[jemfinch]

"Synoptic" is simply the adjectival form of "synopsis": Matthew, Mark, and Luke all strive to give a synopsis of Jesus' life, organized primarily around a chronological retelling of his approximately three-year ministry. Matthew and Luke include details of his birth and genealogy.

John, on the other hand, is organized around theological and moral themes, rather than the totality of Jesus' ministry and teachings. That's why it's not considered a synoptic gospel.

[danieka]

I've always understood synoptic to mean "see together", that is, the synoptic gospels are meant to be seen together, since they are so similar.

[defgeneric]

This is the correct, the above relation to "synopsis" is a false etymology that only sounds plausible because of the sense of the common syn- prefix.

[Detrytus]

I thought "synoptic" meant "sharing common point of view", or "written from the same perspective", but I'm really not an expert on this.

[Archelaos]

To my knowledge, the term "synoptic gospels" originates from an edition of Matthew, Mark and Luke arranged in tables of three columns for each of this gospels made by the German scholar Johann Jakob Griesbach[1]. This was originally part of what is generally considered to be the first critical edition of the New Testament, published in 1774/1775. In 1776 he republished it independently under the title "Synopsis Evangeliorum Matthaei, Marci et Lucae"[2] ("evangelium" = "gospel"). This became a very prominent tool for studying the details of the textual relationship between these three closely related gospels.[3] As a consequence biblical scholars started to speak of the "synoptic gospels" as a shortcut if the wanted to point out the contrast between Matthew, Mark and Luke on the one hand and John at the other.

The usage of "synoptic" in reference to charts is also attested in other contexts from this time. For the English language, the Online Etymology Dictionary mentions 1763 as the date of the earliest usage of the term "synoptic" (from Greek syn- "together" + opsis "sight, appearance") in "reference to tables, charts, etc.", also used in other contexts such as wheather charts.[4]

Today, a synopsis of the gospels typically also includes the gospel of John, see for example Kurt Aland's 'classical' "Synopsis of The Four Gospels"[5]. However, the term "synoptic gospels" stuck to the original set of just Matthew, Mark and Luke.

The term ‘synoptic’ in relation to the Gospels is thus derived from a technical term in connection with charts and tables, not from the more general meaning ‘summary’.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jakob_Griesbach

[2] Here is a scan of this book: https://archive.org/details/synopsisevangeli00dewesynopsisev... -- The table starts at p. 12.

[3] Matthew as based on Mark + Q + extras, Luke as based on Mark + Q + extras. However there is one longer passage in John 7:53–8:1 ("Jesus and the woman taken in adultery"), that is not included in the oldest manuscripts of John, but nevertheless became canonical, that is sometimes refered to as a "synoptic" interpolation into John, although it is not from any of the synoptic gospels, but similar in style to them.

[4] https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=synopsis

[5] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/291923.Synopsis_of_the_F...

[Suppafly]

So the reason it's not synoptic, is because it literally isn't synoptic. I love when the definition of a word explains what it means. No offense to the parent commenter but it's great when the answer to "why isn't x this thing with a definite meaning" answered by "because that definite meaning doesn't apply to x". I suspect most people have never considered that Synoptic might have a real definition and not just some hand-wavy religious one.

[sheepdestroyer]

"The vast majority of people" would use words without thinking they have etymology and meaning?

Maybe you're only thinking about religious people who would have encountered this one in such a context?

I don't frequent any so I am clueless, but if true I would suspect there could be more than correlation to the aptitude to use words without meaning and religiosity.