--lr:··;.:,~f~~";:l.'·,:~·
: ~:31l!""
17, 33 ) •rr;;·,oh----1
16, 29)
17 i'·' 8, 1-26. cr. 6, 30-7, 37 (Us Mt. and
I,'"· I. Mk. 12.
d.
39 ) •
8/}8· ] l· v. I i ' nf ;ln i "I" Bov

.'. .,
Tho; ; v, 14 The Leaven of the Pharise~ IS ( lk 12 I . -· • vv. 10- 13, cf. 11 , 14
s. 6, cr. .,_ 20

-·rr-]~~~~~~~·~~~~~~~~ ~-~-~~~~~~"·
Mk. IS Lk. 11,
vv . 10-13, d . 11, 14 Elijah Lk I I V. 2.••8, 17 (11 Hk.4,22) Hk.-,. Jt ortation to FearlessnC!ss
Eh .I
V. 9. u9, 26 .(11~ Mt. 16, 27. v. _ 11.-,'~"·~uM,; -In 19 20
of an Epileptic Boy '
.
I1 n .JI,I 2, ;'*21, 14. 15 (JI Mk . /3: i1j
V. 10
YV . · ' , .. , '"'· '"" ••o • )~ , -~~~
r:·: -'-.~~~~rrG~£
'--'---- .,_20. .. 21. 2 1 <" Mk. 11, 23 )

8-t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~;:-;-:;;"1
crT

"· 20. -"21, 2 1 (I! Mk. 11,) ;21f3l)8 10, IS

.-p,1.r t • 34 / IY V, 32. ))
:
/ /
/
v. I l
1-------------------------------~
Parable The Rich Fool ..... Lk. 17, l = v. 7 1-·.-· ~ 18 ::V ~.s. **23, 1 2 (Ji lk. (4,11)
••10, ...
V . 4. H13, 12 (IJ L)(. 4, 11) .... - ,-,,._, Anx iety Lk. IS, 3-7, 10, cf. vv. 10-14 v. 8, 9, **S, 29. 30
~ The Transfiguration ' ' "· 22 vv . 22-31= Ht. 6, 25-33
' oo •' '' '
v. 5, ••10, 40 [ " · 15 The Brother. i
YV. )3, H = Nt. 6, 19-21 Lk. 17,3, 4, cf. vv . !5, l l, 22
.,., _ 8. 9. ••s , 29, 30 •liJah . . .. 9b-!l
v. IS ....._
'' vv.,-38-40. ' cr. Mk . IJ, 33, 35-37 " · JS
[vv. 35-38. d . Me. 15, 1-13)
'' W atthfulness-ParMtles
n. 39-46= Mt. 14, 43-S I " · 23
Parable-The Unme~ciful Se~vant
v. 23 ' • - vv, SI-Sl, d . Mt. 10,34-36
Parabi-The U nmerciful Servant •vv. 28.29 ' '
.. '•'
''
' v. 49 vv. 54-~. d. Mt. 16, (2, 3) MarrillJe and Oivorc.e
19
1 33
;,
~ _1~i:~=;@~o~;,~;,~;~o~n•~-~S~i~~n~•~~~~~t-'~'~·~':7-:'59=Nc. S, 25, 26 10
v.9.••S,32 (11 Lic..l6, 18) f9 . 10
Marriage and Divorce Lk. n, 26J
"·
' ! ..
v . ~2 - Lk . 17. 2
lvv. 4 1, 4) -'17
,' ' ,''
v. 16
V. 9, **S,J2 (!Jlk. f6, J8)

v. 41 - Mt. 10,42

''
I I
v. 50a, d. Mt. S, 13 . 50&. cf l k. 14, 34'. 35 / Riches and the Kingdom

F "". 1;;)~~~;'_··=:~~~~~o:f~· ~~~~;~~~~-'l'i·~"'· 20~.

V. 16 lk. 22, 28-30, cf. V. 28
18 !9 d Mk 4 30 32 vv. • 24, cf. Mt. 7, 13, 14
----1- ------ -----------lf-- v:-30, .. "10, 16 (!Ilk. IJ, 30 )
Riches and the Kingdom
10 Marriage and Divorce 1-10 I' 1' ""· · · · · ' - ":
r
v. 25, cf. Mt. 25, 10-12

I
CJr:==:ID:<;!l[!ii::i;['g>:~"'>====~
11
v.I S, cf.l4, 5 (11 Mt. 12,, IOI 26. l27,
i =cr.Mt.Mt.13,1,3)
22. 23
"· )0, **10, 16 (11 lk. J), "30".1 - -- f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +- - -
v. IS = Mt. 18, l
I I , I 2, cf. l k. 16, 18
''
'
'' ' .~;~Exduslon :~-J~!;, ~~~l~,t·l:• I I, 12
P& r able-
The Labou~e~s in the Vineyard 20
20 Par able -
The L•boure" In the Vineyard .17 I

'' '
' r -~ vv.-)4, lS- Mt. ll, 37-39 • Lk. 13, 30 = v. 16
v. 16, **19, 30 (11 Mk. 10, 31)
v. 16. **19, )0 (\1 Mk . 10, 31)
Riches and the Kingdom
' '' ¥. 5. cf. 13, 15 14 I Y. 7 v. 5, cf. Mt. 11, 11, IU. . '· .IU The Sons of Zebcdec
The Sons of 3S ...... ) 5-40 ''
I I
Y.ll,..-18,14b Guests and H osts v.II =: Mt.ll, 12
___j~.i!:---t!!~;L;!:
of-:r;-~!!;
- ~~~:;!::i;;;t;l_:":· 26, 27, d.
H2J, I I 31
""· 26. 27. '""13, I I .J. IS - . ", ; Two RI;• Mo" ot ; 29-34, 9, 27-
VY. 29-34. cf. 9, "27- 31 i ' of Two Bllood Mo ••
vv. -4l, +4, '" "9, lS (11 Lk. 9r,,~48;b)
;
~~~·46~::;;;;;:;;~~~~~~;;;;::j~i-
The Sons of Zebedee

of a Blind Man at Jericho

\ / '
,!:/
~
"· 27. *'"9, 2l (ll1 Mt. 16, 24,
Mk. 8, H ) r.. Pa ra bi-The Grea t Supper vv. 15-24, d. Mt. ll, 1-10
:: Ent~y into Je r usalem
21
21 YV. 3•4>. 35, cf. Mk. 9, SOa • ... : 25 .

l d5:_ ~~~~~;~;~-~~~dl''i;''·Cl:4;·, ,
Conditions of o.·,,,·pr-ho·p VY. 23S-237S. cf. Mt. 10, 37, 38 •

1
Entry into Jennalem

:· " 11 Entry Into Jerusalem ~I< ,!

Clcan~ i ng of th.-

~~~g~~j·"·l. /l
of the l: -
- oct" <;:1., ·I, JO,cf.d.Mt.
Mt.S,18,13 10-14
e . V. 21, "* 17,20 (IJ lk. 17, 6)
v. 21. .. 17,20 (11 l k. 17 , 6) ;
I '· " .IS g'Ofthe I 11 •. 11 '"
..,, vv. 25, (26), d. Mt. 6, !4, IS '· 20 The I Fig Tree lvv. 2o--'2s ,' /
The P~odigal Son
' So"'
:-;: ' '""' 27 Question of Authority '\1' 1' e lk. 20, 18=v. (+1) I'· "
,, '
/ '',,.'
12 Parable-The Wicked Husbandmen

' ' 16 The Unjust Stttwa~d

lk. 14, 15- 24, d. vv. 1-10
22
22 v. )]
''
r
' '
I ' Double Service
Y. ll - Hc. 6, 24

::!E~~ ~=
~~
"· 16 = Mt. 11, 12, 13
The Pharisees' and the Sadducee1:'
'' '' ' '' .' v. 18, cf. Mk. 10, 11. 12
"· 17 = Mt. S, 18 v. IS
v. IS
Questioni
' ' '·" V. 18, cf. Mt. S, 31,32 The Ph&risees' and the Sadducee.'
Questions

~~~~'··2~8~~T~h~•~G~,.~~~:~e~ot~C~o~m~m~a~n~d~m~'~"~t~~~-'--f'/
The Pharisees' and the Sadduceas' The Rich Man and Lazarus

f7fl;~~~~~~~f':~,~;th~;t' :,....,_:.s.
Questions
-;:->< The

r·"~Th~·~~d
" \\ v. l = Mk. 9, 42
l:nH.•. 18, 7

9-ll~H< ~ ~"'"'"" ~\:~

YV, 3. 4, cf. Mt. 18, 15, 21, 2.2 I '· " . <
~'·" -
~Son 1
7 ...
1 6, cr. Mt. 11, 20
11
23
......
V.
Healing of Ten Lepers lk. 11, 46, cf. v. 4
I'.· •
v. 11 , .. 20. 26. 27 (lis Mk ro,
23 ~3 . 4-4,
"· 10, 17-22 I•· S Apo<Oiyp<l<
,'
"·IS, 16, 11,31
v. l f. d. l k 17, 1 1
1
v.13.cf.Hit.l3,1!
v. 31, cf. Mk. 1], 15, 16 . • __
V.
The Day of t h e Son pi
~ vv.26. 27,JO}
34.35,(36 ) d.Mc.l4.37-41
n """ ~nK~HcKaV
lk. 11,
lk.l4,
lk. 11,
43, cf. vv. 6, 7
ll = v. ll
52, d. v. 13 v. I 5 Denunci&tion or the v. 11, '**20, 26.27 (lis Mk. 10, 43, +1,
lk. 22. 26)
l>c_
v. 33, u9, 24 (Us Mt . ola••••._!: • _--j------~-_:M~•~n~--_: Y. Jl, Ul8, 4
L~ . u. 26 ) I :,;_,"-
;. Denu nciatio n of the I"•. 24 The Parousia of the Son of Man 1' 'I
M~~~
A - ---+-..::v· 33= Mt. 10,39
-~KU " · 23 Scr ibe$ and Pharisees
1
18
lI'ir-~~·~··~
";;;~~~~;;·~.;:,:
··~~~~;;;;;;;;;i:/-l__.
l k. 11,39-421
v. n, ""·; I v. lJ v. 3S=Mt.l4, 41 P:arabl~ The Godleu Judge 44, cf. VY. 23-36
v. 33-37. ,, l k. 1;\,12. rJ 47-SI
4
35= vv.l~7-:'3~9:____~~~~~T_;'~~~-;E,~':fi'Ij~~~t--7)
~ nd 12 . J8--40
,:9 Tho ,--;;"' th;
~ 4 lv. 3 The Anointing at Bethany . }I \ v. lolb, "*14, 11 (11 Mt. lJ, 12)
lk. 13, 34,
'' 18
24
V.

'\
.
V. 10
' ·. Riches and the Kingdnm
9, 13, .... 10, 17, 21
vv . 9. 13, --10, 17, 22 "· 10 " '' r,, v. 13
Apocalyptic W01rnings
VY.

"· 13
Apocalyptic Warnings ·. " 'I '· ".
'0 of a Blind Man at Jericho
' lk. 17, 23. H, 37, cf. vv. (1-;•ui::!
. oo- - - - - -- - - - - - - --1
1 v. 26 I··" '\ 16-28 The Parou$ia of the Son of M&n
The Parousla of the Son of Man
Gethsemane
''
''
19 Zacchaeus
l k. 17, 26, 27, 30\.d. ""·
J't. JS. (36)} 3 7-41
'· " Watchfulnen-P11rables
I 'i. :r.-::::;;; Watchfulness-Parables V. 42- Hk. U, lS
vv\ 12, 13, tf. Mk. 13, 34
l-11 ' VY . I J-27, cf. Mt. 2$, 1~- 30
lk. 11, 39-46 = vv. 43-SI
Jesus before tile Sanhedrin '' 8, 18 (lls Mt. 13, !2. ~-+--------------~--

25 .... Peter's Denials

• •· 53 - SS
~lb-6S
v. 26\""
\ Mk. 4, 25} Entry Into Jerusalem
• fL k. 12, 35-J8, d. w . 1-1 3]
lk. JJ, 25, cf. VY. 10-12
P11r11blc-The Ten Virgin1
25
v. 29. *"ll, 11 (!11 Mk. 4, 25.
Lk. 8, 18) 15 ... ; befo" Pll&te

Condemnation of Jesus
,_,\
[vv. 16- 1'1, d. lk , 1
'
''
''
lk. 19, 11 - 27, d. vv. 14-30
I'· " "· 29, .. *13, 12 (lis Mk. 4, 25,
Lk. a, 18)

V. ]I 21
'
''' 20 Posrable-
1 of Authority
"· 31
The Judgm e nt of the World
The Judiment ef the World
V.
The Crucifb:ion '' The Wicked Husba ndmen

ld3 ' ''

v. 18 -"' Mt. 11, (+f )
••o• ag.onot .... The Death of Jesus ..,._., ))
''
v. 20
The Pharisees' and the The Anointing at Bethany
""'lal of Juu• Sadducees' Questions

g:;
l '· "~~
The "·u '
~fv-~l~
The~~~·~~•_>.; ..., '

\"·" \\ 21r~~~~~~~~~~~~-
''· ~
16 I V. <j
The Empty Tomb
V. 46.

'I Non-M &rC<t n Conclusion

i 1
w. 14, 15, '"*11, 11, 12 (11 Mt. 10,
..,, 19, 20) \ Apocalyptic Warnings
.,_ 36

GethHmane \ I v . .20
v. 47 '\ I: 1; '". fMao
The Arre5t

~'.~~-r~·~,~·~~~~~~m~~~·~~---
¥.52
Y. 57
v. 57 Jesus before the Sanhed~in
Jesu' before the Sanhedrin
I'·., Peter's Denials
• ' for<ho

27 ..,
•. •• Petoc'• Do"l•l•

The End of Judas

- ' " ' Lo•d'• S" ppcc 27
v. 26, **9, 48b (ii'Mk. 9, 35) · . ,_ -------;-_
'1•.24 .... • ........ vv. 28-30, d. Mt. 19, 28 e
I I Condemnation of Jesus
Condem n&tion of Je~u1 Signs and Abbr~v i ations. ..,, ~Ho""' of Oli•H
v. 32
v. 32 v . vv., verse (s ). Ve r se references enclosed ( ) are textua lly d o ubtfu l. The Arrest The Crucifixion
W it hin t he colu mns t he first verse of eac h passage is At the Palacc of the High Priast 1::;";:------------------~
Peter's Denial$ v. 52 The Death of Jn us
indicated .
1 . . .'
The Death of Je.sus
v. Sl
= ind icates close correspondence. ' • .,.,. d!e
. 57 The~ J""' bofore Pll•to
" T

...
d2 Tho Gncd &t the
cf. ind icates verba l correspondence in small degree or w it h important
[l. 11, cf. Mk. IS, 1
6- 19] 23 I' ' Jesus befo~e He~od
v. S The Empty Tomb
28
28 The Empty Tomb
I
d iffere nce in substance.

[ ] e ncl ose r eferences to remotely connected passages.

I'· " I'· 11
I'· " •of
r <he Body

' "
11, Jl s, para llel passage(s) as indicated by t he con nect ing li n e s and ..33 The C~ucifixlon
the references alongs ide the columns. The Two Thiev.-s
I'· "
·. "
' .l ._. """ doublets , i.e. passages (chiefly short sayings) found more t han
Tho D"'h of J~••

once in the same Gospel. Doublets are indicated on th e

I'·so _The Buri&l or Jesu$

., ,.
left of columns A, B, C, and on t he r ight of col umn D.
The li s in t he other Gospels to one me mber of the doubl et
24 The Empty Tomb

, ar e in dicated in each case. To fin d all the lis, refer to bot h v. ll

Appe&rance of the Lord at
me mbers of t he doublet. Emmaus

v. 36
Appearance of thlil Lord in
Jeru~-alem
ALLAN "'BARR, 0 . 0 .
The
- OFl SSOR OF N ~ W HSTAW€MT LANOUAOE . LOUR4TURE ANO UIOII!S
UNOH O •R U CNURCN OF SCOTL AND COLUOt , t OU<8UROOI