¹ See, for example, Theodor Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. J. M. Trout, Edinburgh 1909, ii. 403–5; William Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: a critical analysis, New York, 1964, 1–34; and D. L. Dungan, A history of the Synoptic Problem: the canon, the text, the composition, and the interpretation of the Gospels, New Haven 1999, 302–10. All these authors consider investigation into the Synoptic Problem to have been formulated by eighteenth-century scholars.

² That is, the rise of ‘source criticism’ of the Gospels (critical investigation to discover where the Gospel writers got their information) was enabled by the dramatic shift in assumptions about the Bible by theologians in Germany such as J. F. W. Jerusalem, J. S. Semler and J. D. Michaelis. See William Baird, History of New Testament research: from Deism to Tübingen, Minneapolis 1992, i. 116–54.

³ John Calvin, Commentarii in harmoniam ex tribus evangelistis, Paris 1551. Latin quotations are from the 1667 Amsterdam edition: Commentarii in quatuor evangelistas, Amsterdam 1667.

⁴ Idem, Commentary on a harmony of the evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke,  i, trans. William Pringle, Edinburgh 1845, repr. Grand Rapids 2003, 18;  ‘continua serie velut in una tabula … quid simile habeant vel diversum’: Commentarii, argumentum.

⁵ Andreas Osiander, Harmonia evangelica, Basle 1537.

⁶ Calvin, Commentary, ii, 428; ‘Atqui ejus commento nihil est magis frivolum’: Commentarii, 230.

⁷ Idem,  Commentary, i. 13; ‘Christum regiis suis quadrigis vectum magnifice’: Commentarii, dedicatory.

⁸ J. J. Griesbach, Libri historici Novi Testamenti Graece: pars prior, sistens synopsin Evangeliorum Matthaei, Marci et Lucae, Halle 1774, and Synopsis evangeliorum Matthaei Marci et Lucae una cum iis Joannis pericopis quae omnino cum caeterorum Evangelistarum narrationibus conferendae sunt, Halle 1776. Griesbach and the English clergyman Henry Owen are both credited with proposing the two-Gospel hypothesis, which posits that Matthew wrote first, Luke then made use of Matthew's Gospel, and that Mark made use of both. See also F. W. Farrar, The Gospel according to St. Luke, London 1891, 8 at n. 1, where Farrar cited a use of the term ‘synopsis’ ‘as applied to a tabular view of the first three Gospels’ by Georg Sigelii almost two centuries before Griesbach. Farar was referring to M. Georg Sigelii, Synopsis historiae Iesu Christi, quemadmodum eam S. Matthaeus, Marcus, Lucas descripsere in forma tabulae proposita, Nuremberg 1583. It is not clear whether Sigelii coined the term, nor if his Synopsis influenced Griesbach. Sigelii's Synopsis is apparently no longer extant.

⁹ Calvin apparently misattributed to Jerome Augustine's statement that Mark was Matthew's abbreviator: Dungan, A history of the Synoptic Problem, 182.

¹⁰ Calvin, Commentary, i. 17; ‘Quod tamen dicit Hieronymus, ratione prorsus caret, epitomen esse Evangelii a Matthaeo scripti. Nam neque servatum a Matthaeo ordinem ubique sequitur, et ab ipso statim initio dissimilis est quantum ad tractandi rationem, et quaedam refert ab altero illo omissa, et in eiusdem rei narratione interdum prolixior est. Mihi certe magis probabile est, et ex re etiam ipsa coniicere licet, nunquam librum Matthaei fuisse ab eo inspectum, quum ipse suum scriberet: tantum abest, ut in compendium ex professo redigere voluerit. Idem et de Luca iudicium facio … ita Spiritus sanctus in diversa scribendi forma mirabilem illis consensum suggessit, qui solus fere ad fidem illis astruendam sufficeret, si non aliunde maior suppeteret auctoritas’: Commentarii, argumentum.

¹¹ Idem, Commentary, i. 17; ‘non est anxie nobis laborandum’: Commentarii, argumentum.

¹² So named because it was first proposed by Augustine in the fourth century ce in his Gospel harmony, De consensu evangelistarum 1.2.4. The Augustianian hypothesis attributes Mark with having used Matthew's Gospel in composing his own. It also proposes that the order in which the Gospels were written is the traditional canonical order: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.

¹³ For a complete bibliography of Chemnitz's works see Georg Williams, D., ‘The works of Martin Chemnitz: a bibliography of titles, editions, and printings’, Concordia Theological Quarterly xlii (1978), 103–14Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Carter Lindberg, The Reformation theologians: an introduction to theology in the early modern period, Oxford 2002, 140–2.

¹⁵ Chemnitz believed that the authority of the Scriptures came from the fact that the biblical writers were all especially equipped by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and approved by the Church: Examen Concilii Tridentini, Leipzig 1565–73, i. 85. See also H. F. F. Schmid, The doctrinal theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Philadelphia 1876, 103–4.

¹⁶ ‘Si Alter Martinus non venisset, prior Martinus non stetisset’: Theophilus Spizel, Templum Honoris Reseratum, Augsburg 1673, 399.

¹⁷ Martin Chemnitz, Harmoniae Evangelicae (1593). Latin quotations are from the 1628 Amsterdam edition; English quotations are from The harmony of the four evangelists, trans. Richard J. Dinda, Malone, Tx 2009.

¹⁸ Chemnitz, Harmony, 13. Jean Gerson composed his Gospel harmony, the Monotessaron, in 1420. Quotations here are from the 1728 Antwerp Opera omnia, 91, where he wrote that ‘The four Evangelists have spoken, not by mutual conspiracy, but by divine inspiration’, providing a ‘harmonious dissonance’ (‘quatuor Evangelistas, non mutua conspiratione, sed divina inspiratione fuisse locutos… concordissima dissonantia’).

¹⁹ Chemnitz, Harmony, 5; Harmoniae i.1.1. Chrysostom, in the first of his Homilies on Matthew (late third–early fourth century ce), stated that the evangelists wrote ‘not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and conversed one with another … [T]he discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion’: quoted in Phillip Schaff (ed.), A select library of ante-Nicene and post-Nicene Church Fathers, x, New York 1888, 3.

²⁰ This summary of Chemnitz's motivations is adapted from H. J. De Jonge, ‘Sixteenth-century Gospel harmonies: Chemnitz and Mercator’, in Theorie et pratique de I'exegese, Geneva 1990, 155–66.

²¹ Chemnitz, Harmony, 3; Harmoniae i.1.2.

²² Ibid.

²³ Idem, Harmony, 6; Harmoniae i.1.2.

²⁴ Idem, Harmony, 3–4; Harmoniae i.1.2.

²⁵ Idem, Harmony, 14. ‘Quod historias, quae consensu totius antiquitatis, & circumstantiis hoc manifeste testantibus apud diversos Evangelistas eedem sunt, ipse cogitur alias seu diversas facere, & longo temporis intervallo divellere’: Harmoniae i.3.7.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ De consensu ii.21.51. There, Augustine wrote that ‘For of what consequence is it in what place any of [the evangelists] may give his account; or what difference does it make whether he inserts the matter in its proper order, or brings in at a particular point what was previously omitted, or mentions at an earlier stage what really happened at a later, provided only that he contradicts neither himself nor a second writer in the narrative of the same facts or of others? For as it is not in one's own power, however admirable and trustworthy may be the knowledge he has once obtained of the facts, to determine the order in which he will recall them to memory (for the way in which one thing comes into a person's mind before or after another is something which proceeds not as we will, but simply as it is given to us), it is reasonable enough to suppose that each of the evangelists believed it to have been his duty to relate what he had to relate in that order in which it had pleased God to suggest to his recollection the matters he was engaged in recording. At least this might hold good in the case of those incidents with regard to which the question of order, whether it were this or that, detracted nothing from evangelical authority and truth’:  The works of Aurelius Augustine, ed. Marcus Dods, viii, Edinburgh 1873,  254–5.

²⁸ Chemnitz, Harmony, 35.

²⁹ The criterion of multiple attestation was developed in the twentieth century by New Testament scholars to help to determine whether material in the Gospels had historical validity. Although it is not used in isolation, the criterion assumes that the more sources which include common material the more credence should be attributed to that account. See, further, Craig A. Evans, Jesus and his contemporaries: comparative studies, Leiden 1995, 15–17.

³⁰ Chemnitz, Harmony, 37.

³¹ Ibid. 4. ‘Et manifestius hoc inde colligitur, cum, juxta Epiphanii et Augustini sententiam, inter evangelistas illi, qui post alios scripserunt, priorum scripta et viderint et legerint: sicut Lucas de se in praefatione profitetur, & de Johanne Ecclesiastica historia testatur’: Harmoniae x.1, 2.

³² Although he did not specify the location, Chemnitz's mention of Epiphanius was apparently based on his reading of Panarion haereses 51.6.10–13, where Epiphanius stated that Mark came after Matthew, and that Luke came after both.

³³ Chemnitz, Harmony, 4; ‘in narrationibus Matthaei ordinem’: Harmoniae i.1.3.

³⁴ Ibid; ‘altius historiam Evangelicam ordiatur, & ordine quodam illam contexat’: Harmoniae i.1.3.

³⁵ Idem,  Harmony, 64. ‘Possunt vero etiam haec verba intelligi de Matthaei & Marci libris Evangelicis, ante Lucae scriptionem editis ἐπεχείϱησαν enim non significat vanum conatum: sed ad verbum significat, manum operi admovere… Si enim pseudoevangelistas intelligeret, simpliciter diceret: Quoniam multi infideliter scripserunt, visum est mihi. Iam veto dicit [visum est mihi] annumerans se illis, qui prius hoc argumentum tractarunt’: Harmoniae i.1.3.

³⁶ Ibid. ‘canonisantur priorum Evangelistarum scripta’: Harmoniae i.1.3

³⁷ Idem,  Harmony, 12.

³⁸ These are terms used by New Testament scholars to refer to material common to Matthew and Luke but not Mark (double tradition), and common to all three Synoptic Gospels (triple tradition). Many New Testament scholars think that the presence of a large amount of double tradition is evidence for the hypothetical Q document. See Edwin K. Broadhead, ‘The extent of the sayings tradition (Q)’, in Andreas Lindemann (ed.), The sayings source Q and the historical Jesus, Leuven 2001, 719–28.

³⁹ See Gerson, Monotessaron, prooemium, 93–100.

⁴⁰ Redaction criticism refers to the practice, developed in the twentieth century by New Testament scholars, of positing editorial changes made by a Gospel writer to source material, and reasons for those changes: Gail P. C. Streete, ‘Redaction criticism’, in Stephen R. Haynes and Steven L. McKenzie (eds), To each its own meaning: an introduction to biblical criticisms and their application, Louisville, Ky 1993, 105–24.

⁴¹ Chemnitz, Harmony, 264; ‘Quia enim Matthaeus multis ostenderat, Christum esse filium Davidus: Marcum statim in principio vocat Dei filium, ut ostendat … Et Evangelium non recte annunciati, si Christus non simul & Davidus & Dei filius praedicetur’: Harmoniae i.16.151.

⁴² Cf. Chemnitz's citation of Clement's description of John's Gospel from Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica vi.14.7.

⁴³ Chemnitz, Harmony, 263.

⁴⁴ Ibid. 286. ‘Et variationes illae, quod Lucas habet verbum ἄϱξησθε Mattheus δόξητε non sunt otiosae. Sed quia mens humana, quando ipsi proponitur concio poenitentiae, & exiguntur fructus, varia pretextuum effugia incipit quaerere, arripiens nunc hoc, nunc illud. Lucas igitur dicit, ne coeperitis dicere, hoc est non arripiatis hoc effugium, ut illud velitis opponere concioni poenitentaie’: Harmoniae i.16.167.

⁴⁵ Francis Roberts, Clavis bibliorum, London 1648, 469.

⁴⁶ George Townsend, The New Testament, arranged in chronological and historical order, Philadelphia 1825, ii. 9.

⁴⁷ John S. Thompson, A Monotessaron, or, The Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to the four Evangelists, Baltimore 1828, p. iv.