エル RECORDS OF THE LIFE OF JESUS Book I: The Record of Mt-Mk-Lk By HENRY BURTON SHARMAN, PH.D. ASSOCIATION PRESS 1921 The purpose of the book is to present the records of the life of Jesus in that form which will make most fully available the contributions of the several sources, both individual and collective, to an understanding of the actual career of Jesus. It has been the aim so to set forth the material as to provide primarily for an historical rather than a critical knowledge of the records. Stated in another way; the foremost intention has been to produce, in the language and in the order of the original records, a Life of Jesus. But it is thought also that, in the pursuance of that aim, the literary phenomena of the records have been so exhibited as to provide the basis for somewhat thorough critical study of the source relationships of these records. THE METHOD At no point throughout the work has any theory or hypothesis as to any literary or other relation of these records to one another had any part in the determination of the arrangement or the showing forth of the material. Mark is placed in the order of Mark; Luke is placed in the order of Luke, and John in its own order. In the case of Matthew only has any departure in order been made, and there for three chapters only (8-9-10) of the twenty-eight of that record. The departure made in that case was not based on any theory as to the source relations of the records, but resulted simply from the decision to conform Matthew in these chapters (8-9-10), as Matthew of itself is conformed throughout the rest of its structure, to that order of events on which Mark and Luke are in complete agreement. It will be evident, therefore, that not only has no theory of the relations of these records had any place in the work but also that the book cannot be regarded as a harmony of the records. 15 Mar 48 THE FORM Those portions of the text that appear in roman type represent each record in its own chronological order, except that chapters 8-9-10 of Matthew, though in roman type, are not in the Matthew order,1 but are 1 It should be observed that even within these chapters the Matthew order of events corresponds in considerable measure to that of Mark-Luke, for example, the consecution of §§ 50-52 and of §§ 29-31. conformed to the order of Mark-Luke. Those portions of the text that appear in italic type are not in the sequence of the records from which they come, but are placed where they stand in order that they may be studied there in relation to the record that does stand chronologically at that point. If, therefore, the reader will pass over what stands in italic type, the book may be used for the independent consecutive study of any one of the four individual records.1 THE FEATURES It has been the intention throughout to show on each page all related material from all parts of the records—either by direct parallelism or by attached references to footnotes. When the related material has chronological agreement, all the reports stand in parallelism in roman type. When the relation is one of event or of thought only and not also of chronology, the report out of its own chronological order stands in parallelism in italic type, with a cross-reference to the section where it may be found in its own order and therefore in roman type. When the related material from distant places in the records has such bond with, or relationship in, those other places as cannot be properly or adequately shown by immediate parallelism, these related portions are set forth as attached footnotes. It should be true, therefore, that on any page of the book one may find the account of every occurrence within the records of those events or sayings that appear on that page-subject only to the general reservation that in the record of Matt-Mark-Luke no references forward are given to the record of John,2 though every effort has been made to give completeness to the references that are shown throughout John to the related material in Matt-Mark-Luke. THE SUBDIVISIONS The subdivisions of the paragraphs,3 made by the simple expedient of opening the text without any change of form or order, have been determined (a) by what it was thought would best contribute to comparative study and to ease of cross-reference, and (b) by what seemed the natural I In the case of the apparent (though not real) confusion in the Matthew order resulting from the conforming of Matthew 8-9-10 to the order of Mark-Luke, guidance is given by indicating in parts of Matthew the place of the succeeding portion by means of the notation (+§ 26) and the like at the end of the section, and for backward reference (§ 23+) and the like at the head of the section. 2 The references forward from the record of Mt-Mk-Lk to the record of John are shown completely and in order on page 235. 3 The paragraphing of the text in roman type does not depart from the Revised Version of 1881, except that not always (though usually) does that version show a paragraph where this book begins a section and therefore starts another paragraph. subdivisions of the thought. In general, the former consideration controlled the subdivisions in Matt-Mark-Luke; while in much of John, where cross-references and comparisons are fewer, the subdivisions of paragraphs were made with the purpose of possibly facilitating at some points the grasp and memory of the complex thought. THE ORDER It has been believed that the clearest and soundest results could not be reached, in any serious effort to understand Jesus, by an endeavor to reconstruct the history through the direct combination of the record of Matt-Mark-Luke with the record of John. Rather it has been thought that one should first be enabled to acquire the contributions of MattMark-Luke, without taking any account of the chronological or other elements of John-not necessarily because of any judgment as to the relative historical worth of these sources, but solely on the basis of the fundamental difference in the method of their approach to the theme. When one has attained some adequate knowledge of the record of MattMark-Luke, the immeasurable values in the record of John will be both better understood and more justly used in coming to the fulness of the knowledge of the stature of Jesus. EASTER, 1917 |