Boniface and Bede relied for the most part on the same sources of information for learning about the early Anglo-Saxon church, yet their accounts differ on a number of crucial points pertaining to church organization and the importance of London as an ecclesiastical centre. The present article takes a close look at Boniface's methods of conducting research into the past, and asks how they compared with Bede's. By focusing on Boniface's account of an early-seventh-century Lundunensis synodus, it is asked whether Boniface offers a viable alternative to Bede, and to what extent his account challenges the prevalent historiographical narrative of the foundation and growth of the church in Anglo-Saxon England.