His work laid the foundations of modern text criticism and he is, in no small measure, responsible for the secure New Testament text which we enjoy today.”​—J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776-1976, p. xi.

Ever since, they have been called the “synoptic” Gospels because they present a “like view.”

In fact, Matthew, Mark and Luke (often called the Synoptic Gospels) do not mention any Passover except the final one at which Jesus died.

The Synoptic Gospels relate too many events for all of them to have occurred in less than a year between the beginning of the Galilean ministry and the Passover of John 6:4.

Furthermore, they have concluded that the similarities in structure and contents in the first three Gospels​—sometimes called synoptic, meaning “like view”—​indicate that the evangelists copied extensively from one another.

Do the similarities between the synoptic Gospels indeed prove that the writers simply copied from one another?

Only Mark, of the synoptic Gospel writers (Matthew, Mark and Luke), mentions the running in these cases.a​—Mark 9:15, 25; 10:17; compare Matthew 19:16 and Luke 18:18.

a “Synoptic” signifies “taking the same or common view.”

Details on how he proceeded are given by the Synoptic Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, and Luke and by the apostle Paul, who termed it “the Lord’s evening meal.”—1 Corinthians 11:20; Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19, 20.

Though he says that there are seeming contradictions in them, he concludes: “The contradictions are of minutiae [trivial details], not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ.”

And the most decisive Subordinationist of the New Testament, according to the Synoptic record, was Jesus himself . . .

Admitting that there are seeming contradictions and problems in the Gospel accounts, he nonetheless concluded: “The contradictions are of minutiae [trivial details], not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ.”

This would explain why, by and large, he does not cover the same ground as do the other three (known as the “synoptic” Gospels because they present a like point of view).

At any rate Jesus treats all three in this great eschatological discourse, the most difficult problem in the Synoptic Gospels. . . .

Because the synoptic Gospels deal chiefly with Jesus’ Galilean ministry some have jumped to the conclusion that Jesus neglected Judea, but not so.

“They contain four episodes in the life of our Lord, told quite simply, and therefore unlike the exaggerated and fanciful style of later apocryphal gospels, and in language showing strong affinities, sometimes with the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and sometimes with the Fourth Gospel (John).

For this reason all three have been termed “synoptic” Gospels, meaning that they have a “like view”; not that they are a synopsis of Jesus’ life, for they are not.